The post ‘Over the Hill’ and Onto the SOhO Stage appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

The post Shark Chases Foil Surfer Off Santa Barbara Coast  appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

By Kara Scannell

(CNN) — A split federal appeals court said its full bench of judges would not rehear President Donald Trump’s appeal of the $83 million jury award for defaming magazine columnist E Jean Carroll.

The decision paves the way for Trump to ask the US Supreme Court to hear his arguments involving presidential immunity following the high court’s landmark 2024 decision.

In a split decision, a majority of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Trump’s motion to have his appeal heard “en banc” or by the full bench of judges.

The decision is the latest turn in a six -year legal battle between Carroll and Trump that resulted in two civil trials including one where Trump briefly took the witness stand.

“The American People stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system, and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the illegal, Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes—the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team told CNN. “President Trump and his legal team will be appealing this decision as he continues to fight against, and consistently defeat, Liberal Lawfare.”

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, also issued a statement:

“E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

Trump had asked the full bench to rehear arguments that a panel of judges rejected in September. The panel affirmed the jury’s verdict that Trump defamed Carroll when in 2022, during his first term, he denied her allegations of sexual assault, said she wasn’t his type, and suggested she made up the allegations to sell copies of her new book. The jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages.

In 2023, a different jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll over an alleged assault that occurred in the mid-1990s at a New York department store and for statements he made in 2019 denying it happened. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

Trump asked the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the $5 million judgment, but the court has not yet decided. In that case, Trump has said the trial judge made mistakes by allowing two other women to testify about alleged sexual assaults by Trump and by allowing Trump’s hot mic comments to Access Hollywood to be played in court.

In the current case, Trump argued the Justice Department should have been substituted for him as a defendant because he made the statements within the scope of his duties as president in response to questions by reporters. The Justice Department can’t be sued for defamation so it would have ended the litigation.

In September, the panel of appeals court judges rejected those arguments finding that Trump waived his right to claim immunity and that the Supreme Court 2024 decision on immunity didn’t alter its view.

In Wednesday’s decision, three of the appeals court judges disagreed with the majority and said they would have reheard the case.

“Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” the three judges wrote in a 54-page dissenting opinion. “I would rehear the case en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidentia

By Annie Grayer, CNN

(CNN) — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to appear next month for a deposition in the House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein probe.

Bondi’s appearance – now set for May 29, according to a committee spokeswoman – comes as the panel has pushed in recent months to hear from the former top Trump administration official about how the Justice Department handled the Epstein case files under her leadership.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers initially subpoenaed the then-attorney general amid outrage over how the department’s failure to release all of the files as compelled by law.

But once Bondi was ousted, the department argued she could no longer appear in her official capacity and would not sit for the previously scheduled deposition, even though the subpoena named her directly.

A number of Republicans had waffled before Bondi’s departure over whether she needed to testify under oath, after she met voluntarily with the panel to answer questions. That meeting on Capitol Hill – also attended by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is now serving as the acting attorney general – grew contentious with Democrats ultimately storming out of the room.

The date for Bondi’s new appearance was revealed as Democrats on the Oversight Committee announced they had filed civil contempt charges against Bondi for not appearing.

The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Robert Garcia, said he had heard nothing from Bondi’s personal attorney, committee Republicans nor the Trump administration ahead of the deposition announcement.

“So as far as we’re concerned, we’ve now spent weeks with zero communication from somebody that was legally obligated to appear,” Garcia said ahead of the announcement.

Upon learning of the new date, Garcia praised the development as “great news,” saying: “Clearly we’re being effective.”

“It’s interesting how it’s only when we take action, and when we actually have to force Republicans to do anything, to call subpoenas, to get in front of our committee, that they actually ever do anything,” he said.

But House Oversight Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, swiftly pushed back, saying the announcement was made “as quick as we could get the day confirmed.”

“I said we would get a date. They have a history of being drama queens in the minority on the Oversight Committee,” Comer added.

Republicans on the panel separately criticized their colleagues’ civil contempt push as “all theater and completely unnecessary.”

“They were happy giving the Clintons a free pass for months,” the panel’s Republicans posted on X, referring to the six months it took to secure appearances from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Bondi will sit for deposition in House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein probe appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By Samantha Delouya, Hadas Gold, CNN

(CNN) — Elon Musk took the stand for a second day of testimony against OpenAI and its leaders in a lawsuit that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence, as the emerging technology has sent ripples through the economy and financial markets.

Musk claims OpenAI betrayed its initial nonprofit mission when it changed its corporate structure; OpenAI, for its part, claims Musk’s suit is meant to derail its position as a competitor to his own artificial intelligence company, xAI.

The trial comes as OpenAI is planning what could be a blockbuster IPO – and potentially a cash infusion that could help the company cement its early lead in a global race to dominate AI.

In his first day of testimony, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman watching across the courtroom, Musk laid out a case that he had the key role in creating OpenAI. The company was meant to benefit all of humanity, with open-source code that would make it the antithesis of companies meant only to benefit their shareholders.

OpenAI’s creation, Musk said, was borne out of his longstanding concerns about AI and how the technology could be used to harm humans, perhaps even deeply.

And Musk, known for his sense of drama and sweeping promises in his own business ventures, said his case could also undermine the entire foundation of charitable giving in the United States should he lose.

But Musk’s testimony on Wednesday could take on a sharper tone, as he’s expected to be cross-examined by lawyers for OpenAI. The company has called Musk jealous of OpenAI, with its lawyers saying Musk is only suing now because the company has become a success.

OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, has made it a household name, with CEO Sam Altman among the most famous Big Tech leaders in the world. But Musk, the world’s richest man, is himself a major tech leader. Their clash has pitted two high-profile men with seemingly different visions of artificial intelligence in one of the few places where their money and celebrity hold less power than in global markets, research circles or the media: a courtroom.

The nine-person jury, selected on Monday, will advise US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as she decides whether to apply Musk’s requested remedies, including reversion of OpenAI to its nonprofit structure; the removal of Altman and OpenAI President Peter Brockman from the board; and $130 billion in damages, to go to OpenAI’s nonprofit foundation.

Already, Judge Rogers has made clear that she intends to brook no nonsense from the rich, powerful men in her courtroom. Before testimony began Tuesday, she called out both sides for their social media posts on the case.

“All of you try to control your propensity to use social media to make things worse outside this courtroom,” she said. “Let’s let this play through. Perhaps you’ve never done that before. This would be a first.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Musk testifies for a second day in a suit that could change artificial intelligence appeared first on News Channel 3-12.