Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Seeks to Calm Tempest in Europe Over Trump’s Anti-Diversity Policies

      by

      The U.S. State Department is seeking to quell a diplomatic tempest roiling Europe this week after American embassies in several countries sent letters to foreign contractors instructing them to certify their compliance with President Trump’s policies aimed at unraveling diversity programs.The letters, directed at companies in France, Spain, Denmark, Belgium and elsewhere that have contracts with the U.S. government, rankled European companies and officials, who are pushing back at what they described as a pressure campaign by the Trump administration to impose anti-diversity policies abroad.Late Tuesday, the State Department tried to walk back the letters, saying that the compliance requirement applies to companies only if they were “controlled by a U.S. employer” and employ U.S. citizens. That contradicted the details in the embassy letters, which said that Mr. Trump’s D.E.I.-quashing orders applied to all suppliers and contractors of the U.S. government, regardless of their nationality and the country in which they operate.The State Department’s statement repeated much of the letters’ content. It said that American embassies and missions worldwide were reviewing their contracts and grants to ensure that they were consistent with an executive order Mr. Trump signed the day after taking office. The order instructs federal contractors not to engage in diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which it described as “illegal discrimination.”The State Department said that the embassy letter “only asks contractors and grantees around the world to certify their compliance with applicable U.S. federal anti-discrimination laws.”“⁠There is no ‘verification’ required beyond asking contractors and grantees to self-certify their compliance’,” its statement said. “In other words, we are just asking them to complete one additional piece of paperwork.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares166 Views

      in Elections

      Rare Beatles Audition Tape Surfaces in a Vancouver Record Shop

      by

      The recording appears to be from the band’s 1962 audition for Decca Records, which notably rejected the group.The tape sat unremarkably on a shelf behind the counter, collecting dust for five, maybe 10 years — so much time that Rob Frith says he lost track.Frith, 69, could not seem to recall how it had found its way to Neptoon Records, his store in Vancouver, British Columbia, which in its 44 years has become a repository for tens of thousands of vinyl records and other musical relics.The label on the cardboard box said it was a Beatles demo tape, but, having heard enough bootleg recordings over the decades, Frith was skeptical until he enlisted a disc jockey friend, Larry Hennessey, to load it onto his vintage tape player a few weeks ago.It was just before midnight on March 11 when they pushed play on the mystery tape. From the opening guitar riff and the intonation of a 21-year-old John Lennon, Frith said he could not believe his ears as he listened to the Beatles performing a cover of the Motown hit “Money (That’s What I Want).”“Right away, we’re all kind of looking at each other,” Frith said. “It seems like the Beatles are in the room. That’s how clear it is.”Frith said the tape appeared to be a professionally edited recording of the Beatles’ New Year’s Day 1962 audition for Decca Records in London, a session that notably ended with the band’s rejection.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares175 Views

      in Elections

      Read Judge Dale Ho’s Ruling in the Eric Adams Corruption Case

      by

      Case 1:24-cr-00556-DEH Document 177 Filed 04/02/25
      Page 40 of 78
      of the leave-of-court requirement in Rule 48(a) is to enable a court to inquire into whether the
      dismissal should be with prejudice”).
      The Second Circuit has thus far declined to “rule out discretionary dismissals with
      prejudice” in similar contexts. Hilbert v. Dooling, 476 F.2d 355, 361 (2d Cir. 1973); see also id.
      at 363 (Friendly, C.J., dissenting) (stressing “the district judge’s discretion” under Rule 48(b) “to
      dismiss either with or without prejudice as he deemed appropriate”). But the “Circuit has not
      specifically addressed” under what circumstances, if any, a court may dismiss an indictment with
      prejudice notwithstanding the government’s request that dismissal be without prejudice. United
      States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, No. 18 Crim. 30, 2018 WL 4765129, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 13,
      2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4762255 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2018).
      In exercising their discretion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 48(a), courts have
      generally looked to the same principles that motivate the “leave of court” requirement. In district
      courts for the District of Columbia, where Rule 48(a) is “routinely applied . . . to consider dismissal
      with prejudice,” courts “take into account (1) the purpose of the government’s dismissal, (2) the
      presence or absence of good faith, and (3) the objective effect that dismissal without prejudice
      would have on the defendant.” United States v. Madzarac, 678 F. Supp. 3d 42, 48 (D.D.C. 2023).
      Courts in this District have had less occasion to consider the question, but they have tended to look
      to whether there is a risk of prosecutorial harassment from re-charging of the offense(s) or whether
      there is evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution. See, e.g., Doody, 2002 WL 562644,
      at *2 (explaining that “[c]ourts dismiss cases under Rule 48(a) with prejudice or deny such motions
      19 (D.D.C. 2015); Poindexter, 719 F. Supp. at 10-12; United States v. Angilau, No. 08 Crim. 431,
      2012 WL 346446, at *14 (D. Utah Feb. 1, 2012), aff’d in part, appeal dismissed in part, 717 F.3d
      781 (10th Cir. 2013); United States v. Wecht, No. 06 Crim. 26, 2008 WL 65605, at *5-6 (W.D. Pa.
      Jan. 4, 2008); Government of Virgin Islands ex rel. Robinson v. Schneider, 893 F. Supp. 490, 498
      (D.V.I. 1995); United States v. Rossoff, 806 F. Supp. 200, 202-03 (C.D. Ill. 1992); United States
      v. Fields, 475 F. Supp. 903, 904, 908 (D.D.C. 1979).
      40 More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Susan Crawford Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Despite Elon Musk’s Millions

      by

      Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel for a State Supreme Court seat in a race that shattered spending records and maintained a liberal majority on the court.Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, overcame $25 million in spending from Elon Musk and defeated her conservative opponent, The Associated Press reported, in a totemic contest that became a critical test of the nation’s prevailing political winds.Judge Crawford, who serves in Dane County, handily defeated Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, who ran on his loyalty to President Trump and was powered by record spending in the race from Mr. Musk, the president’s billionaire policy aide. The barrage of spending in the race may nearly double the previous record for a single judicial election. With over 70 percent of the vote counted on Tuesday evening, Judge Crawford held a lead of roughly 10 points.“Today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” she said in her victory speech on Tuesday night. “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”For Democrats, the result is a jolt of momentum. They have been engaged in a coast-to-coast rhetorical rending of garments since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January and embarked with Mr. Musk on an effort to drastically shrink federal agencies, set aside international alliances and alter the government’s relationships with the nation’s universities, minority groups, immigrants and corporate world.Coming on the heels of Democratic triumphs in special elections for state legislative seats in Iowa and Pennsylvania and the defeat of four Republican-backed state referendums in Louisiana, Judge Crawford’s victory puts the party on its front foot for the first time since last November. Her win showed that, at least in one instance, Mr. Musk’s seemingly endless reserves of political cash had energized more Democrats than Republicans.The victory for Judge Crawford maintains a 4-to-3 majority for liberals on the court, which in coming months is poised to deliver key decisions on abortion and labor rights.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares152 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Judge Pauses Firing of Probationary Workers, But Not Nationwide

      by

      A federal judge in Maryland on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to stop firing probationary employees who live or work in 19 states and the District of Columbia while a legal challenge to the mass terminations makes its way through the courts.In his order, Judge James K. Bredar, of the Federal District Court in Maryland, narrowed the scope of an earlier, temporary pause that applied nationwide and led to the reinstatement of nearly 24,000 federal probationary employees fired in February. It was not immediately clear how many of those employees would no longer be covered by Tuesday’s order and therefore at risk of being fired again.The uncertainty around what Judge Bredar’s order means for some of these reinstated employees is the latest example of the chaos caused by the Trump administration’s move to fire workers with probationary status en masse. Officials targeted probationary employees because they have fewer civil service protections than workers who have been in their positions longer. Their layoffs were the first major actions taken to enact President Trump’s plans to gut the federal work force.Last month, 19 states and the District of Columbia sued the federal government over the mass firings, arguing that the actions amounted to a reduction in force, a formal reorganization process that demands the government follow specific steps. One such step is that the government must give states a heads-up whenever it plans to fire 50 employees in a certain area. The states argued that without these notifications, they were left to face spikes in unemployment without warning.While the states argued that a pause in firings should be nationwide, Judge Bredar said he chose to apply it only to those who live or work in the jurisdictions that sued, wary of criticisms of district judges who issue nationwide orders to curb executive branch actions.The Trump administration appealed the previous temporary order, and is likely to appeal the longer-term injunction issued on Tuesday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares161 Views

      in Elections

      With Painful Layoffs Ahead, Agencies Push Incentives to Quit

      by

      Federal agencies have accelerated their efforts to cut thousands of jobs, offering buyouts and eliminating entire offices as the Trump administration’s deadline to downsize approaches.At least six federal agencies have in recent days extended a “deferred resignation” offer that was originally pitched to government workers in January as a one-time opportunity that would allow employees to resign but continue to be paid for a period of time.The latest offer was sent to employees at the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation, as well as the General Services Administration, according to emails received by workers at those agencies reviewed by The New York Times.Employees at those agencies have to make their decisions between Monday, April 7, and April 11, depending on the agency, the emails said.President Trump and his top adviser on downsizing the government, Elon Musk, have ordered nearly every agency to reduce staff on a tight deadline to overhaul the government, in part by eliminating programs the president views as ideologically objectionable. Mr. Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency have promised significant savings to American taxpayers as a result, though wages and benefits for the federal work force amount to just 4.3 percent of the $6.3 trillion federal budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office.Mr. Trump has given Mr. Musk wide latitude to effect change, empowering him to effectively shutter agencies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares116 Views

      in Elections

      A Columbia Campus Occupation Could Have Ended Without Police, Report Says

      by

      A university senate review concludes that some demonstrators who occupied Hamilton Hall were willing to leave voluntarily.Columbia University’s move to use police force to clear demonstrators from a campus building last spring could potentially have been avoided, as some students were urgently asking if they could leave voluntarily, according to a report released Tuesday by the university’s senate.The students, who early that morning had broken into Hamilton Hall and barricaded the doors, told faculty intermediaries that they had enlisted the help of a Harlem pastor to help them depart safely. But university administrators, saying time had run out, allowed hundreds of police officers to come onto the campus to remove protesters from the building.The new details of the final hours of the occupation of Hamilton Hall on April 30 were among the key revelations of the 335-page report, which was written by a group within the senate, a Columbia policymaking body that includes faculty members, students and administrators, with faculty in the majority. The senate is independent from the administration and has been critical of its protest response.Called the “The Sundial Report,” it provides a play-by-play chronology of the events surrounding the protests on campus related to the war in Gaza beginning in October 2023.The demonstrations and Columbia’s response put the school at the center of a national debate over how to protect students from harassment by demonstrators while also protecting the free speech and rights of protesters.The events of last spring resulted in significant disruption on the university’s Morningside Heights campus, and some critics of Columbia’s response said administrators waited too long to take action. The unrest culminated on April 30, when a smaller group of protesters — including some who were unaffiliated with Columbia — broke off from a tent encampment and took over Hamilton Hall.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares161 Views

      in Elections

      NYT Crossword Answers for April 2, 2025

      by

      Try your hand at Daniel Bodily’s puzzle — it’ll all work out.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesWEDNESDAY PUZZLE — I’m tempted to characterize this as Daniel Bodily’s “opening day” of the New York Times Crossword season. Mr. Bodily constructs puzzles regularly for The Times, but this is the first appearance he has made in 2025.A little fanfare is fitting, anyway, because today’s crossword contains eight — eight! — themed entries, including a split revealer. Let’s get a few reps in, shall we?Today’s ThemeWhat happens when you [go out with a bang]? You get a [hint to 16-, 21-, 29-, 34-, 46- and 54-Across]. The answer to this revealer clue is FINISH STRONG — split between 1D and 44D — and refers wittily to the fact that each of the cited themed entries finishes with a synonym for “strong.”At 16-Across, for instance, [Frame, apron, molding, etc.] are examples of WINDOW TRIM. (If you’re wondering whether “trim” is really a synonym for “strong,” see Mr. Bodily’s constructor notes below.) [Like some photos of yesteryear], pictures may be SEPIA-TONED (21A). One who [Collected hot wheels?] has CARJACKED someone, as “hot” is slang for “stolen” (29A).Now that I’ve personally trained you (eh?), see if you can crack the remaining entries on your own.Tricky Clues5A. I thought that the clue [Threat to a king, maybe] referred to a usurpation of royal titles. This king happens to be a chess piece; he can be threatened by a PAWN.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More