nexbetsports 1
Spend $25 on Amazon Devices and Get $10 Off With This Black Friday Coupon Code
EXCLUSIVE Revealed: Eyewatering £37BILLION cost of Ed Miliband's green crusade to make Britain Net Zero by 2029 By BILL BOWKETT Published: 23:21 GMT, 28 December 2024 | Updated: 23:44 GMT, 28 December 2024 e-mail View comments Ed Miliband's spending spree to make Britain achieve Net Zero carbon emissions by the next general election in 2029 will cost a staggering £37billion in public money, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The Energy Secretary has said average energy bills could be £300 lower in five years as the country shifts to a greener economy. But an audit by The Mail on Sunday has uncovered at least £37.4billion of taxpayers' money being earmarked for Net Zero initiatives over the course of this Parliament. It comes as ministers draw up plans to subsidise the cost of fitting solar panels and energy storage batteries in homes for the Government's pledge for the UK to use clean energy by 2030. The creation of Great British Energy, a publicly owned firm, will cost at least £8.3billion, and in October the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero took control of the Electricity System Operator, the National Grid unit tasked with keeping the nation's lights on, in a £630million deal. Meanwhile the National Wealth Fund, which supports clean energy industries and industrial strategy, has £7.3billion of Treasury backing. Mr Miliband has even promised to honour a 2019 Conservative pledge to provide £11.6billion for international climate funding by 2026. In February, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact said the target would be 'challenging' to meet, with 55 per cent of the funding – around £6billion – yet to be spent. Ed Miliband's spending spree to make Britain achieve Net Zero carbon emissions by the next general election in 2029 will cost a staggering £37billion in public money, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. Pictured: Ed Miliband with Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar at the Port of Greenock Ministers are also drawing up plans to subsidise the cost of fitting solar panels and energy storage batteries in homes for the Government's pledge for the UK to use clean energy by 2030 (Stock image) Labour will pay an estimated £4billion in subsidies to the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire by 2027 for it to burn wood pellets imported from forests overseas. Elsewhere, the Autumn Budget confirmed an initial £3.4billion over the next three years towards decarbonising 350,000 homes and replacing fossil fuel-burning gas boilers with heat pumps. The Times reported that millions of homeowners are to be offered grants and cheap loans to convert their properties to solar power as part of the Warm Homes Plan. Other funding programmes Labour is pressing ahead with include: £2billion for the automotive industry's transition to Net Zero, digitalisation, and automation, as well as £200million for EV charging points; £120million to support buying electric vans as part of the plug-in vehicle grant; £2billion for 11 new hydrogen projects; £1.5billion for the next renewable energy auction; £239million to help tackle global deforestation. In September, the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce – established by the London Stock Exchange in 2022 – predicted that the Government's ambition to make the transition to Net Zero would need up to £50billion in public and private funds annually until 2030. Labour is planning to spend £2billion for the automotive industry's transition to Net Zero, digitalisation, and automation, as well as £200million for EV charging points (Stock image) It is also pledging £2billion for 11 new hydrogen projects (Stock image) Other measures introduced by Labour for its green revolution will not come directly out of state coffers, but will hit householders' pockets. Tory energy spokesman Claire Coutinho said last night: 'Labour's Net Zero zealotry will mean taxpayers having to fork out billions of pounds in pursuit of Ed Miliband's vanity projects, and leaving families facing higher costs.' Yesterday, the Daily Mail reported that families will be hit with the highest ever tax rates on flights after Chancellor Rachel Reeves increased Air Passenger Duty by 15 per cent on most flights. The UK Energy Research Centre said Mr Miliband's drive for £40billion a year in private investment to decarbonise the National Grid could force the UK to pay a premium to secure technology and that, because of uncertainty over gas prices, there was no guarantee it would lead to lower energy bills. Share or comment on this article: Revealed: Eyewatering £37BILLION cost of Ed Miliband's green crusade to make Britain Net Zero by 2029 e-mail Add commentGreat politicians seem to have two main things in common: they pick the right time to be born and they pick the right time to leave office. Everything in between will be recast in their favour if they only get these two things right. Former German chancellor Angela Merkel recently released her memoir . She, without a doubt, picked the right time to be born. She was 35 when the Berlin Wall fell, creating a cause – an East German voice and self-determination in reunifying with the West – that impelled her into politics. She was undeniably smart, but also the right age and the right symbolic vehicle to catch chancellor Helmut Kohl’s eye and become his protegee. In just under 15 years, she became chancellor. If she’d left after one term – two at most – her greatness would never have been questioned. But after that, her legacy as a crucial advocate for East Germans in the process of unification and her historic ascent was overwritten by a series of decisions that have turned out to be disastrous for Germany, economically and geostrategically. A shadow has fallen over Anthony Albanese’s prime ministership in 2024. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen US presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton could also be said to have picked the right time to be born and, thanks to term limits in the US, also the right time to leave office. Reagan performed a necessary service in deregulating a sclerotic US economy, mired in stagflation, while presiding over the end of the Cold War. Clinton presided over a peaceful age of free trade and international co-operation. While neither was a flawless leader and the numerous mistakes they made can easily be identified, they avoided leading their nations into catastrophe. Anthony Albanese also picked the right time to be born: at the beginning of the ’60s, as the fruits of a social revolution against the rigid morality of the war generation were ripe and not yet spoiled. He was a beneficiary of the blossoming of the self-actualisation century, in which the chains of the traditional family were being rejected, to be replaced by a paternal social welfare state. As the child of a single mother, his timing was especially fortuitous; he and his mother were poor, but in highly relative terms historically. They lived in government-owned housing and his mother was entitled to (and received) a disability pension, as she was unable to work. His own university degree – nominally in political economy, mainly in ruthless campus politics – was free (to him, but of course not the taxpayer). Albanese was, as it were, born into a cause: to call for more of this, which made him possible: more social solidarity delivered by the state to replace the sticky ties of family and community obligation that had been found to be unreasonably oppressive by his generation and some in the one before it. Though it wasn’t visible at the time – transformations of this kind are mostly visible only with the benefit of hindsight – Albanese was in on the ground floor of the transformation of Labor from the party of the worker to the party of the left-liberal, the party of welfare. Operating the politics of this movement, Albanese gained the respect of his colleagues and parts of the public. In retrospect, his ideal moment to leave, with this legacy at its zenith, might have been the day in 2013 when he fronted cameras to lament the self-harm playing out within the Labor Party during yet another spill of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. Had he left then, he would have gone out channelling the disgust of Australians at the shenanigans of self-absorbed politicians, an avatar and hero of the people. Or maybe he could even have drawn it out a little longer and left a few years later, at the height of his “everyman” identity (according to The Daily Telegraph , which campaigned to “Save our Albo” in the face of a challenge to his seat from a group of further-left candidates). In either scenario, he would have been remembered as a likeable character in the soap opera of politics – good for future cameos to rally the faithful, positioned for a plum public role. Instead, he became prime minister. And the times have not suited him at all. I could talk about inflation and the cost of living, misjudging the mood of the nation over the Voice referendum, the war in the Middle East and antisemitism at home. Or his approach to change, which has been deemed too incremental by some, too radical by others. I could point to the grip in which he finds himself pinioned, between the forefinger of his younger self in Green-on-the-outside, red-on-the-inside ideologist Max Chandler-Mather and the thumb of John Setka loyalists and the rebellious union movement. But none of these things are as fatal to his legacy as the luck of timing, because Albanese is a man built for an era of liberal gentility, who became PM just as the liberal era was drawing to an end. Albanese can, at least in part, blame Merkel for ending it. The post-Cold War leader of Germany, which, as the largest European economy, has an outsized role in underwriting the European Union, placed her faith in diplomacy over energy security and military deterrence. Germany and Europe are now less able to stand up against Russian strongman Vladimir Putin ’s attempt to seize Ukraine because of her miscalculations. The chief foreign affairs columnist at the Financial Times , Gideon Rachman , also implicates former US President Barack Obama for compounding Merkel’s mistakes by responding weakly or seeking to appease dictators. He concludes that “decisions taken by the two leaders – or often the decisions not taken by them – had a damaging, if delayed, impact on global stability”. When even liberals like Rachman recognise that liberal heroes have made the world more dangerous, it is no wonder that voters around the world (who are usually quicker than FT columnists to sniff approaching dangers) are choosing a rougher cut of leader to champion them into the second quarter of the 21st century. Albanese will never be that. His political tradition is liberal largess, not protective menace. With the bad luck of timing hanging over him, whether he scrapes over the line at the coming election is moot. The politician he might have been remembered as has been overwritten. The question now is only whether his career is ended by his friends or his foes – with a bang, or with a long, drawn-out whimper. Parnell Palme McGuinness is managing director at campaigns firm Agenda C. She has done work for the Liberal Party and the German Greens. Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter .
Trump invited China's Xi to his inauguration even as he threatened massive tariffs on BeijingScholar, gentleman, and great son of India
Millions displaced by global conflicts. Communities reeling from natural disasters. Lives upended because of health care inequalities. In the middle of these crises are established nonprofits, everyday individuals and mutual aid groups — all seeking your dollars to make a difference. With no shortage of worthy causes and the rise of new giving technologies, how should you donate? The choices can be immobilizing. Many people value conventional charities but others — Gen Z and millennials, as well as the unmarried and less religious, according to 2021 research by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy — like to crowdfund by pooling donations online for folks in dire circumstances. “It’s really: what is the right type of support that either an organization or a community or an individual needs?” said Bloomerang Chief Customer Officer Todd Baylis, who co-founded the platform Qgiv to help nonprofits fundraise online. “And being able to tailor that to the individual giver.” Here are some questions worth considering. It might come down to whether you want to make a big difference for one person or help seed large-scale change. Tiltify is a technology platform that helps nonprofits and individual crowdfunders raise money. If donors want to ensure food gets to communities recovering from disasters, Tiltify CEO Michael Wasserman says a nonprofit contribution is probably best, as established organizations already have distribution pipelines and expertise. If you want to ensure a particular person can take care of themselves, he said, a direct donation to a crowdfunding campaign might make more sense than sending money “through a charitable funnel.” You could do both at once, according to one nonprofit that delivers cash transfers. GiveDirectly reports sending more than $860 million to 1.6 million people across three continents. Senior Program Manager Richard Nkurunziza says the idea initially was met with fears of misuse, but GiveDirectly finds that cash donations are a dignified way to empower people to invest in their unique needs. In Rwandan villages, he said, recipients spent donations on household renovations, new businesses and youth education — all of which benefit their entire community. “There’s a bit of agency,” he said. “It gives an opportunity for the recipient to make a decision on how they use the funds for themselves.” Crowdfunding could be considered “more democratic,” according to Claire van Teunenbroek, a University of Twente professor specializing in online giving behavior. Donors have more control over their gifts’ usage when they choose who benefits. The disadvantage, she said, is that people with the greatest needs aren’t always the ones with the most success. Humans are prone to supporting “easily sellable” projects with highly emotional appeals, and studies showed racial disparities in crowdfunding. The most popular reason donors told Bloomerang they stopped giving was because they did not trust contributions were used wisely, according to the company’s Generational Giving Report. The second most common response was that donors no longer felt connected to the nonprofit. The answers underscore the need for recipients to actively prove their trustworthiness. Tax-exempt nonprofits must submit annual financial disclosures to the Internal Revenue Service that include publicly available information, including executives’ salaries. Watchdogs, such as Charity Navigator, compile lists of verified nonprofits and assess their work. Crowdfunding is much more susceptible to fraud. The online sites are relatively unregulated, leaving the responsibility for protection up to donors and the platforms themselves. In GoFundMe’s case, donations can be refunded up to one year after they are made. The company advises that organizers identify themselves and their beneficiaries, and specify their plans for spending contributions. Online users mistakenly associate high donation numbers with credibility, van Teunenbroek said. She said risk is better mitigated by making sure the project’s description is detailed. “For a donor, if you prefer more certainty, then traditional nonprofits are probably better because they have an established reputation,” she said. ALSAC CEO Rick Shadyac said his charity works hard to make donors feel confident that their money is supporting the mission of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital: improving pediatric cancer survival rates worldwide by covering the costs of care and researching treatments. He urges people to give regardless of the medium and to always look for reputable causes. Bonafide charities, he said, bring “greater degrees of confidence” while crowdfunding requires more “due diligence.” Still, he sees room for both. ALSAC gets nearly one-quarter of its annual revenue during the last two months of the calendar, Shadyac said, the time of year designated “Giving Season.” The uptick could stem from the spirit of generosity around the holidays, he added. A 2023 study found that people in good moods are more likely to make a charitable donation. They also might be making year-end tax plans. “Not-for-profits give them the opportunity to address some things that are important to them while also getting a tax deduction,” Shadyac said. Crowdfunding donations to individual campaigns, however, cannot be written off on your taxes. Mutual aid refers to reciprocal support networks of neighbors who meet each other’s most pressing needs when existing systems fail. Participants often describe the act as “solidarity, not charity.” These groups often solicit cash contributions through online payment processors like Venmo, Cash App, PayPal or Zelle. Anyone can scan QR codes, which are usually shared on social media, to donate. The money goes straight to those impacted or helps purchase supplies for shared community resources. Transparency might come in the form of a receipt shared by organizers. Tamara Kneese joined mutual aid efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic to take care of her neighbors in Oakland. Kneese, a director at the nonprofit research institute Data & Society, said these groups tend to start as immediate responses to crises hurting disadvantaged communities. The idea, she added, is “state abandonment cannot be addressed by charitable giving alone.” “It is not just a sense of charity, like you make a donation and you’re done,” she said. “There is more of a relationship involved and it is not just transactional.” Get local news delivered to your inbox!
BELTON — Leading from the beginning, East Texas Baptist University upset No. 2 Wartburg College at the UMHB Christmas Classic, 64-47, moving to 9-2 on the year. It is the biggest win in the program since defeating No. 6 St. Thomas (Minn.) in the 2018 NCAA Division III Sweet 16. ETBU has 10 wins over top 25 programs in the past four years, with four wins over top 10 teams. This is the first win over a No. 2 ranked team, with the program’s highest win against No. 6 St. Thomas (Minn.) in the 2018 NCAA Division III Sweet 16. It was the second time ETBU took on Wartburg as they last met in the 2018 NCAA Division III National Tournament Elite 8. Wartburg, who was also ranked No. 2 then, held off a valiant ETBU comeback, 65-61, as they went to the Final Four. Three players scored in double figures as Payton Hicks had 12 points, six rebounds, and three assists going 9-of-10 from the line. Kadia Ward also had 12 points with four rebounds. Madison Hurta added 10 points with seven rebounds, and Tiffany Bickford scored nine and posted nine rebounds. Hannah Ayala also poured in seven points with seven rebounds. ETBU shot 35% from the floor, 31% from the arc and 86% from the line. They hit 40% of their shots in the first half, making five 3-pointers. WC finished shooting 27%, making just 23% of their 3-pointers, and went 88% from the stripe. ETBU outrebounded WC 46-32, scoring 14 points off turnovers. Bickford scored the first basket of the game for the 2-0 lead, and Ayala swooshed ETBU’s first 3-pointer to make it 5-2 at 6:27. WC was within one, 7-6, at 3:35, but ETBU finished the quarter on an 8-2 run for a seven-point lead, 15-8. Bickford had five of the eight points as Hurta hit a 3-pointer. WC cut the lead to six, 16-10, just over a minute into the second quarter, but Sara Cowan nailed a 3-pointer at 8:34 to put the lead at nine, 19-10. Ward had a 3-pointer at 5:52, moving the lead to 10 points, 24-14, but four minutes later, WC was within three, 28-25, on an 11-1 run. Hicks went 2-for-2 at the line with 54 seconds remaining, giving ETBU a five-point lead at the half, 30-25. ETBU only scored 10 points in the third quarter but held the lead. Hicks made two more free throws at 7:07 for an eight-point lead, 35-27, but once again, WC fought back and tied the game at 37 at 3:32 on a 10-2 run. Hicks followed with a 3-pointer 20 seconds later at 3:11, making the final shot from the floor for both teams. WC made one free throw with 40 seconds left to come within two, 40-38. The fourth quarter became ETBU’s best, shooting 41% and scoring 24 points. At 7:38, WC had a 3-pointer to pull within three, 44-41. In the next four minutes, ETBU went on an 8-0 run for an 11-point lead, 52-41. Ayala started the run with a jumper as Hurt, Hicks and Ward made free throws. Tristan Smith put ETBU up by 11 with a bucket in the paint. WC scored 20 seconds later, but in the final two and half minutes of the game, ETBU went 10-for-10 at the line for a 16-point win, 64-47. ETBU will be off for 10 days on Christmas Break and will play again on Dec. 28 in San Antonio at Trinity University vs. No. 3 Illinois Wesleyan. McMurry 67, ETBU 56 Leading at halftime by three, East Texas Baptist University came up shy of a win over McMurry University, 67-56, at the UMHB Christmas Classic. Jayla Hall went 5-of-8 from the floor for 12 points with five rebounds. Madison Hurta added 10 points, shooting .500 from the floor. Payton Hicks then had seven points, eight rebounds, four steals and three assists. Hannah Ayala also scored seven points and five rebounds. ETBU shot 33% overall but made 42% in the third quarter, canned 31% of their 3-pointers, and was 10-of-15 from the line (66%). McMurry finished shooting 45%, 41% from the arc and 62% from the stripe. ETBU outrebounded McM, 44-34, but had 20 turnovers. Hurta hit a 3-pointer at 8:19 in the first quarter for a 5-1 lead. McMurry tied the game at seven with six minutes to go and went on a 5-2 run for a three-point lead by 2:44. Hall cut the lead to one, 14-13, on a jumper at 1:33 but McM scored the final four points for a five-point lead, 18-13. ETBU outscored McMurry, 17-9, in the second quarter, taking a three-point halftime lead, 30-27. McM shot just 26% in the quarter as ETBU made 46% from the floor. The Warhawks hit the first shot in the quarter for an eight-point lead, 21-13. For the next three minutes, neither team made a shot. Hall sparked a 12-2 run over two minutes to take back the lead, 25-23. Tristan Smith hit a 3-pointer at 4:23 for the lead as Tiffany Bickford had five points in the run. McM tied the game at 27 with 1:43 left, but Ayala hit a 3-pointer with eight seconds left for the three-point advantage, 30-27. McM shot 66 % in the third quarter to pull away from ETBU, scoring 26 points. ETBU tried to keep pace, making 42% of their shots, but fell behind 53-47 at the end of the quarter. ETBU was within one, 35-34, on a Matthews jumper at 6:31, but McM had an eight-point lead, 43-35, at 5:02. ETBU came no closer than three the rest of the quarter. Scoring only nine points in the final quarter, ETBU came up short of the comeback, shooting just 15 % from the floor. McM took a 10-point lead, 59-49, at 5:53 with their largest lead of 12 a minute later. ETBU came within seven with under a minute to go, but McM hit free throws to take the win.
President-elect Donald Trump responded to the widely reported internal investigation of longtime aide Boris Epshteyn. According to multiple media outlet and first reported by Just the News, a nonpartisan news media brand, attorneys for Trump conducted an internal investigation into allegations that Epshteyn has looked for financial gain from his influence with Trump. Trump told Just the News in a brief interview, "I suppose every President has people around them who try to make money off them on the outside. It's a shame but it happens," he said. "But no one working for me in any capacity should be looking to make money. They should only be here to Make America Great Again." He continued to Just the News: "No one can promise any endorsement or nomination except me. I make these decisions on my own, period." CNN reported that there were two specific instances where Epshteyn tried to gain financially from his connections with Trump. He reportedly asked Scott Bessent, Trump's nominee to become Secretary of Treasury, for payment in exchange for Epshteyn promoting Bessent's name around Mar-a-Lago. In addition, Epshteyn allegedly asked for payment to connect Bessent with people relevant to his industry in the incoming administration. CNN 's Sara Marray said half a dozen insiders confirmed these reports. Just the News, which reportedly reviewed documents related to the investigation, wrote that over a dozen candidates for congressional election or job seekers in the new Trump administration said Epshteyn pitched them for consulting work worth between $10,000 to $100,000 per month, dating back to 2022. Bessent, a hedge fund manager, was pitched on one of these consulting contracts. "As is standard practice, a broad review of the campaign's consulting agreements has been conducted and completed, including as to Boris, among others. We are now moving ahead together as a team to help President Trump Make America Great Again," Transition official Aaron Harison sent Just the News on behalf of Trump's spokesman Steven Cheung. Newsweek reached out to the Trump campaign for additional comment. Epshteyn denied the claims. "I am honored to work for President Trump and with his team," Epshteyn said in a statement to CNN. "These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again." Epshteyn was previously a part of an alleged confrontation at Mar-a-Lago wit h billionaire Elon Musk . CNN reported that Epshteyn and Bessent also had a shouting match with Epshteyn threatening to sue Bessent. The fighting allegedly started over who Trump should pick for his Cabinet, Axios reported. Sources told the site that Musk was questioning whether Epshteyn had too much influence on Trump's selections. However, Musk was also pushing for his own favorites. At one point during the dinner, a "massive blowup" and a "huge explosion" took place after Musk allegedly accused Epshteyn of leaking details about Trump's transition plans. Epshteyn allegedly said he didn't know what Musk was talking about. According to Axios, the tension between the two has been brewing since before the November 5 election. Who Is Boris Epshteyn? Russian-American Epshteyn, who was born in Moscow before moving to the U.S., met Trump through his son, Eric Trump , whom he was friends with at Georgetown University, reported Politico. In 2008, Epshteyn served as the communications aide with former Senator John McCain and former Governor Sarah Palin campaign. In 2016, he acted as a senior adviser to Trump's campaign. Epshteyn joined Trump's 2016 campaign as a communications aide and appeared on television to defend the former president. Epshteyn later work as communications director for Trump's inaugural committee before later joining the 2020 campaign as an adviser for coalitions. Sinclair Broadcast Group hired Epshteyn in 2017 as a senior political analyst. His segment ended in 2019. For Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, Epshteyn served as the strategic adviser and co-chair of the Jewish Voices for Trump Advisory Board. He has remained by Trump's side now for many years and is considered a leading figure in the President-elect's inner circle. Epshteyn is believed to be the sixth co-conspirator included in a 2023 criminal indictment against the former president. In April, when Trump arrived in New York for his historic arraignment over falsifying business records charges, Epshteyn sat beside the former president in the courtroom as he pleaded not guilty to 34 charges.
CHICAGO — If the life and times of Chicago Alderman Daniel Solis a decade ago were pitched as the plot of a daytime soap opera, it might be rejected as too fantastical. Sexual trysts at massage parlors, procuring erectile dysfunction pills from friends, an affair with his Chinese translator, a bag of cash handed over at a hotel in Beijing, a breakup with his wife, and near financial ruin — all playing out over a period of several years when Solis was chair of the City Council’s powerful Zoning Committee. Solis’ complicated back story began to emerge Monday in the corruption trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan, where Solis, who agreed to become an FBI mole in 2016 after being confronted with some of the salacious details, is the prosecution’s key witness. So far, Solis has walked the jury through many of the allegations contained in a bombshell FBI search warrant affidavit that was inadvertently made public in 2019, including Solis’ involvement with a number of Chicago political power players. Among them: Solis’ sister, Democratic political consultant Patti Solis Doyle, who he said offered to split a $100,000 payment with him from the developer of the Nobu Hotel, who needed Solis’ help with zoning, according to Solis’ testimony. “She said she could split it with me,” Solis said. “I told her I couldn’t do it. It would be illegal.” Solis testified he also received $200,000 for referring his sister to another friend, Brian Hynes, who wanted her on board with his company Vendor Assistance Program, which made tens of millions of dollars buying up unpaid bills from the state and then collecting the late fees. Solis also testified about other friends, such as Juan Gaytan, the influential head of Monterrey Security, showering him with perks like flights and hotels in Las Vegas and tickets to Bulls and Bears games that Solis never declared on any ethics reports. “I made a mistake,” Solis said when asked why he accepted the favors. “I thought they were my friends and I was wrong.” Solis, 71, the former 25th Ward alderman, took the witness stand late last week to begin what will be a fascinating dive into one of the biggest public corruption cases in Chicago’s sordid history. His testimony — which could stretch well into December — will include clandestine video recordings Solis made in face-to-face meetings with Madigan, where the longtime House leader and head of the state Democratic Party allegedly used his official influence to shake down developers for business for his private tax appeal law firm. When a prosecution witness has a checkered past like Solis, prosecutors frequently ask about the alleged wrongdoing early in their testimony. “Fronting” the information strategically aims to take the sting out of it, rather than let defense attorneys seize on it during cross-examination. But rarely does a witness come with quite so much baggage. Solis testified that Roberto Caldero, a college buddy of his who became a lobbyist and consultant, would call Solis for help when his clients had problems with the city’s red tape. At the same time, Caldero connected Solis with free tabs of Viagra and – to the obvious amusement of at least one juror – erotic massages. “Why didn’t you just get a prescription?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur asked. “It was more convenient and quicker than contacting my doctor,” Solis said. “Why was it, do you think, Mr. Caldero was willing to do those things for you?” MacArthur asked. “He wanted to influence me in his requests,” Solis said. The back-scratching continued, he said: Solis got a loan from a bank that needed help with expressway signage; his son’s graduation party was hosted and paid for by developer Fred Latsko; he got a six-figure off-the-books loan from a businessman who wanted Solis’s help connecting him with Emanuel. But the most dramatic revelations came from Solis’s testimony about his time in China. Solis visited China and Taiwan multiple times from 2005 to 2013, mostly in his capacity as a public official, to understand the 2008 Olympic Games’ effect on Beijing when Chicago was considering its Olympic bid, for example, or to learn about Chinese culture in order to better support Chinatown, Solis said. Shortly after a trip in 2009, Solis – who was married – began an affair with his translator, Bing Tie. He said Tie introduced him to developer Lumeng Li, who was interested in projects in Chinatown. Tie and Solis accompanied Li on a tour of his properties in different Chinese cities. At one point, he was in a Shanghai hotel room with Tie and Li. On the bed, Solis saw a briefcase full of Chinese cash, he said. It was $10,000, Solis said based on what Tie told him. “I think (Li) was giving it to me to influence me in the work he was trying to do in the States,” Solis testified. Tie took the suitcase off the bed and used the money to buy furniture for the condo Solis was renting from her, he testified. “She gave me her receipts for everything,” he said. Solis’s marriage began to fall apart in 2010 after his wife learned of his affair, Solis testified. They were separated for a few years, during which time Solis paid his wife’s rent and his son’s private school tuition as well as his own expenses, Solis testified. The house he and his wife shared had been foreclosed on, putting his credit in the gutter, he said. By 2013 he was getting calls from bill collectors, one of whom he lied to and said he was out of a job, he testified. “I was exasperated,” he said. “I think I was about to go into a meeting.” Madigan, 82, of Chicago, who served for decades as speaker of the Illinois House before stepping down in 2021, faces racketeering charges alleging he ran his state and political operations like a criminal enterprise. He is charged alongside Michael McClain, 77, a former ComEd contract lobbyist from downstate Quincy, who for years was one of Madigan’s closest confidants. Both men have pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. Solis’ testimony is the culmination of a saga that began nearly eight and a half years ago, when FBI agents confronted him at his home in June 2016 and showed him evidence they’d gathered of his own misdeeds. The feds had been prepared that day to raid Solis’ City Hall offices. Instead, he flipped, offering what prosecutors have described as “singular” cooperation that helped bring down not only Madigan, but another Chicago political giant in former Alderman Edward M. Burke. Lawyers for Madigan and McClain, meanwhile, will have plenty of ammunition to bring to what is expected to be a lengthy and grueling cross-examination. Unlike in last year’s trial of Burke, in which Solis was called as a defense witness, he’ll be subjected to a much broader line of questioning this time around, with the defense probing not only Solis’ unprecedented deferred-prosecution deal, but also episodes from the FBI’s investigation into his own misdeeds that could prove personally embarrassing. In his opening statement to the jury last month, Madigan attorney Tom Breen painted Solis as a “BS-er” with “a decrepit personal and professional life,” someone who lied to cut a sweetheart deal with the feds that not only will keep him out of prison, but also help him maintain a fat city pension. Earlier Monday, jurors got their first look at a secretly recorded video of the then-powerful House speaker soliciting business for his law firm from the developer of a Chinatown hotel project. “We’re not looking for a quick killing here,” Madigan said near the end of the August 2014 meeting, which was recorded on a hidden camera by developer See Wong, who was cooperating with the FBI. “We’re interested in a long term relationship.” Before the video was played, Solis testified he’d arranged the meeting at Madigan’s request. At the time, Solis was not cooperating. In fact, the meeting took place nearly two years before the FBI confronted him with evidence of his own wrongdoing, leading to Solis’ decision to go undercover himself. The charges against Madigan do not allege anything illegal occurred during the 2014 meeting. But a state-owned parcel of land discussed by Madigan and the developers would later become a key focus of prosecutors, who allege Madigan used it as a way to squeeze the developer for business. In the video, which was taken more than a decade ago, a much younger looking Madigan came into the office carrying a bottle of water and shook Wong’s hand. Also in the room was Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, Madigan’s law partner. The developer, Kin Chong, who spoke only Chinese, was mainly off screen. Madigan’s face appeared intermittently as he made small talk about Chicago’s Chinatown and how it compared to others on the West Coast. After a few minutes, Solis came in with two assistants and some coffees. They then got down to brass tacks, with Madigan explaining his firm and what they do. “We do quite a few hotels and, uh, we have a little different approach to representation on hotels than the other law firms that do the work,” Madigan said. “And, and Bud can explain background, but it does make a difference in terms of the results that you get from the assessor.” After Madigan’s partner gave a lengthy spiel about the firm’s approach to reducing property taxes, talk turned to a the Chinatown parking lot along the Red Line on Wentworth Avenue. Solis told the jury he was not expecting the parking lot to come up. In the recording, Solis jumped in and explained that the parking lot was part of a corridor of land once owned by Tony Rezko — the longtime influence peddler who was convicted of corruption as part of Operation Board Games, the federal investigation that took down Gov. Rod Blagojevich. “Oh yeah,” Madigan said when Solis brought up Rezko. After Wong spreads a map on the table, Madigan appeared to study it. “Is this owned by the state?” the speaker asked at one point. “The parking lot? Yes,” Solis said. “What, what about that vacant land?” Madigan asked. “This is east of the CTA. This is Clark Street.” The conversation then turned back to the hotel project, which was a proposed Best Western with about 60 rooms. After a lot of talk about how much Madigan’s firm might save them in taxes, Solis jumped in again. “There is no better firm than this firm in terms of doing real estate taxes in the state,” Solis said. “I think that’s not only my opinion, it’s across (the board).” After making his comment about a “quick killing,” Madigan also extolled the virtues of his firm. “And in terms of the quality of representation in terms of this law firm we don’t take a second seat to anybody,” he said. As the meeting broke up, Wong said the developer wanted to take a picture with the speaker. The video showed Madigan standing together with the others on the screen of Wong’s cell phone as he took the photo. After Madigan left, Wong and Solis walked to the elevators of the Madigan & Getzendanner offices on North LaSalle Street. Wong told the alderman that Chong would “love to give the business to Mr. Speaker” but the zoning change was critical. “If he works with the speaker, he will get anything he needs for that hotel,” Solis said. “And he’s gonna benefit from being with the Speaker.” Before they parted, Solis told Wong, “I like your shoes.” After the video concluded, Solis testified that the zoning change requested by the developers passed his committee. But the Best Western ever never built, he said. ©2024 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
By Jody Godoy (Reuters) - Andrew Ferguson, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to chair the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, has expressed the desire to go after Big Tech companies while taking a hands-off approach to regulating artificial intelligence. Ferguson's views on social media, data privacy, AI and the need to boost American competitiveness are likely to affect the regulator's approach to companies including Meta Platforms, Microsoft and Alphabet's Google. Here are some of the views Ferguson has expressed in statements during his term as an FTC commissioner which began in April and ends in 2030. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE The "pro-regulation side of the AI debate" is "the wrong one," Ferguson said. "A knee-jerk regulatory response will only squelch innovation, further entrench Big Tech incumbents, and ensure that AI innovators move to jurisdictions friendlier to them — but perhaps hostile to the United States," he said in a September statement on the FTC's report on social media. The report called for comprehensive legislation to protect users' data and prevent AI from perpetuating discrimination. ONLINE PRIVACY Ferguson has described the vast collection, aggregation and indefinite storage of data on social media and internet users in the U.S. as an "online privacy crisis" that regulators should focus on. However, he has warned against regulating how such information is used to target advertising. "If regulators and lawmakers attempt to ban or seriously curtail targeted advertising, they will be undoing the balance of the online economy," he said. CONTENT MODERATION POLICIES Ferguson has criticized social media platforms for instituting "Orwellian policies banning nebulous categories of content like 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' and 'hate speech.'" The FTC could take action against social media platforms if their terms of service misled users about content moderation policies. With more transparent policies, users could decide if they want to stay on the platforms, Ferguson said in December. "But the choice would be real only if there are suitable free-speech-respecting substitutes to the censorious platforms," Ferguson said, praising Elon Musk's "unusually firm commitment to free and open debate" after the billionaire took over social media platform X. PLATFORM COLLABORATION ON CONTENT Ferguson has expressed concern that social media platforms may have coordinated in banning Trump in 2021, taking down posts they deemed harmful during the COVID-19 pandemic, and restricting dissemination of stories about Hunter Biden's laptop computer. "If the platforms colluded amongst each other to set shared censorship policies, such an agreement would be tantamount to an agreement not to compete on contract terms or product quality," which would violate antitrust laws, Ferguson said. ADVERTISER COORDINATION Coordination between advertisers to pull money from platforms such as X over content concerns could violate antitrust laws, Ferguson said. The World Federation of Advertisers' Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which was formed to help advertisers avoid their ads being placed next to harmful content on social media, shut down after X sued, accusing it of facilitating group boycotts. Ferguson has said the FTC could investigate similar efforts. KIDS AND TEENS ONLINE Congress should pass a law that would require online service providers to give parents more control over children's online privacy, Ferguson said. "Congress should empower parents to impose whatever level of supervision and control over internet messaging they feel is right for their family and their children," he said. (Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis)
he spotlight is on as the prepare for their biggest game of the season in the . Under the leadership of head coach , the Buffaloes have made a . From a dismal 1-11 record in 2022 to a 9-3 record this season, Colorado finished ranked 23rd in the nation and has a chance to secure its . Leading the way is Sanders, the team's standout quarterback and in the upcoming NFL Draft. With by his side, Sanders has cemented his place as one of college football's brightest stars, making today's game a pivotal moment in his career. A Clear Cleats Hint Toward the Giants? has not only caught the attention of NFL scouts, but has also fueled speculation about his future team. The , sitting at a , are in desperate need of a quarterback to rebuild their franchise. The , and their struggles this season have made them the likely holders of the first overall pick. Sanders recently caused a stir among fans with a cryptic comment: " Today, Sanders posted a picture of , giving a strong indication of his interest in joining the team. While from Miami is also in the conversation, to be the first overall pick. In his two seasons at Colorado, , cementing himself as one of the top quarterbacks in college football. In 2023, he completed 69.3% of his passes for 3,230 yards, , and only 3 interceptions. He followed that up with an even , improving his completion percentage to 74.2% while throwing for 3,926 yards, , and 8 interceptions. Despite taking 90 sacks over two seasons, Sanders maintained his composure and showed his ability to perform under pressure. Regardless of the outcome of the , his draft stock is unlikely to be affected, as his consistent performances have already proven his readiness for the next level. Can Sanders Save the Giants? The have endured a decade of mediocrity, with only and just The franchise, once a powerhouse, has struggled to find a consistent quarterback to lead them back to prominence since the departure of in 2018. could be the game-changer the Giants desperately need. With a proven track record, a Hall of Fame father, and the ability to handle pressure, with untapped potential into a contender. The question remains: Giants fans are hoping he's the answer they've been waiting for, besides the roster isn't as bad as their record is, but as of right now they're just tanking to get the first overall pick, which is why I don't see them winning any of their last two games against either the Colts or Eagles.
A pair of schedule changes by MLB on Monday will result in a unique start to the 2025 season for the Tampa Bay Rays. According to the Associated Press , MLB switched a pair of series involving the Rays to the first two months of the season in hopes of avoiding summer weather problems at their temporary home of Steinbrenner Field, so 47 of the team's first 59 games will be played at home. The Rays had their series against the Los Angeles Angels moved from April 7-9 in Anaheim to Tampa on April 8-10. A series against the Minnesota Twins scheduled for May 26-28 was moved from Target Field to Tampa on the same dates. After starting the season with most of their games at home, the Rays will be on the road for 69 out of their last 103 games. They play just eight home games in both July and August. The move to Steinbrenner Field, which is usually home to the Class A Tampa Tarpons, was necessitated by the devastating damage to Tropicana Field following Hurricane Milton last month. The stadium's roof was destroyed, and the Associated Press noted that it's believed that the Rays won't be able to return until 2026 at the earliest, if at all. The Rays are coming off an 80-82 finish to the 2024 season, which ended their streak of five straight playoff appearances. The franchise has been planning to open a new stadium in 2028 at a site adjacent to Tropicana Field, but the team said last week that those plans will likely be delayed due to a combination of severe hurricane damage and political delays on financing.