If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States. TikTok responded with the following statement: “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” The Free Speech Shuffle TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China. TikTok has been accused of being influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. ByteDance’s Legal Tango TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold. But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term. The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory. Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator. Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit. Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark. More than 170 million Americans use TikTok. TikTok Fights Back TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist. But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else. A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides. Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses. Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet. $2 Billion in Data Defenses TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago. But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech. Divestment Drama Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic. Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations. A Perfect Storm of Lawsuits TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one. The Clock is Ticking If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it. And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise. This is far from over. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

America's Top Proponent of Gender Affirming Care is Being Sued

While the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to uphold state bans on the use of puberty blockers as well as hormone treatment for minors who think they might be transgender, the Washington Post is hyping both procedures, especially puberty blockers. This hype was provided by Casey Parks whose job description describes her as a "Social issues reporter covering gender and family." Or you can enjoy her leftist-celebrated book about her "queer lineage." The Parks pitch for puberty blockers appeared in the Post on Tuesday, "Puberty blockers, hormones: What to know about gender care for minors." That sounds like a fact sheet. But the biggest problem with the Parks pitch disguised as a newspaper story is how it absurdly overlooks the many, many medical concerns about using puberty blockers and hormone treatments. Oh, Parks does toss in this rather insignificant reservation, then goes on to ignore the major reservations presented by medical experts: Critics of transition care have noted that using these drugs to treat gender dysphoria is an “off label” use, meaning that the medications were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for another purpose. But researchers have noted that many drugs are used “off label” for pediatric patients, because medications are often only tested on adults while being developed. Yeah, the objection to puberty blockers is just a dispute over "off label" use which now allows Parks to skip the much larger medical objections provided by experts. Parks also brushes off the effect of puberty blockers on bone density by citing an associate professor of medicine Carl Streed who turns out not to be very reassuring at all: Using puberty blockers can reduce a patient’s bone mineral density, but Streed said research shows many patients do catch up, bone density wise, once they either resume puberty or start hormones. That’s not always the case, though, and doctors are continuing to study the drug’s effects, Streed said. “That’s something we’re still further characterizing, but this isn’t leading to people having brittle bones or bones that are breaking easily and so forth,” Streed said. “This is just us measuring what people’s bone density is and seeing that there’s a difference. I wouldn’t say it’s irreversible. I would say that’s just the known effect of the medications.” So Streed says it can reduce bone mineral density in a patient and he can't say for sure if its irreversible but, hey, shouldn't we all just roll the dice and gamble with our health that those promoting puberty blockers are right? In addition to causing a reduction in bone density there is also the problem of sterility. Parks provides this not very reassuring "assurance." Not in most cases. A patient’s outcomes will vary based on when they start puberty blockers, whether they take cross-sex hormones and how long they remain on the medication. And concludes with this rather frightening gem: Surgeries to remove a patient’s ovaries or testes do make a trans person infertile, though doctors encourage those patients to freeze their eggs or sperm first. Ouch! The overall problem with Parks' story is that it is the result of incredible misinformation due to not citing the many medical experts around the world who not only have deep reservations about the use of puberty blockers but are now actively warning against its use. It takes mental blockers to avoid seeing the many dangers of puberty blockers since a quick search on the web easily reveals this information such as the Google search for "puberty blockers Europe" which yields these easy to find results: England The National Health Service (NHS) stopped prescribing puberty blockers to children at gender identity clinics in March 2024. The decision was based on a lack of evidence that the drugs are safe and effective. Puberty blockers are now only available for children under 18 who are already taking them, or in clinical trials. Scotland In April 2024, Scotland's only gender clinic stopped prescribing puberty blockers to people under 18. The clinic also stopped prescribing other hormone treatments to new minor patients. Sweden In 2021, the Karolinska University Hospital stopped prescribing hormones to minors. The hospital cited a lack of evidence on the long-term consequences of the treatments. The National Board of Health and Welfare updated its guidelines to state that puberty blockers should only be used in exceptional cases. And in America's next door neighbor, Canada, a pioneer in the use of puberty blockers now regrets her role in it: Doctors in Canada have been prescribing puberty blockers to children with gender identity disorders since the early 2000s. Child psychiatrist Dr. Susan Bradley, now 82 and the founder of a controversial former gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, said she regrets using the drugs. “I kept asking myself, ‘Is it possible that we are actually colluding rather than taking the pressure off and giving (children) a chance to think everything out,” Bradley said. “And it turns out that I think we were colluding, not consciously, but subconsciously,” said Bradley, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. So rather than being just a reporter, Casey Parks is an advocate for highly questionable medical procedures in the name of promoting the trans ideology. An advocacy that is so extreme as to cause her to completely ignore medical advice that does not adhere to her dangerous doctrines.

If a group of conservatives took to social media to dance on the grave of someone who was recently murdered, CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta would fiercely and unequivocally condemn them, and rightfully so. He certainly would not hype how “an entire discussion” had been raised in the aftermath of their murder, but that is exactly what he did on Friday after United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s recent murder. After a montage of social media clips of such grave dancing, Acosta welcomed correspondent Clare Duffy by claiming, “Those posts are part of a growing online trend of Americans expressing their personal struggles with UnitedHealthcare insurance following the CEO's death.”     Thompson didn’t just die; he was murdered. As it was, Acosta wondered, “Clare, a lot of outrage over denied insurance claims, and it's just sparked an entire discussion on social media. How big of a problem is this?” Duffy began, “Yes. Jim, look, I mean, obviously there is never a justification for this kind of violence. But I think what we're seeing in the social media reaction is this pent-up frustration and anger and distrust that so many Americans feel over the health insurance industry.” A proper pair of journalists would look at these people and first ask if they have no shame and second ask if they are aware that government-run “universal” healthcare systems deny treatment all the time. Instead, Duffy continued: And it is a big problem. I mean, look, we've spoke with healthcare experts who say this is a thing that often—these healthcare claim denials are a thing that often causes people anxiety and frustration. And it's a really common problem. More than half of Americans, 58 percent say that they have experienced some kind of problem with their health insurance over the past year, including denial of claims, preauthorization issues, those kinds of things. And of that 58 percent, 15 percent of those respondents say that it actually caused problems with their health anxiety or delays in the treatment that they received, and so this is an ongoing problem, but I think we're seeing that really bubble up to the surface in the wake of this news. Later Acosta welcomed “former health insurance industry executive turned whistleblower and the president for the Center for Health and Democracy” Wendell Potter and recalled: You testified in front of Congress in 2009, talked about how insurance companies were routinely canceling the coverage of policyholders who got sick. You and I got to know each other a little bit during that run-up to the passage of Obamacare. And I guess what goes through your mind when you hear some of these stories today in light of the fact that, I mean, the discussion during the passage of Obamacare, the signing of Obamacare, was that that legislation, the ACA, was supposed to fix a lot of these problems, apparently not. After hyping Obamacare brining "a lot of people into coverage," Potter added, “what we heard this morning, what we've been hearing over the past several days, is this pent up frustration.” Potter also claimed that “it's notable that this occurred in New York City. This tragic murder was just before Investor Day for this big company. And the point I'm making here is that shareholders and Wall Street financial analysts are the most important stakeholder for that company and others… the way that these companies satisfy those investors is by restricting access to care and that's why they're using A.I. to deny access and why we're seeing so many people now not getting the care that they need, not getting medically necessary care that they need in this.” Again, governments, who have no investors or profit motives, deny healthcare treatments on a regular basis, so if CNN really wants to have a conversation about claim denials in the aftermath of Thompson’s murder, they should have an actual conversation and not a left-wing, anti-capitalism talking points regurgitation session. Here is a transcript for the December 6 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 12/6/2024 10:06 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: Those posts are part of a growing online trend of Americans expressing their personal struggles with UnitedHealthcare insurance following the CEO's death. CNN's Clare Duffy joins me now. Clare, a lot of outrage over denied insurance claims, and it's just sparked an entire discussion on social media. How big of a problem is this? CLARE DUFFY: Yes. Jim, look, I mean, obviously there is never a justification for this kind of violence. But I think what we're seeing in the social media reaction is this pent-up frustration and anger and distrust that so many Americans feel over the health insurance industry. And it is a big problem. I mean, look, we've spoke with healthcare experts who say this is a thing that often — these healthcare claim denials are a thing that often causes people anxiety and frustration. And it's a really common problem. More than half of Americans, 58 percent say that they have experienced some kind of problem with their health insurance over the past year, including denial of claims, preauthorization issues, those kinds of things. And of that 58 percent, 15 percent of those respondents say that it actually caused problems with their health anxiety or delays in the treatment that they received, and so this is an ongoing problem, but I think we're seeing that really bubble up to the surface in the wake of this news. … ACOSTA: Joining me now is Wendell Potter, a former health insurance industry executive turned whistleblower and the president for the Center for Health and Democracy. Wendell, you testified in front of Congress in 2009, talked about how insurance companies were routinely canceling the coverage of policyholders who got sick. You and I got to know each other a little bit during that run-up to the passage of Obamacare. And I guess what goes through your mind when you hear some of these stories today in light of the fact that, I mean, the discussion during the passage of Obamacare, the signing of Obamacare, was that that legislation, the ACA, was supposed to fix a lot of these problems, apparently not. WENDELL POTTER: It was. And a big problem then, as you recall, was we had about 50 million Americans who didn't have health insurance. And this was, this did, that law did bring a lot of people into coverage. But what we're seeing now is that people who have coverage are not able to get the care that they need and that has become the big problem here. And what we heard this morning, what we've been hearing over the past several days, is this pent-up frustration. And it's notable that this occurred in New York City. This tragic murder was just before Investor Day for this big company. And the point I'm making here is that shareholders and Wall Street financial analysts are the most important stakeholder for that company and others. I used to plan sickness investor days. And the way that these companies satisfy those investors is by restricting access to care and that's why they're using A.I. to deny access and why we're seeing so many people now not getting the care that they need, not getting medically necessary care that they need in this. ACOSTA: And I remember, Wendell, you were exposing a lot of this at the time in the late 2000s, early 2010s, as a whistleblower in the industry.

A pair of males armed with guns entered a New Orleans convenience store Tuesday evening and demanded cash, a store employee told WWL-TV.One of them — 16-year-old Cecil Batiz — was seen on surveillance video pointing a gun with an extended magazine at a clerk working the cell phone counter at Sam's Meat Market and stuffing cash and other items in his pockets, the station said in a follow-up story.'That clerk was in an obviously high-stress situation and saw the perpetrator still moving with a gun, and it's hard to second-guess his decision to use deadly force yet again.'The other suspect, 18-year-old Teony Juarez, was wearing a black ski mask, WWL said.As the suspects exited the store, the clerk at the phone counter pulled out a gun and opened fire, the station said. Batiz was struck in the abdomen, after which he collapsed, WWL reported.Surveillance video also shows the clerk move out of camera range and return seconds later, shooting Batiz two more times as he moved on the store's floor, the station said. Batiz later died at a hospital, WWL reported.The station, citing the initial police report, said Juarez returned fire and was struck in the right forearm as he ran from the store. WWL said an unknown woman drove Juarez to a hospital and departed as he entered. Juarez was treated for a gunshot wound, and police arrested him, the station said.Juarez faces charges including armed robbery, aggravated battery, and illegal use of a weapon, WWL said, adding that his bond was set at $170,000.The station said the clerk so far has not been charged.Loyola Law Professor Dane Ciolino told WWL he doubts a charge against the clerk will come to pass: "That clerk was in an obviously high-stress situation and saw the perpetrator still moving with a gun, and it's hard to second-guess his decision to use deadly force yet again."Ciolino added to the station that in Louisiana, unlike other jurisdictions, Juarez can't be held accountable for Batiz's death: "He can't be charged with a homicide crime because this killing was done by the victim rather than by a co-felon." You can view a video report here that shows surveillance video of the armed robbery and shooting.What did the district attorney have to say?WWL said Orleans Parish District Attorney Jason Williams declined to discuss specifics about the case — but he did tell WWL Radio that "once somebody puts a gun in your face, the rules change."Williams added that "it's painfully obvious to anyone who saw that video what those two people were doing in that store, and that shop owner did not ask for that exchange," the station noted.As readers of Blaze News may recall, George Soros gave $220,000 to a Williams PAC, leading to his successful election in December 2020 on a criminal justice reform platform. But in October 2023, a pair of armed suspects carjacked Williams, and the Democrat's 78-year-old mother was in the black Lincoln Navigator at the time of the crime. The crooks stole some of his mother’s belongings, including her wallet and phone.A month after the carjacking, Williams told WWL-TV he changed his thinking about crime and punishment, with the station saying he's "even reversed his positions on some of his strongest campaign promises." Williams recused himself from working on the carjacking case.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An Afghan migrant went on a savage stabbing spree at a May 31 anti-jihad rally in the German town of Mannheim, butchering 29-year-old police officer Rouvn Laur and attacking five demonstrators, including Michael Stürzenberger, an activist with the counter-jihad group Citizens' Movement, Pax Europa. Months after Stürzenberger had his fears confirmed at the end of a hunting knife — receiving a stab to the thigh, a stab to the leg right above the knee, an injury to the upper arm, and a "gaping open wound" in the side of his face — a regional court convicted him of incitement for denigrating so-called refugees and radical Islam. According to Berliner Zeitung, Michael Stürzenberger made statements at an October 2020 BPE rally in the presence of counter-protesters that authorities deemed hateful. When the Hamburg District Court handed him a six-month prison sentence in 2022, the activist appealed. The court subsequently gave Stürzenberger a suspended prison sentence, but the activist appealed again. Finally, on Nov. 25, the court upheld the conviction and slapped him with a $3,804.65 fine. 'Everyone should be very careful how they express themselves.' The right-wing German publication Nius reported that Stürzenberger was charged, in part, for criticizing German immigration policy; stating that unlike Muslim refugees from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, North Africa, he had "never heard of a single Christian refugee who has committed a crime here"; suggesting that Muslim migrants from North Africa and the Middle East were disproportionately represented among those who have committed sexual assaults against German women; that a goal of political Islam is to "get women under control"; and for his statement, "We will not allow women in Germany who walk around scantily clad to become fair game for fundamentalist Muslims." Stürzenberger told Nius, "I have always spoken about political Islam. Always said: It is not against Muslims!" "Everyone should be very careful how they express themselves. One should always differentiate and speak of political Islam," continued the activist. "My criticism is only directed against the dangerous components of the ideology and those radicals who commit acts of violence as a result of it. Of course, it is not directed against all Muslims, as many are modern, value our democratic society, and respect our values and laws." Stürzenberger is hardly the first German penalized in recent years for sharing inconvenient facts about the fallout of unchecked migration from terrorist hotbeds. Blaze News previously reported that Marie-Thérèse Kaiser, a member of the popular Alternative for Germany party — which German authorities have sought to ban, vilify, disarm, de-bank, and criminalize — was convicted of a "hate crime" in May for sharing statistics about the disproportionate number of gang rapes committed by immigrants, specifically Afghan nationals, and for asking whether multiculturalism means accommodating rape culture. While saying so is apparently verboten, mass immigration to Germany from Islamist states such as Afghanistan has coincided in recent years with a massive spike in rape and other violent crimes. Of the roughly 1.35 million immigrants who flooded into Germany between 2010 and 2016, an estimated 850,000 were Muslims. A government-commissioned study revealed in early 2018 that there was a 10.4% increase in violent crime at the height of the immigration crisis. Deutsche Welle reported that 90% of this violent crime increase was attributable to immigrants, predominantly males between the ages of 14 and 30. Reuters reported earlier this year that the number of criminals with foreign backgrounds has since continued to rise, jumping by 13.5% in 2023. Foreign nationals made clear that 2024 would be no different for Germany, ringing in the new year with violence. Blaze News previously reported that two-thirds of the rioters detained in the most recent explosion of New Year's violence were noncitizens, including 27 Afghans and 21 Syrians. German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stated in the aftermath on Jan. 4, "Good politics must clearly state what is happening: In major German cities we have a problem with certain young men with a migrant background who despise our state, commit acts of violence, and are hardly reached by education and integration programs." While New Year's is now an annual problem, German cities are becoming increasingly unsafe all year, especially for gays and Jews. Barbara Slowik, Berlin's chief of police, admitted in a recent interview that "there are areas — and we have to be honest here — where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay or lesbian to be more alert." Slowik said she wouldn't "defame any groups of people here" but admitted that "there are certain neighborhoods where the majority of people liv[ing there] are of Arab descent, who also have sympathies for terrorist groups." Extra to no-go zones and an unprecedented numbers of rapes, Germany has also been rocked by numerous ghastly incidents like the stabbing spree that left Stürzenberger scarred for life. For instance, just months after the bloody attack in Mannheim, a 26-year-old Syrian asylum-seeker allegedly attacked several people at a Christian music festival in Solingen, Germany, leaving three dead. According to the German publication Spiegel, a witness heard the suspect, Issa Al Hasan, shout "Allahu Akbar" while randomly stabbing bystanders. Another such attack may have been thwarted this week. Politico reported Friday that a 37-year-old Iraqi asylum-seeker was arrested Wednesday after a foreign intelligence agency revealed he was allegedly plotting to launch an ISIS terror attack on a Christmas market in Bavaria, just as an ISIS terrorist did in 2016, killing 13 people. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After a long period of deliberation, the jury in Daniel Penny's trial reportedly informed the judge on Friday that jurors were unable to reach a verdict, leaving the 26-year-old Marine veteran's fate still undecided.Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office charged Penny with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for the death of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man with schizophrenia. Penny is facing up to 15 years behind bars. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.In May 2023, Penny placed Neely in a chokehold after Neely made death threats to passengers on a New York City subway car. Neely shouted at straphangers that he was going to "die today" and did not care about being sent to prison. 'Sometimes the Allen charge works; sometimes it doesn't.'Neely had an extensive criminal record, notably including an assault on a 67-year-old woman at a subway station in 2021.Prosecutors blamed Penny for Neely's death, claiming that he restrained Neely for too long. Much of the prosecution's case relied on shaky testimony from Dr. Cynthia Harris, who performed the autopsy. Prior to viewing the video of Penny placing Neely in the chokehold, Harris was unable to determine Neely's cause of death, labeling it as "inconclusive." After viewing the video, she amended the cause of death to "asphyxia." Harris further claimed that she would stand by that assessment even if Neely had enough narcotics in his system "to put down an elephant."A toxicology report revealed that Neely had a synthetic marijuana in his system, referred to as K2, which functions as a stimulant.Dr. Satish Chundru, a forensic pathologist, challenged Harris' conclusion, contending that Neely's death was not due to an air or blood choke. Chundru pointed out the "almost negligible" spots of bleeding on Neely's eyelids, which he argued were inconsistent with a fatal chokehold.According to Chundru, Neely died from "the combined effects of sickle-cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint, and the synthetic marijuana."Chundru explained that schizophrenia causes an "increased risk of sudden cardiac death" and mentioned that K2 has been the singular cause of death in other cases he has observed.To reach a guilty verdict, jurors were told that they must conclude that Penny's use of force was unwarranted and that he acted recklessly, deliberately ignoring the potential danger to Neely's life.Since deliberations began on Tuesday, the jury, which consisted of seven women and five men, sent seven notes to the judge requesting to re-examine multiple pieces of evidence.They revisited the New York Police Department's interrogation of Penny, during which he waived his Miranda rights and was unaware at the time that Neely had passed away. Jurors took another look at several videos, including of the incident and the officers' body camera once they arrived on scene. They also requested to rehear portions of the judge's instructions, the cross-examination testimony from Harris, and definitions of criminal negligence and recklessness.The jury sent the judge a note on Friday morning stating that jurors were struggling to reach a verdict.Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley is reportedly considering providing the jury with an “Allen” charge, pressing them to come to a unanimous decision.Senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax, "The judge is trying to decide, 'Am I going to abandon this and say a mistrial, you got to start all over, or am I going to give an Allen charge?'"Napolitano noted that there are several versions of the Allen charge but explained that the judge, in this circumstance, would likely tell the jurors they have "a duty" to decide and put aside personal prejudices."Sometimes the Allen charge works; sometimes it doesn't," he added.Anything else?On Wednesday, Neely's father, Andre Zachary, filed a lawsuit against Penny alleging negligent assault, battery, and serious injury that led to his son's death.Steven Raiser, Penny's attorney, told Fox News Digital, "The timing is unfortunate as Danny is awaiting a verdict from the jury where the potential consequences are far greater than any civil suit could threaten.""We will not be distracted by this attempt to attack Danny while he is under such tremendous stress," he stated.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sen.-elect Adam Schiff of California resigned from his post in the House of Representatives earlier than expected on Friday in order to be sworn in to his Senate seat on Monday. Schiff was elected to represent California in the Senate on November 5 in order to replace former Democratic Sen. Laphonza Butler, who was appointed following the death of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in September 2023. Although Butler has served in the Senate since, she opted not to run for another term. Notably, Schiff was at the forefront of the now-debunked Russia-collusion hoax during the 2016 election cycle."I am so privileged to have been chosen by the voters of California to serve as their next United States Senator, following in the footsteps of a true giant of the Senate and a mentor of mine, former U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein," Schiff said in his resignation letter Friday. "It has been my honor to represent the people of California's 30th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for the last 24 years," Schiff continued. "I am so grateful to my constituents for giving me the chance to serve them in the House, and to the residents of the state of California for now providing me this new opportunity in the Senate to serve the entire state I love." Schiff is now set to be sworn in on Monday alongside Democratic Sen.-elect Andy Kim of New Jersey. Kim was elected to replace former Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who resigned in August a month after a jury convicted him on charges of federal bribery. "I look forward to representing all of the people of California, and doing my utmost to make sure that our state continues to provide opportunity, creativity, innovation, and a wonderful quality of life for generations to come," Schiff said in the letter. The Biden administration has reportedly been weighing pre-emptive pardons for various government officials like former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and even Schiff. Notably, Schiff was at the forefront of the now-debunked Russia-collusion hoax during the 2016 election cycle. The allegations against Trump, which have now been found to be baseless, could put the senator-elect in the path of Trump's retribution following his inauguration. Schiff has stated that he does not want the pre-emptive pardon. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, which covers every federal crime that he’s committed in the past decade, is taking the news cycle by storm — and for good reason. “It is absolutely unprecedented,” Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.” “We believe this is the most expansive, the most broad and wide-ranging pardon ever issued in American history.” Even Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon for the Watergate scandal was only for five years of crimes, while Hunter’s spanned a whopping eleven years. “You can go back even further, if you want to look at pardons given to Confederate generals after the Civil War, people who literally waged war against the United States, theirs were not as expansive as this,” Davis explains, adding that “to see his son get the biggest, most widest-ranging pardon in American history, it’s shocking to me.” While it’s shocking — and blatantly corrupt — Hunter’s pardon isn’t all negative. “If they were worried about J6 protesters maybe being pardoned before this happened, they don’t need to worry about that any more, because that’s 100% going to happen. By doing a pardon of this nature for the president’s son, it basically makes it impossible for Democrats to complain or argue about any pardons going forward,” Davis says. However, Democrats like Gerry Connolly seem to be catching on and are already insisting that there should not be sweeping pardons like Hunter’s in the future. “It’s interesting that this is coming from the Democratic side, because they know at some point,” Savage says, “Republicans are going to be back in office.” Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Asus has just hinted at a new ROG OLED gaming monitor in the works, which looks like it's going to be a 27-inch model with a 4K resolution. Based on the company’s previous model numbers, it looks as though the new Asus ROG Swift OLED PG27UCDM will also have a 240Hz refresh rate, making it ideal for gamers wanting a high-resolution screen that won’t take over their desk. OLED monitors now occupy several of the categories on our best gaming monitor guide, thanks to their high contrast, quick responsiveness, and great HDR reproduction. Most OLED monitors are based on 32-inch panels and larger, though, and the 27-inch models usually have a 2,560 x 1,440 refresh rate. If this new Asus monitor has the expected specs, then it could carve out a niche for itself. Continue reading Asus ROG just teased a new 27-inch 4K OLED gaming monitor, with a cat MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ review, Asus ROG Raikiri review, Best gaming motherboard