Syndicate content
All Content from Business Insider for Feedburner

Federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman the Trump-allied conservative lawyer who wrote memo on overturning the election, per court documents

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 6:41pm

John Eastman testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 4, 2013.
  • John Eastman is a conservative lawyer who worked for former President Donald Trump.
  • He wrote a memo that urged Vice President Mike Pence to effectively overturn the 2020 election.
  • The congressional committee investigating January 6 has obtained many of Eastman's communications.

Federal agents have seized the phone of John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who advised former President Donald Trump during his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, according to a court filing Monday.

Eastman revealed the seizure in a lawsuit, filed Monday in a New Mexico federal court, seeking the return of property from the government. According to his filing, FBI agents acting on behalf of the Justice Department's internal watchdog stopped Eastman as he was leaving a restaurant in New Mexico on June 22, taking his phone.

A copy of the search warrant, included in Eastman's court filings, said the phone would be taken to the Justice Department inspector general's forensic lab in northern Virginia.

The seizure marked only the latest indication of how the Justice Department is intensifying its criminal investigation into Trump's failed effort to remain in office and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden.

On the same day FBI agents seized Eastman's phone, federal investigators descended on the home of Jeff Clark, a former Justice Department official who eagerly advanced Trump's baseless claims of election fraud. That search unfolded on the eve of a congressional hearing in which the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol highlighted Trump and Clark's effort to pressure the Justice Department to back the former president's false claims of election fraud.

In recent hearings, the House January 6 committee has shown footage of Clark and Eastman repeatedly invoking their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during closed-door depositions before the congressional panel.

A former law professor, Eastman resigned in January 2021 from Chapman University in Southern California amid outcry over his role in Trump's attempt to overturn the election. He remains a fellow at the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank.

In the weeks after Trump's defeat, Eastman emerged as the architect of a plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay or outright block the certification of the election results. In a memo, he argued that Pence could unilaterally reject slates of electors from states where Trump allies claimed there was widespread fraud — a plan that one constitutional expert told Insider amounted to "a proposed coup cloaked in legal language."

Pence's refusal to go along with that scheme was a source of anger for Trump. On January 6, as his supporters charged into the US Capitol, the former president said Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."

A mob of Trump supporters then began chanting "hang Mike Pence." According to testimony from White House staff before the congressional committee investigating January 6, Trump agreed with the sentiment.

Eastman's own efforts to overturn the 2020 election continued even after rioters left the US Capitol, according to former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann. In testimony before the January 6 committee, Herschmann said that Eastman continued to pressfor a way to invalidate Biden's victory in the Electoral College, citing debunked claims of fraud to justify adopting alternate slates of electors from battleground states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Herschmann told investigators that he urged Eastman to lawyer up.

"I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life: Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it," he said. "Then I hung up on him."

In a March 22 ruling, a federal judge wrote that congressional investigators had a right to obtain documents from Eastman related to their investigation.

"If Dr. Eastman and President Trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution," the judge wrote. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself."

Read the original article on Business Insider

At least 3 people were killed, 50 injured after an Amtrak passenger train derailed in Missouri after hitting a dump truck

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 6:29pm
In this photo provided by Dax McDonald, an Amtrak passenger train lies on its side after derailing near Mendon, Mo., on Monday, June 27, 2022.
  • At least three people were killed and 50 injured after an Amtrak train derailed Monday afternoon in Missouri.
  • The Amtrak train was carrying around 243 passengers and derailed in Mendon, Missouri.
  • Posts on social media showed train cars flipped over on their side with passengers climbing out.

At least three people were killed after an Amtrak train derailed after hitting a dump truck at a crossing in Missouri on Monday afternoon, law enforcement officials confirmed.

Two of the fatalities were passengers on the train and one was on the truck, according to Cpl. Justin Dunn, a public information officer with the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

At least 50 people were injured in the incident, Eric McKenzie, the superintendent with Chariton County Ambulance Service, told CNN.

The train was traveling through Mendon, Missouri, and derailed around 12:42 p.m. local time, knocking multiple cars and locomotives off the tracks, the company confirmed to Insider.

"It's a bad scene," Missouri Gov. Mike Parson told KCTV5.

All passengers — both injured and uninjured — have since been transported from the scene, Dunn said during a press conference shortly after 5 p.m. local time.

A spokesperson from University Hospital in Columbia, Missouri, told Insider that the hospital was treating three patients, but declined to share their conditions. 

Photos and videos shared on social media appeared to show multiple train cars flipped on their side as passengers climbed out. 

The train, Southwest Chief Train 4, had around 243 passengers and 12 crew members aboard and was traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago when it hit the truck at a public crossing, which Dunn said was "uncontrolled," meaning there were no lights or mechanized arms.

Eight train cars and two locomotives were derailed, Amtrak said.

One passenger, Ron Goulet, told the Daily Beast he saw multiple people being taken away by paramedics. 

"There are no doubt people still trapped on that train," Goulet told the Daily Beast. "They're starting to cut it apart now."

In a Facebook live posted by Rob Nightingale, an out-of-breath passenger sits on the side of a flipped-over train car.

"Looks like I'm going to be late to Chicago," he says. 

Photos on Twitter from another passenger appear to show riders helping someone out of a train window while others stand on top of the flipped-over train cars or off to the side.

Dax McDonald wrote on Twitter that passengers were bussed to the nearby Northwestern High School.

"So thankful for the people here," he said, adding he was safe in Mendon, Missouri. "This town pulled together to help everyone"

—Dax McDonald (@cloudmarooned) June 27, 2022


People with questions about family or friends who were aboard the train should call 800-523-9101, Amtrak said.

In a statement Monday evening, Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg said Federal Railroad Administration staff was en route to the scene, which occurred about 100 miles northeast of Kansas City, Missouri.

"Saddened by the tragic loss of life and injuries in the Missouri train derailment today & Northern California collision over the weekend," Buttigieg wrote in a tweet. "I have been kept updated & my team is in touch with Amtrak & relevant authorities. FRA staff are en route to support the investigation in MO."

Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board will arrive to look into the collision Tuesday morning, a chairwoman for the agency said during a Monday press conference.

"With the team, we'll have specialists from mechanical, from signal systems from operations and survival factors," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said. "We'll have a highway person, a drone operator, and some team members from NTSB's Office of Transportation Disaster Assistance to work with survivors and families of those who were involved in the derailment."

The deadly Missouri train derailment comes after a similar incident on Sunday where an Amtrak train collided with a passenger vehicle in Brentwood, California, killing three people and injuring two.

This story is developing. Please check back for updates.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Ancient fossils in the 'Cradle of Humankind' are more than 1 million years older than previously thought

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 6:13pm
The Sterkfontein Caves contain more remains from Australopithecus than anywhere else on Earth. They're part of a major fossil site in South Africa known as the "Cradle of Humankind."
  • Scientists say early human ancestors, whose remains are in a South African cave, lived about 3.7 million years ago.
  • Researchers relied on "burial dating," a method that uses space particles to date early human fossils.
  • The fossils' updated age makes them several hundred thousand years older than the human ancestor "Lucy."

In 1936, archeologists began unearthing a trove of early human fossils in a South African cave. Now, researchers say most of those ancient bones date back 3.7 million years, which makes them more than 1 million years older than previously thought.

In a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, an international team of researchers turned to an innovative dating technique. They used space particles to analyze bones in the Sterkfontein Caves, part of a a major fossil site in northern South Africa known as the "Cradle of Humankind."

The Sterkfontein Caves contain more remains from Australopithecus — a family of early hominins that eventually gave rise to Homo sapiens — than anywhere else on Earth, according to Darryl Granger, a geology professor at Purdue University and lead researcher of the study. "There are hundreds of them," he told Insider.

But it's hard to accurately date the Australopithecus remains, in part because the cave has multiple layers, as well as animal fossils on the same site, which might be from different eras than the fossils next to them.

To gauge the ages of the hominid skeletal remains, Granger and his team used a technique known as "cosmogenic nuclide dating," or burial dating, which involves examining the rocks that encased the ancient bones. It works like this: When energetic particles from space, or cosmic rays, hit rocks, they produce elements like aluminum and beryllium that build up and decay at a known rate.  

"We're able to take a rock that was exposed to cosmic rays, and if it falls into a cave, it's shielded from more radiation," Granger told Insider, adding, "It's called burial dating because, really, what we're doing is dating when the rock was buried." 

Granger used the same method in 2015 to estimate that one set of Australopithecus remains found in the Sterkfontein Caves, nicknamed Little Foot, was about 3.4 to 3.7 million years old. The new study suggests that in addition to Little Foot, all Australopithecus remains on the site are between 3.4 and 3.7 million years old, rather than roughly 2 million years old, as scientists previously thought. 

The excavation site at the Sterkfontein Caves where "Little Foot" was discovered in 1994.

The remains' shifting age puts the species within roughly the same time frame that the famous human ancestor "Lucy" — which belonged to the species Australopithecus afarensis — roamed what's now Ethiopia, 3.2 million years ago. According to Granger, that refutes the theory that the Sterkfontein individuals descended from Australopithecus afarensis. "There must be an older common ancestor somewhere," Granger added.

Granger hopes the team's findings, and the burial dating method used, could help better chronicle human evolution. He hopes follow-up studies will tease out how the Sterkfontein remains compare to those found in different South African fossil sites, and beyond, he added.

Because of burial dating, he said, "We're able to make much better measurements than we could before on several human evolution sites around the world."

Read the original article on Business Insider

3 ways to restore tabs on Google Chrome and recover old webpages

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 6:12pm
You can restore Chrome tabs in a few different ways.
  • You can easily restore a Google Chrome tab you closed with a simple keyboard shortcut.
  • You can also restore tabs you closed days ago by browsing your Chrome history.
  • Restoring Chrome tabs can be useful if closed accidentally, or you need to find a page again. 

It's easy to accidentally close a tab in Google Chrome and lose a web page you were browsing.

But you can restore the tab you just closed or re-open websites you viewed a few days ago in several different ways on Chrome. Here's how.

How to restore a Chrome tab right after closing

Chrome keeps the most recently closed tab just one click away. Right-click a blank space on the tab bar at the top of the window and choose Reopen closed tab.

You can also use a keyboard shortcut to accomplish this: CTRL + Shift + T on a PC or Command + Shift + T on a Mac.

The keyboard shortcut is the fastest way to restore a tab you recently closed.How to restore recently closed Chrome tabs from a toolbar

If you want to open a tab that you closed recently, you may be able to find it listed in the menu. In fact, if you sync your Chrome browser across devices, you can see recently closed tabs on every computer and mobile device associated with your account.

1. Click the three vertical dots in the top right of the window.

Quick tip: You can also bring up the menu by pressing Alt + F or Alt + E.

2. In the menu, select History.

3. You should see a list of all the most recently used tabs divided by device. Click on the tab you want to re-open.

The Chrome menu lists the most recently closed tabs on all of your linked devices.How to restore a Chrome tab from browser history

If you need to go a little further back, you can check your browser's history.

1. Click the three vertical dots in the top right of the window.

2. In the menu, select History and then click History in the sub-menu.

Quick tip: You can quickly open the History page on Chrome by pressing CTRL + H on PC or Command + H on Mac.

3. Browse your complete browsing history and open any page with a click.

You can restore closed tabs from your browsing history.Read the original article on Business Insider

After Roe v. Wade: Doug Mastriano, GOP nominee for Pennsylvania governor, now says abortion is a 'distraction'

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 6:05pm
State Sen. Doug Mastriano, R-Franklin, a Republican candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania, takes part in a primary night election gathering in Chambersburg, Pa., Tuesday, May 17, 2022.
  • Doug Mastriano is a Republican running for governor in Pennsylvania.
  • In an interview on Monday, he said the overturning of Roe v. Wade would help his Democratic opponent.
  • Though an avowed opponent of abortion, Mastriano said the decision was a "distraction" from other issues.

Doug Mastriano won the Republican nomination for governor in Pennsylvania by leaning into the culture war, using his Facebook live streams to rail against vaccine requirements, "Critical Race Theory," and members of his own party who failed to embrace conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

But this avowed opponent of abortion — who welcomed last week's Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade — is now trying to pivot conversations away from the question of reproductive rights, admitting that the issue is a boon to Democrats.

In an interview with Newsmax on Monday, Mastriano was asked to comment on footage of pro-choice protesters who were dispersed by police with tear gas outside the state capitol in Arizona. Mastriano, who himself was on the front lines between police and protesters at the US Capitol on January 6, per video from the day, praised law enforcement for quelling the civil unrest.

But the state senator also didn't really want to talk about it, he said, insisting that "it's all a distraction."

"The Democrats and their friends in the traditional media want us to focus on this, and now on the Roe v. Wade decision, instead of dealing with life," Mastriano told the right-wing news outlet. "And most people in this country are concerned about inflation, gas prices, food not on the shelves, baby formula, and just on and on. So this is all a distraction."

It wasn't a distraction when Mastriano was seeking the GOP nomination. In May, he said he opposed the right to terminate a pregnancy even if meant risking the death of a parent.

"That baby deserves a right to life, whether it was conceived in incest, or rape, or whether there's concerns otherwise for the mom," he told a reporter during a campaign stop.

On Monday, Mastriano did reiterate his support for eliminating the federal right to terminate a pregnancy, but he framed the issue more as an open-ended question for states now to resolve, declining to expand on his own position. He went on to concede that the issue will no doubt help his rival for the governorship, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

"I think my opponent will get a bump with the polls here the next few weeks, because [obviously] it's going to stir his base," Mastriano said. "But the reality is people are going to vote on the economy."

At a campaign event last week in Binghamton, New York, it was clear that even right-wing Republicans, at least in the mid-Atlantic, are trying to avoid making abortion a litmus test for voters in November.

Mastriano, standing alongside Rudy Giuliani and his son, Andrew, who he was there to endorse in his bid for New York governor, spoke at length about energy policy and fielded softball questions from those in attendance about the need to listen to rural voters. But neither he nor the Giulianis said a word about the day's biggest news: the long-sought victory of the conservative movement over federally protected abortion rights.

Back in Pennsylvania, surveys indicate that Shapiro, a Democrat, has a small lead over the GOP candidate in this divided, bellwether state, which went for former President Donald Trump in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020.

Shapiro's campaign appears to share Mastriano's assessment of the politics of reproductive rights in a state where most residents say they support keeping abortion legal. The governor's race is particularly important because, without a Democratic governor pledging a veto, the state's Republican-led legislature could pass new restrictions as early as next year.

In a television ad released last week, the Shapiro campaign led with Mastriano's position on reproductive rights.

"He wants to outlaw and criminalize all abortions," the narrator states, and "opposes any exceptions for rape, incest, or even the life of the mother."

Mastriano, meanwhile, has pinned an attack on Shapiro to the top of his Facebook page. Its top-line message: "Gas: unaffordable."

Have a news tip? Email this reporter:

Read the original article on Business Insider

Giuliani's ex-wife says the former mayor was afraid he'd become irrelevant after losing the 2008 GOP presidential nomination: NYT

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:49pm
Then-Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani appears at an event in Miami, Fla., on January 13, 2008.
  • Judith Giuliani said her ex-husband was fearful of irrelevancy after ending his 2008 White House bid.
  • Her feelings were detailed in an essay adapted from an upcoming book about the former NYC mayor.
  • Rudy Giuliani entered the GOP primary to much fanfare, but stumbled in the early nominating states.

Judith Giuliani, the former wife of Rudy Giuliani, said in the adaptation of an upcoming book that her ex-husband was concerned about becoming irrelevant after leaving the 2008 Republican presidential contest and throwing his support behind then-Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Earlier in his career, Giuliani had been the hard-charging US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and a two-term mayor of New York City, but the demise of his White House bid led him to do a lot of soul-searching, which Andrew Kirtzman detailed in "Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America's Mayor."

Immediately after leaving the race, Rudy Giuliani began to shun social situations, according to an essay by Kirtzman published Monday in The New York Times essay.

The former mayor had been in the spotlight for decades, but as his 2008 campaign ended, he suddenly found himself without the platform for higher office that seemed to be within reach just one year earlier.

"Mr. Giuliani's ex-wife Judith, who was with him at the time, told me that what gnawed at the former mayor most was a creeping fear of irrelevancy. The flameout forced him to lower his sights from how to amass power to how to hold on to what he had left," the essay said.

In 2009, reflecting on the race, he told New York magazine that he should have put more effort into winning the Iowa Republican caucuses.

"I think I should've fought Iowa harder," he said at the time. "That was the beginning of becoming irrelevant."

Giuliani would once again regain a prominent role in American politics as the onetime personal attorney to former President Donald Trump and supporter of the former president's debunked claims about the 2020 election.

He never launched another presidential campaign after his 2008 loss.

Judith Giuliani and Rudy Giuliani divorced in 2019.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Kamala Harris says the White House isn't discussing putting abortion clinics on federal land like AOC suggested

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:27pm
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, left, and Vice President Kamala Harris, right
  • VP Kamala Harris says the White House isn't weighing putting abortion clinics on federal land.
  • "It's not right now what we are discussing," Harris told CNN's Dana Bash. 
  • Harris said the White House would expand access to medication abortion "to the extent we can." 

Vice President Kamala Harris says the Biden administration is not discussing putting abortion clinics on federal lands to bolster abortion access, an idea suggested by prominent progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.  

Harris, in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, said she was "shocked" to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and ending nearly 50 years of federal abortion protections on Friday. 

"It's one thing when you know something's gonna happen. It's another thing when it actually happens. And I just actually turned to CNN, and I couldn't believe it," Harris said. 

Harris said that the administration would work to expand access to FDA-approved medication abortion "to the extent that we can," but was noncommittal on the idea of putting clinics on federal property in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned. 

"Can the administration expand abortion access or abortion services on federal land?" Bash asked. 

"I think that what is most important right now is that we ensure that the restrictions that the states are trying to put up that would prohibit a woman from exercising what we still maintain is her right, that we do everything we can to empower women to not only seek but to receive the care where it is available," Harris said. 

"Is federal land one of those options?" Bash asked.  

"It's not right now what we are discussing," Harris said. 

Ocasio-Cortez proposed the idea of putting abortion clinics on federal property at a rally in Washington Square Park on Friday. A group of Democratic senators also suggested President Joe Biden have relevant agencies research the possibility earlier in June.

"I'll start with the babiest of the babiest of the baby steps: Open abortion clinics on federal lands in red states right now. Right now," Ocasio-Cortez said. 

But the idea of putting abortion clinics and services on federal lands faces some logistical hurdles like the longstanding Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds from directly funding abortion services through programs like Medicaid and Title X. 

"While this proposal is well-intentioned, it could put women and providers at risk," a White House official further told Insider. "And importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees could be potentially be prosecuted."

Harris also underscored the importance of the upcoming midterm elections. 

"We are 130 odd days away from an election, which is going to include Senate races, right?" Harris said. "Part of the issue here is that the court has acted, now Congress needs to act. But if you count the votes, don't appear to have the votes in the Senate."

Read the original article on Business Insider

7 ways to troubleshoot if your AirPods keep disconnecting

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:25pm
  • AirPods can keep disconnecting or work intermittently due to a number of problems. 
  • Be sure that the AirPods are close to your phone and not blocked; you can also toggle Bluetooth and reset the AirPods. 
  • Here are seven troubleshooting tips to fix your AirPods when they keep disconnecting.

It's not unusual for older or low-quality wireless earbuds to have trouble staying connected, resulting in intermittent audio. Even so, you probably expect better from your AirPods. Usually, they live up to their reputation, delivering seamless, consistent and reliable audio. But if your AirPods keep disconnecting or delivering intermittent audio, there are a handful of troubleshooting steps you can take to solve the problem and make them behave the way you expect. 

Make sure nothing is blocking the signal

The Bluetooth technology in AirPods is dramatically better than in typical wireless earbuds of the past, but even AirPods can be foiled by distance or obstacles. If you find the sound cuts in and out, make sure you're keeping your phone close by — don't test the limits of Bluetooth's 30-foot range. And if the sound is intermittent, try removing any obstacles that might be blocking the signal. Take the phone out of the case or backpack it's stored in, for example, and leave it in clear line of sight to your ears, such as on a tabletop. Eliminating sources of potential blocking and interference might solve your problem. 

Try returning the AirPods to their charging case

If your AirPods have just started disconnecting, you might have a poor connection between the phone and earbuds. Take the AirPods and put them back in your charging case. Leave them there for a few moments so they disconnect from your iPhone, and then take them out and try again. This is akin to rebooting the AirPods, and it might fix your problem. 

Toggle Bluetooth off and on again

Another way to "reboot" the system: Toggle Bluetooth on your iPhone. If the connection issue is related to your iPhone rather than the AirPods, this can quickly resolve a glitch. Start the Settings app and tap Bluetooth. Turn off Bluetooth by swiping the button to the left, then turn it back on again.

Toggle Bluetooth to see if that fixes intermittent AirPods.Forget your Airpods and pair them again

If your AirPods always have a flaky, intermittent connection to your iPhone, it's possible there's a problem with the way they are paired. This is especially true if you only experience a glitchy connection on your phone, but other devices, like your iPad, work fine. To troubleshoot this, unpair and then re-pair your AirPods.

1. Put your AirPods in the charging case. 

2. Start the Settings app and tap Bluetooth. 

3. Find the AirPods in the list of Bluetooth devices and tap the i icon on the right.

4. Tap Forget This Device.

5. Bring your AirPods case close to the iPhone, open the lid, and repeat the first-time setup to pair the AirPods with your iPhone. 

Try making your iPhone forget your AirPods, then pair them again as if they were new.Disable Automatic Ear Detection

Automatic Ear Detection is a convenient AirPods feature that plays and pauses audio automatically depending upon whether you're wearing the AirPods in your ears. Usually it works great, but it's possible that this feature can lead to your audio stopping unexpectedly if it thinks you've removed the AirPods from your ears. This can happen if your AirPods have a bad fit or if you tend to touch and move them around while you wear them. Here's how to disable Automatic Ear Detection:

1. Put on your AirPods. 

2. Start the Settings app and tap Bluetooth

3. Find the AirPods in the list of Bluetooth devices and tap the i icon on the right.

4. Turn off Automatic Ear Detection by swiping the button to the left. 

Disable Automatic Ear Detection to see if that keeps your buds from accidentally disconnecting.Try using just one AirPod

If nothing else has fixed the problem, try to see if there's a hardware problem with one of the AirPods. To do that, try wearing just one earbud at a time and see if the problem persists. Start by wearing just the right AirPod, for example and see if it keeps disconnecting. After a while with that one, switch and wear just the left. If it repeatedly disconnects when only wearing one or the other, you may need to get your AirPods serviced or replaced. 

Install any available updates

Throughout the AirPods' history, there have been some software issues that have made AirPods somewhat more likely to disconnect unexpectedly. It's possible your problem is software-related, so be sure your iPhone is running the latest updates. Start the Settings app, then General, and then tap Software Update. If an update is available, install it. The AirPods automatically update when they're charging and near your iPhone. 

Read the original article on Business Insider

'Only Murders in the Building' season 2 hits Hulu on June 28 — here's how to watch new episodes of the critically acclaimed comedy

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:25pm

When you buy through our links, Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.

Selena Gomez, Martin Short, and Steve Martin star on "Only Murders in the Building."
  • Season two of "Only Murders in the Building" premieres June 28 on Hulu.
  • The hit comedy follows three residents of an apartment building as they try to solve a murder. 
  • Hulu costs $7/month with ads or $13/month without ads.

"Only Murders in the Building" is back for a second season. New episodes of the critically acclaimed comedy premiere June 28 exclusively on Hulu.

Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Selena Gomez star as three residents of the Arconia apartment building who are all obsessed with true-crime podcasts. When someone in their building is murdered, the trio start a podcast of their own to examine the suspicious circumstances around the death. 

Check out the trailer for 'Only Murders in the Building' season 2

In season two, the trio revive their podcast and try to solve another murder after the Arconia's board president is found dead. Cara Delevingne, Michael Rapaport, Amy Schumer, and Shirley MacLaine are all new additions to the cast. 

As of writing, "Only Murders in the Building" holds a rare "100% fresh" rating on review-aggregator Rotten Tomatoes

How to watch 'Only Murders in the Building' 

You can watch "Only Murders in the Building" exclusively on Hulu. Season two premieres on June 28. Additionally, you can watch the entire first season on Hulu right now. 

Hulu costs $7 a month for ad-supported access to the service's entire streaming library. Hulu also has an ad-free plan which costs $13 a month. 

For even more shows and movies, consider subscribing to the Disney Bundle. For $14 a month, you can get ad-supported Hulu, Disney Plus, and ESPN+; that's $8 less than the regular combined price of all three services. For $20 a month, you can upgrade the bundle to ad-free Hulu. 

Hulu's app is supported on most major connected devices including iOS and Android smartphones and tablets, streaming media players like Roku or Fire TV, and smart TVs from most brands. For a full list of supported devices, check out Hulu's website.

Can I watch 'Only Murders in the Building' for free?

You can watch "Only Murders in the Building" for free if you sign up for a trial to Hulu. All new Hulu subscribers get a 30-day free trial that includes access to the service's entire streaming library. 

We recommend signing up for the trial on or around August 23. That way, you'll be able to watch the entire second season during your trial period. 

How many episodes are in 'Only Murders in the Building' season 2? 

Season two of "Only Murders in the Building" has 10 episodes. The first two episodes premiere on June 28, and new ones will follow weekly every Tuesday through August 23. 

What time do new episodes of 'Only Murders in the Building' premiere? 

New episodes of "Only Murders in the Building" will hit Hulu at 12 a.m ET every Tuesday through August 23. 

Has 'Only Murders in the Building' been renewed for season 3? 

As of June 27, Hulu has not announced whether they've greenlit more episodes of "Only Murders in the Building." We'll be sure to update this post if a new season is announced.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Giuliani's ex-wife says the former mayor often slept in late and smoked cigars in his bathrobe after ending his 2008 White House campaign: 'He just could not get over it'

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:23pm
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks during a news conference in Miami in July 2021.
  • Judith Giuliani said her ex-husband "could not get over" losing the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
  • She made the comments in an essay published in the NYT and adapted from an upcoming book.
  • Rudy Giuliani entered the 2008 race as a top White House contender, but his campaign faltered.

Judith Giuliani, the ex-wife of Rudy Giuliani, said in the adaptation of an upcoming book that her former husband avoided social situations after exiting the GOP presidential contest in January 2008, instead spending much of his time in bed and smoking cigars in his bathrobe.

After the former New York City mayor endorsed then-Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who would eventually win the Republican nomination that year, Judith Giuliani said that she and her then-husband briefly left New York to get away from the cold weather and bask in the mild Florida winter.

Earlier in his career, Giuliani had been the high-profile US Attorney for the Southern District of New York before winning two terms in Gracie Mansion, but the failure of his presidential campaign took a toll on his everyday interactions with his family, which Andrew Kirtzman detailed in "Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America's Mayor," which is set to be released in September. Giuliani was Trump's personal attorney while in office, a critical figure in the president's first impeachment over strong-arming Ukraine for political dirt who later pushed baseless claims of widespread voter fraud after Trump's election defeat.

Despite Rudy Giuliani and his then-wife staying in a well-off apartment complex in Palm Beach, Kirtzman in a New York Times essay described a man who began to turn inward.

"He rarely left the apartment, spending his time sitting listlessly on his in-laws' living room couch, sleeping late in the bedroom or smoking cigars in his bathrobe on the terrace facing a parking lot," the essay said. "Ms. Giuliani said he refused to socialize or sit for meals, even as her mother, Joan, tried to entice him with his favorite dish, pasticcio."

Judith Giuliani told Kirtzman that she was worried about her then-husband "because he was waking up only if I would wake him."

Rudy Giuliani even suggested to Judith that she should "leave" him, according to the essay.

However, she wouldn't hear of it and told him that he had children who loved him, as well as his health, per the essay.

"He just could not get over it," she told Kirtzman about her then-husband.

In February 2007, Rudy Giuliani launched his presidential campaign, with many GOP observers at the time seeing him as a frontrunner for the nomination.

With near-universal name recognition as the former mayor who led New York City after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, he was seen as a candidate who could appeal to a broad segment of Republicans.

However, his campaign never truly took off in the early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas won the 2008 Iowa caucuses, while then-Sen. John McCain of Arizona was victorious in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

Rudy Giuliani banked on a strong performance in the Florida primary as the savior for his fledgling campaign, but he eventually came in third-place and thew his support behind McCain.

While the native New Yorker never launched another presidential campaign, he became an important player in Donald Trump's presidential orbit as a onetime personal lawyer to the commander-in-chief and an unyielding proponent of unfounded claims about the 2020 presidential election.

Read the original article on Business Insider

AT&T was a top donor to politicians to who supported abortion 'trigger laws,' but the company also gave to abortion-rights advocates. Diversity consultants say CEOs need to get clearer on social-rights issues.

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:17pm
Despite donating to politicians who support abortion rights, AT&T also donated $1.2 million to politicians opposing abortion access.
  • AT&T was the largest publicly traded company to support politicians backing abortion trigger laws.
  • The company said it does not donate to politicians based on social issues.
  • Diversity consultants said AT&T should further consider the implications of its political spending.

AT&T plans to continue providing financial support to employees who have to travel for abortion care, the company told Insider. The telecommunications giant is the largest publicly traded corporate funder of politicians supporting "trigger laws" intended to automatically ban abortion.

The trigger-ban laws in 13 states were meant to block access to abortion should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade — which it did Friday, upending nearly 50 years of constitutional protections for terminating a pregnancy. 

An AT&T spokesperson told Insider on Friday that the company didn't make political donations on the basis of a lawmaker's stance on abortion, and that AT&T had donated more money to politicians vowing to uphold Roe. 

"The health of our employees and their families is important to our company, and we provide benefits that cover the cost of travel for medical procedures that are not available within 100 miles of their home," the spokesperson said in response to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe. 

Insider previously reported that AT&T contributed about $1.2 million to leaders backing abortion trigger laws in the US. The company told Insider at the time that its employees had given more money through political-action committees to politicians supporting abortion rights.

The AT&T spokesperson reiterated that point following the fall of Roe: "While no contributions were made on the basis of an official's position on abortion, our PACs over the last two decades have given more to state lawmakers advancing laws protecting abortion access than to those who voted to enact laws restricting abortion access," the spokesperson said.

"Our employee PACs contribute to both parties and focus on policies and regulations that are important to investing in broadband networks and hiring, developing, and retaining a skilled workforce with competitive wages and benefits," the spokesperson said.

Sacha Thompson, the founder of the diversity-consultancy firm The Equity Equation, said AT&T's political donations are problematic. Donations to politicians in favor of abortion rights "does not negate the $1.2 million that was given in support of anti-choice lawmakers," she said.  

AT&T is not alone in directly or implicitly supporting abortion rights after donating large sums to lawmakers supporting trigger-law bans. Citi said it will cover costs for workers traveling to get an abortion. Insider previously found that the bank had donated about $285,000 to state legislators who sponsored trigger laws in four states and to governors who signed them into law in five states. 

In an era when many employees, consumers, and investors are asking CEOs to take a stand on social-justice issues, AT&T's actions beg the question: To what extent can corporate financing and equity statements be at odds? The answer is striking a balance will likely become more difficult, business consultants said.  

"I increasingly struggle with what I perceive to be a lack of integrity around issues of equality," Tara Jaye Frank — a diversity consultant for Fortune 500 companies — said. "Whether we like it or not, extreme transparency has become our norm. The right hand now knows, or will know, what the left hand is doing."  

Other companies that supported politicians backing trigger laws on abortion include Exxon, CVS, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, UPS, and cable-television company Comcast.

"Whether companies can say they stand for DEI and simultaneously fund anti-choice governors and politicians has everything to do with their risk tolerance. Women are almost half the workforce," Frank said, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion. "In my mind, the risk associated with playing both sides on such a fundamental rights issue is too high." 

Laura Morgan Roberts — an associate professor at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business — said companies must take human rights into account in their business decisions.  

"Any company that holds women's rights as part of its core values and strategic DEI platform must address the local political context in which they choose to do business, just as they have considered outside of the US for decades," she said. 

Lenora Billings-Harris, a corporate-diversity consultant and author, said business leaders need to adapt to the new level of transparency that many consumers and employees demand of them. 

"AT&T and others must review all of their internal and external actions to align them," she said. "Own mistakes, make changes, and continue learning." 

Insider's Avery Hartmans, Nicole Gaudiano, Tanya Dua, Kimberly Leonard, Andrea Michelson, Sindhu Sundar, Rebecca Ungarino, and Angela Wang contributed to this report. 

Read the original article on Business Insider

Pelosi says House Democrats are looking at legislation to protect personal data in reproductive apps and other actions post-Roe v. Wade

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 5:08pm
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outlined her party's early legislative response to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
  • Pelosi said the party will look at protecting sensitive reproductive health data and the right to travel.
  • She also wants to try to codify Roe into law, but previous efforts to do so have failed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday outlined House Democrats' legislative response to Roe v. Wade being overturned, saying her party is looking at codifying a federal right to an abortion.

Pelosi outlined three areas that House Democrats are examining just days after the Supreme Court gutted federal abortion rights, overturning nearly over a half-century of precedent. These are: protecting sensitive data on reproductive health apps, making it clear that states cannot stop people from traveling to seek an abortion, and once again trying to pass a federal law guaranteeing a right to an abortion.

"While this extremist Supreme Court works to punish and control the American people, Democrats must continue our fight to expand freedom in America," Pelosi wrote in a letter to her Democratic colleagues. "Doing so is foundational to our oath of office and our fidelity to the Constitution."

Pelosi does not outline the specific legislation under consideration, but some lawmakers already introduced bills on the topic. Rep. Sara Jacobs, a Democrat from California, introduced the "My Body, My Data Act" on June 2, which would task the Federal Trade Commission with enforcing a national privacy standard for period-tracking apps. A companion Senate bill has 11 lawmakers lined up behind it, but crucially, there are not yet any Senate Republicans that support it.

Period tracking apps themselves have taken steps to try to protect user data, Insider previously reported.

The lack of Republican support is vitally critical to any legislative action passing. The Senate filibuster effectively requires almost all legislation, including abortion rights, to have 60 votes. This means that Senate Democrats need to unanimously support any measure in addition to attracting 10 GOP senators into the fold. 

It's not a given that Democrats will unanimously line up behind abortion rights either. Sen. Joe Manchin, a central from West Virginia, thought that the party's bill to guarantee federal abortion rights, The Women's Health Protection Act, went too far. He joined almost all Senate Republicans in opposing it in May.

Last week's Supreme Court decision doesn't make abortion illegal nationwide. Rather, the court ruled that states can now step in to determine what restrictions to impose, with at least eight states now having abortion bans three days after the ruling. Some Republican state lawmakers have made clear that they are not content with just effectively banning the procedure within their own borders. 

In Missouri, state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, who helped author the state's "trigger ban" without exceptions for rape and incest, has also pushed legislation that would allow private individuals to sue Missouri residents if they go outside of the state to get an abortion. 

Coleman wants to stop what she calls "abortion tourism."

"It's one of those phrases that really describes what I think we're going to be seeing and certainly what we have already started to see, which is states that are really catering to providing abortions to residents of states that have no abortion access," Coleman told NPR. "And so there's a direct targeting that's taking place into pro-life states."

Read the original article on Business Insider

Will IVF and birth control be affected by Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision? Experts warn these reproduction options might be at risk next.

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 4:56pm
Abortion rights demonstrators hold signs outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., United States on June 24, 2022
  • Experts told Insider that with Roe v. Wade being overturned, other private reproductive health procedures could be at risk. 
  • Lawyers and reproductive health doctors said IVF, contraception, and miscarriage management could be under fire next. 
  • "Removing our protection to the right to abortion will just open the floodgates for people to be criminalized for their behavior during pregnancy," one expert said. 

Legal and medical experts told Insider that private reproductive health decisions other than abortion could be at risk following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on Friday. 

Friday's opinion — penned by conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito — overturned the decision set in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that granted women the federal right to an abortion.

Alito's opinion refutes a precedent set in Griswold v. Connecticut — the same precedent used to help decide Roe — that there is an implicit right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, and the choice to have an abortion falls within those rights.

While Alito says in the opinion that other privacy decisions like same-sex and interracial marriage would not be affected by overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, a concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas called for the court to reconsider rulings in some cases.

Legal experts and reproductive health doctors, who Insider spoke to before Friday's ruling but after a draft of the opinion was leaked in May, said that private reproductive health decisions like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and contraception could still be affected. 

"It really looks at the fact that there wasn't — in his opinion —  a history of abortion and therefore that is Roe is wrongly decided," Seema Mohapatra, a law professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, told Insider. "But there are a lot of rights that there aren't a history or tradition because women and people of color couldn't vote." 

Doctors say IVF could be at risk if fetuses are given rights at the point of fertilization

As the US awaited a decision from the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade, "personhood" bills have started to arise in some states.

Pennsylvania and Louisiana have already introduced personhood bills that would give rights to a fetus, starting at the point of fertilization.

Mohapatra told Insider that some lawmakers are carving out exceptions for IVF and assisted reproduction in their personhood bills, even though it is not consistent with their belief that life begins at conception. She said this makes the line on what would be legal blurry.

When undergoing IVF, fertilization happens outside of the body, and doctors often create multiple embryos before choosing some to implant into a woman's body. Those not implanted are usually discarded. 

"We shouldn't be using a philosophical definition as a legal definition," Dr. Stephanie Gustin, a reproductive, endocrinology, and infertility specialist based in Omaha, Nebraska, told Insider of bills defining personhood at the time of fertilization.

Gustin said, citing historical success rates after transferring fertilized eggs, that less than 20% of fertilized eggs will result in a live birth and that while fertilization happens 70-85% of the time — in the setting of IVF — only a fraction of those embryos are capable of developing into a pregnancy.

She said, citing further data from multiple studies, that the percentage of chromosomally normal embryos varies based upon a patient's history, age, and diagnosis, whereby a woman may produce five to six embryos, but may only have a small percentage that are chromosomally normal. Of those select few, only 50-70% of those "normal" embryos will result in a live birth.

Natalie Crawford, MD Fertility Physician at Fora Fertility in Austin, Texas, told Insider that because the Roe decision predates IVF, overturning it puts technology at risk.

"We are specifically worried that 'personhood' bills — those that define life at fertilization, may make aspects of reproductive technology illegal — such as fertilizing eggs, growing embryos in the lab, genetically testing embryos, freezing embryos, thawing embryos, and discarding embryos," she said. "This will place restrictions on IVF either making it illegal or less effective, less safe, and less accessible."

Miscarriage medications and birth control could also be restricted, experts said

Medications used to treat miscarriages are also at risk of being restricted, Heather Shumaker, Director of State Abortion Access at the National Women's Law Center, said, because the most common drugs prescribed to a woman who has either miscarried or had an ectopic pregnancy are the same ones used to treat women who have just had an abortion. 

Pro-choice activists protest during a rally in front of the US Supreme Court in response to the leaked Supreme Court draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on May 3, 2022 in Washington, DC.

NPR recently reported that in Texas, it is already increasingly difficult to get methotrexate and misoprostol at the pharmacy. The drugs, which are each described as an "abortion-inducing drug" in a law that went into effect last year, are recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for use after a miscarriage.

"I don't know that any anti-abortion lawmaker is going to come out and say 'We're going after miscarriage management next,' because that would be wildly unpopular, but we could see these policies having implications on miscarriage management," Shumaker said. 

Overturning Roe could also threaten access to contraception, or at least certain types, Mohapatra said.

Mohapatra told Insider there could be future restrictions on Plan B and IUDs, which have been mistakenly labeled as abortifacients, or medications that induce abortion.

But Mohapatra said these birth control methods aren't abortifacients, as they do not terminate pregnancies, they only prevent them.

Ultimately, Shumaker said, overturning Roe v. Wade "will put pregnant people under fire."

"The way that removing our protection to the right to abortion will just open the floodgates for people to be criminalized for their behavior during pregnancy," she said. "Whether it's getting treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, whether it's using a substance, a miscarriage — it opens the door for people's pregnancy outcomes to be scrutinized."

Read the original article on Business Insider

Abortion-ban 'trigger laws' with 'very broad language about when life begins' could disrupt procedures like IVF at a time when fertility rates are declining, experts say

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 4:29pm
Eggs are collected from female patients during surgery, which is carried out under general anaesthetic.
  • Several states have introduced legislation that would define "personhood" at the time of conception. 
  • This would mean embryos used for reproductive procedures like IVF could have protected status. 
  • Experts are concerned that the reversal of Roe v. Wade will risk or limit access to assisted fertility.

The reversal of  Roe v. Wade has raised concerns for experts in the fertility industry who worry language in restrictive laws could limit access to various reproductive services. 

While "trigger laws," which were designed to immediately outlaw abortions in 13 states after the  Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v Wade, are going into effect, at least six states have also introduced bills that would ban abortions on the basis of fetal "personhood."

"Some of the language in the laws that have been attempted to be introduced are certainly broad enough to at least raise the question of whether they might limit or prevent the use of IVF,"  Cathy Sakimura, the deputy director and family law director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told Insider. 

In legislation where "personhood" is defined at conception, there isn't a clear distinction between embryos that are discarded in the case of abortion and those that are discarded at fertility clinics during the in vitro fertilization, advocates said. The ambiguity could lead to physicians being charged for a crime.

What 'trigger laws' mean for IVFA person holds up a sign as they join people to protest the Supreme Courts 6-3 decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization at Washington Square Park on June 24, 2022 in New York City.

Dr. Heather Huddleston, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco, told Insider that during IVF, a number of eggs would be fertilized in an effort to create multiple embryos because physicians know not all eggs fertilized outside the womb may become viable. 

"We want to be able to sort of pick the one that we think has the best chance or give someone multiple attempts at becoming pregnant," Huddleston told Insider. 

She said because IVF is "predicated on this notion of producing excess embryos beyond" what will be transferred to parents, we'd likely see fertility clinics leave states that enact a protected status for those embryos.

"Although most laws are not targeted at IVF  right now, some of them do contain very broad language about when life begins that potentially could impact the use of IVF because it involves the creation of embryos outside of the body," Sakimura told Insider. 

Huddleston said that could mean people travel out of state for IVF and that would put an additional burden on fertility clinics to accommodate more patients. 

She added that the legislation may create a unique issue for lawmakers as they try to balance laws prohibiting the destruction of embryos in cases of abortion and how they handle fertility care. 

"When push comes to shove will those states really want to have laws on the books that make fertility treatment really difficult in their states. It's interesting to watch whether they're going to stick to their guns and say, 'No, you can't destroy any life past the point of fertilization,'" she said. 

Lawmakers have 'a fundamental misunderstanding of biology itself,' expert saysPro-choice signs hang on a police barricade at the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2022.

Traci Keen, the CEO of Mate Fertility, told Insider stricter abortion restrictions could impact everyone's ability to reproduce, as fertility rates are expected to continue to decline, meaning more people could need assistance to reproduce. 

Birth rates and fertility rates have been steadily declining for the past eight years, as Business Insider's Hillary Hoffower previously reported. While the trend is bringing the US in line with high-income countries, the fertility rate in the US is below the replacement rate — producing as many births each year as deaths — of 2.1 births per woman. Experts have predicted the decline could lead to a delayed baby boom.

Keen said she's concerned by some of the language in trigger laws that misuse medical terminology.

"Not to be overly inflammatory, but I think the people making these laws have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology itself, which makes me have an even greater level of concern for the ancillary effects over overturning," Roe v. Wade, Keen said. 

Cathryn Oakley, of the Human Rights Campaign, told Insider that while overturning Roe v. Wade may be seen as an abortion issue, the unintended consequences would prohibit the creation of life for those who want to have a child of their own. It's not just women who invest lots of time, money, and energy into IVF and surrogacy, but gay men and others who can't reproduce on their own, she said. 

"There are lots of ups and downs in the process of trying to conceive a baby. This is true for same-sex couples. It's true for different-sex couples. It's true for anybody who's trying to get pregnant. There are lots of disappointments," she said, emphasizing that these laws would make this process even more difficult. 

Read the original article on Business Insider

30 years after WWE's first female referee accused Vince McMahon of raping her, an ex-wrestler has claimed it's true

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 4:28pm
Vince McMahon.
  • Rita Chatterton, the WWE's first female referee, accused Vince McMahon in 1992 of raping her.
  • An ex-pro wrestler said in a New York magazine story that Chatterton's allegation was true.
  • McMahon recently stepped away from his CEO role amid an inquiry into separate misconduct claims.

A former wrestler said an allegation made by the WWE's first female referee — who accused Vince McMahon, the organization's former CEO, of raping her in 1986 — was true.

Leonard Inzitari, the ex-wrestler whose in-ring name was Mario Mancini, said the allegation made by Rita Chatterton was true. He made the claim to the journalist Abe Riesman in a story published by New York magazine Monday. Riesman is writing a book about McMahon called "Ringmaster," which is set to be released in March.

It's the first time a wrestler has backed up Chatterton's accusation.

Chatterton came forward publicly with the accusation in 1992, alleging that McMahon raped her in his limo in 1986. She declined to press charges, and the statute of limitations for rape had passed at the time, Riesman reported.

Inzitari said in the New York magazine story that Chatterton confided in him in 1986. Before a WWF show (WWE was known as the World Wrestling Federation at the time), Chatterton "burst out in tears" in front of Inzitari, he said.

He said Chatterton told him McMahon "took his penis out" and "forced my head down there." He added that she told him McMahon then "pulled me on top of him," forced off her jeans, and was then "inside her."

WWE did not respond to a request for comment from Insider on behalf of the company or McMahon.

McMahon's lawyer Jerry McDevitt did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider on McMahon's behalf. Inzitari declined to comment to Insider. 

"He was willing to take the case, but he knew it would be an uphill battle," Chatterton told Riesman, referring to a lawyer she contacted. "It came down that it was my word against McMahon's, because I took a shower and didn't go to the hospital."

She added: "I was scared. He was powerful. It was gonna be him over me."

Chatterton had made her claim public on "The Geraldo Rivera Show." The WWF didn't comment at the time on the allegation, but McMahon called the accusation false in a lawsuit, Riesman reported.

McMahon and his wife, Linda, sued Chatterton, Rivera, and members of Rivera's production team after the interview aired, alleging that the defendants were part of a conspiracy to inflict "severe emotional distress" on the McMahons with "the fabrication of a false accusation of rape." The lawsuit was eventually dropped, Riesman reported.

McMahon recently voluntarily stepped away from his role as WWE's chief executive and chair amid a special committee of the company board's investigation into separate misconduct claims made against him and the company's head of talent relations.

"I have pledged my complete cooperation to the investigation by the Special Committee, and I will do everything possible to support the investigation," McMahon said in a statement released by WWE. "I have also pledged to accept the findings and outcome of the investigation, whatever they are."

McMahon continues to oversee the company's creative content. His daughter and WWE's brand chief, Stephanie McMahon, stepped in as interim CEO and chair.

The Wall Street Journal first reported earlier this month that WWE's board was investigating payments McMahon made to former female employees, some of whom had accused McMahon and the head of talent relations of misconduct. The payments prohibited them from speaking out about the agreements, The Journal reported, citing people familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry started in April after the board received a tip about a $3 million payment to a former female paralegal that McMahon was accused of having an affair with, The Journal reported.

A WWE spokesperson told The Journal that McMahon's relationship with the former paralegal was consensual. McDevitt, his attorney, told The Journal the paralegal hadn't claimed any harassment against McMahon and that "WWE did not pay any monies" to her.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Ford built an absurdly fast electric van with more horsepower than a Bugatti — see the super-cool SuperVan

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 4:15pm
The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.
  • Ford unveiled a ridiculously powerful van called the SuperVan. 
  • It's Ford's fourth SuperVan, but its first all-electric one. 
  • The SuperVan is supercar quick. It can hit 60 mph in under two seconds. 
Think same-day delivery is fast? Ford's latest van has a thing or two to say about that.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.The automaker this month revealed an outrageously powerful van that's as quick as a supercar.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Meet the Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Promising to blast to 62 mph in less than two seconds, the SuperVan can, theoretically, deliver packages at lightning speed.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.But the van is just a concept and won't go into full-scale production.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Ford has built SuperVans in the past. They're fun, high-performance takes on Ford's commercial vans.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.The first SuperVan was revealed in 1971 with an engine taken from Ford's Le Mans-winning GT40 race car.1971 Ford SuperVan.The Supervan 2 made its debut in 1984.The 1984 Ford SuperVan.The third iteration came in 1994, powered by the same engine as Formula 1 race cars of the time.The 1995 Ford SuperVan.Since performance these days is all about electric motors rather than big gas-guzzling engines, the newest Supervan is all electric.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.It's loosely based on Ford's E-Transit Custom, a battery-powered van Ford is selling outside the US.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.But this one is more about performance than practicality.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Ford used a purpose-built chassis that it says is ready for the race track.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.It also incorporated motorsport-grade brakes and suspension components.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.The SuperVan has four electric motors — one driving each wheel — and produces a ridiculous 1,973 horsepower.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.The $3 million Bugatti Chiron, perhaps the most over-the-top supercar on the market, produces 1,500 horsepower from its 16-cylinder engine.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Ford and its partners gave the SuperVan aerodynamic upgrades like a front splitter and side skirts.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.In back, there's a big spoiler that creates downforce and squishes the SuperVan to the track, optimizing performance.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.The SuperVan's interior is sparse, but not without some comforts. It has a big touchscreen display just like the one in Ford's other electric vehicles like the F-150 Lightning.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Drivers can use the screen to switch between a handful of drive modes catered toward street driving, drag racing, drifting, and more.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Ford's regular vans can send real-time data to fleet managers. Similarly, engineers can tap into the SuperVan from afar to analyze information about lap times and performance.The Ford Pro Electric SuperVan.Read the original article on Business Insider

The Jan. 6 panel is gathering evidence Trump may have broken these 3 federal laws

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 4:14pm
Former President Donald Trump.
  • House panel is gathering evidence that Trump may have broken three federal laws.
  • But experts say Trump could mount a strong legal defense.
  • The committee is presenting evidence to support their claims that Trump tried to block the peaceful transfer of power.

When the House select committee began its 10-month investigation into the January 6 insurrection, lawmakers set out to uncover and present evidence from the first disruption of the peaceful transfer of power in American history.

Now, with the committee half-way through its hearings for June, another goal is coming into sharper focus: To painstakingly show why they believe former President Donald Trump violated several federal laws in the events leading up to the insurrection and its aftermath; a federal judge ruled in March that Trump "likely" committed a felony.

The committee explicitly stated that it has evidence to show that then-President Trump and his campaign staff carried out an "illegal" and "unconstitutional" attempt to obstruct Congress' election certifying Joe Biden's victory  and "engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States."

"President Trump's advisors knew what he was saying was false, and they told him so directly and repeatedly," Committee Vice-Chair Liz Cheney said during a video released by the committee on Wednesday before the third hearing.  

The committee does not have the authority to prosecute the former president. But it can make criminal referrals to the Justice Department, and it appears to be laying out a methodical case that could mar Trump's political standing and inform a future criminal case against him. 

Five legal experts told Insider how the Justice Department could build their case to issue charges against Trump, but noted the former president may have a strong legal defense. 

Lawmakers on the House January 6 committee will air the inquiry's findings during a public hearing Thursday.'Conspiracy to defraud the government'

The House select committee stated in a March 2 court filing that it has evidence that Trump and his campaign team violated one federal law by engaging in "a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States."

If the Justice Department, likely via the US attorney in Washington, DC, were to charge Trump with breaking this law, federal prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the former president knowingly agreed with others to attempt to obstruct Congress's election certification process by deceit or dishonesty, said John Q. Barrett, a former associate independent counsel in the Iran-contra investigation.

"The challenge for prosecutors, of course, is to prove each element of the crime. And one element of these various charges is the criminal intent, the mental state, and the culpable mind of the defendant," said Barrett, a law professor at St. John's University in New York City.

If federal prosecutors were to get evidence that Trump privately acknowledged to a confidant or in a written statement that he lost the election fairly, it would strengthen a case. 

Legal experts told Insider that the Justice Department's biggest challenge in prosecuting Trump would be dispelling the notion that he honestly believed that election fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election, claims that officials and aides are testifying they'd told Trump were baseless and "bullshit." If the prosecutors cannot prove that there was an  "intent to defraud" beyond a reasonable doubt then their case will not hold up.

The committee has tried to illustrate that Trump broke this law by playing video testimonies of former Trump advisers who told the president not to prematurely declare victory, as he did, and that there was no evidence of election fraud. The committee has not revealed any evidence that Trump may not have believed the conspiracies he was pushing.

Even without that evidence, a case could rely on the concept of "willful blindness," which can be used against a defendant who tries to avoid or ignore facts that may implicate them. This approach has been suggested by former US attorney Barbara McQuade.

Vice President Mike Pence certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.'Obstructing an official proceeding'

The House select committee also argued that Trump violated another law by allegedly trying to "obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding of the United States."

Prosecutors could make a case that he broke this law by pressuring his then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress's election certification process or for telling his followers the election was "criminal" and to march on the Capitol where the certification was about to start. Prosecutors can also use evidence of how Trump tried to pressure Georgia election officials to overturn the election results to claim that he broke this law and another Georgia state law by engaging in "criminal solicitation to commit election fraud."

This is the strongest legal argument they can make against Trump compared to the other charges because they have amassed a lot of evidence, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, told Insider. 

"The committee has presented a lot of evidence that Donald Trump was told that there was no election fraud, and that he lost fair and square, but he chose to reject that," he said. "And it's well established that the January 6 vote count was an official proceeding."

Federal prosecutors have charged many rioters with violating this law, making it likely Trump would face this charge should he eventually be indicted, the legal experts told Insider.

Since the January 6 insurrection, federal authorities have apprehended more than 800 individuals in connection to the attack on the Capitol. Of them, more than 280 have been charged with "corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding" as of June 8, according to the Justice Department

Lawmakers listen as an image of a Trump campaign donation banner is shown behind them during a House January 6 committee hearing.'Wire Fraud'

During a hearing held on June 13, the House select committee revealed that Trump's campaign raised more than $250 million from his support base and claimed that he would use the money to create a legal fund to challenge the 2020 presidential election result. The committee revealed that the fund never was made, and money was directed toward a new political action committee called "Save America." The PAC then sent the money Trump's campaign raised to several pro-Trump organizations.

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, a member of the panel, said during the third hearing that "the Big Lie was also a big rip-off."

Some legal experts have hinted this evidence could be used to make a case that Trump committed the crime of wire fraud by participating in a scheme to defraud individuals of money. Under federal law, wire fraud is committed when an individual has devised or intends to devise a plan to defraud or obtain money through false or fraudulent pretenses and carries out the scheme by a telephone call or electronic communication.

The Justice Department has not traditionally prosecuted campaign solicitations as wire fraud in the past, said Mariotti.

"The issue I would say is, it's going to be hard to find victims to come forward," Mariotti said, "because the people that have donated the money felt so strongly about Trump that they're not going to necessarily support the government prosecuting Trump."

Stephen Saltzburg, a former deputy attorney general with the Justice Department and an associate independent counsel during the Iran-Contra investigation, said it could be hard for prosecutors to make a case on these grounds.

"I don't think we have enough information about it," Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, said.

Salzburg added that Trump's defense attorneys could argue that these advertisement and campaign fundraising emails did not explicitly promise his supporters that they would set up a separate account to legally challenge the 2020 elections.

One attorney close to Trump told Insider that at most these emails could be evidence that leads to a campaign finance violation, rather than a federal charge. 

"There's a lot of other things in this world to worry about. That's not one of them," Robert Ray, a former prosecutor who defended Trump in his first Senate impeachment trial, said in an interview.

Under campaign finance laws, the Federal Election Commission, a regulatory agency that enforces campaign finance law, limits how much an individual can donate to a political campaign. But there are no limitations on donations that go to legal defense funds because it falls outside of typical campaign finance. 

Insider previously reported that it is unlikely for the former president to be charged with fraud even if his campaign sent misleading emails to its donors. Legal experts told Insider that there are still a lot of details that remain unknown about the Trump campaign's fundraising for the legal defense fund.

"You need to prove to the jury that somebody authorized solicitations that said the money was going to be spent on election contests knowing that was false," Adav Noti, vice president and legal director at the Campaign Legal Center who previously served as the Federal Election Commission's associate general counsel for policy, recently told Insider in an interview. "You need to find the individuals, it wouldn't be enough for criminal purposes to say, 'Here's what happened.'"

Former President Donald Trump speaks on May 28, 2022 in Casper, Wyoming.Trump's possible defense

Mariotti told Insider that Trump could claim he is not guilty of attempting to obstruct or impede a US official proceeding and was just following the advice of his legal adviser John Eastman, who repeatedly pushed Pence to reject electors from some states Trump had lost to throw the election.

"It's hard to convince a jury that somebody who was following the lawyer's advice was acting corruptly," he said.

Some legal experts have hinted that Trump could possibly plead not guilty by reason of insanity in order to avoid being prosecuted if he is charged. Former Attorney General William Barr testified to the committee that Trump had become "detached from reality," referring to Trump's belief that there was voter fraud despite his advisers telling him there wasn't. But other legal experts caution this would be extremely unlikely.

"I don't think it's very likely that assuming an indictment and a trial that Donald Trump would defend himself as insane or mentally deranged and thus not criminally culpable," Barrett said. "I think Trump would largely defend himself the way he has conducted himself. He would say I won. It was a steal. You know, bad things happen to prevent my inauguration."

The House select committee has interviewed more than a 1,000 people, including members of Trump's family like his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner. It also has issued several subpoenas and reviewed thousands of documents related to the January 6 insurrection. Legal experts told Insider that these public hearings could put more pressure on the Justice Department to decide whether to indict Trump. 

Earlier this week, Attorney General Merrick Garland told reporters that he and the federal prosecutors working on the January 6 investigation were watching the congressional public hearings.

Shannon Wu, a former federal prosecutor in Washington DC, told Insider that there are most likely concerns within the Justice Department that possibly charging the former president could exacerbate America's deepening political tensions.

"I think he's really worried that such an explosive, unprecedented case might open the DOJ to charges of being political," Wu said.

But Wu added that not charging the former president could have far worse consequences. 

"If you don't try to hold Trump accountable," Wu added, "then you're really endangering the whole foundation of the country and the justice system." 

Brent D. Griffiths and Dave Levinthal contributed to this report.


Read the original article on Business Insider

US stocks fall after choppy session as markets fail to follow up on big weekly rebound

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 4:06pm
Friday's inflation print shocked investors.
  • US stocks finished a choppy session lower on Monday after rebounding sharply last week.
  • Oil prices rose amid efforts by G7 countries to try to cap the price that importers pay for Russian crude.
  • Bitcoin slipped as crypto hedge fund Three Arrow Capital defaulted on a loan.

US stocks finished a choppy session lower on Monday after rebounding sharply last week, while investors look to the final trading days of the second quarter.

Last week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied 5.4%, the S&P 500 gained 6.5%, and the Nasdaq Composite jumped 7.5%. The indexes appeared to carry that positive momentum into early trade on Monday, but they eventually turned lower in a volatile session.

Here's where US indexes stood at 4:00 p.m. on Monday: 

As Moscow defaulted on its sovereign debt for the first time since 1918, G7 leaders discussed a possible price cap on Russian oil as a way to further squeeze Moscow, which is continuing to reap hefty energy revenues. 

Oil shippers are using several tactics to conceal that their crude cargoes are from Russia, including using China's yuan instead of the dollar 

The People's Bank of China is building a yuan reserve with five other nations in collaboration with the Bank for International Settlements, as Beijing continues to challenge the dollar's leadership in global finance.

Amid the bitcoin crash, Coinbase stock fell as much as 11% after Goldman Sachs downgraded the crypto exchange to "Sell" from "Neutral" and set a $45 price target, implying potential downside of 23%.

Elsewhere, cryptocurrency hedge fund Three Arrow Capital defaulted on a $650 million loan, highlighting liquidity problems in the sector.

Shares of Digital World Acquisition Corporation, the special purpose acquisition company planning to take former president Donald Trump's social media platform public, slid 10% as the company announced subpoenas had been issued for some members of its board

Oil prices rallied, with West Texas Intermediate crude up 1.96% to $109.73 per barrel and Brent crude, the international benchmark, up 1.79% to $115.10. 

Gold dipped 0.32% to $1,824.40 per ounce. The 10-year yield rose 7 basis points to 3.19%. 

Bitcoin slipped 1.92% to $20,850.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Seeking nominations for Insider's CMOs to Watch in 2022

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 3:52pm
Monica Austin of Calm was a 2021 CMO to Watch.
  • Insider is seeking nominations for its fourth annual list of CMOs to Watch.
  • This list recognizes first-time and newly named top marketers at consumer brands.
  • Submit your nominations via the form below by July 15.

Fresh off revealing its Most Innovative CMOs list, Insider is seeking nominations for its fourth annual list of CMOs to watch, and we want to hear from you.

Unlike our annual list of the Most Innovative CMOs recognizing established top marketers, this list spotlights people who are newly named or first-time marketing chiefs who are bringing fresh perspectives to marketing and helping their companies navigate disruption. Check out last year's list here.

Our selection will be based on nominations as well as our own reporting. We'll consider their past accomplishments, how their brands are disrupting their industries, and changes they're introducing.

Please submit your nominations via this form by 9 a.m. ET July 15. We'll plan to publish the list later in the summer.

Read the original article on Business Insider

WHO official says the more times an individual gets COVID-19, the more likely they are to be 'unlucky' and get 'long COVID'

Mon, 06/27/2022 - 3:47pm
David Nabarro speaks at launch EAT-Lancet Commission Report on Food, Planet, Health at United Nations Headquarters on February 5, 2019.
  • A World Health Organization official said he's worried about people contracting "long COVID."
  • David Nabarro said the more times someone gets COVID-19, the more likely they are to be "unlucky."
  • "It can knock people off their stride for several months," he warned to Sky News. 

A World Health Organization official said on Monday that the more times an individual gets infected with COVID-19, the more likely they are to be "unlucky" and contract long-term health effects from the virus.

"The more times you get it, the more likely you are to be unlucky and end up with long COVID — which is the thing that none of us want because it can be so serious," David Nabarro, a WHO special envoy for COVID-19, told Sky News.

He continued: "It can knock people off their stride for several months."

Long COVID happens someone who gets sick from COVID-19 maintains their symptoms for an extended period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC says symptoms could last weeks or months, and even go and come back. 

According to the CDC, people are more likely than others to experience long COVID if they have had a more serious infection, have underlying health issues, are unvaccinated, or experienced multisystem inflammatory syndrome during or after the illness.  

Nabarro said on Monday that the WHO does not believe that the more times an individual gets COVID-19, the more immunity they have against potential future infections because the virus is constantly changing and can "duck past" antibodies from previous infections. 

In the US, the seven-day average of daily new COVID-19 cases has hovered around 100,000 for over a month, according to the latest data from the CDC.

The figures began to plateau in late May after an upswing from nearly 25,000 a day in March. 

Read the original article on Business Insider

About Value News Network

Value is the only commonality in an increasingly complex, challenging and interdependent world.
Laurance Allen: Editor + Publisher

Connect with Us