Connect with us

News

Vladimir Putin hints at swapping US reporter Evan Gershkovich for Russian assassin

Published

on

Vladimir Putin hints at swapping US reporter Evan Gershkovich for Russian assassin

Vladimir Putin on Thursday said he believed “an agreement can be reached” to free imprisoned US journalist Evan Gershkovich, suggesting he would swap him for a Russian assassin serving a life sentence in Germany.

Russia’s president compared Gershkovich’s imprisonment in Moscow to “a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the US”, a likely reference to Vadim Krasikov, who killed a former Chechen rebel Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Berlin’s Tiergarten park in 2019. US officials have said Russia has raised his case in prisoner swap negotiations.

Putin appeared to hint that Krasikov, who German prosecutors have said likely carried out the hit for Russia’s FSB security service, was acting on Moscow’s orders, despite earlier denials.

“There was a patriot who eliminated [Khangoshvili] in one of the European capitals. Whether he did it of his own volition or not. That is a different question,” Putin said.

His comments came in an interview in the Kremlin with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, the first he has given to western media since ordering the invasion of Ukraine two years ago.

Advertisement

They were the most concrete description yet of Russia’s conditions to release Gershkovich, a 32-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who has been jailed for almost a year on espionage charges. The US government and the paper reject the charges and describe them as completely false.

“I do not rule out that the person you refer to, Mr Gershkovich, may return to his motherland,” Putin said. “We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Putin’s claims.

The Wall Street Journal late on Thursday said: “Evan is a journalist, and journalism is not a crime. Any portrayal to the contrary is total fiction. Evan was unjustly arrested and has been wrongfully detained by Russia for nearly a year for doing his job, and we continue to demand his immediate release.”

“We’re encouraged to see Russia’s desire for a deal that brings Evan home, and we hope this will lead to his rapid release and return to his family and our newsroom.”

Advertisement

Another US journalist, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporter Alsu Kurmasheva, is also being held in Russia after being arrested last year. Kurmasheva, who is also a Russian citizen, is accused of violating a law on “foreign agents” and may face additional charges.

US Marine veteran Paul Whelan was convicted of espionage charges in Russia in 2020, which he and the US vehemently deny, and is serving a 16-year sentence in a rural prison colony.

Gershkovich was detained by Russia’s FSB in March 2023 while he was on a reporting assignment in the city of Ekaterinburg. At the time of his arrest, he had press credentials from Russia’s foreign ministry.

Russian state media had promoted the interview ever since Carlson, who has become a star in Russia after making sympathetic comments about Putin, was first spotted at the Bolshoi ballet earlier this week.

The Kremlin said Carlson had secured the interview because his stance was “different from traditional Anglo-Saxon media” it claims are biased against Russia.

Advertisement

By granting the rare meeting to Carlson, who has broadcast his programme on Elon Musk’s social media platform X since being fired from Fox News last year, the Kremlin appeared to hope it could reach sympathetic audiences ahead of the US election.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who Carlson is backing in the White House race, frequently spoke of his admiration for Putin while in office and has torpedoed attempts in Congress to pass more US military aid for Ukraine.

Although Carlson had promised his audience they would hear a Russian point of view normally held from them by western media, Putin offered a grab bag of the rants, paranoia, and grievances he has frequently aired since launching the war.

His answer to Carlson’s first question lasted 36 minutes and covered the past thousand years of Ukraine’s history with Russia. He proffered a thick folder full of letters written by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a 17th century Cossack leader.

Putin repeated familiar grievances against the US, which he blamed for forcing him to order the invasion of Ukraine.

Advertisement

He said he had told US President Joe Biden shortly before the war began that “you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away”.

Putin added that the war could be ended quickly if the US and its western allies stopped arming Ukraine, and dismissed fears that he could use a nuclear weapon or start a global conflict with the west if the war in Ukraine did not go Russia’s way.

“They’re trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat,” Putin said. “Tomorrow, Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons. Tomorrow Russia will use that. No, the day after tomorrow. So what.”

Putin also dismissed US attempts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia or weaken its economy through sanctions aimed at isolating the country and cutting off supply chains for its war machine.

He said Russia’s burgeoning trade relationship with China meant US hegemony and the dollar’s role as global reserve currency were on the wane.

Advertisement

“You cannot prevent the sun from rising. You have to adapt to it,” Putin said. “Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing under objective circumstances. [ . . . ] Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and say other countries, are counterproductive.”

US officials played down the interview before it aired. “Remember, you’re listening to Vladimir Putin. And you shouldn’t take at face value anything he has to say,” US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said earlier on Thursday.

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending