wild rice productions

NoneNewsom wants CA consumers to pay to replace $7,500 federal EV credit, Tesla excluded

Imposing pet passports for dogs, cats and ferrets to travel from one part of the UK to another has been branded an “outrage” at Westminster. The condemnation came as the House of Lords debated regulations paving the way for a scheme which would require animal lovers on the British mainland to have documentation in order to visit Northern Ireland. Critics view the move as further evidence of Northern Ireland still having to follow EU rules post-Brexit and being treated differently from the rest of the UK – a major source of contention to the unionist community. The paperwork, which will be free to apply for, includes a declaration that the owner will not travel onwards to Ireland or another EU country with their pet or assistance dog. Animals will have to be microchipped and have their own individual pet travel document, which will be valid for its lifetime. Northern Ireland residents returning after a stay in Great Britain with their pet or assistance dog will not need a travel document. The scheme is being introduced under the Windsor Framework, a revised deal for Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit trading arrangements aimed at tackling issues caused by the protocol. Raising her concerns in Parliament, Baroness Hoey, a Northern Irish Brexit supporter and former Labour MP, said: “These regulations are in effect about a new aspect of the Irish Sea border that has not had expression until this point because of the grace periods.” She added: “The experience of visiting Northern Ireland with your pet dog or cat, or even a ferret, will be made to feel like a visit to a foreign country. Lady Hoey went on: “This could spell the end of holiday trips for pet owners from GB to NI and then on to the Republic, when they want to explore both Northern Ireland and the Republic. “If they have a pet passport, they will have renounced their right to go to the Republic. That makes the border more of an obstruction than having border control posts on it, because at least in that eventuality, you could still cross over it.” Rejecting claims it was a result of the UK leaving the EU, she said: “The reality is that this is happening precisely because Northern Ireland has not got Brexit. “As we say repeatedly, it is still subject to EU rules and the EU could change the rules overnight.” Former DUP deputy leader Lord Dodds of Duncairn said: “Every one of the statutory instruments that come forward under the Windsor Framework must be properly debated, because these laws are being brought forward to implement what a foreign jurisdiction has decided should be the law of the United Kingdom. “In the 21st century, we should not accept colonial rule. We abolished it elsewhere. We believe it should not be tolerated for one second. People should have the democratic right to decide their laws for themselves, in their interests.” He added: “The ridiculous part about this debate is that we are having to debate European laws regulating the movement of pet animals owned by British citizens between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That is an outrage.” Lord Dodds went on: “As I said, there will be hundreds, thousands more of these regulations, in all areas, affecting the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland. They all add up to a grievous assault on Northern Ireland’s constitutional position.” But former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick said: “I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. “We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.” Introducing the regulations, environment minister Baroness Hayman of Ulloch said: “This scheme will simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland significantly. “It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a free-of-charge lifelong travel document and removes the need for costly pet health treatments. “Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets, or those who rely on the services of an assistance dog to travel independently, will benefit substantially from this change in approach.” However, she acknowledged the concerns raised by peers and promised to continue engagement with them.Percentages: FG .526, FT .625. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith moved to abandon two criminal cases against Donald Trump on Monday, acknowledging that Trump’s return to the White House will preclude attempts to federally prosecute him for retaining classified documents or trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The decision was inevitable, since longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. Yet it was still a momentous finale to an unprecedented chapter in political and law enforcement history, as federal officials attempted to hold accountable a former president while he was simultaneously running for another term. Trump emerges indisputably victorious, having successfully delayed the investigations through legal maneuvers and then winning reelection despite indictments that described his actions as a threat to the country’s constitutional foundations. “I persevered, against all odds, and WON,” Trump exulted in a post on Truth Social, his social media website. He also said that “these cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.” The judge in the election case granted prosecutors’ dismissal request. A decision in the documents case was still pending on Monday evening. The outcome makes it clear that, when it comes to a president and criminal accusations, nothing supersedes the voters’ own verdict. In court filings, Smith’s team emphasized that the move to end their prosecutions was not a reflection of the merit of the cases but a recognition of the legal shield that surrounds any commander in chief. “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” prosecutors said in one of their filings. They wrote that Trump’s return to the White House “sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests: on the one hand, the Constitution’s requirement that the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities . . . and on the other hand, the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.” In this situation, “the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” they concluded. Smith’s team said it was leaving intact charges against two co-defendants in the classified documents case — Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira — because “no principle of temporary immunity applies to them.” Steven Cheung, Trump’s incoming White House communications director, said Americans “want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.” Trump has long described the investigations as politically motivated, and he has vowed to fire Smith as soon as he takes office in January. Now he will start his second term free from criminal scrutiny by the government that he will lead. The election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing Trump as he tried to reclaim the White House. He was indicted for plotting to overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in 2020, an effort that climaxed with his supporters’ violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But the case quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House. The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial. The case was just beginning to pick up steam again in the trial court in the weeks leading up to this year’s election. Smith’s team in October filed a lengthy brief laying out new evidence it planned to use against him at trial, accusing him of “resorting to crimes” in an increasingly desperate effort to overturn the will of voters after he lost to Biden. In dismissing the case, Chutkan acknowledged prosecutors’ request to do so “without prejudice,” raising the possibility that they could try to bring charges against Trump when his term is over. She wrote that is “consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.” But such a move may be barred by the statute of limitations, and Trump may also try to pardon himself while in office. The separate case involving classified documents had been widely seen as legally clear cut, especially because the conduct in question occurred after Trump left the White House and lost the powers of the presidency. The indictment included dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified records from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and obstructing federal efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. The case quickly became snarled by delays, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon slow to issue rulings — which favored Trump’s strategy of pushing off deadlines in all his criminal cases — while also entertaining defense motions and arguments that experts said other judges would have dispensed with without hearings. In May, she indefinitely canceled the trial date amid a series of unresolved legal issues before dismissing the case outright two months later. Smith’s team appealed the decision, but now has given up that effort. Trump faced two other state prosecutions while running for president. One of them, a New York case involving hush money payments, resulted in a conviction on felony charges of falsifying business records. It was the first time a former president had been found guilty of a crime. The sentencing in that case is on hold as Trump’s lawyers try to have the conviction dismissed before he takes office, arguing that letting the verdict stand will interfere with his presidential transition and duties. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office is fighting the dismissal but has indicated that it would be open to delaying sentencing until Trump leaves office. Bragg, a Democrat, has said the solution needs to balance the obligations of the presidency with “the sanctity of the jury verdict.” Trump was also indicted in Georgia along with 18 others accused of participating in a sprawling scheme to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election there. Any trial appears unlikely there while Trump holds office. The prosecution already was on hold after an appeals court agreed to review whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. Four defendants have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. Associated Press writers Colleen Long, Michael Sisak and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.

A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company's challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court's opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Though the case is squarely in the court system, it's also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action . The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits , that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect — a concern mirrored by the European Union on Friday as it scrutinizes the video-sharing app’s role in the Romanian elections. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republicans and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three denied TikTok’s petition. In the court's ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok's main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder, or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to "suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. “Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing,” Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators — for which the company is covering legal costs — as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. “This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. “We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court's ruling. "I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” said Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China. Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said “it's time for ByteDance to accept” the law. To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data. The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm — the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan — would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.

Wallabies Prepare for Dublin Clash: Suaalii's Injury Update

Brazilian police indict former President Bolsonaro and aides over alleged 2022 coup attemptFederal appeals court upholds law requiring sale or ban of TikTok in the U.S.

PARIS (AP) — Paris Saint-Germain failed to score in Ligue 1 for the first time this season as the reigning champion was denied by outstanding goalkeeping from Auxerre's Donovan Léon in a 0-0 draw on Friday. Léon's string of superb saves thwarted PSG’s attacking stars. After a fairly even first 45 minutes, PSG camped in the Auxerre half but could not find a way past León, who made memorable stops from Gonçalo Ramos, Achraf Hakimi, Kang-In Lee, Désiré Nonka-Maho and Randal Kolo Muani. Vitinha saw one curling shot come back off the bar. PSG had 25 shots to Auxerre’s six and 15 corners to Auxerre’s three but the home side still could have stolen all three points, as PSG keeper Gianluigi Donnarumma had to make a smart stop from Hamed Traorè. PSG remained eight points clear on top of Ligue 1. Auxerre was eighth. Canadian striker Jonathan David scored two and made another as Lille brushed past Brest 3-1 to extend its unbeaten run to 10 games in Ligue 1. The last time Lille lost to Brest at home was in 1989 and that long run never looked likely to fall as David turned in a man-of-the-match performance at Stade Pierre-Mauroy. He put Lille ahead from the penalty spot after nine minutes and he got away from his marker and crossed for Hákon Haraladsson to clip home a second just before halftime. Ludovic Ajorque got one back for Brest early in the second half but David restored Lille’s two-goal cushion when he pounced on a loose ball to slide home his team’s third. David’s goals took his season total to 17 in 23 games. They were his 10th and 11th in the league and lift him to the top of the Ligue 1 goal-scoring chart. Marseille was second ahead of Lille and Monaco on goal difference. AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer