Caine praises the young 'unsung heroes' who protected American base from Iran attack
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Washington Commanders threat: Can president actually block team's planned move to D.C.?
President Donald Trump posted on social media Sunday that he wants the Washington Commanders to switch back to their old "Washington Redskins" team name — and he threatened to block the Commanders' impending move back to D.C. and their new stadium unless they do. A Commanders spokesperson declined comment on the issue to the Washington Post on Sunday. Back in February, team owner Josh Harris committed to sticking with the new name, saying it's "embraced by our team." A poll conducted in May by the Post suggested it's embraced by the public too, with 50 percent of local people and 62 percent of Commanders fans saying they either "like" or "love" the name. But Trump appears insistent, so the next logical question is: Can Trump actually block a move? As with anything in politics, it's a tangled, complicated answer. We know this: The Commanders have submitted a proposal to move into a new stadium within D.C. limits built on the site of the old Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, which was the team's home from 1961 to 1996. But there are avenues the president could take, as laid out by Front Office Sports. These are the paths of least resistance, though each would still require Trump to steel himself for a political fight: Lobbying D.C. Council members This would perhaps be the most conventional path to take, though it presents numerous challenges. The District of Columbia is negotiating directly with the Commanders on the $3.7 billion stadium proposal through the D.C. Council, which is the 13-member legislative branch of the District's government. Trump could attempt to get them to vote no through various channels. The main problem? Eleven of the council members are Democrats, including chairman Phil Mendelson, who sounded confused by the president's threat. "I don't know what the restriction would be," he told the Post. Withhold funding since Congress controls D.C.'s budget Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, Washington D.C. residents can elect local officials, but the district's budget is subject to Congressional oversight. Right now, both the Senate and House of Representatives are controlled by Trump's Republican party, and would likely approve the blocking of funds for the Commanders' new stadium. From there, untangling the stadium money from government bureaucracy could prove difficult, though there's one potential countermove for the Commanders and D.C. Council, as noted by Front Office Sports: delay public disbursements for the stadium project until after the 2026 midterms, in which Democrats are projected to regain control of the House of Representatives. That would conceivably give the council some reinforcements in the battle for stadium money. Rescind control of the RFK Stadium property Former president Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred control of the RFK Stadium site from the federal government to Washington D.C. Section J of the bill, however, outlines grounds for a reversion of control to the federal government and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, a Trump appointee. If Burgum wants to exercise it, however, he would be required to provide written notice to the D.C. Council and give them 90 days to correct the non-compliance. So there appear to be options for Trump to follow through on his threat to prevent the Commanders from building their new stadium. It remains to be seen which one, if any, he'll take.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sentencing hearing set for ex-Kentucky officer convicted in Breonna Taylor raid
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A federal judge prepared Monday afternoon to sentence an ex-Kentucky police officer convicted of using excessive force during the deadly Breonna Taylor raid, days after the U.S. Justice Department recommended he receive no prison time in the Black woman's fatal shooting. Brett Hankison fired his weapon the night of the March 2020 botched drug raid. His shots didn't hit or injure anyone, though they flew through Taylor's walls into a neighboring apartment. The 26-year-old's death, along with the May 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, sparked racial injustice protests nationwide that year. Though the sentence could amount to several years, if U.S. District Judge Grady Jennings heeds the Justice Department's request, it would mean none of the Louisville police officers involved in the raid would face prison time. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department recommended no prison time for Hankison, an abrupt about-face by federal prosecutors that has angered critics after the department spent years prosecuting the former detective. The Justice Department, which has changed leadership under President Donald Trump since Hankison's conviction, said in a sentencing memo last week that "there is no need for a prison sentence to protect the public' from Hankison. Federal prosecutors suggested time already served, which amounts to one day, and three years of supervised probation. Prosecutors at his previous federal trials aggressively pursued a conviction against Hankison, 49, arguing that he blindly fired 10 shots into Taylor's windows without identifying a target. Taylor was shot in her hallway by two other officers after her boyfriend fired from inside the apartment, striking an officer in the leg. Neither of the other officers was charged in state or federal court after prosecutors deemed they were justified in returning fire into the apartment. Louisville police used a drug warrant to enter the apartment, but found no drugs or cash inside. A separate jury deadlocked on federal charges against Hankison in 2023, and he was acquitted on state charges of wanton endangerment in 2022. In their recent sentencing memo, federal prosecutors wrote that though Hankison's 'response in these fraught circumstances was unreasonable given the benefit of hindsight, that unreasonable response did not kill or wound Breonna Taylor, her boyfriend, her neighbors, defendant's fellow officers, or anyone else.' Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who helped Taylor's family secure a $12 million wrongful death settlement against the city of Louisville, has called the Justice Department recommendation 'an insult to the life of Breonna Taylor and a blatant betrayal of the jury's decision' and said in a social media statement that it "sends the unmistakable message that white officers can violate the civil rights of Black Americans with near-total impunity.' A U.S. Probation Office presentencing report said Hankison should face a range of 135 to 168 months imprisonment on the excessive force conviction, according to the memo. But federal prosecutors said multiple factors — including that Hankison's two other trials ended with no convictions — should greatly reduce the potential punishment. The memorandum was submitted by Harmeet Dhillon, chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and a Trump political appointee who in May moved to cancel settlements with Louisville and Minneapolis that had called for overhauling their police departments. In the Taylor case, three other ex-Louisville police officers have been charged with crafting a falsified warrant, but have not gone to trial. None were at the scene when Taylor was shot.
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Support for phone bans in school ticks up in the US, Pew study reveals
People increasingly support school phone bans — and New York got the message. As New York bans cellphone use during the school day, a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that support for phone bans in school is increasing. 3 The majority of U.S. adults support prohibiting students from using their phones during class time. Getty Images About 74% of US adults say they would support banning middle and high school students from using cellphones during class — that's up from 68% last fall. Only a small portion — fewer than 19% — oppose classroom bans and even fewer — 7% — are unsure. But a growing number of people don't just think students should be banned from using their phones during class time, but support the devices being banned during the entire school day. More than four-in-ten Americans — 44% — back school day bans. That's up from 36% last fall. Those 50 years and older are more likely to support these bans, but support among all age groups is growing. It's one issue that both Republicans and Democrats can agree on — 78% vs. 71% for class time bans. About two-thirds of adults support all-day cellphone bans, believing it would improve students' social skills, grades and behavior in class. Far fewer say this of physical safety. 3 About 74% of U.S. adults say they would support banning middle and high school students from using cellphones during class — that's up from 68% last fall. CarlosBarquero – Some opponents worry that children won't be able to contact their parents in case of an emergency, such as a school shooting — but most adults believe the benefits outweigh this increasingly possible scenario. The push for cellphone bans has largely been spurred by growing concerns about the negative impact screen time has on children's mental health. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy — who has called for the implementation of a tobacco-style 'warning label' for social media platforms about their effects on young people's lives — has said schools need to provide phone-free times. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77% of U.S. schools say they prohibit cellphones at school for non-academic use. 3 More than four-in-ten Americans — 44% — back school day bans. That's up from 36% last fall. Getty Images/iStockphoto However, experts note that while schools may have phone restrictions, they may not be enforced or followed. Kim Whitman, co-founder of the Phone Free Schools Movement, said the issue is catching on because parents and teachers are struggling with the consequences of kids on mobile devices. 'It doesn't matter if you live in a big city or a rural town, urban or suburban, all children are struggling and need that seven-hour break from the pressures of phones and social media during the school day,' she said. Florida was the first state to crack down on phones in school, passing a 2023 law that requires all public schools to ban cellphone use during class time and block access to social media on district Wi-Fi. Several other states have followed suit, including New York. Earlier this year, Governor Hochul signed the Distraction-Free Schools law into practice. The new law requires bell-to-bell smartphone restrictions in K-12 school districts statewide, starting this upcoming 2025 to 2026 school year. The state's powerful teachers' union — New York State United Teachers — backs a 'phone-free' school policy. All New York public school districts must publish their policy, which must provide parents with a way to contact their kids during the day when necessary, for approval by August 1. 'As Governor, my priority is ensuring every New York student receives a high-quality education, free from constant clicking and scrolling – that's why I've directed my team to commit every available resource for school districts to develop their distraction-free learning policies by the August 1 deadline,' Gov. Hochul said in a statement. 'I'm encouraged by my discussion with Capital Region school districts that have already implemented their distraction-free policy, and I am confident that New York will be ready to implement bell-to-bell smartphone restrictions on the first day of school.'
