🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Guiliani said Tuesday that he wasn’t surprised to lose his law license in his hometown, claiming in a post on the social media platform X that the case was “based on an activist complaint, replete with false arguments.”
“These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client,” the decision read.
He also filed for bankruptcy last year after being ordered to pay $148 million in damages to two former Georgia election workers over lies he spread about them that upended their lives with racist threats and harassment.
The Republican was lauded for holding the city together after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, when two hijacked planes slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, killing more than 2,700 people.
But after unsuccessful runs for the U.S. Senate and the presidency, and a lucrative career as a globetrotting consultant, Giuliani smashed his image as a centrist who could get along with Democrats as he became one of Trump’s most loyal defenders.
Associated Press reporters Karen Matthews and Jennifer Peltz in New York, Michael Sisak in Fort Pierce, Fla., Dave Collins in Hartford, Conn. and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this story.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
But just over a year after she secured journalism’s top award for exposing how $77 million in federal welfare funds went to athletes, cronies and pet projects, she and her editor, Adam Ganucheau, are contemplating what to pack for an extended stay behind bars.
Sued for defamation by the state’s former governor — a top subject of their reporting — they have been hit with a court order requiring them to turn over internal files including the names of confidential sources.
“Breaching the confidentiality of sources violates one of the most sacred trusts — and breaks one of the most vital tools — in investigative journalism,” Ganucheau wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed.
Phil Bryant used his office to steer the spending of millions of federal welfare dollars — money intended to help the state’s poorest residents — to benefit his family and friends, including NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre,” Mississippi Today reported when the prize was announced.
A week later, White issued a public apology, saying: “I misspoke at a recent media conference regarding the accusations against former Governor Phil Bryant in the $77 million welfare scandal.
Quin has since incorporated more recent articles and is arguing that references to the Backchannel series amount to a “republication” that makes the entire body of work fair game.
“The fact is, I did nothing wrong,” Bryant said in a statement in May 2023. “I wasn’t aware of the wrongdoings of others."
I had no part in this! I was just an incompetent governor and supervisor! How dare you!
And Wolfe said it’s not clear more money is getting to Mississippi’s poorest. According to state figures, as of June, 1,423 families and 2,522 individuals are receiving federal welfare grants administered by Mississippi, a state where 548,000 people live in poverty.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
“Today’s proposal is an important next step in the process to receive public input to craft a ‘win-win’ final rule that protects workers while being practical and workable for employers,” Parker said.
The department said that new regulations could provide protection for some 36 million workers nationwide, particularly people of color, who are more likely to work in roles that could expose them to extreme heat.
Heat-related deaths have climbed over the past few years as the globe continues to grapple with more extreme weather conditions, and scientific consensus says climate change brought on by human activity is to blame.
The Labor Department proposal would create a range of new protections based around two separate heat index thresholds.
At the first trigger, when the combined temperature and relative humidity hits 80 degrees, employers would be required to provide drinking water and rest breaks.
Getting the rule finalized will be an uphill battle during a tumultuous election year and amid strong opposition from deep-pocketed lobbying groups.
What's the odds that these things don't become regular theft targets, even of the drones themselves? Porch pirates are enough of a thing now, can't see any of them feeling bad about robbing a robot.
It's honestly kinda sad that we even need something like this, but there's been so many laws recently that seem to have cruelty towards low wage workers as their primary point.
The separation of the State and Federal governments really wasn't equipped to deal with a death cult taking over.
OSHA standards are written in blood. We never get workplace rules forbidding dangerous practices until multiple people die from it. And I agree, it is sad that it is still this way after centuries of this.
There absolutely is, call the cops. Take a video of the drone spying on you as evidence. Spying on your neighbors is illegal, you just can't take the law into your own hands and shoot it out of the sky.
I do wish there was more power we had as individuals to stop this but I do not think using a dangerous weapon to destroy it which could potentially also harm another human is the solution either.
Discharging a firearm into the sky isn't it. I don't know if I'd classify this as being as bad as shooting at a passenger plane, but the gun probably won't hit a plane 30k ft in the sky anyway, and the missed bullets/pellets (when you inevitably miss the plane or drone) will almost certainly kill someone if they fall on their head. I'd be disappointed if there wasn't a felony charge for doing that.
Whether the drones should be allowed is another question of course, but the potential collateral here can't just be brushed off.
A bullet that comes down has enough energy to kill someone. Shotgun pellets (especially smaller birdshot) would have much less energy when it comes down. That's why skeet shooting is the only kind where you shoot upwards. The terminal velocity of a BB is pretty small.
Birdshot would do less harm for sure, but that doesn't seem to be what the person in the article used:
When this didn't work, he went inside the home to retrieve his 9mm gun from a safe, came back out, and shot the drone, which was about 75 feet in the air at the time.
Having been skeet shooting, that wouldn't be nearly as bad to be hit by, but firing that off in a random neighborhood still has the potential to damage random people's property and is horrifically irresponsible.
Anyway, I was trying to emphasize that in no world is it acceptable to be firing live rounds in the sky, drone or not. I don't see how shooting a gun into the sky in a neighborhood is worthy of anything less than felony, given the potential damage.
U.S. News
Oldest