Author

admin

Browsing

Lawyers for former President Trump filed a motion on Thursday to dismiss charges related to the 2020 election brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith, claiming he was unlawfully appointed, Fox News Digital has learned. 

Trump lawyers were successful in arguing that Smith was unlawfully appointed in his separate case against the former president related to classified records. 

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Aileen Cannon in July granted Trump’s request to dismiss the classified records charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, due to the ‘unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.’ 

Trump attorneys on Thursday filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Tanya Chutkan is presiding over the case.

‘President Donald J. Trump respectfully requests leave to file this proposed motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment and for injunctive relief—which is timely and, alternatively, supported by good cause—based on violations of the Constitution’s Appointments and Appropriations Clauses,’ the filing states. 

The Appointments Clause says, ‘Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.’ Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.

‘The proposed motion establishes that this unjust case was dead on arrival— unconstitutional even before its inception,’ the Trump filing states.

Trump lawyers argued that in November 2022, Attorney General Merick Garland ‘violated the Appointments Clause by naming private-citizen Smith to target President Trump, while President Trump was campaigning to take back the Oval Office from the Attorney General’s boss, without a statutory basis for doing so.’ 

‘Garland did so following improper public urging from President Biden to target President Trump, as reported at the time in 2022, and repeated recently by President Biden through his inappropriate instruction to ‘lock him up’ while Smith presses forward with the case unlawfully as the Presidential election rapidly approaches,’ the filing states. 

Trump lawyers were referring to comments made by President Biden this week, in which he said: ‘we got to lock him up,’ Biden said of Trump. However, the president quickly added, ‘Politically lock him up, lock him out. That’s what we have to do.’ 

But Trump lawyers argued that ‘everything that Smith did since Attorney General Garland’s appointment, as President Trump continued his leading campaign against President Biden and then Vice President Harris, was unlawful and unconstitutional.’ 

Trump attorneys argued that Smith violated the Appropriations Clause, saying he relied on an appropriation ‘that does not apply in order to take more than $20 million from taxpayers—in addition to Smith improperly relying on more than $16 million in additional funds from other unspecified ‘DOJ components’—for use in wrongfully targeting President Trump and his allies during the height of the campaign season.’ 

Trump attorneys argue that Smith ‘was not appointed ‘by Law,” and argue that he ‘has operated with a blank check by relying on an inapplicable permanent indefinite appropriation that was enacted in connection with a reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act in 1987.’ 

‘Smith was not appointed pursuant to that Act, which expired in 1999. The appropriation contemplates the possibility of appointment by some ‘other law,’ but no ‘other law’ authorized Smith’s appointment,’ the attorneys continue. ‘The appropriation also requires that the prosecutor be ‘independent,’ in the very particular, rigorous sense that attorneys appointed pursuant to the defunct Independent Counsel Act were meant to be independent.’ 

They added: ‘That is not true of Smith’s appointment, either.’ 

‘For these reasons, Smith should have never been permitted to access these huge sums of money, and his use of this funding violated the Appropriations Clause,’ the filing states. ‘Based on these violations of the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, the Superseding Indictment should be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, an injunction against additional spending by Smith is necessary to prevent ongoing irreparable harm and to ensure complete relief for the Appropriations Clause violation.’ 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

A spokesperson for Special Counsel Jack Smith declined to comment when reached by Fox News. 

Smith has until Halloween, Oct. 31, to file his response.

The Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that a president is immune from prosecution for official acts. 

Smith was then required to file another indictment against Trump, revising the charges in an effort to navigate the Supreme Court ruling. The new indictment kept the prior criminal charges but narrowed and reframed the allegations against Trump after the high court’s ruling that gave broad immunity to former presidents. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in the new indictment as well. 

Trump, in an interview this week with Hugh Hewitt, said he would immediately fire Smith if elected. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly said he was considering a position in a potential Harris administration, but sources close to the banking magnate argued that was not the case. 

The New York Times reported this week that Dimon confided in three people close to him that he was considering taking a role if tapped by Vice President Kamala Harris to serve in her administration. A position as treasury secretary could reportedly be a possibility.

However, another source close to Dimon said that while he would accept a call from either presidential candidate if they were to win, and wouldn’t dismiss a role in either potential administration if it were offered to him, Dimon has made no decisions and does not even see it as likely that he will be offered a cabinet position from Harris or former President Trump.

During the months leading up to the Nov. 5 presidential election, Dimon has taken steps to remain politically neutral in the public eye. After praising some of Trump’s policies in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, critics began slamming him as a Trump supporter. However, Dimon’s representatives were quick to note that his praise did not amount to support for him. Earlier this month, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that Dimon had endorsed him, but, once again, the claim was refuted by Dimon’s representatives.

When it comes to endorsing or supporting Harris, Dimon has not done that, either. The Times reported that in private conversations with bank executives who do support Harris, the JPMorgan CEO has said he has a duty to shareholders not to put his company in the crosshairs of any politician who may want to retaliate.

Ahead of the Times’ article this week that indicated Dimon was considering a role in a potential Harris administration, he was asked during an earnings call earlier this month whether he would consider serving in the next president’s administration. Dimon responded that he ‘probably’ would not, but left the door open if he does get asked. 

‘I think the chance of that is almost nil and I probably am not going to do it, but I’ve always reserved the right,’ Dimon said during the call. ‘I don’t make promises to people. I don’t have to. But no, I love what I do. I intend to be doing what I’m doing. I almost guarantee I’ll be doing this for a long period of time or at least until the board kicks me out.’

In late June, Trump told Bloomberg he would consider Dimon as a potential treasury secretary but later backtracked on the claim. ‘He is somebody that I would consider, sure,’ Trump said during the interview. 

Fox News Digital reached out to both the Trump and Harris campaigns to see where the candidates’ stand on Dimon today, but a response was not received by publication time.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the black sheep of America’s most well-known Catholic family, is urging the faithful to support former President Trump in a new TV ad.

Kennedy, who first challenged President Biden for the Democrat nomination and then ran as an independent, discusses his faith in the $250,000 ad spot before giving reasons why he now supports Trump for the presidency. 

‘President Trump has promised to take bold action on our economy, on the border and on restoring children’s health. The Democratic Party has become the party of war, censorship and corruption,’ RFK Jr. says.

‘Catholics may disagree on many issues, but we must find a way to love our children more than we hate each other. I hope you’ll join me in supporting Donald Trump.’ 

The ad, released by the conservative group CatholicVote, is set to air in Pennsylvania before a wider release in swing states, Semafor reported. It comes less than two weeks before a historically tight election in which Catholic voters could very well determine who next occupies the White House.

CatholicVote President Brian Burch has criticized Harris’ position on abortion, noting the practice violates Catholic social teaching. In a recent interview with NBC News, the vice president said she does not support any concessions on the abortion issue, including religious exemptions for faith-based health care providers who have a conscientious objection to the procedure.

‘I think Kamala Harris is making a massive gamble. She’s calculating that she can build a winning coalition without people of faith,’ Burch told Fox News Digital in an interview Wednesday. He acknowledged that Trump has also ‘disappointed’ some pro-life voters by opposing a federal ban on abortion but said, ‘I think Trump’s comments are reflecting where the public is and that there is no consensus abortion.’ 

According to Semafor, the collaboration with Kennedy came after months of conversations with CatholicVote talking through their positions on abortion. Burch told the outlet that Kennedy ultimately agreed ‘we need to be spending an equal amount of money on helping women choose to keep their child as we are on helping them to get abortions.’

The pro-Trump ad comes as the Trump campaign is actively courting Catholic voters. Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, a Catholic convert, penned an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Thursday that accused Harris of harboring ‘prejudice against Catholics.’ 

‘Last week, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, one of Vice President Kamala Harris’s top surrogates, mocked the sacrament of the Eucharist in a cringey skit with a podcaster. Last Thursday, Ms. Harris became the first presidential candidate since 1984 to skip the annual Al Smith dinner, a fundraising event that benefits Catholic Charities,’ Vance wrote. 

‘The first insults Catholics, while the latter displays a more subtle disregard for an important Catholic cultural event, one that raises money for social services that aid people in need, including people with disabilities and refugees and immigrants. Both show the Harris campaign’s anti-Catholic bigotry.’ 

A handful of key battleground states this election cycle have huge Catholic populations. About 24% of the Pennsylvania population, which has been touted as the state that will likely determine the overall outcome of the election, identifies as Catholic; about 25% of the population in Nevada identifies as Catholic; 18% in Michigan; 21% in Arizona; and 25% in Wisconsin. Other notable battleground states have a smaller Catholic population, including Georgia and North Carolina, both of which have a roughly 9% population of Catholics. 

Catholics historically voted for Democrats until the 1960s and early 1970s, when crime and cultural issues came to the fore alongside economic concerns, most notably in 1972 when President Richard Nixon’s campaign slammed Democrat opponent Sen. George McGovern as a candidate who supported ‘amnesty, abortion and acid.’ 

Today, Catholic voters are evenly split between the two parties, and whichever side captures the majority is usually the side that wins the White House.

President Biden, the second Catholic president in the nation’s history (after John F. Kennedy), won the Catholic vote over Trump in 2020 by about five percentage points. In 2016, Trump won the voting bloc at 52% support compared to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 44% Catholic support. Former President Obama won the Catholic vote in both 2008 and 2012, as did former President George W. Bush in his 2004 election against John Kerry, Pew Research data shows. 

The exception to the rule came in 2000, when former Vice President Al Gore won the Catholic vote by two points over Bush despite losing the presidential election overall.

The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A leading Iranian dissident group, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (MEK), has provided Fox News Digital with information about a secret site where the Islamic Republic of Iran allegedly stores and prepares the missiles it uses against foes, sells to allies and provides to its proxies. 

Located in a mountainous region outside of Eshtehard City, northwest of Tehran in Alborz province, the camp, known as the Shahid (Martyr) Soltani Garrison, is heavily guarded and surrounded by two rows of barbed wire. It has purportedly seen increased activity in the latter part of 2024, with the MEK noting that ‘more than ten trailers carrying missile parts’ passed into the camp in July. 

Among the weapons stored at the site are the Shahab-3, Qiam, Fateh and Fath series ballistic missiles, the MEK said. 

Iran expert, Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said after its ‘layered attack’ on Israel in April, which involved about 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, the Islamic Regime ‘got rid of the low- and slow-flying’ assets and ‘doubled down on ballistic’ weapons. Iran launched more than 180 ballistic missiles into Israeli airspace on Oct. 1. 

Taleblu noted that Iran utilized the same liquid-propellant systems from its April attack, the Emad and Ghadr ballistic missiles, which are evolutions of the Shahab-3. He said the October attack also involved the solid-propellant Kheibar Shekan and reportedly even the hypersonic Fattah-1 ballistic missile. An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson also confirmed to Fox News Digital that Iran’s recent attacks included Fattah-1 and Fattah-2 hypersonic ballistic missiles. 

During the larger Oct. 1 attack on Israel, two U.S. destroyers intercepted about a dozen Iranian missiles. Neither the Pentagon nor the Defense Intelligence Agency responded to Fox News Digital’s questions about whether American assets have been targeted by the varieties of Iranian ballistic missiles said to be housed at the Eshtehard site, or whether the U.S. has intercepted any of these missiles in the region. 

To protect Israel from further Iranian ballistic missile strikes, the U.S. sent its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to Tel Aviv, along with a cadre of 100 U.S. soldiers to operate the system. Taleblu says THAAD will ‘function as a critical patch in Israel’s existing, already very well-layered air-missile defenses,’ though with just 48 interceptors, Taleblu says THAAD’s long-term suitability is ‘debatable.’

It is unknown whether ballistic missiles targeting Israel were stored or prepared at the Shahid Soltani Garrison. It is also unknown whether the short-range ballistic missiles Iran provided to Russia, for which Iran was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury and State departments, were held at the location.

The MEK provided satellite imagery showing two distinct sections of the Shahid Soltani Garrison. Above-ground storage sites ‘were established at least 15 years ago’ and include a segment of one-floor warehouses and one three-floor warehouse that offer a combined 6,500 square meters of storage space. Around 10 buildings in another segment of the garrison offer up an additional 3,000 square meters of space. Underground tunnels constructed on the site between 2017 and 2021 offer more storage locations. 

According to the report, the Al-Ghadir Missile Command, an element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Aerospace Force, is responsible for the camp. IRGC Brig. Gen. Partovi was the last known commander of the site. The MEK stated that Col. Mohammad Reza Hakimzadeh and Col. Barati of the Eshtehard Corps of the IRGC are responsible for administrative affairs related to the camp.

In 2010, the Al-Ghadir Missile Command was sanctioned by the U.S. as well as by the EU. Commanders within Al-Ghadir Missile Command, including Mahmoud Bagheri Kazemabad and Mohammad Agha Jafari, have also been subject to U.S. sanctions.

Ballistic missiles of likely and certain Iranian origin have previously targeted U.S. forces. Iran-backed militias fired an unknown close-range ballistic missile at Al Asad Air Base on Nov. 21, 2023, resulting in eight injuries and damage to infrastructure. 

On Jan. 8, 2020, Iran launched 27 theater ballistic missiles toward Al Asad Air Base. Of these, 11 Fateh and Qiam missiles landed inside the U.S. base, according to a medical study of the attack’s effects. The missiles’ impact resulted in around 35 cases of traumatic brain injury or concussion.

Taleblu noted that countering Iran’s ballistic missile program will require several lines of effort. On the economic and political end of the spectrum, they are taking on Iran’s trade with China, going after Iran’s domestic and foreign supply chain ‘for the whole ballistic life cycle’ and exposing the rotating array of individuals involved with the ballistic missile program to travel bans and sanctions. In tandem with covert or kinetic operations, the aforementioned efforts ‘can really handcuff this missile program,’ Taleblu explained.

Taleblu said the importance of maintaining advanced missile defense systems in order to deter Iranian weapons, hardening U.S. bases,and ensuring ‘the elements of deterrence by punishment are not only present, but are understood and are credible.’

Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s Washington office, shared a different approach with Fox News Digital. He explained that ‘true democracy in Iran and peace and tranquility in the region depend on the regime’s downfall, a responsibility that lies with the Iranian people and their organized resistance.’

‘The Iranian regime’s survival depends on exporting terrorism and belligerence while brutally oppressing the Iranian people,’ Jafarzadeh said. Given that ‘decades of appeasement have emboldened this dictatorship,’ he called for enforcement of ‘the terror designation of the IRGC and Ministry of Intelligence and Security’ and recommended that ‘supporting the Iranian youth and Resistance Units to confront the IRGC are crucial steps that the United States and European nations must adopt.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority will be maintained regardless of the Nov. 5 election results, constitutional law experts tell Fox News Digital.

With the anticipation of either another former President Donald Trump presidency or a Vice President Kamala Harris presidency, whether the country’s high court remains in its current state is a topic of debate that has yet to be formally broached by either candidate this past election cycle.

Over the years, both politicians and media personalities have called for the resignation of particular justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, over concerns about their ages and ethical controversies. However, experts say that while the individuals on the court may change, the power balance itself will remain intact no matter who wins the Oval Office in November. 

‘People might change. So, for example, if Harris were to win, Justice Sotomayor might retire. Or if a Republican were to win, then you could imagine Justice Alito retiring, perhaps,’ John Yoo, the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, told Fox News Digital.

‘The makeup of the individuals of the Court would change possibly, but the ideological balance wouldn’t change.’

Former President Trump named three justices to the Court during his term, preserving the conservative majority, while President Biden most recently named Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Court in 2022, replacing liberal Justice Stephen Breyer after he announced his retirement. 

‘Of course, there can be unforeseen vacancies on the Court,’ Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at UC Berkeley Law, told Fox News Digital. ‘But apart from that, I expect if Trump wins and there is a Republican Senate, Thomas and Alito will retire to let their seats be taken by much younger conservatives. And if Harris wins and there is a Democratic Senate, Sotomayor will retire to let her seat be taken by a younger Democrat.’

Echoing Chemerinsky’s retirement predictions, Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch professor of Law at NYU School of Law, told Fox News Digital he also expects retirement announcements from several justices, saying he foresees Thomas announcing his retirement if Trump were to win, while Sotomayor would ‘soldier on as long as she is able’ in that case.

‘What you’re going to see is an appointment coming, and I think at this point, [Trump is] going to look at these judicial tracks and try to get somebody who’s more reliable in whatever it is he wants. The problem is you don’t know what he wants,’ Epstein said. ‘With the left, [Kamala Harris] couldn’t think of anything that Biden did that she disagrees with.’

Yoo, however, noted he does not believe the push for retirements would make much of a difference after Nov. 5 either way. 

‘I’m sure that if Trump were to win, you will see some conservative activists hope that older justices might retire, replaced by a much younger justice,’ Yoo said. ‘And, you know, I’ve seen stories that some people are hoping Justice Sotomayor would even retire under President Biden so that she could be replaced by someone who’s 20 years younger, as a way of trying to cement control of those seats in a conservative or liberal direction.’

‘I don’t think pressure like that has really much effect on the justices,’ Yoo added. ‘I mean, they’re insulated from politics more than any other members of the government. And they don’t have to listen to anybody when it’s about when they choose to retire.’ 

Yoo also emphasized the importance of potential appointments to the Circuit Courts of Appeals. There is currently one vacancy in the federal appellate courts, with one nominee pending and four other nominees pending for future vacancies, according to judiciary data. 

‘If you want to advance a direction in the law, it’s really the appellate courts,’ Yoo said. ‘They’re the ones that basically finally decide 99% of the cases in the federal system and only 1% of the cases or less make it ever to the Supreme Court. So those appellate courts, circuit courts are the ones that are really important.’

Yoo said both Biden and Trump did ‘a good job’ of filling those vacancies during their respective terms, but ‘that’s where you will see the biggest impact of a new president is on those appellate courts.’

‘I think that the bottom line is, look at the best of the Trump judges, appointees by either Biden or Obama and that’s going to be the pools from which the Supreme Court justices are going to be selected,’ Epstein stated. ‘And the Democrats are more likely to pick a woman, more likely to pick a minority.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Nike and Kohl’s may not be winning on Wall Street, but a wide set of consumers still consider them to be the best in their categories, according to a consumer sentiment survey released Thursday. 

The Consumer Sentiment Index from consulting firm AlixPartners asked 9,000 fashion shoppers from Gen Z to boomers about the factors that drive their purchasing decisions and how retailers stack up against their competitors. 

Nike was ranked the No. 1 active footwear retailer among all four generational cohorts polled for the survey: Gen Z, millennials, Gen X and boomers. The legacy sneaker giant beat out Adidas and Foot Locker, which tied for second place, while upstart competitor On Running came in last among Gen Z and millennials. 

Kohl’s was the No. 1 department store choice among Gen Z and boomers, while millennials chose Nordstrom and Gen X chose Macy’s. 

The survey’s findings stand in contrast to Nike and Kohl’s recent performance. Nike is expecting sales to fall between 8% and 10% this quarter. As of Wednesday’s close, its stock is down 26% this year as investors brace for a long path to recovery under new CEO Elliott Hill.

Meanwhile, Kohl’s is expecting sales to fall between 4% and 6% this fiscal year as it grapples with the larger, existential issues facing department stores trying to remain relevant. Its stock is down 32% so far this year, as of Wednesday’s close. 

Sonia Lapinsky, head of AlixPartners’ global fashion practice and the report’s author, told CNBC the survey’s findings — juxtaposed with the companies’ recent performance — indicate Nike and Kohl’s are at critical junctures. The results signal that consumers are still firmly behind the retailers, but that good favor could soon run out if they don’t quickly diagnose and fix what’s wrong. 

“We would see in the data what’s important to the Nike consumer. It’s all about innovation, technical quality, product and [the competitors] who are growing super fast … they’re known for innovation, they’re known for product development, they do it a heck of a lot quicker than we know that Nike does it,” said Lapinsky. 

She said it’s a similar situation at Kohl’s, which has changed its assortment strategy many times over the years, but has won consumers with competitive prices. 

Consumers “still think they’re the best at product price combination. They’re still getting a deal. They probably love the Kohl’s bucks,” said Lapinsky. “Now let’s make the experience when they’re in the store something that they’re going to come back for and actually drive your top line.” 

Alix’s consumer sentiment report revealed a host of other findings for retailers to keep in mind as they enter the ever important holiday shopping season, including the No. 1 factor that would drive shoppers to a competitor. The majority of consumers surveyed, or 66% of respondents, said they’ll shop at a different retailer if the product they’re looking for isn’t in stock. 

″‘Right product, right place, right time’ echoes in every retail conference room, yet as retailers have expanded online assortments and marketplaces to attract new customers and traffic, it’s become more challenging to avoid frustrating shoppers when they can’t find their size or their desired item in-store,” the report said. 

For example, only 9% of a retailer’s online assortment on average is available in stores, based on a sample set of 30 retailers, according to the report. 

“It’s clear why consumers are frustrated. Macys.com has 24,000 women’s tops available online, but for customers who step foot in their Herald Square flagship in New York City, there are only 2,500 women’s tops available to pick up,” the report said. “For Gap.com, 158 tops and tees are available in women’s online, but only 50 are available for pick-up in the Herald Square location.” 

As retailers look to stand out and attract attention online, they’ve started offering far broader digital assortments. But as consumers return to stores, they’re expecting to see those same products on the shelf.

It would be too expensive and unrealistic to replicate digital inventories in stores, so retailers need to be able to forecast which inventory to put where so consumers can find what they’re looking for in stores.

“This is a perfect kind of recipe for where AI should come in,” said Lapinsky. “They’ve got to get really smart about where the customer is going and what they’re looking for, and they do that with better analytics, potentially AI models, that are predicting what the customer wants. And then they’ve got to have that same view transition to stores, even by store location, store cluster, store region, where they have a good view of what that consumer is likely looking for.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Boeing machinists voted against a new labor deal that included 35% wage increases over four years, their union said Wednesday, extending a more than five-week strike that has halted most of the company’s aircraft production, which is centered in the Seattle area.

The contract’s rejection by 64% of the voters is another major setback for the company, which warned earlier Wednesday that it would continue to burn cash through 2025 and reported a $6 billion quarterly loss, its largest since 2020.

The strike is costing the company about $1 billion a month, according to S&P Global Ratings.

New CEO Kelly Ortberg had said reaching a deal with machinists was a priority in order to get the company back on track after years of safety and quality problems.

“My focus is getting everybody looking forward, get them back to work, improve that relationship,” Ortberg told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” earlier in the day, when asked about the strike.

Ortberg’s laid out his vision for Boeing’s future, which could includes slimming down the company to focus on core businesses. Earlier this month, he announced Boeing will cut 10% of its global workforce of 170,000 people.

Boeing’s more than 32,000 machinists in the Puget Sound area, in Oregon and in other locations walked off the job on Sept. 13 after overwhelmingly voting down a previous tentative agreement that proposed raises of 25%. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union had originally sought wage increases of 40%. It is the machinists’ first strike since 2008.

The latest proposal, announced last Saturday, included 35% raises over four years, increased 401(k) contributions, a $7,000 bonus and other improvements.

Workers had pushed for higher pay amid a surge in living costs in the Puget Sound area. Some machinists were upset about losing their pension plan in a previous contract that they signed in 2014, but the latest proposal didn’t offer a pension.

Boeing agreed in the new contract to build its next aircraft in the Pacific Northwest, which had also been a sticking point with unionized workers after Boeing moved all of its 787 Dreamliner production to a non-union factory in South Carolina.

“We have made tremendous gains in this agreement. However, we have not achieved enough to meet our members’ demands,” said Jon Holden, president of IAM District 751, at a news conference Wednesday night. He said the union will push to go back to the negotiating table.

Boeing declined to comment on the voting results.

The labor strife is the latest in a long list of problems at Boeing, which started the year when a door plug blew out midair from a packed Boeing 737 Max 9, its best-selling plane, reigniting regulator scrutiny of the company.

The strike began as Boeing was working to ramp up production of the 737 and other aircraft.

The extended stoppage is also a challenge for the aerospace supply chain, which is fragile coming out of the pandemic, as the company’s web of suppliers had to train new workers quickly.

Spirit AeroSystems last week said it would temporarily furlough about 700 workers and that layoffs or other furloughs are possible if Boeing machinists’ strike continues.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

“La tasweer! La tasweer!” (“Don’t film! Don’t film!”) the general shouted, his eyes flashing with anger, his jaw clenched as he stormed towards us. A couple of fighters hopped off the back of the militia’s lead truck, fanning out around our vehicle, their rifles drawn.

The second truck that had been following us, tan-colored and laden with a heavy machine gun abruptly pulled over to our side, hemming us in.

There was a moment of panic — were they going to shoot us?

We had come to Darfur to report on the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, never intending to become part of the story.

But months of planning came apart in moments when we were detained by a militia led by the man everyone called the general.

Cameraman Scott McWhinnie handed him the camera, assuring him, “We’re not filming, we’re not filming.” Producer Brent Swails quickly got out of our truck to try to defuse the situation.

“Are we OK? Are we OK?” he asked.

Abruptly, the general turned his back on us and grabbed a rifle from one of his soldiers, before taking aim across the tree-dotted savanna. I was relieved that the gun wasn’t pointed at us but still disturbed by his erratic behavior.

I looked pleadingly at our driver. “What’s going on?” His face was ashen. “I don’t know,” he said.

The general fired off a round. The target appeared to be a bird. He missed.

We had arrived in North Darfur the previous day. The goal was to get to Tawila, a town under the control of SLM-AW, a faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement, led by Abdul Wahid al-Nur, a neutral party in Sudan’s bitter civil war. Tawila is just 32 miles (51 kilometers) southwest of the besieged city of El Fasher which is the frontline of the grisly fight for the Darfur region. As a result, it has become a refuge of sorts for the tens of thousands fleeing the city.

The 18-month conflict in Sudan has been drastically overshadowed by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza but the UN fears it could become far deadlier: a cruel confluence of hunger, displacement, and disease with both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the two main warring parties in this conflict, accused of war crimes.

According to the UN, more than 10 million people have been displaced in the violence, almost a quarter of Sudan’s population. More than 26 million people — over three times the population of New York City — face acute hunger.

In particular, all eyes are on Darfur, where a genocide was perpetrated from 2003 to 2005 and where vicious war crimes have heightened fears that the worst could be realized again.

In August, a famine was declared in the Zamzam displaced people’s camp in Darfur. And yet, only a handful of international journalists have been able to get in since the start of the war to report on what is happening.

After many months of failing to get permission to visit Darfur from the SAF or the RSF, the invitation from the SLM-AW leadership to visit Tawila seemed the safest way to get in and tell the story.

But when we reached the agreed meeting spot in the town of Abu Gamra, our hosts were nowhere to be found. Instead, a rival militia stood in their place. They had two Toyota Land Cruiser pickup trucks, weighed down with rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns.

Our driver was led off in chains to the town jail.

For three hours we were interrogated, one by one, in a small, windowless room. About eight men asked the questions. “Why are you here?” “Who sent you here?” “Who gave you permission to be here?”

We answered their questions but got no information in return: who these men were or what they wanted with us.

When the driver returned later without the chains, there was a brief moment of optimism. Perhaps, we would be escorted to the border and simply instructed not to return.

But the militants bundled us into our vehicle and ordered us to follow them.

Our convoy quickly veered off onto a dirt track, heading deeper into Darfur.

It was at this point that the general suddenly stopped his vehicle and started shouting at us, before shooting his gun. The goal, presumably, to scare us. It worked.

We stopped again, maybe an hour later, by a dry riverbed lined with trees. The youngest fighters laid out a mat and brought out a flask of camel milk for the general and another older man known as the security chief, who wore a turban and sunglasses to hide a missing eye. Trembling, I took off my shoes and sat down in front of them.

“Please, we are very frightened,” I told them in halting Arabic. “I am a mother. I have three little boys.”

The general looked disinterested, but I could see the security chief’s face soften.

“Don’t be frightened, don’t be frightened,” he assured me, “We are human beings.”

The security chief asked us for our partners’ phone numbers, so that he could call them and assure them that we were OK. Grudgingly, I handed him my husband’s number — reluctant to put my family through any stress but conscious that it might also be a way for our captors to check my story. Later, we would find out that an English speaker had called my husband and Scott’s wife from the city of Port Sudan, thousands of miles away from where we were held, to say that we were safe and in good health but threatening that we would be imprisoned for many years if they spoke about it to anyone.

For the next 48 hours, we were held under armed guard by the general, the security chief and roughly a dozen soldiers, some who looked no older than 14. Our detention was spent out in the open, underneath acacia trees. As the only woman, and with no private space to relieve myself, I limited my water and food intake. Sleep, when it came, was a mercy, a reprieve from the clawing sense of panic at not knowing when I would be able to see my children again.

As a journalist, one never wants to become the story. And yet our experience is instructive in understanding the complexities of the conflict in Darfur and the challenges of getting food and aid to those who need it most and getting the story out to the world.

During our journey in and out of North Darfur, we spent many hours traversing the remote region on sandy tracks. We had to dig ourselves out more than 10 times and had a flat tire at least once a day. There are no paved roads in the area, which makes the distribution of aid even more challenging.

But where sturdy trucks with the appropriate tires may help expedite that process, the issue of gaining access to the territory is a much harder problem to solve. The state of North Darfur is the center of some of the heaviest fighting between the RSF and SAF. Swaths of it are under the control of a patchwork of different militias with competing agendas who regularly shift allegiances.  You can have a guarantee of safe passage from one, only to be blocked by another 10 miles down the road.

In August, at US-led talks on Sudan in Geneva, the Sudanese Armed Forces agreed to allow the flow of aid through Adre, the largest border point between Chad and Darfur. But fewer than 200 trucks have entered in the last two months — a fraction of what is needed on the ground — and only a handful of those have reached the famine-hit Zamzam camp outside El Fasher, where close to half a million people are struggling to survive.

Earlier this month, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) announced it was having to suspend its operations in Zamzam.

“This is a disaster for us. Knowing that we have the team on the ground capable to work and that this suspension is due to either administrative impediments or blockages by the warring parties is, of course, frustrating. We keep trying to push … We cannot abandon these people,” Michel Lacharité, MSF’s Head of Emergency Operations told me.

Compounding the chaos is the difficulty of communications. During our time in North Darfur, we passed at least six cell phone towers but none of them were operational. The pecking order of any group is clearly marked by who is carrying the satellite phone. Our captors confiscated our satellite phone but allowed us to keep our cell phones — confident that they would never work. And they did not. Some of the groups have Starlink satellites that they use to stay in touch. But for most ordinary people, there are few ways to have contact with the outside world.

The net result of these manifold challenges is that NGOs, human rights organizations and journalists have almost no access to North Darfur.

“The world doesn’t see us, the help doesn’t come,” the security chief mused to me one afternoon.

Instead, the most valuable and reliable data we have about the situation on the ground in Darfur comes from satellites.

According to the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, which uses satellite imagery to build up a picture of the situation on the ground, in the first two weeks of October at least 14 villages in Darfur were set ablaze by the RSF, heightening concerns that after a relative lull during the rainy season, the conflict is once again ratcheting up.

But satellite images can only tell part of the story. They don’t allow us to connect, to empathize, to engage.

On our last day in detention, the general and security chief disappeared for about six hours, leaving us in the custody of their young fighters. At one point, several of them told us to remove our bags from our vehicle, saying they were taking our driver to the local market. The four of us looked at each other uneasily. Were they planning to abandon us? Or hand us over to another group? We had no choice but to do what we were told and unload our gear.

Later, when the general and the security chief returned, they were in good spirits.

“It has been decided you will be released tomorrow,” they told us. “We thought you were spies but now you can go home.”

A wave of relief crashed through my body. There were smiles and handshakes with our captors. We posed awkwardly for a photograph at the edge of the mat that had been our makeshift prison.

Our ordeal was over. We were unharmed and soon to return home. The fear and worry quickly replaced by a feeling of bitter disappointment, of failure. We never made it to Tawila. Never managed to talk to the people in Darfur whose lives have been chewed up by this vicious civil war. Untold stories that the world may never hear.

CNN Impact Your World

If you’d like to help Sudan refugees through charities providing assistance, go to the form below or click here. See more ways to help communities on Impact Your World.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

The impact of Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip could erase “over 69 years of progress” in the enclave, the United Nations has warned in a new report, saying that measurement for indicators such as life expectancy, education, income and standard of living are projected to drop to a level estimated for 1955.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) said that without “lifting economic restrictions, enabling recovery, and investing in development, the Palestinian economy may not be able to restore pre-war levels and advance forward by relying on humanitarian aid alone.”

“Projections in this new assessment confirm that amidst the immediate suffering and horrific loss of life, a serious development crisis is also unfolding – one that jeopardizes the future of Palestinians for generations to come,” said Achim Steiner, UNDP administrator.

The UN report comes as US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken visits the Middle East to “emphasize the need to chart a new path forward that enables Palestinians to rebuild their lives and realize their aspirations free from Hamas’s tyranny,” according to the State Department.

Israel launched a war on Hamas in Gaza on October 7 last year after the group attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. The Israeli offensive has killed more than 42,000 people in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, displaced most of its people and flattened large swathes of the enclave.

The UN report, which looks at estimates for the Palestinian territories as a whole, says that over 4 million people in them were affected by poverty in 2024, including 2.6 million newly impoverished people. This brings the poverty rate to 74.3% across the Palestinian territories, according to the report.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of almost entirely destroying Gaza, saying it is “no longer fit for life.” This month, a UN inquiry accused Israel of carrying out a “concerted policy” of destroying Gaza’s health care system, adding that its policies “constitute the war crimes of willful killing and mistreatment and the crime against humanity of extermination.” The Israeli foreign ministry called the accusations “outrageous.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

German police busted a pizzeria in the western city of Düsseldorf that also delivered a side order of cocaine when customers asked for item number 40 on the menu.

“That was one of the best-selling pizzas,” criminal director Michael Graf von Moltke told reporters in Düsseldorf.

He said police were first tipped off by suspicious food inspectors in March. When drug squad officers began observing the restaurant they soon discovered why pizza number 40 was so popular, Moltke told reporters on Monday, German news agency dpa reported.

When police buzzed the apartment of the pizzeria manager, the 36-year-old allegedly threw a bag of drugs out of the window, which “fell right into the arms of the police officers,” Düsseldorf police said. The bounty included 1.6 kilograms (3.5 pounds) of cocaine, 400 grams (14 ounces) of cannabis and €268,000 ($289,000) in cash.

Police said the restaurant manager, who was released from detention after a few days, soon reopened his business and started selling pizza number 40 with the cocaine side order again. That gave investigators an opportunity to look into the supply chain and after several weeks, some 150 officers busted an entire drug ring in western Germany, arrested three suspects including the 22-year-old head of the drug operation, and raided the homes and businesses of another 12 suspects.

During the raids, they came across two cannabis plantations in nearby Mönchengladbach and Solingen, with 300 and 60 plants, respectively. They also found cutting and stabbing weapons, as well as cash and expensive watches, dpa reported.

The pizzeria manager was arrested when he tried to flee abroad, and remains in custody. None of the suspects’ names were released, in line with German privacy rules.

Police did not say how much the pizzeria charged for the special order.

This post appeared first on cnn.com