A majority of Republicans in a recent poll say they believe formerPresident Trump’s investigations are being conducted “unfairly.”
The new survey, released Friday by YouGov, found that among the four criminal indictments that Trump is facing, more than 66 percent of Republicans believe the cases are being handled “unfairly.” This is compared to 70 percent of Democrats who disagreed, saying the opposite.
Broken down by case, more respondents pointed to the federal election subversion case — which is related to Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power and his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — as being conducted unfairly, with 73 percent of Republicans saying so. His election case in Georgia, centered on charges related to violations of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, came in second with 71 percent of Republicans saying it was handled unfairly.
Roughly 67 percent of survey takers said the New York hush money case was being mishandled, while the classified documents case, where the former president has been indicted on 40 charges related to unauthorized possession after leaving the White House and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them, drew the lowest disapproval from GOP voters, with 66 percent saying it is being handled unfairly, per the survey.
When asked about the fairness of each case, at least 40 percent of U.S. adult citizens as a whole said they are handled fairly.
YouGov also found that a majority of Americans believe the four cases are at least somewhat serious, possibly excluding the hush-money case that drew 28 percent while the rest received at least 41 percent.
Democrats were more likely than independents or Republicans to say each case is serious Respondents were also more likely to say Trump should be convicted, but less believed he would be, according to the survey.
Overall, the numbers have stayed relatively the same since the survey was last conducted in December.
Trump’s web of legal troubles will play out in courtrooms across the country this year in the midst of his campaign to return to the White House. He is defending himself against a total of 91 criminal charges spread across the four indictments. Separately, he is also a party in more than a half-dozen civil lawsuits.
The YouGov poll was conducted online from Jan 25-29 among 1,000 U.S. adult citizens and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
The United States and Britain launched strikes against 36 Houthi targets in Yemen on Saturday, in the second day of major U.S. operations against Iran-linked groups following a deadly attack on American troops last weekend.
The strikes hit buried weapons storage facilities, missile systems, launchers and other capabilities the Houthis have used to attack Red Sea shipping, the Pentagon said, adding it targeted 13 locations across the country.
It was the latest sign of spreading conflict in the Middle East since war erupted between Israel and Hamas after the militant Palestinian group's deadly assault on Israel on Oct.7.
"This collective action sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will continue to bear further consequences if they do not end their illegal attacks on international shipping and naval vessels," U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said.
The Yemen strikes are running parallel to an unfolding U.S. campaign of military retaliation over the killing of three American soldiers in a drone strike by Iran-backed militants on an outpost in Jordan.
On Friday, the U.S. carried out the first wave of that retaliation, striking in Iraq and Syria against more than 85 targets linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and militias it backs, reportedly killing nearly 40 people.
While Washington accuses Iran-backed militias of attacking U.S. troops at bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, Yemen's Iran-linked Houthis have been regularly targeting commercial ships and warships in the Red Sea.
The Houthis, who control the most populous parts of Yemen, say their attacks are in solidarity with Palestinians as Israel strikes Gaza. But the U.S. and its allies characterizes them as indiscriminate and a menace to global trade.
Faced with mounting Red Sea violence, major shipping lines have largely abandoned the critical trade route for longer routes around Africa. This has increased costs, feeding worries about global inflation while sapping Egypt of crucial foreign revenue from shippers sailing the Suez Canal to or from the Red Sea.
The U.S. has carried out more than a dozen strikes against Houthi targets in the past several weeks, but these have failed to stop attacks by the group.
Just hours before the latest major wave of strikes from the sea and air, the U.S. military's Central Command issued statements detailing other, more limited strikes in past day that included hitting six cruise missiles the Houthis were preparing to launch against ships in the Red Sea.
"This is not an escalation," said British Defence Minister Grant Shapps. "We have already successfully targeted launchers and storage sites involved in Houthi attacks, and I am confident that our latest strikes have further degraded the Houthis’ capabilities."
The United States said Sunday's strikes had support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand. The U.S. military's Central Command said that beyond missile capabilities, the strikes targeted drone storage and operations sites, radars and helicopters.
Despite the strikes against Iran-linked groups, the Pentagon has said it does not want war with Iran and does not believe Tehran wants war either. U.S. Republicans have been ratcheting up pressure on Democratic President Joe Biden to deal a blow to Iran directly.
It was unclear how Tehran will respond to the strikes, which do not directly target Iran but degrade groups it backs.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said in a statement the attacks in Iraq and Syria represented "another adventurous and strategic mistake by the United States that will result only in increased tension and instability".
Iraq summoned the U.S. charge d'affaires in Baghdad to deliver a formal protest after strikes in that country.
The Houthi-run Yemeni News Agency (Saba) said the U.S. and Britain launched 14 raids on Saturday on the governorates of Taiz and Hodeidah.
Eleven of the attacks targeted the Al-Barah area in the Maqbanah District and areas in the Haifan District, a security source told the news agency. The other three attacks targeted Jabal Al-Jada' in Al-Lahiya District and the Al-Salif District in Al-Hudaydah Governorate.
Biden's emerging strategy on Yemen aims to weaken the Houthi militants but stops well short of trying to defeat the group or directly address Iran, the Houthis' main sponsor, experts say.
The strategy blends limited military strikes and sanctions, and appears aimed at punishing the Houthis while limiting the risk of a wider Middle East conflict
Russia has condemned the Friday night large-scale US strikes on Syria and Iraq, saying it was an illegal 'aggression' and that an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting must be convened to address it.
Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Saturday of the American operation which killed some 40 people, including civilians, that it "once again demonstrated to the world the aggressive nature of US policy in the Middle East and Washington’s complete disregard for international law."
According to TASS, "A UN Security Council meeting in connection with the US strikes is scheduled for February 5"; however, the UN has yet to confirm or publish details of the upcoming emergency session.
Additionally Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, said: "We just demanded an urgent sitting of the UN Security Council over the threat to peace and safety created by US strikes on Syria and Iraq."
The Pentagon said it struck over 85 targets in Iraq and Syria, and there are likely more bombing waves to come in the next days.
In fresh Saturday remarks, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said"This is the start of our response." Some unnamed US officials have even said the operation could continue for days or even weeks, in response to the Sunday drone attack on the Jordanian border base which killed three Americans.
While Russia has over several years repeatedly condemned US operations over Syria, and especially the troop occupation in the northeast, it has never responded with an anti-air intercept, or at least this has never been publicly disclosed.
But this remains a possibility so long as major US aerial operations continue. Russian jets and convoy patrols are present especially in Syria's northwest, but have also been known to stretch near Deir Ezzor, the other side of which the Pentagon has a presence.
Moscow says that the US is there illegally, while Russian military intervention was invited in by the Assad government, to stave off externally-sponsored jihadist and terror attacks on the Syrian population.
Ten Republican senators in Oregon cannot run for reelection, the state’s top court ruled on Feb. 1.
The court found that the senators are banned from running for reelection under a constitutional amendment approved in 2022.
The amendment, Ballot Measure 113, states that lawmakers who miss at least 10 legislative days without an excuse cannot seek reelection.
The ruling upheld a decision from Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, a Democrat.
Ms. Griffin-Valade said in 2023 that the senators, under the measure, could not try for another term after their current term.
“My decision honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood when Oregonians added it to our state constitution,” she said at the time.
The decision sparked a lawsuit from some of the Republican senators, but the Oregon Supreme Court sided with the secretary of state.
“Because the text is capable of supporting the secretary’s interpretation, and considering the clear import of the ballot title and explanatory statement in this case, we agree with the secretary that voters would have understood the amendment to mean that a legislator with 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session would be disqualified from holding legislative office during the immediate next term, rather than the term after that,” the new ruling reads.
Justices said they used their typical methodology in construing the amendment “by determining how the voters who adopted the amendment most likely understood its text.” The method included considering the information presented to voters, which stated that voting yes would disqualify legislators with 10 unexcused absences for the term “following current term in office.”
“Those other materials expressly and uniformly informed voters that the amendment would apply to a legislator’s immediate next terms of office, indicating that the voters so understood and intended that meaning,” the justices wrote.
The ruling applies to 10 Republican senators in the 30-seat body.
“I’ve said from the beginning my intention was to support the will of the voters,” Ms. Griffin-Valade said in a statement. “It was clear to me that voters intended for legislators with a certain number of absences in a legislative session to be immediately disqualified from seeking reelection. I’m thankful to the Oregon Supreme Court for providing clarity on how to implement Measure 113.”
Oregon Senate President Rob Wagner, a Democrat, said that the ruling “means that legislators and the public now know how Measure 113 will be applied, and that is good for our state.”
The senators in question, including state Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, missed more than 10 days in 2023 while protesting Democrat-sponsored bills on abortion and other issues. Their walkout of about six weeks delayed voting because it resulted in a lack of quorum, or the minimum number of senators needed to be present to hold a vote.
“We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. But more importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent,” Mr. Knopp said on Feb. 1.
Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a wide margin following Republican walkouts in the Legislature in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
The measure says disqualification applies to “the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.”
Mr. Knopp and others had challenged the interpretation of the measure.
Lawyers for the senators said they viewed the measure language as meaning that the lawmakers could run in 2024, since a senator’s term ends in January while elections are held the previous November. They argued the penalty doesn’t take effect immediately, but rather, after they’ve served another term.
Oregon Senate Minority Leader Sen. Tim Knopp speaks as Democratic Senate President Rob Wagner listens during a press conference in Salem, Ore., on Jan. 31, 2024. (Jenny Kane/AP Photo)
All parties in the suit had sought clarity on the issue before the March 2024 filing deadline for candidates who want to run in this year’s election.
Mr. Knopp and three other Republican senators had already launched reelection bids before the case was considered, while two other senators have said that they’re retiring at the end of their terms. The remaining GOP senators were elected in 2022 for terms that end in early 2027, so they will be barred from running in 2026.
Justice Aruna Masih didn’t participate in the consideration of the case or the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court stated.
All justices on the Oregon Supreme Court were appointed by Democrat governors, either Gov. Kate Brown or Gov. Tina Kotek.
“I’m disappointed but can’t say I’m surprised that a court of judges appointed solely by Gov. Brown and Gov. Kotek would rule in favor of political rhetoric rather than their own precedent,” said state Sen. Suzanne Weber, another lawmaker affected by the ruling. “The only winners in this case are Democrat politicians and their union backers.”
Another challenge from Republicans, this one in federal court, is still pending. The court recently denied a preliminary request that would have let three of the Republicans run, a decision the Republicans have appealed.
Pancreatic cancer is the No. 3 cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, and only 12% of patients survive five years after being diagnosed. Severe pancreatic cancer is associated with metastasis, and it is this spread of secondary tumors that usually causes death, but little is known about the molecular mechanisms that drive metastasis.
In astudypublished Dec. 18 inAdvanced Science, researchers from the University of California, Davis showed that abnormal expression of the proteinEngrailed-1(EN1) promotespancreatic cancerprogression and metastasis in vitro and in mouse models. The team also found that elevatedEN1was associated with severe, metastatic pancreatic cancer in human patients, which suggests thatEN1might make a good target for pancreatic cancer therapies.
"We identified a novel epigenetic factor that can contribute to metastasis in pancreatic cancer, which is one of the most challenging cancers to treat," said Chang-Il Hwang, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics and a senior author on the paper. "A better understanding of these mechanisms would allow us to identify potential targets and improve patient survival."
Metastasis is an important component of pancreatic cancer progression, but researchers have not been able to identify genetic mutations responsible for it. For this reason, Hwang thought that nongenetic factors, such as epigenetic changes or altered protein production, might be at play. His team previously identified several transcription factors—proteins that control the production of other proteins—that are elevated in pancreatic cancers that have undergone metastasis compared to primary tumors.
One of these proteins, EN1, is essential for the survival of neurons during development and is not usually produced in adult pancreatic cells. EN1 has been shown to promote aggressive forms of breast cancer, and it is also associated with poor prognosis in other cancers, including glioblastoma and salivary gland adenoid cystic carcinoma, but its role in pancreatic cancer had not previously been described.
The researchers tested whether inhibiting EN1 or ramping up its expression impacted the growth and survival of pancreatic cancer "organoids"—three-dimensional clumps of lab-grown tissue. They found that, without EN1, pancreatic cancer cells were less likely to survive and divide, but adding extra EN1 increased the tumors' survival. Furthermore, when the researchers genetically modified mouse pancreatic cancer cell lines so that they produced more EN1 than usual, the cells showed increased rates of cell invasion and migration, key features of metastasis.
"It's very clear that EN1 is a really important factor behind the aggressiveness of pancreatic cancer," said first author Jihao (Reno) Xu, a doctoral candidate in the Biochemistry, Molecular, Cellular and Development Biology graduate group. "When we take the tumor cells and make them overexpress EN1, they become more metastatic and aggressive, and when we knock it down, they become less metastatic."
By analyzing publicly available patient databases, the researchers also showed that EN1 is important for prognosis in human pancreatic cancer. They found that EN1 levels were elevated in a subset of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, and that patients with elevated EN1 tended to have worse prognoses.
"Patients with high levels of EN1 have shorter survival times, which suggests that it is contributing to the aggressiveness of pancreatic cancer," said Hwang.
Now, Hwang, Xu and their colleagues are working on ways to translate their findings into the clinic by testing different ways to target EN1. They also plan to continue investigating other nongenetic factors that might contribute to pancreatic cancer progression.
"Ultimately, we want to identify new therapeutic strategies to tackle this disease," Xu said.
More information: Jihao Xu et al, Engrailed‐1 Promotes Pancreatic Cancer Metastasis, Advanced Science (2023). DOI: 10.1002/advs.202308537
CNN law enforcement analyst John Miller discusses a new criminal trend where gangs of migrants steal in states like New York where they can avoid prosecution for petty crime and then flee to states like Florida "to spend the money."
JOHN MILLER: It's so complicated because you're a New Yorker, you move through the city every day as I do. We see these people, we touch these people, they're out looking for work, delivering our food, at the gas stations and the car wash.
These are people who came in waves. 170,000 probably to New York City. But within that group, this hard-working, you know, throngs of people in search of hope and a better life, there is this one percent of criminal element that looks at a different opportunity here.
These individuals, I went over their rap sheets yesterday, multiple charges, grand larceny, robbery, attempted robbery, grand larceny, and larcency.
This particular crew worked on mopeds and scooters, they were doing organized retail theft, snatches on the street, iPhones, iPads, clothing, so on and so forth. One they are still seeking has ten charges on one day because he's part of a pattern that's been going on. I'm looking at the dates their arrests started, which is probably close to when they got here. They've only been here a couple of months.
So what the detectives are telling me is, they have crews here that operate in New York, do all their stealing, then go to Florida to spend the money and come back. I’m like, 'Why don’t they just stay and steal in Florida?' They said, 'Because there you go to jail.'"
In October of last year, when I satirically wrote “Coming Soon To A Brain Near You” I anticipated that it would be a few years before Elon Musk’s dream-baby would actually be born.
In the past four days, there have been hundreds of articles regarding the first in-human Neuralink implant. The quadriplegic individual has not yet been named, but they will undoubtedly go down in history, if only a twitch of their little finger can be accomplished. Medical pioneers, like Dr. Christian Barnard who, in 1967 performed the first heart transplant, are also remembered.
(Let us pause for a moment and give thanks to all the dogs, cats, rats and primates that have contributed to medical research and saved hundreds of thousands of human lives.)
Back to Neuralink's breaking news. What are the possible unintended “benefits” (and WTF consequences) of human brains being one with the internet, libraries, artificial intelligence, each other, and the universe?
If a person (physically-disabled or not) has been equipped with direct access of thought-to-internet, should they be allowed to compete on game shows, chess matches or anything related to intellectual prowess?
Let’s hypothesize that some of the early Neuralink recipients, in addition to regaining use of arms, fingers and legs, mysteriously also develop phenomenal artistic, mathematical, or musical skills, such as audiographic or photographic memories?
What parent, learning of the benefits of neurotechnology, wouldn’t agree to letting their “normal” child receive the advantages of a quantum physics prodigy or a young Beethoven?
If a child of 12 suddenly decides they want to permanently change “genders” then who should stand in the way? What are the moral issues surrounding the 8-year-old, of mediocre intelligence and confined to a wheelchair, who wants to be the next Stephen Hawking? Should this person receive the Neuralink “miracle,” based upon their youthful hopes and dreams?
Let’s pretend that your 14-year-old has been granted membership in the MENSA society, but wants to become “normal” and no longer be treated like a freak of nature?
Could his/her/its brain be fitted with reverse-neural wiring to be assimilated back into their peer group?
Perhaps, someone dealing with the psychology child prodigies, can explain why so many of these young masterminds frequently feel isolated and unnatural.
Another potential benefit of Neuralink-like modifications might be accelerated muscle growth, stamina, and resistance to pain. I’m sure someone at the Pentagon, CIA, football coaches, the International Olympic Committee (on Doping and Performance Enhancers), ISIS, HAMAS, the USMC (and the MMA). are already interested in these super-human possibilities.
Even the fight against diseases may become part of a “mandatory” neural implant national (health and safety) policy.
With proper, confidential monitoring by the government, a simple implant (Free of charge!) would enable doctors to know if you are about to have a heart attack by programming your ears to twitch; or they might be alerted to an ischemic stroke because your cerebral waves are transmitting CNN breaking news from January 6th, 2020.
Your sugar levels, dietary habits, and drug intake (both prescribed and recreational) could be instantly available, by satellite relay, to tenured medical bureaucrats, law enforcement, and the nearest ambulance (or Uber) drivers.
Since heart disease is America’s number one killer, if the CDC “follows the science” they could remotely administer a gentle neural “shock” to dissuade weak-willed gluttons from stopping at bakeries or fast food locations.
Similar, but stronger, “reminder currents” would be sent to those who are not following their medically-mandated exercise regime.
When approximately 375,000 people die each year from eating too many french fries and banana cream pies, or they fail to walk 5 miles each day, a national mandate for everyone to be implanted with “health and safety” neural-technology devices (H&S NTD) must be implemented. No more thoughts and prayers, we demand action!
