L.A. cops retract ‘offensive' social media post sympathetic to Iranians
The nation's largest Sheriff's department posted a message Sunday assuring residents that law enforcement was exercising vigilance following a U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities late Saturday that risked putting community gathering spaces domestically at risk for reprisal.
According to copies of that note preserved online, the original version also said: 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran.'
It was quickly edited Sunday evening to cut out that part. An apology was issued later that night.
'We are issuing this statement to formally apologize for an offensive and inappropriate social media post recently posted on our Department social media platforms regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran,' the apology said. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department.'
The department's mea culpa statement confessed the original post 'fell short' of public official's expectations to keep communities accurately informed and promised to learn from 'this failure.'
Officials also said an internal review was underway to find out how and why the statement was published.
U.S. forces targeted three Iranian nuclear sites Saturday with what appeared to have been precision strikes meant to stop the Middle Eastern nation from developing a nuclear weapons program. The White House believes Operation Midnight Hammer was hugely successful. It followed an Israeli military campaign to defang Iran that began June 12. The U.S. and Israel have consistently stated the world would be less safe if Iran had atomic bombs. The Trump administration has said the operation wasn't intended to be an act of war against Iran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla stock sinks as Trump threatens to cut subsidies across Musk's sprawling empire
Tesla stock (TSLA) sank 5% Tuesday as the feud between CEO Elon Musk and President Trump reignited, with the president once again threatening to cut government subsidies across Elon Musk's businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX ( "Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, early Tuesday. "No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE," Trump added. "Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!" Read more about Tesla's stock moves and today's market action. The threats followed Musk's criticism of Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill over the weekend after the Senate advanced it with last-minute changes that would eliminate electric vehicle tax credits — which benefit Tesla customers — earlier than expected and add $1 trillion to the bill's original price tag. The megabill was passed by the Senate on Tuesday, bringing it one step closer to becoming law. Its provision ending the EV credit would cut an estimated $1.2 billion from Tesla's annual profit. Meanwhile, SpaceX has received more than $21 billion in federal contracts, according to US spending data. In one of his series of posts on his own platform, X, Musk called the bill "utterly insane and destructive [with] handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." Musk's critiques continued into the trading week, with the tech mogul proposing the formation of a new political party for the second time last month. Tesla shares dropped 1.9% Monday as the Senate began voting on amendments to the bill in what's called a vote-a-rama, which dragged into Tuesday morning. Late Monday night, Musk posted an AI-generated image of Pinocchio with the word 'liar' stamped across it, writing: 'Anyone who campaigned on the PROMISE of REDUCING SPENDING , but continues to vote on the BIGGEST DEBT ceiling increase in HISTORY will see their face on this poster in the primary next year.' Trump's Truth Social post threatening subsidies on Musk's empire followed just a few hours later. 'Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate,' the president wrote. The barbs revived a feud between the world's two most powerful men in early June that erased more than $150 billion in value from Tesla in a single day. Those exchanges last month saw Trump and Musk trade a wide array of insults on social media, exposing the risk of the electric vehicle stock's "Musk premium." Musk has been highly critical of Trump's "big, beautiful" bill since he left his role in D.C. running the newly created federal agency DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, which aimed but ultimately failed to eliminate government debt with highly controversial spending cuts. 'The jabs between Musk and Trump will continue as the Budget rolls through Congress but Tesla investors want Musk to focus on driving Tesla and stop this political angle ... which has turned into a life of its own in a roller coaster ride since the November elections,' Wedbush analyst Dan Ives wrote in a note to clients Tuesday morning. 'At the end of the day being on Trump's bad side will not turn out well ... and Musk knows this and Tesla investors want this back and forth to end,' Ives wrote. Also driving Tesla shares down Tuesday, fresh data showed Tesla's sales dropped for the sixth straight month in Sweden and Denmark in June. The company is set to report overall global deliveries on Wednesday. Wall Street expects deliveries to slide 11% from the prior year. Laura Bratton is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Bluesky @ Email her at
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's rule barring migrants at US-Mexico border from claiming asylum
A federal judge blocked a Trump administration policy barring migrants who cross the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum, issuing a major blow to President Donald Trump, who has sought to seal off access to protections on the border. In a sharply worded decision issued Wednesday, US District Judge Randolph Moss found that the administration overstepped its authority by bypassing immigration law. 'The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,' Moss wrote. The ruling – targeting a signature element of Trump's agenda – comes as the administration touts low border crossings. Current and former Homeland Security officials have previously cited the clampdown on the US southern border as contributing to a sharp decline in unlawful crossings. In June, the US Border Patrol recorded just over 6,000 encounters, according to federal data. Earlier this year, immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, sued over a presidential proclamation that effectively shut down asylum at the southern border. The challengers argued that the proclamation endangered thousands of lives by preventing people from seeking refuge in the US. The lawsuit tested whether presidential power can override protections guaranteed by Congress for people fleeing persecution and marked one of the most sweeping efforts by the Trump administration to restrict immigration. 'This an enormous victory for those fleeing danger and the rule of law,' said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. 'The court properly recognized that the president cannot simply ignore laws passed by Congress.' The judge said that neither immigration statutes nor the Constitution give the president power to unilaterally deny access to asylum for people who have already entered the US, no matter how they arrived. 'Nothing in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,' the ruling states. Moss stayed his decision for 14 days. The administration is expected to appeal. In a statement to CNN, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin cast Moss as a 'rogue district judge,' and said she expected the administration to be vindicated by a higher court. 'The President secured the border in historic fashion by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. Today, a rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' she said. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also blasted the ruling. 'To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States,' Miller said in a post on X. 'The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored,' Miller added in another post. The Trump administration argued that the president has broad authority under federal law to suspend the entry of people deemed detrimental to US interest – especially in what it described as a national security and public health emergency at the border. Tensions flared during oral arguments in April in a packed federal courtroom in Washington, DC. DOJ lawyers argued that the proclamation was unreviewable under the immigration statutes in question. Moss pressed that argument, at one point posing a hypothetical: Would a presidential order to shoot migrants at the border be legally immune from judicial review? DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged that such an order would raise constitutional issues, but hesitated to say what legal limits might apply—drawing a pointed rebuke from the bench. The plaintiffs had highlighted that at least two of their clients had already been deported under the policy. While those individuals had expressed a desire to seek asylum, government attorneys argued that they had not established an imminent intent to file claims – raising further questions about who the policy actually applied to and how it was enforced. This story has been updated with additional developments.
Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Give me liberty or give me death (by alligator)
To be fair, Donald Trump didn't come up with the name 'Alligator Alcatraz' — that was the proud moment of Florida's bestest little attorney general, James Uthmeier — but on the other hand, the president immediately bought in. Before touring the new migrant detention center near the Everglades on Tuesday, reporters asked Trump whether the idea was that detainees who tried to escape would be eaten by alligators, and the president replied, 'I guess that's the concept.'
