Police officer confronts CNN reporter in LA: ‘You grabbing me?'
As CNN's Kyung Lah was reporting live from the demonstrations, the camera caught Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers telling her and other members of CNN's crew that they needed to leave the area.
As Lah attempted to break through the crowd and get away, an officer was heard yelling 'are you grabbing me? Get away from me!'
'No, I didn't,' the reporter shouted back.
The dust up came just hours after a second CNN reporter, Jason Carroll, was briefly detained as police cleared a separate area on Monday.
The civil unrest in LA has led a number of press groups to urge federal authorities on the ground there and LAPD to 'ensure that any federal officers or personnel, or anyone acting under their direction and control, refrain from any unlawful, indiscriminate, and excessive use of force against members of the press and public who are merely covering events of public concern in the Los Angeles area.'
In a statement on Wednesday morning, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security — which conducted the mass immigration raids that sparked the demonstrations — said 'we remind members of the media and journalists to exercise caution as they cover these violent riots.'
'We have seen rioters throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails, setting fires, and other violent acts,' the spokesperson continued. 'President Trump and Secretary Noem are committed to restoring law and order in Los Angeles.'
The turmoil also comes after the Trump administration deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell the protests. The move, which Trump doubled down on early Wednesday, has led to another heated feud between the president and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
29 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Uganda agrees to take deported migrants from U.S. if they don't have criminal records
KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda has agreed to a deal with the United States to take deported migrants as long as they don't have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, the foreign ministry said Thursday. The ministry said in a statement that the agreement had been concluded but that terms were still being worked out. It added that Uganda prefers that the migrants sent there be of African nationalities, but did not elaborate on what Uganda might get in return for accepting deportees. The U.S. Embassy in Uganda declined to comment on what it called 'diplomatic negotiations,' but said that diplomats were seeking to uphold President Trump's 'policy of keeping Americans safe.' The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter migrants from entering the country illegally and to deport those who already have done so, especially those with criminal records and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home country. Human rights activists criticized the deportee deal as possibly going against international law. Henry Okello Oryem, Uganda's state minister for foreign affairs, on Wednesday had denied that any agreement on deportees had been reached, though he said his government was in discussions about 'visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues.' He also suggested that his country would draw the line at accepting people associated with criminal groups. 'We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?' he said at the time. Oryem and other Ugandan government officials declined to comment Thursday. Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi suggested that such a deal with the United States would give the Ugandan government legitimacy ahead of elections, and urged Washington not to turn a blind eye toward what he described as human rights and governance issues in Uganda. Uganda's leaders will rush into a deal to 'clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,' Nkunyingi said. Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opio likened a deportee deal to human trafficking, and said it would leave the status of the deportees unclear. 'Are they refugees or prisoners?' he said. 'The proposed deal runs afoul of international law. We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,' he said. 'That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?' In July, the U.S. deported five men with criminal backgrounds to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. The men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to Eswatini are being held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. A legal challenge in the U.S had halted the deportation process of the eight men in South Sudan but a Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Uganda has had challenges with the U.S. after lawmakers passed an anti-homosexuality bill in 2023 that punishes consensual same-sex conduct with penalties including life imprisonment. Washington threatened consequences and the World Bank withheld some funding. In May 2024, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Uganda's parliamentary speaker, her husband and several other officials over corruption and serious abuses of human rights.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrat predicts ‘day of reckoning' for private prison employees
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) on Wednesday said private prison employees would have to answer to their treatment of inmates amid the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration and as more detention facilities may pop up around the U.S. 'There, at some point, is going to be a reckoning for all of this,' Ossoff told MSNBC during an appearance on 'The Weeknight.' 'These folks who are working at these private prison companies, who are on Kristi Noem's staff right now, they are at some point going to have to testify under oath about what is happening in the facilities that they're currently running,' he added. Democrats have slammed Republicans for rejecting their attempts to conduct oversight at facilities where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold detained migrants awaiting deportation. Some state lawmakers were also denied entry to 'Alligator Alcatraz' last month, the detention center in the Florida Everglades. They have also been critical of President Trump's robust immigration agenda, with turmoil rising after lawmakers joined with protestors outside of an ICE center in New York earlier this year and anti-ICE protests sprung up in Southern California and beyond in opposition to an uptick in deportation raids after the administration sent National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles to quell demonstrations. Families of those detained and human rights groups have said their loved ones are suffering from abuse while in ICE custody, such as a lack of clean water and electricity. 'We're talking about pregnant women. We're talking about children,' Ossoff told MSNBC's Alicia Menendez. 'We're talking about people who have no business being in one of these horrible detention centers.' 'And, you know, I believe that the American people have rejected this draconian and inhumane approach to interior enforcement,' the lawmaker continued. 'But in terms of my Republican colleagues, no spine is yet visible in the Senate.' The Georgia Democrat also noted that the treatment is 'indefensible' citing what he said is over 500 credible reports of abuses. House and Senate Democrats joined forces to send a Wednesday letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem hoping to address the alleged injustices. 'Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, [DHS] has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health and violate federal law,' Democrats wrote in a letter to Noem inquiring about operations at 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's unclear if they've received a response.
