Auburnfan91

Maryland's 3rd senator California governor names Maryland resident Laphonza Butler to Feinstein Senate seat By Associated Press //October 2, 2023 LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has selected Laphonza Butler, a Democratic strategist and adviser to Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign, to fill the U.S. Senate seat made vacant by the death of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. In choosing Butler on Sunday, Newsom fulfilled his pledge to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became open. However, he had been facing pressure from some Black politicians and advocacy groups to select Barbara Lee, a prominent Black congresswoman who is already running for the seat. Butler will be the only Black woman serving in the U.S. Senate and the first openly LGBTQ+ person to represent California in the chamber. Newsom said in a statement that the priorities Feinstein fought for in Congress — reproductive freedom, equal protection and safety from gun violence — were under assault in the nation. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Sen. Feinstein (and) continue to break glass ceilings and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.,” he said. Butler leads Emily’s List, a political organization that supports Democratic women candidates who favor abortion rights. She also is a former labor leader with SEIU 2015, a powerful force in California politics. Her appointment sets up a potentially tricky political calculus in the crowded 2024 contest to succeed Feinstein, which has been underway since the beginning of the year. Newsom spokesman Anthony York said the governor did not ask Butler to commit to staying out of the race. The deadline for candidates to submit paperwork to seek the office is Dec. 8. Should Butler enter the contest, she could set up a competition for the relatively small but influential group of Black voters in California and possibly undercut Lee’s chances. Emily’s List is known as a fundraising powerhouse, and raising huge sums of campaign cash is a must in any statewide California race. Newsom’s statement said she will step down from the organization. The decision carried the threat of political fallout for Newsom, who is seen as a potential future national candidate. The candidate favored by Black voters has won the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination every cycle since 1992. The Congressional Black Caucus was among the groups and Black politicians that had urged Newsom to appoint Lee, calling her the best-qualified choice for the post. Lee congratulated Butler in a statement but said she remains “singularly focused on winning” her Senate campaign. California “deserves an experienced Senator who will deliver on progressive priorities. That’s exactly what I’m running to do,” she said. The long-serving Feinstein died Thursday at age 90 after a series of illnesses. Butler currently lives in Maryland, according to her Emily’s List biography. Izzy Gardon, a spokesman for Newsom, said Butler owns a home in California. She is expected to reregister to vote in California before being sworn in. That could happen as early as Tuesday evening when the Senate returns to session. Butler said Monday she had accepted Newsom’s nomination to serve “a state I have made my home.” “No one will ever measure up to the legacy of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but I will do my best to honor her legacy and leadership by committing to work for women and girls, workers and unions, struggling parents, and all of California. I am ready to serve,” she said. Democrats control the Senate 51-49, though Feinstein’s seat is vacant. A quick appointment by Newsom will give the Democratic caucus more wiggle room on close votes, including nominations that Republicans uniformly oppose. Feinstein, the oldest member of Congress and the longest-serving woman in the Senate, said in February she would not seek reelection in 2024. Lee is one of several prominent Democrats competing for the seat, including Democratic U.S. Reps. Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Newsom said he did not want to appoint any of the candidates because it would give them an unfair advantage in the race. Butler has never held elected office but has a long track record in California politics. She served as a senior adviser to Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign while working at a political firm filled with strategists who have worked for Newsom and many other prominent state Democrats. She also briefly worked in the private sector for Airbnb. She called Feinstein “a legendary figure for women in politics and around the country,” in a statement posted after Feinstein’s death. Emily’s List, the group Butler leads, focuses on electing Democratic women who support abortion rights. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn women’s constitutional right to abortion, the issue has become a galvanizing one for many Democrats. Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, said the appointment “will give our … community another voice in Congress at a time when our rights and freedoms are under attack across the country.” It’s not Newsom’s first time selecting a U.S. senator, after being tasked with choosing a replacement for Kamala Harris when she was elected vice president; at that time he selected California Secretary of State Alex Padilla for the post. It was one of a string of appointments Newsom made in late 2020 and early 2021, a power that gave him kingmaker status among the state’s ambitious Democrats. The seat is expected to stay in Democratic hands in the 2024 election. Democrats in the liberal-leaning state have not lost a statewide election since 2006, and the party holds a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans. https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/10/02/california-governor-names-maryland-resident-laphonza-butler-to-feinstein-senate-seat/

Trevor Bauer settles legal dispute with accuser, reveals damning messages By Ryan Gaydos Fox News Published October 2, 2023 9:20pm EDT Trevor Bauer, the former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher who won the National League Cy Young Award in 2020, and a woman who accused him of beating and sexually assaulting her in 2021 have settled their legal dispute, his attorneys said Monday. "Trevor Bauer and Lindsey Hill have settled all outstanding litigation," Jon Fetterolf and Shawn Holley, Bauer’s attorneys, said in a statement. "Both of their respective claims have been withdrawn with prejudice, effective today. Mr. Bauer did not make — and never has made — any payments to Ms. Hill, including to resolve their litigation. "With this matter now at rest, Mr. Bauer can focus completely on baseball." The 32-year-old adamantly denied the allegations against him throughout the entire process. He was placed on administrative leave by MLB in July 2021 after the initial allegations were made. The woman accused Bauer of assaulting her on two different occasions at his home in Pasadena, California, during what she said began as consensual sexual encounters. Bauer maintained the encounters were consensual. Prosecutors declined to file charges in the case. MLB initially suspended Bauer 324 games, but the ban was reduced to 194 games by an independent arbitrator in December. No major league team picked him up, but Bauer managed to continue his career in Japan. He was 10-4 with a 2.76 ERA and 130 strikeouts in 19 games with the Yokohama DeNa Baystars. Bauer sued the woman and she countersued. Their settlement called for no exchange of money between the parties. The woman will receive a separate $300,000 from her insurance company, her attorney Jesse Kaplan said in a letter to Bauer’s lawyers. The payment is independent of her settlement with Bauer. The pitcher’s attorneys never spoke to any insurance company in the course of the legal process, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital. As the settlement crossed the wire, Bauer released a video talking about the ordeal and revealed damning messages from the woman to her friends. "'Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers,'" Bauer said in the video. "A text Lindsey Hill sent to a friend before she ever even met me. ‘What should I steal?’ she asked another, in reference to visiting my house for the first time. The answer? ‘Take his money.’ So how might that work? ‘I’m going to his house Wednesday.’ she said, ‘I already have my hooks in. you know how I roll.’ Then, after the first time we met, "Net worth is 51 mil" she said. ‘b---h, you better secure the bag’, was the response. "But how was she going to do that? ‘Need daddy to choke me out,’ she said. ‘being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million,’ read another text. Then, after the second time we met, former [San Diego] Padres pitcher Jacob Nix told her ‘you gotta get this bag.’ ‘I’ll give you 50,000’ Lindsey replied. Her AA sponsor asked her at one point, ‘do you feel a tiny bit guilty?’ ‘Not really,’ she replied." Bauer said the messages he talked about in the clip were "deliberately and unlawfully concealed from me and my legal team." He said a separate video that showed the woman in his bed didn’t have any marks on her face. The Daily Mail first reported the video in September 2022. The woman’s request for a domestic violence restraining order was denied. Bauer then sued her, which led to her countersuing. "Quite frankly, regardless of the outcome in court, I’ve paid significantly more in legal fees than Lindsey Hill could ever pay me in her entire life, and I knew that would be the case going in," Bauer said in the video. "But the lawsuit was never about the money for me. It was the only way for me to obtain critical information to clear my name. "Now over the last two years, I’ve been forced to defend my integrity and my reputation in a very public setting, but hopefully this is the last time I have to do so, as I’d prefer to just remain focused on doing my job, winning baseball games and entertaining fans around the world. So today I’m happy to be moving on with my life." The Associated Press contributed to this report. https://www.foxnews.com/sports/trevor-bauer-settles-legal-dispute-accuser-reveals-damning-messages

Special master files 3 proposals for Alabama’s new congressional map By WSFA 12 News Staff Published: Sep. 25, 2023 at 6:35 PM CDT|Updated: 55 minutes ago MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WSFA) - The special master assigned by a federal court to redraw Alabama’s congressional map has filed three proposals on what that map should look like. Richard Allen, a longtime Montgomery attorney with state government experience, was chosen for the job. He took suggestions over the last month on what the official congressional map should look like. If approved, one of the proposals would replace the map that was drawn by the state Legislature, which was struck down by the court. The federal panel ruled the current map failed to meet the requirements of giving Black voters more of a say over their representation in Congress. The three proposed remedial plans are substantially similar to each other but offer differences for the court’s consideration. Remedial plan 1 is most similar to the Voting Rights Act plaintiffs’ plan but splits one more county than the Legislature’s six-county limit. Proposals for Alabama's congressional map, as submitted by special master Richard Allen.(Source: Court filing) In plan 1, the Black voting age population in District 2 is 50%, and 53% in District 7. Remedial plan 2 reduces the county splits to six while otherwise tracking remedial plan 1, diminishing the expected election performance of Black-preferred candidates in the second opportunity district. The Black voting age population in this proposal is 49% District 2 and 53% in District 7. Remedial plan 3 is the most compact of the three plans, It only has six county splits, includes two opportunity districts that perform comparably to those included in remedial plan 1, and keeps the largest portion of the population of the city of Mobile in the same district. It also keeps the city of Birmingham in the same district. This one’s Black voting age population in District 2 is 49%, and 53% in District 7. The state is still trying to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices could intervene while the federal judges select a map. “If we get into this uncharted territory of either extending the fight about the maps, where we don’t know and the candidates don’t know where to run and whom to campaign with, it’s going to create a lot of chaos,” said Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The state now has three days to object to the map proposals. A hearing where the judges will review the submitted maps is scheduled next week in Birmingham. Unless the Supreme Court rules in Secretary of State Wess Allen’s favor, a new congressional map should be selected in early October. As of Monday evening, U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell was the only elected official to publicly comment on the proposals. Her statement says, “Today, despite the relentless efforts by state officials to delay, obstruct, and defy, we are one step closer to having fair congressional maps in the State of Alabama! I applaud the special master for submitting three strong proposals which prove what we have long known to be true; the creation of two districts where Black voters can elect a candidate of their choice was possible from the very beginning. I look forward to the adoption of one of these proposals and I remain ready and eager to continue representing the great people of Alabama’s 7th Congressional District!” https://www.wsfa.com/2023/09/26/special-master-files-3-proposals-alabamas-new-congressional-map/

Brothers on trial in death of Ethan Liming, 17 by: Danielle Langenfeld, Justin Dennis Posted: Sep 18, 2023 / 07:32 AM EDT Updated: Sep 18, 2023 / 10:37 PM EDT AKRON, Ohio (WJW) — The trial continued Monday for two brothers accused of beating a 17-year-old boy outside the I Promise School in June 2022 and unintentionally causing his death. On Friday, jurors visited the school’s basketball court on West Market Street where prosecutors say Deshawn Stafford, 21, of Akron, and his younger brother Tyler Stafford, 20, of Cleveland, confronted Ethan Liming, 17, and three other teens. Prosecutors in Friday’s opening statements said Liming and his friends shot at the Staffords and another person with a toy gun that fires gel pellets at a high rate of speed. Liming was knocked unconscious and beaten, authorities said. Medical officials ruled Liming was killed by a blunt force head injury when his head struck the pavement during the fight, according to his autopsy report. He was pronounced dead that night. In opening statements Friday, prosecutors said the brothers went too far, but defense attorneys said they were just defending themselves. The jury on Monday heard from one of the Akron detectives first on the scene and showed the jury surveillance video of Liming driving up to basketball courts outside of the school. Several people from his car were seen getting out and running to the courts. A short time late, there was an altercation at the car. A friend described the fatal altercation. “From where I was standing, it’s jut like a ball of people, and then Ethan gets like knocked out, and then he’s on the ground,” said the friend. “They are like stomping and kicking.” The Stafford brothers were initially charged with murder but were later indicted by a Summit County grand jury on lesser charges. At the time, Deshawn was 20 and Tyler was 19. https://fox8.com/news/trial-continues-in-death-of-ethan-liming/ According to a friend who was there at the incident it wasn't just a single punch and Liming hitting the ground being knocked out. They continued to beat and kick him after he was already unconscious on the ground.

Jury hands up verdict in death of Ethan Liming by: Danielle Langenfeld, Justin Dennis Posted: Sep 25, 2023 / 06:55 AM EDT Updated: Sep 25, 2023 / 03:32 PM EDT AKRON, Ohio (WJW) — Jurors on Monday handed up their verdicts in the involuntary manslaughter trial of two brothers for a fight that ended in the death of 17-year-old Ethan Liming. Deshawn and Tyler Stafford were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter charges. Deshawn was found guilty of felony aggravated assault as well as a misdemeanor count of assault. Tyler was also found guilty on a misdemeanor count of assault. A third, first-degree felony count of involuntary manslaughter against Deshawn was dismissed as jurors failed to reach a verdict. Summit County Common Pleas Judge Tammy O’Brien declared it a mistrial. Deshawn’s bond was revoked during the Monday hearing. He could face up to 2 1/2 years in prison on his convictions, prosecutors said Monday. A sentencing hearing is set for Oct. 26. Jurors were tasked with deciding if Liming’s beating death outside the I Promise School in Akron in June 2022 was involuntary manslaughter or an act of self-defense. Jurors earlier Monday morning signaled they were struggling to reach a verdict. Judge O’Brien sent jurors back into deliberations. The trial started on Friday, Sept. 15. After two full days of deliberations, the jury ended Friday, Sept. 22, with no verdict. In June of last year, the brothers were playing basketball with friends when Liming and three of his friends drove up and started firing gel guns at them as a prank. During a fight that ensued, Deshawn admitted during police interrogation that he hit Liming and knocked him out. Liming died from his head hitting the pavement. Brad Gessner, the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office chief counsel, on Monday told reporters the office will now consider whether to re-try the first-degree felony charge of involuntary manslaughter on which jurors could not decide. “The jury took their time. You see how long they deliberated. Those are decisions the jury could tell us (about). We’ll have to wait and see if we have the opportunity to hear from them,” he said “The family has gone through something that no one should ever have to deal with — the emotions tied to this, the loss of a child. We respect their grieving,” Gessner said. “There’s nothing that can be done to bring their child back. This is something that, in better circumstances, would have never happened.” Deshawn’s attorney Jon Sinn called it a “tough case” that ultimately ended with a fair trial. “We are grateful the jurors took as much time as they did. There’s no winners here. Absolutely not. It’s kind of a split verdict,” he said. “The state of Ohio fought hard. Police did the job they needed to do. The community needed to figure this thing out.” Sinn said it appeared the jury was sending “a message” that Liming’s death, though unfortunate, was not caused by Deshawn’s actions. “I hope this verdict allows all the folks who have suffered, all the folks who are hurting … I hope this verdict allows them to get some kind of closure, some kind of peace,” he said. https://fox8.com/news/another-day-of-deliberations-in-fate-of-two-brothers/

POLL: Is Censorship a Partisan Issue? By Carl M. Cannon - RCP Staff September 22, 2023 The concept of free speech dates to the 5th century B.C. in ancient Greece and was codified in America’s founding documents on Dec. 15, 1791, with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The 45-word First Amendment prohibited Congress from “abridging freedom of speech, or of the press,” and has been long understood to include any branch of government. James Madison, the drafter of the first 10 constitutional amendments, originally drafted a more fiery version of the First Amendment, one that included its underlying rationale: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” “Inviolable” is a powerful word, notwithstanding the fact that the right to speak and write freely has always come with various limitations. They range from libel and slander laws to national security secrets, obscenity statutes, and the notorious analogy popularized by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of “falsely shouting ‘fire!’ in a theater and causing panic.” Most citizens accept some of these caveats; others do not. But by overwhelming majorities, Americans generally still cherish their rights to free expression — at least in theory. A new poll on censorship by RealClear Opinion Research shows that 90% of voters in the United States express support for the Founders’ curbs on government power. Topline findings: The full polling breakdown “Overall, 9 in 10 voters in the U.S. think First Amendment protections for freedom of speech is a good thing, while only 9% think it is a bad thing,” said pollster Spencer Kimball, who directed the RCP survey. “This is agreed upon across the demographics, like party affiliation, age, and race.” For those who oppose censorship and put a premium on the free flow of ideas, that’s the good news. But there is bad news, too. Inevitably in our nation’s current hyper-partisan political environment, when one bores down on this subject, deeply divergent perspectives emerge — partisan differences. Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey. Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%. Also, a gender gap reveals itself, one that dovetails with the discrepancy in party registration between men and women — but which is more pronounced. Asked whether they support free speech even if it’s “deeply offensive,” 78% of men answered affirmatively, compared to 66% of women. But the most glaring gap is between conservatives and liberals, i.e., between Republicans and Democrats. On the issue of free expression, at least, Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats, the party launched by Thomas Jefferson — the Founding Father who famously said that if he were forced to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” This is a relatively new development. Traditionally, opposing censorship — whether imposed by government or corporations — was a bedrock principle of liberalism in this country. The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 to promote and defend free expression. And this ideal was at the heart of liberal thought, liberal lawmaking, and liberal jurisprudence during most of the 20th century. But times change. And notwithstanding the controversial current push by social conservatives to denude public school libraries of content they dislike, the new RealClear Opinion Research poll is the latest to document the gradual change that has taken place on the left when it comes to this free expression. Here are some of its findings: Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories. Although majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree the news media should be able to report stories they believe are in the national interest, this consensus shifts when it comes to social media censorship. A majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media content under the rubric of protecting national security. Among Republicans and independents, this percentage is only one-third. Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans. Fully three-fourths of Democrats believe government has a responsibility to limit “hateful” social media posts, while Republicans are more split, with 50% believing the government has a responsibility to restrict hateful posts. (Independents, once again, are in the middle.) Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to favor stifling the free speech rights of political extremists. Also, Republicans don’t vary by the group: Only about half of GOP voters favor censorship — whether asked about the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, or the Communist Party. This last finding, which is perhaps counterintuitive, dovetails with groundbreaking research released earlier this year on free speech by three California college professors, Ruth E. Appel and Jennifer Pan of Stanford and Margaret E. Roberts of the University of California, San Diego. Their study, “Partisan Conflict Over Content Moderation Is More Than Disagreement about Facts,” examined liberals’ greater willingness to embrace censorship of online content. The study posited three likely explanations: (1) Liberals are convinced of the presence of a “fact gap” in the current political environment, which is to say that liberals’ desire to clamp down on misinformation stems from a certainty that conservative content is, objectively speaking, less factual than liberal media content. (2) Instead, conservatives’ reluctance to censor was based on a “values gap,” i.e., a genuine belief in the free marketplace of ideas, regardless of the media content. (3) What’s really at play are “party promotion incentives,” which the authors defined as “a desire to leave misinformation online that promotes one's own party by flattering it or denigrating the other party.” To try and assess what is going on with censorship, the authors showed the 1,120 people in their study fake news headlines, such as “Hours after signing an executive order on Jan. 20, 2021, President Joe Biden violated his own mask mandate” or “In Sept. 2016, Ted Cruz tweeted, ‘I’ll believe in climate change when Texas freezes over.’” The poll respondents were then told the headlines were invented and solicited the respondents’ views as to whether they should be censored. The results were stark. “Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship,” the authors wrote. You can see what happened here: For purposes of this study, the authors took Door No. 1 (the notion that liberal news is more reliable) off the table. So that left Door No. 2 (values gap) and Door No. 3 (partisan advantage) still in play. If Republicans’ aversion to censorship was transactional, they would have identified Democratic-friendly misinformation for removal. But they didn’t. “Regardless of the partisan slant of the content, Democrats are more likely to support the removal of content, while Republicans are more likely to oppose removing content,” the study noted. It was Democrats who more often employed situational ethics, giving a pass to misinformation that helped their side. Most Republicans didn’t differentiate based on which way the false headline cut. A comprehensive Cato Institute poll done in 2017 documented a similar phenomenon. Asked a series of questions about what kind of speakers should be barred from college campuses, Democrats more often based their decision on the political slant of the speaker (canceling conservatives, but not liberals) while Republicans were chary of the whole censorship enterprise. “Even on issues in which one might expect Republicans to be more offended, they were less likely than Democrats to support cancelling the speaker,” the Cato study found. Some of this is the normal give-and-take of partisan politics. Vigorous support for the First Amendment has waxed and waned between the nation’s two dominant political parties for the better part of two centuries, and they have often reversed roles. What’s different in the 21st century is the zeal with which mainstream media luminaries have excused, and in some cases, pursued the censoring of politicians and even fellow journalists with whom they disagree. Libertarian writer John Tierney wrote about this phenomenon in 2019. Four years later, there’s little evidence the fever has broken. Carl M. Cannon is the Washington bureau chief for RealClearPolitics and executive editor of RealClearMedia Group. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/poll_is_censorship_a_partisan_issue_149790.html

Jury selection underway in trial of accused cop killer Othal Wallace is charged with first degree murder in the death of Daytona Beach Police Officer. Author: Anne Schindler Published: 5:45 PM EDT September 5, 2023 Updated: 5:45 PM EDT September 5, 2023 GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. — A man facing the death penalty for allegedly murdering a Daytona Beach Police Officer was in Clay County court Tuesday for the first day of jury selection in his case. Othal Wallace, 31, is charged in the fatal 2021 shooting of Daytona Beach Police Officer Jason Raynor. He has pleaded not guilty. The trial was moved to Clay County because both sides agreed it would be difficult to pick an impartial jury in Volusia County. Of the 69 jurors questioned Tuesday, only three had previously heard of the case. But more than half said they could not sit for the four-week trial for personal or financial reasons, and the judge ultimately excused 25 for hardship. By day’s end, 32 potential jurors remained. They will return Wednesday for additional questioning. Additional potential jurors will be called later this week to form a jury of 12 with four alternates. Jury selection is expected to take most of the week, and Judge Raul Zambrano told jurors to plan for a monthlong jury service. Prosecutors say Wallace shot Officer Raynor in the head during a June 23, 2021, confrontation behind Wallace's apartment. Raynor died of his injuries 55 days later. After a three-day manhunt, Wallace was discovered hiding out in a treehouse outside Atlanta on property owned by an extremist Black militia group, NFAC, labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. At a final pretrial hearing Friday, Judge Zambrano said he would allow jurors to hear a statement police say Wallace uttered after his arrest: “You know who I am. You know what I’m capable of, and it could have been a lot worse.” The judge will also allow the jury to see Instagram posts Wallace made before the shooting, including one from June 7, 2021 that said, "1 Day I Will Take Great Pride And Honor In Getting Me Some Pigs Blood On My Hands And Boots. I Pray Against My Enemy And Wish Death To All Who Are Oppressive To The Black Culture… Black Power!!" Wallace’s family was present in the courtroom, seated in the jury box along with some members of the media. If convicted in the guilt phase of the trial, Wallace will face a separate penalty phase at which jurors must choose a sentence of life in prison or death. Florida law changed in April, eliminating the state's requirement for unanimous verdicts in death cases. Now, a jury vote of 8-4 will send a defendant to death row. https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/crime/jury-selection-underway-trial-of-accused-cop-killer/77-da9732d9-b4fb-492c-a891-c4f73a009840 The fact that this guy only got convicted of manslaughter while Daniel Perry got convicted of murder shows that evidence is no longer the most important factor, only the makeup and views of the people involved are what matters most.

Jury finds Othal Wallace guilty of manslaughter in shooting death of Daytona Beach police officer Brenda Argueta, Digital Journalist Published: September 16, 2023 at 12:02 PM Updated: September 16, 2023 at 1:28 PM GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. – After jurors did not reach a verdict Friday in the murder trial of a man accused of fatally shooting a Daytona Beach police officer in 2021, deliberations continued Saturday morning until one was reached. WKMG reports the jury found Othal Wallace guilty of manslaughter with a firearm in the shooting death of Daytona Beach police Officer Jason Raynor. Wallace faced the death penalty if he were to be convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Raynor, who was shot in June 2021 while investigating a suspicious vehicle. Circuit Judge Raul Zambrano said he would order a presentence investigation, with said sentencing to take place within 60 days. Until then, Wallace was placed back in custody. Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood in a social media thread Saturday afternoon lambasted the decision, stating Raynor’s life didn’t seem to matter to the jury and describing the verdict as akin to “open season on law enforcement.” The jurors deliberated until 10 p.m. Friday, returning to the Clay County courthouse at 8:30 a.m. Saturday. The defense opened Saturday by asking Zambrano for permission to give the jury more information following Friday’s questions. The prosecution said that the court had adequately answered such questions already, adding the defense hadn’t revealed what they intended to show the jurors. Judge Zambrano said he would take further arguments into consideration if the jury had more questions, but not until then. A recess was then called and maintained until jurors knocked, and prepared with the verdict. During day one of the deliberations Friday, the jury had several questions regarding legal detainment, concealed carry and whether it is lawful for an officer to physically restrain a citizen as a form of detainment. Closing arguments wrapped Thursday after another day of testimony, including Wallace, who took the stand and was the defense’s only witness. Prosecutors said that on June 23, 2021, Raynor was acting lawfully when trying to question Wallace. The defense argued that the interaction ended with Wallace shooting Raynor in self-defense. The jury — comprised of nine women and six men — received instructions for deliberations on Friday morning. Wallace’s trial took place in Clay County after his defense team argued it would be difficult to find an impartial jury in Volusia County because of how much coverage the case had received. Raynor, who had been with the Daytona Beach Police Department for about three years, was rushed to Halifax Health in grave condition after he was shot in the head. He had remained in critical condition following surgery until officials said on Aug. 17, 2021, that he died as the result of his injuries. Raynor was laid to rest on Aug. 23, 2021, in a tribute that took place across Volusia County. Wallace was arrested in a multi-state manhunt 56 hours after the shooting. https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2023/09/16/jury-finds-othal-wallace-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-daytona-beach-police-officer/

Pyatt claimed in September 2015 that Shokin wasn't investigating Zlochevsky yet Burisma’s corporate secretary, Vadym Pozharsky, emailed Hunter Biden on November 2, 2015 asking for deliverables to close down any cases/pursuits against Zlochevsky. If Shokin wasn't going after Burisma or Zlochevsky there was no reason for Pozharsky to ask Hunter Biden to shut down anything.

Hunter Biden's laptop wasn't known about in 2019 and the government documents in the articles weren't known about in 2019. All the info that's been gathered paints an entirely different picture that what was known in 2019. Pyatt complained about Zlochevsky being corrupt in September 2015 yet Hunter Biden had a private meeting with him on December 4, 2015. It wasn't known in 2019 that Hunter had a meeting with Zlochevsky in Dubai and that he 'called D.C.' during the meeting.

As Hunter Biden struggled with Burisma fallout, his father moved to fire prosecutor probing firm Memos show parallel tracks between father, son on a corruption issue that would eventually ensnare Ukraine, the U.S. and two American presidents. By John Solomon and Steven Richards August 22, 2023 8:45pm Updated: August 23, 2023 6:55am While most Americans were preparing for the November 2015 Thanksgiving holiday, top policy advisers to Joe Biden were scurrying to put the finishing touches on the then-vice president’s upcoming trip to Kyiv where he planned to deliver a momentous shock to the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. Just a month earlier, a task force of top State, Treasury and Justice Department officials had decided that Ukraine and its new top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had made enough progress on anti-corruption reforms for the country to receive a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee. They drafted a term sheet for the delivery of the new aid to then-President Poroshenko during Biden’s December 2015 trip to Ukraine, and were making plans to invite Shokin’s top staff to Washington in January for a high-level meeting. Shokin himself even got a letter from the State Department declaring it was “impressed” with his reform efforts. But the vice president and his top advisers on Ukraine, including then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, had a very different plan that began unfolding that Thanksgiving holiday week. In fact, it was an about-face when it came to Shokin’s plight, according to two “goals and objectives” memos drafted four days before Thanksgiving on Nov. 22, 2015 and obtained by Just the News. “There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General’s Office, including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem,” the memos stated. File VPBidenTPUkraineMeetingShokin A U.S. intervention into the domestic affairs of an ally like Ukraine was rare and intrusive, and the meddling has had years of fallout. And it turns out, according to documents obtained years later by Just the News, that Joe Biden and his son Hunter were both intensely focused on the same prosecutor at that same moment. A few blocks away from the White House, Hunter Biden and his associates were trying to hire a crisis communications firm to deal with Shokin’s decision to revive a corruption investigation of the Burisma Holdings company where Hunter Biden served as a board member and received $1 million a year in compensation, according to documents reviewed by Just the News. Former business partner Devon Archer recently testified to Congress that Burisma was pressuring Hunter Biden in fall 2015 to deal with the fallout of Shokin’s probe and to secure help from the Biden family's contacts in Washington. The documents reviewed by Just the News show Hunter Biden and Burisma got word in late September 2015 that one and eventually two major U.S. news organizations – The Wall Street Journal and New York Times – were reporting possible stories on the Shokin probe and how Hunter’s association might be hurting his father’s efforts to root out corruption in Ukraine. The stories threatened to land just as his father was going to Kyiv to meet Poroshenko. Hunter Biden and his associates, the memos show, would hire Blue Star Strategies to deal with the fallout. Eventually Joe Biden’s own vice president office would devise a statement to be released just before Biden traveled to Ukraine for that December 2015 trip. And Hunter Biden also reached out to a top energy adviser to his father, who would end up on Joe Biden's trip. The following story chronicles the efforts of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden to deal with Viktor Shokin on parallel tracks that would eventually thrust both the United States and Ukraine into five years of scandal that have cast a pall over two consecutive American presidents. Many of the documents it is based on were not public during Donald Trump's first impeachment and conflict with the Democrat narratives that have dominated since. Here's the story: Joe Biden's team makes an abrupt change to U.S. policy The decision by Joe Biden and his closest policymakers to try to force Shokin’s firing evolved over several days before he left for the December 2015 trip to Kyiv. For weeks beforehand, U.S. officials at State, Treasury and Justice recommended Ukraine get its $1 billion in loan guarantees because Shokin's office had made adequate progress in anticorruption reforms. The two Nov. 22, 2015 memos – while demanding Shokin’s ouster – still urged the vice president to offer the $1 billion loan guarantee during his trip. “Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk will be looking for tangible signs of U.S. support to assist the Ukrainian people during these difficult times, facilitate further reforms, and help with efforts to defend against Russian aggression,” the memos stated. “You will sign our third billion-dollar loan guarantee and publicly announce FY 15 U.S. assistance for the first time: $189,035,756 -- which does not include security assistance (previously announced separately).” By the time Biden got to Kyiv on Dec. 8-9, 2015, he had further altered the plan, deciding to threaten withholding the loan guarantees until Poroshenko fired Shokin, something he would brag about doing in a 2018 video tape. The abrupt shift came as a surprise to Poroshenko and, it turns out, the Nov. 22, 2015 memos were even a bit of a surprise to Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, according to testimony Pyatt later gave Senate investigators. “I can’t help you on that,” Pyatt told investigators for the Senate Homeland Security Committee when he was shown copies of the Nov. 22, 2015 memos. “If you look on the clearance page you will see that I actually didn't see these documents until you guys sent them to me.” File Pyatt Interview Pyatt told Sen. Ron Johnson's investigators in 2020 that he couldn’t remember many of the exact details of how Joe Biden came to force Shokin’s firing but he recollected a shift had occurred at some point. “What I can tell you is that there was a gradual evolution in the thinking of the interagency community about these issues,” he testified. Pyatt would later concede the decision to withhold the $1 billion loan guarantee and try to force Shokin’s firing may likely have been a matter of a political principal like Biden deciding to change policy. "This is an imperfect art,” Pyatt would tell the Senate investigators. “And what it ultimately comes down to is the principal's decision, and, you know, in this case how the Vice President based--and there would typically, before a big trip like this, a day or two before he got on the airplane there would have been a deputies' or a principals' level discussion.“I would imagine, based on my conversations with him that the Vice President also would have a discussion with the President, and saying, "Hey, boss, this is what I'm doing," and, you know, take it from there,” he added. There is nothing illegal about a president or vice president switching policies from the recommendations of career staff. And to date congtessional investigators have not uncovered any evidence that Hunter Biden asked his father to take such action. But in this case, Joe Biden has maintained since the 2019 impeachment case against Trump that his leveraging of the $1 billion loan guarantee to force the firing of Shokin was simply a matter of carrying out U.S. policy crafted by career officials. But as reported Monday by Just the News, the career officials at State, Justice, and Treasury actually recommended Ukraine receive the $1 billion because Shokin’s office was making adequate progress in reforming the fight against endemic corruption in Ukraine. Even Biden’s own talking points recommended he offer the loan guarantee. He eventually did the opposite. Adding to the heartburn, Biden’s decision was done with the full knowledge that his son Hunter Biden was serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings whose owner Mykola Zlochevsky was being investigated by Shokin’s office. State Department officials testified during Trump’s impeachment that Hunter Biden’s role on the Burisma board while his father oversaw Ukrainian anticorruption policy for the United States posed at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Joe Biden's team crafted answers to deflect media attention from that issue, the memos show,. One official, George Kent, went further in a classified email published Monday by Just the News, declaring that Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma directly “undercut’ U.S. anticorruption efforts in Ukraine. File KentBurismaEmailNov222016.pdf Hunter Biden’s efforts to thwart Shokin parallel father’s trip to Ukraine Ironically, Hunter Biden’s efforts to deal with Shokin were triggered in part by the same man his father’s administration had sent to be the chief diplomat to Ukraine, the ambassador who was cut out of the November 2015 memos from the vice president’s office. In mid-September 2015, Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa criticizing Shokin’s office for failing to pursue alleged Burisma corruption in the period before Shokin took over the prosecutor general’s office. The speech appeared to have two impacts. First, Shokin’s office launched an effort to re-seize the assets of Burisma Holdings founder and Hunter Biden’s boss, Mykola Zlochevsky. Secondly, American news media began inquiring about Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma and Zlochevsky in the midst of such a corruption inquiry. The first inquiry came from Wall Street Journal journalist Paul Somme on Sept. 30, 2015. Coincidentally that was the exact same day that the Interagency Policy Committee comprised of top federal officials met and determined that Shokin’s office had made adequate reforms to justify Joe Biden giving a new $1 billion loan guarantee. Somme’s initial inquiry forwarded a set of standard questions. But on Oct. 16, 2015, the Journal reporter escalated his inquiry by specifically asking whether Hunter Biden believed that working with Burisma and its CEO Mykola Zlochevsky undermined his father’s Ukraine anti-corruption message. Hunter Biden and his associates were reluctant to answer this question directly, according to an email contained on a laptop seized by the FBI in 2019 and also obtained by Just the News. Re WSJ Followup Somme also asked about Ambassador Pyatt’s comments linking Zlochevsky with corruption in Ukraine. The concern of new unflattering media attention alarmed Burisma, which Archer testified had brought in Hunter Biden to ward off such inquiries. Soon, Hunter Biden brought in a new player to help cope with the publicity crisis, connecting Burisma with Democrat-connected firm Blue Star Strategies to help change the U.S. government’s perception of Zlochevsky amidst ongoing issues with corruption. In early November discussions about hiring Blue Star Strategies, top Burisma official Vadym Pozharskyi wrote that the work should be conducted with the “ultimate purpose to close down for [sic] any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [Mykola Zlochevsky] in Ukraine. Re Revised Burisma Proposal Contract and Invoice In other words, Burisma’s goal for Hunter Biden’s handpicked consultant was to shut down Shokin’s investigations of the firm and improve the company’s image. Around the same time, Hunter Biden reached out to one of his father's trusted advisers, Amos Hochstein, who would end up on the trip to Kyiv in December 2015. Emails show Hochstein had met with Burisma back in 2014 shortly after Hunter Biden joined the firm's board. "I just wanted to send you a quick note to thank you for taking time out of your day to meet with Vadym Pozharskiy of Burisma," a lawyer for Burisma wrote Hochstein in summer 2014. File BurismaHochstein2014Email.pdf By October of 2015 Hochstein, then-U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs at the State Department, raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s work on Burisma’s board directly with Joe Biden. Hochstein later testified that he “wanted to make sure that he [Vice President Biden] was aware that there was an increase in chatter on media outlets close to Russians and corrupt oligarchs-owned media outlets about undermining his message—to try to undermine his [Vice President Biden’s] message and including Hunter Biden being part of the board of Burisma.” File 2020-09-17-Hochstein Interview with Exhibits.pdf According to Senate investigators and an email obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop, Hunter Biden reached out to him to set up a meeting for coffee on November 4, 2015 after Hochstein met with the Vice President. According to Hochstein’s testimony to the investigators, Vice President Biden told his son that he had met with Hochstein and discussed his work for Burisma. File Friday scheduling.pdf “Amos Hochstein called,” Hunter Biden’s secretary emailed him days after his meeting with Hochstein. “Please call back today if possible,” she wrote. File Amos Hochstein called.pdf On December 6, Hochstein was photographed briefing the Vice President on his way to Ukraine on. Victoria Nuland testified that Hochstein discussed the matter with the Vice President on this trip. When Senate investigators asked about this briefing, Hochstein declined to elaborate on the specifics of his conversations with the Vice President but said “In my conversation with Hunter Biden, I did not recommend that he leave the board.” Archer told Congress that Burisma Holdings continued pressuring Hunter Biden in December 2015 to deal with Shokin and that it resulted in an episode at the company’s board meeting in Dubai on Dec. 4, 2015 where Hunter Biden, Zlochevsky, and Pozharskyi “called D.C.” for help. About the same time, the New York Times also submitted questions to Hunter Biden and the White House about Burisma, and it became apparent to both Hunter Biden’s and Joe Biden’s teams that negative publicity would greet the vice president when he arrived in Ukraine in a few days. File NYT Questions This time Joe Biden’s top policy and press advisers took the lead in crafting the response after an alert came in from the State Department. “New York Times has complicated question involving VPs son and S's stepson's friend, both of whom are allegedly on the board of an Ukrainian energy company owned by a former Min of Ecology who was being pursued by UK for money laundering,” State Department official Bridget Brink wrote top advisers to Biden. DoSBurismaNYTBidenEmailsDec2015 “The question also references Pyatts Sept speech which allegedly criticizes the GOU PGO for not supporting the UK prosecution - funds in dispute allegedly ultimately unfrozen and transferred abroad. We're working PG below with VPs office,” she added. Joe Biden’s team drafted answers designed to put a distance between his son’s client and his upcoming trip. "Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer. The Vice President does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company,” the draft answer read. “Regarding anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, generally speaking, the Vice President has consistently said that Ukraine must make every effort to investigate and prosecute corruption in accordance with the rule of law." A few days later, the story was published and Biden landed in Kyiv, where he delivered the stern message to Poroshenko that Ukraine would lose the $1 billion loan guarantee if Shokin wasn’t fired. The memos from Joe Biden’s office and Hunter Biden’s laptop make two things clear. As Shokin’s efforts to investigate Burisma ramped up negative publicity, Hunter Biden was forced into action by the company paying him large sums of money in Ukraine as his father oversaw U.S.-Ukraine policy. And Joe Biden’s team began altering a plan for Ukraine that began in September 2015 with a recommendation of providing Ukraine $1 billion in loan guarantee and ended with that aid being withheld unless Shokin was fired. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/wedas-hunter-biden-struggled-burisma-fallout-his-father-moved-fire

Pyatt complaining about him in September 2015 didn't make the IPC task force include removing Shokin as a condition in the $1 billion loan agreement they drafted in November 2015. It wasn't until Biden's visit in December 2015 that removing Shokin became a condition with the agreement.

On December 4, 2015 Hunter Biden called "D.C." in a private meeting with Zlochevsky and Pozharsky in Dubai. Just 5 days later on December 9, 2015 VP Biden went to Ukraine and called for the removal of Shokin https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/09/remarks-vice-president-joe-biden-ukrainian-rada There was never a demand made by the IPC in Ukraine's $1 billion loan agreement to remove Shokin in October or November. It wasn't until VP Biden visited Ukraine in December 2015 that the $1 billion loan agreement suddenly changed and removing Shokin was demanded.