Poland Charges Former Minister for Revealing Secret Defense Plan
Polish prosecutors charged Mariusz Blaszczak, a defense minister in the previous nationalist government, for disclosing parts of a classified military plan ahead of a parliamentary election in 2023.
The legal steps brought against one of the top officials in the Law & Justice party are the latest salvo in Prime Minister Donald Tusk's campaign to investigate alleged abuses of power.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump admin from deporting Mahmoud Khalil using Rubio power
A federal judge in New Jersey blocked the Trump administration from deporting pro-Palestinian Columbia University protest organizer Mahmoud Khalil on foreign policy grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil under a provision of federal law that allows the deportation of any foreign citizen whose 'presence or activities' in the U.S. is determined to 'have serious adverse foreign policy consequences' and is chilling Khalil's First Amendment free speech rights. In a 14-page order, Farbiarz said the rarely used statute Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked against the former Columbia graduate student is likely unconstitutional. He also ruled that the activist and legal U.S. resident who has been in immigration custody in Louisiana since March can't be detained further on that basis. The judge said it was unlikely the Trump administration could justify detaining Khalil via another rationale it tacked on after his arrest in Manhattan: that when he applied for a green card, he failed to disclose all his past employment and membership in certain organizations. Immigrants are almost never detained for those sorts of omissions, the judge noted, finding it likelier that Rubio's determination was the basis for Khalil's ongoing detention. However, the judge's ruling did not foreclose Khalil's continued detention on alternative grounds, emphasizing that he had only definitively rejected Rubio's determination and that his decision had 'no impact' on other aspects of the effort to deport Khalil. Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, put his ruling on hold until Friday morning to allow the Trump administration to appeal. A lawyer for Khalil, Baher Azmy, said in an email that he believes Farbiarz's order means Khalil should be released from custody by Friday morning unless an appellate court intervenes. "We are relieved that the Court determined that both his detention and his removal based on the ridiculous, overbroad Rubio determination would be unconstitutional,' Azmy said, 'and that he is suffering severe ongoing harms [from] the government's grotesque, vindictive retaliation for his constitutionally protected expression in support of Palestine.' The departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. While Khalil has remained detained, others who have been similarly swept up as part of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian academics have been released. In early May, a Vermont federal judge ordered the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Tufts University Ph.D. student. A few days later, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the release of a Georgetown researcher, Badar Khan Suri. Like Khalil, both Ozturk and Suri had been detained in March.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Harvey Weinstein's conviction on a top sex crimes charge at his #MeToo retrial
NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty again, convicted Wednesday of a top sex crimes charge at his #MeToo retrial in New York City. The mixed and partial verdict came more than five years after his first conviction, which an appeals court overturned last year. The jury returned a verdict on two of three charges against Weinstein, acquitting him of one. Jurors indicated that they had yet to achieve unanimity on the final count. That could mean more deliberations on Thursday. The verdict capped an extraordinary fifth day of deliberations. The jury foreperson complained that he was being bullied by other jurors. Weinstein's lawyer then asked for a mistrial, and Weinstein himself addressed the judge without jurors in the courtroom, imploring him to end the case without a verdict. Minutes later, the jury of seven women and five men declared the ailing 73-year-old guilty of one count of criminal sex act, which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Weinstein denies raping or sexually assaulting anyone. Once he's sentenced, he can appeal. Here's what you need to know about the verdict: What was Weinstein convicted of? Jurors convicted Weinstein of one count of criminal sex act, finding that he forcibly performed oral sex on a TV and movie producer and production assistant, Miriam Haley, nearly two decades ago. Haley, who had a short stint working on the Weinstein-produced 'Project Runway,' testified that he assaulted her in July 2006 after inviting her to stop by his SoHo apartment before a flight his company booked her on the next day to Los Angeles to attend a movie premiere. Haley testified that Weinstein backed her into a bedroom, pushed her onto a bed and forced oral sex on her, undeterred by her kicks and pleas of, 'No, no — it's not going to happen.' Weinstein was convicted of the same charge at his first trial. Haley, who has also gone by the name Mimi Haleyi, told jurors that she was never interested in any sexual or romantic relationship with Weinstein but still wanted his help professionally. She acknowledged she kept in touch and exchanged warm messages with him and accepted an invitation to his hotel room two weeks after the alleged assault, when she said he pulled her into bed for sex. What was Weinstein acquitted of? Weinstein acquitted of a charge of criminal sex act relating to a previously uncharged allegation that he forced oral sex on Kaja (KEYE'-ah) Sokola, a psychologist and former Polish model and actor, at a Manhattan hotel in 2006 just before her 20th birthday. Sokola, who wasn't a part of Weinstein's first trial, testified that Weinstein assaulted her after luring her to his hotel room by telling her had a script to show her. As he pushed her onto a bed, stripped off her boots, her stockings and her underwear, 'my soul was removed from me," she said. Now 39, Sokola said he held her down while ignoring her pleas of 'please don't, please stop, I don't want this.' She said she tried to push him away but was no match against the much larger Weinstein. Sokola also testified that Weinstein sexually assaulted her when she was 16 years old, but that allegation was beyond legal time limits for a potential criminal charge. Sokola said she stayed in touch with Weinstein because she had dreams of an acting career. She went to authorities in January 2020, a few days into Weinstein's first trial. Prosecutors halted their investigation after Weinstein was convicted, but revived it when the verdict was thrown out last year. What charge hasn't been decided yet? The jury hasn't reached a verdict on a third-degree rape charge involving Jessica Mann's allegation that Weinstein assaulted her in March 2013. Mann, a cosmetologist and hairstylist, said she met Weinstein at a party in late 2012 or early 2013, when she was 27 and trying to launch an acting career. She alleges Weinstein trapped her in a Manhattan hotel room, demanded that she undress as he loomed over her, grabbed her arms and raped her after, she believes, he injected himself with an erection-promoting drug that she later found in the bathroom trash. Mann said she had a consensual, on-and-off relationship with the then-married Weinstein, but that he was volatile and violated her if she refused him. She said she kept in touch with Weinstein after the alleged rape, telling jurors she 'compartmentalized the part of Harvey that was hurting me,' and that flattery and friendliness 'kept the peace.' The Associated Press generally does not name sexual assault accusers without their permission, which Haley, Mann and Sokola have given. Why was there a new trial? New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, threw out Weinstein's conviction in April 2024. In a 4-3 decision, the court said the judge in the first trial, James Burke, denied Weinstein a fair trial by letting three women testify about allegations that didn't result in charges and by deciding that prosecutors could confront Weinstein, if he testified, about stories of him behaving brutishly. The court labeled the allegations against Weinstein 'appalling, shameful, repulsive conduct' but warned that 'destroying a defendant's character under the guise of prosecutorial need' did not justify some trial evidence and testimony. Burke's term expired at the end of 2022, and he is no longer a judge. Prosecutors were not allowed to retry Weinstein on charges that he was acquitted of during his first trial, including predatory sexual assault and one count of first-degree rape. What about Weinstein's other criminal case? Weinstein is appealing his conviction in Los Angeles in a similar case in 2022. Jurors there found him guilty of three of seven charges, including rape, and he was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein's lawyers argued he did not get a fair trial. They contend that the judge in the California case wrongly allowed jurors to know about Weinstein's 2020 New York conviction, and that the jury was unfairly prejudiced by testimony from women about alleged assaults Weinstein was not charged with. __ Associated Press journalists Ruth Brown and Philip Marcelo contributed to this report.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Judge blocks Trump admin from deporting Mahmoud Khalil using Rubio power
A federal judge in New Jersey blocked the Trump administration from deporting pro-Palestinian Columbia University protest organizer Mahmoud Khalil on foreign policy grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil under a provision of federal law that allows the deportation of any foreign citizen whose 'presence or activities' in the U.S. is determined to 'have serious adverse foreign policy consequences' and is chilling Khalil's First Amendment free speech rights. In a 14-page order, Farbiarz said the rarely used statute Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked against the former Columbia graduate student is likely unconstitutional. He also ruled that the activist and legal U.S. resident who has been in immigration custody in Louisiana since March can't be detained further on that basis. The judge said it was unlikely the Trump administration could justify detaining Khalil via another rationale it tacked on after his arrest in Manhattan: that when he applied for a green card, he failed to disclose all his past employment and membership in certain organizations. Immigrants are almost never detained for those sorts of omissions, the judge noted, finding it likelier that Rubio's determination was the basis for Khalil's ongoing detention. However, the judge's ruling did not foreclose Khalil's continued detention on alternative grounds, emphasizing that he had only definitively rejected Rubio's determination and that his decision had 'no impact' on other aspects of the effort to deport Khalil. Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, put his ruling on hold until Friday morning to allow the Trump administration to appeal. A lawyer for Khalil, Baher Azmy, said in an email that he believes Farbiarz's order means Khalil should be released from custody by Friday morning unless an appellate court intervenes. 'We are relieved that the Court determined that both his detention and his removal based on the ridiculous, overbroad Rubio determination would be unconstitutional,' Azmy said, 'and that he is suffering severe ongoing harms [from] the government's grotesque, vindictive retaliation for his constitutionally protected expression in support of Palestine.' The departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. While Khalil has remained detained, others who have been similarly swept up as part of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian academics have been released. In early May, a Vermont federal judge ordered the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Tufts University Ph.D. student. A few days later, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the release of a Georgetown researcher, Badar Khan Suri. Like Khalil, both Ozturk and Suri had been detained in March.
