Latest news with #NewHampshirePublicRadio
New York Times
4 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Businessman Accused of Orchestrating Attacks on Journalists
A federal grand jury indicted a former New Hampshire businessman this week on charges that he orchestrated attacks on the homes of journalists who had investigated claims of sexual misconduct against him. The grand jury in Boston indicted the businessman, Eric Spofford, on four stalking-related charges after prosecutors said he had paid an associate $10,000 to vandalize the homes of a reporter and an editor at New Hampshire Public Radio, as well as the home of the reporter's parents. A lawyer for Mr. Spofford declined to comment. Mr. Spofford owned one of the largest networks of drug-rehabilitation centers in New England until he sold the business for what he said was $115 million in 2021. The next year, New Hampshire Public Radio aired a report that quoted former patients and staff members saying he had engaged in sexual misconduct. Mr. Spofford denied the allegations and threatened to sue New Hampshire Public Radio and Lauren Chooljian, the reporter who led the investigation. (His subsequent defamation lawsuit was dismissed in 2023.) After a lawyer for New Hampshire Public Radio rebuffed Mr. Spofford's demands for a retraction in the spring of 2022, men vandalized homes belonging to Ms. Chooljian, her editor and her parents, as well as a house where Ms. Chooljian previously lived. They smashed the homes' windows with rocks and bricks. One of the vandals spray-painted 'Just the beginning!' on an outside wall of Ms. Chooljian's home near Boston. The vandalism was part of a growing trend of physical attacks against journalists in the United States. At the time, Mr. Spofford, who has said he overcame drug addiction and a history of violence, denied any involvement in or knowledge of the attacks. Federal prosecutors later charged four men — at least one of whom, Eric Labarge, was an associate of Mr. Spofford's — with organizing or conducting the vandalism. All four pleaded guilty and were sentenced to prison. The grand jury indictment accused Mr. Spofford of having 'devised a scheme to harass and terrorize' Ms. Chooljian and the other victims. The indictment said Mr. Spofford had instructed Mr. Labarge to arrange for the homes to be vandalized and paid him $10,000, at least some of which Mr. Labarge used to pay men he enlisted to carry out the vandalism. After selling his business, Mr. Spofford moved to Miami. He regularly posts videos of his luxurious lifestyle and coaches followers on how to build their personal brands. Julie Tate contributed research.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Hampshire just got a preview of the House's terrible new voter suppression bill
Last week, some eligible New Hampshire voters experienced significant roadblocks to participating in the state's first elections since it enacted a law that requires a birth certificate, passport, or other proof of citizenship to register to vote. The mess provided a preview of the steep hurdles prospective voters across the country will face if Congress passes the SAVE Act, a bill that will imperil Americans' ability to participate in elections. For one voter in Hopkinton, New Hampshire, satisfying the state's new requirements was like a bad visit to the DMV. Betsy Spencer, 70, told New Hampshire Public Radio that it took multiple attempts over several hours with different documents proving her citizenship to re-register to vote on Election Day (New Hampshire is one of 23 states that allows same-day voter registration). Among other problems, her birth certificate didn't match her married name. Spencer wasn't the only one to experience difficulties: other voters who needed to register reported being turned away because they didn't bring a birth certificate, passport, or other proof of citizenship with them to the polls. While some returned with the required proof to vote, others did not. If the SAVE Act becomes law, voters nationwide will face similar problems to those in New Hampshire, if not worse. Like the New Hampshire law, the federal SAVE Act would require voters to show a document like a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers in person to an election official to register to vote. But the federal version would be even stricter than the New Hampshire law. Our research shows that at least 21 million American citizens don't have ready access to those documents. The SAVE Act's show-your-papers requirement would block millions of American citizens from voting, and it would be especially burdensome for young Americans and Americans of color. The bill could also jeopardize voting access for tens of millions of married women who have changed their last names. Roughly 80 percent of American women in opposite-sex marriages took their husband's last name, according to a 2023 Pew study. Yet the bill doesn't address what happens when a person's legal name is different than the name on their birth certificate or passport. The SAVE Act's damage would extend beyond the millions of American citizens who don't have ready access to citizenship documents. Eligible voters would be required to present their citizenship documentation in person to an election official both when they register the first time and anytime they need to re-register. This would effectively end mail registration, online registration, and voter registration drives — all extremely popular and convenient methods American voters rely on. Between 2018 and 2022, these three ways to register accounted for about one in every three registrations nationally, according to the Election Administration and Voting Survey. In the two years before the 2020 presidential election alone, more than 37 million people either registered for the first time or updated their registration using one of these methods, the survey found. The reality is that federal and state laws are already in place to ensure that only eligible U.S. citizens vote, and carry steep penalties for those who violate them. Yet, the House is currently expected to take up the bill during the week of March 31. This year marks the 60th anniversary of President Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law to eradicate racial discrimination in voting and expand access to the ballot box for people of color. If Congress were to enact the SAVE Act, it would be an unprecedented departure from its longstanding commitment to protecting the freedom to vote. Congress should not turn its back on this duty. The SAVE Act is a voter suppression bill. It would keep many millions of eligible American citizens on the sidelines of our democracy. It must never become law. This article was originally published on
Fox News
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
New Hampshire follows Trump's transgender sports executive order despite lawsuit from two trans athletes
New Hampshire is following President Donald Trump's executive order to prohibit transgender athletes from competing against girls and women. Prior to the order, according to New Hampshire Public Radio, the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association deferred to athletes and their districts on their eligibility. But the association reversed course, citing a potential lack of federal funding. "In light of these developments, the NHIAA has consulted with legal counsel and determined that it would be prudent to further clarify the NHIAA's requirements," association Executive Director Jeffrey Collins wrote, adding schools have a responsibility to "comply with state and federal law." WCAX noted that a statement from the Department of Education "commend[ed] the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association for changing its policies that allowed students to play on a team that matched their gender identity, not biological sex." Former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu signed the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act in July, but a lawsuit filed by the families of trans athletes followed and remains active. The suit alleges the New Hampshire law Sununu signed violates constitutional protections and federal laws because the teens are being denied equal educational opportunities and are being discriminated against because they are transgender. The teenage plaintiffs, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, originally filed the lawsuit last year to challenge the law. Earlier this month, though, a federal judge granted a request to add the Trump administration to the list of defendants due to the president's recent executive order. The situation involving the two transgender athletes has also prompted a second lawsuit after parents wore wristbands that said "XX" in reference to the biological female chromosomes and were allegedly banned from school grounds. Trump signed the "No Men in Women's Sports" executive order Feb. 5, which prohibited any federal funding for educational institutions that allow biological males to compete on women's or girls sports teams. New Hampshire was already one of 25 states with a law in place to enforce similar bans on transgender inclusion, but Tirrell and Turmelle have been allowed to compete on girls teams anyway due to a ruling by a federal judge in their state. Representatives from California, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Maine have all said they would continue to follow state law and ignore Trump's order, which has resulted in Title IX investigations. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
"I Pleaded Guilty 'Cause I Was Guilty": A Jan. 6 Rioter Is Going Viral For Explaining Why She's Rejecting Trump's Pardon
Last week, on his first day in office, Donald Trump issued about 1,500 pardons and commuted the sentences of 14 of his supporters involved in the January 6 attacks on the Capitol, including those who assaulted police officers. While some rejoiced over the pardons, that wasn't the case for Pamela Hemphill, a January 6 rioter who was found guilty and served 60 days in jail. Hemphill is now going viral on social media for rejecting the pardon. "It would be a slap in the face to the Capitol police officers, the rule of law, you know, to our nation," Hemphill said in a viral interview clip when asked why she said no to the pardon. "I pleaded guilty 'cause I was guilty," she said. "It would help their narrative that it was a peaceful protest that day," Hemphill continued. "No, it was not a peaceful protest. It was an insurrection. I don't want a part of anything that Trump is offering." In the comments, people applauded Hemphill for taking accountability and speaking up. One person wrote, "Ma'am... I appreciate your integrity, honesty, and the work you've done to educate yourself. Thank you!" "Wow. I don't see this ever. Respect for taking accountability," another user wrote. "Taking accountability like this requires a lot of bravery and introspection. Knowing how hard it must've been for her to accept it all, I really hope she is able to live a peaceful, quiet life," this person said. "Thank you for speaking up," another person remarked. Hemphill explained on MSNBC that an interaction with her therapist helped her realize that she wasn't a victim but "a volunteer" in the January 6 attacks and that doing her own fact-checking helped her recognize that there was no fraud in the election. Reflecting on her involvement, she said that she "lost her critical thinking" and has called what she was involved with "a cult." For others like herself, she told MSNBC, "You gotta decide for yourself. Do you really want to continue listening to Trump and all his lies or find out if they are lies? Just check it out. Just do some fact-checking. One or two things. I don't know about you, when somebody's lied to me, it's not OK with me." Since Pamela Hemphill rejected her pardon, one other person who was convicted in connection with the January 6 attacks, Jason Riddle, has also rejected his pardon. "It's almost like [Trump] was trying to say it didn't happen. And it happened. I did those things, and they weren't pardonable," he told New Hampshire Public Radio. Hemphill told the Idaho Statesman that she and her attorney plan to file a letter of rejection. The outlet reported that turning down a presidential pardon is possible, citing a US Supreme Court ruling in 1833 (later upheld in 1915). However, some legal experts say commutations and pardons may not depend on defendants' consent, and the request "could face an uphill battle." We'll keep you posted if any other January 6 rioters reject their pardon. In the meantime, it appears many are delighted. What do you think? Let us know in the comments. ⬇️
