Day: July 1, 2024

Tensions are growing between Team Green and Team Black in House of the Dragon, and as the threat of war looms over Westeros, Rhaenyra Targaryen (Emma D’Arcy) is working against the hasty suggestions of the men on her council. She pushes back against her advisors’ proposals and puts the safety of her children first. In Episode 3, we see Rhaenyra sit down with her step-daughter Rhaena Targaryen (Phoebe Campbell) and task her with taking Rhaenyra’s three children to safety in Pentos. At first, Rhaena feels that the task at hand is not as important as going into battle with her sister and the others, until she is told she’d also be traveling with four dragon eggs, which are “the hope for the future.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The chest containing the dragon eggs is opened and we see three eggs that Game of Thrones fans might recognize: a green one, a black one, and a gold one. The director of Episode 3, Geeta Vasant Patel, spoke to Mashable and confirmed that the eggs featured in last night’s episode are indeed the ones gifted to Daenerys in the pilot episode of Game of Thrones by Master Illyrio Mopatis (Roger Allam) after she marries Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa). “All of us who work on this show are big Game of Thrones fans, so it was very exciting to shoot that scene,” she says.

The events that take place in House of the Dragon are different from the book it’s based on. In George R.R. Martin’s Fire & Blood, the eggs were stolen by a noblewoman named Elissa Farman during the reign of Jaehaerys I. Elissa, the lover of Princess Rhaena Targaryen (not to be confused with Rhaena from House of the Dragon, different generations), sailed to Braavos where she sold the eggs to pay for voyages. Per Mashable, the eggs’ journey to Illyrio Mopatis isn’t detailed in depth, but it’s theorized they were continuously sold until they made their way to him.

Now that Patel has confirmed this major plot point, viewers can begin to theorize about what happens to the fourth egg. One leading theory that has emerged: that it becomes Rhaena’s dragon.

Sites

What the Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision Means for Trump’s Criminal Cases

Post author By Mike Nova
Post date July 1, 2024

Supreme Court Presidential Immunity

The Supreme Court on Monday provided former President Donald Trump with significant legal protection against prosecution for actions taken during his tenure in the Oval Office.

In a ruling split along ideological lines, the Justices held that Presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but remain susceptible to charges for unofficial conduct—a decision that has profound implications for Trump’s pending criminal cases, particularly those stemming from his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that a President “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” In doing so, the Supreme Court left it up to the lower court to review which conduct is protected and immune from prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a fiery dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the majority’s stance, arguing that it elevates the President above the law and undermines accountability.

While the case is a landmark ruling on the powers of the American presidency, it will have immediate effects for Trump, the first former President in history to be indicted. At issue in the Supreme Court case was the charges brought by the Justice Department over Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but he’s also facing two other criminal cases in Florida and Georgia, and he’s already been convicted in one in New York.

Here’s what to know about the next steps in Trump’s election interference case and how the ruling may affect all of the charges he faces.

The Jack Smith election interference case

Instead of dismissing the federal election interference case, the Supreme Court sent certain elements of the indictment back to a lower court to review which conduct is protected and immune from prosecution.

The Supreme Court offered some specific guidance on the conduct at issue in the case, which was brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Roberts wrote for the conservative majority that Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for his alleged conduct relating to conversations with Justice Department officials about launching investigations into election fraud and potential fraudulent slates of electors. But the Supreme Court didn’t offer answers on other conduct alleged in Smith’s indictment, writing that further proceedings at the lower court level are needed to determine whether Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged attempt to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the Electoral College vote, and his interactions with state officials, private people, and voters about election fraud and the violence on Jan. 6.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing that case and was appointed by former President Barack Obama, will be tasked with sifting through the allegations in the indictment to separate Trump’s official acts as President from private ones, when he was acting as a presidential candidate. Those acts include conversations Trump had with people outside the federal government, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who famously rejected Trump’s pressure to “find” enough votes to flip the state’s 2020 vote.

Norm Eisen, a senior fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution and former counsel to the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, says that we may see an evidentiary hearing, or a “mini trial,” take place this summer or fall that allows Chutkan to hear witness testimony and receive other relevant evidence.

Sending these questions back to a lower court all but guarantees that the trial in this case will be delayed until after voters decide in November whether to return Trump to the White House. And if Trump wins the election and returns to the White House, he could order the Justice Department to drop its case against him.

The other cases

Trump has claimed that the Supreme Court’s ruling should put an end to all four of his criminal cases, and his lawyers will likely use the ruling to argue that the cases should be dismissed because they involved official conduct Trump undertook as President.

Legal experts are skeptical of that assertion. Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, says the ruling is unlikely to affect Trump’s recent state criminal conviction in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal ahead of the 2016 presidential election, since the ruling does not grant former Presidents immunity for personal conduct. “I don’t see paying off a porn star and falsifying business records as anything other than personal capacity,” she says. Trump faces sentencing in that case on July 11, and he has already vowed to appeal.

The high court’s ruling could impact Trump’s state election-interference trial in Georgia led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who charged Trump and 14 of his allies in a sprawling racketeering indictment for allegedly attempting to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. The indictment claims that Trump pressured state officials to tamper with vote counts and organized a fake slate of pro-Trump electors. Trump’s lawyers have asserted presidential immunity in that case, though there has been no ruling from Judge Scott McAfee yet and an appeals court recently halted that case while it reviews Willis’ involvement. (Any decision by McAfee on presidential immunity would likely be appealed).

The indictment in that case holds that Trump had conversations with people outside the federal government, including Raffensperger—alleged conduct also in Smith’s indictment. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling allows the federal district court overseeing the Smith case to determine whether or not that act—and other similar conduct in the indictment—qualifies as official or unofficial, the ruling could have bearing on the proceedings in Georgia, too.

It’s less clear whether the Supreme Court’s ruling would affect Trump’s federal prosecution in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents after leaving the White House and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them, Finkelstein says. Trump has argued that the charges in this case should also be thrown out on the grounds that he is entitled to sweeping presidential immunity. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, is yet to rule on that claim, but the special counsel’s team is likely to argue that the conduct in the indictment—illegally retaining classified information—occurred after Trump left office and therefore is not entitled to immunity, Finkelstein says.

Sites

What to Watch For as Biden Doubles Down and Democrats Panic

Post author By Mike Nova
Post date July 1, 2024

US-VOTE-POLITICS-BIDEN

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.

The fever didn’t break over the weekend. In fact, it only worsened.

Since President Joe Biden’s calamitous showing Thursday night during a debate against former President Donald Trump in Atlanta, Democrats have been in the midst of a very public freak-out. The anxiety is apparent at all levels of the party, from the activists who power campaign infrastructure to the donors who fund it to the vaunted elders who bless it. The talks have veered from pressuring Biden to step aside all the way to blocking him from the nomination.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Campaign chief Jen O’Malley Dillon began the clean-up operation on Friday at the Ritz Carlton in Atlanta with a presentation on the state of the race and the path going forward, along with a candid acknowledgement that the night before was not a high point. She was still mopping up the mess on Monday, hastily convening major donors on a call to calm nerves. Everyone below her had their version of the same script: the contours of the campaign would not be shaped solely based on a single 90-minute meltdown when the nation should be comparing Biden’s half-century record of accomplishments to the four-year chaos that unfolded with Donald Trump at the helm.

Little of it was landing as hoped.

Biden spent Sunday and Monday secluded at Camp David in Maryland’s mountains and has a relatively light public schedule this week. A last-minute addition to Biden’s schedule came Monday night: comments from the White House on the Supreme Court’s ruling on how much immunnity Trump enjoyed while he was President. A Cabinet meeting previously planned for Wednesday was scrapped; the official line was that so many members were planning to be out of town but Democrats largely rolled their eyes at that rationale.

Meanwhile, the party continued its navelgazing and silent screaming. Here are the six things to watch for as Democrats try to maneuver through this crisis in the coming days:

Does Jill Biden waver?

At this point, the Democratic National Committee rules leave little wiggle room for anyone but Biden to be the party’s nominee. But that changes if Biden voluntarily chooses to step aside. That’s where a lot of backroom discussions are unfolding to gauge the possibility of such an outcome. Can Biden be talked out of a second term? Is there a better way to spend his 80s? What—or who—could convince him to stand aside?

The answer to that last question has come down to one person and one person alone: First Lady Jill Biden. If Dr. Biden were to feel her husband were doing irreparable harm to himself and his core calling, she would privately tell him. Those close to Dr. Biden say she’s not there yet.

“So let’s talk about last night ‘s debate, because I know it’s on your minds,” she said Friday at a fundraiser in a Greenwich Village brownstone. “As Joe said earlier today, he’s not a young man. And you know, after last night’s debate, he said, ‘You know, Jill, I don’t know what happened. I didn’t feel that great.’ And I said, ‘Look, Joe, we are not going to let 90 minutes define the four years that you’ve been president.’”

Advisers say the broader Biden brood over the weekend urged the President to keep the faith and fight back against what it sees as ageist bullies. They all know the legend of the failed 1988 campaign that saw Biden exit in 1987 amid a plagiarism scandal. By bowing out, Biden effectively confirmed he was a plagiarist and fabulist to Washington. They do not want to repeat that episode if they can avoid it. (They also started to blame staff, never a sign of a health campaign orbit.)

Can major donors be calmed down?

Since the moment the debate ended, the Biden camp’s leaders have been a steady diet of calls with donors and insiders alike to try to calm the panic. The President himself has been involved in some of this, making previously scheduled meetings over the weekend with the monied set in the greater New York area. And on Monday, campaign leaders hastily convened a call with the Democratic National Committee’s finance committee. The overlying message: We get it, bad nights happen, but Biden is moving forward.

The next big moment is set for Wednesday, when many Democrats were slated to join Biden at a private fundraiser in suburban D.C. Who shows up, and who suddenly finds themselves otherwise occupied, could signal how much the party’s biggest names are confident that Biden will remain the nominee.

Will Bill or Barack do more to help Joe?

There are perhaps few voices beyond his family that Biden would heed more than his Democratic predecessors in the Oval Office. Which is why, last year, Barack Obama told Biden that his re-election bid wasn’t where it needed to be. Bill Clinton is just as frustrated, although his frustrations take on a patina of grievance given Hillary Clinton’s almost-there loss in 2016.

Publicly, both men have signaled support for Biden’s continued chase of a second term. They both understand how tough the slog of re-election can be, especially when paired with the day-to-day task of running the country. Privately, though, they are telling former aides and advisers that Biden is heading toward a one-term legacy unless things change dramatically.

Does Kamala start looking more viable?

Vice President Kamala Harris is the most logical understudy for the nomination. But Democrats aren’t exactly rushing to move her to the top of the ticket for a whole host of reasons: her 2020 bid didn’t even make it to the Iowa caucus, Republicans absolutely loathe her, and she’s frankly untested as the marquee name on a ballot. (That said, her approval ratings may be underwater, but she’s less toxic than Biden by about 8 percentage points.)

Then there’s the harsh reality of identity politics. The Democratic Party cannot afford to flake voters of color or women. Ditching the first Black and Asian-American woman to hold the office of Vice President risks irrevocably alienating both.

Since joining Team Biden in 2020, Harris has been one of the most misused political tools in the President’s arsenal. It’s all the more baffling after watching Harris over the last year blow the doors off at public events—particularly with college audiences, women and voters of color. While Harris’ team has been plagued by dysfunction—and, to be fair, the blame starts at the top—there has been little help from the West Wing to iron out the tricky work of being a supporting figure without outshining the boss.

A crucial point quietly being made often by Harris defenders: if she were to ascend to the top of the ticket, all of Biden’s cash could easily transfer to her operation. Because it has, from the start, been the Biden-Harris re-election, there are essentially no campaign finance issues. If it were anyone else taking over the nomination, the heir campaigns would face the same donation limits placed on any other campaign committee. With some creative structuring, there would still be ways to use much of Biden’s warchest toward helping a new nominee, but it would likely be a far cry from the $231 million and counting that Biden has raised in hard cash.

Do any other prominent Democrats make a move?

For the first time in a minute, the Democratic bench actually looks solid. But no one is rushing off of it just yet.

Democratic Govs. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Gavin Newsom of California, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan are some of the buzziest names in the mix at the moment—so much so that the latter phoned Biden’s top hand to tell her that the 2024 chatter was not coming from her folks. Others like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and California Rep. Ro Khanna are also being discussed as potential players. And the likes of 2020 runners-up Pete Buttigieg and Cory Booker have lost none of their ambition.

In public, all are joining the former Presidents in expressing support for Biden and a second term. None of them has a political operation capable of quietly prying the delegates away from Biden without a public brawl. And if Biden is going to remain the nominee as expected, there is zero upside of bloodying the nominee.

Still, no Democrat can be seen to be disengaged in the quest to keep Biden in office. (At least, no Democrat except Michelle Obama, who reportedly is not interested in campaigning for him over a disagreement over how the Biden family treated a messy family split. Plus, she has open contempt for partisan politics and has the privilege of dodging the whole affair for now.)

What will the next batch of polls say?

All of Washington is waiting for a better sense of how the debate has resonated with voters, if at all. Over the weekend, CBS News’ polling found almost three-quarters of the electorate harbored doubts about Biden’s cognitive abilities. Almost half of Democrats in the same poll would prefer he weren’t the nominee. A separate USA Today survey shows 41% of Democrats telling pollsters the party should replace Biden—including 37% of voters who say they will vote for him if he’s the nominee.

Biden’s high command continues to insist polls reflect a moment and not a movement. But electorates tend to have short memories for success, but longer ones for errors. Bush’s polling never really recovered after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. No one died from Biden’s debate showing, but you might not know it from the rolling recriminations unfolding over text messages throughout the party’s rank and file.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.

Sites

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay: Live stream Copa America free from anywhere

Post author By Mike Nova
Post date July 1, 2024

When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

Gio Reyna and Yunus Musah of the United States warm ups during USMNT Training at Cotton Bowl Stadium on June 18, 2024 in Dallas, Texas.

Dorton/ISI Photos/USSF/Getty Images for USSF

The group stages of Copa America are coming to an end as the remaining teams fight for a spot in the upcoming quarterfinals. Tonight will see both the USA and Uruguay attempt to score a slot. Below, we’ve put together everything you need to know about how to watch USA vs. Uruguay, whether you have cable or are seeking a live streaming alternative. There’s even a free option.

Argentina, Venezuela, Canada, and Ecuador have so far advanced to the Copa America quarterfinals, which will start later this week. The USA won their first game 2-0 and lost their second game 2-1. Uruguay, who are tied with Argentina for the most Copa America wins ever, won their first game 3-1 and their second game 5-0, so they will most likely advance to the quarterfinals. The USA could make it to the next stage under a few different circumstances, depending on goal differentials and how Panama and Bolivia go in tonight’s other Copa America match, which is being played at the same time.

Keep reading to learn how to watch USA vs. Uruguay compete at Copa America, and don’t forget to bookmark our Copa America live stream guide to keep up with the latest news on upcoming games.

More free sports: Where to watch Euro 2024 | How to watch Wimbledon | How to watch Tour de France

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay quick links

Access streaming from anywhere via ExpressVPN (30-day money-back guarantee)
US: FS1 on Sling TV ($20 off first month) or Fubo (one-week free trial)
Mexico: TelevisaUnivision/ViX (FREE)
Canada: TSN ($19.99)
UK: Premier Sports (£10.99)
Australia: Optus Sport ($24.99)
Brazil: Globoplay (R$54,90)
When: Monday at 9 p.m. ET / 2 a.m. BST / 9 a.m. AWST (next-day) on FS1

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay in the US

The USA vs. Uruguay game will air on Fox Sports 1 (FS1) in the US. Cord-cutters can get in on the action using a live streaming TV package like Sling TV or Fubo. When it comes to Sling, the cheaper option, you’ll need to sign up for a Sling Blue plan to get FS1. Subscriptions start at $40 a month, but you can get your first month for half-off right now. Fubo is a bit more expensive, at $79.99 a month, but new users can try the service free for one week. This option also includes FOX and Fs2, so you’ll be covered for all Copa America games if you subscribe.

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay in Mexico (for free)

Copa America coverage is spread across multiple services in Mexico, including TelevisaUnivision’s ViX. ViX subscriptions vary in price, but the service occasionally shows free Copa America matches. Tonight is one of those nights, and USA vs. Uruguay will be free here. Check out the instructions further down this page on how to watch this free version from outside of Mexico via a VPN.

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay in Canada

The USA vs. Uruguay match will be available to stream on TSN in Canada, where subscription prices start at $19.99 per month. In addition to the rest of Copa America, you can also watch the Euros here, so it’s a solid hub for Canadian soccer fans.

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay in the UK

In the UK, you can catch USA vs. Uruguay on Premier Sports. Subscriptions start at £10.99 a month, and you can find a variety of sports streaming here.

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay in Australia

USA vs. Uruguay will live stream through Optus Sport in Australia, where subscription rates start at $24.99 monthly. You can find both Copa America and the Euros here.

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay in Brazil

Brazil streams USA vs. Uruguay and other Copa America matches through Globoplay. Subscriptions start from R$54,90.

How to watch USA vs. Uruguay from anywhere with a VPN

If you’ll be outside of Mexico during the game, you can try keeping up using a VPN (virtual private network). VPNs allow you to change your device’s virtual location so that you can access your usual websites from anywhere. VPNs are solid options for people hoping to boost their online privacy and keep up with their everyday apps while traveling. Our go-to rec is ExpressVPN, any easy-to-use VPN with a 30-day money-back guarantee, so there’s no sweat if you find that it’s not helping you out. You can check out our ExpressVPN review for full details.

Note: The use of VPNs is illegal in certain countries, and using VPNs to access region-locked streaming content might constitute a breach of the terms of use for certain services. Insider does not endorse or condone the illegal use of VPNs.

Read the original article on Business Insider