SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil’s federal police on Thursday formally accused former President Jair Bolsonaro and 36 other people of attempting a coup to keep him in office after his defeat in the 2022 elections. Police said their sealed findings were being delivered Thursday to Brazil’s Supreme Court, which will refer them to Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet, who decides either to formally charge Bolsonaro and put him on trial, or toss the investigation. Bolsonaro told the website Metropoles that he was waiting for his lawyer to review the accusation, reportedly about 700 pages long. But he said he would fight the case and dismissed the investigation as being the result of “creativity.” The former right-wing president has denied all claims he tried to stay in office after his narrow electoral defeat in 2022 to his rival, leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro has faced a series of legal threats since then. Police said in a brief statement that the Supreme Court had agreed to reveal the names of all 37 people who were accused “to avoid the dissemination of incorrect news.” Dozens of former and current Bolsonaro aides also were accused, including Gen. Walter Braga Netto, who was his running mate in the 2022 campaign; former Army commander Gen. Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira; Valdemar Costa Neto, the chairman of Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party; and his veteran former adviser, Gen. Augusto Heleno. Other investigations produced formal accusations of Bolsonaro’s roles in smuggling diamond jewelry into Brazil without properly declaring them and in directing a subordinate to falsify his and others’ COVID-19 vaccination statuses. Bolsonaro has denied any involvement in either. Another probe found that he had abused his authority to cast doubt on the country’s voting system, and judges barred him from running again until 2030. Still, he has insisted that he will run in 2026, and many in his orbit were heartened by the recent U.S. election win of Donald Trump, despite his own swirling legal threats. But the far-reaching investigations already have weakened Bolsonaro’s status as a leader of Brazil’s right wing, said Carlos Melo, a political science professor at Insper University in Sao Paulo. “Bolsonaro is already barred from running in the 2026 elections,” Melo told the The Associated Press. “And if he is convicted he could also be jailed by then. To avoid being behind bars, he will have to convince Supreme Court justices that he has nothing to do with a plot that involves dozens of his aides. That’s a very tall order,” Melo said. A formal accusation of an attempted coup means the investigation has gathered indications of “a crime and its author,” said Eloísa Machado de Almeida, a law professor at Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university in Sao Paulo. She said she believed there was enough legal grounds for the prosecutor-general to file charges. Bolsonaro’s allies in Congress have been negotiating a bill to pardon individuals who stormed the Brazilian capital and rioted on Jan. 8, 2023 in a failed attempt to keep the former president in power. Analysts have speculated that lawmakers want to extend the legislation to cover the former president himself. However, efforts to push a broad amnesty bill may be “politically challenging” given recent attacks on the judiciary and details emerging in investigations, Machado said. On Tuesday, Federal Police arrested four military and a Federal Police officer, accused of plotting to assassinate Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes as a means to overthrow the government following the 2022 elections. And last week, a man carried out a bomb attack in the capital Brasilia . He attempted to enter the Supreme Court and threw explosives outside, killing himself.As the results of the 2024 US presidential election began to roll in, revealing a dramatic shift in the nation’s political landscape, I sat with a colleague to unpack what had unfolded. What started as an analytical conversation soon devolved into a blame game. My colleague pointed fingers at non-college-educated voters, Palestinian supporters and Latino working-class communities—everyone but the root of the problem: White liberals. When I called out their blind spots—arguing that the election outcome was not merely a reflection of voting patterns but of deeper failures like the abandonment of the working class, an overemphasis on Trump as a threat to democracy rather than tangible solutions, the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the stark reality that White women had overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump—their response stunned me. My White colleague, unfazed, looked me dead in the eye and said, “As a born-and-bred American, I feel trapped in a bad marriage. They thought Trump would bring peace to Gaza. Look at what they have done. I am a liberal—always have been—but now I am considering leaving America. At least you have a place to go.” As an immigrant and a woman of colour, the sharp comment wrapped in White privilege hit like a dagger, but it also encapsulated why the Democratic Party’s losses were so devastating—thanks, in large part, to the failures of a key segment of its base: White liberals. Often buoyed by a sense of moral superiority, this group had grossly misjudged the political terrain. They clung to optimism fuelled by grassroots successes and the resurgence of issues like climate change, economic inequality and reproductive rights. Yet, as the votes came in, it became glaringly apparent that this optimism was misplaced. The 2024 election, like those before, served as a brutal reminder: ideology alone doesn’t shape the political landscape. It is moulded by the lived experiences, needs and desires of a broad, diverse electorate—something too many White liberals continue to overlook. The majority of White liberals continue to inhabit a powerful echo chamber where they engage with others who share similar values, opinions and experiences. For them, the world is often neatly divided into progressive versus regressive and virtuous versus ignorant. They see their candidates through the lens of moral righteousness, framing the political struggle as one of “good” versus “evil”. While such moral clarity can be invigorating, it is also perilous. This worldview often neglects the complexities and contradictions that define American society, particularly the challenges faced by working-class Americans, rural populations and voters of colour. In the 2024 election, these oversimplifications contributed to the erosion of support in key battleground states, which had previously been the Democratic strongholds—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The results mirrored those of 2016 in several alarming ways. While Kamala Harris had campaigned on progressive values, tapping into the anger and frustration stemming from the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, many voters—especially White women—reverted to familiar allegiances with the Republican Party. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was heralded as a groundbreaking moment for women in politics. Yet, her defeat to Trump was a stark reminder of how fragile progress can be. Despite her credentials and experience, Clinton failed to resonate with significant segments of the electorate. White women, in particular, played a pivotal role in Trump’s victory, voting for him in numbers that surprised many analysts. This phenomenon was often attributed to a mix of socio-economic factors, cultural identity and a refusal to embrace a candidate perceived as a continuation of the establishment. Fast forward to 2024, and a similar pattern emerged. Harris, while advocating for women’s rights and attempting to galvanise the base around shared values, fell short in addressing the complexities of White women’s political behaviour. Many of these voters, disillusioned by the perceived extremism of progressive platforms and the failures of the Democratic establishment, leaned toward Trump. One of the more perplexing aspects of Harris’ campaign rhetoric was her attempt to court suburban Republican women, particularly those disillusioned with Trump’s leadership. In theory, these voters could have been persuaded to support Harris if she had appealed to their desire for stability and civility and their frustration with Trump’s abrasive style. This strategy was epitomised by the inclusion of former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney as a potential symbol of crossover appeal. Cheney, who had publicly broken with Trump over his role in the January 6 Capitol riot, was seen as a figure who could bridge the divide between moderate Republicans and Democrats. The hope was that Cheney’s prominence in the anti-Trump movement could sway suburban Republican women into voting for Harris, even if it meant defying their Republican-leaning spouses. In reality, this strategy did not materialise as expected. Despite Harris’s efforts to connect with moderate Republicans, particularly suburban women, the election saw a significant gender gap. While some suburban women defected from Trump, the overall trend among White women remained mainly in the former president’s favour. According to exit polls, a majority of White women—around 53%—voted for Trump, compared to 47% who voted for Harris. This result was surprising given that Harris, as the first woman of colour on a major party ticket, was expected to draw strong support from women, particularly those who had become disillusioned with Trump’s misogynistic rhetoric and behaviour. In retrospect, the attempt to lure suburban Republican women away from Trump by focusing on his personal deficiencies rather than on tangible policy solutions was an overly simplistic approach. The lessons from both the 2016 and 2024 elections are stark. White liberals, in their eagerness, often failed to engage with the realities of the voters they sought to mobilise. Assumptions about shared values, particularly among White women, proved dangerous and oversimplified. This demographic, often viewed through identity politics, is not monolithic; their decisions are influenced by many factors, including race, class and regional identity. The fallout from the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, created a complex emotional landscape for many women. While reproductive rights were a critical issue; they were not the sole determinant of political allegiance. The overwhelming support for Trump, even in the wake of anti-abortion rulings, suggests that many women are grappling with conflicting loyalties—between their rights and a perceived cultural identity. For many, this creates a sense of betrayal, as the very rights women fought for are increasingly under siege. The challenge for liberals is not merely to mobilise around these rights but to foster an environment where women feel empowered to make decisions based on their unique circumstances and values. This requires a radical shift in framing the conversation and moving beyond a binary narrative of good versus evil. One of Harris’ most significant failures during the 2024 campaign was her failure to adequately address the deep economic struggles facing millions of American working-class families. In many ways, her rhetoric mirrored that of her predecessor, Hillary Clinton, whose infamous characterisation of certain working-class voters as “deplorables” in the 2016 election alienated large swathes of the electorate. By failing to recognise the struggles of these voters, Clinton inadvertently fuelled resentment and disengagement from the political system, particularly in rural and industrial areas where economic dislocation and job insecurity were paramount concerns. Harris, too, missed the opportunity to connect with voters based on economic hardship. Instead of articulating a concrete agenda that could improve the lives of working-class Americans, much of her rhetoric was centred around the spectre of Donald Trump. While this approach successfully consolidated the anti-Trump vote, it did little to address the pressing issues that voters cared most about, such as healthcare, labour rights, affordable childcare and wage stagnation. At a time when workers across America were grappling with job insecurity, rising healthcare costs and a lack of affordable childcare options, Harris had an opportunity to present a bold, progressive vision for strengthening the rights and well-being of American workers. Instead of delivering a message about how her policies could improve the material conditions of ordinary Americans, Harris spent a significant portion of her campaign warning about the existential threat of Trump’s policies. While it was essential to critique Trump’s failure to shift the focus to concrete solutions for working-class families, it was a glaring missed opportunity. The sentiment was echoed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who issued a pointed critique of the Democratic Party, accusing it of abandoning the very working-class people who once formed the backbone of its support. In his statement, Sanders argued that it was no surprise that many working-class Americans had turned away from the party, given its failure to address their needs. He accused the Democratic Party of being complicit in defending the status quo—a status quo that is no longer tenable in a nation where growing inequality and economic hardship are defining the lives of millions. Sanders emphasised the widespread anger among Americans, particularly the working class, who are fed up with a political system that seems more concerned with preserving the interests of the wealthy elite than enacting meaningful change. He also warned that the US is rapidly heading toward an oligarchy, where a handful of the richest individuals and corporations exert disproportionate control over the economy and politics. Meanwhile, most Americans—nearly 60%—live pay cheque to pay cheque, struggling to make ends meet in an economy that increasingly benefits only the wealthiest citizens. The 2024 US presidential election results should serve as a potent reminder that White liberals need to learn to listen, engage and adjust to the complexities of a nation that is far more diverse in its needs and concerns than they often acknowledge. The election revealed the limits of politics driven by identity and cultural issues, particularly at the expense of economic and material concerns. If the Democratic Party and White liberals are to regain relevance and build a genuinely inclusive coalition, they must move beyond the echo chambers of their progressive enclaves and understand the lived realities of those who do not share their privileged positions. In the years ahead, White liberals will have to recognise that the fight for social justice cannot be waged in isolation. If they are to win back the support of the electorate and restore the power of the Democratic Party, they must recognise that the solutions to America are not one-size-fits-all. They need to embrace a politics of empathy, inclusion and practical solutions to the real issues faced by voters across the nation. Souzeina Mushtaq is Assistant Professor of Journalism at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls
ubet63 jili slot online
。
Redefining the Future of Shopping: Jingo Gains Silicon Valley's Backing
ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (WKBW) — There's no love lost between Buffalo Bills left tackle Dion Dawkins and the New York Jets. Dawkins has never shied away from his disdain for the Bills division rival and he's using that as motivation again this week. "These are like some of the hardest games of the season against the Jets, Patriots, and Dolphins, no matter when it is, no matter the order it's in, they are the hardest games of our season every single year," Dawkins said. "It's always great competition, the rivalry is great, the intensity is up, and I like to think and live in the aura that we hate each other, and that keeps us going." "I think these division games there's always a bit more flare to it," quarterback Josh Allen said. "They're a physical team, they've got a really good defense." Allen has struggled against the Jets over the last several years and cites failing to protect the ball as a key reason why. That said, Allen was very efficient in their first matchup of the season against New York, completing 19 of 25 passes for 215 yards and a touchdown. With one more win in the final two regular-season games, the Bills will clinch the No. 2 seed in the AFC. It's something they understand is important with the playoffs just around the corner. "I think locking up the No. 2 seed is the No. 1 priority," Allen said. "All that does is guarantee us two home playoff games, but you've got to win the first one to get the second one, so that's all we're caring about is going out there this week and just trying to play good, sound football in our type of brand that we know we can play." "It's a division game, and I know they aren't playing for a spot in the playoffs but we are and we want to go into the playoffs confident," cornerback Taron Johnson said.China and Indonesia join hands to create: The Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway has launched with a stunning number of stationsRevellers hit Rio's Copacabana beach for pride parade
TheStreet aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission. If you've been contemplating the purchase of new bedding , then there's no better time than right now. Macy's is in the midst of its annual Black Friday sale and the discounts are positively dreamy! The retailer currently has a gorgeous sheet set on sale that's so soft you may never want to get out of bed again. The Color Sense 4-Piece Sheet Set is only $32 right now, which is an incredible 80% off the regular price. These sheets were a great buy at the original price, but with this discount they're divine! Color Sense 4-Piece Sheet Set, $32 (was $160) at Macy's Macy's This 300-thread-count sheet set includes a fitted sheet, a flat sheet, and two pillowcases. The 100% cotton sateen material makes them highly breathable, so you can stay warm without overheating. The set also incorporates what the brand calls True Grip fit technology, which ensures that the 1-inch-wide elastic band that runs along the bottom of the fitted sheet will grip and stay in place on thick mattresses. These sheets are available in four sizes and five color varieties, so there's something for everyone. Related: Macy's is selling a 'sturdy' $940 3-piece luggage set for just $329 for a limited time Macy's shoppers loved almost everything about this sheet set. One described it as "soft and comfy," before complimenting its "breathable" design. Another shared, "These sheets are very thick and soft so you won't get cold by just laying under the sheet. They are great quality fabric with a tight fit. They are also silky but not to where you slide around on them." The Color Sense 4-Piece Sheet Set is perfect for any climate or time of year. However, the best time to get them is now, considering the 80% Black Friday discount currently in effect.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Republican senators pushed back on Sunday against criticism from Democrats that Tulsi Gabbard , Donald Trump's pick to lead U.S. intelligence services , is “compromised” by her comments supportive of Russia and secret meetings , as a congresswoman, with Syria’s president, a close ally of the Kremlin and Iran. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat and veteran of combat missions in Iraq, said she had concerns about Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's choice to be director of national intelligence . “I think she’s compromised," Duckworth said on CNN’s “State of the Union," citing Gabbard's 2017 trip to Syria, where she held talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Gabbard was a Democratic House member from Hawaii at the time. “The U.S. intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with America’s foes. And so my worry is that she couldn’t pass a background check,” Duckworth said. Gabbard, who said last month she is joining the Republican Party, has served in the Army National Guard for more than two decades. She was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait and, according to the Hawaii National Guard, received a Combat Medical Badge in 2005 for “participation in combat operations under enemy hostile fire in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom III." Duckworth's comments drew immediate backlash from Republicans. “For her to say ridiculous and outright dangerous words like that is wrong," Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma, said on CNN, challenging Duckworth to retract her words. “That’s the most dangerous thing she could say — is that a United States lieutenant colonel in the United States Army is compromised and is an asset of Russia.” In recent days, other Democrats have accused Gabbard without evidence of being a “Russian asset.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has claimed, without offering details, that Gabbard is in Russian President Vladimir “Putin’s pocket.” Mullin and others say the criticism from Democrats is rooted in the fact that Gabbard left their party and has become a Trump ally. Democrats say they worry that Gabbard's selection as national intelligence chief endangers ties with allies and gives Russia a win. Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat just elected to the Senate, said he would not describe Gabbard as a Russian asset, but said she had “very questionable judgment.” “The problem is if our foreign allies don’t trust the head of our intelligence agencies, they’ll stop sharing information with us,” Schiff said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” Gabbard in 2022 endorsed one of Russia’s justifications for invading Ukraine : the existence of dozens of U.S.-funded biolabs working on some of the world’s nastiest pathogens. The labs are part of an international effort to control outbreaks and stop bioweapons, but Moscow claimed Ukraine was using them to create deadly bioweapons. Gabbard said she just voiced concerns about protecting the labs. Gabbard also has suggested that Russia had legitimate security concerns in deciding to invade Ukraine, given its desire to join NATO. Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri said he thought it was “totally ridiculous” that Gabbard was being cast as a Russian asset for having different political views. “It’s insulting. It’s a slur, quite frankly. There’s no evidence that she’s a asset of another country,” he said on NBC. Sen. James Lankford, another Oklahoma Republican, acknowledged having “lots of questions” for Gabbard as the Senate considers her nomination to lead the intelligence services. Lankford said on NBC that he wants to ask Gabbard about her meeting with Assad and some of her past comments about Russia. “We want to know what the purpose was and what the direction for that was. As a member of Congress, we want to get a chance to talk about past comments that she’s made and get them into full context,” Lankford said.
Holding to Presbyterian to single digits in all but the first quarter, East Tennessee State squelched Presbyterian 64-31 in a non-conference women’s basketball game played Wednesday night inside Brooks Gym. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.