Latest news with #123
The Star
8 hours ago
- Business
- The Star
Will the US$499 Trump phone be made in Alabama or China?
Trump Mobile is rolling out the US$499 (RM2,123) T1 Phone in August. — Getty Images via AFP Buried in Monday's news of a new cell phone bearing the name of the Trump organisation was one tidbit about where it will be manufactured. President Donald Trump's company said it is launching the Trump Mobile cell phone service, which it claimed is 'designed to deliver top-tier connectivity, unbeatable value and all-American service for our nation's hardest-working people.' Along with the service, Trump Mobile is rolling out the US$499 (RM 2,123) T1 Phone in August, a 'gold smartphone engineered for performance and proudly designed and built in the United States for customers who expect the best from their mobile carrier.' But The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, according to the company, Alabama will be one of three states where the phones will be made. A spokesman for the Trump Organization told the Journal that 'manufacturing for the new phone will be in Alabama, California and Florida.' The Trump Organization did not respond to a request from for more information. Eric Trump did say Monday that the first wave of phones wouldn't be built in the US. 'You can build these phones in the United States,' he told podcaster Benny Johnson. 'Eventually, all the phones can be built in the United States of America. We have to bring manufacturing back here.' The Journal is a bit sceptical that any American-made cellphone will show up soon. Earlier this year, the newspaper quizzed supply-chain experts on how quickly a completely US-made phone on the order of the iPhone could appear. They projected years and a multi-billion dollar commitment to build the infrastructure necessary, which would result in a phone more expensive than the iPhones made in China. The Journal's deputy tech editor Wilson Rothman said in the Journal's 'Tech News Podcast' that there are currently phones that resemble the specs of the T1 phone at this price point that are made in China. 'The thing about manufacturing phones in America is you have to have an infrastructure,' Rothman said. 'You have to have a workforce. You have to have things that you can't just snap your fingers or even throw US$500bil (RM2.13 trillion) at. It's not a problem that can be solved just with money. It really is a decades-in-the works kind of project.' Regardless, Rothman said the Trump phone could do well in capitalising 'on the frustration of people (with) their wireless plans.' And despite being advertised as an American-made phone, 'it is likely that this device will be initially produced by a Chinese (original design manufacturer),' Counterpoint Research analyst Blake Przesmicki wrote in a June 16 note, according to Variety . 'Max Weinbach, an analyst at research firm Creative Strategies, in a post on X, said the T1 Phone is likely being made by Wingtech, which is owned by Chinese company Luxshare. 'Same device as the T-Mobile REVVL 7 Pro 5G, custom body,' Weinbach wrote in the post, Variety reprted. 'Wingtech, now owned byLuxshare, makes it in Jiaxing, Wuxi, or Kunming China.' – News Service
Gulf Today
18-05-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
We're taking investments in US 'one step further,' says UAE Minister Sheikh Abdullah
During US President Trump's landmark visit to the Middle East, Fox News' Bret Baier had an exclusive interview with Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, to discuss UAE-US relations and reflect on the region's complex dynamics. Following is the interview: Bret Baier: Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. Your Highness, it's great to see you again. Welcome back to Special Report. Sheikh Abdullah : Bret, it's always great to be with you and I know your show is watched widely by millions, congratulations. Bret Baier : Thank you. A big day here today with the President's visit. What does it mean for this country, for the region and where you see things? Sheikh Abdullah : It's definitely a historical day for us, for our relationship. The President, President Trump, and America has been so great to the UAE in supporting this relationship, taking it even further ahead. We are a very welcoming nation like yours. People are free to do whatever they like and practice religion the way they see appropriate. Churches, mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, you name it. And I really believe that our values are quite similar. I mean we both take family as a core part of our relationship. When we look at the rest of the world, unfortunately some don't agree with us, but most do. Bret Baier: This is a big financial trip for investment in the US and investment in the Middle East. You did deals today and you've pledged more than $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The President touts that very proudly; what does that mean, do you think for that interaction between the US, bilaterally, in the future? Sheikh Abdullah : Bret, it works because your nation has been so open for business, and we've learned from you. We've been investing in the United States for decades, but now we're taking it one step further, not only in terms of size, but in terms of trust and we are grateful for President Trump for that. Bret Baier: There is a lot of turmoil in the region and one of the big questions is Iran and what will happen. Here's what the President said about that: [Recording of President Trump] 'It's not like I have to give you 30 pages worth of details, there's only one sentence: they can't have a nuclear weapon. There's two steps. There's a very, very nice step and there's a violent step. Violence like people haven't seen before and I don't… I hope we're not going to have to do this. I don't want to do the second step.'Where do you think this is going? Do you think Iran's going to make a deal that dismantles its nuclear programme? Sheikh Abdullah : Bret, I believe in good models. I look at the UAE and see that the UAE have made a nuclear deal with the United States. It's called the 123. And it's called the Gold Standard. I really wish that people in the region, and beyond, look at how this deal has been such a benefit for both our nations. Bret Baier: Well, this gives you civilian nuclear power. You have like four power plants; you're cooking on all cylinders when it comes to that. Sheikh Abdullah : Yes, and by the way, it was built on time, on budget. Believe it or not, for a nuclear reactor, it's not very much likely to happen. Bret Baier: So, do you think there's a model there for Iran, you all, Saudi Arabia, that somehow gets to the heart of this issue of dismantling its nuclear programme on the weapons side? Sheikh Abdullah : Bret, it's about trust and transparency. And if we can overcome these two elements, we can do great things together. Bret Baier: They've been bad actors on a number of fronts though. The proxies, the Houthis, the … Hamas. So there's got to be other red lines, right? Sheikh Abdullah : I believe that a country should respect international law. I really hope that Iran looks at the approach of President Trump in such an opening of the United States towards the Iranian people, which could be very much beneficial for the Iranians but it's for the Iranian people to make. Bret Baier: Alright, Gaza, Hamas. It's still going on. There are still hostages that haven't been released. How do you see that and how do you see it ending? We started with the Abraham Accords and the historic relationship that you now have with Israel and … as well as Bahrain. Is that going to happen in this environment with anybody else? Sheikh Abdullah : Let me answer the question in a different way. The UAE has provided over 42% of all international aid into Gaza in the last almost two years now, during this war. If it wasn't for the Abraham Accords between the UAE and Israel, with the great role that was played by and initiated by President Trump, I don't think we would be as capable in delivering that much aid into Gaza. Bret Baier: Who should secure Gaza when Israel has finished its military operation? I mean, does Israel need to leave immediately? Do you all play a role? How does it like, paint the picture, how we get to the next step? Sheikh Abdullah : First, getting the hostages out. We need calm in Gaza and we need an authority that's not Hamas, that controls Gaza. If we can provide assistance, ideas, we're always here to do so. Bret Baier: You met with the Palestinian Authority recently. Are they open? Sheikh Abdullah : I think they are very much fed up with the current situation and you can hear it from them. They want an end to this war. Now, will they have a role or not? That depends on how the United States, Israel, and the rest would help or avoid doing so at the moment. But eventually it's only for the Palestinians to run the place. Bret Baier: Syria, seems like they're trying to come back into the fold, if you will. The President saying he's lifting sanctions. Should President Trump trust Syrian President Al Sharaa? Sheikh Abdullah : Well, I think it's too early to use that word. Bret Baier: Trust? Sheikh Abdullah : Trust. I think he and his government have been saying the right things. It's clear that they don't have the capacity, at the moment, in fulfilling their messages. I really hope that lifting these sanctions would provide them with these capacities, but we have to verify. I mean, this is what President Reagan once said: "Trust, but verify.' Bret Baier: You're plugged into a lot of these things around the region, but rebuilding is going to be a big part of it when Gaza's over, when Syria's finished, Lebanon. Is the UAE going to be a big part of rebuilding? Sheikh Abdullah : Bret, I think the region is moving away from just giving away easy money. It depends on the conditions of the rebuilding. Is there the right combination of countries who are party to it? So, it's not about an individual country or a small number of countries who are just going to come and throw in money. Bret Baier: Last thing. Look into the crystal ball: two years, five years, ten years. UAE and the Middle East. What do you see? Sheikh Abdullah : I see a lot of hope. Bret, this is a country which is just over 50 years old, since its federation. Just 15 years before that, so 65 years ago, we had our first hospital, believe it or not, built by an American missionary and I'm delighted to say that last year we had over a million Americans coming and visiting the UAE. It tells you a lot about how safe, how prosperous and how exciting this part of the world is. Bret Baier: So you see good things? Sheikh Abdullah : I see good things. I mean, I wouldn't be in this job if I was not optimistic. Bret Baier: Yeah. Your Highness, we really appreciate your time thank you very much. Sheikh Abdullah : Thank you. WAM
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Georgia bill lowering threshold for proving intellectual disability in death penalty cases heads to Gov. Kemp
The Georgia Senate passed a bill on Monday easing the state's strict burden of proof required for a death row inmate to be deemed intellectually disabled, which would make them ineligible for a death sentence. The Peach State currently has the highest threshold in the nation for a person to prove they have an intellectual disability, allowing them to avoid the death penalty. After a yearslong push to lessen requirements, the Senate approved H.B. 123 on Monday by a 53-1 vote. The measure now heads to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp's desk after it was unanimously approved by the House earlier this month. Georgia became the first state to outlaw the death penalty for intellectually disabled people in 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court later followed suit and ruled in 2002 that executing intellectually disabled people violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Georgia House Advances Bill To Ease Death Penalty Law For Intellectually Disabled People The Supreme Court allowed states to determine the threshold for a person to be considered intellectually disabled. Georgia requires proof of intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt, making it the only state with such a high burden of proof. Read On The Fox News App H.B. 123 would lower the standard to a preponderance of evidence and amend trial procedures to ensure people facing a death sentence receive a fair chance at convincing judges and jurors of their disability. The bill would allow defendants to present evidence of intellectual disability at a pretrial hearing that would be mandatory if prosecutors agree. There would also be a separate process before the same jury for determining whether someone is guilty and has an intellectual disability. Defendants who are found to have an intellectual disability would be exempt from the death penalty and receive alternative sentences. In multiple cases in Georgia, lawyers have unsuccessfully argued that their clients had intellectual disabilities. Judges in some of these cases said they might have succeeded if the state's rules were less strict. Georgia Man Sentenced To Death Seeks Clemency On Grounds Of Intellectual Disability When the Georgia Supreme Court in 2021 upheld the death penalty for Rodney Young in a 2008 killing, the justices found he had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was intellectually disabled, but then-Presiding Justice David Nahmias wrote that he would "embrace" legislative efforts to lower the threshold. In another case, Warren Lee Hill was executed in Georgia in 2015 for killing a fellow detainee despite his lawyers arguing that he had an intellectual disability. In 2002, a judge said that if the state used a lower standard than reasonable doubt, Hill would likely have been found intellectually disabled. Willie James Pye, whose IQ was allegedly low enough to show he was intellectually disabled, was executed in 2024 after his conviction in the 1993 rape and shooting death of his former girlfriend, Alicia Lynn Yarbrough. Pye's lawyers argued he was intellectually disabled and brain-damaged. In the House, Democratic Rep. Esther Panitch argued that executing people with intellectual disabilities is a "moral failure." "How we protect the most vulnerable and intellectually disabled individuals facing the death penalty is the ultimate test of our collective moral character, and I submit that we must choose compassion over retribution and understanding over punishment," Panitch said. Lawyers For 'Morbidly Obese' Death Row Inmate Argue His Weight Could Cause Botched Lethal Injection District attorneys who opposed the rule change in the past have said more recently that they are fine with changing the reasonable doubt standard, but some have taken issue with a couple of procedural changes in the bill, including one that adds a pretrial hearing to determine whether someone has an intellectual disability that would be mandatory if prosecutors agree and another that establishes a separate process in a trial for determining whether someone is guilty and has an intellectual disability. Most states have these options, and lawyers say changing the reasonable doubt threshold will not stop intellectually disabled people from receiving the death penalty unless there are also procedural changes. Separate processes would allow jurors to evaluate whether someone is intellectually disabled without being influenced by the evidence of the crime the person committed, the lawyers argue. Some prosecutors allege that the bill would make it too difficult to pursue the death penalty and would prevent the practice from being carried out at all. They say that lawmakers should just ban the death penalty if that is their desire, but lawmakers have said that is not their intention. People would also have the option to receive sentences of life without parole if they are exempt from the death penalty, instead of just a life sentence. A Senate committee has also tweaked the bill so it would go into effect immediately and apply to all pending cases. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Georgia bill lowering threshold for proving intellectual disability in death penalty cases heads to Gov. Kemp
Fox News
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Georgia bill lowering threshold for proving intellectual disability in death penalty cases heads to Gov. Kemp
The Georgia Senate passed a bill on Monday easing the state's strict burden of proof required for a death row inmate to be deemed intellectually disabled, which would make them ineligible for a death sentence. The Peach State currently has the highest threshold in the nation for a person to prove they have an intellectual disability, allowing them to avoid the death penalty. After a yearslong push to lessen requirements, the Senate approved H.B. 123 on Monday by a 53-1 vote. The measure now heads to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp's desk after it was unanimously approved by the House earlier this month. Georgia became the first state to outlaw the death penalty for intellectually disabled people in 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court later followed suit and ruled in 2002 that executing intellectually disabled people violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court allowed states to determine the threshold for a person to be considered intellectually disabled. Georgia requires proof of intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt, making it the only state with such a high burden of proof. H.B. 123 would lower the standard to a preponderance of evidence and amend trial procedures to ensure people facing a death sentence receive a fair chance at convincing judges and jurors of their disability. The bill would allow defendants to present evidence of intellectual disability at a pretrial hearing that would be mandatory if prosecutors agree. There would also be a separate process before the same jury for determining whether someone is guilty and has an intellectual disability. Defendants who are found to have an intellectual disability would be exempt from the death penalty and receive alternative sentences. In multiple cases in Georgia, lawyers have unsuccessfully argued that their clients had intellectual disabilities. Judges in some of these cases said they might have succeeded if the state's rules were less strict. When the Georgia Supreme Court in 2021 upheld the death penalty for Rodney Young in a 2008 killing, the justices found he had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was intellectually disabled, but then-Presiding Justice David Nahmias wrote that he would "embrace" legislative efforts to lower the threshold. In another case, Warren Lee Hill was executed in Georgia in 2015 for killing a fellow detainee despite his lawyers arguing that he had an intellectual disability. In 2002, a judge said that if the state used a lower standard than reasonable doubt, Hill would likely have been found intellectually disabled. Willie James Pye, whose IQ was allegedly low enough to show he was intellectually disabled, was executed in 2024 after his conviction in the 1993 rape and shooting death of his former girlfriend, Alicia Lynn Yarbrough. Pye's lawyers argued he was intellectually disabled and brain-damaged. In the House, Democratic Rep. Esther Panitch argued that executing people with intellectual disabilities is a "moral failure." "How we protect the most vulnerable and intellectually disabled individuals facing the death penalty is the ultimate test of our collective moral character, and I submit that we must choose compassion over retribution and understanding over punishment," Panitch said. District attorneys who opposed the rule change in the past have said more recently that they are fine with changing the reasonable doubt standard, but some have taken issue with a couple of procedural changes in the bill, including one that adds a pretrial hearing to determine whether someone has an intellectual disability that would be mandatory if prosecutors agree and another that establishes a separate process in a trial for determining whether someone is guilty and has an intellectual disability. Most states have these options, and lawyers say changing the reasonable doubt threshold will not stop intellectually disabled people from receiving the death penalty unless there are also procedural changes. Separate processes would allow jurors to evaluate whether someone is intellectually disabled without being influenced by the evidence of the crime the person committed, the lawyers argue. Some prosecutors allege that the bill would make it too difficult to pursue the death penalty and would prevent the practice from being carried out at all. They say that lawmakers should just ban the death penalty if that is their desire, but lawmakers have said that is not their intention. People would also have the option to receive sentences of life without parole if they are exempt from the death penalty, instead of just a life sentence. A Senate committee has also tweaked the bill so it would go into effect immediately and apply to all pending cases.
