More stories

  • in

    Full grand jury didn’t see final Comey indictment, prosecutors admit

    Federal prosecutors on Wednesday said they had never presented the final version of the indictment filed against James Comey to a full federal grand jury, a concession that adds to mounting challenges in their effort to prosecute the former FBI director.Prosecutors acknowledged the omission during a Wednesday hearing in which Comey’s lawyers argued the case against him should be dismissed because it was a selective and vindictive prosecution.Comey was indicted on 26 September on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding in connection with testimony he gave in 2020 in which he said he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding Hillary Clinton.Court documents from September show that Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally installed as a top prosecutor in the case, had sought an additional false statement charge against Comey, but that grand jurors had rejected it.Once the grand jury rejected the charge, Halligan could have had the full grand jury vote again on a copy of the indictment that only included the two charges they voted to indict on, or presented the judge with a three-count indictment crossing out the count on which the grand jury had chosen not to indict on. But, pressed on Wednesday by Michael Nachmanoff, the US district judge overseeing the case, Halligan confirmed that only the foreperson and another grand juror had seen the revised indictment that had only the two charges the grand jury had voted to indict on, CNN and Lawfare reported on Wednesday.Comey’s team therefore views the indictment as null. “There is no indictment Mr Comey is facing,” Michael Dreeben, one of Comey’s lawyers said in court on Wednesday. N Tyler Lemons, an assistant US attorney handling the case, argued that there wasn’t a problem because the final version of the indictment merely removed a charge rejected by the grand jury. “The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” he said, according to the Washington Post.Andrew Tessman, a former federal prosecutor in West Virginia and Washington DC, said he saw the issue as “highly problematic” and a “fatal flaw”. “This is just not how grand jury operates,” he said.Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who presented the case to the grand jury herself despite never having previously handled a criminal case.A transcript of the hearing in which the indictment was returned in Comey’s case obtained by CBS News shows some confusion over the indictment. The magistrate judge overseeing it said she had been given two versions of the indictment.“The reason we want to cross all of our T’s and dot all of our I’s in these situations is because the court is also going to take it very seriously for the same reasons. And if you screw up one step in this process, then you’re risking the whole case going away in an embarrassing fashion,” Tessman said. “The US attorney’s office is going to take this whole process very seriously, but the court is going to take it even more seriously. And if they see one thing wrong with how the case was presented to the grand jury, they’re going to err on the side of protecting people’s constitutional rights.”“It’s understandable. You pulled a random insurance lawyer off the street and you put her into the grand jury with no training and no other experienced attorney there,” he added. “It’s not surprising at all that some big mistake was made.”Nachmanoff gave the justice department until 5pm on Wednesday to further explain what happened.Before Trump installed Halligan, it was widely reported that career prosecutors believed there was not sufficient evidence to charge Comey with a crime. On Wednesday, Lemons said the deputy attorney general’s office had instructed him not to disclose whether a memo outlining the reasons for not prosecuting the case existed.Wednesday’s hearing came days after a magistrate judge handling the case said there may have been “government misconduct” and that Halligan made at least two “fundamental and highly prejudicial” misstatements of law to the grand jury. The magistrate judge ordered the prosecutors to take the highly unusual step of turning over grand jury materials to Comey’s team. That order is on hold while an appeal is pending. More

  • in

    Is Trump’s remarkable run of fealty coming to an end?

    “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody,” Donald Trump claimed in 2016, “and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Coming two weeks before the Iowa caucus, it was an unusual message from a politician, but the last nine years have served to underscore the point.His “Make America great again” base, and the bulk of the Republican party, stood with him through (deep breath): two impeachments, children in cages, “very fine people on both sides”, 34 felony convictions, an insurrection, “shithole countries”, attempting to overturn an election, hush money payments to an adult film actor, “they’re rapists”, a brutal immigration crackdown, Four Seasons Total Landscaping, “grab ‘em by the pussy”, billions of dollars made by the Trump family, cosying up to dictators, “don’t look!”, mass pardons for his allies and friends, an unfinished wall, “liberation day”, presenting himself as a king, forcing Donald Trump Jr into the public consciousness, and more.Trump has enjoyed a remarkable run of fealty, both from his rank and file supporters and from an obsequious GOP. But nothing lasts forever. To paraphrase Batman, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself lose party support over your handling of documents related to your former friend, a convicted paedophile.Yes, it is the Jeffrey Epstein saga that has led to the biggest fissure yet between Trump and his base. Trump wanted House Republicans to vote against releasing the Epstein files this week, but as many as 100 of them were prepared to defy the president, the biggest act of disobedience Trump has faced in his second term . That forced the president into an embarrassing U-turn: after telling Republicans to vote no on releasing the files, Trump abruptly ordered them all to vote yes.There have been signs elsewhere that Trump’s iron grip over his party might be failing. Trump was desperate for Republicans in Indiana to redraw their voting map so the GOP could pick up another House seat next year, but enough Republican lawmakers resisted that the old maps remain in place.
    Trump has responded to the insubordination in the ways he knows best: pettiness and cruelty.
    He wanted Republicans in the Senate to abolish the filibuster. That didn’t happen either, while there was uproar from rightwing figures last week over a proposal to introduce 50-year mortgages.Trump has responded to the insubordination in the ways he knows best: pettiness and cruelty.Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who has defied Trump on several issues, was one of the first to feel the president’s ire. Trump, 79, responded to news that Massie had recently married by claiming that “[Massie’s] wife will soon find out that she’s stuck with a LOSER!”.Rod Bray, a Republican in the Indiana state senate, was dismissed as “weak and pathetic” in a Truth Social post, while Trump also bared his claws at Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican congresswoman who broke with him over Epstein. Greene was subjected to a lengthy and confusing analogy about how, actually, her name should be Marjorie Taylor Brown, because “Green turns to Brown where there is ROT involved!”But as Trump has flailed around looking for someone to shout at, it’s the media, his familiar old foe, which has drawn the sharpest attacks .skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenTrump shrugged off the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the White House, telling a journalist who asked about it: “You don’t have to embarrass our guest.”“Quiet piggy,” he told a female reporter on Friday, after she asked him why, if there was nothing in the Epstein files, Trump didn’t want them released. On Tuesday, after an ABC reporter asked why he won’t release the files immediately, Trump called her a “terrible person and a terrible reporter”.The president added: “People are wise to your hoax and ABC is – uh, your company, your crappy company, is one of the perpetrators. And I’ll tell you something, I’ll tell you something, I think the license should be taken away from ABC. Because your news is so fake, and it’s so wrong, and we have a great commissioner, chairman who should look at that.”In the midst of the childlike insults, this one had some real malice. Trump was never likely to shoot someone in middle of Fifth Avenue, but he has waged a war on the media: pressing CBS News and Disney into coughing up $16m through lawsuits, threatening legal action against CNN, and lobbying for late-night hosts to be kicked off air.At a time when Republicans appear less likely than ever before to submit to Trump’s demands, it’s corporate media bosses who are seeming subservient. Plenty of reporters have, so far, stood up to the president. But with Trump increasingly angry and vengeful, will an independent press be able to stand firm? We’ll see. More

  • in

    FBI worker says he was wrongfully terminated for having Pride flag at desk

    A longtime FBI employee has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was fired for displaying a Pride flag at his desk, naming FBI director Kash Patel, the justice department and attorney general Pam Bondi as defendants.According to David Maltinsky, an intelligence specialist who had served with the bureau for 16 years, his wrongful termination earlier this year was “unconstitutional and politically motivated”.The lawsuit claims the FBI violated Maltinsky’s first amendment rights and took retaliatory action against him for engaging in protected speech. Maltinsky is seeking a court order to restore his job.Maltinsky’s 18-page complaint, filed on Wednesday in the US district court for the District of Columbia, alleges that he was dismissed from the FBI academy last month for previously displaying the flag at his workstation with the support and permission of his supervisors.According to the complaint, the Pride flag, which the bureau flew from its flagpole in front of its Los Angeles building, was given to Maltinsky in recognition of his efforts to support the FBI’s diversity initiatives.“From a young age, all I have wanted to do is serve my country and ensure its security alongside the brilliant and dedicated men and women of the FBI,” said Maltinsky, who joined the bureau in 2009 and spent more than a decade supporting public corruption and cybercrime investigations including North Korea’s cyberattack on Sony Pictures in 2014.“I displayed that Pride flag – which in 2021 flew in front of the Wilshire federal building – not as a political statement, but as a symbol of inclusion, unity and equal service. These are the values that once made the FBI strong. Now it is a place where people like me are targeted. I believe I was fired not because of who I am, but what I am: a proud gay man,” he added.Earlier this year, Maltinsky was accepted into the FBI special agent training academy at Quantico, Virginia, until what he described as his “abrupt dismissal just three weeks before graduation”.Maltinsky’s lawsuit alleges that at some point after Donald Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, a co-worker reported an alleged concern to Maltinsky’s direct supervisor about the display of the Pride flag at his workstation.“Out of an abundance of caution, Maltinsky requested that the Chief Division Counsel for the LAFO [Los Angeles field office] review whether the display of the Progress Pride flag and placard was permissible,” Maltinsky’s complaint said, adding: ”The Chief Division Counsel advised Maltinsky that the display of the flag and placard did not violate any policy, rule, or regulation.”Nevertheless, on 1 October, Maltinsky was notified of his termination.In a letter cited in Maltinsky’s complaint, Patel wrote: “I have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment at the Los Angeles Field Office. Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby terminated.”In a statement released on Wednesday, Maltinsky’s lawyer Kerrie Riggs said: “This administration’s unlawfully firing him is part of a larger campaign to rid federal agencies of employees who may have different viewpoints, or are from marginalized groups, or who dare speak out against discrimination. David’s fight is not just about him, but about securing the rights and freedoms of all federal employees.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe FBI declined to comment on the lawsuit. The Guardian has also reached out to the justice department.Maltinsky’s lawsuit follows another one filed in September by three former senior FBI officials who said they were wrongfully terminated, alleging that Patel said he had been directed by the White House to fire any agent involved in an investigation into Trump.Meanwhile, the FBI fired a nearly three-decade veteran earlier this month after Patel reportedly became furious by reports that the FBI director had taken a government jet to attend a wrestling event where his girlfriend performed the national anthem.Steven Palmer, a bureau veteran since 1998, was removed as head of the FBI’s critical incident response group, which manages major security threats and the agency’s jet fleet. More

  • in

    The infidelity saga of RFK Jr, Nuzzi and her ex is unspooling: ‘It’s like they’ve opened all their trench coats’

    This week, Olivia Nuzzi – the US star political reporter known for her cozy access to top Republican figures – dropped an excerpt of her memoir, American Canto. In it, she detailed what she describes as an emotional affair with Robert F Kennedy Jr, who she calls “the politician”.Not to be outdone, Nuzzi’s ex-fiance and former Politico correspondent Ryan Lizza self-published an essay dishing on the day he found out Nuzzi was cheating on him, he claims – not with RFK Jr, as one might have expected, but with another former presidential candidate, Mark Sanford.The mudslinging between two of the more polarizing personalities in a profession filled with egos delighted a media class that revels in navel-gazing, schadenfreude and generally messy behavior. Over the course of four days it had a lot of material to work with.First came a glamorous profile of Nuzzi in the New York Times Style section on Friday, in which she mugged for the camera while driving a convertible down the Pacific Coast Highway, and was described by the writer Jacob Bernstein as “a Lana Del Rey song come to life” and the “modern iteration of a Hitchcock blonde”. The profile provided some details of her “digital affair” with RFK, according to Nuzzi: how the now US health secretary told her he would take a bullet for her, how they never slept together, how she advised him on campaign issues (most notably the dead bear carcass story).Then, on Monday, Nuzzi’s memoir excerpts were published in Vanity Fair, the glossy that appointed her west coast editor in September. She wrote about feeling anxious about Kennedy’s reported brain worm, and said the scion soothed her after a doctor who saw his brain scans told him he was fine: “Baby, don’t worry.” She mused: “I did not have to worry about the worm that was not a worm in his brain.”The latest entry into this unfurling drama came when Lizza published a “Part 1” of his side of the story on Monday night, using the metaphor of invasive bamboo growing behind the couple’s townhouse in Georgetown to describe Nuzzi’s secrecy in concealing an alleged affair with Sanford. Sanford, a former South Carolina governor and US representative who had weathered his own cheating scandal years prior, was profiled by Nuzzi for New York magazine during his short-lived 2020 election challenge to Trump. According to Lizza, Nuzzi became “infatuated” with the candidate after interviewing him.Lizza placed this piece of information as a cliffhanger; presumably we must tune into an impending “Part 2” to read Lizza’s recounting of Nuzzi’s affair with RFK Jr.Kennedy is married to actor Cheryl Hines, who has her own memoir out this month. He has denied Nuzzi’s claims of a sexual or romantic relationship, saying they only met once for an interview. He has not commented on the memoir excerpts. Nuzzi, Lizza, Kennedy and Sanford did not respond to requests for comment.All of this makes for grade-A gossip. But while Nuzzi and Lizza are not household names outside the Beltway and New York media circles, their story has wider ramifications. Trust in the US press is at an all-time low; a recent Gallup poll found that just 28% of respondents expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fairly and accurately. (That’s down from 31% in 2024 and 40% five years ago.)“Journalism has a trust problem, and the fact that all this dirty laundry is getting aired is not going to help that,” said Patrick R Johnson, an assistant professor of journalism at Marquette University. “Because two people with significant followings are behaving in this way, other people, everyday individuals, are going to make assumptions that more journalists are behaving this way, even though they aren’t. And that’s news literacy 101: people are making assumptions based on what they can see, whether or not that is what is happening.”The image of a female journalist sleeping with her source titillates Hollywood (see: House of Cards or Clint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell, which portrayed a real-life but since deceased journalist bedding an FBI agent for tips, much to the anger of the journalist’s family and colleagues), the trope is mostly the stuff of fiction. It is also a major ethical violation, for obvious reasons – it creates a conflict of interest and a too-close relationship between reporter and source. As Moira Donegan wrote for the Guardian last year, revelations like the one about Nuzzi and RFK Jr only make it “harder” for the reporter’s peers to do their jobs and “cast all female professionals under the suspicion of corruptibility and unseriousness”. (The trope apparently once bothered Nuzzi herself; in 2015, she tweeted: “Why does Hollywood think female reporters sleep with sources?”)Nuzzi, who is 32, burst on to the New York Twitterati scene as an intern in Anthony Weiner’s 2013 mayoral campaign and published an account of her experience in the New York Daily News. She parlayed this into a staff position at the Daily Beast while she was still a Fordham University undergraduate.Nuzzi covered Trump’s political rise and went on to serve as New York magazine’s first Washington DC correspondent, filing gossipy profiles of people like Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen that often co-starred herself. Ahead of the 2024 election, she wrote about Joe Biden’s cognitive state, and profiled RFK Jr when he was but a long-shot independent candidate.Nuzzi left New York magazine when their entanglement, which violated the publication’s standards around conflicts of interest and disclosures, was revealed shortly before the election. She wrote in a statement that the relationship “should have been disclosed to prevent the appearance of a conflict”, and apologized to her colleagues. She and Lizza broke up.Lizza, who is 51, has his own baggage: in 2017, he was fired from the New Yorker after a sexual misconduct allegation emerged in the early days of the #MeToo movement. He denied the claims and went on to write for Esquire and Politico. The couple were supposed to publish a book on the 2020 election together that never materialized.In the wake of their breakup, Nuzzi filed for a protective order against Lizza, claiming blackmail and harassment. Lizza denied her allegations, and Nuzzi withdrew her request for protection last November.In his essay, Lizza painted himself as a casualty of a mercurial ex’s “betrayal”. “It’s almost as if he’s hurt that he was the victim of her decisions” regarding RFK Jr and Sanford, said Johnson, the journalism professor. “It’s as if he’s on this weird tour to fix his image from before.”Mark Feldstein spent 20 years as an on-air investigative correspondent at CNN, ABC News and other local affiliates. He is now the chair of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland. He described the Nuzzi-Lizza story as “self-immolation on both their parts”.“This takes journalism self-branding to a crazy and extreme extent,” Feldstein said. “It certainly fuels the disdain that so many Americans have for journalists not being objective, not being neutral. This confirms the stereotype of journalists as self-promoting vultures wallowing in the gutter.”Feldstein recalled Geraldo Rivera’s 1991 memoir, Exposing Myself, which chronicled the journalist’s sexual exploits and was written off as unprofessional. “It was met with universal horror at the time among journalists, because it was such an outlandish, self-promoting, degrading publicity stunt,” Feldstein said.However, in the era of the attention economy, Nuzzi and Lizza’s tell-alls are all but expected. As Feldstein puts it: “It’s like they’ve opened their trench coats and exposed to all of us what they’re hiding underneath. It’s not a pretty sight.” More

  • in

    What to know about the US Senate vote on releasing the Epstein files

    The intensively discussed files related to the disgraced former financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein passed a significant milestone on Tuesday when Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of releasing them.After months of deliberate delays and manoeuvres, the House of Representatives voted by 427 to one in favor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation which would, if enacted, require the justice department to release all unclassified materials on Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. The Senate has unanimously agreed to swiftly pass the bill, which would then head to the White House for Donald Trump’s signature.Tuesday’s sweeping passage was rendered all but inevitable after the president on Sunday reversed himself and called for the release of the files, declaring “we have nothing to hide” and labelling the controversy over the files a “Democrat hoax”.Trump’s volte-face followed the failure of intense White House efforts to persuade two female Republican members of Congress, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace, to withdraw their names from a discharge petition to force the House speaker, Mike Johnson, to hold a floor vote on releasing the files.Faced with the prospect of numerous Republicans defying his wishes by voting with Democrats in favor of releasing the files, the president decided to cut his losses by bowing to the inevitable. Before Trump changed his tune on the files, Thomas Massie, the maverick Republican representative from Kentucky – who had co-sponsored the bill along with Democrat Ro Khanna – had predicted that 100 Republicans would vote for release.In the event, Trump’s green light appeared to have the effect of freeing even more GOP representatives of their previous inhibitions against joining all 214 House Democrats. Clay Higgins of Louisiana, a close Trump ally, was the sole member of the House to vote against the measure; five representatives did not vote.How did it fly through the Senate so fast? The bill appeared headed for at least some resistance in the Senate as of this weekend. John Barrasso, the Republican majority whip, had said he would “take a look” at the bill if it passed the House, but also told NBC’s Meet The Press that he thought Democrats were more interested in turning Trump into “a lame duck president than achieving accountability and transparency” .But that resistance faded in the face of the overwhelming vote in the House. The lopsided vote helped Democrats push the measure through by expedited procedure of unanimous consent, which does not require a formal roll call vote. “The American people have waited long enough. Jeffrey Epstein’s victims have waited long enough,” Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, said in a floor speech on Tuesday. “Let the truth come out. Let transparency reign.” Will Trump sign it?Trump told reporters on Monday that he would sign the bill if it arrives on his desk. Yet despite this pledge and his late U-turn on releasing the files, Trump could still use his presidential veto power to block passage – though doing so at such a late stage would surely fan suspicions that he has something to hide.Could such a veto be overcome?Yes. A presidential veto can be overridden if both chambers vote to do so by a two-thirds majority. Both chambers already surpassed that in spectacular fashion. The only member of Congress to vote against the bill was Clay Higgons, a Lousiana Republican representative.What cards can Trump play if overwhelming congressional votes compel the justice department to make the files public?Even if Trump signs the bill – whether of his own volition or by force because House and Senate majorities override his veto – his recent announcement of a justice department investigation into prominent figures (other than himself) mentioned in last week’s trove of Epstein emails released by the House oversight committee have fueled fears that any version of the files released could be incomplete or selective.Last Friday, Trump instructed the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, to open an investigation into links between Epstein and former president Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, a former US treasury secretary and ex-president of Harvard University, Reid Hoffman, a venture capitalist noted for funding Democrats and liberal causes, and the bank JPMorgan Chase. The investigation could enable the justice department to withhold certain documents on the argument that releasing them would be prejudicial.In the final analysis, Trump could have ended all uncertainty by ordering the files to be released without waiting for Congress to force his hand. More

  • in

    WHO to lose nearly a quarter of its workforce – 2,000 jobs – due to US withdrawing funding

    The World Health Organization has said its workforce will shrink by nearly a quarter – or over 2,000 jobs – by the middle of next year as it seeks to implement reforms after its top donor, the United States, announced its departure.US President Donald Trump’s administration withdrew from the body upon taking office in January, prompting the agency to scale back its work and cut its management team by half.Washington is by far the UN health agency’s biggest financial backer, contributing about 18% of its overall funding.The Geneva-based WHO projects that its workforce will shrink by 2,371 posts by June 2026 from 9,401 in January 2025 due to job cuts as well as retirements and departures, according to a presentation set to be shown to its member states on Wednesday.It does not include the many temporary staff, or consultants, which UN sources say have been made redundant. A WHO spokesperson confirmed the total number of staff leaving the organisation and said the workforce would shrink by up to 22%, depending on how many vacant posts are filled.While the global health agency said in August that hundreds of staff had departed, this is the first time it has given the full scale of the expected change to its global staff.“This year has been one of the most difficult in WHO’s history, as we have navigated a painful but necessary process of prioritisation and realignment that has resulted in a significant reduction in our global workforce,” said Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in a message to staff on Tuesday seen by Reuters, adding that the process was now nearing an end.“We are now preparing to move forward with our reshaped and renewed Organization,” he added.The slides also showed that the Geneva-based body has a $1.06bn hole in its 2026-2027 budget, or nearly a quarter of the total required, down from an estimated gap of $1.7bn in May.That excludes $1.1bn of expected funding that includes deals at various stages of negotiation, the slides showed, without giving details.The WHO spokesperson said that the portion of the two-year budget currently unfunded was lower than in previous years, attributing that to a smaller budget; the launch of a fundraising round; and an increase in member states’ mandatory fees. More

  • in

    Trump news at a glance: Bill to release Epstein files approved by Senate and House

    The Senate on Tuesday gave swift approval to legislation that will force the release of investigative files related to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, following a near-unanimous vote in the US House of Representatives and a reversal by Donald Trump and his Republican allies. The administration relented after months of trying to forestall the bipartisan effort involving a scandal that has dogged the president since his return to the White House.The Senate acted by unanimous consent, which requires approval from each senator but does not require a formal roll call vote, expediting the process. Hours earlier, the House overwhelmingly approved the bill on a 427-1 tally.“The American people have waited long enough. Jeffrey Epstein’s victims have waited long enough,” Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, said in a floor speech on Tuesday, before asking the chamber to pass it unanimously. “Let the truth come out. Let transparency reign.”Senate approves bill to release Epstein files after near-unanimous House voteThe bill next goes to Trump for his signature. The president indicated on Monday that he would sign the measure.Though Trump has for months dismissed the uproar over the government’s handling of the Epstein case as a “Democrat hoax”, he signalled his support for the House bill over the weekend, and said he would sign the measure if it reaches his desk.Democrats, along with survivors of Epstein and their advocates who were seated in a House gallery, broke into applause after the bill was passed. The sole “no” vote came from Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican who said he worried the measure would make public identifying details of witnesses, potential suspects and others caught up in the investigation.Read the full storyTrump shrugs off Khashoggi murder during Saudi prince’s White House visitDonald Trump has shrugged off the Saudi regime’s 2018 murder of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, saying the journalist was “extremely controversial” and unpopular, dismissing the killing by observing “things happen”.The US president made the remarks at the White House on Tuesday while welcoming Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the first time since Khashoggi’s murder and dismemberment in Istanbul by Saudi state operatives.Read the full storyJudge rejects ‘racially gerrymandered’ maps in Texas that gave Republicans extra districtsNew maps that added five Republican districts in Texas hit a legal roadblock on Tuesday, with a federal judge saying the state cannot use the 2025 maps because they are probably “racially gerrymandered”.The decision is likely to be appealed, given the push for more Republican-friendly congressional maps nationwide and Donald Trump’s full-court press on his party to make them. Some states have followed suit, and some Democratic states have retaliated, pushing to add more blue seats to counteract Republicans.Read the full storyTrump faces criticism for referring to female Bloomberg reporter as ‘piggy’Donald Trump, who has a history of making extremely personal attacks on female journalists, referred to a Bloomberg News correspondent as a “piggy” during a clash onboard Air Force One on Friday.While the remark did not initially get much attention, it picked up some traction on Tuesday and has drawn backlash from fellow journalists, including some who have previously been attacked by Trump themselves.Read the full storyMany of US education agency’s powers reassigned to other federal departmentsDonald Trump’s administration has taken new steps toward dismantling the US Department of Education by reassigning many of its responsibilities to other federal agencies.The move prompted a fresh wave of criticism, as prominent Democrats accused the administration of “slashing resources” for schools and students across the US.Read the full storyMass federal immigration sweeps expand to North Carolina capitalFederal authorities were conducing operations in Raleigh, North Carolina on Tuesday, local officials said, after a weekend where more than 100 people were arrested in Charlotte.The Democrat governor of the state, Josh Stein, a critic of the operations, posted on social media that his office was aware of the reports of the impending Raleigh operations. “To the people of Raleigh,” he wrote, “if you see something wrong, record it and report it to local law enforcement. Let’s keep each other safe.”Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

    A New Jersey man whose lengthy prison sentence for fraud convictions was commuted by Donald Trump in 2021 is now headed back to federal prison for another fraud conviction.

    California farms applied an average of 2.5m lbs of Pfas “forever chemicals” per year on cropland from 2018 to 2023, or a total of about 15m lbs, a new review of state records shows.
    Catching up? Here’s what happened Monday 17 November. More