In emotional event, Rhode Island judge, peers make rare public comments about increasing threats to judiciary
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
McConnell was one of five sitting federal judges who spoke during the panel event—which at times grew emotional—decrying attacks on the federal judiciary under the Trump administration. The event was organized by 'Speak Up for Justice,' a pro-judiciary group founded by a Los Angeles trial lawyer.
Advertisement
McConnell said there were six credible threats to his life including someone searching for his home address on the dark web, and pizza deliveries that US Marshals informed him were intended to telegraph that his critics knew where he and his family lived. He said the deliveries were particularly rattling when they were made using the name of Daniel Anderl, the late son of New Jersey US District Judge Esther Salas who was murdered in 2020 in an attack targeting Salas.
Advertisement
'The most heartbreaking call I've ever had to make was when the Marshals called me and told me that a pizza had been delivered in her son Daniel's name,' McConnell said. 'I called my friend Esther because I thought she needed to know what was going on. And we had a good cry over it, but at the end, a good attempt to right ourselves and know ... that we had a cause to fight for.'
He also noted that online right-wing activists including Laura Loomer and Elon Musk
McConnell was joined on the panel by Judges Robert S. Lasnik and John C. Coughenour of Washington, Judge Karoline Mehalchick of Pennsylvania, who is president-elect of the Federal Bar Association, and Salas, who fought back tears as she talked about her late son's name being attached to this wave of threats. Lasnick said more than 50 such pizza deliveries have been made to judges nationwide.
'To her that my beautiful son's name, everything that Danny stands for is love and light, and to hear people using it as a weapon — weaponizing his name to inflict fear on Judge McConnell and Judge Lasnick and Judge Lasnick's kids,' Salas said, her voice laden with emotion. 'Judges are being threatened, and these threats are threats that go to the core of a human being.'
Advertisement
Federal judges rarely speak publicly about themselves and avoid politics, usually letting their rulings speak for them. But the judges on the call, including McConnell, said they felt compelled to speak out against what they see as an unprecedented rise in threats and inflammatory rhetoric that undermines the independence of the court system.
'I didn't want to be here, it took me a long time,' McConnell said. 'I'm not looking for sympathy. I want to be able to just do my job again. I want to be able to uphold the Constitution and I want the public to speak out once again in support of an independent judiciary, a judiciary where each one of us is safe to follow the rule of law without fear or favor.'
The judges were careful to avoid partisanship, saying that inflammatory rhetoric against judges is wrong from any political party. But Salas went one step further, saying 'we have to speak the facts' and that the Trump White House is going farther in its attacks on judges than she's seen in the past.
'We've seen it come from both sides, but now it's at a level that I have to honestly say … is different," Salas said. 'We're seeing things coming out from the top down, from White House spokespeople calling us '
Advertisement
She called on political figures to 'stop villainizing us' with rhetoric like 'deranged,' 'idiots' and 'monsters'—language that has been used by
The White House decried threats to judges when asked for comment on her allegations.
'Attacks against public officials, including judges, have no place in our society and President Trump knows all too well the impact of callous attacks having faced two assassination attempts,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Globe.
Salas encouraged officials to focus on the substance of rulings, not the judges.
'They are inviting people to do us harm,' Salas said. 'Don't make it personal, appeal us to a higher court, but if you're a leader in this country, lead responsibly.'
Tal Kopan can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Issues Warning to Putin After Summit Prep With Europe
(Bloomberg) -- US President Donald Trump warned he would impose 'very severe consequences' if Vladimir Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire agreement later this week, following a call with European leaders ahead of his meeting with the Russian president. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets Trump also said he hoped to use the Friday meeting to set up a 'quick second meeting' with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy after allies pressed him to push for such a summit. 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting which will be more productive than the first,' Trump told reporters Wednesday at the Kennedy Center, adding that he was 'setting the table for the second meeting.' The president's remarks signaled both that he was looking to downplay expectations for the delivery of a full peace deal from his Anchorage, Alaska summit with Putin, and responding to concerns from his European partners who urged him to prioritize direct Putin-Zelenskiy talks. Skeptics of Trump's effort have expressed concern that the US president — who has said an eventual deal would include territorial exchanges — could agree to peace terms proposed by Putin that would disadvantage Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking to reporters Wednesday after the call, said that any decision on possible concessions on territory will need to be made by Ukraine and there were no 'serious territorial exchange plans on the table today.' 'Trump was very clear on the fact that the US wants to obtain a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska,' Macron told reporters in Bregancon, France. 'We have reiterated that until there is a ceasefire and a lasting peace, we must continue to support Ukraine, and when I say we I mean Europeans and Americans.' Trump and US Vice President JD Vance joined European leaders including from Germany, France, Poland and Italy as well as Zelenskiy and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in a roughly hour-long discussion. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who also took part, said in a post on social media that the leaders had a 'very good call' and that it 'strengthened the common ground for Ukraine.' Trump similarly described the call, saying he would 'rate it a 10' and said he had promised to brief Zelenskiy and European leaders immediately after concluding his conversation. Trump also said he would be willing to walk away if he judged Putin as insincere. 'Now there may be no second meeting, because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it, because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting,' Trump said. The talks came after days of intense diplomacy between US, European and Ukrainian officials ahead of Trump's planned meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who hosted the call with the US leader, reiterated that Ukraine would need to be involved in any decisions. 'We have made it clear that Ukraine will be at the table as soon as there is a follow-up meeting,' Merz told reporters in Berlin alongside Zelenskiy. 'President Trump wants to make a ceasefire a priority.' Moscow is demanding that Ukraine cede its entire eastern Donbas region as well as Crimea, which Putin's forces illegally annexed in 2014, as a condition to unlock a ceasefire and enter negotiations over a lasting settlement, Bloomberg previously reported. Such an outcome would require the government in Kyiv to give up parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces still under its control and hand Russia a victory that its army couldn't achieve militarily for more than a decade. Zelenskiy told reporters earlier this week that he won't cede Donbas, adding that the Kremlin could use it as a launchpad for a future offensive. European nations have made clear to the US that they will not formally recognize territory illegally occupied by Russia. Macron said questions about the territory 'will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president.' 'We support this position and it was very clearly expressed by President Trump,' he told reporters, adding that the US leader 'will also fight to obtain' a trilateral meeting with with Putin and Zelenskiy. Kyiv and its allies argue that a truce along the current battle-lines should be the first step toward formal negotiations. European leaders also stressed to Trump that Ukraine needs robust security guarantees to ensure that any deal holds. 'If there is no movement on the Russian side in Alaska, then the United States and we Europeans should and must increase the pressure,' Merz said. 'President Trump is aware of this position and largely shares it.' Trump hasn't implemented any direct measures against Moscow so far, though he doubled tariffs on Indian goods to 50% last week for its purchases of Russian oil, sparking outrage in New Delhi. He threatened to ramp up economic pressure on Moscow unless Putin agreed to a ceasefire by last Friday. That deadline passed without any further action after the two sides announced their first summit meeting since Trump's return to the White House in January. European leaders also said that Trump, Putin and Zelenskiy could aim to formalize a ceasefire alongside an agreement on the core parameters for peace negotiations at a trilateral meeting, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Zelenskiy said the participants in the call agreed that there 'must be security guarantees and they must be stronger if Russia does not agree to ceasefire in Alaska.' 'We need more pressure — not only American but also European sanctions,' Zelenskiy said. --With assistance from Kavita Mokha, James Regan, Kateryna Chursina, Iain Rogers, Hadriana Lowenkron and Josh Wingrove. Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unconventional chip gambit might leave Nvidia and AMD with more questions than answers
President Trump has had a busy week making moves across the US chip industry. And it's only Wednesday. On Monday, Trump revealed his administration will take a 15% cut of sales of Nvidia (NVDA) and AMD's (AMD) chips to Chinese companies in exchange for allowing the AI hardware to flow back into the country. He also met with Intel (INTC) CEO Lip-Bu Tan on Monday after calling for his ouster last week. At the end of the day, Trump appeared to back away from his initial demand, saying Tan's 'success and rise is an amazing story.' On their face, the developments appear to be positive for the trio of chip giants. But Trump's lightning-fast whiplash between stances raises important questions about the companies' futures, including whether Nvidia and AMD will be able to continue selling their chips in China, despite the administration's prior protestations about national security concerns, and what kind of toll the president will extract from Intel moving forward. Nvidia and AMD get a win… for now Trump's decision to restart the sale of Nvidia and AMD chips into China for a fee means both companies will be able to recoup some of the losses they took when he initially banned processor shipments there in April. Nvidia had to write off $4.5 billion due to the ban in Q1, with an additional $8 billion hit expected in Q2, while AMD reported an $800 million loss in Q2. '[The] companies can use some part of their prior written-off inventory so even with 15% penalty they get some gross profit recovery, and … China resumption maintains the original goal of engaging with an important (China) AI ecosystem and of potentially keeping competitors (Huawei) in check,' BofA Global Research analyst Vivek Arya wrote in a research note following Trump's announcement. Nvidia, in particular, could end up passing along the 15% fee to its China-based customers, thanks to the strong demand for its offerings. 'From my perspective, it is a positive for those companies,' Forrester senior analyst Alvin Nguyen told Yahoo Finance. 'As you know, it opens a market where there's still high demand. Nvidia, especially, still has a lot of cache with their name.' But Trump's latest AI chip move also introduces some thorny questions. The first of which is whether Nvidia and AMD will continue to be able to sell their AI processors into China moving forward, or if Trump will change his mind again. After all, the administration originally pulled Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 on national security grounds, and as Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon explained to Yahoo Finance, this deal doesn't appear to address the matter. Arya similarly warns against getting too comfortable with the idea of China as a reliable source of revenue for either company. 'It isn't clear if [the US government] will continue to provide approvals next year,' he wrote in a research note. 'Restarting supply chains to produce more AI chips could take 8-9 months … [and the] rapidly evolving AI landscape could reduce demand from certain China customers.' There's another problem lurking for Nvidia, though. According to The Information, Chinese officials are urging companies like ByteDance, Alibaba Group (BABA), and Tencent Holdings (TCEHY) to suspend the purchase of Nvidia chips over potential security concerns. Nvidia says its chips don't pose any kind of security threat. 'As both governments recognize, the H20 is not a military product or for government infrastructure. China has ample supply of domestic chips to meet its needs,' an Nvidia spokesperson wrote in an email to Yahoo Finance. 'It won't and never has relied on American chips for government operations, just like the U.S. government would not rely on chips from China. Banning the sale of H20 in China would only harm US economic and technology leadership with zero national security benefit.' All of this comes amid the backdrop of the US and China's ongoing trade negotiations, leaving Nvidia and AMD uniquely vulnerable to further political intrigue. Intel's Trump meeting Intel is also contending with its own Trump-related issues. Last week, the president said in a Truth Social post that Tan was 'highly conflicted and must resign,' adding that there was 'no other solution to this problem.' Trump's statement came after Republican Sen. Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel questioning Tan's investments in Chinese companies. It didn't help that the Justice Department announced in July that Cadence Design Systems, where Tan previously served as CEO, would pay a $140 million settlement related to charges about shipping chip design products to a Chinese military university. Tan also has a number of investments in Chinese companies. Intel responded in a statement saying Tan, the company, and its board are aligned with Trump's 'America First agenda.' After Tan's meeting with the president on Monday, the company released an additional statement saying, 'We appreciate the president's strong leadership to advance these critical priorities and look forward to working closely with him and his administration as we restore this great American company.' Trump, for his part, said in a Truth Social post that the meeting was interesting and that his members will meet with Tan to give him suggestions over the next week. It's unclear what the suggestions would be for. In a research note, Rasgon wrote that Intel could petition for 'further support, both monetary and, conceivably, through customer 'encouragement' either for volume … or more direct investment.' The biggest question then is what Trump will seek from Intel in return for his help. 'We do know [Trump] tends to be transactional, and loves making deals where he (and, hopefully, the US too?) come out ahead,' Rasgon wrote. 'Would a successful Intel be enough all by itself to satiate that desire? We aren't sure, but given recent behavior (just yesterday extracting dollars from [Nvidia] and AMD to sell AI chips into China) we feel that his largesse, if obtained, likely won't come free.' Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Federal authority over DC is nothing new, and it is needed again
President Trump this week moved from rhetoric to action in his push for more federal control of Washington, D.C. Citing a ' public safety emergency,' he is deploying National Guard troops to support federal officers already in place, taking direct control of the city's police department under a provision of the 1973 Home Rule Act, and pledging to 'get rid of the slums.' Democrats' reaction has been swift and condemnatory. They cast the move as the latest instance of his authoritarian overreach. 'This is what dictators do,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the move had ' no basis in law.' The New York Times ran the headline: 'Trump threatens federal takeover of Washington after Member of DOGE is Assaulted.' In reality, the Constitution not only allows this but anticipates federal intervention in the capital's affairs, at least in some circumstances. That's because the District of Columbia was created precisely so that the seat of government would not depend on any state for its security, funding or order. Washington is not a state and never has been. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the District. This is a sweeping authority that has been used repeatedly. Local self-government in D.C. is a modern experiment, not an inalienable right. Until the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the city was run directly by federally appointed officials. The 1801 Organic Act placed Washington under congressional control; in the 1870s, Congress briefly allowed a territorial-style government, but after mismanagement and debt spiraled, it reimposed direct federal rule. Even under home rule, Congress has retained authority to override local laws, control the District's budget, and, in emergencies, reassert direct control, as it did from 1995 to 2001 through a Financial Control Board during a local fiscal crisis. A president cannot unilaterally abolish home rule, but he can press Congress to act, and he can invoke his existing emergency powers. Trump's actions pursue those avenues and certainly don't defy the Constitution. For example, the Home Rule Act explicitly allows the president to assume control of the police if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Trump's order triggers that provision. Although Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser argues those conditions do not exist, the statute leaves it to the federal government's discretion. The case for intervention is straightforward: D.C. has an image problem utterly unfit for its role as the nation's capital. It consistently ranks among the most dangerous cities in America. Annual homicides were just under 200 last year and more than twice their level in 2012, despite Bowser's rote claims of 'declining crime.' What decline there is mostly reflects the nationwide post-COVID drop in crime rather than any uniquely successful policy. High-profile incidents underscore the issue. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was carjacked at gunpoint near Capitol Hill. Around the same time, the Secret Service vehicle assigned to Naomi Biden — the granddaughter of the then-president — was broken into in Georgetown, which is arguably the nicest part of the city. Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) was assaulted by a homeless man in the elevator of her apartment building. Federal employees, foreign diplomats and tourists face the same risks as residents. Many residents and much of the press speak as if the city belongs exclusively to its 700,000 inhabitants and their mayor. But the capital was never meant to be insulated from national accountability. Congress intended the District to be a showcase of national governance, and the question is whether the current model of home rule without meaningful federal oversight is meeting that standard. Such disorder compels one to ask whether Congress's responsibility to 'exercise exclusive legislation' has been neglected. Precedent shows that when D.C. cannot ensure stability against, as Trump described Monday, 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' federal reengagement is both lawful and at times necessary. If opponents reject Trump's vision for federal involvement, they should make the substantive case for how home rule can be reformed to meet the moment. But it is disingenuous to suggest the Constitution forbids such intervention. If Congress refuses to act, the city's fate will rest on whatever limited tools the executive already possesses. As for Newsom's lecture on 'what dictators do,' perhaps the first governor to lock down his state during COVID and the last to reopen schools — the man who turned the nation's largest state into a poster child for woke dysfunction — should sit this one out. Trump has answered the question of whether he'll use his constitutional tools. The progressive left must now decide whether to produce a plan for home rule that works or just keep shouting 'authoritarian' while the capital continues to decline.
