Multiple sources close to the ABC7 I-Team allege people with connections to the doctor's medical practice reportedly not eligible for the vaccine jumped the line while seniors sat on the waitlist at the drive-thru clinic.
- The Telegraph
Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview: White House praises 'courage' of Duchess in sharing her struggles with mental health
Interview airs in the UK at 9pm on ITV Blow-by-blow: Prince Harry and Meghan's claims The Royals' defence case against explosive allegations How plans to slim down monarchy have become race row Couple secretly married three days before Royal wedding Camilla Tominey: Forget hiding behind sofa - Royals need bulletproof vest The White House has praised the Duchess of Sussex's "courage" in sharing her "struggles with mental health" during her interview with Oprah Winfrey. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, was asked if Joe Biden had watched the interview, and what he thought about "the racism they [the Duke and Duchess] felt". Ms Psaki said: "Let me first say, obviously, many of us caught the interview, as many Americans did, and around the world. Meghan Markle is a private citizen and so is Harry at this point. "For anyone to come forward and speak about their own struggles with mental health, and tell their own personal story, that takes courage." The Biden administration will not provide any further "commentary" on the interview, she added. In other key developments during the two-hour interview, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex told Oprah: Prince of Wales "stopped taking" Harry’s calls after their royal departure Meghan contemplated suicide, saying she "just didn't want to be alive any more" Duchess of Cambridge made the Duchess of Sussex cry before her wedding, she claimed Couple had a private marriage ceremony three days before their wedding officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury Sussexes wanted Archie to be a prince so he would have security Queen wasn’t “blindsided” by their departure the Duke insisted Couple are expecting a baby girl during the summer Princess Diana foresaw his departure from the Royal family, Prince Harry claimed Royal family has an "invisible contract" with the tabloid press, Harry claimed Follow our live blog for a play-by-play of the explosive interview and the global reaction.
- The Daily Beast
Joe Pugliese/CBSThe contemplation of suicide, blatant racism, and a family of “trapped,” emotionally stunted snobs: nobody expected Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey to be as dramatic as it was, or as grim. It was less a night for popcorn and low-stakes royal dish, and more one for stricken looks of surprise. One bombshell and within-palace-walls horror story followed another, one numbing thud after another. The opening revelation that Kate Middleton had made Meghan cry, not the other way round—as had been previously reported—was a relatively innocent aperitif. This grand guignol was just getting started.Meghan Markle: ‘I Just Didn’t Want to Be Alive Anymore’Harry and Meghan told a similar raw story of gilded nightmares just as Princess Diana told BBC’s Panorama in 1995. We have heard it before, and assumed the institution might have changed in response to the criticism that followed. Not a chance.It was every terrible part of being a princess/duchess in a fairytale-gone-wrong as Diana had told—with a happy ending of a kind, although the question lingering at the end, despite the principals’ smiles was: at what cost? Harry said he felt his mother’s spirit during this time, as well as living off her money having been cut off by the royal family. “She saw it coming,” he said.The British tabloid press, and Harry and Meghan’s harshest critics, will likely find ways to dismiss their words, to criticize them anew. Perhaps, as has happened before, Meghan and Harry will be decried as rich cry-babies, entitled whiners. But these familiar attacks will be harder to make, given how the couple told their stories to Oprah. Britain will finally see this documentary tonight, Monday.Oprah did not, as her detractors expected, simply act as a friend with a shoulder to cry on; she didn’t supply warm bathos or easy platitudes. Sure, she visited the couple’s hens. She joyfully welcomed Meghan’s pregnancy bump. But she interviewed with care and rigor. Every time Meghan or Harry waffled or said something imprecise, she asked them to be precise—especially when it came to identifying the racist or racists within the palace who demeaned Meghan, and who queried how dark Archie’s skin would be when he was born.That person (or persons’) identity remains unknown, but the stricken expressions on Meghan and Harry’s faces, their determination not to tell Oprah, suggest someone who was very close to them, or significant within the palace. The possible darkness of Archie’s skin, the fact he would be the child of a biracial couple, apparently necessitated he would not be thought of as a prince, and that he deserved no security.Oprah asked questions about what had gone wrong in the royal family, and was told bluntly about a catastrophe that—if true—shows just how unfit for modern purpose the royal family is. This was such a compelling interview, brilliantly done, that two hours did not seem enough. Indeed, Oprah said more would be revealed on CBS This Morning in a few hours time, co-anchored by her best friend Gayle King. Sure, Meghan was not asked about the investigation into bullying allegations that broke after the interview was recorded and had so focused minds before its transmission, and which seem—for now at least—the least of the royal family’s concerns.That family is very selective when it comes to opening investigations. For instance, at the time of writing there is one underway about alleged bullying by Meghan Markle of palace staff, and not one about Prince Andrew’s friendship with dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.Here is a suggestion for a few more, after Meghan and Prince Harry’s interview.Is it true a palace figure raised “concerns” about the “darkness” of unborn Archie’s skin? If so, whose racism was this? Why did they feel they could voice it to the baby’s father and mother? Why is this being said in the 21st century? What does it say about the royal family as an institution? Was it a royal family member, an aide, who? Will they be as thoroughly investigated, and if necessary reprimanded, as Meghan? What does the royal family have to say about this proud racism it exhibits directly to a woman of color, carrying a royal family member in her belly?Another investigation idea. Meghan said she felt suicidal when she was five months pregnant and that she approached the palace authorities seeking help, and was effectively told to get lost—when they surely have access to all the best doctors and specialists in the land. This reminds the casual royal observer of the complete dereliction of care when it came to Princess Diana, who was also left by this family to go mad within the confines of the palace.This investigation would focus both on both alleged cruelty and ignorance. Cruelty, because a woman is clearly struggling to maintain her psychological equilibrium. She is not only suffering, she is suffering right in front of you, and you are essentially rolling your eyes at her as if she is an inconvenience. Is this true? Who are you, the people that reportedly did this? And what are you, the institution that facilitates this behavior?After Diana died, so much was written about the changing royal family; that it would be the wake-up call to embrace at least the vestiges of 20th and now 21st century thinking. “Progressive” was the word. Harry and Meghan’s interview showed just how bogus that PR window dressing was. This is an institution, if Harry and Meghan are telling the truth, that is incapable of change, and more than that—actively resistant to it, and vicious to those who represent change, or who herald it. The royal family is not geared to welcoming such figures or forces. According to Harry and Meghan, the institutional instinct rather is to destroy. Prince Harry made brutally clear how deficient his father Prince Charles had been, and said—just as he felt “trapped,” so did his father and brother. The only winner in his recitation of awfulness was the queen, who Harry praised to the hilt.If we believe the couple, their departure from the royal family was quite literally a life or death situation. Harry left the royal family to save his wife’s life, and his son’s future. And to save himself. In her one misconceived idea, Oprah edged into the finale-of-Pretty-Woman territory, when she set up the dynamic of the couple saving each other, and it would have been easy for Meghan and Harry to go along with that, summoning up the image of Richard Gere and Julia Roberts on that apartment ladder joyfully clinging on to each other, allegedly equal saviors (but really, c’mon!).But Meghan could not go there. She said one of her regrets was “believing them when they said I would be protected,” meaning the royal family. They had done the opposite; they had left her not only exposed, she made clear, but life-endangeringly desperate. She told them this, and they did nothing. (Buckingham Palace, of course, may respond to this litany of charges, and claim things unfolded very differently—we shall see.) Harry and Meghan cautiously accepted the Pretty Woman dynamic Oprah offered, but their grim smiles suggested this was less a triumphant romantic ending, and more a case of lives saved by the grittiest of margins.Let’s say Pretty Woman had ended with Richard Gere weeping with fear on the ladder because of his fear of heights, and Julia Roberts coming to help him with the aid of the emergency services—that was more the tone of the end of the Oprah interview. When Meghan said it was “greater than any fairytale you ever read,” it sounded like she meant that this story could have ended very differently; that happiness had only just been snatched from the jaws of unhappiness and desperation.There seem to be a number of vying forces, which will govern the future of royal relationships after this shattering interview. The royal family were right to be nervous. This morning they will likely be pondering how on earth to respond to it.Judging by the sheer scale of anti-Harry and Meghan briefing hours before the broadcast, a war—and one without end—seemed very much on. We learned, variously, in the British Sunday papers that Meghan had exploded over a blanket shaded the wrong kind of red; that Harry was nicknamed “The Hostage” before his wedding, and that he had shouted “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets” in a row over a tiara.The other forces, probably mindful of how this rift might look publicly, were telling certain reporters that reconciliation between the warring Harry and William might be on the cards. The Sunday Telegraph said William and Kate were hopeful for a reconciliation whatever was said in the Oprah interview, and the Telegraph said that Harry was “determined to stand shoulder to shoulder” with William at the unveiling of a statue of their mother Princess Diana, scheduled for July 1 at Kensington Palace on what would have been her 60th birthday.Harry “desperately hopes” to attend the event and considers it “a priority,” the Telegraph said. That sense of old-school royal duty and loyalty mirrors the undertones of Queen Elizabeth’s message to the Commonwealth, broadcast earlier on Sunday by the BBC. The queen spoke of “friendship and a spirit of unity” in her address, praising examples of “courage, commitment, and selfless dedication to duty” in Commonwealth nations and territories, notably by those working on the front line, whether in health care or other public services. “The testing times experienced by so many have led to a deeper appreciation of the mutual support and spiritual sustenance we enjoy by being connected to others,” the queen said in the gentle program—also starring Prince Charles, Kate, William, Camilla, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex—which was in marked dramatic contrast to the Harry and Meghan interview. Post-pandemic, the queen said she looked forward to “a common future that is sustainable and more secure.”Harry and Meghan said they wanted to “move on” after the broadcast of the interview, considering it their opportunity to have their say, and now “consider the matter closed,” sources told the Telegraph. “It was something they felt they wanted and needed to do but now they have done it, they feel a line has been drawn under that chapter of their lives and they want to move on,” a friend told the paper.After the Oprah interview, however, all of this seems entirely unlikely—unless the royal family finally opens its minds and hearts to the multi-layered dysfunctionality it so willingly fosters and tolerates. The number and nature of revelations requiring detailed and considered response by the palace are simply too many. The fact that Meghan came so close to taking her own life; the fact the color of Archie’s skin was a matter of “concern” are matters that are un-spinnable (unless the palace challenges their veracity)—as is Harry’s damning summation of his relationship with Prince Charles. The Oprah interview is a depth charge. It can only be a roadmap to restored relations if the royal family rouses itself from its air of lost-in-time prejudices and snobbery, and answers the questions Meghan and Harry have laid at its door. As for Harry and Meghan, they didn’t seem too bothered about making friends, or making nice. Telling their truth seemed far more important, and this they did—devastatingly.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
- The Telegraph
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have revealed they will be having a baby girl. The couple disclosed the gender of their second child during their interview with Oprah Winfrey. Asked whether it would be a boy or a girl, the Duke responded: "It's a girl." Ms Winfrey asked him how he felt when he saw the ultrasound scan, and he said: "Amazing." The Duke said: "[I'm] just grateful to have any child. Any, one or two, would have been amazing but to have a boy and then a girl what more can you ask for? "Now we've got our family, we got the four of us and our two dogs." The Duchess said the baby is due "in the summer". Asked if they were "done" with two children, the Duke said "done". The Duchess added: "Two is it."
- The Week
Britain's tabloids, vilified by Harry and Meghan, are all agog over the 'devastating' Oprah interview
Oprah Winfrey's interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the duke and duchess of Sussex, aired in the wee small hours of Monday morning in Britain. But the British press, one of the two institutions that came out poorly — along with the British royal family — stayed awake for the tightly held interview. Their headlines steered away from the media criticism and focused on the allegations of dysfunction and, above all, racism at Buckingham Palace. Markle's revelation, backed up by her husband, that an unidentified member of the royal family expressed concern "about how dark" their soon-to-be born son's "skin might be" is "devastating," BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wrote. "This is heading into 'worst-case scenario' territory for the palace." And Harry's description of his father and brother being "trapped" inside the cold, sclerotic royalty "is a velvet covered dagger into the institution he has left," Dymond adds. The Daily Mail, whose parent company recently lost a privacy lawsuit to Markle, and the Daily Mirror focused on the racism charge, while The Sun headlined her suicidal ideation amid a double blow of palace-ordered isolation and tabloid harassment. Monday’s Daily MAIL (3am edition): “How Dark Will Baby’s Skin Be?” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/LHR04di1nP — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 Monday’s Daily MIRROR (later edition): “ ‘They asked how dark Archie’s skin would be’ “ #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/jKvwEo9RDv — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 Monday’s SUN (3am edition): “Meg: I Felt Suicidal” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/LrfawLF8fr — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 The Daily Express led with Markle upending tabloid gossip, while the Daily Star tried to snark off the whole thing. Monday’s Daily EXPRESS: (2am edition) “All Care Homes Must Open Up To Loved Ones” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/9vkEMUAfmT — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 Front-page of Monday’s Daily Star, they’re having some laugh with this story; savages! pic.twitter.com/fmQPc4FRmZ — Tommy Rooney (@TomasORuanaidh) March 7, 2021 The Daily Telegraph featured a column calling the couple "woke" but focused its top story on pre-interview comments by Queen Elizabeth II. The front page of tomorrow's Daily Telegraph: 'Harry and Meghan embody the woke generation'#TomorrowsPapersToday Sign up for the Front Page newsletterhttps://t.co/tlYMNUKPpj pic.twitter.com/4wXW399s14 — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) March 7, 2021 The "devastating interview" delivered "a body blow to the institution" of the royal family and "upended the narrative created by Britain's bestselling newspapers," Dymond writes. But "the newspapers that the couple so despise — will they change their tune? It is not in their nature." More stories from theweek.comLindsey Graham says his revived friendship with Trump is an attempt to 'harness' his 'magic'What most shocked some Britons about the Harry and Meghan interview? U.S. drug ads. 7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversy
- Associated Press
Dubai’s airport, the world’s busiest for international travel, can already feel surreal, with its cavernous duty-free stores, artificial palm trees, gleaming terminals, water cascades and near-Arctic levels of air conditioning. It’s the latest artificial intelligence program the United Arab Emirates has launched amid the surging coronavirus pandemic, contact-less technology the government promotes as helping to stem the spread of the virus. Dubai's airport started offering the program to all passengers last month.
- The Independent
Follow the latest in US politics
- Business Insider
Susan Rice is burning sage in her West Wing office, once occupied by anti-immigrant hardliner Stephen Miller, used to cleanse a space of negativity
Susan Rice as a prominent Black Democrat is aware of the symbolism of occupying the office where Miller formulated anti-migrant policies.
- The Daily Beast
Mario Tama/GettyWhile the world watched Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin pin George Floyd to the ground by the knee for more than eight minutes last May, Amity Dimock-Heisler was still awaiting answers about the death of her own child at the hands of Minnesota police.In August 2019, her son, Kobe Dimock-Heisler, was shot six times by two Brooklyn Park police officers responding to a “disturbance call” at his grandparents’ house. The 21-year-old, who was on the autism spectrum and had a history of mental illness, had lost his temper at a local Wendy’s, and he turned his anger on his grandfather, Erwin Heisler, once they returned home, at one point grabbing a paring knife and hammer.Fearing for his grandson’s safety, Heisler called the cops. By the time two officers arrived, Kobe had calmed down, so Heisler tried to send them away, but they forced themselves inside anyway, the grandfather said. During a tense conversation in the living room, Kobe lunged for something hidden in the couch cushions. Officers later said they thought he was grabbing a knife—and responded by shooting him three times in the chest and neck.“They shot him in the head. In front of his grandmother,” Amity Dimock-Heisler, a 47-year-old accountant, told The Daily Beast. “It was the worst day of my life.”George Floyd Cops Turn on Each Other, Request Separate TrialsOn Aug. 5, nearly a year after the young man’s death, the Hennepin County Attorney’s office announced they would not file charges against the two officers who shot him. It took the same prosecutors just four days to charge Chauvin in Floyd’s murder amid a nationwide outcry.“It’s beyond frustrating. My son’s case was just sitting on Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman’s desk while they hopped, skipped, and jumped over it to prioritize George Floyd’s case,” Dimock-Heisler added. “When George Floyd died, he was all over the news. Celebrities, reporters, even politicians were saying Floyd’s name. I just kept thinking, ‘Why aren't they also saying my son’s name?’”Dimock-Heisler is just one of the hundreds of Twin Cities residents who have lost loved ones at the hands of local law enforcement in the past two decades. Now, they are focusing their attention on Chauvin, one of the four officers fired for his involvement in Floyd’s May 25 death.“For so long, hundreds of people have been brutally murdered by police officers in Minnesota,” Toshira Garraway, who founded Families Supporting Families Against Police Violence after her fiancé was killed by cops, told The Daily Beast. “All of these families are worked up right now and they are scared because we are just hoping for once in our life we can see justice with Derek Chauvin’s conviction.”On Monday—less than a year after a video of Floyd’s death went viral—the former Minneapolis police officer’s long-awaited trial was set to begin in a Hennepin County courthouse. The high-profile case is now in the hands of the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, after a judge banned Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and his staff from the case in September, citing their previous “sloppy” work.Chauvin faces two charges, second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, for violently arresting Floyd over a counterfeit $20 bill. He faces up to 40 years in prison.But on Monday, jury selection was delayed after the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the previously tossed third-degree murder charge against Chauvin should be reinstated. During a Monday hearing prior to jury selection, which was scheduled to roughly take three weeks, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill, who ruled against the third-degree murder charge last year, said he wanted to hear from the state Court of Appeals about whether the new charge could be added to Chauvin’s case. Prosecutors agreed with the delay, stating any logistical loose ends in the case before the trial could result in grounds for an appeal. Chauvin’s defense attorney, Eric Nelson, also said Monday he intends to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to consider the third-degree murder ruling, which would delay the trial. That appeal could further delay arguments are scheduled to start March 29.“I want to inform the court that we’re prepared to try this case,” he said. “It is not our intent to cause delay. However, I feel I have an ethical obligation to my client to [petition the Supreme Court].” Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office via Getty At trial, prosecutors will argue Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck for roughly nine minutes—including nearly three minutes in which Floyd was unresponsive.“Please, please, please, I can’t breathe. Please, man,” Floyd said in the viral body-camera footage, which didn’t show the beginning of the arrest. “I’m about to die.”EMTs said that he had no pulse when he was loaded into an ambulance. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner concluded Floyd died of cardiac arrest from the restraint and neck compression, also noting that Floyd had heart disease and there was fentanyl in his system. An independent report commissioned by Floyd’s family concluded that the 46-year-old died of strangulation from the pressure to his back and neck. Both reports determined Floyd’s death was a homicide.Former Co-Worker Who Claimed George Floyd and Derek Chauvin ‘Bumped Heads’ Recants StoryThree other officers—Tou Thao, Thomas K. Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng—assisted with the arrest, holding down Floyd’s legs and trying to keep concerned bystanders at bay. They’ve been charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder while committing a felony, as well as aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter with culpable negligence, and are expected to face a trial together in August.“This case will be remembered as one of the most egregious police brutality cases in the history of America,” Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney representing the Floyd family, told The Daily Beast. “This case will be a referendum on where America is on equal justice.”Chauvin's lawyer, who did not respond to The Daily Beast’s multiple requests for comment, has previously argued that it was not his client’s fault Floyd died—instead blaming it on the other rookie cops who he said should have called an ambulance sooner or “chosen to de-escalate” the situation.“If EMS had arrived just three minutes sooner, Mr. Floyd may have survived. If Kueng and Lane had chosen to de-escalate instead of struggle, Mr. Floyd may have survived,” Nelson wrote in a September filing. “If Kueng and Lane had recognized the apparent signs of an opioid overdose and rendered aid, such as administering naloxone, Mr. Floyd may have survived.”The 10-minute video of Floyd’s death sent shockwaves through social media, erupting the already simmering anger about racial injustice and police brutality in the U.S. and prompting people to take to the streets in protest. Floyd’s final pleas became a rallying cry, bringing renewed energy to the Black Lives Matter movement.“This case speaks to a larger conversation—and its outcome will have a big impact on public policy to come. This is extremely high stakes,” Mike Lawlor, an associate professor at the University of New Haven and a former prosecutor, told The Daily Beast. “It’s almost like a political event, not just a judicial one because this trial will be a catalyst one way or another.”Jonathan Smith, the executive director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, said “the prosecution knows the whole world is watching.” Stephen Maturen/Getty “If they don’t convict, it will be devastating for prosecutors,” he told The Daily Beast, adding that the video of Floyd’s death is “very powerful” and will be for any jury.But the pathway to conviction will still be an “uphill battle,” Smith warns, because while it is easier to show that Chauvin used excessive force that deprived Floyd’s civil rights, proving it was “willful” is a more difficult challenge.“Willfulness is the highest intent standard under criminal law,” Smith, a former official in the DOJ’s civil rights division, said. “To do so, prosecutors need to prove Chauvin actually knew that he was going to violate someone’s rights and acted with purpose. Chauvin’s behavior on camera, though, is going to help the prosecution. He was mocking people who were taping the video and that is powerful evidence.”Floyd’s trial could have major implications for how other officers who use deadly force will be dealt with since there are so few police brutality cases that actually make it to trial.“There really isn’t precedent here,” Smith, who also led the independent investigation into Elijah McClain’s death in Colorado, added. “So while it’s a win that this case made it to trial, that means it's a bigger hill to fall if he gets an acquittal.”There are many who fear that outcome, like Ira Toles, one of several people who has accused Chauvin of brutally attacking them in the years before Floyd’s death.“I might have to take justice into my own hands,” Toles said, noting he has been denied the justice he deserves for over 13 years.According to Communities United Against Police Brutality, 10 complaints were filed against Chauvin in his 19 years with the police, but he only ever received two verbal reprimands. The city’s Civilian Review Authority, which lists complaints prior to September 2012, also shows five more were filed against Chauvin—and all closed without discipline. Violent incidents in Chauvin’s past included the 2006 fatal shooting of 42-year-old Wayne Reyes and the 2011 non-fatal shooting of a Native American man.As previously reported by The Daily Beast, Chauvin barged into Toles’ home unannounced during a 2008 domestic violence call and beat him up in the bathroom—before shooting him in the stomach. Toles, then 21, blacked out during the assault and collapsed at the front door, where he remained bleeding until paramedics came. While Toles pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, Chauvin continued his career with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.“He tried to kill me in that bathroom,” Toles said in May.He’s skeptical of real change coming from Chauvin’s trial. Toles told The Daily Beast last week that it won't immediately change a criminal justice system that seems to disfavor minority communities.For Garraway, the founder of Families Supporting Families Against Police Violence, the uniqueness of this case also provides a rare national spotlight on Minnesota—a state with “a major problem” with police brutality. Among the countless other cases she says have gone unnoticed is the death of her fiancé Justin Teigen, who was killed by St. Paul police after a traffic stop in August 2009.Minneapolis Man: Cop Who Kneeled on George Floyd ‘Tried to Kill Me’ in 2008According to police reports, Teigen fled from officers during a traffic stop and crashed his car before trying to run away on foot. Hours later, he was found in a nearby garbage bin. The medical examiner and police say he died of asphyxia due to mechanical compression by a recycling truck that he’d been hiding in. Garraway believes that police beat him up before dumping him in the trash.Now, 12 years later, she works with other families who have lost their loved ones to police brutality in Minnesota. But while she hopes Chauvin’s trial shows the world that police brutality “is not an isolated issue in Minnesota,” she isn’t confident jurors will hold the ex-cop accountable.“Even if they do give justice for George Floyd, it may be only because politicians are scared of the aftermath,” she said. “Not even because it’s the right thing to do. But because this is the first time that it has spiraled out of control.”“Chauvin is a white man who killed a Black man and when the Constitution was written—that wasn’t a crime,” she added.The high stakes of Chauvin’s trial are especially felt by the Floyd family, who are anxious about getting justice for their loved one—and hopeful about what it could mean for police reform and Black Americans across the country, Crump said.“All eyes are on the prosecutors,” he added. “History has taught us that when a police officer kills a Black person—not much happens. But we’re confident the video and witnesses who saw George Floyd’s death are enough for a conviction.“And if we don’t get one: I would expect there will be a global outcry,” he added.The trial is taking place just as the Minneapolis City Council is about to consider a proposal that would dramatically overhaul how the city handles public safety.In the wake of Floyd’s killing and the protests and riots that followed, nine City Council members joined a rally in Powderhorn Park and pledged to dissolve the police department, replacing it with a new “model” to be determined over the next year.That effort was derailed in December when the Charter Commission, a committee appointed by a judge to oversee any changes to the city’s charter or constitution, determined by a vote of 10-5 that the council had acted too soon to place the issue before voters on last November’s ballot.Smaller reforms that activists had pushed for did come to pass: The city banned chokeholds, overhauled the police use of force policy by requiring officers to consider alternatives, prohibited officers from engaging in car chases for minor offenses, and more than doubled the funding for the Office of Violence Prevention, the kind of social program activists argue is underfunded compared with police budgets. (According to The Star Tribune, The Office of Violence Prevention went from a budget of $2.5 million to $7.4 million, while MPD’s budget stands at $164 million).But the debate over police reform has come as Minneapolis, like many major cities, experiences a surge in violent crime and homicides, dividing community groups and residents. Some see the crime wave as a reason to support more police funding, others point to Floyd’s death and the department’s troubled history as reasons to consider alternatives.Cop’s Knee Was on George Floyd’s Neck for Almost 9 MinutesIn late January, three council members introduced a new proposal to change the city’s charter, again eliminating the police department, but this time replacing it with a broader public safety department that would include police but also violence prevention programs, mental health services, and specialized response for unsheltered people. The proposal went to a committee hearing on Thursday and would need to pass the full council and a Charter Commission review before going to voters—though the commission could not delay it from going to the ballot.The timing of the proposal being introduced just before the trial was coincidental, but Councilmember Steve Fletcher, one of the three who introduced it, told The Daily Beast that the trial is “stirring up a lot of emotions.”“As the city where George Floyd was killed we have an obligation to move deliberately and with intention and persistence to change the system, and we are continuing to move forward at every opportunity to create the kind of transformation that our community is demanding,” he said.Activists who support the proposal aren’t just counting on the council to pass it. In a parallel effort, a coalition of groups is running a campaign to gather enough signatures to get a similar proposal—one that would also replace the police department with a broader public safety department—on the November ballot. If the petition effort is successful, the council members have said they will drop their effort to avoid overlap.For D.A. Bullock, a spokesperson with Reclaim the Block, one of the key groups that organized protests after Floyd’s killing, the proposals are the culmination of years of police killings and protests in Minneapolis.“The charter proposal to create a new public safety department is just a logical acknowledgment of the general public belief that we cannot go back to what brought us to the murder of George Floyd,” Bullock said.“The Minneapolis Police have proven time and time again that they can not be trusted with exclusive responsibility for our public safety.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
Austrian authorities have suspended inoculations with a batch of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine as a precaution while investigating the death of one person and the illness of another after the shots, a health agency said on Sunday. "The Federal Office for Safety in Health Care (BASG) has received two reports in a temporal connection with a vaccination from the same batch of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the district clinic of Zwettl" in Lower Austria province, it said.
- USA TODAY
2022 Winter Olympics without the USA? Push to boycott grows over China's alleged human rights abuses
Human rights groups and some in Congress say a U.S.-led boycott would send a forceful signal to China about America's commitment to freedom.
Past US presidents have left a legacy of untruths ranging from the bizarre to the horrifying.
- The Independent
Not first time Oprah has been subject of conspiracy theory about wearing ankle monitor
- WBAL - Baltimore Videos
Maryland is working to get the COVID-19 vaccine into more communities of color, but some are calling on the governor to do more to help ensure vaccine distribution is equitable. Walgreens teamed up with the Wiley Bates Senior Home in Annapolis to vaccinate more than 40 residents, those most vulnerable, against COVID-19, meeting them where they are.
- Associated Press
Russia's boast in August that it was the first country to authorize a coronavirus vaccine led to skepticism at the time because of its insufficient testing. Six months later, as demand for the Sputnik V vaccine grows, experts are raising questions again — this time, over whether Moscow can keep up with all the orders from the countries that want it. Slovakia got 200,000 doses on March 1, even though the European Medicines Agency, the European Union's pharmaceutical regulator, only began reviewing its use on Thursday in an expedited process.
- USA TODAY
Live politics updates: Manchin open to reforming filibuster, requiring senators to stay on floor and talk
Discussing potential reforms to the filibuster, Manchin said, "if you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk."
- Associated Press
What’s that piece of advice Little League coaches always tell their kids — keep your eye on the ball, right? Trevor Bauer provided a new twist on that idea. Eager to challenge himself in a spring training start, the new Los Angeles Dodgers ace kept his right eye closed while pitching out of a first-inning jam Saturday.
The U.S. government said on Sunday all options remain on the table for its remaining 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, saying it has made no decisions about its military commitment after May 1. The State Department comments came after reports emerged that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had made a new urgent push for a United Nations-led peace effort that included a warning that the U.S. military was considering exiting Afghanistan by May 1. Blinken in a letter to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said the United States is "considering the full withdrawal of forces by May 1st as we consider other options".
The Tibetan spiritual leader urges others to "take this injection" as he gets the AstraZeneca jab.
- USA TODAY
'Let the people vote': Biden signs executive order promoting voter access, marking anniversary of Selma march
President Biden signed an order directing the government to expand access to voter registration and election information, among other directives.
- Business Insider Video
The Maple Guild in Vermont has the world's largest maple syrup forest and produces 1 million bottles of syrup a year. Here's how it's made.