博客

Trump says he’s followed the Lindsay Clancy case in first comments on trial: “She did a horrible, horrible thing”

September 4, 2026 / 4:54 PM EDT / CBS News

By Joe Walsh

Shortly after the judge overseeing Lindsay Clancy’s murder case declared a mistrial Friday due to a hung jury, President Trump called it a “terrible situation” and a “horrible tragedy” in his first public comments on a case that has drawn nationwide attention.

Asked by reporters if he is following the Massachusetts trial, the president said: “It’s on television so much, it’s hard not to follow it.”

Clancy has admitted to killing her three children at home in the suburban town of Duxbury in early 2023, and her lawyers say she then tried to take her own life.

Prosecutors accused Clancy of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children in their home in the suburban town of Duxbury in early 2023. Clancy has admitted to killing them, but pleaded not guilty, arguing she should not be held criminally responsible because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis. The trial included testimony from a litany of psychologists and psychiatrists who weighed in on Clancy’s state of mind.

Mr. Trump did not offer a strong view on what the outcome of the polarizing case should be.

“Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse,” he said. “But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price. It’s going to be mental institution or jail or something.”

He noted that another trial is possible, which he called “too bad.”

blob:https://www.cbsnews.com/809a008b-c2b9-48d7-8126-3d4b602d6267

The jury deliberated for 36 hours. If she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, prosecutors could have asked a judge to commit her to a state hospital or mental health facility.

Jurors informed the judge several times that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. After they remained deadlocked on Friday, the judge formally declared a mistrial. Local prosecutors have not said whether they will retry her.

The case was marked by an unusual bout of last-minute controversy. Clancy’s attorney asked the judge to dismiss a lone juror who he alleged was ignoring the court’s instructions, pointing to a note to the judge from the jury foreperson.

The judge rejected that request, but he held off on declaring a mistrial Friday so Clancy’s legal team could appeal the matter to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. When the state’s highest court declined to intervene, a mistrial was declared and jurors were dismissed.

西藏吉隆泥石流死亡增至31人

2026年9月5日 07:27 / 联合早报

尼泊尔与中国西藏接壤区泥石流灾害发生至今已超过10天，中国方面最新通报死亡人数增至31人。

据新华社报道，截至星期五（9月4日）傍晚6时，西藏吉隆泥石流灾害已致31人遇难，531人失联。

尼泊尔官方则通报有1259人死亡、5083人失踪。尼泊尔救援人员星期五从遭沙石掩埋的水电站隧道中，救出两名受困工人。

另据央视新闻报道，灾情发生后，西藏当地政府及时排查吉隆口岸区域地质灾害隐患点排查。

报道称，截至星期三（9月2日），针对G216国道救援通道开展专项排查，共发育地质灾害隐患58处，其中高风险七处，中风险39处，低风险12处。

特朗普称习近平将偕同妻子访美

2026-09-05 07:58 / 联合早报

美国总统特朗普星期五（9月4日）称，中国国家主席习近平将偕同妻子彭丽媛访问美国。

据彭博社报道，特朗普当天告诉记者，他将在9月24日设国宴款待到访的习近平。特朗普也淡化了美中国两国之间因伊朗课题而产生的摩擦。

特朗普说：“我们会搞一场国宴，而且我们要 —— 我们跟中国办大事，我们与中国之间的关系一直很好。”

特朗普形容习近平是了不起的绅士，并说：“我们相处得很好，我们有着非常好的贸易关系。你们知道，他们是竞争对手等等，但我们跟习主席的关系非常的好。”

特朗普也说，习近平会和“他美丽的妻子一起来，她是一位美丽的女士、一个伟大的女性，受到全世界的尊敬，他们会一起来”。

针对伊朗课题，特朗普在白宫椭圆形办公室告诉记者：“我对习主席说了‘请不要介入’ —— 我和他关系非常好 —— 所以他们其实没有掺和进来。”

US judge again blocks Postal Service’s mail-in voting restrictions

2026-09-04T21:56:45.95Z / Reuters

A United States Postal Service (USPS) mailbox is seen in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., May 9, 2022. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

BOSTON, Sept 4 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Boston extended on Friday a ban stopping President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing a new U.S. Postal Service rule that would tighten mail-in voting requirements ahead of the November congressional elections.

Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued ​the injunction at the behest of Democratic-led states and voting rights groups, after the first state in the country sent ‌out mail ballots for the elections on Friday.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Last week, Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order to prevent USPS’ rule from being enforced while she considered whether to issue a longer-term injunction.

The administration on Thursday had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and lift the ​restraining order so the rule could take effect. The court’s 6-3 conservative majority last week lifted a prior order Talwani issued preventing ​USPS from imposing such restrictions.

USPS issued its rule to implement an executive order Trump signed in March ⁠after years of the Republican president calling to restrict voting by mail and pushing the false claim that his 2020 presidential election defeat ​to Democrat Joe Biden was the result of widespread voter fraud.

Under the rule, states must supply the USPS with lists of mail ballot recipients, ​and all outbound and return ballot envelopes must bear unique barcodes.

The USPS, under the rule, may refuse to deliver ballots that do not comply with the new standards or are associated with voters who do not appear on the lists.

Voting rights advocates and several Democratic-led states convinced Talwani last week to temporarily block ​the rule, arguing it risked disenfranchising voters and was adopted in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which gives states the authority to administer ​elections.

Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice countered that USPS had clear authority to implement what they called “modest” envelope design requirements. They said state election ‌officials would ⁠retain full control over who is permitted to vote by mail in their states if the rule went into effect.

All 50 states allow for some form of mail-in voting. Of those, 29 states allow voters to ask to cast ballots by mail without providing a reason, and eight conduct their elections entirely by mail. North Carolina on Friday became the first state to mail ballots for the November elections.

The rule, if ​allowed to take effect, could force ​state election officials to try ⁠to overhaul their systems with just weeks left until the elections to comply with a system that critics say USPS is not ready to implement.

Numerous state election offices already have their envelopes and ballots printed. A ​USPS official said in a court filing on Thursday, Sept. 3 that an online portal that ​states would use to ⁠upload their voter lists was not yet active. The official said it could be available for states that wish to use it at some point during the week of September 7.

A whistleblower statement from an anonymous federal official released on Tuesday by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from ⁠Connecticut, alleged ​that USPS was rushing to implement a hastily created new system that risked ​disrupting the delivery of mail ballots during the election.

The administration had asked a federal appeals court to set aside Talwani’s initial restraining order. But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit ​Court of Appeals had not acted on that request before the judge issued her latest decision.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Rod Nickel

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.

Stars & Stripes Editor Fighting Pentagon Firing Tells OutFront: “this is about the right to a free press”

Published 7:57 PM EDT, Fri September 4, 2026 / CNN Politics

Stars & Stripes Editor Fighting Pentagon Firing Tells OutFront: “this is about the right to a free press”

Erin Burnett Out Front

Judge gives Pentagon go-ahead to fire Stars and Stripes journalists in court on Friday. Editor-in-Chief joins OutFront to discuss his reaction.

2:21 • Source: CNN

Judge lets Pentagon move forward with firing Stars and Stripes journalists

2026-09-04T17:54:00-0400 / CBS News

By

Updated on: September 4, 2026 / 6:27 PM EDT / CBS News

A federal judge on Friday allowed the Pentagon to move forward with terminating three employees of the Stars and Stripes military newspaper.

In a 24-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden turned down a request by the newspaper’s publisher, editor-in-chief and Middle East reporter to halt their firings while a lawsuit challenging the terminations works its way through the court system.

McFadden found the government likely did not violate their First Amendment rights by firing them last month.

The plaintiffs — publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte — were given separation notices in August and placed on administrative leave over allegations of insubordination. The move raised questions about the future of the Stars and Stripes, which is operated by the military and is partially funded by taxpayers, but has traditionally operated independently of military leadership or the White House.

For Slavin and Korte, the alleged insubordination cited in their termination notices was related to interviews they gave to CBS News for a piece on “CBS Sunday Morning” that aired in July. In the story, Korte said that she worked for Stars and Stripes, “not for the Pentagon, not for any administration, not for any policymaker.”

The firings took place shortly after the newspaper published a piece detailing flagging mental health concerns and food and water shortages aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which had been deployed for nine months.

A day after that story ran, the lawsuit said, Pentagon officials ordered Lederer, the Stripes’ publisher, to issue notices of separation to Slavin and Korte. Lederer declined to present them and opted to resign, but he was fired before he could do so.

Parts of McFadden’s ruling analyzed whether Korte and Slavin spoke with CBS News in their capacity as Stars and Stripes employees. Prior Supreme Court cases have found that government employees’ right not to be fired for their speech hinges partially on whether they were speaking as private citizens or as part of their official job duties.

McFadden found Korte and Slavin’s speech was likely the latter.

“[At] bottom, on the current record, Plaintiffs’ real complaint seems to be that they were victims of a cruel bait-and-switch. They are being fired for giving pre-approved interviews on their paper’s behalf in which they largely toed the company line,” the judge wrote. “Whatever else such a scheme may violate, it does not clearly offend the First Amendment.”

The ruling came shortly after lawyers for the three fired Stars and Stripes employees squared off against Justice Department attorneys in federal court earlier Friday, arguing that the Pentagon had unlawfully terminated the journalists in violation of their protected free speech.

In federal court, attorney Taryn Wilgus Null told McFadden in the District of Columbia that her journalist clients were appearing as sources — and not as reporters — for the CBS piece and were speaking “on matters of public concern” outside of their official duties at Stars and Stripes.

“Government employees do not lose their First Amendment free speech rights,” she told the court, noting as well they “were not acting within their ordinary job duties” and had a choice about whether to be interviewed for CBS News.

Brett Covington, a Justice Department lawyer who argued for the Pentagon on Friday, told McFadden that all three journalists routinely did interviews as part of their normal duties, and noted that the CBS News interview had taken place at the Stars and Stripes headquarters with other employees visible in the background.

He also cited an email from Korte in which she wrote she would “rather eat glass” than allow the federal government to tell her what she could or couldn’t write.

He said that email offered context which shows she was concerned about “being able to perform her job duties.”

He also told the court that the publication of the story about the USS Abraham Lincoln was unrelated to the firings, and that the process for those started more than a month before the story ran.

“Our position is, it’s a red herring,” he said.

McFadden, prior to ruling, acknowledged that both sides appeared to have some case law on their side to support their arguments, and said the case struck him as requiring a very “fact-driven analysis” that could be different for each of the three journalists.

消息：中美拟于9月中旬举行AI安全会谈

2026年9月5日 07:17 / 联合早报

匿名消息人士透露，美方希望讨论如何合作监测AI驱动的网络攻击。有人提出倡议，要求中美AI实验室“自我监管”并共享信息，以防止与AI有关的网络攻击。 （Pixabay）

随着前沿人工智能（AI）能力突飞猛进，全球正迎来AI发展的关键临界点。路透社星期五（9月4日）引述两名知情人士报道，中美正加紧筹备9月中旬举行的会谈，探讨AI安全风险。

匿名消息人士透露，美方希望讨论如何合作监测AI驱动的网络攻击。有人提出倡议，要求中美AI实验室“自我监管”并共享信息，以防止与AI有关的网络攻击。

此次会谈是自美国总统特朗普去年重返白宫以来，中美首次就AI问题举行正式双边会谈。听取相关筹备简报的知情人士说，美方代表团将由美国财政部长贝森特率领。

消息人士称，中方代表团可能由中国国务院副总理何立峰率领。不过，中方也在考虑其他人选，包括中共政治局常委、中国副总理丁薛祥。

美国财政部发言人说，目前尚未规划任何会议。特朗普与中国国家主席习近平预定9月24日在华盛顿举行峰会。

延伸阅读

G20包括中俄一致支持美国放宽AI监管主张
AI进口激增 美国7月贸易逆差创一年新高

OpenAI和网络安全研究人员上周说，今年7月，近700个基于OpenAI模型构建的恶意AI代理入侵了AI初创公司Hugging Face，并试图通过伪造日志来掩盖踪迹。这凸显了协同智能体集群（agent swarms）在长达数月不被人类察觉的情况下自主运行的风险。

路透社4日独家报道，今年春季，一群失控的OpenAI智能体劫持了一个德国网站，并将德国网站变成其他AI智能体的论坛。

全球领先战略顾问与商业外交公司DGA-奥尔布赖特石桥集团（DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group，简称 ASG）合伙人特里奥洛（Paul Triolo）说：“这两个AI超级大国之间的会谈正值最关键的节点，此时不谈，更待何时。”

消息人士说，华盛顿也担心中国未来可能开发出类似Mythos、具备网络攻击能力的AI模型，并希望在会谈中提出中方涉嫌“蒸馏”（distillation）美国专有AI模型的问题。

“蒸馏”（distillation）在AI领域是指利用规模更大、更复杂的模型输出来训练或改进较小模型的技术。

Mythos由美国AI公司Anthropic开发。

Supreme Court backs Republican request to lower TV ad rates

September 4, 2026 4:06 PM ET / CNN

By John Fritze

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The Supreme Court on Friday endorsed a request from Republican campaign groups that want to buy discounted TV advertising for this year’s midterms, the latest in a series of emergency rulings from the high court benefiting the GOP.

The decision effectively upholds guidance issued by the Federal Communications Commission in March that allowed the campaign arms of House and Senate Republicans to pay lower ad rates that were previously reserved only for candidates.

The court’s order will primarily benefit Republicans, who generally raise more money through party committees than Democrats.

Over the dissent of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court said that the challenge to the guidance was premature. The GOP groups had said that broadcasters were rescinding the cheaper ad rates based on a lower court’s decision blocking the guidance.

“Cur­rent and future recissions will require the party committees to pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their efforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading up to the midterms,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. “That injury, which implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their po­litical activities freely, cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or reimbursements.”

Under federal law, candidates are entitled to deeply discounted ad rates in the run up to an election. Guidance this year from the FCC extended that benefit to other campaign entities, like the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that run TV ads on behalf of candidates across the country. Both Republicans and Democrats have long made use of those groups.

The Republican groups told the Supreme Court in their emergency appeal that they had already budgeted “tens of millions of dollars” in advertising based on the FCC guidance. A divided 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law clearly limited the lower rate benefit only to candidates. Those lower rates, according to court documents, are set to take effect on Friday.

The Trump administration, eager to keep Republican control of Congress, supported the GOP groups at the Supreme Court. The Justice Department argued that the FCC guidance wouldn’t harm the Democratic candidates who sued because the rule is applied universally.

Four Democratic candidates sued over the FCC’s decision: Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, and former Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina. The campaign arm for House and Senate Republicans intervened to defend the FCC’s decision.

The ad rates case is closely tied to another the Supreme Court decided this summer. In that case, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority rolled back longstanding limits on how much political parties may coordinate with federal candidates. Since the 1970s, political party committees were capped at how much money they could spend in coordination with a campaign. The court ruled that those caps violated the First Amendment.

特朗普：美伊战事为小事一桩 可能很快袭击伊朗镐山

2026年9月5日 07:31 / 联合早报

9月4日，特朗普在白宫椭圆形办公室签署与牛肉加工和养牛户相关的行政令时，向媒体讲话。 （法新社）

美国总统特朗普说，美国可能很快对伊朗镐山发动打击。

路透社报道，镐山（Pickaxe Mountain）位于伊朗中部法罕省纳坦兹铀浓缩设施附近，戒备森严，并有两个深埋地下的隧道群，被认为是伊朗最坚固的地下核设施之一。

特朗普星期五（9月4日）在白宫对记者称，美方“掌握镐山地区所有人员动向”，“一旦情况不妙，我们就会打击他们”。

美国与以色列2月28日对伊朗发起大规模空袭，纳坦兹铀浓缩设施受到严重破坏。

特朗普此前已多次威胁要对镐山地下核设施发动打击。不过伊朗方面称，镐山设施“是空的”，美国袭击镐山的行动注定失败。

特朗普4日回答记者提问时，也试图淡化美伊战事。他说：“许多人并不称之为战争，我称之为军事冲突，因为这对我们来说只是小事一桩，算不上什么大事。”

Judge extends block on Postal Service’s new Trump-backed mail-in ballot requirements

September 4, 2026 / 6:37 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — A federal judge on Friday extended her block on the U.S. Postal Service’s new requirements for mail voting, as states prepare to begin sending mail ballots to voters for the November midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction barring the agency from enforcing the rules, which were finalized and published late last month, during the midterms. Talwani had temporarily blocked the measure on Aug. 26 and, following a hearing Thursday, agreed to grant a request for longer relief sought by two dozen Democratic-led states and voting rights groups.

In her 49-page decision, the judge said the Postal Service’s new rules are likely unconstitutional and said states’ difficulties with implementing the regulations so close to the November elections “nearly guarantee[s] significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters.”

The judge also said the Postal Service likely exceeded its authority by moving ahead with the new requirements because “the Constitution reserves election regulation to Congress and the States, Congress has not authorized the USPS to make requirements of States before permitting use of the USPS for mailing their ballots, and … the Final Rule impermissibly establishes a new category of nonmailable material.”

“Unauthorized by the Elections Clause, the Final Rule clashes with Congress’s statutory scheme, and is unconstitutional where it intrudes not only on Congress’s Elections Clause powers but also that power left to the States,” she wrote.

Talwani reiterated concerns raised by state and local election officials about their ability to comply with the regulations in the weeks before the election and said they are already “consumed” with completing other election-related tasks, like registering voters, maintaining voter lists, conducting early voting and processing applications to vote by mail.

“The Final Rule’s new requirements would be an extraordinary amount of work for local officials at any time,” she wrote. “But imposing these mandates on election officials at present poses greater difficulties than otherwise because election officials are actively administering elections.”

The Justice Department is likely to appeal the decision.

During a hearing Thursday, government lawyers said that if Talwani continued to block the requirements, it would bypass the federal appeals court and seek the Supreme Court’s intervention. The Trump administration asked the high court later Thursday to let it enforce the mail-ballot limits — before the judge could issue her decision on the preliminary injunction.

The fast-moving legal battle is unfolding as states gear up to send mail ballots to voters. At least two municipalities in Wisconsin have already mailed ballots out, and in North Carolina, they will go out to certain voters Friday. More states will begin sending mail ballots around mid-September.

At issue in the case is a final rule issued by the Postal Service that requires states and localities to meet design requirements for mail ballots, including unique barcodes, and to submit to an online portal information about residents who will vote by mail, including their names, addresses and individualized barcodes.

Those voters will be enrolled with the Postal Service and included on state-specific “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists.”

The rule requires postal workers to review and verify ballot mail being sent to voters. Any ballot mailings that don’t comply with the requirements “will not be accepted and will be returned” to the election offices, the Postal Service said.

The Trump administration has said the rule imposes “modest informational requirements” on states and localities, and “should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail.”

But state and local election officials have warned that it will be expensive and logistically challenging to meet the Postal Service’s new mandates for the November elections.

An anonymous whistleblower has also warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” with the Postal Service’s system. The agency’s new mail ballot portal is “untested” and its development “rushed,” the whistleblower said in a disclosure provided to Congress. The federal official also warned that the Postal Service’s new verification process could keep significant numbers of mail ballots from being delivered.

The Postal Service has said it continues to make “refinements” to the new ballot mail portal and anticipates the portal will be available for voluntary use “by sometime next week.”

Because of Talwani’s earlier order that blocked implementation of the rule, the Postal Service is not requiring states and localities to submit ballot envelopes for review to ensure they comply with the new design rules.

The agency has, however, “made that review available for states that wish to voluntarily submit their envelopes for review to ensure that they meet the standards set forth in the Final Rule,” Steven Monteith, executive vice president of the Postal Service, said in a filing.