 |
|
|
|||||
President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking $10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021” in order to “intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.The broadcaster apologized last month to Trump over the edit of the Jan. 6 speech. But the publicly funded BBC rejected claims it had defamed him, after Trump threatened legal action.BBC chairman Samir Shah had called it an “error of judgment,” which triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news.The speech took place before some of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.The BBC had broadcast the hourlong documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.Trump said earlier Monday that he was suing the BBC “for putting words in my mouth.”“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right?” the president said unprompted during an appearance in the Oval Office. “They’re beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn’t say that, but they put terrible words.”The president’s lawsuit was filed in Florida. Deadlines to bring the case in British courts expired more than a year ago.Legal experts have brought up potential challenges to a case in the U.S. given that the documentary was not shown in the country.The lawsuit alleges that people in the U.S. can watch the BBC’s original content, including the “Panorama” series, which included the documentary, by using the subscription streaming platform BritBox or a virtual private network service.The 103-year-old BBC is a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by every household that watches live TV or BBC content. Bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, it typically faces especially intense scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals. Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
If you want to recycle an old electric toothbrush or pair of headphones with a lithium battery embedded inside, it can be hard to find a place to do itand many existing battery collection boxes are fire risks. Thats why Redwood Materials, the battery recycling and energy storage company founded by ex-Tesla engineer J. B. Straubel, just redesigned the collection bin. The new bins, rolling out first in San Francisco stores in partnership with the citys environmental department, can accept any type of rechargeable device, from phones to electric razors, earbuds, and loose lithium batteries. When someone drops a battery or device into a slot, the bin automatically lowers it into a sealed 50-gallon drum and coats it in fire suppressant. The bin also uses sensors to monitor itself to prevent fires. [Photo: Redwood Materials] Consumer recycling has been incredibly challenging, says Alexis Georgeson, Redwoods vice president of external affairs and consumer recycling programs. I think some of the issues and lack of technology to enable frictionless, free, visible collection points for consumers have contributed to the abysmal collection rates that were at right now. Only around 16% of electronics are recycled in the U.S. right now. Most batteries end up in junk drawers or landfills, because fundamentally consumers just dont understand how to get them recycled, Georgeson says. [Photo: Redwood Materials] Redwood launched to handle battery recycling for businesses in 2017, but people who heard about the startup almost immediately began dropping off their own batteries at the companys front door or shipping them in. The company started working with nonprofits and communities trying to make recycling easier, and previously placed standard collection bins at some locations. But those bins didnt solve the challenge of fire risk, so they had to be monitored by staff. [Image: Redwood Materials] The new bins manage fire risk without human intervention, so they can scale up much more easily. Theyre also secure, so someone could feel safe dropping in an old phone or laptop, unlike in the open cardboard boxes that exist in some other stores. When the drums are full, Redwood adds them to pallets that are shipped back to its Nevada facility for recycling. (The fire suppressant is also reused.) EV batteries still make up a bigger volume of the companys recycling; a single Tesla Model 3 battery is equivalent to several thousand iPhone batteries. But as the number of battery-filled devices keeps proliferating, and consumers quickly get rid of them, the potential scale is large. Redwood plans to install the bins in other parts of the Bay Area, then Nevada, and then deploy them nationally. Even before the official launch in San Franciscoand without any promotion or signagethe bins are already popular. We actually rolled the bins out very quietly a couple of weeks ago, and we’ve already filled several of them up, Georgeson says.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration said in a court filing Monday that the president’s White House ballroom construction project must continue for unexplained national security reasons and because a preservationists’ organization that wants it stopped has no standing to sue.The filing was in response to a lawsuit filed last Friday by the National Trust for Historic Preservation asking a federal judge to halt President Donald Trump’s project until it goes through multiple independent reviews and a public comment period and wins approval from Congress.The administration’s 36-page filing included a declaration from Matthew C. Quinn, deputy director of the U.S. Secret Service, the agency responsible for the security of the president and other high-ranking officials, that said more work on the site of the former White House East Wing is still needed to meet the agency’s “safety and security requirements.” The filing did not explain the specific national security concerns; the administration has offered to share classified details with the judge in a private, in-person setting without the plaintiffs present.The East Wing had sat atop a emergency operations bunker for the president.Quinn said even a temporary halt to construction would “consequently hamper” the agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory obligations and its protective mission.A hearing in the case was scheduled for Tuesday in federal court in Washington.The government’s response offered the most comprehensive look yet at the ballroom construction project, including a window into how it was so swiftly approved by the Trump administration bureaucracy and its expanding scope.The filings assert that final plans for the ballroom have yet to be finalized despite the continuing demolition and other work to prepare the site for eventual construction. Below-ground work on the site continues, wrote John Stanwich, the National Park Service’s liaison to the White House, and work on the foundations is set to begin in January. Above-ground construction “is not anticipated to begin until April 2026, at the earliest,” he wrote.The National Trust for Historic Preservation did not respond to email messages seeking comment.The privately funded group last week asked the U.S. District Court to block Trump’s project.“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the lawsuit states. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.”Trump had the East Wing torn down in October as part of his plan to build an estimated $300 million, 90,000-square-foot (27,432-square-meter) ballroom able to accommodate about 1,000 people before his term ends in January 2029. He says presidents before him long have wanted an event space larger than the rooms currently at the White House, and says the ballroom would end the practice of entertaining visiting foreign dignitaries in large, temporary pavilions on the south grounds.The Trust asserts that the plans should have been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts and Congress before any action was taken. The lawsuit notes that the Trust wrote to those entities and the National Park Service on Oct. 21, after East Wing demolition began, urging a stop to the project and asking the administration to comply with federal law, but received no response.The lawsuit cites several federal statutes and rules detailing the role the planning and fine arts commission and lawmakers play in U.S. government construction projects.The administration argued in its response that the president has the authority to modify the White House and included the extensive history of changes and additions to the Executive Mansion since it was built more than 200 years ago. It also asserted that the president is not subject to the statutes cited by the plaintiffs.Department of Justice attorneys said in the filing that the plaintiff’s claims about the East Wing demolition are “moot” because the tear-down cannot be undone. The administration also argues that claims about future construction are “unripe” because the plans are not final.The administration also contends that the Trust cannot establish “irreparable harm” because above-ground construction is not expected until spring. It argues that the reviews sought in the lawsuit, consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, “will soon be underway without this Court’s involvement.”Trump’s ballroom project has prompted criticism in the historic preservation and architectural communities, and among his political adversaries, but the lawsuit is the most tangible effort thus far to alter or stop his plans for an addition that itself would be nearly twice the size of the White House before the East Wing was torn down.In 2000, the National Park Service’s Comprehensive Design Plan for the White House first identified the need for a larger event space to address an increase in visitors and to provide a venue suitable for major events, according to the administration’s filing. Darlene Superville, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||