Elections

Former President Donald J. Trump claimed that, if re-elected, he could draw on his relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin to press Russia into releasing Evan Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal reporter who has been detained in a Moscow jail for more than a year.Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post that Mr. Gershkovich would be “released almost immediately after the election, but definitely before I assume office,” suggesting that his securing Mr. Gershkovich’s release was contingent on his defeating President Biden in November.“Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else,” Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, added. Mr. Trump has frequently bragged about his positive relationship with Mr. Putin, whose strongman tendencies he has praised in interviews and on the campaign trail.Asked about Mr. Trump’s post, a spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitri S. Peskov, told reporters that “Putin has no contact with Donald Trump, of course.”Mr. Gershkovich, who was arrested in March last year in Russia and charged with espionage shortly after, has been designated by the White House as “wrongfully detained,” a label signifying that the United States views him as the equivalent of a political hostage and believes the charges against him are fabricated.Russia has not presented any evidence to support the spying charge, which Mr. Gershkovich and The Journal have vociferously rejected. The Biden administration has said it is working to secure his release.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

Accused of violating antitrust laws, Live Nation Entertainment faces a fight that could reshape the multibillion-dollar live music industry.The Justice Department on Thursday sued Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, asking a court to break up the company over claims it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry.In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticketing contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening its rivals with financial retribution.Those tactics, the government argues, have resulted in higher ticket prices for consumers and have stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry.“It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the court to order “the divestiture of, at minimum, Ticketmaster,” and to prevent Live Nation from engaging in anticompetitive practices.The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation’s merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry.Live Nation’s scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.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

A Democrat and a Republican from New York will introduce the “Michelle Go Act,” named after a woman who was killed when a mentally ill homeless man pushed her in front of a subway train.As the nation faces a growing mental health crisis among people who are homeless, a bipartisan bill being introduced in Congress on Thursday may substantially increase the number of psychiatric beds covered by Medicaid.Proponents of the bill say that it will help address a severe shortage of psychiatric hospital beds and spur the construction of new beds and new facilities.The bill is sponsored by the unlikely-seeming New York City congressional duo of Dan Goldman, a liberal Democrat, and Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican Trump loyalist, along with Representatives Tony Cárdenas, Democrat of California, and Gus Bilirakis, a Florida Republican. Mr. Goldman is the lead author of the bill, the Michelle Go Act, named after the woman who was fatally pushed in front of a subway train in New York in 2022 by a man with schizophrenia, who had spent decades rotating from hospital to jail to street.Under current law, for people age 21 to 64, Medicaid covers stays in dedicated psychiatric hospitals only if they have 16 or fewer beds. The Michelle Go Act would raise the threshold to 36 beds.Mr. Goldman said in an interview that the legislation would “not only provide for significantly more beds for long-term mental health care but has the potential to increase the ability for those who cannot afford mental health care to get the treatment they need.”Mr. Goldman has said that he would have liked to remove the cap on hospital size altogether — one estimate put the cost at $33 billion over 10 years. But he said that the more modest measure was necessary to win support on both sides of the aisle.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

Case 1:24-cv-03973 Document 1 Filed 05/23/24 Page 32 of 128
64.
Ticketmaster restructured how ticketing companies get paid for their services.
Venues used to pay ticketing service companies to ticket events. But in the early 1980s,
Ticketmaster started passing more ticketing costs onto consumers (who effectively have no
choice in selecting the ticketer) in the form of fees, and then sharing some of the additional
revenue with venues. Second, Ticketmaster began paying venues large upfront advances in
exchange for the exclusive, multi-year right to sell and distribute their tickets.
65. On February 10, 2009, Live Nation (then known as Live Nation, Inc.) and
Ticketmaster (then known as Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.), agreed to merge. At the time,
Live Nation was an emerging direct competitor to Ticketmaster in primary ticketing services:
after spending nearly two years evaluating, licensing, and developing its own ticketing platform,
Live Nation had rapidly become America’s second-largest primary ticketer at major concert
venues.² Alleging the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in the provision and
sale of primary ticketing services for major concert venues, the United States and nineteen states³
filed a case challenging the merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.4 The
parties agreed to a consent decree, entered as a final judgment in the Section 7 case on July 30,
2010, allowing the merger to proceed subject to certain conditions.
2 Amended Complaint at 5 ¶ 3, 13–14 ¶¶ 34–37, United States et al. v. Ticketmaster Ent., Inc., et al., No. 1:10-cv-
00139, Dkt. No. (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2010), ECF No. 5.
3 Specifically, the States of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada,
Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Washington and the Commonwealths
of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Id. at 1.
4 Id. at 1746.
5 Final Judgment, United States et al. v. Ticketmaster Ent., Inc., et al., No. 1:10-cv-00139 (D.D.C. July 30, 2010),
ECF No. 15.
28
28 More

The Atlantic hurricane season is looking to be an extraordinary one, with 17 to 25 named storms predicted, experts said.In yet another dire warning about the coming Atlantic hurricane season, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Thursday predicted that this year could see between 17 to 25 named tropical cyclones, the most it has ever forecast in May for the Atlantic Ocean. The NOAA forecast joins more than a dozen other recent projections from experts at universities, private companies and other government agencies that have predicted a likelihood of 14 or more named storms this season; many were calling for well over 20.Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, said at a news conference on Thursday morning that the agency’s forecasters believed eight to 13 of the named storms could become hurricanes, meaning they would include winds of at least 74 miles per hour. Those could include four to seven major hurricanes — Category 3 or higher — with winds of at least 111 m.p.h.According to NOAA, there is an 85 percent chance of an above-normal season and a 10 percent chance of a near-normal season, with a 5 percent chance of a below-normal season. An average Atlantic hurricane season has 14 named storms, including seven hurricanes and three major hurricanes.While it only takes one storm in a below-average season to devastate a community, having conditions conducive to almost twice the average amount of storms makes it more likely that North America will experience a tropical storm or, worse, a major hurricane.There are 21 entries on this year’s official list of storm names, from Alberto to William. If that list is exhausted, the National Weather Service moves on to an alternative list of names, something it’s only had to do twice in its history. More

A couple with deep ties to the popular Brooklyn festival and its founder and longtime artistic director, Chuck Davis, recall when their wedding was part of the show.Not every love story has a third character, but in the case of N’Goma and Normadien Woolbright, there was one, and he was a force of nature: Chuck Davis, who brought African dance traditions to the United States and founded the DanceAfrica festival. It was his idea that the couple — his friends and colleagues — would marry on the stage of the Brooklyn Academy of Music at the annual festival in 1983.“Life is love,” Davis says in a video shot at the wedding, crossing his arms across his chest before reaching them broadly to either side. “Love is all.”The wedding was a lavish occasion, but it was more than a theatrical staging of a ritual. DanceAfrica, the vibrant festival now in its 47th year, is as much about building and honoring a community as it is about showcasing artistic forms. Personal moments like the Woolbrights’ marriage ceremony are part of its texture.Davis brought the couple — N’Goma, 80, is a drummer and Normadien, 71, a dancer — together by bringing them into his world. They have been involved with the festival since its inaugural presentation, first as performers and now as fixtures behind the scenes. At DanceAfrica, N’Goma is a stage manager; Normadien is assistant stage manager.N’Goma first met Davis while working for the New York Transit Authority. Davis’s musical director worked there too, N’Goma said, and he “wanted me to come down to a dance class with him because I told him I played the drums. I went down to play and Chuck said, ‘Welcome aboard.’”A DanceAfrica wedding: In 1983, N’Goma, middle, and Normadien, right, got married onstage at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.BAM Hamm ArchivesWe 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

Why does this election matter?How does Britain vote?What are the main issues?Who is running, and who is likely to win?When will we find out the results?Where can I find more information?Why does this election matter?The general election on July 4 is a pivotal moment for Britain after 14 years of government by the Conservative Party. The last full parliamentary election was in December 2019, when Boris Johnson won a landslide victory for the Conservatives, propelled by his charisma and a promise to “Get Brexit done” after the country’s decision to leave the European Union in a 2016 referendum.A lot has changed since then. In July, voters will give their verdict on five tumultuous years of government that have spanned the coronavirus pandemic, the troubled implementation of Brexit, the “Partygate” scandal around Mr. Johnson’s rule-breaking during pandemic lockdowns and the disastrous six-week tenure of Prime Minister Liz Truss.The Parliament in London. Voters in each of the country’s 650 constituencies will select a candidate to represent them as a member of Parliament.Hollie Adams/ReutersPolls suggest that the center-left Labour Party is set to return to power after more than a decade in opposition, which would bring a fundamental realignment to British politics.How does Britain vote?The United Kingdom — which consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales — is divided into 650 constituencies.Voters in each constituency select a candidate to represent them as a member of Parliament, and the political party that wins the most seats usually forms the next government. That party’s leader also becomes prime minister.

#story h1, .nytapp-hybrid-article h1 {
font-style: normal;
font-weight: 700;
font-size: 2.5rem;
line-height: 1;
}

#story li p a,
.nytapp-hybrid-article li p a {
text-decoration-color: var(–color-content-secondary) !important;
color: var(–color-content-primary);
text-underline-offset: 3px;
}

#story li p a:visited,
.nytapp-hybrid-article li p a:visited {
text-decoration-color: var(–color-content-secondary) !important;
color: var(–color-content-primary);
text-underline-offset: 3px;
}

#story li > p,
.nytapp-hybrid-article li p {
font-family: nyt-cheltenham, nyt-imperial,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;
font-size: 20px;
font-weight: 300;
}

@media screen and (min-width: 600px) {

#story li > p {
font-size: 22px;
}

}

@media screen and (min-width: 1024px) {

h2:not(#styln-toplinks-title) {
padding-top: 40px;
}

#story h1, .nytapp-hybrid-article h1 {
font-size: 2.938rem;
line-height: 1;
}

}

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

Representative Elise Stefanik of New York may not be a committee chair, but perhaps no single Republican lawmaker has more forcefully clashed with elite university leaders over how they are handling antisemitism on campus.Her line of questioning at a December hearing helped push the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania out of their jobs. Last month, she put Columbia’s president in the uncomfortable position of negotiating faculty administrative decisions from the witness stand.If past patterns hold, Ms. Stefanik will now have a chance to question the leaders of a fresh batch of major universities.Ms. Stefanik, 39, was already a rising star within her party before the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war turbocharged concerns about antisemitic incidents in American education. A Harvard graduate herself, she is the top-ranking woman in Republican House leadership and is considered a potential presidential running mate.But her exchanges with the leaders of Harvard and Penn attracted enormous attention and won some rare plaudits from grudging liberals. In April, she was named one of Time’s 100 most influential people of 2024.Ms. Stefanik struggled to land a clear blow in a hearing with the president of Columbia, Nemat Shafik, in April. But she still elicited some of the most memorable testimony, demanding that Dr. Shafik remove from an academic leadership position a professor who used the word “awesome” when describing Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack.Ms. Stefanik later called for Dr. Shafik to resign anyway.When Ms. Stefanik first won her seat in 2014, she was the youngest woman ever elected to the House. She beat a centrist Democrat, and in the early days of her career, she took on more moderate stances.These days, she describes herself as “ultra MAGA” and “proud of it.” Democrats particularly detest her close embrace of former President Donald J. Trump and his lies about the 2020 election. More