Olivia Flowers opened up about the struggle to get a diagnosis for Lyme disease, recalling how much her brother suffered even at 'the best of clinics'

By Andrew Chung U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday rejected a push by Senate Democrats to

By Kate Abnett LUXEMBOURG A late proposal to extend subsidies for coal plants has upset European Union countries'

The Chicago White Sox have fired executive vice president Ken Williams and general manager Rick Hahn, cutting ties with their leadership on the baseball side amid another disappointing season

BUDAPEST Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban kicked off his campaign for next year's European Parliamentary elections with harsh

Donald Trump’s latest federal indictment is not the lengthiest of the charging documents that has come his way so far, but it may well be the most profound. That was the reaction of legal analysts and journalists this week after Jack Smith delivered the Department of Justice’s initial charges against Mr Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, with much of his conduct in the weeks leading up to and during the January 6 attack going unaddressed in the indictment. All in all, the twice-impeached ex-president is charged with four crimes related to the election-meddling efforts, including conspiracy to deprive Americans of their rights — a law passed as part of anti-Ku Klux Klan legislation. What was absent from the document was a charge that many expected to see after the conclusion of the House of Representatives’ select committee investigation into the attack: A count of giving aid or comfort to an insurrection. There was no mention of that charge, or the related accusation of seditious conspiracy, which has been leveled against members of the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. There was also no mention of charges for Mr Trump’s long list of allies, some of whom spread conspiracy theories about the election, and other enablers who either knowingly or unknowingly pushed complete and utter falsehoods on a wide range of issues for months after their boss lost the presidential election. Notably, a number (like ex-legal counsel Rudy Giuliani) are referred to as co-conspirators, and specifically not described as “unindicted”. But the initial document charged Mr Trump and Mr Trump alone, with the entirety of its focus being on the actions of the man at the head of the table. A former deputy assistant attorney general and federal prosecutor who analysed the indictment in an interview with The Independent said that decision was likely deliberate, to ensure that the focus of the case remained on Mr Trump’s efforts and potentially to streamline the path to trial. “Each new defendant brings a possible doubling, if not more, of potential causes for delays,” Harry Litman explained. “It's a very considered, strategic decision to bring an indictment only against Trump. And you and I know, those people are by no means out of the woods.” Bringing an indictment against the former president, he added, was the DoJ’s way of cutting as much of the potential delays away as possible in the hopes of getting the ex-president to trial before the 2024 election has concluded. “It maximises the possibility of it happening quickly,” said Mr Litman. “Whereas before yesterday, it seemed doubtful, at least very tenuous, that there would be a federal trial before the election. But I think it now seems likely.” The exclusion of (arguably) more serious charges like seditious conspiracy and giving comfort to a rebellion, he posited , was a decision made for a similar reason. By focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to change the results and not his words themselves, Mr Litman explained, Mr Smith’s team was “attack[ing] around” any First Amendment-related defences the former president’s legal team would raise against those charges. Mr Trump has denied guilt in all the instances where he is accused of taking illegal measures to remain in the White House, and continues to insist to this day that he is the rightful winner of the 2020 election. Vast swaths of his loyal fanbase believe the same. The former president continues to await a decision by prosecutors in Georgia related to his efforts to change the election results in that state as well; Fulton County officials have said that a decision on that matter is coming later this month. Read More Trump lawyer hints at a First Amendment defense in the Jan. 6 case. Some legal experts are dubious When is Donald Trump’s arraignment? Watch view of Capitol Hill after police say no active shooter found at Senate office after lockdown GOP senators who condemned Trump on Jan 6 but voted against impeachment remain silent on indictment Prosecutors may be aiming for quick Trump trial by not naming alleged conspirators, experts say Rudy Giuliani’s accuser reveals tapes detailing alleged sexually vulgar remarks

Donald Gray Triplett, the first person diagnosed with autism symptoms, died Thursday, according to his longtime employer. Triplett was 89.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he won’t pursue the entire judicial overhaul originally planned by his government,

During the conversation with Ethan Klein, Hasan mentioned international IP (Intellectual Property) constraints

More than half of Americans believe US Supreme Court justices decide cases largely on the basis of their partisan political views, a figure that has shot up 10 percentage points from January 2022. That figure – 53 per cent – appears to be driven by the gulf between perceptions of the conservative supermajority court among Republican and Democratic voters following several controversial rulings at the end of its latest term, according to new polling from ABC News/Ipsos. Roughly three-quarters of Republican voters and 26 per cent of Democratic voters support the court’s decision to reject affirmative action in university admissions. Sixty-eight per cent of Republicans approve of the decision to allow businesses to deny services to same-sex couples. And 71 per cent of Republicans support the court’s ruling against President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel student loan debts, compared to just 17 per cent of Democrats. Overall, a bare majority of Americans (52 per cent) support the court’s decision against race-conscious admissions in higher education. That majority includes majorities among white (60 per cent) and Asian (58 per cent) Americans, while 52 per cent of Black Americans disapprove of the ruling. Despite their views on affirmative action, most Americans still do not believe that Black and Hispanic students have a fair chance of getting into the college of their choice compared to their white and Asian student counterparts. Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that white and Asian students have a fair chance for admission to the college of their choice, compared to only 47 per cent and 50 per cent of respondents who would say the same for Black and Hispanic students, respectively. Americans’ views on the court’s actions against student debt cancellation also track closely with their age, polling finds. Older Americans are more likely to support the court’s actions – 61 per cent of people age 65 and older endorsed the ruling that struck down the president’s plan, while only 40 per cent of people aged 30 to 49 and 31 per cent of those under 30 years old support the ruling. “I know there are millions of Americans … in this country who feel disappointed and discouraged, or even a little bit angry, about the court’s decision today on student debt. And I must admit, I do, too,” Mr Biden said in remarks from the White House on 30 June following the court’s decision. Public support for the decision making at the nation’s highest court – with three justices appointed by Donald Trump during his one-term presidency – sank precipitously in the wake of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade and revoke a constitutional right to abortion care last summer. Following that ruling, among other actions under the court’s new conservative majority, the court has come under greater public scrutiny, alongside the decades of maneuvers among Republican officials to seat similarly ideologically minded judges across the federal judiciary, the actions of Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas surrounding attempts to reject 2020 election results, and a series of investigative reports that revealed apparent ethics lapses among conservative justices. Such scrutiny has called the court’s legitimacy into question, with Democratic lawmakers and critics of the court pressing for ethics investigations, impeachment proceedings and the resignation of justices. Read More Harvard sued over ‘legacy admissions’ after Supreme Court targets affirmative action Biden reveals ‘new path’ to student debt relief after Supreme Court strikes down president’s plan The ‘fake’ gay marriage case in the middle of the Supreme Court’s latest threat to LGBT+ rights The Supreme Court risks inflaming the prejudices that America sought to banish

By Ross Kerber Vanguard supported just 2% of shareholder resolutions on environmental and social issues at U.S. companies

In-N-Out will bar employees in five states from wearing masks unless they have a doctor’s note, according to internal company emails leaked on social media last week