List of All Articles with Tag 'w'

Hurricane-fueled flash floods and mudslides

England has made it through to the first World Cup final since 1966 after the women's football team defeated Australia today - and calls are now mounting for a bank holiday if the Lionesses take home the trophy this weekend. Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as Lionesses’ manager Sarina Wiegman, have all backed the idea of an additional day off if England beat Spain in the World Cup final on Sunday. But the government has poured cold water on the prospect, saying an extra bank holiday is not currently in its plans. Downing Street said it will find the “right way to celebrate” if the Lionesses are triumphant. Prime minister Rishi Sunak congratulated the team on beating Australia earlier on Wednesday, posting on social media: “What a performance @Lionesses. Just one more game to go... Bring on Sunday.” Sir Keir wrote: “It’s almost 60 years since England won the World Cup. I’m never complacent about anything… but there should be a celebratory bank holiday if the Lionesses bring it home.” Goals from Ella Toone, Lauren Hemp and Alessia Russo gave England a 3-1 win on Wednesday. The UK had two extra bank holidays last year – one for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and another for her funeral – and there was a third in May this year for King Charles’s coronation. Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said: “The Lionesses have made history by reaching the final – they are an inspiration to athletes across the country already. “Winning the World Cup would be a phenomenal achievement. It absolutely deserves to be celebrated with a bank holiday.” TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said if the Lionesses won, the government should “do the right thing”, adding: “It would be mean-spirited not to do so.” Bend It Like Beckham director Gurinder Chadha told Channel 4 News that if the men’s team won the World Cup, there would be a holiday, adding: “So it deserves some kind of marking, it deserves some kind of national holiday definitely or something.” A petition on the parliament website asking for a bank holiday states: “I’d like the government to declare a bank holiday for all workers in the United Kingdom. Then we can celebrate in the achievements of England’s football team.” However, polls on social media showed nearly 60 per cent of voters were opposed to a bank holiday marking a win. Some users said England could not afford another bank holiday with the economy struggling. Others accused Sir Keir of populism, and one small business owner said they had had “more and enough bank holidays to put up with this year”. One, called Damon, posted: “If we can have a bank holiday for some old bloke getting a crown put on his head, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have one if England win the World Cup.” A government spokesperson said: “Winning the World Cup would be a massive moment for the country and make no mistake we’ll find the right way to celebrate. “As Sarina Wiegman herself has said, the first thing to do is focus on the final and the whole country will be rooting for the Lionesses this weekend.” Earlier, No 10 told the BBC: “The current pattern of public and bank holidays is well established and there are no plans to change this.” A 2010 Commons library report said the then government estimated an additional bank holiday would cost the UK economy £2.9bn. Official figures released last month showed it contracted in May after businesses downed tools for the coronation. Gross domestic product fell by 0.1 per cent for the month, after increasing by 0.2 per cent in April, the Office for National Statistics said. Read More With one sublime pass, the Lionesses have unlocked the door to football Narnia Royals lead cheers for Lionesses as they reach first World Cup final Lionesses celebrate reaching World Cup final – Wednesday’s sporting social Mediterranean lifestyle cuts chances of premature death, study suggests Calls for a bank holiday if Lionesses win World Cup final Number of hospital appointments cancelled due to strikes nears one million

A number of fights broke out during Dallas Cowboys practice.

Since his entry onto the American political stage in 2015, former president Donald Trump has managed to avoid serious consequences from most investigations into his conduct through the loyalty of his close associates and by deploying the power of the office he held from 2017 to 2021. Even as he faces four criminal cases against him, Mr Trump’s continued campaigning for the presidency in next year’s general election has allowed his confidantes to credibly hold out the possibility that a win over President Joe Biden next year would allow him to deep-six at least two of the cases currently being prosecuted against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith. And in the case pending against him in a New York court, he managed to avoid charges more serious than those he faces for allegedly falsifying business records thanks to the loyalty of his company’s executives, including a longtime aide who served a jail sentence rather than give evidence against him. But many legal experts — including some who spoke to The Independent — believe the 40-count indictment brought against Mr Trump and 18 co-defendants by Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis will push his co-defendants, some who have been among his closest allies, beyond their breaking points and force them to turn on the ex-president rather than face the wrath of a Georgia jury. The list of targets who Ms Willis is now prosecuting includes some of the twice-impeached, indicted-four-times-over ex-president’s most high-profile confederates, including his former personal attorney, ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who faces 12 separate felony charges as a result of his work to help Mr Trump push to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Mr Giuliani, a former prosecutor who made a name for himself by bringing Racketeering Influenced and Criminal Organisation (Rico) prosecutions against the Italian-American mob in the 1980s, is now being prosecuted under a state version of the anti-organised crime law alongside John Eastman, the ex-law professor with whom he appeared at the 6 January 2021 rally which preceded that day’s attack on the US Capitol by a mob of Mr Trump’s supporters. They will also be joined in the dock by three ex-Trump administration officials: Mr Trump’s last White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, ex-Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, and a Trump White House aide turned campaign official, Michael Roman, each of whom is understood to have been described in a federal indictment of Mr Trump as anonymised co-conspirators. Also charged alongside the ex-president are former Trump campaign lawyers Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell. In addition, Ms Willis successfully sought charges against a slew of other defendants associated with Mr Trump’s allegedly illicit efforts, including an alleged plan to submit forged electoral college certificates for counting by then-vice president Mike Pence. These other co-defendants include Georgia GOP officials, including ex-Georgia Republican Party chair David Shafer, ex-Coffee County, Georgia elections director Misty Hampton, and other GOP activists who signed the forced electoral certificates. According to legal experts, the sheer number of co-defendants, plus the harshness of the charges against them, will push at least some of them to flip on Mr Trump in hopes of a better deal. These experts say the particulars of Georgia’s criminal law, under which a friendly Republican governor could not issue a pardon for these offences, will also push many of the people named in the indictment to cooperate with prosecutors. Glenn Kirschner, a former assistant US attorney in Washington, DC who prosecuted several racketeering trials in the 1990s, told The Independent that Ms Willis appears to have already secured significant help from numerous individuals based on the number of unindicted co-conspirators described in the indictment. While Mr Kirschner suggested the “best” deals — including full immunity from prosecution — had most likely been handed out before Ms Willis brought her case to a grand jury, he also said the number of defendants who were ultimately indicted will necessitate more dealmaking if Ms Willis wants to take the case to trial. “There’s no way 19 are going to trial,” he said. The former federal prosecutor said his practice as an assistant US attorney was to “identify potentially valuable defendants that I wanted to develop into cooperating witnesses”. “Sometimes I succeeded, often I didn’t. But what I did find was that when you talk to them before they were indicted, the whole prospect of them being criminally indicted was a little theoretical, hadn’t quite hit home,” he said. “And then once they see their name on the wrong side of the ‘v,’ it tends to get their attention. And often, that’s when they would want to begin negotiating again. And we would develop a fair number of cooperating witnesses after they were indicted.” Mr Kirschner added that in his experience, the mechanics of holding trials would also limit the number of defendants who are tried and will give Ms Willis incentives to cut deals when possible. His suggestion that there has already been significant cooperation by people involved in the case was echoed by John Dean, the former White House counsel under Richard Nixon who testified against the disgraced president during the Watergate scandal. Mr Dean, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and turned state’s evidence for federal prosecutors, told CNN on Monday that he believes it’s “very likely” that Mr Trump’s co-defendants will “flip” now that charges have been filed. “They just wanted to see the indictment, and they’ve seen it now, and it’s not pretty,” he said, adding that he thinks Mr Meadows, who The Independent has reported to be cooperating with Mr Smith’s office, will “probably find a solution to get out of the Georgia case, too”. Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked for House Democrats during Mr Trump’s first impeachment trial, also told The Independent that he thinks co-defendants who cooperate now will be far worse off than they could have been had they turned on the ex-president earlier. “The best deals were already handed out. It’s like you know, it’s like getting a season ticket —the earlier you buy, the better the value,” he said. “The good deals were there for the fake collectors, many of whom got immunity without having to agree to any jail time.” Mr Eisen also noted that Ms Willis has a history of pleading out Rico defendants, “sometimes on very generous terms,” in exchange for cooperation. “So I think we may see some of these individuals turn on the former president and the remaining co-conspirators,” he said. But another attorney who spoke to The Independent, Georgia-based defence lawyer Andrew Flesichman, expressed significant doubts that any of the 18 co-defendants not named Trump would turn on the ex-president, citing the relatively tame penalties they could face if convicted and the lack of leverage which state prosecutors have compared to their federal counterparts. Mr Fleischman pointed out that the federal experts who have been opining on the case in the press aren’t taking into account how the federal system forces defendants into deals because of the lack of parole for convicted defendants who are sentenced to jail or prison. “The sentencing exposure for most of these people is not even that bad,” he said. “All these offences, you can get straight probation on them, and all these people are first-time offenders and this won’t count as a felony on their record, so I don’t think the state has as much pressure to turn people as some people are saying.” Mr Fleischman said it’s more likely that the people who were going to flip on Mr Trump have already done so. He also suggested that those co-defendants who were fake electors have a credible defence by claiming they were lied to by other co-defendants. “if you stick with Donald Trump, you can still raise your defence that you were lied to, which is a pretty good defence for these false electors, and then their sentencing exposure is not that bad,” he said. “I could understand if they want to take it to trial on some kind of principle.” Read More Fulton County DA Fani Willis proposes March 2024 date for Trump Georgia trial Trump judge makes barbed comment about Elon Musk as contents of Jack Smith’s Twitter warrant revealed Mark Meadows pushing to move Georgia charges to federal court Rudy Giuliani is furious about being charged with same mob law he claims he pioneered Aldi to buy 400 Winn-Dixie and Harveys grocery stores in Southern US Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for trial of Trump and 18 others in election case Fulton County DA Fani Willis proposes March 2024 date for Trump Georgia trial

A US appeals court on Wednesday ruled that access to the abortion pill should be preserved with some

The Associated Press has issued guidelines for its journalists on use of artificial intelligence, saying the tool cannot be used to create publishable content and images for the news service

Plea agreements under consideration may mean that the suspected architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and his fellow defendants never face the death penalty

By Michael Martina and David Shepardson WASHINGTON Close to half of American adults support a ban on the

A campaign fundraiser for indicted US Rep. George Santos has been charged for allegedly impersonating a high-ranking congressional aide to solicit contributions for the New York Republican's campaign in 2021, according to court documents.

'The network is running to the bank, like, laughing, running to the bank with this scandal,' said Raquel Leviss

Sacks Parente Golf Inc.’s shares plummeted 85% Wednesday, erasing almost all of the big first-day gains that made

A high-stakes lawsuit over the future of a widely used abortion drug is likely heading to the US Supreme Court, set to determine the fate of abortion rights access across the country for a second time within two years. Three Republican-appointed judges on a federal appeals court have determined that the federal government did not follow proper procedures when it amended regulations for a commonly used medication abortion drug in 2016. But the restrictions will not immediately take effect. The panel partially upheld a ruling from a Donald Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, whose sweeping decision earlier this year threatened to strip access to the drug altogether. Nothing in the ruling from a three-judge panel on 16 August will go into effect until the nation’s highest court weighs in. Wednesday’s ruling argues that the US Food and Drug Administration unlawfully expanded access to mifepristone, which was first approved by the federal government more than 20 years ago. Mifepristone was first approved by the FDA in 2000 and is approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. A vast majority of abortions occur within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. From 2019 through 2020, nearly 93 per cent of all abortions were performed before the 13th week, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The drug – part of a two-drug protocol for medication abortions, the most common form of abortion care in the US – is the subject of a lawsuit from a group of anti-abortion activists represented by right-wing Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which joined efforts to overturn Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court last year. In April, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk – a former right-wing activist lawyer who was appointed to the federal judiciary by Mr Trump – issued a ruling to suspend the FDA’s approval, which was immediately challenged by abortion rights advocates, providers, major medical groups, drug manufacturers and President Joe Biden’s administration. An initial ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked part of that decision but struck down policies for mail-in prescriptions and rules that expanded the drug’s approval for pregnancies up to 10 weeks. On 21 April, the Supreme Court blocked the lower courts’ rulings from taking effect while the case plays out, retaining the status quo while the legal case plays out. Following the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority decision to revoke a constitutional right to abortion care in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, at least 15 states – mostly across the US South – have effectively banned most abortions and imposed criminal penalties against providers. Abortion rights advocates and providers have warned that eliminating or restricting access to mifepristone could drastically impact an already-fragile landscape for abortion care. A ruling that undermines the FDA’s drug approval process could also open the door for other activist-driven legal battles over other drugs wrapped up in political debates, potentially inviting other destabilising lawsuits to Covid-19 vaccines, contraception, HIV medication, gender-affirming care, and other life-saving drugs. Read More What is mifepristone? The widely used pill in the abortion rights battle at the Supreme Court Abortion rights advocates win major victory in Ohio as voters reject GOP plan to thwart ballot measure Texas women detailed agonising pregnancies after being denied abortions. The state blames doctors Some abortion drug restrictions upheld by in a case bound for Supreme Court Akram criticizes Pakistan Cricket Board for leaving Imran Khan out of Independence Day video Netanyahu voices support for Israel's military after his allies and son lambaste security officials