In pictures: Burning cars and tear gas in LA protests
Protests in Los Angeles escalated on Sunday after President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the area, a move that Democratic leaders called unnecessary and inflammatory.
The protests against recent immigration raids began Friday, but picked up in scale and intensity over the weekend. CNN reporters on the ground witnessed officers striking and pushing protesters, and deploying tear gas into the crowd.
Meanwhile, the protests caused major disruptions on the 101 Freeway, a main artery connecting major Californian cities. Photos and videos on the ground showed cars being set on fire and protesters throwing objects onto police vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
St. Pete consignment shop abruptly closes, thousands of dollars in designer goods missing
The Brief Retreat Consignment store closed without warning. Sellers who had their goods on consignment are now missing. The entire store has been completely cleared out. ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Thousands of dollars' worth of designer goods are missing from a St. Petersburg consignment shop. The store, Retreat Consignment, abruptly closed without any warning and now several sellers want to know where their stuff is and how to get it back. What we know Detectives spoke with one of the sellers on Monday. He's out thousands of dollars in art pieces. Dozens more on social media are missing designer shoes and bags worth thousands. The shop is empty, and the store owners are nowhere to be found. Follow FOX 13 on YouTube Rich Goren has been collecting original art pieces for years. "These are just two of the examples of them, but you can see the high quality," Goren said. He's sold several on consignment at the Retreat consignment shop on Central Avenue in St. Pete. READ: St. Pete man sailing over 5,500 miles for Ronald McDonald House Charities "We would be in the store pretty often and we would see that our stuff was still there," Goren said. Last week he noticed the store was completely empty. His stuff was nowhere to be found. Two art pieces and two pairs of designer shoes worth about $17,000 altogether are now missing. "I hope for the best, maybe sitting in a warehouse and they want to return everything. That's fine. That would be the best case scenario. But the fact that you have a business, people entrusting you with their valuables and you just take off. Come on. That's not great," Goren said. What they're saying The stores yelp page is now filled with reviews from frustrated sellers with similar stories. MORE: St. Pete approves projects to make sewer system more resilient "I am BESIDE myself that they closed their doors and took off with all of my items," one reviewer wrote. "There has been no communication as to how they are going to get their clients items, and money owed, back to them," another reviewer wrote. "One of the employees reached out to me, I won't say her name, but she said, oh my gosh, I feel awful, we all do, we haven't paid, and it was unexpected. We thought they might sell the store, but we also thought they would be transparent about everything. There's no reason for them not to be calling," Goren said. Goren reported it to the St. Pete Police Department on Monday. Detectives are encouraging any other sellers who also had their items taken to reach out. Goren has tried to reach the shop owners multiple times, but his calls and emails have all went unanswered. "It's a civil case if they have it, and they're not returning it quickly enough and so that's where that lands. So I don't know what it is. I just know that we just always try to do right by people and I expect that they seem like really good people to us but this isn't looking good," Goren said. READ: More affordable housing coming to South St. Pete with Habitat for Humanity partnership Timeline The store closed sometime in March. Goren has tried to contact the owners multiple times via email and phone, but his calls went unanswered. Sellers who had items not returned are encouraged to file a report with St. Pete Police. The Source The information in this story was gathered by FOX 13's Jordan Bowen. WATCH FOX 13 NEWS: STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 13 TAMPA: Download the FOX Local app for your smart TV Download FOX Local mobile app:Apple |Android Download the FOX 13 News app for breaking news alerts, latest headlines Download the SkyTower Radar app Sign up for FOX 13's daily newsletter
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Host Jesse Watters Uses Edited Clip to Cover Up Trump Flub
Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime conveniently omitted a portion of Donald Trump's comment about a phone call with Gavin Newsom in order to make the California governor look bad. The attempted dunk tried to skirt the fact that Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon that he last spoke with Newsom 'a day ago,' which Newsom denied. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' he wrote on X in response. Fox News anchor John Roberts obtained a record of a call from Trump to Newsom on Friday night Pacific time (Saturday morning in the east), and admitted the calls were not made 'a day ago,' as Trump claimed. 'This was June the 7th. Now, granted, this was on Saturday,' the Fox anchor said. However some on the right, like Watters, spun the story as somehow proof that Newsom was lying. When Watters introduced the topic Tuesday night, Fox's broadcast of Trump's comments just so happened to begin a split-second after he said those three words, omitting, 'a day ago' from its broadcast. 'Called him up to tell him: got to do a better job. He's done a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death,' Trump said, as Fox portrayed it. Watters made no mention of the omission Tuesday night. Instead, he went ahead bashing Newsom anyways. 'Newsom responded, and he said there wasn't a phone call. He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump's call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes,' Watters said confidently. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' he then asked. Newsom has already said that Trump didn't even talk about the National Guard during their call last week. 'We talked for almost 20 minutes and this issue never came up,' he told MSNBC. 'He never once brought up the National Guard. He's a stone-cold liar.'
