special assignment in news

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

AP exposes the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The 50th Anniversary

This 1950’s photo made available by the National Archives shows a man included in a syphilis study in Alabama. For 40 years starting in 1932, medical workers in the segregated South withheld treatment for Black men who were unaware they had syphilis, so doctors could track the ravages of the illness and dissect their bodies afterward. (National Archives via AP)

In this 1950’s photo made available by the National Archives, a man included in a syphilis study has blood drawn in Alabama. For 40 years starting in 1932, medical workers in the segregated South withheld treatment for Black men who were unaware they had syphilis, so doctors could track the ravages of the illness and dissect their bodies afterward. (National Archives via AP)

This image made available by the U.S. National Archives shows part of a 1940-dated document describing procedures for the distribution of autopsy results from subjects of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study conducted by the U.S. government. For 40 years starting in 1932, medical workers in the segregated South withheld treatment for Black men who were unaware they had syphilis, so doctors could track the ravages of the illness and dissect their bodies afterward. (National Archives via AP)

FILE - In this 1950’s photo made available by the National Archives, men included in a syphilis study stand for a photo in Alabama. For 40 years starting in 1932, medical workers in the segregated South withheld treatment for Black men who were unaware they had syphilis, so doctors could track the ravages of the illness and dissect their bodies afterward. (National Archives via AP, File)

FILE - In this 1950’s photo released by the National Archives, a man included in a syphilis study has blood drawn by a doctor in Tuskegee, Ala. For 40 years starting in 1932, medical workers in the segregated South withheld treatment for Black men who were unaware they had syphilis, so doctors could track the ravages of the illness and dissect their bodies afterward. Finally exposed in 1972, the study ended and the men sued, resulting in a $9 million settlement. (National Archives via AP)

Lillie Tyson Head holds a photograph of her late parents, Freddie Lee and Johnnie Mae Neal Tyson, at her home in Wirtz, Va., on Saturday, July 23, 2022. Freddie Tyson was part of the infamous “Tuskegee Study,” in which hundreds of Black men in Alabama went untreated for syphilis for decades so federal government researchers could record the disease’s affects on the body. Head says her mother was later tested, and did not have the disease. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — EDITOR’S NOTE — On July 25, 1972, Jean Heller, a reporter on The Associated Press investigative team, then called the Special Assignment Team, broke news that rocked the nation. Based on documents leaked by Peter Buxtun, a whistleblower at the U.S. Public Health Service, the then 29-year-old journalist and the only woman on the team, reported that the federal government let hundreds of Black men in rural Alabama go untreated for syphilis for 40 years in order to study the impact of the disease on the human body. Most of the men were denied access to penicillin, even when it became widely available as a cure. A public outcry ensued, and nearly four months later, the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” came to an end. The investigation would have far-reaching implications: The men in the study filed a lawsuit that resulted in a $10 million settlement , Congress passed laws governing how subjects in research studies were treated , and more than two decades later President Bill Clinton formally apologized for the study, calling it “shameful.”

Today, the effects of the study still linger — it is often blamed for the unwillingness of some African Americans to participate in medical research.

In observance of the 50th anniversary of Heller’s groundbreaking investigation, the AP is republishing the original report and a recent interview with her and others on how the story came together.

For 40 years the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, denied proper medical treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects.

The study was conducted to determine from autopsies what the disease does to the human body.

PHS officials responsible for initiating the experiment have long since retired. Current PHS officials, who say they have serious doubts about the morality of the study, also say that it is too late to treat syphilis in any of the study’s surviving participants.

But PHS doctors say they are rendering whatever other medical services they can now give to the survivors while the study of the disease’s effects continues.

The experiment, called the Tuskegee Study began in 1932 with about 600 black men mostly poor and uneducated, from Tuskegee, Ala., an area that had the highest syphilis rate in the nation at the time.

One-third of the group was free of syphilis; two-thirds showed evidence of the disease. In the syphilitic group, half were given the best treatment known at the time, but the other half, about 200 men, received no treatment at all for syphilis, PHS officials say.

As incentives to enter the program, the men were promised free transportation to and from hospitals, free hot lunches, free medicine for any disease other than syphilis and free burial after autopsies were performed.

The Tuskegee Study began 10 years before penicillin was discovered to be a cure for syphilis and 15 years before the drug became widely available. Yet, even after penicillin became common, and while its use probably could have helped or saved a number of the experiment subjects, the drug was denied them, Dr. J.D. Millar says.

He is chief of the venereal disease branch of the PHS’s Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and is now in charge of what remains of the Tuskegee Study. Dr. Millar said in an interview that he has serious doubts about the program.

“I think a definite serious moral problem existed when the study was undertaken, a more serious moral problem was overlooked in the post-war years when penicillin became available but was not given to these men and a moral problem still exists,” Dr. Millar said.

“But the study began when attitudes were much different on treatment and experimentation. At this point in time, with our current knowledge of treatment and the disease and the revolutionary change in approach to human experimentation, I don’t believe the program would be undertaken,” he said.

Syphilis, a highly contagious infection spread by sexual contact, can cause if untreated, bone and dental deformations, deafness, blindness, heart disease and central nervous system deterioration.

No figures were available on when the last death occurred in the program. And one official said that apparently no conscious effort was made to halt the program after it got under way.

A 1969 CDC study of 276 treated and untreated syphilitics who participated in the Tuskegee Study showed that seven had died as a direct result of syphilis. Another 154 died of heart disease.

CDC officials say they cannot determine at this late date how many of the heart disease deaths were caused by syphilis or how many additional deaths could be linked to the disease.

However, several years ago an American Medical Association study determined that untreated syphilis reduces life expectancy by 17 per cent in black men between the ages of 25 and 50, a precise description of the Tuskegee Study subjects.

Don Prince, another official in the venereal disease branch of CDC, said the Tuskegee Study had contributed some knowledge about syphilis, particularly that the morbidity and mortality rate among untreated syphilitics were not as high as previously believed.

Like Dr. Millar, Prince said he thought the study should have been halted with penicillin treatment for participants after World War II.

“I don’t know why the decision was made in 1946 not to stop the program,” Prince said. “I was unpleasantly surprised when I first came here and found out about it. It really puzzles me.”

At the beginning of 1972, according to CDC data, 74 of the untreated syphilitics were still living. All of them, Dr. Millar said, were men who did not suffer any potentially fatal side effects from their bouts with the disease.

Some of them received penicillin and antibiotics in past years for other aliments, Prince said, but none has ever received treatment for syphilis. Now, both men agree, it’s too late

Recent reviews of the Tuskegee Study by the CDC indicate that treatment now for survivors is medically questionable, Dr. Millar said. Their average age is 74 and massive penicillin therapy, with possible ill side effects, is deemed too great a risk to individuals, particularly for those whose syphilis is now dormant.

However, Dr. Millar, added there was a point in time when survivors could have been treated with at least some measure of success.

“The most critical moral issue about this experiment arises in the post-war era, the years after the end of World War II when penicillin became widely available.

“I know some were treated with penicillin for other diseases and then dropped from the program because the drug had some positive effect on the primary disease (syphilis). Looking at it now, one cannot see any reason they could not have been treated at that time.”

FAVOURITE ACTORS

Favourite shows, favourite blogs, message boards, openview hd, international, special assignment.

Genres: News & Actuality , Current Affairs Broadcast on: SABC3

• Message Board

LATEST ARTICLES

2024 SAFTAs calls for jury members

Know someone who should be on the SAFTAs judging panel? Nominations are open until 15 April.

New on TV today: Thursday 4 April 2024

There's a Race for the Future on S3 and Vrystaatbewoners are profiled on kykNET.

New! Beyond Love Teasers - April 2024

Chikki taps into her cop instincts to solve a murder case with Yash, unaware that their suspect is fixated on her.

Serial killer strikes on Star Life in Beyond Love

Quick stix show details with three clues about the producer. See if you can solve the riddle.

New! Innocence Teasers - April 2024

Ela decides to confront Ilker at their usual meeting place. A few hours later...

New! Isiphetho: Destiny Teasers - April 2024

A bride plagued by memories loses herself in her entrepreneurial spirit and restaurant.

New on TV today: Wednesday 3 April 2024

Listing Cape Town returns to BBC Lifestyle and teen drama Euphoria begins on M-Net.

The scary on Star Life's new late night supernatural horror Evil Affairs

Revealed: what happens when you marry into a family who've made a pact with a demon.

New! Evil Affairs Teasers - April 2024

Nikki's fear grows when she's coerced into performing disturbing rituals.

New on TV today: Tuesday 2 April 2024

Discovery gets a bad case of Road Rage and HISTORY uncovers Secrets in the Sand.

LATEST SITE ACTIVITY

More activity at TVSA Central

LATEST SOAPIE TEASERS

Top 5 actors.

You browser doesn't have Flash, Silverlight, Gears, BrowserPlus or HTML5 support.

Current Weather

Latest Weathercast

Interactive Radar

In El Paso, the number of threats made to local schools continues to be a problem, disrupting student learning and tying up law enforcement resources.

Crashes have become a daily occurrence in El Paso and recent data shows there have been more in the last year.

El Paso is no stranger to illegal activity along the border.

A group of veterans in El Paso are fighting a new battle after the VA suddenly ended a contract for a treatment their doctor claims is vital.At Donya Pain and W

School districts and the El Paso Juvenile Department are seeing an alarming rise in vaping among kids between the ages of 10 and 15.

Extra safety is what the superintendent of a local rural school district has been fighting for.

Ahead of the new school year, the El Paso Police Department is preparing to respond to a parent's worst nightmare.

The way students and employees will be protected this upcoming school year may look different than previous years.

Current Weather

Steubenville.

Latest Weathercast

Interactive Radar

NEWS9 Special Assignment: Forgotten Ohio: What challenges do we face?

by Dylan Cleland

Some are attributing Eastern Ohio's slow development pace to several layers of obstacles.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ohio — After ‘Forgotten Ohio: Why Not Us’ aired 2 weeks ago, State Sen. Frank Hoagland contacted NEWS9 to discuss some reasons why he thinks the Ohio Valley might not be seeing the progress it's capable of.

He believes it's beyond finding land and funding, and that it's more about a person's vision, and the challenges they encounter.

So, what makes a vision realistic and what is holding us back?

To achieve a goal, you set a vision or plan. And in the business of economic development, it's no different.

However, some are attributing Eastern Ohio's slow development pace to several layers of obstacles.

"The visionary, the requirements to figure out how you're going to obtain the property, what you're going to do with the property, you call it a business plan," Hoagland said.

"You get this dream, and then my definition of leadership is somebody can step up front and actually keep carrying it on. But you got to get people who're going to keep managing that vision, that dream, and then turn that into a piece of reality. And that's extremely difficult to do as soon as you start throwing obstacles in its way."

These obstacles often lengthen the process to purchase and flip a piece of property.

President of Ewusiak Development, Scotty Ewusiak, saw this firsthand with his company's May 2023 purchase of a site on Commercial Avenue in Mingo Junction.

"On old properties up and down the Ohio Valley, the permitting process for air permits, water permits and the agencies work well with you, but there is so much of it,” Ewusiak said. “So how do we streamline it, still keep all those things in place and make sure people are doing it the correct way? But how do you not spread it out over years and years and years?"

Hoagland agrees and has seen the roadblocks that permits and guidelines can cause in the development process from both the legislative level and a business development view. Hoagland constructed his own business from the ground up.

"Let's say you’re not working with a big corporation, or you don't have the access to a lot of that funding, somebody that's never really done it before. It's daunting, you're looking at one,” Hoagland said. “The first time I built the business up here in Mingo, what a daunting exercise that was for the mere fact that the local inspector is coming in, I even watched the inspectors argue over where the GFI needed to be. ‘Does it go in the wall or go in the panel?’ Just to do the plumbing work, watch them argue over who's allowed to do the plumbing work.

“You know, you have to have state certification, then you have to have local certification. I mean a lot of this stuff is just over the top, and I think we need to streamline the process to motivate people that want to get the business started."

It isn't just the paperwork that creates a challenge. Another obstacle in Eastern Ohio is having enough people in the workforce.

"We need to draw more people into our area, and to do that you need things for them to do,” Ewusiak said. “You need restaurants, lodging, housing. So how do we keep our Ohio Valley work ethic, people love that when they come here, but we've got to give young people like you, my kids, we want them to stay here. They want a life, they want good education, things to do, places to go eat."

Hoagland and Ewusiak believe it could be as simple as looking in the mirror to see what is holding the Ohio Valley back.

"Persistency,” Hoagland said. “You have to maintain that persistency. You've got to wake up and go to bed every day, ‘how can I make this happen?’ If I’m on the management side, what can I do to become part of the solution, rather than always being the first obstacle?"

"If your management on the job, some of that starts with us,” Ewusiak said. “We've got to have a good attitude and got to try and get that downstream."

Advertisement

Supported by

Frustrated Prosecutors Ask Trump Documents Judge to Act on Key Claim

The push for a quick decision on one of the former president’s most far-fetched claims is an unusual and risky move in a case Judge Aileen Cannon has allowed to become bogged down.

• Share full article

By Alan Feuer

In an open display of frustration, federal prosecutors on Tuesday night told the judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case that a “fundamentally flawed” order she had issued was causing delays and asked her to quickly resolve a critical dispute about one of Mr. Trump’s defenses — leaving them time to appeal if needed.

The unusual and risky move by the prosecutors, contained in a 24-page filing , signaled their mounting impatience with the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, who has allowed the case to become bogged down in a logjam of unresolved issues and curious procedural requests . It was the most directly prosecutors have confronted Judge Cannon’s legal reasoning and unhurried pace, which have called into question whether a trial will take place before the election in November even though both sides say they could be ready for one by summer.

In their filing, prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, all but begged Judge Cannon to move the case along and make a binding decision about one of Mr. Trump’s most brazen claims: that he cannot be prosecuted for having taken home a trove of national security documents after leaving office because he transformed them into his own personal property under a law known as the Presidential Records Act.

The prosecutors derided that assertion as one “not based on any facts,” adding that it was a “justification that was concocted more than a year after” Mr. Trump left the White House.

“It would be pure fiction,” the prosecutors wrote, “to suggest that highly classified documents created by members of the intelligence community and military and presented to the president of the United States during his term in office were ‘purely private.’”

At a hearing last month in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., Judge Cannon herself expressed skepticism about Mr. Trump’s assertion, saying it was most likely not enough to dismiss the case before it went to trial.

But then within days, she made a surprising move, ordering the former president’s lawyers and Mr. Smith’s prosecutors to send her proposed jury instructions suggesting she was open to embracing the very same defense.

Her order sought language from both sides meant to help jurors understand how the Presidential Records Act might affect the accusation that Mr. Trump had taken “unauthorized possession” of the documents he removed from the White House. For Mr. Trump to be found guilty under the Espionage Act, the central statute in his indictment, prosecutors will have to prove that the former president was not authorized to hold on to more than 30 highly sensitive documents after he left office.

Judge Cannon’s order for jury instructions was odd on its face because such issues are usually hashed out on the eve of trial, and she has not set a trial date yet.

It was even stranger because by appearing to adopt Mr. Trump’s position on the Presidential Records Act, the judge seemed to be nudging any eventual jurors toward acquitting Mr. Trump or even leaving open the possibility that she herself could acquit the former president near the end of the proceeding by declaring that the government had failed to prove its case.

Hoping to forestall either situation, Mr. Smith’s prosecutors told Judge Cannon in their filing on Tuesday that the Presidential Records Act had nothing to do with the case and that the entire notion of submitting jury instructions based on it rested on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.”

Instead, they asked her to decide the validity of the Presidential Records Act defense in a different way: by rejecting Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the case based on the same argument. That motion has been sitting on her desk for almost six weeks.

The prosecutors want Judge Cannon to take that course of action, because any decision she makes on the motion to dismiss can be challenged in an appeals court. But if the case is allowed to reach the jury, any ruling she might make acquitting Mr. Trump cannot be appealed.

Almost from the moment she was assigned the case in June, Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump in his waning days in office, has handled the proceeding in an unorthodox manner.

She has put off making several legal and logistical decisions. And she has spent time at hearings entertaining a series of unusual arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers that many federal judges would have rejected out of hand.

The legal gamesmanship she has encouraged over how to handle Mr. Trump’s Presidential Records Act defense is all the more bizarre because the argument itself is legally dubious.

The act was put in place after the Watergate scandal not to permit presidents to unilaterally designate government documents — let alone those containing sensitive state secrets — as their own personal property, but precisely for the opposite reason: to ensure that most records from a president’s time in office remain in the possession of the government.

Moreover, Mr. Trump’s lawyers have never said he officially designated the documents in question as his own. Rather, they have claimed that the designation can be inferred from the fact that he took them from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, rather than sending them, as the government says he should have, to the National Archives.

The prosecutors told Judge Cannon in their filing that they interviewed numerous high-ranking White House officials during their investigation — including chiefs of staff, senior members of the White House Counsel’s Office, a national security adviser and top members of the National Security Council — and no one recalled Mr. Trump saying he had designated the records that ultimately wound up in the case as personal.

“To the contrary,” the prosecutors wrote, “every witness who was asked this question had never heard such a thing.”

The dispute about the Presidential Records Act is only one of the many questions that Judge Cannon has failed to resolve in the past few months. The delays could have a profound effect on the case: If it is pushed past the election and Mr. Trump wins, he could order his attorney general to simply dismiss the charges.

Judge Cannon has so far not issued a ruling on a request made in January by Mr. Trump’s lawyers for additional discovery material about the prosecution’s ties to the intelligence community and other national security officials. The lawyers want that information to bolster their claims that members of the so-called deep state conspired to bring the case against Mr. Trump in an effort to sink his political campaign.

The judge is also sitting on a nearly two-month-old request by Mr. Smith to permit redactions to be made to several of Mr. Trump’s own filings to protect the identities of witnesses who might testify for the government at trial. And she is still considering a host of the former president’s pretrial motions to the dismiss the case .

Should they run out of patience altogether, prosecutors could at some point file a motion asking Judge Cannon to remove herself from the case. She would probably reject that effort, requiring the government to go over her head and make the same request to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which sits above her.

Typically, recusal motions require prosecutors to point to flawed decisions. And so far, Judge Cannon has largely avoided making decisions, complicating any effort to get rid of her.

Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.  More about Alan Feuer

Our Coverage of the Trump Documents Case

The justice department has filed federal criminal charges against former president donald trump over his mishandling of classified documents..

The Indictment: Federal prosecutors said that Trump put national security secrets at risk  by mishandling classified documents and schemed to block the government from reclaiming the material. Here’s a look at the evidence .

The Co-Defendants: While Trump plays the leading role in the case, the narrative as laid out by prosecutors relies heavily on supporting characters  like Carlos De Oliveira  and Walt Nauta .

Obstruction: The Mueller report raised questions about whether Trump had obstructed the inquiry into the ties between the former president’s 2016 campaign and Russia. With prosecutors adding new charges  in the documents case, the subject is back .

The Judge: Judge Aileen Cannon , a Trump appointee who showed favor to the former president earlier in the investigation, has scant experience  running criminal trials. Can she prove her critics wrong ?

A Slow Pace: Cannon has allowed unresolved issues to build up on her docket, and that appears to have kept her from making a prompt decision on the timing of the case. It is one of several factors that have stirred concern about her decision-making .

Watch CBS News

Jack Smith argues "not a single" Trump official has claimed he declared any records personal

By Robert Legare

Updated on: April 3, 2024 / 9:17 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Special counsel Jack Smith urged a federal judge to keep a presidential recordkeeping law out of instructions that would be provided to the jury in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump , according to court documents filed by Smith's team late Tuesday. Prosecutors warned that including the law in the instructions risked jeopardizing the proceedings, and signaled they would appeal the judge's decision if she ruled against them.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon , who is overseeing the case in Florida, asked Smith's and Trump's legal teams to file jury instructions based on two hypothetical scenarios: in one, the president has the authority under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) to categorize any records as personal. Under this scenario, Cannon wrote that "neither a court nor a jury" would have the ability to review the decision, a finding that could nullify much of the special counsel's case against Trump. 

In the other, the jury would be able to examine a record that had been retained by a former president and make a finding that it was either "personal or presidential," under the PRA. Under this scenario, it is possible jurors could find that some official documents were mishandled. 

Federal prosecutors rejected both proposals and wrote Tuesday that the PRA — a 1978 law that manages the maintenance of White House documents produced during each presidency — "should not play any role at trial at all," arguing that Trump's alleged mishandling of classified records occurred after his presidency ended.

Trump and Smith filed separate proposals for jury instructions in the case Tuesday, although a trial date has yet to be set. 

Prosecutors said Tuesday that both of Cannon's hypothetical scenarios "rest on an unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise." Any jury instructions that include the PRA risked "distort[ing] the trial," they said.  

Instead, the special counsel suggested jurors should only have to determine three elements of the case that amount to whether Trump willfully retained national defense information without the authorization of the federal government. 

Smith's team requested that if the judge opts to include language concerning the PRA, she affords them ample time to appeal the matter to higher courts ahead of trial. 

The former president's legal team took the opposite view, writing Cannon "correctly stated the law" when she suggested the jury instruction that would have granted Trump much broader power under the PRA. 

"If this case is presented to a jury—which it should not be—the jury would be forced to resolve factual issues relating to not only PRA categorizations but also documents' alleged classification status," Trump's defense team argued in their filing . 

In their own proposed jury instructions , Trump's legal team suggested Cannon tell jurors that Trump was authorized to access the classified records during his presidency and that certain precedents allow for former presidents to access certain documents. 

The special counsel charged Trump in a 40-count indictment that includes 32 alleged violations of a national security law that makes it illegal to mishandle national defense information. The former president is also accused of engaging in an obstruction scheme as part of an alleged effort to thwart federal investigators as they probed his retention of documents with classified markings. The FBI ultimately recovered over 300 sensitive government records from Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence that prosecutors accused him of illegally keeping. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts and has denied any wrongdoing. 

Tuesday's late-night filing from the special counsel contended that the question of presidential versus private records under the PRA is not a question for a jury because it doesn't apply to Trump's alleged conduct. Instead, prosecutors said this was a matter of law that should be left up to the judge. 

Trump's legal team has filed a number of motions to dismiss the case against him, including one on the grounds that the PRA granted Trump "unreviewable discretion" over classified records.

"President Trump was still the President of the United States when, for example, many of the documents at issue were packed (presumably by the GSA), transported, and delivered to Mar-A-Lago," they wrote in a February court filing. 

Attorneys for the former president also argued that the PRA "precludes judicial review" over a president's recordkeeping, contending that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter, language that was reflected in Cannon's order asking for input on the proposed jury instructions. 

Smith's team, however, pushed back in responding court filings, writing that the more than 300 documents with classified markings recovered from Trump "are indisputably presidential, not personal." 

"Trump was not authorized to possess classified records at all," prosecutors said. 

The federal probe into Trump's handling of classified records followed a months-long effort by federal officials to collect what they said were missing documents. Investigators ultimately executed a search warrant at his Florida residence and club, Mar-a-Lago, in August of 2022, after the former president allegedly failed to fully respond to a grand jury subpoena. 

In Tuesday's filing, Smith's team again pushed back, alleging that Trump's use of the PRA — namely the claim that he had the power to declare certain government documents as personal in nature — was "invented" as a "fictional" defense for his alleged conduct only after the federal probe was underway. The special counsel said neither communications with his defense team throughout the investigation nor witness testimony backs up Trump's claims. 

Prosecutors revealed that during its grand jury investigation, the special counsel's office interviewed individuals close to the former president, including his chiefs of staff and top White House lawyers.  

"Not a single one had heard Trump say that he was designating records as personal or that, at the time he caused the transfer of boxes to Mar-a-Lago, he believed that his removal of records amounted to designating them as personal under the PRA," according to the special counsel. "To the contrary, every witness who was asked this question had never heard such a thing."

In response to Cannon's order, however, Trump's lawyers reiterated their contention that the former president was shielded from prosecution under the PRA. 

"There is no basis for the Special Counsel's Office, this Court, or a jury to second-guess President Trump's document-specific PRA categorizations." 

Cannon has yet to rule on any of Trump's motions to dismiss the indictment, and the former president's legal team urged her again on Tuesday to rule in his favor. Two of the former president's aides, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, also face charges in the case and filed their own motions, which also remain unresolved. Nauta and de Oliveira pleaded not guilty to allegations that they worked with the former president to obstruct the federal probe.

The judge has yet to set a trial date in the case — originally scheduled for late May — and has not issued any order related to a request from Smith that she reconsider a ruling tied to protected witness names. She held a hearing on those two issues on March 1.

Trump originally argued that a trial should not go forward before the fall election, but conceded that August would be feasible, should the judge decide to proceed. The special counsel pushed for the trial to begin in July, a proposal that seems less likely to be adopted, since Cannon's docket still contains several unresolved motions. 

• Donald Trump

Robert Legare is a CBS News multiplatform reporter and producer covering the Justice Department, federal courts and investigations. He was previously an associate producer for the "CBS Evening News with Norah O'Donnell."

More from CBS News

Judge refuses to delay Trump's  "hush money" trial

Two brothers plead guilty to insider trading tied to Trump Media

Trump Media sues Truth Social co-founders to strip them of shares

Hunter Biden's motions to dismiss tax charges denied by judge

Your weekly Special Assignment shows

YouTube playlist of all Special Assignment shows

TRENDING STORIES

04 Apr 2024, 15:51 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 15:44 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:57 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:51 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:45 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:35 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:30 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:10 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 14:02 [SAST]

04 Apr 2024, 13:05 [SAST]

Privacy Overview

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Late Assignments: Tips From Educators on Managing Them

• Share article

Today’s post finishes up a two-part series on how different teachers handle late student work.

‘Taking Late Work Can Be Challenging’

Ann Stiltner is a high school special education and reading teacher in Connecticut with more than 20 years of experience in education. She shares her passion and love for working in the classroom at her blog from Room A212 (www.annstiltner.com/blog). Follow her on Twitter @fromrooma212:

Being a special education teacher means most of my students have the IEP modification of extra time, which generally translates to time and a half. For a test a teacher gives a class one hour to do, my student would have 1½ hours. For a project the class had one week to complete, my student would have 11 days. However, even with this extra time, some of my spec. ed. students are not able to complete the work. With diagnoses such as ADHD, LD (Learning Disabilities), or anxiety, they find maintaining focus and accessing one-on-one support difficult to fit into these time constraints. Their motivation is unpredictable based on their mood, family challenges, or social drama.

Due to these factors, I have adopted a policy where I accept work from both regular and special education students at any time for full credit or I take points off for each day late depending on the circumstances and if that will motivate a student to finish.

I realize that taking late work can be challenging for teachers of 100-plus students. It means constantly updating your grade book and keeping track of papers. Some teachers don’t accept late work because they think a firm cutoff teaches students the importance of meeting deadlines. Even though I agree this is an important skill, I fear that some students won’t learn that lesson from a policy of not accepting work late. These students prefer to give up and forget about the assignment in order to feel a sense of control and protect themselves from failure. Getting a zero on an assignment does not make them rethink their decision to not do the work, since a zero to them doesn’t mean the same as it does to us teachers. To them, a zero is the grade they think they deserve based on their past experiences.

I have found a time limit gives students a reason to give up and not try. This is learned helplessness in action. My working definition of learned helplessness is a person’s lack of effort due to previous experiences which have taught them that making even the smallest effort won’t make a difference.

For many students, trying involves a large investment of cognitive effort and a huge risk to put themselves out there. They are not ready to set themselves up for what, they are sure, will make them feel like a failure and especially not in a setting where they might be bullied, yelled at, or insulted. If they do not feel safe and supported, they will not risk being teased by their classmates. This is the thinking behind my policy to accept late work at any time. I do not want my conditions and requirements to be used as an excuse for why they do not engage in my lesson and do the work.

This same philosophy explains why I provide supplies like writing utensils or computer chargers. I consciously decide not to create barriers for a student to complete work. I do not want to rob them of a chance to engage with the material, learn something new, experience deep thinking and feed their curiosity by dictating conditions that they can blame for not engaging in the work. Accepting an assignment late gives them time to get motivated or set up one-to-one support so they can focus on the work when they are ready. I do not want to distract students with rules concerning time limits, pen vs. pencil, or on paper vs. on computer.

Don’t get me wrong: I do have classroom rules and expectations. I want the focus in my class to be on what is most essential—learning. This approach means the student—and their parents—will have a hard time holding me responsible for their grade. The responsibility falls on the student and their choices. This open policy allows me to create rapport when I explain my belief in their ability to do the work and my dedication to provide them the support and necessary modifications to be successful. If and when a student is ready to engage in the work, make an effort and take a risk, I am ready.

‘A Balanced Approach’

Ruth Okoye, Ed.D., is a 30-year veteran educator. She has taught in private and public school settings and is passionate about literacy, educational technology, and ed-tech coaching. She currently serves as the K-12 director at a nonprofit organization:

As an ed-tech coach working with fellow educators in their journey of professional growth, handling assignment submissions beyond the designated due date is a nuanced process that reflects both practicality and a deep understanding of individual circumstances. The approach I adopt recognizes the unique challenges that my learners who are teachers face in their daily lives, and it aims to create an inclusive learning environment that supports their development while acknowledging the diverse contexts in which they operate.

My policy on due dates is rooted in the realization that a one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the myriad of responsibilities and situations that learners encounter. Rather than rigidly adhering to stringent deadlines, I advocate a balanced approach that considers the academic integrity of assignments and the need for flexibility.

To strike this balance, I establish a preferred due date for assignments, considering the majority of learners and allowing them ample time to complete their work. This desired deadline also has a more concrete counterpart—a hard deadline—that offers a reasonable time frame for those genuinely committed to finishing their tasks. This dual-deadline structure allows proactive learners to demonstrate their dedication while acknowledging the potential challenges others may face.

For example, in a book study, there would be weekly assignments. The posted due dates would give the learners three weeks to get each assignment done. I would establish a hard deadline for all assignments two weeks after the study is completed. I’ve found that for a six- to eight-week book study, that allows ample time for a learner to deal with an external complication and then get back on track.

Of course, the purpose of the assignment plays a significant role in determining the flexibility of the due date. For instance, tasks geared toward in-class reflection, like exit tickets, maintain their original deadline as they serve an immediate and time-sensitive purpose. On the other hand, assignments designed to assess learners’ application of covered material need a more lenient approach, allowing participants the time to digest the content and apply it effectively.

I also believe in allowing learners ample time to attempt tasks and even granting multiple opportunities for submission. This practice is grounded in the understanding that the learning process is not linear, and different individuals require varying duration to internalize and implement new concepts. By granting extensions and multiple tries, I encourage a growth mindset and empower learners to engage more deeply with the subject.

One of the cornerstones of my policy is the recognition that external factors beyond the learning experience can impact a learner’s ability to meet deadlines. Illness, family emergencies, or resource constraints can hinder progress, and rigid due dates should not serve as barriers to measuring their ability to apply course concepts. Instead of penalizing them for circumstances beyond their control, I aim to evaluate their understanding of the material and capacity to use it effectively, irrespective of external hindrances.

So you can see, my approach to handling late submissions from learners revolves around flexibility, empathy, and practicality. By acknowledging the diverse challenges teachers face and tailoring due dates to the purpose of assignments, I create an environment that fosters deep learning, personal growth, and a commitment to the subject matter. This policy recognizes the unique circumstances of each learner. It underscores the overarching goal of professional learning—to nurture and support the development of capable and resilient professionals in education.

What Is the Goal?

Jessica Fernandez is a full-time high school teacher and instructional coach near Chicago who specializes in teaching multilingual English learners and in supporting colleagues to make small language shifts that will benefit all learners:

Fortunately, my high school freshman English PLC has decided to have two categories: formative (anything at all that is practice), which is weighted 10 percent, and summative, which is weighted 90 percent. Since the purpose of formative tasks is to practice a skill they will later demonstrate, late work is accepted until we complete the summative demonstration for that skill. Afterward, there’s not so much of a point, plus it would drive us crazy and make work-life balance tough.

The goal, after all, is to give frequent and prompt feedback so kids can improve before their final summative demonstration. Late points are more of what we used to call “habits of work”; important soft skills, yes, but for our purposes, if the kid practiced for their summative skill demonstration, I’m happy, and I’m not scoring them on timeliness. Who knows what they had going on? I’ve gotten grace, and 10 percent won’t make or break their grade anyway.

Thanks to Ann, Ruth, and Jessica for contributing their thoughts!

Today’s post responded to this question:

How do you handle students turning in work after the due date, and why do you apply that policy?

In Part One , Chandra Shaw, Stephen Katzel, and Kelly Owens contributed their ideas.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email . And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 12 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

George Carlin Estate Settles Lawsuit Over AI-Generated Comedy Special

By Gene Maddaus

Gene Maddaus

Senior Media Writer

• IATSE Sees Fears and Promise of Artificial Intelligence: ‘We Want the Spoils’ 21 hours ago
• George Carlin Estate Settles Lawsuit Over AI-Generated Comedy Special 2 days ago
• Kanye West Accused of Anti-Black Racism in Lawsuit From Ex-Employee 2 days ago

George Carlin ‘s estate has settled a lawsuit over an AI-generated imitation of the late comedian, with the creators agreeing to remove it from their YouTube channel and podcast feed.

In January, the Dudesy podcast released “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead,” which purported to be an hour-long special created by artificial intelligence . Carlin died in 2008, but the special featured a sound-alike voice doing Carlin-esque material on contemporary topics like trans rights and defunding the police.

The estate sued , alleging that the special violated the estate’s copyrights and its publicity right to Carlin’s name, image and likeness.

Under the settlement, they agreed to a permanent injunction that bars them from uploading the video again, or from using Carlin’s image, voice or likeness in any platform.

Kelly Carlin, the comedian’s daughter, issued a scathing statement about the AI-generated special when it was first released, calling it “a poorly-executed facsimile cobbled together by unscrupulous individuals.”

In a statement on Tuesday, she said she was gratified to have the situation over with.

“I am pleased that this matter was resolved quickly and amicably, and I am grateful that the defendants acted responsibly by swiftly removing the video they made,” she said. “While it is a shame that this happened at all, I hope this case serves as a warning about the dangers posed by AI technologies and the need for appropriate safeguards not just for artists and creatives, but every human on earth.”

SAG-AFTRA has pushed for federal legislation that would make it illegal to create a fake digital replica of someone without their consent.

Carlin’s estate sued under California’s right of publicity law, and also for copyright infringement under federal law.

In a statement, the estate attorney, Joshua Schiller, said that the lawsuit was intended to preserve Carlin’s legacy and shine a light on the threat that emerging technologies pose to intellectual property.

The special was first released on Jan. 9. A week later, in response to backlash, Kultgen indicated on the podcast that the special was not written by AI. Instead, he suggested that the script was written by a person and fed into an AI voice generator. The estate argued that it was an unlawful appropriation of Carlin’s material either way.

In an interview, Schiller said he would seek to get YouTube and other platforms to take down copies of the video that have been posted by other accounts. However, he noted that there is a “gaping hole” in the law, as there is no federal right of publicity, and thus no assurance that those platforms would have to comply with such requests.

More From Our Brands

The far right is crawling with eclipse conspiracy theories, a luxe new wellness club is opening in n.y.c. this spring—just don’t call it a gym, kenny smith to recruit for aussie basketball, own stake in nbl club, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, ripley review: netflix’s grifter thriller is stylish but sluggish — now, you grade it, verify it's you, please log in.

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

General Officer Assignments

The Chief of Staff of the Army announces the following officer assignments:

Maj. Gen. Kimberly M. Colloton, deputy commanding general for Military and International Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., to deputy chief of engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army; and deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Maj. Gen. Lance G. Curtis, deputy chief of staff, G-4, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to commanding general, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.

Maj. Gen. Christopher L. Eubank, commanding general, U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Maj. Gen. Clair A. Gill, deputy director for Regional Operations and Force Management, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Novosel, Fort Novosel, Alabama.

Maj. Gen. Gavin A. Lawrence, commanding general, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, to deputy chief of staff for Logistics and Operations, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Leahy, commander, Special Operations Command Central, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, to commander, Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Inherent Resolve, Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Michael C. McCurry II, commanding general, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Novosel, Fort Novosel, Alabama, to chief of staff, U.S. Army Futures Command, Austin, Texas.

Brig. Gen. Stephanie R. Ahern, director of Concepts, Futures and Concepts Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Adelphi, Maryland, to commandant, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

Brig. Gen. Sarah K. Albrycht, commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to provost marshal general, U.S. Army, and commanding general, Army Corrections Command, Washington, D.C.

Brig. Gen. Guillaume N. Beaurpere, commanding general, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to chief of staff, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Brig. Gen. Chad C. Chalfont, deputy commanding general (Maneuver), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas, to commandant, U.S. Army Armor School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Moore, Georgia.

Brig. Gen. Kendall J. Clarke, deputy commanding general (Operations), 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, New York, to director of Concepts, Futures and Concepts Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia.

Brig. Gen. Jasper Jeffers III, deputy director for Special Operations and Counter-Terrorism, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C., to commander, Special Operations Command Central, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Brig. Gen. Shane P. Morgan, commandant, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to deputy director for Regional Operations and Force Management, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.

Brig. Gen. Jason B. Nicholson, commanding general, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to director, Strategy, Plans and Policy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Simmering, commandant, U.S. Army Armor School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Moore, Georgia, to commanding general, First Army Division East, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Brig. Gen. Brian D. Vile, commandant, U.S. Army Cyber Warfare School and Chief of Cyber, Fort Eisenhower, Georgia, to deputy director, Future Operations, J-3, U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland.

Brig. Gen. Scott D. Wilkinson, commanding general, U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Command; and deputy commanding general-Futures, U.S. Special Operations Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C.

Col. (Promotable) Jeremy A. Bartel, chief of staff, U.S. Army Central, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, to commander, Special Operations Joint Task Force-Central, Operation Enduring Sentinel, Qatar.

Col. (Promotable) James T. Blejski Jr., assistant chief of staff, G-3, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to director of intelligence, J-2, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Col. (Promotable) Robert G. Born, deputy commander (Support), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas, to deputy commander (Maneuver), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas.

Col. (Promotable) Kirk E. Brinker, deputy commander (Support), 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Liberty, North Carolina, to deputy commander, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina.

Col. (Promotable) Kevin S. Chaney, project manager, Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, Program Executive Office Aviation, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to deputy, Program Executive Office, Command, Control and Communication (Tactical), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Col. (Promotable) Kenneth C. Cole, deputy commander (Support), 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to deputy commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, Alabama.

Col. (Promotable) Ronald L. Franklin Jr., NATO Branch Chief, J-5, U.S. European Command, Germany, to senior defense official and defense attaché, U.S. Defense Attaché Office, Russia.

Col. (Promotable) Rogelio J. Garcia, deputy commander (Support), 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, to commandant of cadets, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York.

Col. (Promotable) Peter C. Glass, deputy director/chief of staff, Futures and Concepts Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, to deputy commander (Support), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas.

Col. (Promotable) Joseph C. Goetz II, commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to commander, Pacific Ocean Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

Col. (Promotable) Phillip J. Kiniery III, deputy commander (Operations), 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to commandant, U.S. Army Infantry School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence; and director, Future Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team, Army Futures Command, Fort Moore, Georgia.

Col. (Promotable) Paul T. Krattiger, deputy commander (Support), 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas, to deputy commander (Operations), 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Col. (Promotable) Matthew J. Lennox, deputy commander, Cyber National Mission Force, U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland, to deputy commander, Joint Force Headquarters-Cyber, U.S. Army Cyber Command, Fort Eisenhower, Georgia.

Col. (Promotable) Robert J. Mikesh Jr., project manager, Integrated Personnel and Pay System–Army, Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems, Arlington, Virginia, to deputy program executive officer, Enterprise Information Systems, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Col. (Promotable) Jin H. Pak, commandant, U.S. Army Quartermaster School, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Gregg-Adams, Virginia, to commander, 19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command, Eighth Army, Republic of Korea.

Col. (Promotable) Allen J. Pepper, senior defense official and defense attaché, U.S. Defense Attaché Office, Iraq, to commander, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Col. (Promotable) Brendan C. Raymond, director of integration, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to deputy commander (Support), 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Col. (Promotable) Adam D. Smith, deputy commander for operations, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, to The Adjutant General of the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Human Resources Command; commander, U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency; and executive director, Military Postal Service Agency, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Col. (Promotable) Kevin J. Williams, chief of staff, Joint Task Force–Red Hill, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Honolulu, Hawaii, to deputy commander (Operations), 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Defense.gov

Helpful links.

• Live Events
• Today in DOD
• For the Media
• DOD Resources
• DOD Social Media Policy
• Help Center
• DOD / Military Websites
• Agency Financial Report
• Value of Service
• Taking Care of Our People
• FY 2025 Defense Budget
• National Defense Strategy

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

Special Operations News From Around the World

Socsouth and belize special assignment group (bsag).

August 4, 2016 John Friberg USSOCOM 0

Special Operations Command South (SOCSouth) and 1-228th Aviation (Joint Task Force Bravo) recently conducted a training exercise with some specialized units of Belize. In late July the U.S. personnel worked with the Belize Special Assignment Group (BSAG) and Belize Coast Guard (BCG) executing Fast Rope Insertion and Extraction (FRIES), helicast operation, open water hoist training, and use of the Jacaobs Ladder. Read more in “1-228th AVN, SOCSOUTH enhance Belizean CTOC capabilities” ,  Joint Task Force – Bravo Public Affairs,  August 3, 2016.

• Maritime Opns

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes