Workers fired, placed on leave for Charlie Kirk comments after assassination

The killing of Charlie Kirk is sparking debate about political violence in the U.S., as well as the types of professional consequences employees who speak out about the conservative activist's death — and other sensitive issues — might face.

A number of businesses and other organizations have shown employees the door this week because of their public remarks about Kirk, who was assassinated on Wednesday while giving a speech at Utah Valley University. Among those to lose their jobs or face sanctions: a political commentator, a university employee , a sports reporter and a U.S. secret service agent .

Private employers have the law on their side when it comes to removing a worker who makes public statements that the business views as potentially harmful, according to legal experts.

"A private company can generally fire an employee for public comments, even political ones, if those comments are deemed to harm the company's reputation, violate workplace policy or disrupt the business," said Marjorie Mesidor, a workplace attorney, to CBS MoneyWatch.

Vanessa Matsis-McCready, vice president of human resources for Engage PEO, a provider of HR solutions, said that high-profile individuals in particular must tread carefully when commenting publicly on politically charged issues.

In today's climate there is very little tolerance for that," she said. "Employers are very mindful of what is being associated with them, and they are trying to be as apolitical as possible.

Multiple firings

A number of employees across various industries, as well as in academia, are finding themselves in hot water over comments they made about Kirk's death or his political beliefs.

PHNX Sports, an online sports news site focused on Arizona, announced the firing of reporter Gerald Bourguet after he said on social media on Wednesday, in a post that has since been deleted, that "Refusing to mourn a life devoted to that cause is not the same thing as celebrating gun violence."

"Truly don't care if you think it's insensitive or poor timing to decline to respect an evil man who died," he added.

Bourguet declined to comment when contacted by CBS News.

MSNBC said It cut ties with analyst Matthew Dowd after he said in an on-air conversation that Kirk had promoted incendiary speech and that "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." In a public statement, Comcast accused Dowd of making "an unacceptable and insensitive comment about this horrific event."

"That coverage was at odds with fostering civil dialogue and being willing to listen to the points of view of those who have differing opinions. We should be able to disagree, robustly and passionately, but, ultimately, with respect. We need to do better," said Comcast executives.

Dowd, the former chief strategist for Republican President George W. Bush, apologized in a Substack post on Friday, saying he hadn't meant to imply Kirk was to blame for the violence that killed him, according to AP. But Dowd, a long-time political analyst at ABC News before joining MSNBC in 2022, also accused the network of giving in to pressure to fire him.

"The right wing media mob ginned up, went after me on a plethora of platforms, and MSNBC reacted to that mob," he wrote on Substack. "Even though most at MSNBC knew my words were being misconstrued, the timing of my words forgotten ... and that I apologized for any miscommunication on my part, I was terminated by the end of the day."

Also in the media industry, Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah said in a Substack post Monday, the company dismissed her last week after she spoke out "against political violence, racial double standards, and America's apathy toward guns," noting that she only mentioned Kirk once in a separate social media post.

A spokesperson for the Washington Post declined to comment to CBS News on personnel matters.

It's policies and standards state that "A Post journalist's use of social media must not harm the editorial integrity or journalistic reputation of The Post."

Other organizations have also taken action against workers who spoke out about Kirk. Middle Tennessee State University said in statement that it had fired a university employee over "inappropriate and callous comments on social media regarding the horrific and tragic murder of Charlie Kirk."

Nasdaq, in a statement posted on X, said it dismissed an employee over social media posts related to Kirk's shooting that the stock exchange said "were a clear violation of our policy."

In a Facebook post, the U.S. Secret Service said it placed an agent who it said expressed negative opinions about Kirk on leave. "The U.S. Secret Service will not tolerate behavior that violates our code of conduct. This employee was immediately put on administrative leave, and an investigation has begun," a U.S. Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement.

United Airlines told CBS News that it took action against employees who the company said had publicly commented on Kirk's death. "Our mission at United Airlines is to connect people and unite the world. So we've been clear with our customers and employees that there's zero tolerance for politically motivated violence or any attempt to justify it," the carrier said in a statement to CBS News.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy praised United for "doing what's right by placing pilots celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk out of service. They must be fired," in a statement t on X.

"There's no room for political violence in America and anyone applauding it will face the consequences. ESPECIALLY those we count on to ensure the safety of the flying public," Duffy wrote.

Few legal protections

First Amendment protections are generally limited for workers in the private sector, according to attorneys.

"Employers often have a strong legal basis to terminate an employee if their public comments, especially on a high-profile and sensitive topic like a murder, cause reputational damage or customer backlash," Mesidor said.

Some states - California, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia - do have laws to protect employees from being fired for their conduct off the job, including their political speech and activity, but most do not. Maynard Nexsen attorney Andrew Kragie told CBS MoneyWatch that workers at private employers typically have little protection from punishment for their public comments.

"If someone says, 'Thank goodness this person was assassinated,' then generally their employer can fire them," he said. That's because most workers are employed at-will, meaning either party can terminate the contract at any time, for any reason," he explained.

"So, most employees in the private sector can be disciplined based on what you say on social media, even if your account doesn't identify you as an employee," Kragie added.

Read More

Social media has us in its grip and won't let go. The Charlie Kirk killing is a case study

Charlie Kirk's mastery of social media was key to his rise as an influence in conservative politics. So the extent to which His death and its aftermath have played out on those forums should not come as a surprise.

In a microcosm of life today, social media is where Americans have gone to process last week's killing in Utah and is the chief tool. his supporters are using to police those they feel aren't showing proper respect. Investigators are looking into the time the man accused of killing Kirk, Tyler Robinson, spent in the "dark corners of the internet" — anti-social media, if you will — before he allegedly pulled the trigger.

On the other side of the world, as the Kirk story preoccupied Americans , Nepal reeled from a spasm of violence that erupted when the government tried to ban social media platforms.

All of this is forcing a closer look at the technologies that have changed our lives, how they control what we see and understand through algorithms, and the way all the time we spend on them affects our view of the world.

Cox emerges as a powerful spokesman against social media

Utah's governor, Republican Spencer Cox, believes "cancer" isn't a strong enough word to describe social media. "The most powerful companies in the history of the world have figured out how to hack our brains, get us addicted to outrage ... and get us to hate each other," Cox said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Democratic Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii urged Americans via social media to "pull yourself together, read a book, get some exercise, have a whiskey, walk the dog or make some pasta or go fishing or just do anything other than let this algorithm pickle your brain and ruin your soul."

Chilling videos of Kirk's September 10 assassination immediately overwhelmed sites like X, TikTok and YouTube, and companies are still working to contain their spread. Confrontational material and conspiracy theories are pushed into social media feeds because they do exactly what they're designed to do — keep people on the platforms for longer periods of time.

I do think we're in a moment here," said Laura Edelson, a professor at Northeastern University and an expert on social media algorithms. "Our country is being digitally mediated. Where we interact with other people, how we interact with broader society, that is more and more happening over feed algorithms. This is the most recent in a long line of ways that society has been changed by media technology.

Divisive content and the proliferation of the video of Kirk's death may not have been the goal but are the direct result of decisions made to maximize profits and cut back on content moderation, Edelson said.

"I don't think there are people twirling their mustaches saying how great it is that we've divided society, except the Russian troll farms and, more and more, the Chinese troll farms," she said.

X owner Elon Musk posted on his site this past week that while discourse can become negative, "it's still good that there is a discussion going." Conservative media star Ben Shapiro , who considered Kirk a friend, admired how Kirk was willing to go to different places and talk to people who disagreed with him, a practice all too rare in the social media era.

"How social media works is a disaster area, fully a disaster area," Shapiro said in an interview with Bari Weiss on a Free Press podcast. "There's no question it's making the world a worse place — and that's not a call for censorship."

How people act on social media is a bipartisan problem, said Shapiro. The most pervasive one is people who use the third-person plural — "they" are doing something to "us," he said. That's been the case when many people discuss Kirk's death, although the shooter's motives Have not become clear, and there is no evidence his actions are anything other than his own.

Collecting inflammatory posts from both sides

The liberal MeidasTouch media company has collected inflammatory social posts by conservatives, particularly those who suggest they're at "war." Meanwhile, several conservatives have combed social media for posts they consider negative toward Kirk, in some cases seeking to get people fired. The Libs of TikTok site urged that a Washington state school district be defunded because it refused to lower flags to half staff.

GOP Representative Randy Fine from Florida asked people to point out negative Kirk posts from anyone who works in government, at an institution that receives public funding, or is licensed by the government — for example, a teacher or lawyer. "These monsters want a fight?" he wrote on X. "Congratulations, they got one."

A Washington Post columnist, Karen Attiah , wrote on Monday that she was fired for a series of BlueSky posts that showed little sympathy for Kirk. But she wrote on Substack that "not performing over-the-top grief for white men who espouse violence was not the same as endorsing violence against them." A Post spokeswoman declined to comment.

"So much of what people use to talk about politics — algorithmically driven social media sites and cable television — is designed to pull Americans apart," said James Talarico, a Democratic state lawmaker in Texas who recently announced a bid for the U.S. Senate. "We've got to find our way back to each other because that's the only way we can continue this American experiment," he said on MSNBC.

Among the most persistent examples of those divisions are the lies and misinformation about elections that have spread for years through online social channels. They have undermined faith in one of the country's foundational institutions and contributed to the anger that led supporters of the President Donald Trump to violently storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Whether meaningful change is possible remains an open question. Nepal's unrest illustrated the dangers of government involvement: Social media sites were shut down and users protested, suggesting it had been a way to stop criticism of the government. Police opened fire at one demonstration, killing 19 people.

Persuading social media sites to change their algorithms is also an uphill battle. They rely on attention and people spending as much time as possible on them. Unless advertisers flee out of fear of being associated with violent posts, there's little incentive for them to change, said Jasmine Enberg, a social media analyst at EMarketer.

Young people in particular are becoming aware of the dangers of spending too much time on social media, she said.

But turn their phones off? "The reality of the situation," Enberg said, "is that there's a limit to how much they can limit their behavior."

___

Associated Press writers Ali Swenson in New York and Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social .

Read More

We Don't Have to Agree to See Each Other as Human | Opinion

When TV show host Jimmy Kimmel reacted "Regarding the killing of Charlie Kirk," he asked, "Instead of angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human?" It's a simple question, but it cuts right to the heart of where we are as a country.

There are many issues we need to address in the context of violence—from guns, to mental health, to political extremism. But there's also a deeper problem with how we talk to one another, how we divide ourselves into rigid camps, and how little space we leave for empathy in our public discourse.

When A Starting Point (ASP) began, my goal was to make complicated policies and issues feel less intimidating, so more people felt comfortable engaging with them because these issues affect us all. And through my own experiences—interviewing elected officials and listening to people I don't always agree with—I've learned how valuable it is to hear directly from different viewpoints. I've grown because of those conversations.

So why talk about this now? In the last 14 months , we've seen countless acts of political violence against Republican and Democratic leaders alike, including the killing of Democratic Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman , an arson attack on Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro's residence, and the two attempted assassinations of the President Donald Trump .

Why does Kirk's killing feel like the straw that broke the camel's back? For me, it's because it exposes something we've been ignoring: the way binary choices and political silos leave no room for nuance, no room for humanity, and no room for growth. We've seen this before. After 9/11, as broken and shocked as we were, there was a sense of unity. The question now is whether tragedies like this will drive us further apart or whether they can help bring us back together.

Philosophically, I'm not aligned with Charlie Kirk. But that doesn't mean I should cheer his death – or anyone's. It's far too easy to dehumanize people we disagree with. It's even easier when our politics, our media, and even our corporations encourage us to see the world as us versus them. Everywhere we look, we're asked to pick a side. And in that process, we lose sight of this basic truth: We don't have to like what someone says or does to still see them as a person. And people, no matter how divided, should not kill each other.

There are tough questions here: Where is the line between identity politics that divides us and cultural pride that strengthens us? How do we fix a broken political reward system that encourages outrage instead of solutions? What responsibilities do policymakers and the media that shape our conversations have in creating a healthier civic space? What responsibility do we all have as individuals?

I don't have all the answers. But I do know this: The first step is refusing to let ourselves be pushed into corners where empathy is no longer possible. My hope behind ASP has always been that we could disagree with respect, recognize different values, and still move forward together. That may sound idealistic. But it's also deeply practical. Because a society that sees others as less than human is a society that eventually tears itself apart. And individuals who don't see each other are more likely to feel comfortable throwing stones at each other. Then we grow further apart, stones leading to bullets, bullets leading to bombs.

Through the many ASP events and conversations I've had the opportunity to work with young people across the country, and I've seen this type of constructive engagement firsthand, and it continually inspires me. We've all seen what happens when we let fear and hate guide us. The choice now is whether we want to keep going down that road—or whether we're ready to do the hard work of seeing each other, truly, as people again. Personally, I choose the latter.

Mark Kassen is an actor, filmmaker, and co-founder of the civic engagement platform A Starting Point (ASP).

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Related Articles

• Keep Talking—America's Democracy Depends on It | Opinion
• NATO Chief Urges Improved Dialogue With Russia: 'It's Possible to Make Deals'
• I Just Pledged Allegiance to the Caliphate | Opinion
• 'Fallout 76' Player Count, Level Cap and More Revealed

Start your unlimited news real time trial

Read More

Opinion: Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving.

That in itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the "Age of Trump." Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances.

When speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump won last November was because almost the entire Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and resources trying to demonize Trump instead of addressing the solvable real-world problems affecting their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party, or more importantly, to Americans who are desperately seeking its help?

Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently criticized Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond "Trump sucks."

We chose the wrong pressure points, said Cuban on "Pod Save America." "It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them."

Cuban—who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028—is correct. When will it be peak "theater of the absurd" for that echo chamber? When will working-class and disenfranchised Americans matter to it again? When will national security matter to it again? When will the performance art—intended for literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles—stop?

If you only got your information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president.

Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump. being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a "woke," left-leaning organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they - like the Pulitzer Prize Committee - proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right.

In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing.

Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he received the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called It "was premature." Obama himself felt so self-conscious about receiving the award that he seriously considered skipping the ceremony.

Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee did not achieve what it had hoped for.

Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule.

Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives.

For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats sought his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the unnecessary waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done regarding the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever reach the Nobel Committee?

What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee.

In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for "their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland." Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a "peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?" Apparently not to the committee.

In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed "for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea." Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it.

Mark Cuban was right to point out that the Democrats only have one failed campaign policy. Trump is right to point out the Nobel Prize Committee's obvious and shameful bias.

Broker peace and save lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.

Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, visit The Hill.

Read More

At meeting, critic of Burke County speaks about recall effort

WAYNESBORO, Ga. (WRDW/WAGT) - A nemesis of Burke County Sheriff Alfonzo Williams has officially launched a recall effort against him.

She spoke about it at Tuesday night's meeting of the Burke County Board of Commissioners.

position

Our community deserves better. This recall is necessary to ensure that no other person or family fears any type of retaliation from the sheriff.

An official recall application was issued by the Burke County Board of Elections, and now organizers have 15 days to get 100 sponsors.

Also at Tuesday night's meeting, commissioners decided whether to allow the county attorney to represent the sheriff in a sexual harassment case or to hire someone else. Commissioners a few weeks ago declined to approve a legal settlement between Williams and his former employee Brenda Johnson In the case, meaning it will proceed.

The board decided to authorize Russell Britt, an attorney with Hall Booth Smith, to handle the case as it moves through the courts on behalf of Sheriff Williams.

County leaders say they have to provide defense for the allegations and will now see what happens against a jury.

We have to provide the sheriff with defense in this case. Our insurance covers some of that defense," said Merv Waldrop, Burke County manager. "We have stepped away from what they have agreed to settle, and their advice to us was that it's better for the county to settle. The board and the public are saying no, let's just let this thing go to court.

And state court solicitor Matt Franklin will be at the meeting to explain to people how to appeal their tickets from the automated school zone cameras.

A magistrate judge last week recalled Williams' arrest warrant for Hollinsworth.

Williams obtained it on the grounds that some text messages she sent him amounted to harassing communications.

The arrest warrant alleges that on May 22, Hollingsworth "knowingly and intentionally" repeatedly texted Williams "for the purpose of annoying, harassing and intimidating said person."

READ ORIGINAL WARRANT AND RECALL:

She allegedly sent one message and then retracted it, then sent another message, according to an incident report from deputies.

According to the incident report, the message allegedly stated:

You know who this is, Traci MF Hollingsworth. You are the biggest POS I have ever met. I just want you to know that I have had a hand in EVERYTHING from your residency hearing for election in 2016, until now. Your friends aren't your friends and the FBI knows it all. Have fun in prison. Your time is coming. Try and fight this recall I'm about to unleash on your ass. After the last election, I'm pretty sure there are more than 'me and the 12 against you.' May the odds not ever be in your favor.

Williams obtained an arrest warrant for one count of harassing communications and even issued a "be on the lookout" alert for her on Facebook.

But that's moot with the arrest warrant recalled.

"It's a sad day for democracy when the top law enforcement official in the community would lead in the legal efforts to intimidate, arrest and defame a private citizen," said Holingsworth.

Waldrop says this is a difficult position for the board.

"The taxpayers want them to be responsible, but they also know that if nobody is ever held accountable for their actions, they are going to continue to be irresponsible with the taxpayers' money, their employees and the position that they got," said Waldrop.

The magistrate's court said it does not comment on ongoing cases but can explain the process.

"In all cases when warrants are signed, it is based on the investigator's sworn testimony, the affidavit and some evidence which taken together shows probable cause for a specific statutory standard," the court said.

In some cases, additional facts or evidence are provided before the warrant is executed, causing the court to review the warrant.

In rare cases, the victim has given false statements to the officer or an officer may have misled the court, the court said.

Some of these factors change the statutory standard, requiring the court to consider a different legal standard.

If the new standard is not met or the officer or victim misled the court, the court can recall the warrant. If the alleged offender is arrested, the court will dismiss the warrant during a preliminary hearing.

For warrants, the court "is not a trier of facts nor is it an investigative body."

The court says it is not permitted to consider the guilt or innocence of an alleged offender or investigate and gather facts outside of the officers' sworn statements or information provided to the court.

Read More

Who is Dr. Kevin O'Connor? Meet Biden's former White House physician

Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who was former President Joe Biden 's physician, is a key figure in the House Oversight Committee His investigation into White House aides' alleged cover-up of Biden's health.

O'Connor was scheduled to appear for a deposition on Wednesday before the committee to answer questions about Biden's health in office. The deposition was part of a broader autopen investigation examining who was in charge during the Biden administration.

BIDEN AUTO-PEN USE: WHAT TO KNOW AS TRUMP ORDERS AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS PREDECESSOR

O'Conner was subpoenaed on June 5 to appear for a deposition after he refused a previous request to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview on June 25. His lawyers have asked for a delay.

Here's everything you need to know about Biden's former White House physician.

Education

O'Conner received his Bachelor's degree in biology from St. Bonaventure University in 1988 on a U.S. Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps scholarship. He then went to medical school at the New York Institute of Technology, where he graduated with a degree in osteopathic medicine in 1992.

He completed his residency training In family medicine at Mountainside Hospital in Montclair, New Jersey, and became chief resident in 1995. He became a master flight surgeon in 2010 after completing Army flight surgeon training.

Personal life

O'Connor lives in Maryland with his wife and three daughters.

Career

O'Connor became a White House physician in 2006. Starting in February 2009, he treated Biden while he was vice president and continued to serve him for the rest of his term.

O'Connor served 22 years in the Army and was deployed to support missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia. In 2017, after retiring from the Army, he joined the George Washington Medical Faculty Associates as director of executive medicine. He also held senior positions at the George Washington University Hospital, and he still teaches as an associate professor at the university's School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

Biden administration

After Biden took office as president in January 2021, he appointed O'Connor As the new White House physician, replacing President Donald Trump's former physician, Dr. Sean Conley. As the physician, O'Connor was on a team of doctors at the White House tasked with taking care of the president and his family's medical needs, as well as those of White House staff.

Concerns about Biden's health and mental state were raised before he announced his reelection campaign in April 2023. Those concerns culminated with the announcement that Biden was dropping out of the presidential race in July 2024. He endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the new candidate.

The same month, Biden officials revealed that the former president was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, a new book was released, Original Sin , in which CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson discuss Biden's cognitive decline and how many people tried to hide it from the public eye.

"One person told us that the presidency was, at best, a five-person board with Joe Biden as chairman of the board," Tapper told NPR.

Tapper and Thompson argue that while staff efforts to make Biden appear competent started small and innocent, those efforts turned into a massive cover-up that misled the public.

Autopen investigation

As information about Biden's mental fitness came to light, the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project released a memorandum in March, accusing the president of unlawfully allowing an autopen to be used to sign various orders and pardons. Among the documents the group has analyzed, there were "two identical autopen signatures that were affixed to multiple acts of clemency," suggesting it wasn't the president who signed these documents but one or more members of his staff using his automated signature.

BIDEN ENTERS THE SPOTLIGHT TO PUSH BACK AGAINST TRUMP AND DEFEND HIS RECORD

In the following months, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into the Biden administration's use of the autopen. It has subpoenaed O'Connor and other former Biden officials such as Neera Tanden, former director of the Policy Council; Anthony Bernal, former assistant to the president and senior adviser to the first lady; Annie Tomasini, former assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff; and Ashley Williams, former special assistant to the president and deputy director of Oval Office operations. Tanden is the only official of this group who has testified .

Regarding O'Connor's hearing, the committee aims to "investigate the circumstances" surrounding O'Connor's last medical assessment of Biden in February 2024, during which he described Biden as "a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency." It also wants to determine if O'Connor's "financial relationship" with the Biden family affected his assessments of the former president in any way, according to the initial request from the committee.

Read More

Hakeem Jeffries Dodges Mamdani's 'Black or African American' Claim in MSNBC Interview

New York Democrat and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Saturday declined to answer a direct question about his party's nominee in the NYC mayoral race during an interview on MSNBC.

Jeffries joined host Al Sharpton for the latest PoliticsNation on MSNBC Saturday, and the two discussed Democrats and the mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani , the self-described "democratic socialist" who defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo for the party nomination. Jeffries previously commented on another Mamdani controversy, that one regarding comments about Israel and Palestine, which Jeffries called "unacceptable."

The New York Times published an article on Thursday on revelations obtained via hacked information that, in his college application for Columbia University in 2009, the Democratic candidate born in Uganda to Indian parents identified himself as "Black or African American" as well as "Asian" in that portion of the application.

The NYT reported that Mamdani told the paper in an interview that, "he did not consider himself either Black or African American, but rather 'an American who was born in Africa.'"

"He said his answers on the college application were an attempt to represent his complex background given the limited choices before him, not to gain an upper hand in the admissions process," the article states.

However, after the publication of that article, a video from April of this year went viral for comments from the candidate on that exact type of identification.

A New York performance artist and ambush interviewer who goes by the handle "Crackhead Barney" asked Mamdani: "Would you claim the African-American status like Elon Musk?"

"No, I would not claim that status," Mamdani replied.

The artist pressed him, asking, "Why not? You're African, but you're an African, right? I know you grew up there."

"I'm proud to be Ugandan, but I think that that is misleading," said Mamdani at the time.

Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Eric Adams , who is actually African-American, issued a statement condemning his opponent's past actions, calling them "an insult to every student who got into college the right way."

“The African American identity is not a check-box of convenience,” Adams said in the statement. “It’s a history, a struggle and a lived experience. For someone to exploit that for personal gain is deeply offensive.”

Cuomo's team also issued a statement through a spokesperson. Rich Azzopardi , stating that "This should come as no surprise since Mamdani, his proposals, his funding, and his background received absolutely no scrutiny from the press."

“This issue must be fully investigated, because, if true, it could be fraud and just the tip of the iceberg,” Azzopardi said.

Sharpton raised the issue with Jeffries on Saturday, presenting it as an attack by Mayor Adams and asking Jeffries for his response.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams is attacking Mamdani over reports that he identified himself as African-American and Asian on a college application. Mamdani was born in Uganda, his parents from India. What are your thoughts on this issue? Mamdani has checked multiple boxes trying to capture what he calls the fullness of his background," Sharpton said. "I mean, is this a real issue to you?

Rather than answering whether it is an issue or commenting on the substance of the story or the criticisms, or even on the publishing of an article based on material obtained by a politically motivated source, hacker Jeffries instead offered essentially the same generic response he has relied on for most of the controversies surrounding Mamdani.

"I think to me, you know, the issue that we have to deal with in New York City, which our Democratic nominee did talk about extensively during the primary campaign, is affordability," he said, before going on at length about broad political issues he's focused on in the city.

Sharpton did not follow up on the lack of response.

SHARPTON Now, quick follow-up: New York City Mayor Eric Adams is attacking Mamdani over reports that he identified himself as African-American and Asian on a college application. Mamdani was born in Uganda; his parents are from India. What are your thoughts on this issue? Mamdani has checked multiple boxes in an effort to capture what he calls the fullness of his background. I mean, is this a real issue for you?

JEFFRIES I think for me, you know, the issue we have to deal with in New York City, which our Democratic nominee talked about extensively during the primary campaign, is affordability. And particularly in many of the neighborhoods being overwhelmed by gentrification and wiped out by housing displacement. Uh, whoever is going to be the next mayor of the City of New York really needs to articulate a concrete plan to ensure that working-class communities, including working-class communities of color, can still have a place in our great city. The city that both of us love, but we know is changing significantly in terms of the opportunity for working families and middle-class people to continue to call it home.

Watch the clip above via MSNBC .

The post Hakeem Jeffries Dodges Mamdani's 'Black or African American' Claim in MSNBC Interview first appeared on newsrealtime .

Read More

Michelle Obama criticized for bizarre 'Fourth of July' statement amid divorce rumors with Barack

Over the past year, rumors have been swirling that Barack and Michelle Obama are heading for divorce. According to these rumors, Barack and Michelle have been living "separate lives" for quite some time.

Now, Michelle has come under fire after she celebrated the Fourth of July holiday by trying to sell a drink that social media users have dubbed as "useless."

Michelle Promotes Drinks Online

Michelle, 61, took to Instagram to share a video in which she promoted the PLEZi Fizz and PLEZi Hydrate drinks. In the caption, she reminded her followers "to stay safe and hydrated this Independence Day weekend."

For more celebrity and entertainment news, follow newsrealtime on MSN

I just love everything about the Fourth of July," Michelle said in the video. "Friends, family, barbecue and fireworks. And, as you and your families are out there, don't forget to stay hydrated.

“PLEZi Hydration or PLEZi FiZZ are great options with less sugar to try out this weekend,” she continued. “Have a great holiday weekend everybody.”

It didn't take long for this to backfire on Michelle, however, as social media users made it clear that they were uncomfortable with her promoting drinks on her page.

This is so strange," one user commented. Another added, "No, Michelle please, don't sell us useless products.

You lowkey too good to be doing this," a third user wrote. A fourth commented, "It's really weird that you're like hawking a drink. It seems beneath you.

It turns out that Michelle is actually a co-founder of PLEZi Nutrition. However, judging by this backlash, she might want to think twice before promoting it in this way again. Check out Michelle's video for yourself below.

Related: Michelle Obama Reveals Why She’s ‘Glad’ She Never Had Barack’s Son As Divorce Rumors Escalate

Obama Divorce Rumors

This comes at a difficult time for Michelle. Over the past few months, rumors have been swirling that the Obamas are heading toward divorce. These rumors escalated significantly back in January, when Michelle skipped both Jimmy Carter's funeral and Donald Trump's inauguration. In fact, she was the only living former First Lady to miss each of these events. This forced Barack to attend both events alone.

“I have been hearing this rumor that the Obamas are getting a divorce from reputable people,” political commentator Meghan McCain said on reporter Tara Palmeri’s podcast back in January. "I'm not talking about TMZ, I'm not talking about Perez Hilton, although I love him, he's my friend."

"I'm talking about like very serious journalists telling me that they're hearing that the Obama divorce rumors are true," she continued.

We've heard that for a long time," replied Tara, who has long covered Washington politics. "Like I just heard that they live separate lives.

Listen to Meghan and Tara talk more about this in the clip below.

Related: Michelle Obama Admits She And Barack Clashed Over Their Daughters As Rumors They’re Divorcing Escalate

Michelle Accused Of 'Really Disliking' Barack

Back in March, Michelle launched her IMO podcast with her older brother Craig Robinson, 64. Since then, she has used it to criticize Barack, 63, and air his dirty laundry seemingly every chance she gets.

In fact, Michelle has complained about Barack so many times on her podcast that the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently claimed that the former First Lady "really dislikes her husband, and it's super obvious."

I'm not just saying that to be catty, Tucker explained. I think I'm trying to feel compassion for her, but her hostility toward the guy is unbelievable.

Tucker's fellow Fox News host Megyn Kelly was quick to agree. She pointed out that "everything Michelle says about her husband is negative."

“I almost never say negative things about Doug,” Megyn added, referring to her husband Doug Brunt. “He’s not perfect but when I think about him, I don’t immediately go to whatever is negative. I go to what’s positive and what I love about him.”

Watch Tucker and Megyn talk more about this in the video below.

Barack has yet to ever comment publicly on the divorce rumors. Some might say that his silence has been deafening.

Meanwhile, Michelle has tried to shoot them down a few times. However, many aren’t buying her denials, given how much she’s continued to slam Barack on her podcast.

The backlash Michelle has received over her drinks advertisement suggests that the public may be turning against her amid these divorce rumors. Only time will tell whether the Obama marriage will survive!

For more celebrity and entertainment news, follow newsrealtime on MSN

Related Headlines

• Brad Pitt Sends Brutal Message To Exes Jennifer Aniston And Angelina Jolie – 'I Got Over It Quickly...'
• 10 Best Performances on The Voice So Far
• Kevin Costner Left Jewel 'Heartbroken' After Brief Romance – 'She Thought They Had Something Real'
• Netflix’s Ransom Canyon Renewed for Season 2

Read More

Facing SNAP & Medicaid concerns, why Murkowski & Sullivan say they voted for the 'Big Beautiful Bill'

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) — For the past week, American eyes have fixated on Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has been vocal about the uncertainty of her vote on the controversial “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The Senate went long into the night, but when it finally came time to vote at 8 a.m. AKDT, Murkowski backed the bill's passage.

Although she voted for the bill, her support for it was still unclear.

Do I like this bill? No, because I tried to take care of Alaska's interests," she said in a CBS interview inside the halls of the Capitol Tuesday morning. "I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans who won't benefit from this bill. I don't like that.

“But when I saw the direction that this is going, you can either say, ‘I don’t like it, I’m not trying to help my state,’ or you can roll up your sleeves and do so. I am super tired,” the senator added.

In a later statement, Murkowski defined "Alaska's interests" as advanced opportunities for resource development in the NPR-A, the Coastal Plain and Cook Inlet, with aims to create jobs and increase Alaskan revenue.

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, told Alaska’s News Source, “the one state that really, really did well in this bill was the great state of Alaska.”

“This is a jobs bill for Alaska,” he said. “This is all about creating really good strong private sector-led jobs on the resource development side.”

Although Murkowski voted for its passage, she also expressed concern that the bill fell short in protecting Medicaid coverage and SNAP benefits, an issue that opponents of the bill have long warned about.

"It is the people of Alaska that I worry about the most, especially when it comes to the potential loss of social safety net programs ... that our most vulnerable populations rely on," she said in a statement.

But the narratives coming from Sullivan and Murkowski don't line up when it comes to the cuts. Sullivan said Alaska was a state removed from the brunt of the cuts, saying the only reductions are from provider taxes and state-directed payments, neither of which, he insisted, Alaska uses.

“I was able to get a rural hospital fund negotiated, a big expansion of it last night, $50 billion for rural hospitals,” he said. “I anticipate Alaska in the next 5 years, we’ll be getting at least $200 million additional federal dollars for hospitals, for Medicaid, for helping patients. So it’s a big win for our rural hospitals and healthcare as well.”

When asked if he was worried about the people who relied on Medicaid and SNAP benefits, Sullivan said the state is "in good shape," reiterating that Alaska is in a different position because, he said, Alaska does not use provider taxes or state-directed payments.

With the Senate's passage The bill now returns to the House due to the several amendments added to it in the Senate. It will be up for debate in its amended state at 5:00 a.m. AKDT. If no new amendments are presented and added by the House, the bill will be sent to President Trump's desk, where it will be signed into law. President Trump initially said he wanted to receive the bill by the Fourth of July, but his confidence in the bill arriving on time has wavered.

It's the "artificial deadline," Murkowski said Trump set, that she found problematic, saying that it hindered the legislature from "producing the best bill for the country," she said in the CBS interview.

This has been an awful process—a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution," Murkowski's statement reads. "While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation—and we all know it.

Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, voted for the bill’s original passage and is unlikely to deviate in his support. While his office told Alaska’s News Source Tuesday morning that they were still mulling over the new bill, Begich took to social media two hours short of its passage to express his support of the bill.

Murkowski declined an interview with Alaska's News Source on Tuesday.

The governor & state lawmakers

While Murkowski has expressed uncertainty during the process, some state lawmakers have also echoed that sentiment.

Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, who is also Speaker of the House, and Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, who is also the Senate Majority Leader, published an opinion piece in the New York Times last week, saying one out of every three Alaskans rely on Medicaid (including more than a third of Alaskan children) and 70,000 residents would lose Medicaid access.

The benefits of Medicaid and the SNAP program permeate the entire fabric of the Alaska economy," they wrote. "In remote Arctic communities, Medicaid dollars make medical travel possible for residents from the hundreds of roadless villages to the communities where they are able to receive proper medical treatments.

Alaska’s News Source contacted all of the state legislature’s leaders and received a response only from Giessel.

“Senator Lisa Murkowski has valiantly tried to correct the errors in this bill. Obviously she wasn’t 100% successful (but) I am grateful for the attempts that she made,” she told Alaska’s News Source Tuesday. “I’m not sure why she voted yes, but at the same time, I trust her judgment. She is someone who loves our state, understands urban and rural Alaska. There has to have been some really compelling positive aspects that that brought her yes vote today.”

Sullivan said Edgmon and Giessel wrote the op-ed "without any facts."

I respect Cathy Giessel and Bryce Edgman a lot, but now that the facts are out there, I think it's a very different op-ed.

Shirley Sakaye, Director of Communications for the Alaska Department of Health, said Tuesday afternoon that they were "actively analyzing all of the amendment changes to the Senate bill and their impacts to Alaskans."

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, R-Alaska, has voiced his support for the bill, saying on social media It was reported last week that it would be beneficial for oil and gas development and leases, one of the major sources of state revenue. Last month, when the governor line-item vetoed $122 million from the state budget , he cited decreasing oil revenue as the reason for those vetoes.

House Minority Leader Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, called the bill a major win for Alaska.

"The current version of the bill that passed the Senate today also contains critical exemptions secured by our federal delegation to protect Alaska's most vulnerable: rural hospitals will receive enhanced Medicaid support, and the state is shielded with a two-year waiver from new SNAP cost burdens that would have disproportionately hurt remote communities," she said in a statement.

Alaska’s News Source contacted the governor's office for a reaction to the bill's Senate passage but did not receive a response.

In a news release sent last week, the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education voiced opposition to the bill, citing similar figures as those in Edgmon and Giessel's op-ed.

Other topics in OBBBA impact our rural hospitals, SNAP benefits, and so much more," their press release reads. "Without these services and programs, thousands of Alaskans could lose the help they need to stay healthy—and in some cases, stay alive.

A spokesperson for the governor did not answer whether they knew about the press release before it was sent, nor did they provide details about the council's role in the government. The council also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

When it comes to what's next, Giessel said she's trying to remain optimistic.

I think it's probably a signed deal, but I have to remain optimistic and hope against hope that there'll be some rational people, particularly rational Republicans, who are in short supply, to do the right thing and vote down this bill.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Read More

Labor rebels who forced a benefits policy reversal believe they can end the two-child cap.

Labor rebels are set to increase pressure on the Government to abolish the controversial two-child benefit cap , with many emboldened by recent U-turns on benefit cuts and winter fuel .

Several Labour MPs told The i Paper the Government's concessions could encourage fresh calls to scrap the controversial cap , which limits child-related benefit payments to the first two children in most families.

I think this issue will have emboldened a lot of backbench MPs ," one Labour MP said. "It has opened the door to the possibility of what you can say and do in terms of challenging the government on any issue.

That's the major impact of all of this, welfare aside – everybody's going to feel much more confident to push the Government into being bolder and more Labour, frankly.

Labour has not ruled out scrapping the cap, and many hoped that the Child Poverty Taskforce, announced shortly after the general election, would lead to the Government abolishing it.

The publication of the taskforce’s report has been delayed, however, with many now expecting it to be published in the autumn.

The MP added that the review – co-chaired by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson – and the Government's tone on the issue had led many in the party to "sense that we're probably pushing at an open door" on scrapping the cap.

But Rachel Reeves is under huge pressure to maintain her fiscal rules, and the partial U-turns on welfare announced last week have only made that task harder. Estimates suggest scrapping the cap could cost more than £2bn.

The growing confidence of Labour MPs was visible on Monday as ministers set out a range of concessions to the proposed welfare changes. aimed at appeasing the 120 MPs who supported a motion calling for the repeal of the legislation .

Read Next: Labor rebels smell blood – immigration and the two-child benefit cap are next

It is unclear how many MPs will ultimately rebel in the crucial vote on Tuesday, but it is widely expected that the bill, which makes major changes to universal credit and personal independence payment (PIP) eligibility, will pass its second reading.

However, many opposed to the changes have warned that growing disillusionment among MPs over the handling of the benefits reforms has made some MPs more likely to criticise the Government over other issues, including the benefit cap.

For some it will be: 'I've swallowed this shit sandwich, you now need to help us out,' one backbencher said. 'For others though, a lot of new MPs in particular who had a basic faith in the Starmer administration, that's been shaken now by what they are trying to do.'

They continued: "Some people think [this bill] is not what Labour does... some will have had their eyes opened and they will be thinking 'can I trust the Government on some of these issues?' I think the answer now will be no for some of them."

Another Labour MP said the concessions would "possibly" increase pressure on Reeves over the benefit cap. "I think we were looking at this anyway and I would support it if the option was there," they said.

A third MP echoed this, adding: "A government changing a benefits system which then pushes some of the most vulnerable into poverty, that's a direct link... I think you might find that the calls for [scrapping the benefit cap] increase."

York Outer MP Rachael Maskell said she was disappointed by the delay in the child poverty strategy and in scrapping the two-child benefit cap. She told The i Paper There has got to be movement on this... we see it as a priority and an immediate step that can be taken.

She also hinted that MPs were growing bolder ahead of the welfare vote, adding: "I think colleagues are now much more attuned to where their constituents are, and are certainly recognising the need to speak up for them."

I am seeing a change in mood... I think far more people are expressing concern, no matter what they intend to do on these matters.

A Labour insider claimed "the two-child cap is in the sights of people like Work and Pensions Committee chair Debbie Abrahams, and she could take rebels from this [welfare reforms] with her."

She’s very much trusted and leading the charge.

Last year, seven Labour MPs were suspended from the parliamentary party for voting against the Government on an amendment to eliminate the two-child benefit cap. Four of these MPs were readmitted in February, but the remaining members continue to sit as independents.

Pressure to remove the limit has remained, with Labour figures, such as former prime minister Gordon Brown , describing it as a measure that condemns children to poverty last year.

Read More

South Park Kicked Paramount in the Nuts with a Lawsuit: Here's Why

The long-running animated series is now at the center of a streaming legal battle, with Matt Stone and Trey Parker throwing legal punches at Paramount and its would-be buyers. Here's what happened, and what it means for South Park's digital future.

Here's the TL;DR...

• Warner Bros. Discovery sued Paramount in 2023 over a $500 million streaming rights deal that went awry.

• In 2025, South Park creators countersued, accusing Skydance of meddling in negotiations.

• The legal battle could redefine the show's future on streaming platforms such as Max and Paramount+.

The Legal Showdown: Why the Creators Filed a Lawsuit

As of June 30, 2025, South Park Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker have launched a legal strike against long-time partner Paramount—and it's not just about where episodes stream, but who controls the money and the future. The mess began in 2023 when Warner Bros. Discovery sued Paramount and South Park Digital Studios (SPDS), alleging that "special" episodes intended for Max were being diverted to Paramount+ in violation of their $500 million deal.

Now, the creators are suing as well. In 2025, Stone and Parker's company, Park County, filed a new complaint accusing Skydance Media and its financier RedBird Capital of sabotaging the future. South Park Lizenzvereinbarungen, um den Wert von Paramount vor einer Fusion zu senken. Es ist ein klassisches Beispiel für kreative Kontrolle im Vergleich zu Unternehmensmanövern, und dieses Mal ziehen sich die Schöpfer nicht zurück.

Streaming Tug-of-War: Max vs Paramount+

In 2019, Warner Bros. Discovery signed a massive deal with SPDS to stream the full South Park Bibliothek und 30 neue Episoden bis 2025. Aber Paramount spielte angeblich ein Spiel mit Begriffen – neue Inhalte wurden als „Specials“ bezeichnet und stattdessen auf Paramount+ statt auf Max ausgestrahlt. Warner klagte. Ein New Yorker Richter entschied Anfang 2025, dass der Anspruch ausreichend stichhaltig war, um vor Gericht zu kommen.

Fast forward to now: the Max deal expired on June 23, but with no new licensing agreement finalized, Park County claims Skydance interfered behind the scenes. According to the lawsuit, RedBird exec Jeff Shell deliberately undervalued streaming offers to benefit Skydance’s pending acquisition of Paramount. In short, it’s a streaming custody battle over South Park —and everyone wants Cartman.

Legal Jargon, Without the Legalese

• Breach of contract Paramount may have broken the Max deal by rerouting content to Paramount+.

• Summary judgment A court decided there is enough evidence for some claims to proceed to trial.

• Discovery The phase where both sides dig up internal documents to use in court.

• Misconduct Park County says Skydance's meddling before the merger crossed the line legally.

No need to break out the law textbooks—just know that both sides are accusing each other of breaking deals, playing dirty, and costing the creators big bucks.

Mergers, Money, and Mayhem

The legal chaos traces back to Paramount's ongoing $8 billion merger discussions with Skydance, which intensified after the Max contract expired. Stone and Parker claim they were excluded from key decisions as Paramount allegedly attempted to keep South Park on its own service, even though WBD retained temporary streaming rights.

With the 2008 South Park movie now on Paramount+ and new specials in the pipeline, the stakes are high. The creators’ lawsuit claims they were deliberately excluded from lucrative offers during the transition—another twist in an already messy deal.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about where you can binge South Park It's about how much influence creators have when corporations start making the decisions. With a $500 million contract in dispute, Stone and Parker's legal response could affect how studios handle streaming deals, exclusivity agreements, and merger negotiations going forward.

The trial clock is ticking—and if Max, Paramount+, and Skydance don't come to terms, this streaming brawl could get even messier.

Sources:

• Hollywood Reporter, "Warner Bros. Discovery Wins Ruling Over 'South Park' Streaming Rights," January 22, 2025

• Los Angeles Times, "'South Park' dispute escalates as creators accuse Paramount's buyers of meddling," June 26, 2025

• Screenrant, "South Park’s Streaming Future In Jeopardy As Creators Fire Back Over New Deal Conflict," June 24, 2025

• Wikipedia, "South Park," June 29, 2025

• X, #SouthParkLawsuit, June 30, 2025

News compiled and edited by Derek Gibbs and Steven Bubbles on June 30, 2025. Follow us on newsrealtime For more gaming, pop culture, and tech news, consider subscribing for only $5 per month to gain access to exclusive podcasts and other content.

Read More

I pointed out the IT issues to the Post Office in 1998 – they prosecuted people anyway.

An IT expert claims he told Post Office bosses almost 30 years ago that their first computer system was faulty and should not be used to prosecute people – but was ignored.

Adrian Montagu, 77, was instructed as a defense witness by Patricia Owen, a sub-postmistress who was convicted of stealing £2,178 from her branch in 1998.

She died in 2003 but her family has always insisted she was innocent and vowed to clear her name.

They believe that Capture, a piece of software rolled out to Post Office branches in the 1990s, produced unexplained shortfalls and was to blame.

Ms Owen's case is one of 29 prosecutions currently being investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the only body with the power to refer them to the Court of Appeal, to be quashed.

Thanks to Mr. Montagu’s hidden evidence, her family finally has hope that her conviction will be overturned.

It follows months of reporting by The i Paper on claims that dozens of sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted in a scandal that predated the notorious Horizon system .

The Government has now accepted Capture was faulty and will open a new compensation scheme for those affected this autumn.

But those who were criminally prosecuted by the Post Office will not be able to apply unless their convictions are overturned.

Capture 'capable of producing gibberish'

After hearing about the scandal, retired IT consultant Mr. Montagu approached Ms. Owen’s family via their solicitor Neil Hudgell and confirmed he examined the Capture software back in 1998.

Mr. Montagu has unearthed a copy of the report he produced at the time, which said Capture "is quite capable of producing absurd gibberish" and has "several insidious faults… which would not be necessarily apparent to the user".

The bombshell evidence has been passed to the CCRC and it is hoped that the commissioners will make a decision this summer on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

The case also raises fresh questions about why the Post Office chose to pursue Capture prosecutions in the first place.

Mr Montagu told The i Paper That in the months before Ms. Owen went on trial, he visited the Post Office’s IT team in person in order to obtain a copy of the Capture software and warned them about using it as evidence.

"I went along to their offices, I met two guys there and I said, 'look this programme is flaky isn't it?' " said Mr. Montagu.

They said: 'Well, every programme's got bugs in it'. I said 'yeah, but how bad are they?'

I can remember having a conversation about the bugs and they admitted there were bugs in the program.

But they were quite pragmatic about everything, they were saying 'no, no, it’s perfectly alright, the main function of the programme is perfectly OK' sort of thing.

“I later found out it was very, very flaky.”

They knew that the sub-postmistress in this case was being prosecuted, and they knew the reason why I was there was that there was a feeling that the software may be at fault.

Mystery over why IT expert ‘stood down during trial’

The i Paper has previously revealed how the Post Office’s Capture team sent out numerous newsletters and bulletins to sub-postmasters in the 1990s in which they admitted the software could cause accounting errors.

But at the same time, The number of private prosecutions carried out by the Post Office’s Investigation Department increased dramatically. – from only two in 1992 to 93 by 1998.

By the time Horizon arrived in 1999, the Post Office was carrying out hundreds of prosecutions every year.

Mr. Montagu says he spent some "considerable time" preparing to give evidence at Ms. Owen's trial.

He says he attended Canterbury Crown Court in Kent and was even introduced to the judge before the proceedings began.

Mr. Montagu said he had come with a large screen to carry out a demonstration to the jury and that he was expecting to be asked to explain how Capture was capable of producing faults.

"Basically, '10 times 10 equals 110 doesn't make sense' and I can demonstrate that kind of thing," he said.

But for reasons that remain a mystery, Mr. Montagu says he was not called to give evidence.

"I was a bit shocked but [Ms Owen's barrister] said 'I'm not going to need you anymore', so off I went," he said.

“I was a bit surprised by it all. It’s odd – the guts of this case was about how the programme, we believed, was not functioning as it should.”

I told people how innocent I thought she was

Court reports obtained by The i Paper from the Kentish Gazette In June 1998, it was revealed how Ms. Owen, who began working for the Post Office in 1987, wept in court and told jurors that she "loved her job and wouldn’t steal from anybody."

She was given a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years.

Her family says she never recovered from the shame of being convicted and believes it contributed to her death at 62.

Mr. Montagu says he has always felt uncomfortable about Ms. Owen's prosecution.

I wrote a letter to her saying how shocked I was to hear about the result," he said. "I said I would keep her files on record in case there was an appeal.

This was a situation which I had been very concerned about for years.

And I spoke to my wife about it, spoke to other people about it, about how innocent I thought she was.

Read Next: Police identify seven suspects related to Post Office Horizon scandal

According to the CCRC’s guidance, the watchdog will “normally need to identify something new and significant” in order to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal.

"This could be fresh evidence or a new legal argument, such as a new witness or a new scientific development," the guidance says, and must not be something covered in the original trial.

Given that Mr Montagu was not called as a witness during proceedings in 1998, Ms Owen’s family believe his testimony should fulfill the criteria of “fresh evidence”.

He says he remains willing to give evidence in court if required.

"Yes – I will do whatever is necessary," Mr. Montagu added.

“If I put my personal hat on, I think that justice delayed is justice denied.”

A spokesperson for the Post Office said: "We have been very concerned about the reported problems relating to the use of the Capture software and are sincerely sorry for past failings that have caused suffering to postmasters.

“We are determined that past wrongs are put right and continue to support the Government’s work as well as fully co-operate with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.”

A CCRC spokesperson said: "We have received applications regarding 29 convictions which pre-date Horizon; 25 of these applications are being actively investigated by case review managers, and two more recent applications are in the preparatory stage and will be assigned to case review managers before the end of June."

We have issued notices under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to Post Office Ltd [POL] requiring them to produce all material relating to the applications received.

To date, POL have provided some material in relation to 17 of the cases and confirmed that they hold no material in relation to another five. The CCRC is awaiting a response from POL in relation to six cases.

Read More

Pressure mounts on Turkey's main opposition in graft case

A court hearing that could upend the leadership of Turkey's main opposition CHP is the latest bid to hobble the party behind a wave of spring protests that shook the government, analysts say.

The hearing, which takes place on Monday at an Ankara court, could render null and void the result of a leadership primary within the Republican People's Party (CHP) in November 2023 on grounds of alleged fraud -- thereby overturning the election of leader Ozgur Ozel.

In February, the Ankara public prosecutor opened an investigation into allegations of vote buying at the congress which resulted in Özlü defeating longtime incumbent Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

The CHP has denied the allegations.

The outcome could see several CHP figures -- including jailed Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu -- facing up to three years in prison and a political ban for graft, Turkish media reported.

And if the election result is cancelled, the party leadership would almost certainly revert to 76-year-old Kilicdaroglu.

He was ousted five months after losing a bitterly fought presidential campaign against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that was widely seen as the most important vote in generations, leaving the party in crisis.

- Taming the opposition -

"This is a bid to reshape the CHP and create an opposition that is controlled by a government which is becoming more and more authoritarian," Berk Esen, a political science expert at Istanbul's Sabanci University, told newsrealtime.

"This will provoke a split within the party, putting a weak, defeated leader in charge whom the voters don't want any more," he said.

Kilicdaroglu has already stated that he would be willing to retake the party leadership if the court overturns the primary result, which sparked outrage within the CHP.

"It would be out of the question to not recognize such a verdict. Would it be better if a trustee was appointed to lead the party?" he said, also voicing his disapproval of the mass protests called by the CHP following Imamoglu's arrest and jailing in March.

Widely seen as the only politician capable of defeating Erdogan at the ballot box, Imamoglu was arrested in connection with a graft and terror probe which the CHP has denounced as groundless.

He was jailed on the day he was named CHP's candidate for the 2028 presidential race, his removal sparking Turkey's worst street unrest since 2013.

"I feel a deep sense of betrayal. I cannot stomach such remarks when so many people are in prison," Imamoglu said in response to Kilicdaroglu's remarks.

"Kilicdaroglu is a politician who will be remembered very badly. Some accuse him of working for (Erdogan's ruling) AKP, but I think it's more a case of his ambition knowing no bounds," said Esen.

"He is collaborating with an authoritarian government in order to get his own power back."

Following Imamoglu's arrest, Ozel went from being a relatively low-profile leader to the face of the protests, his impassioned speeches sharpening both his own image and that of the CHP, which has since held rallies across the country and is now leading the polls.

According to a survey by Ank-Ar Research published last week, if an election were to be held now, the CHP would win 34.6 percent, more than five percentage points higher than the 29.4 percent for the AKP.

And the government is not happy.

- No more demonstrations -

"From the government's perspective, it is crucial they get the CHP off the streets because Ozel is seen as dangerous," said Eren Aksoyoglu, an expert in political communication.

"By contrast, Kilicdaroglu is making conciliatory noises to those in power, saying he no longer wants any demonstrations and that he is ready to negotiate a change to the constitution," he said.

If he were to take over the party leadership, it would "put the CHP in a position where it was negotiating with the government rather than fighting it," agreed Esen.

Observers say that a more sympathetic opposition would give Erdogan much greater room for maneuver in the government's negotiations with the PKK after the Kurdish militants said they were ending their decades-long armed struggle.

It could also help the government push through a constitutional amendment to allow Erdogan to extend his term in office beyond 2028 -- a step that would require opposition support to be voted through.

"I don't think Kilicdaroglu would be able to hold on to the CHP leadership in the long term, but if the process (of leadership change) is drawn out over the course of a year, for example, that would let the government to change the constitution," said Esen.

"And that would spell 'total disaster for the opposition,'" he said.

In any event, Monday's hearing would likely spark "a new wave of protest, which will have economic and political consequences for the government," he added.

bg/hmw/sbk

Read More

Netanyahu claims victory over Iran – but polls show many Israelis don't trust him

In March, as he turned his back on a ceasefire process that was delivering results, the Israeli prime minister made a decision described by some commentators as akin to "political suicide."

The Gaza ceasefire deal, brokered by Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff even before the US president was inaugurated to his second term, had led to the release of dozens of hostages from Hamas captivity, in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails.

The next stage was supposed to see more hostages return home and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, followed by a negotiated end to the war.

Tired of conflict, Israelis and Palestinians contemplated the end of the most destructive war in a shared history too frequently punctuated by fighting.

But Benjamin Netanyahu didn't want the war to end.

As he ordered the resumption of attacks across Gaza, the prime minister declared that the fighting would continue until Hamas had been "completely destroyed."

The safe return of the remaining hostages in Gaza seemed to be a secondary consideration. (The civilian consequences in Gaza itself didn't merit a mention.)

Many Israelis, especially the hostage families, were outraged.

They accused Netanyahu of prioritizing his own political survival over the safety of their relatives and the greater good of the nation.

"Bibi's" popularity in the polls plummeted, and he struggled to keep together a disjointed government, propped up by hardline ministers from the far right and orthodox religious parties.

Three months later, Netanyahu is basking in the glory of a spectacular military victory over his nemesis, Iran. He is now said to be contemplating early elections and yet another term as prime minister.

At a press conference earlier this week, the 75-year-old, who is already Israel's longest-serving leader, said he still had "many missions" to complete and would seek to do so for as long as "the people" of Israel want him to.

Later in the week, presenting the presumed destruction of Iran's nuclear program as a "window of opportunity" that "must not be missed," Netanyahu suggested that only he could secure the "release of hostages and the defeat of Hamas," after which he would pursue broader regional agreements.

But calling early elections would be a big risk, and according to the latest polls, Netanyahu hasn't enjoyed as big a "bounce" from the 12-day conflict with Iran as he might have hoped for.

Trust

In a fractured political system where coalition building is key in the 120-seat Knesset, Netanyahu's Likud Party would fall well short of a majority by itself and could struggle to pull together support from smaller parties on the right, suggests latest polling in the Ma'ariv newspaper.

The same polling suggested a significant majority, 59% of Israelis, want the fighting in Gaza to stop now, in exchange for the hostages.

Nearly half of those surveyed, about 49%, also believed that the sole reason Netanyahu continues the war is for his own political gain.

"The guy is a very skilful political actor," says Professor Tamar Hermann, a senior Research Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute. "There is no more skilled politician in Israel."

But, he says, "trust" is a big problem for Netanyahu.

A political leader who has changed his spots so many times to cling to the reins of power is simply no longer believed by a majority of Israelis.

According to new polling, soon to be released by Prof Hermann's Israel Democracy Institute, Netanyahu "doesn't cross the 50% line in terms of Israelis expressing full or even partial trust in him".

In some ways, says Prof Hermann, deciding to call early elections 'is an even greater risk [for Netanyahu] than attacking Iran because in the Middle East you really don't know where you will be in six months'.

That's because, despite his military gamble in Iran seemingly paying off, there's an elephant in the corner of Benjamin Netanyahu's living room.

Indeed, you could say a small herd of elephants is threatening to disrupt the prime minister's hopes of yet another term in office.

Corruption charges

Next week, he is due to testify in a high-profile criminal case in which he's facing charges of political corruption, including bribery and fraud.

The prime minister's attempts to, again, delay the High Court hearings on account of his busy schedule and the special state of emergency (over the Iran war) were rejected at the end of last week.

Netanyahu and his supporters have repeatedly tried to portray the legal case against him as part of a "politically driven witch hunt," but in an increasingly polarized society, his opponents are equally determined that he should face justice.

Appearing to belatedly learn about "Bibi's" legal troubles, President Trump said Netanyahu was a "great hero" and "warrior" whose trial should be "cancelled immediately" or, at the very least, he should be given a pardon.

This, remember, is the same U.S. president who only days earlier had publicly castigated the Israeli prime minister – with expletives – as the Iran ceasefire deal threatened to unravel before it had begun.

But Trump's latest intervention has been described as unwise and unhelpful by many in Israel.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid said he should not "intervene in a legal process of an independent state".

His apparently contradictory stance on Israel and attempted intervention in Netanyahu's legal case was akin to "treating us like a banana republic", says Prof Hermann.

On the international stage, many Israelis accuse Netanyahu of having harmed Israel's global standing and its economic prospects by needlessly prolonging the war in Gaza, even though many former generals have said the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has achieved as much as is militarily possible in Gaza.

It should not be forgotten, either, that the International Criminal Court still has warrants issued against the prime minister - and former defense minister Yoav Gallant - over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, where more than 55,000 people have been killed in Israel's war against Hamas.

Israel's government, along with Netanyahu and Gallant, strongly rejects the accusations.

Ultimately, say most commentators, it would be difficult to imagine new elections being called in Israel while the war in Gaza continues and while Israeli hostages remain captive.

But many of Netanyahu's critics and opponents have prematurely written him off over the years and have certainly learned never to second-guess what his next move might be.

• Trump calls for end to Netanyahu corruption trial
• What we know about the Iran-Israel ceasefire
• When Iran's supreme leader emerges from hiding, he will find a very different nation.

Read More

Anti-war protesters rally in Chicago following U.S.-Iran conflict

The Brief

• Iran strikes back: Iran fired missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar on Monday following American bombings of its nuclear sites; no injuries reported.
• Chicago protests U.S. action: Hundreds rallied downtown, calling the strikes war crimes and demanding an end to U.S. involvement.
• Mixed reactions: Palestinian groups condemned the escalation, while pro-Israel voices defended the strikes as necessary.

CHICAGO - Iran fired missiles at U.S. military bases in Qatar on Monday, but officials say no deaths or injuries have been reported.

Iranian officials said the strike mirrored the number of bombs dropped by the United States on three of its key nuclear sites over the weekend. The Trump administration said it had anticipated some form of retaliation.

Reactions to the U.S. response are mixed in Chicago.

What we know

In collaboration with the Anti-War Committee (AWC) of Chicago, the U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN)-Chicago hosted a rally on Monday at Federal Plaza.

"This campaign of aggression must end now," said Noura Ebrahim, with USPCN-Chicago. "These are war crimes, plain and simple."

Organizers accuse the Trump administration of committing war crimes and escalating conflict in the Middle East by bombing three nuclear sites over the weekend.

We are repeating the same mishaps that happened in 2003. This is very reminiscent of what happened during the Iraq war," said Nesreen Hasan, with USPCN-Chicago. "A lot of people are outraged – not only our community, but many communities across the board. Why are we involved in this? We shouldn't be involved in this.

After rallying at Federal Plaza, hundreds of people marched to Wacker Drive and Wabash Avenue, ending their protest near Trump Tower and calling for an end to U.S. involvement in the region.

They also express skepticism about the agreed-upon ceasefire deal.

"We don't trust them one bit," said Husam Murajda, co-chair of USPCN-Chicago. "Iran has long adhered to nuclear agreements and was in negotiations with the U.S. until the very day that Israel bombed it on June 19th. Iran chose diplomacy, the U.S. and Israel chose war and devastation."

What they're saying

On the other side of the aisle, supporters of Israel, including a spokesman for the Jewish United Fund (JUF), feel that the actions taken by the United States military were necessary.

"We were very pleased with the U.S. decision. President Trump, we think, made the right decision and then U.S. soldiers executed it perfectly. The idea was to make sure that the most fanatical regime in the world did not have the most ultimate weapon in the world," said Daniel Goldwin, chief public affairs officer for the JUF. "If you look back over the entire course of the Islamic Republic of Iran's history with Israel, almost every time there's a terror attack against Israelis, in Israel, against Americans, the return address is Tehran. Hopefully that can end now."

What's next

There are currently no planned rallies or protests in Chicago in the coming days, but that could change at any moment.

A spokesman for USPCN shares that the group will likely proceed with its weekly demonstration this Saturday, June 28.

Read More