Stories Chosen For You
A man was caught on video hurling racial insults at a taco stand vendor in Long Beach, California, and he owner says this wasn’t the first time the man has come to his taco stand to attack him and his customers, KTLA reports.
Tacos Lionel owner Lionel Perez says he wanted to speak out because attacks on Los Angeles vendors are increasing.
Perez said it was the fourth time in two months that the same man had harassed him at his taco stand. This time, he took out his phone and started recording.
The Aug. 2 video shows the unidentified man hurling profanities at the street vendor and his customers, making obscene hand gestures and threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Perez says the man at one point threw his cooking grill the ground and spit on his food.
Edin Enamorado, who says he's a street vendor activist, was so angered by the incident that he found out where the man lives and confronted him on video.
In the video, the unidentified man said that he has problems with alcohol and drugs, and also claimed he did threaten to call immigration officers. The man apologized for his actions, admitted to spitting on the food and making the racist comments.
Tacos Lionel has seen a huge boost in business after the incident went viral.
“A lot of people still have a stigma against [vendors],” Enamorado said. “We need to just come together as a community in situations like this.”
Neighbors defend taco stand vendor targeted by racial harassment, confront attacker www.youtube.com
Peter Stzrok, one of Donald Trump's favorite foes to attack while in office, on Wednesday detailed the reasons that federal investigators used a warrant rather than a subpoena to reportedly obtain classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.
"I used both consent and search warrants dozens of times over the course of my career to recover classified govt info - but never a subpoena," said Stzrok. "Let’s talk subpoenas and why they’re not used to recover classified material from those not authorized to have it."
A subpoena would allow a witness to bring the documents requested. Eric Trump revealed in a Fox News interview that his father has been negotiating with the government for months about the documents they wanted back from the former president.
Stzrok explained that there was likely national defense information, not a book or news article that included classified information, but documents that would be beneficial if garnered from another country.
"Someone not authorized to possess it, in this thread, refers to former President Trump," he explained. Allies of the former president have claimed that as the president he can "declassify" anything he wants. The problem is that Trump is no longer president and when he took the documents to his home, he wasn't the president either.
"Presidents to not 'get' security clearances," Stzrok explained. "They gain access to classified info by virtue of their election, and are the USG’s ultimate classification (and declassification) authority. That goes away the moment their successor is sworn in. By tradition, incumbent Presidents extend access to classified info, as needed, to their successors. Notably, Biden did not, citing Trump’s 'erratic behavior.'"
"At least 3 reasons make a subpoena inappropriate to recover classified docs," he continued. "First, classified documents are the property of the USG. In the hands of an unauthorized person, they are contraband. Imagine using a subpoena to demand the return of $10k stolen by a bank robber. In the words of Asha Rangappa, a subpoena implies the recipient is the lawful custodian or bailor of the property. That’s why the govt has to clear a hurdle and provide a reason to get it. If you are an unauthorized possessor, you are simply a thief holding stolen property."
He went on to explain that disclosing classified information would reasonably be expected to damage national security.
"A subpoena does not limit the receiving party’s use additional people (attorneys, clerks, mail rooms) to fulfill the production [sic]," tweeted Stzrok.
"Third, the government may need to prove the expected damage. A defense attorney might argue, well, if these documents are so sensitive, why did you allow my client and all these other unauthorized people to sort through them? They’re obviously not really that potentially damaging," he asked. "Additionally, a similar argument might apply to the speed of the government’s action: you say these documents are so terribly sensitive? Then why did you wait a year to come and get them when you believed they were in an unauthorized place?"
Former President Donald Trump may lose the "crown jewels" of the heir's corporate empire if New York Attorney General Letitia James moves to invoke New York's "corporate death penalty" against the Trump Organization, according to a new report.
On Wednesday, Trump announced he would refuse to answer questions in James' civil investigation into the company during a deposition that lasted more than five hours.
The investigation focuses on whether the Trump Organization essentially kept two sets of books. He allegedly would low-ball values to avoid taxes, while high-balling values to secure loans.
"In the coming weeks or even days, the AG is expected to file a massive, long-threatened 'enforcement action' — essentially a multi-hundred-page lawsuit against the Trumps and his Manhattan-based business," Business Insider reported Wednesday. "Fines and back taxes, however, may be the least of what Trump's facing. James has signaled she will also seek the dissolution of the business itself under New York's so-called corporate death penalty -- a law that allows the AG to seek to dissolve businesses that operate 'in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner.'"
The publication interviewed Tristan Snell, who successfully shut down Trump University under the state's corporate death penalty law.
"This cuts right to the crown jewel of his real estate portfolio," Snell said.
"It's everything, because at issue is Trump Tower [where the Trump Organization is headquartered in Manhattan], at issue is 40 Wall Street, which is one of his most beloved properties and probably one of the more valuable ones," Snell explained. "All of his golf courses are also at stake, so it's a big deal."
On Twitter, Snell explained why it was so important that Trump took the Fifth Amendment.
"This is a civil case — so the court can draw an inference of liability. This is exactly what the AG was hoping to achieve. The case is now even stronger," he wrote.
"In a civil case, pleading the Fifth is effectively a confession," Snell claimed.
Snell added, "It’s worth remembering that the NY AG is 2 for 2 so far in bringing Trump to justice — on Trump University and the Trump Foundation."
Donald Trump pleads the 5th at deposition www.youtube.com