Kentucky Sheriff Charged for Allegedly Killing Judge in Chambers

WHITESBURG, Ky. — The sheriff charged with murder in the shooting of a rural Kentucky judge in his courthouse chambers was accused in a federal lawsuit of failing to investigate allegations that one of his deputies repeatedly sexually abused a woman in the same judge’s chambers.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The preliminary investigation indicates that Letcher County Sheriff Shawn M. Stines shot District Judge Kevin Mullins multiple times on Thursday following an argument inside the courthouse, according to Kentucky State Police.

Mullins, who held the judgeship for 15 years, died at the scene, and Stines surrendered without incident.

Just what the two men were arguing about wasn’t immediately made clear.

Stines was deposed on Monday in a lawsuit filed by two women, one of whom alleged that a deputy forced her to have sex inside Mullins’ chambers for six months in exchange for staying out of jail. The lawsuit accuses the sheriff of “deliberate indifference in failing to adequately train and supervise” the deputy.

The now-former deputy sheriff, Ben Fields, pleaded guilty to raping the female prisoner while she was on home incarceration. Fields was sentenced this year to six months in jail and then six and a half years on probation for rape, sodomy, perjury and tampering with a prisoner monitoring device, The Mountain Eagle reported. Three charges related to a second woman were dismissed because she is now dead.

Stines fired Fields, who was his successor as Mullins’ bailiff, for “conduct unbecoming” after the lawsuit was filed in 2022, The Courier Journal reported at the time.

The killing of the judge sent shock waves through the tight-knit Appalachian town. Whitesburg is the county seat of government with about 1,700 residents located about 145 miles (235 kilometers) southeast of Lexington. Rather than hold the sheriff in the local jail, authorities booked Stines into the Leslie County Detention Center, two counties away, where he remained Friday morning.

Lead county prosecutor Matt Butler described an outpouring of sympathy as he recused himself and his office from the investigation, citing social and family ties to Mullins.

“We all know each other here. … Anyone from Letcher County would tell you that Judge Mullins and I married sisters and that we have children who are first cousins but act like siblings,” Butler said in a statement from his office. “For that reason, among others, I have already taken steps to recuse myself and my entire office.”

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said his office will collaborate with a commonwealth’s attorney in the region as special prosecutors in the criminal case. Mullins, 54, was hit multiple times in the shooting, state police said. Stines, 43, was charged with one count of first-degree murder.

“We will fully investigate and pursue justice,” Coleman said on social media.

Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice Laurance B. VanMeter said he was “shocked by this act of violence” and that the court system was “shaken by this news.”

Letcher County’s judge-executive closed the county courthouse on Friday.

It was unclear whether Stines had an attorney — state police referred inquires to a spokesperson who did not immediately respond by email.

“There is far too much violence in this world, and I pray there is a path to a better tomorrow,” Gov. Andy Beshear posted in response to the shooting.

Mullins served as a district judge in Letcher County since he was appointed by former Gov. Steve Beshear in 2009 and elected the following year.

source https://time.com/7023038/kentucky-sheriff-shooting-judge/

Concerns Grow as Conflict Escalates Between Israel and Hezbollah

U.S., U.K. and United Nations officials urged restraint as tensions ramped up between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Lebanon’s health ministry reported that at least eight people were killed and 59 people were wounded in an Israeli airstrike in Southern Beirut on Sept. 20. The strike was a targeted assassination aimed at top Hezbollah commander Ibrahim Aqil, who was killed in the attack, according to Reuters.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

After days of escalating conflict, Israel carried out extensive airstrikes targeting Southern Lebanon on Sept. 19 and Hezbollah retaliated on Sept. 20, prompting fears of further conflict and a wider Middle East war. It comes just days after thousands of pagers and other wireless devices, many of which were used by Hezbollah, exploded in Lebanon and parts of Syria in an unprecedented deadly attack that killed at least 37 people and wounded 3,000. While Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attack, Hezbollah officials and multiple news outlets have suggested that the Israeli government was responsible.

[video id=bBeXnWuQ autostart="viewable"]

Hezbollah said on Sept. 20 that it had launched multiple strikes targeting Israel’s military in the north of the country. Around 140 rockets were launched at northern Israel, the IDF said, with some fired at the occupied Golan Heights, Safed, and Upper Galilee areas intercepted. The IDF later said that it had launched an airstrike on Lebanon’s capital Beirut. In a post on social media platform X earlier in the day, the Israel Foreign Ministry wrote, “Make no mistake: those who harm the people of Israel will pay the price.”

Read More: ‘It Sounded Like Gunfire.’ Fear Grips Lebanon After Deadly Pager and Radio Blasts

The 15-member United Nations Security Council is expected to meet today to discuss the tensions. A spokesperson for the United Nations Interim Peace Keeping Force in Lebanon, expressed concern about the tensions at the border between Israel and Lebanon. “We are concerned at the increased escalation across the Blue Line and urge all actors to immediately de-escalate,” Andrea Tenenti, told Reuters.

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said that the U.S. is “afraid and concerned about potential escalation.” During a press briefing on Sept. 19, Jean-Pierre said, “The way to move forward is diplomatic resolution. We think it is achievable. Obviously it is urgent.” She added: “Diplomacy is key here when we talk about potential escalation, which we do not want to see.” On Sept. 18, Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State, called on “all parties” to avoid further escalating the conflict. Meanwhile, U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah on Sept. 19.

In October 2023, Hezbollah began striking Israel’s Northern border region in solidarity with Gaza, where there is an ongoing war with Israel. Israel has responded with cross-border attacks, and the two groups have been trading strikes almost daily for nearly a year. Until now, neither group has let things escalate into a full-scale war, but some in the diplomatic community are concerned that could change soon.

Israel says its goal is to allow all internally displaced Israelis to return to their homes in the border region. Currently, 97,000 Lebanese people and 60,000 Israelis have been forced to evacuate their homes since the tensions began in October of last year, according to Al Jazeera.

Late on the evening of Sept. 16, before the pager attack, Netanyahu’s security cabinet officially added the safe return of Israel’s Northern residents to their homes as one of the war’s goals.

“The possibility for an agreement is running out as Hezbollah continues to ‘tie itself’ to Hamas, and refuses to end the conflict,” Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on Sept. 16. “Therefore, the only way left to ensure the return of Israel’s northern communities to their homes, will be via military action.”

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised address on Sept. 19 that Israel’s actions were a declaration of war and vowed to respond. “The enemy crossed all rules, laws, and red lines. It didn’t care about anything at all, not morally, not humanely, not legally,” he said. “It can be called war crimes or a declaration of war–whatever you choose to name it, it is deserving and fits the description.”

He also said that Israel would pay a price for its actions and that Hezbollah would continue cross-border attacks so long as Israel maintains its presence in Gaza. “The enemy will face a severe and fair punishment from where they expect and don’t expect,” he said.

source https://time.com/7022954/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-conflict/

Most Daters Are Pretty Ambivalent About Having Children. That’s a Good Thing

Over the last several years I’ve coached many people, specifically women in their 20s and 30s, who are looking for long-term partners, but not necessarily to have a family. They express openness to having children, but don’t have a strong desire to make that a primary dating goal. This type of dater, who seems to be popping up more and more, is child-ambivalent and believes that there are benefits and drawbacks to both parenthood and being child-free. For these women, gone are the days of expecting that dating will result in marriage and two kids. Modern daters are skeptical but also realistic about the challenges of having children in the U.S. today. They also must contend with the fact that such a personal decision has become fodder for political debate.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Bringing a child into the world requires a great deal of consideration, and many daters have to weigh so many factors in their decision-making. I hear lots of reasons why my clients are on the fence about having children. These reasons are really common and feel uniquely tied to our social and economic moment.

The world is burning; There’s so much violence and war; Life with children will be expensive; I want to make sure I have a real partner and avoid being married but feeling like a single parent—concerns rooted in very realistic fears of climate change, political unrest, wealth inequality, and gendered caregiving disparities. And as women contemplate who they want to be and what they want for themselves and their love lives, children seem less of a priority and more of a luxury—if they can create a life of comfort and financial stability first.

For most single people, contemplating whether they want a family often starts when they decide to begin searching for a partner. From the moment daters create a dating profile, they have to declare their stance on whether they want kids. The preset profile choices are now more nuanced than just wanting kids or not, and usually include “not sure” and “open to kids” as possibilities. Even if you skip that question on your profile or aren’t using dating apps, if you’re in your 20s to mid 30s (the prime childbearing demographic) you are likely to discuss family plans within the first few dates. It’s an inescapable part of dating that can feel disconcerting, especially for those who don’t know if they want children in their future.

Read more: What Does It Mean to Have a Child? We Should Be Taking That Question Seriously.

That’s why identifying as “child-ambivalent” often helps my clients date with less anxiety. If they meet and fall in love with someone who wants children, they are open to it. But if that doesn’t happen they believe they could be perfectly happy.

Even my clients who have frozen their eggs reveal that doing so gives them options, but they don’t see it as a guarantee. In fact, several people have undergone egg freezing during the time we worked together. The procedure is seen as insurance that age won’t close the door on their fertility (even if they eventually choose not to have children), and this makes the process of searching for a partner less dictated by a ticking biological clock. Of course, not everyone who freezes their eggs or decides to deprioritize family planning while dating is completely anxiety-free. And there are financial and physical hurdles to egg freezing. Still, even having this as a potential option can alleviate some mental stress about making a decision one way or another.

What makes child-ambivalent daters so unique is that they feel deeply that their lives are already complete—stable, even. They recognize that they have great friends, strong family ties, and solid careers. In fact, looking ahead to their potential life as a parent can sometimes feel destabilizing.

Women today have a clearer idea about what becoming a mother might mean for them and the potential hurdles involved. Despite career advancements, women are still behind when it comes to earning potential, and the cost of raising children makes single parenthood feel like an impossibility. According to Business Insider, it costs almost $26,000 annually in 2024 to care for a small child in the U.S. That’s a daunting figure for most single parent households. Finding a partner to co-parent with can often be the deciding factor for whether or not to start a family, but women are more likely to be responsible for household and caregiving duties even when they are partnered. They’ve seen their friends struggle to maintain social lives while working full-time and being a parent. Or they have already had the experience of taking care of younger siblings, nieces, nephews, and cousins. They may have the skills, but also know how difficult parenting can be and that may be enough to give them pause.

There is a running tally of pros and cons for child-rearing as people go on dates, meet potential partners, and contemplate what they are willing and able to do to family plan. But with so many socio-economic factors at play, daters are faced with more questions regarding partnership, family, and their futures. It has never been more complicated to decide whether or not to start a family. The rise of the child-ambivalent dater is a reflection of this struggle.

source https://time.com/7022725/dating-ambivalent-having-children-essay/

Foreign Policy Issues Don’t Often Decide U.S. Elections. This Year Could Be Different

It is a long-accepted political assumption that Americans don’t vote based on foreign policy. Even when voters are aware of global affairs, they rarely rate them as important factors in their vote.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

And yet, while a recent Gallup poll showed that only 10% chose a foreign policy issue as their top priority, the parties are deeply divided between two foreign nations. The Democratic Party has mostly aligned itself with Ukraine, while many Republicans express sympathy for, if not outward allegiance to, Russia.

Of course, there are nuances within both parties, especially among leadership. But voters reflect this divide as well. Sixty percent of Democratic voters believe the U.S. needs to do even more to support Ukraine. Among Republicans who support Trump, 75% oppose Ukraine aid.

This divide between the parties has occurred once before and influenced the outcome of a presidential election. Over two centuries ago, the first two political parties in America declared their loyalties to warring foreign nations with dramatic electoral consequences.

Read More: Ukrainians Fear What J.D. Vance Could Do as Vice President

In the 1790s, the Federalists cozied up to Great Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans sided with France. These preferences aligned with the parties’ policy choices. The Federalists called for a strong federal government, a powerful army and navy, and investment in trade and industry. Britain served as the nation’s largest trade partner and possessed the world’s biggest navy. On the other hand, the Democratic-Republicans’ vision for the nation was based on the yeoman farmer with limited federal government and no standing army. They distrusted Britain’s monarchy, strong navy, wealthy central banking system, and monopoly of foreign trade. Accordingly, they were much friendlier to Britain’s longtime enemy, France.

These conflicting positions broke into the open in 1793 when France declared war on Great Britain, reigniting a centuries’ old battle. No longer were these debates theoretical. They now required taking sides in a deadly war.

President George Washington deployed the full weight of his unparalleled reputation to keep the nation neutral. But near the end of Washington’s presidency, French privateers began seizing neutral American ships carrying goods across the Atlantic Ocean. Washington retired a few months later, leaving his successor to deal with these provocations.

Read More: The Uneasy Alliance Between Kamala Harris and Volodymyr Zelensky

John Adams took the oath of office as the second President of the United States on March 4, 1797. His tenure would be dominated by the threat of war with France and the divide between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists over foreign policy.

A few months after Adams’ inauguration, he sent a peace commission to France to negotiate a new treaty. The American commissioners—John Marshall, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Elbridge Gerry—arrived in Paris full of hope and good intentions. But when Americans received no news of their whereabouts or progress for over six months, both sides of the political aisle interpreted the silence through a partisan lens.

Federalists worried that something had happened to the envoys in France. Had France declared war on the United States and news had not yet arrived? Were the envoys imprisoned? Had they been assassinated?

Democratic-Republicans believed the best of French intentions and the worst of President Adams. They were convinced that news from the envoys had arrived, but Adams was keeping the dispatches a secret because they revealed France’s reasonableness and cast the administration in a poor light.

On March 4, 1798, the first dispatches from France finally arrived and exposed the depths of French perfidy. The contents revealed French demands for humiliating apologies, corrupt bribes, and inappropriate loans to even begin diplomatic negotiations. The treatment of the American envoys demonstrated that the French ministry had no intention of negotiating in good faith.

The public backlash was swift and ferocious. Americans were furious at the insult to national sovereignty and clamored for war. Some Democratic-Republicans willingly left Congress, and others were driven out by voters in the elections that year. For example, prior to the 1798 elections, the North Carolina delegation consisted of nine Democratic-Republicans and one Federalist. After the elections that fall, it was seven federalists and three Democratic-Republicans.

Congress responded accordingly with a series of military measures, including a dramatic expansion of the army, the creation of a navy and naval department, and significant investment in coastal defenses. The Federalists seized the political opportunity, using military appointments to reward loyal partisans and expand party infrastructure.

By the end of 1798, however, the Federalist Party had begun to fracture. While President Adams and Alexander Hamilton were both nominally Federalists, Hamilton was much more extreme and led a faction called the Arch Federalists. They controlled the army apparatus and clamored for war against France. Meanwhile, Adams was backing away from the militaristic spirit. He had long believed neutrality would best serve American interests.

When back-channel communications from Talleyrand suggested peace was still possible Adams pursued diplomacy, not war. On Feb. 18, 1799, Adams nominated a new peace commission to Paris—permanently driving a wedge through the Federalist Party. The following year, when the moderate Federalists, led by President Adams, tried to distance themselves from “the British faction” in their party, the Arch Federalists turned on their fellow party members with increasing vitriol.

Diplomatically, Adams’ gamble paid off. The Treaty of Mortefontaine, signed in October 1800, established peace between France and the United States, which has lasted for 224 years. However, voters cast their ballots before news of the treaty arrived in the U.S. The lack of a treaty and the split in the Federalist Party over his actions ensured Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the presidential election. Foreign policy had a significant impact on the outcome of the election for the first time.

Read More: History Shows How Dangerous ‘America First’ Really Is

To be sure, there are other elections with foreign policy implications, but they typically hinge on a candidate’s support or opposition to war and not an allegiance to different nations. In 1940, both President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Republican challenger Wendell Wilkie advocated for peace even as they both sided with the allies against fascism. In 1968, Republican candidate Richard Nixon and Democratic nominee Vice President Hubert Humphrey debated how to end the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War. Decades later, during the 2004 election, the candidates agreed on the importance of fighting terrorism even if they disagreed about how. President George W. Bush ran for reelection on a platform of three pillars of national security and foreign policy: defend the peace by fighting terrorists; preserve the peace by solidifying relationships with allies; extend the peace by spreading democracy and human rights across the globe. Democratic candidate John Kerry campaigned on his unwavering position that “as President, he would not have gone to war without greater international support.”

Both the 1790s and 2024 offer a different and rare dynamic, but also one that could prove decisive to the election. Like the Federalist split over diplomacy with France in the 1790s, there are still Republican voters who support a Reaganite foreign policy, NATO, and aiding democratic allies. Many voted for Nikki Haley in the primaries. While their votes are not sufficient to sway the Republican Party apparatus, their temporary defection to Kamala Harris and other Democratic candidates in 2024 could determine both the next president and the future direction of the Republican Party.

Lindsay M. Chervinsky, Ph.D. is a presidential historian and Executive Director of the George Washington Presidential Library. She is the author of the new book Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents that Forged the Republic. She is on social media @lmchervinsky.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

source https://time.com/7021448/presidential-elections-foreign-policy/

Teamsters Union Declines to Endorse Trump or Harris for President

(WASHINGTON) — The International Brotherhood of Teamsters declined Wednesday to endorse Kamala Harris or Donald Trump for president, saying neither candidate had sufficient support from the 1.3 million-member union.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Unfortunately, neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union to ensure the interests of working people are always put before Big Business,” Teamsters President Sean M. O’Brien said in a statement. “We sought commitments from both Trump and Harris not to interfere in critical union campaigns or core Teamsters industries — and to honor our members’ right to strike — but were unable to secure those pledges.”

The Teamsters’ rebuff reflected a labor union torn over issues of political identity and policy, one that mirrors a broader national divide. Vice President Harris has unmistakably backed organized labor, while former President Trump has appealed to many white blue-collar workers even as he has openly scorned unions at times. By not endorsing anyone, the Teamsters are essentially ceding some influence in November’s election as both candidates claimed to have support from its members.

Harris campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt noted in an emailed statement that more than three dozen retired Teamsters spoke last month in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention, having endorsed Harris. Their pensions were saved through the 2021 passage of the Butch Lewis Act that President Joe Biden and Harris championed.

“While Donald Trump says striking workers should be fired, Vice President Harris has literally walked the picket line and stood strong with organized labor for her entire career,” Hitt said. “The Vice President’s strong union record is why Teamsters locals across the country have already endorsed her — alongside the overwhelming majority of organized labor.”

The Teamsters said Wednesday that internal polling of members showed Trump with an advantage over Harris, a fact that the Republican’s campaign immediately seized upon by sending out an email that said the “rank-and-file of the Teamsters Union supports Donald Trump for President.”

Trump called the Teamsters’ decision not to endorse “a great honor.”

“It’s a great honor,” he said. “They’re not going to endorse the Democrats. That’s a big thing.”

Harris met Monday with a panel of Teamsters, having long courted organized labor and made support for the middle class her central policy goal. Trump also met with a panel of Teamsters in January and even invited O’Brien to speak at the Republican National Convention, where the union leader railed against corporate greed.

In an interview Wednesday on Fox News, O’Brien said lack of an endorsement tells candidates that they have to back the Teamsters in the future. “This should be an eye opener for 2028,” he said. “If people want the support of the most powerful union in North America, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, start doing some things to support our members,” he said.

The Teamsters’ choice to not endorse came just weeks ahead of the Nov. 5 election, far later than endorsements by other large unions such as the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers and the United Auto Workers that have chosen to devote resources to getting out the vote for Harris.

With O’Brien facing a backlash from some Teamsters’ members after speaking at the Republican National Convention, it’s no surprise that the union decided not to make an endorsement, said Art Wheaton, director of labor studies at Cornell University.

Trump’s praise of Tesla CEO Elon Musk for firing workers who supposedly went on strike really made a Trump endorsement very unlikely, Wheaton said. “The members were not in total agreement,” he said.

Marick Masters, a business professor emeritus at Wayne State University in Detroit who follows labor issues, said the Teamsters lack of an endorsement suggests a realignment within the union’s membership.

For many workers, issues such as gun control, abortion and border security override Trump’s expressions of hostility to unions, Masters said.

The Teamsters detailed their objections to the candidates in a statement, starting with their objection to a contract implemented by Congress in 2022 on members working in the railroad sector.

The union wanted both candidates to commit to not deploying the Railway Labor Act to resolve contract disputes and avoid a shutdown of national infrastructure, but Harris and Trump both wanted to keep that option open even though the Teamsters said it would reduce its bargaining power.

Harris has pledged to sign the PRO Act, which would strengthen union protections and is something the Teamsters support. Trump, in his roundtable with the Teamsters, did not promise to veto a proposal to make it harder nationwide to unionize.

Other unions have shown trepidation about endorsing either presidential candidate. The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America on Friday ultimately endorsed Harris with a caveat that “the manner in which party leaders engineered Biden’s replacement at the top of the ticket with Vice President Kamala Harris was thoroughly undemocratic,” union leadership said in a statement.

But the Teamsters lack of endorsement also suggests an indifference to the Biden-Harris administration, which signed into law a measure that saved the pensions of millions of union retirees, including many in the Teamsters.

As part of its 2021 pandemic aid, the administration included the Butch Lewis Act to save the underfunded pensions of more than 1 million union workers and retirees’ underfunded pensions. The act was named after a retired Ohio trucker and Teamsters union leader who spent the last years of his life fighting to prevent massive cuts to the Teamsters’ Central States Pension Fund.

___

AP writers Fatima Hussein and Michelle Price contributed to this report.

source https://time.com/7022688/teamsters-union-endorse-trump-harris/

Inside the Brooklyn Federal Jail Where Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Is Locked Up: Violence, Squalor, and Death

NEW YORK (AP) — As they unsuccessfully fought to keep Sean “Diddy” Combs out of jail after his sex trafficking arrest, the music mogul’s lawyers highlighted a litany of horrors at the Brooklyn federal lockup where he was headed: horrific conditions, rampant violence and multiple deaths.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Combs, 54, was sent to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on Tuesday — a place that’s been described as “hell on earth” and an “ongoing tragedy” — after pleading not guilty in a case that accuses him of physically and sexually abusing women for more than a decade.

The facility, the only federal jail in New York City, has been plagued by problems since it opened in the 1990s. In recent years, its conditions have been so stark that some judges have refused to send people there. It has also been home to a number of high-profile inmates, including R. Kelly, Ghislaine Maxwell and cryptocurrency fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.

Read More: ‘Freak Offs,’ Drugs, and Violence: Breaking Down the Charges Against Diddy

In a statement, the federal Bureau of Prisons said: “We also take seriously addressing the staffing and other challenges at MDC Brooklyn.” An agency team is working to fix problems, including by adding permanent correctional and medical staff, remedying more than 700 backlogged maintenance requests and answering judges’ concerns.

A judge on Wednesday denied a request by Combs’ lawyers to let him await trial under house arrest at his $48 million mansion on an island in Miami Beach, Florida.

Here are some important things to know about the jail:

What is the Metropolitan Detention Center?

The Bureau of Prisons opened the facility, known as MDC Brooklyn, as a jail in the early 1990s.

It’s used mainly for post-arrest detention for people awaiting trial in federal courts in Manhattan or Brooklyn. Other inmates are there to serve short sentences following convictions.

The facility, in an industrial area on the Brooklyn waterfront, has about 1,200 detainees, down from more than 1,600 in January. It has outdoor recreation facilities, a medical unit with examination rooms and a dental suite. It has a separate wing for educational programs and the jail’s library.

The Bureau of Prisons closed its crumbling Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan in 2021, leaving MDC Brooklyn as its only facility in the nation’s largest city.

What are some problems with MDC Brooklyn?

Detainees have long complained about rampant violence, dreadful conditions, severe staffing shortages and the widespread smuggling of drugs and other contraband, some of it facilitated by employees. At the same time, they say they’ve been subject to frequent lockdowns and have been barred from leaving their cells for visits, calls, showers or exercise.

In June, Uriel Whyte, 37, was stabbed to death at the jail. A month later, Edwin Cordero, 36, died after he was hurt in a brawl. At least four people detained at the jail have died by suicide in the last three years.

Cordero’s lawyer, Andrew Dalack, told The New York Times his client was just the victim of “an overcrowded, understaffed and neglected federal jail that is hell on earth.”

At least six MDC Brooklyn staff members have been charged with crimes in the last five years. Some were accused of accepting bribes or providing contraband such as drugs, cigarettes, and cellphones, according to an Associated Press analysis of agency-related arrests.

MDC Brooklyn has also come under fire for its response to debilitating infrastructure breakdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019, a week-long power failure sparked unrest among shivering inmates and drew concerns from federal watchdogs. In March 2020, the jail had the first federal inmate to test positive for COVID-19.

As of last November, according to court filings, MDC Brooklyn was operating at about 55% of full staffing, which was taxing to employees and added to its security woes.

What is being done about these problems?

Judges and advocates have taken notice, excoriating the Bureau of Prisons for “dangerous, barbaric conditions” and pressing the agency to make improvements. Some judges have moved away from sending defendants to MDC Brooklyn or have given reduced sentences because of the conditions there.

In January, U.S. District Judge Furman took the rare step of allowing Gustavo Chavez, 70, to remain free on bail after his conviction for drug crimes rather than locking him up at the Brooklyn jail to await sentencing.

“Prosecutors no longer even put up a fight, let alone dispute that the state of affairs is unacceptable,” Furman wrote.

In August, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown said he would vacate a 75-year-old defendant’s nine-month sentence for tax fraud and place him on home confinement if the Bureau of Prisons sent him to MDC Brooklyn.

In response, the Bureau of Prisons said it had “temporarily paused” sending any defendants convicted of crimes to the jail to serve their sentences. In a statement Tuesday, the agency said 43 people were currently serving sentences in a minimum-security unit at the jail.

What other notable people have been detained at MDC Brooklyn?

Combs is just the latest celebrity inmate to be locked up at MDC Brooklyn, joining a list that includes Maxwell, Kelly, Bankman-Fried and the rapper Fetty Wap.

Other high-profile detainees have included Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli, NXIVM sex cult founder Keith Raniere, former Mexican government official Genaro Garcia Luna and ex-Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez Alvarado.

What happened to New York City’s other federal jail?

The Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan closed in 2021 after a slew of problems that came to light after Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide there two years earlier.

The jail — next to the courthouse where Combs was arraigned — was plagued by lax security, severe staffing shortages and squalid, unsafe conditions including falling concrete, freezing temperatures and busted cells.

People detained at the facility were relocated to MDC Brooklyn or a medium-security prison in Otisville, New York.

What have Combs’ lawyers and prosecutors said?

Combs’ lawyers argued in paperwork seeking his release that the Metropolitan Detention Center is not fit for pretrial detention. They cited recent detainee deaths, and the concerns shared by judges that the jail is no place for anyone to be held.

Asked about keeping a high-profile inmate like Combs locked up, particularly in light of Epstein’s 2019 death, Manhattan-based U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “We are concerned with anyone’s safety whenever they are detained prior to trial.”

“I do not draw any sort of connection between Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide and what may or may not happen to any other defendant while they are detained pretrial,” he added.

Combs’ lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, said Wednesday that the rapper is being held in MDC Brooklyn’s special housing unit, which offers an extra layer of security but can make trial preparation more onerous. He asked that Combs be moved to a New Jersey jail, but a judge said it’s up to the Bureau of Prisons to decide.

Is it just MDC Brooklyn, or do all federal prisons have issues?

An ongoing Associated Press investigation has uncovered deep, previously unreported flaws within the Bureau of Prisons, an agency with more than 30,000 employees, 158,000 inmates, 122 facilities and an annual budget of about $8 billion.

AP reporting has revealed dozens of escapes, chronic violence, deaths and severe staffing shortages that have hampered responses to emergencies, including inmate assaults and suicides.

In April, the Bureau of Prisons said it was closing its women’s prison in Dublin, California, known as the “rape club,” giving up on attempts to reform the facility after an AP investigation exposed staff-on-inmate sexual abuse.

In July, President Joe Biden signed a law strengthening oversight of the Bureau of Prisons after the AP’s reporting shined a spotlight on the agency’s many flaws

source https://time.com/7022656/sean-diddy-combs-brooklyn-jail/

Residents of Springfield, Ohio, Pray for Political Firestorm to Blow Over

(SPRINGFIELD, Ohio) — In the quiet corners of Springfield, Ohio — out of sight of the drumbeat of politicians and journalists, troopers and newly installed security cameras — the people who live here are taking a breath, praying and attempting to carry on.

Between the morning bomb sweeps of Springfield’s schools and the near daily afternoon media briefings, a hush comes over the city of 58,000 that residents say is uncanny, haunting even. It’s fear. It’s confusion — dismay at being transformed overnight into a target for the nation’s vitriol.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Pastor Andy Mobley, who runs the Family Needs Inc. food pantry on the city’s south side, said people are hunkered down out of the public eye. He said they’re hoping the attention sparked by former President Donald Trump spreading unsubstantiated rumors about the city’s legal Haitian immigrants eating house pets during last week’s presidential debate will blow over.

Trump and his vice presidential running mate, Ohio’s junior Sen. JD Vance, have used the cat-eating rumors to draw attention to the city’s 15,000 Haitian immigrants, whose arrival to fill manufacturing, distribution and warehouse jobs has put a severe strain on local resources.

Since the Republican candidates’ initial comments, more than two dozen bomb threats — mostly from foreign actors seeking to sow discord — have prompted the state to send in additional state troopers and install surveillance cameras around the city in order to reopen schools and government buildings.

Read More: Harris Slams Trump for Spreading False Rumors of Haitians Eating Pets in Springfield

“We’ve got good people here. Republican, Democrat. They’re good people,” Mobley said Tuesday, as the pantry tended to a steady stream of clients seeking clothing and food.

Resident Josh Valle said the situation is unsettling.

“We definitely need answers,” said the 35-year-old tool and die repairman, who has lived in Springfield for decades. “It’s affecting my kids and my community and my neighbors. With the bomb threats and the influx, it’s something new every day. And this used to be a really chill town, you know, it used to be just a small town Ohio.”

The area around Springfield City Hall, where Valle spoke, sat largely silent Tuesday afternoon, until a news conference with state and local officials prompted a brief swarm of activity. Local families are avoiding schools in the wake of earlier bomb threats, even though dozens of troopers have fanned out across the Springfield City School District to stand guard. Some 200 of 500 students were absent Tuesday from a single elementary school, officials said.

Still, there are signs of hope.

“Home Sweet Springfield” tea towels adorn the window of Champion City Guide & Supply on a downtown block that bustles with activity over the lunch hour. One line of mugs and clothing items reads: “Speak a Good Word for Springfield — or say nothing.”

Read More: Bomb Threats Disrupt Springfield, Ohio for Second Day Amid False Right-Wing Claims

Across town, a small group of kids whose parents kept them home on Tuesday horsed around together at a makeshift lemonade stand they set up to make a few bucks. They delighted in the revving motor of a passing muscle car and, when sales were slow, swigged back the merchandise.

David Graham, who visits communities in crisis as The Praying Cowboy, positioned himself in Springfield this week to show support. “Agenda: Pray, worship, witness, smile, honor, esteem,” he wrote in a Facebook post from the city, accompanied by his hands holding an open Bible with a newly installed surveillance platform in the background. He added lines with black electrical tape to a small heart placard he posted nearby, to represent Springfield hearts being broken.

He wasn’t the only one trying to help. A bipartisan group of area mayors met with Springfield Mayor Rob Rue on Monday to figure out how they can help — including with resources to address the traffic, health care, social services and housing needs prompted by the increase in the Haitian population and their language barrier.

Andrew Ginther, the Democratic mayor of Ohio’s capital, Columbus, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said in a statement: “Mayors across America will continue to stand by Springfield and all cities working to responsibly address an increased number of migrants, which we can do without losing sight of our shared humanity.”

Years ago, Family Needs Inc. was designated one of President George H.W. Bush’s “thousand points of light,” honoring its dedication to volunteerism. The organization has helped Haitians arriving in Springfield for years now, Mobley said — providing them translation services and co-signing their rental agreements.

He recalled working with Haitian immigrants as far back as 2016, the year Trump was elected — though census figures show the population remained at only about 400 until a few years ago.

“In 2016, we started signing contracts. Through the pandemic, we were doing things for the Haitian community,” he said. “Has that all been forgotten? They have been here, and we’ve been dealing with this, and we’ve been asking for help through two different administrations. And no administration has helped us, until now this thing has become public.”

As she walked downtown, one resident who declined to give her name said she’s not letting the situation get her down.

“It’s childish. It’s stupid. It took one stupid person to get on a debate and ruin the reputation of a community. I think you know exactly who I’m talking about,” she said.

“He should never have said that. There’s no truth to those allegations whatsoever. I was born and raised in this town, I’m staying here, and I have no problem with nobody.”

source https://time.com/7022653/springfield-ohio-residents-haitian-donald-trump/