• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Oct. 4, 2025, 2:01 AM EDT / Updated Oct. 4, 2025, 2:06 AM EDTBy Arata Yamamoto and Jennifer JettTOKYO — Japan’s governing party elected Sanae Takaichi as its new leader on Saturday, setting her up to become the U.S. ally’s first female prime minister.Takaichi defeated Shinjiro Koizumi 185 to 156 in a second-round runoff vote to become leader of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has governed Japan almost uninterrupted since the end of World War II.The leadership race was triggered last month when Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said he would step down after a year in office. Though Takaichi is likely to succeed him as prime minister of Japan, the world’s fourth-largest economy, when parliament votes later this month, it is not guaranteed since the LDP-led coalition lost its majority in both houses in the past year. Takaichi, 64, a conservative nationalist who lists former British leader Margaret Thatcher as one of her role models, was an ally of assassinated former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving leader.But there are concerns that Takaichi’s nationalistic historical views could cause friction with China, Japan’s top trading partner.Koizumi, 44, the son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, would have been Japan’s youngest leader since Hirobumi Ito, who was just a few months younger than Koizumi when he became the country’s first prime minister in 1885.The party voted on five candidates in the first round, with Takaichi securing 183 votes to Koizumi’s 164. Yoshimasa Hayashi, 64, the top spokesperson for the current Japanese government, came third with 134 votes after a recent surge in polls.Votes in the first round were divided evenly between 294 LDP lawmakers and almost 1 million rank-and-file party members who were represented by 295 votes. Lawmakers favored the more moderate Koizumi, while party members preferred Takaichi, who has a passionate hard-line base. In the second round, lawmakers had the same number of votes while rank-and-file party members had 47, representing the 47 prefectures of Japan.Lawmakers in the second round voted 149 to 145 in favor of Takaichi, while party members gave her 36 votes compared with Koizumi’s 11.Arata Yamamoto reported from Tokyo, and Jennifer Jett from Hong Kong.Arata YamamotoArata Yamamoto has been an NBC News producer in Tokyo since 1993.Jennifer JettJennifer Jett is the Asia Digital Editor for NBC News, based in Hong Kong.

admin - Latest News - October 4, 2025
admin
30 views 15 secs 0 Comments




Japan’s governing party elected Sanae Takaichi as its new leader on Saturday, setting her up to become the U.S. ally’s first female prime minister.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Oct. 3, 2025, 8:33 PM EDTBy Gary Grumbach and Dareh GregorianA federal judge on Friday ordered a hearing into whether the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia was the result of a “vindictive” prosecution, finding there’s “some evidence” that it was.In his 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Tennessee noted that the investigation into Abrego was reopened shortly after he successfully challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court what the Trump administration acknowledged was his mistaken deportation to a prison in El Salvador.The investigation also came after numerous administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, repeatedly accused Abrego of being guilty of numerous crimes, and being a “gang member” and a “terrorist.” His lawyers and family members have repeatedly denied the claims.”Actual vindictiveness may be apparent based on the Executive Official Defendants’ and their subordinates’ statements about Abrego from the time he filed his Maryland lawsuit” challenging his deportation “through his arrest in this District,” the judge wrote.In his ruling granting Abrego’s request for a hearing on the vindictive prosecution claims, Crenshaw focused on comments that Bondi’s top deputy, Todd Blanche, made on Fox News the day of his June arrest on human trafficking charges, to which Abrego pleaded not guilty.”Strikingly, during a television interview Deputy Attorney General Blanche revealed that the government started ‘investigating’ Abrego after ‘a judge in Maryland . . . questioned’ the government’s decision, found that it ‘had no right to deport him,’ and ‘accus[ed] [the government] of doing something wrong,’” the judge wrote.“Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarkable statements,” Crenshaw wrote, “could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights to bring suit against the Executive Official Defendants, rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct.”Watch: Kilmar Abrego Garcia reunites with family after release from federal custody01:13The judge, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, said Abrego’s claims also appear to be supported by the timing of the reopening of the criminal investigation, which had started as the result of a traffic stop in 2022 and was deemed to be closed in March of this year, before Abrego was deported. Abrego was released without charges after the 2022 stop.The investigation was reopened a week after Abrego’s win in the Supreme Court in April.”This timeline suggests that Abrego’s prosecution may stem from retaliation by the DOJ and DHS due to Abrego’s successful challenge of his unlawful deportation in Maryland,” the judge wrote.The judge ordered the government to turn over information and evidence being requested by Abrego and said he’ll hold a hearing after that.”After the parties conduct discovery, ‘[i]t may well be that no fire will be discovered under all the smoke[.]’ Indeed, the Government could produce evidence showing legitimate reasons for its prosecution of Abrego that are unrelated to his case in the District of Maryland,” he wrote.Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.Abrego, a Salvadoran national who, according to his lawyers, entered the U.S. illegally when he was 16 years old to escape gang violence, is trying to get the criminal charges against him dismissed.He also made a bid to reopen his petition for asylum, but an immigration judge rejected the request in a ruling Thursday. He has 30 days to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.A different immigration judge had previously ruled in 2019 that he could not be deported to El Salvador, because he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to deport him to Uganda or Eswatini.Gary GrumbachGary Grumbach is an NBC News legal affairs reporter, based in Washington, D.C.Dareh GregorianDareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.Raquel Coronell Uribe contributed.
NEXT
Oct. 4, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Sahil KapurWASHINGTON — The federal government remains shut down, with the Senate struggling to find the 60 votes needed to reopen it and no negotiations taking place between the leaders of the two parties.Republicans control the Senate but need at least eight Democratic caucus members to vote with them to overcome a filibuster and end the shutdown. So far, they have just three: Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa.; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Angus King, I-Maine. The rest are holding firm, so far, as the party demands concessions in the form of health care funding in order to win their votes.Federal government shutdown set to stretch into next week02:19With no serious discussions occurring between Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the spotlight turns to rank-and-file senators who could be key to finding a way to break the impasse.The House, meanwhile, has canceled its session for next week, keeping the focus on the Senate.Here are three key Democratic senators to watch.We’d like to hear from you about how you’re experiencing the government shutdown, whether you’re a federal employee who can’t work right now or someone who is feeling the effects of shuttered services in your everyday life. Please contact us at tips@nbcuni.com or reach out to us here.Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.Shaheen is in a unique position for a variety of reasons. She’s a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, which is tasked with writing government funding bills, and she loathes shutdowns. Shaheen was just one of two Democratic caucus members (along with Sen. Angus King, I-Maine) who voted for the last Republican bill to avoid a government shutdown, which passed in March.She’s also the lead author of the Democratic bill to make permanent the Obamacare subsidies that will expire at the end of this year, the party’s central demand in the current standoff. And she’s retiring at the end of this term, freeing her from political pressure.“There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who think we need to address this,” Shaheen said, of the Obamacare subsidies, citing recent polls that show substantial support for extending them to avoid premium hikes. “I think it’s important, and it’s a message to not only our Republican colleagues, but to the White House.”A source who has spoken to Shaheen said she recognizes the headwinds Democrats face as the minority party and has spoken to colleagues in search of the best possible outcomes on a health care solution. The source spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations among senators. Shaheen is seen by Republicans as someone they can deal with; she’s nobody’s idea of a partisan flamethrower. If there’s a deal to break the logjam, it probably runs through her.Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.Ossoff is the only Democrat running for re-election next year in a state won by President Donald Trump in 2024. The first-term Georgia senator has held his cards close to the vest during the shutdown and has been strategic in his occasional breaks with his party during his Senate career. But in each of the four recent votes on bills to fund the government, he has supported the Democratic plan — which extends Obamacare funding and undoes Medicaid cuts — and opposed the Republican one.Ossoff said his vote is “to keep the government open and to prevent massive increases to Georgians’ health insurance premiums next year.”He faulted Trump for telling Republicans not to negotiate with Democrats, while urging the GOP to “work with us to find a bipartisan path forward and to prevent a massive increase in health insurance premiums for Georgia families.”For now, Trump and Republicans are shouldering more of the blame for the shutdown than Democrats, according to four recent polls. That gives Ossoff some breathing room. But he won’t want to alienate swing voters who may prove crucial to his quest for a second term in an ultra-competitive state.If the public turns on Democrats in the shutdown fight, Ossoff will face immense pressure to flip. If not, it could mean that the GOP strategy of holding out until Democrats feel the heat and cave is failing.Sen. Brian Schatz, D-HawaiiSchatz was one of the 10 key Democrats who voted to drop the filibuster and allow Republicans to pass a six-month government funding bill that prevented a shutdown at the most recent deadline in March. Schatz didn’t vote for the underlying funding bill like Shaheen and King did, but his and other Democrats’ votes to allow Republicans to get around the filibuster provoked a furious response from the liberal base.Schatz is in a unique position as a Schumer deputy who has his finger on the pulse of both the Democratic conference and the party base (including its younger and more online activists). He’s among the limited group of senators who are adept at social media, where much of the debate is taking place. And he’s in pole position to be the next Senate Democratic whip and replace the retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.In the run-up to the current shutdown, Schatz offered “free advice” to Republicans, vowing that “another jam job is not going to work” and that the GOP needs to negotiate with Democrats to achieve a successful product. He made good on that warning.Schatz could be a bellwether for the direction of the caucus and whether a sufficient number of Democrats can accept a bill to reopen the government. If he’s on board, other fence-sitters in the conference may feel more comfortable supporting it.Sahil KapurSahil Kapur is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.
Related Post
September 25, 2025
Justice Dept. weighs on whether to charge James Comey
November 5, 2025
Nov. 5, 2025, 4:21 AM ESTBy ReutersToyota is recalling 1,024,407 vehicles in the U.S. due to a flaw that may cause a rear-view camera to fail, boosting the risk of a crash, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said on Wednesday.The recall covers certain 2022-2026 Toyota and Lexus models, as well as Subaru Solterra vehicles equipped with a Panoramic View Monitor system, NHTSA said.A software error may cause the camera image to freeze or go blank when the vehicle is in reverse, meaning the vehicles fail to comply with federal rear visibility requirements, the agency added.Dealers will update the parking assist software free of charge, NHTSA said.Last month the automaker recalled nearly 394,000 U.S. vehicles due to a rear-view camera issue that could reduce drivers’ visibility and increase the risk of a crash.That recall covered several models including certain 2022-2025 Tundra, Tundra Hybrid, and 2023-2025 Sequoia Hybrid vehicles.ReutersReuters
November 9, 2025
Nov. 8, 2025, 7:00 AM ESTBy Alicia Victoria LozanoLOS ANGELES — Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have taken a hard line against alleged violence at protests, charging nearly 100 protesters since June in cases that could result in long prison sentences. But a fifth of those cases have been dismissed or resulted in acquittals in what some former federal prosecutors and free speech advocates say is a rare rebuke of the U.S. attorney’s office’s mission and credibility.After tens of thousands of people flooded the streets in June and October during “No Kings” protests against the Trump administration, at least 20 of 97 federal cases filed against Los Angeles protesters since June have failed in court, according to records provided to NBC News by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. Eighteen of those cases were dismissed and two ended in acquittals. Experts weren’t able to provide an average number of cases but said the recent rate of unsuccessful ones seemed high.Last week, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced charges against 12 defendants stemming from June 8 protests across Southern California. The defendants were charged in a single complaint with obstructing, impeding and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder, according to the Department of Justice.NBC News spoke with four former federal prosecutors who all said that in their experience, protest cases on the federal level were not common before this year. Instead, prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office typically focus on high-level crimes such as human and drug trafficking, corruption and white-collar offenses.Summer Lacey, who served as a federal public defender in Los Angeles from 2014 to 2018, said her team never came across such high numbers of federal charges against protesters. Those cases were usually left to local district attorneys.L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has charged 42 people in protest-related cases since June, according to his office. NBC News asked the district attorney’s office how many of these cases have been dismissed or resulted in acquittal but did not receive an immediate reply.“What we’re seeing is that when these cases are scrutinized, so many of them are falling apart,” said Lacey, who is now an attorney with the ACLU’s Southern California chapter. “There isn’t an evidentiary base to support it, but people are being put through the process.”Across the nation, the Trump administration has used increasingly hostile language to describe protesters, sometimes calling them “domestic terrorists” and “rioters,” while characterizing cities like Portland, Oregon, and Chicago as “war-ravaged” and a “war zone.” Yet firsthand accounts from those cities paint a very different picture.Some former federal prosecutors say the discrepancies in how the Trump administration is describing protest behavior has created a credibility problem for current prosecutors, who are increasingly facing skeptical juries and judges. One said that is happening not just in Los Angeles but also in cities like Chicago and Portland, where protests and arrests continue.“People want federal prosecutors to be thoughtful and careful as to how they use their discretion,” said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and a current law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. “It takes a long time to regain the public’s confidence, and the presumption of credibility is weakening.”On Tuesday, federal prosecutors in Illinois filed a motion to dismiss a case against an Oak Park resident who was accused of shoving a border agent during an Oct. 3 protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility near Chicago. Cole Sheridan was charged with assaulting, impeding or resisting a federal agent.Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain appeared skeptical of the federal government’s case during a recent hearing, according to local media reports. Arguments largely hinged on testimony provided by U.S. Border Patrol boss Gregory Bovino, who was involved in Sheridan’s arrest but testified that he was not wearing body cameras at the time of the skirmish.How Greg Bovino became a rising star in Trump’s immigration efforts03:55“This is part of a larger political narrative and discussion as opposed to really being about doing anything to enhance or increase public safety,” said Ed Yohnka, director of communications and public policy at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which was not involved in the Sheridan case.“This administration clearly believes that anybody who protests against them is an enemy that has to be punished,” he added.The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago did not return a request for comment.“We’re seeing grand juries reject those cases, or seeing those cases being dismissed,” said Cristine DeBerry, a former federal prosecutor who is now with the nonprofit watchdog Prosecutors Alliance, which advocates for criminal justice reform. “They’re weak at best, and that there’s very little evidence to support what the federal government is trying to do.”Federal prosecutors have been facing an uphill battle in Los Angeles as charges continue to be dropped against protesters.Last month, assault charges were dismissed against a protester who was accused of intentionally hitting a federal officer during an October protest outside an immigration detention facility.But defense lawyers for Ashleigh Brown argued that prosecutors’ account was inaccurate. According to court filings, Brown was followed to her car by two federal officers who attempted to block her from driving away. Brown’s lawyers argued that the federal government failed to disclose a history of assault and excessive force by one of the officers who was allegedly attacked by Brown, according to court documents provided to NBC News.Her case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning new charges cannot be brought against her for the same incident.In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, said, “First Amendment protects peaceful protest. Violence — including violence against law enforcement and property — is not constitutionally protected.”“There has been an incredible amount of violence directed at federal officers and property in what has been the largest immigration enforcement action in decades,” Ciaran McEvoy wrote in the statement. “That must be factored in.”In the first cases brought against protesters following the June 8 No Kings protests, seven of nine assault and impeding cases were dismissed, according to court documents.DHS agents accused protesters of shoving or assaulting law enforcement officers, but footage presented in court appeared to show the opposite, which led to at least one acquittal.“The challenge we have is we don’t have a federal government that is playing by the normal rules,” DeBerry said. “We are not supposed to bring a case you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But they are filing cases they know they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”Alicia Victoria LozanoAlicia Victoria Lozano is a California-based reporter for NBC News focusing on climate change, wildfires and the changing politics of drug laws.
October 7, 2025
Oct. 7, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday considers a free speech challenge to a Colorado law that bans conversion therapy aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientations or gender identities in a case likely to have national implications.The ruling could affect more than 20 states that have similar bans and raise new questions about other long-standing state health care regulations.The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs conservative free speech claims, will hear oral argument in a case brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, who says the 2019 law violates her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.Conversion therapy, favored by some religious conservatives, seeks to encourage gay or lesbian minors to identify as heterosexual and transgender children to identify as the gender identities assigned to them at birth. Colorado bans the practice for licensed therapists, not for religious entities or family members.At issue is whether such bans regulate conduct in the same way as regulations applying to health care providers, as the state argues, or speech, as Chiles contends. Chiles says she does only talk therapy.The Supreme Court has, in major cases, backed LGBTQ rights, legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015 and ruling five years later that a federal law barring employment discrimination applies to both gay and transgender people.But in another line of cases, the court has backed free speech and religious expression rights when they conflict with anti-discrimination laws aimed at protecting LGBTQ people.The court backed a religious rights challenge this year to a Maryland school district’s policy of featuring LGBTQ-themed books in elementary schools. It also handed a major loss to transgender rights advocates by ruling that states could ban gender transition care for minors.Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in court papers that a ruling against the state would imperil not just conversion therapy bans but also other health care treatments that experts say are unsafe or ineffective.”For centuries, states have regulated professional healthcare to protect patients from substandard treatment. Throughout that time, the First Amendment has never barred states’ ability to prohibit substandard care, regardless of whether it is carried out through words,” he wrote.Chiles, represented by the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, countered in her court papers that therapy is “vital speech that helps young people better understand themselves.”The state is seeking to “control what those kids believe about themselves and who they can become,” the lawyers said.Chiles’ lawyers cite a 2018 Supreme Court ruling in which the conservative majority backed a free speech challenge to a California law that requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to notify clients about where abortion services can be obtained.The court might not issue a definitive ruling on conversion therapy bans; it could focus more narrowly on whether lower courts that upheld the ban conducted the correct legal analysis.If the law infringes on speech, it must be given a closer look under the First Amendment, a form of review known as “strict scrutiny,” which the justices could ask lower courts to do instead of doing it themselves. Under that approach, judges consider whether a government action that infringes on free speech serves a compelling interest and was “narrowly tailored” to meet that goal.The Trump administration filed a brief urging the court to find that the law does burden speech while also saying a ruling in favor of Chiles would not upend state regulations in other areas.Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News.
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved