'They were censored because Moraes disagreed with his political beliefs'

Followed one of prosecutors' major recomendations

Sentencing is currently scheduled for December 16

The FPD charged Shirah with second-degree murder

Volvo on Going All EV: Never Mind

Media giant Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) is expected to catch a subpoena following a Thursday hearing in the $1 billion defamation suit against its subsidiary, CNN. In a hearing lasting almost four hours, exclusively recorded by NewsBusters, Florida 14th Judicial Circuit Judge Scott Henry cleared the way for Plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young to issue a subpoena to turn over select financial documents that pertained to CNN. In addition, Judge Henry also signaled that punitive damages sought against CNN could go beyond the simple net worth of the network. Looking to “boil it down to something simple,” Judge Henry delivered an analogy likening a request of financial documents from WBD to asking a doctor for the medical records of a patient involved in an accident claim: In a car accident case, the defense does a RFP to the plaintiff saying, ‘send me all your medical records,’ but then, at the same time, there's a notice of production and subpoenas all the medical providers and gets their records not only from the accident but predating it or whatever. And it's just to make sure that what's being produced on one side is the same as what the doctor actually has in their office.     But the subpoena for CNN’s finances via WBD will be limited to the documents the network presented to its parent company. Essentially, this will act as a way to double check to see if CNN was being honest with the financial documents they were turning over as part of discovery; comparing what they turned over to Young’s legal team vs what they told corporate. The Judge’s analogy for this part was that a kid trying to ask a parent for a larger allowance with a very detailed PowerPoint presentation: I compare this, for instance, to, you know, the kid goes to the parents and go, ‘hey, I need to up my allowance this year.’ ‘Well, Johnny, why do you need to up your allowance?’ ‘Well, I got to pay for this. I gotta pay for this, you know, these are the things I wanna do, um, you know, I'm gonna go cut grass and I'm only gonna get, you know, so much from cutting mowing yards during this point in time, so here's where I think you ought to settle on my allowance per week now because this is what I need to pay for lunch or go have fun to the movies with my friends or do whatever.” But it's Johnny's bringing that to mom and dad and saying here, up my allowance. So, I mean, if CNN did internal modeling or predictions and set that within the umbrella for Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers happens to have a copy of it. I think Warner Brothers can produce it, and it's the same thing as asking the doctor's office to produce the records that maybe the plaintiff's attorney produces as well, but the defendant can, you know, in that case has a right to verify it. Y'all have the right to verify it. “I would overrule the objection to the extent that it was prepared by or on behalf of CNN Inc. or CNN Worldwide and just submitted to Warner Brothers,” he added. CNN received more bad news by way of Judge Henry signaling that the punitive damages claim that would be presented to the jury next year would go beyond just the global network’s net worth. Citing previous cases that involved punitive damages, Judge Henry noted that the precedent in Florida was that a juries are instructed to take into account the financial resources of a defendant, not just net worth: All right. So, with those guiding principles, nowhere in here does it say ‘the defendant’s net worth.’ The only thing that financial talks about are: motivation by unreasonable financial gain and the financial resources of the defendant. Resources, not financial net worth of the defendant. The financial resources of the defendant. And then, as I indicated, the note referenced two cases the deal with punitive damages being awarded in other cases. So, that is what the jury is instructed on to make a determination as to the proper amount of punitive damages. “So, obviously information that is being requested in discovery that would go to those things that obviously would have to be admissible evidence at trial are certainly fair game for purposes of discovery,” he said. “And any other request that would drive toward that information or potentially uncover that information would be discoverable.” Young is also allowed to see the last three years of CNN's defamation settlements. These are important because punitive damages are meant to cause enough pain to deter or prevent an entity from repeating the offensive behavior. So, if what they paid in settlements wasn’t enough to correct their behavior, a jury could take that into consideration in setting a price to punish them. CNN did not respond to a request for comment. The relevant portions of the transcript are below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Defamation Suit September 5, 2024 12:03 p.m. Eastern (…) JUDGE SCOTT HENRY: All right. So, with those guiding principles, nowhere in here does it say ‘the defendant’s net worth.’ The only thing that financial talks about are: motivation by unreasonable financial gain and the financial resources of the defendant. Resources, not financial net worth of the defendant. The financial resources of the defendant. And then, as I indicated, the note referenced two cases the deal with punitive damages being awarded in other cases. So, that is what the jury is instructed on to make a determination as to the proper amount of punitive damages. So, obviously information that is being requested in discovery that would go to those things that obviously would have to be admissible evidence at trial are certainly fair game for purposes of discovery. And any other request that would drive toward that information or potentially uncover that information would be discoverable. (…) 1:07 p.m. Eastern HENRY: And then the last bit is on the Warner Brothers subpoena. And I think the way that I'm looking at this is – You know, let's boil it down to something simple. In a car accident case, the defense does a RFP to the plaintiff saying, ‘send me all your medical records,’ but then, at the same time, there's a notice of production and subpoenas all the medical providers and gets their records not only from the accident but predating it or whatever. And it's just to make sure that what's being produced on one side is the same as what the doctor actually has in their office. So, I think even though something may be being produced by CNN, it wouldn't necessarily bar it if Warner Brothers has the same type of document. Having said that, I don't think Warner Brothers should be compelled to produce something that it was creating as its own separate entity. That is separate apart from a financial record that CNN may have internally produced itself, and I think there's a difference of opinion or a difference in terms of how those need to be looked at. And hence some of my questions that I asked you, Mr. Delich of ‘Well do you really think this is the same thing if Warner Brothers is doing it for its evaluation purposes as opposed to CNN walking in to apply for the loan.’ And I think, at least at this point in time, I think there is a slight difference on that because Warner Brothers is not CNN and CNN is not Warner Brothers. So, having said that, if, for number one, for instance, if there is internal modeling or predictions of future revenues or profits for CNN that Warner Brothers has in its records and archives. And it was sent by CNN to Warner Brothers. And it wasn't just generated by Warner Brothers itself. I think Warner Brothers should produce what CNN – you know, I mean – You know, I don't know. I compare this, for instance, to, you know, the kid goes to the parents and go, ‘hey, I need to up my allowance this year.’ ‘Well, Johnny, why do you need to up your allowance?’ ‘Well, I got to pay for this. I gotta pay for this, you know, these are the things I wanna do, um, you know, I'm gonna go cut grass and I'm only gonna get, you know, so much from cutting mowing yards during this point in time, so here's where I think you ought to settle on my allowance per week now because this is what I need to pay for lunch or go have fun to the movies with my friends or do whatever.” But it's Johnny's bringing that to mom and dad and saying here, up my allowance. So, I mean, if CNN did internal modeling or predictions and set that within the umbrella for Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers happens to have a copy of it. I think Warner Brothers can produce it, and it's the same thing as asking the doctor's office to produce the records that maybe the plaintiff's attorney produces as well, but the defendant can, you know, in that case has a right to verify it. Y'all have the right to verify it. If it's internally done for Warner Brothers. Financing. Modeling You know, what are making a determination on what we're paying on – to shareholders for dividends this year. If it's Warner Brothers doing these things, Warner Brothers doesn't have to produce its own document. Okay? And I know Mr. Delich, I know you're saying, well, it's mom and dad would be the one, they're not selling Johnny, but mom and dad would be the ones selling the car if they had that, and therefore they ought to be able to value that asset that they own. Mom and dad aren't a party to this case. So, at this point I would sustain an objection to anything Warner Brothers prepared itself. I would overrule the objection to the extent that it was prepared by or on behalf of CNN Inc. or CNN Worldwide and just submitted to Warner Brothers. (…)

Democratic officials and various pro-abortion organizations have gone to great lengths to attack abortion-pill reversal, characterizing the life-saving practice as dangerous, unscientific, and ineffective. A recent report highlighted how the Biden-Harris Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chief among the institutional exponents of this smear, may have unwittingly planted the seed of this narrative's undoing. The CDC acknowledged in its 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive report that medical abortions can be potentially reversed by precisely the means pro-life organizations employ in their rescue efforts — and it is not the first institution to do so. Mifepristone To extinguish the lives growing within them, some pregnant mothers take a drug called mifepristone in conjunction with misoprostol up to 10 weeks into their pregnancies. Mifepristone — which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has indicated is linked to a number of serious adverse events as well as the deaths of dozens of mothers — starves the uterus of progesterone, a hormone required for a pregnancy to continue. Misoprostal then forces the uterus to contract and expel its contents, including the child, usually within days of starting the medication. The Mayo Clinic noted, however, that sometimes mifepristone tablets are not enough to completely end a pregnancy or clear away human remains. In such cases, surgery is required. Those mothers who immediately regret taking the abortion pill are not altogether hopeless. Reversal Numerous pro-life organizations and health care professionals across the country provide abortion-pill reversals. The reversal process reportedly involves the administration of progesterone to undo the effects of the abortion pill; a follow-up ultrasound to confirm the viability of the baby; and at least two weeks of continued progesterone treatments. There have, however, been conflicting studies in recent years about whether the use of progesterone actually helps reverse the effects of mifepristone. 'The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective.' A 2016 paper published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, for instance, suggested that the administration of a progestin-based contraceptive — either an etonogestrel implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection — on the same day as mifepristone "did not alter the success rates [of the medical abortions]." Another study published that same year in Obstetrics & Gynecology alternatively indicated that the administration of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a progestin hormonal medication sold under the brand name Depo-Provera, increased the chances of "ongoing pregnancy." Pregnancy Help News noted why Depo-Provera would help in this regard: With an increased concentration of progesterone, such as the progestin in DepoProvera, the mifepristone is quickly displaced from those receptors. When providing APR, prescribers offer supplemental bio-identical progesterone, which is similar to what the mother’s body produces. This treatment works rapidly to fight the effects of mifepristone blockage. In 2017, a case report published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care concluded, "Progesterone use in early pregnancy is low risk and its application to counter the effects of mifepristone in such circumstances may be clinically beneficial in preserving her threatened pregnancy." In 2018, a study published in the peer-reviewed professional journal Issues in Law & Medicine claimed, "The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective." Admissions Pregnancy Help News' Christina Brown highlighted a telling admission in a recent CDC report concerning progestin-only injectable contraceptives, such as Depo-Provera. Under the section, "Special Considerations," there is a subsection titled "Postabortion (Spontaneous or Induced)." There, the CDC states: After a first trimester medication abortion that included mifepristone, concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone might slightly decrease medication abortion effectiveness and increase risk for ongoing pregnancy (U.S. MEC 2) (1). Risk for ongoing pregnancy with concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone versus DMPA administration after abortion completion should be considered along with personal preference and access to follow-up abortion and contraceptive care. Brown noted that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, another fierce critic of abortion reversals, also appears to have admitted that DMPA can save some babies' lives. In an October 2020 practice bulletin, ACOG stated, "DMPA injection at the time of mifepristone administration may slightly increase the risk of an ongoing pregnancy." Despite ample evidence that the administration of progesterone during pregnancy is safe — it is, after all, usually administered during the IVF process as well as to prevent preterm birth in singleton pregnancies — and its constituents' ostensible acknowledgments that reversal is possible, the American health establishment nevertheless appears committed to denying remorseful mothers the choice of saving their babies. Criticism The ACOG states on its website, "Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Claims regarding abortion 'reversal' treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards." The ACOG notes further that while the "concurrent administration of DMPA may slightly decrease the effectiveness of mifepristone for medication abortion, the results do not demonstrate that DMPA 'reverses' medication abortion." The ACOG has dutifully furnished leftists with the perceived credibility they need to target pro-lifers. When New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Heartbeat International and 11 pro-life pregnancy organizations in May for promoting abortion-pill reversal, she cited the ACOG's concerns. "Abortions cannot be reversed. Any treatments that claim to do so are made without scientific evidence and could be unsafe," said James. "Heartbeat International and the other crisis pregnancy center defendants are spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising 'abortion reversals' without any medical and scientific proof." James' lawsuit accused the pro-life groups of fraud for saying that abortion-pill reversal "can reverse the effects of the abortion pill and allow you to continue your pregnancy" — precisely what the CDC's recent report appears to suggest. James is hardly the first pro-abortion activist to clamp down on those seeking to remedy mothers' regret. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) also sued Heartbeat International last year and a chain of crisis pregnancy centers over their promotion of medical reversal. His lawsuit also referenced the ACOG's claims. Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis ratified legislation in April 2023 exposing health care practitioners to discipline if they dared perform an abortion reversal. The law also forced limits on advertising by crisis pregnancy centers. U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico blocked the law from taking effect late last year, stating, "The law at issue here runs afoul of these first amendment principles." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nevada police said a 47-year-old female was arrested for allegedly dumping human remains in front of a funeral home after breaking in and stealing a casket late last month. Documents obtained by KLAS-TV said Las Vegas police were alerted to the presence of a body lying facedown in front of the Affordable Cremation and Burial Service funeral home on Charleston Boulevard around 3 a.m. Aug. 27.She claimed that she didn't remember the incident due to substance abuse issues, and she blacked out after drinking six beers. When they investigated, police said the body belonged to a recently deceased woman in her sixties. Surveillance video from inside the business showed a woman broke in and stole a casket — and a body was inside it. A door to the funeral home was open, KLAS reported, and there was broken glass inside. The woman allegedly dumped the body outside the funeral home on landscaping rocks. Two days later, a person at a convenience store on Valley View Boulevard recognized the suspect and called authorities. Police identified the suspect as Patricia Sierra. When they questioned Sierra, police said she was apologetic and claimed she was not "trying to be malicious." She reportedly admitted to being the person in the surveillance video, but she claimed that she didn't remember the incident due to substance abuse issues, and she blacked out after drinking six beers. Sierra was charged with grand larceny, burglary of a business, and removing, transforming, or disturbing human remains; her bail was set at $11,000. According to jail records, Sierra is scheduled for a Sept. 18 preliminary hearing. Photos of the funeral home were published as part of a KLAS video report on YouTube. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Donald Trump sat down for an interview with famous podcaster Lex Fridman, when he made a suggestion that may have been a dangerous one. That is, Trump hinted to Fridman that he would release the Epstein files and the client list if he wins the White House. “What’s the one thing you could say as a presidential candidate that’s pretty much guaranteed that you’re dead,” Glenn Beck comments. “I am going to release the Epstein files and the client list.” Trump explained to Fridman that he was “inclined to do the Epstein thing” and had “no problem with releasing that list.” “A lot of big people went to that island. But fortunately, I was not one of them,” Trump continued. “It’s just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public,” Fridman responded, before Trump answered, “It’s very interesting, isn’t it?” “Remember, Donald Trump is definitely not suicidal,” Glenn says. “But if they could put him in jail, he might become suicidal, and some cameras might go down.” “It’s happened before,” Stu Burguiere jokes. The Epstein list is currently with the FBI and overseen by one individual. “What could possibly go wrong?” Glenn asks. “If it disappears, that would be unfortunate, wouldn’t it.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A CNN report slammed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris for her criticism on sections of the border wall built by former President Donald Trump. Harris has tried to reform her image on the border crisis by claiming she has been tough on immigration enforcement, but the CNN report showed her brazen hypocrisy. 'This president rode a wave into office of vilifying, a whole population of people.' The vice president had lambasted Trump for his campaign promise to "build a wall" and criticized any construction of a wall at the border as stupid and useless. Harris called the wall “useless” and said it was “nothing more than a symbol, a monument standing in opposition to not just everything I value, but to the fundamental values upon which this country was built," in a 2019 book. The CNN found more than 50 times that Harris excoriated Trump's border wall as “stupid,” “useless,” and a “medieval vanity project.” Even more damning, the report found that Harris was using images of portions of the border wall that had been built by Trump in her political ad. “This president rode a wave into office of vilifying a whole population of people,” said Harris in one instance in 2019. “His multibillion-dollar vanity project called a wall is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he actually hasn’t focused on working people in America. So instead of focusing on the needs of working families in America, he creates a scapegoat, a boogeyman.”The contradictory policies are just the latest of incidents in which Harris has been caught flip-flopping on issues in order to pivot into the general election. The vice president has tried to explain away the contradictions by claiming that her "values" haven't changed at all. The report also found that Harris had supported the current U.S. policy on offering asylum to immigrants but did not oppose efforts by the Biden administration to restrict asylum amid a historic crisis at the border. Video of the CNN report was posted to X by the Trump campaign. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!