Month: March 2026

Ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, returned to a federal courtroom in Manhattan on Thursday as their high-profile criminal case in the United States continued to unfold. The pair, who were taken into U.S. custody during a pre-dawn military operation in Caracas in January, have both pleaded not guilty to a series of charges, including drug trafficking and “narco-terrorism.”

Maduro appeared wearing prison attire and ankle restraints, and briefly acknowledged the courtroom, greeting attendees with “good morning.” Throughout the proceedings, he and Flores listened through translation headsets, following the arguments closely. Presiding over the hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein made it clear the case would proceed, rejecting defense efforts to have the charges thrown out. “I’m not going to dismiss the case,” he said, though he raised concerns about whether Maduro would have adequate legal representation.

At the center of the dispute is whether Maduro can access Venezuelan government funds—currently restricted by U.S. sanctions—to pay for his defense. His attorney, Barry Pollack, argued that blocking those funds undermines his client’s right to a fair trial, warning that relying on court-appointed lawyers could limit the quality of representation in such a complex and costly case. Maduro echoed that concern in a sworn statement, saying, “I understand that the government of Venezuela is prepared to fund my legal defense and it is my expectation that it will,” adding, “I have relied on this expectation and cannot afford to pay for my own legal defense.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kyle Wirshba, however, pushed back and argued that Maduro should not be allowed to tap into state funds, particularly given allegations that he misused national wealth. “A defendant has no right to spend a third party’s money,” he said. Judge Hellerstein acknowledged the unusual nature of the case and the high costs involved, noting that defending Maduro could strain public resources. While he questioned whether national security concerns still justify restricting access to funds, he did not immediately rule on the issue.

The charges against Maduro stem from longstanding allegations that he and several associates worked with drug trafficking networks to funnel large quantities of cocaine into the U.S. Federal prosecutors claim he used his position to enable and protect these operations, describing him as a central figure in a corrupt system that facilitated international drug flows. An initial U.S. indictment was filed in 2020 against Maduro and other Venezuelan officials, with a more recent indictment expanded the charges, naming additional co-defendants and outlining accusations of conspiracy, drug importation, and weapons offenses. Maduro has denied all allegations.

Meanwhile, President Trump weighed in from Washington, suggesting the current charges may only represent part of a broader pattern of alleged wrongdoing. He described Maduro as a “major purveyor of drugs coming into our country” and said, “I hope that charge will be brought at some point,” adding that more legal action could follow.

Editorial credit: StringerAL / Shutterstock.com

“TODAY” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie has opened up for the first time since her mother, Nancy Guthrie, vanished from her Tucson, Arizona home in the early hours of Feb. 1, sharing an emotional and deeply personal account of the ongoing ordeal.

Nancy Guthrie, 84, was last seen the evening of Jan. 31 after being dropped home following dinner with family. When she failed to appear at a church gathering the next day, loved ones grew alarmed. What initially seemed like a possible medical emergency quickly escalated when authorities discovered signs of a struggle, including blood on her porch, and began treating the case as a suspected abduction.

In a candid interview with her former co-host and close friend Hoda Kotb, Guthrie described the investigation’s surveillance images as “absolutely terrifying,” adding, “I can’t imagine that that is who she saw standing over her bed. I can’t. It’s too much.”

Guthrie recalled the moment she learned her mother was missing. A frantic call from her sister shattered what had been an ordinary day. At first, the family assumed a health issue, noting Nancy’s limited mobility and chronic pain. “She can’t wander off,” Guthrie explained, emphasizing that her mother would not have left on her own.

Her brother, drawing on his military experience, quickly feared the worst. Guthrie remembered asking him, “Do you think because of me?” referring to her public profile. His response — “I’m sorry, sweetie, but yeah, maybe,” — has weighed heavily on her ever since.  Guthrie said through tears, “I’m so sorry, Mommy, I’m so sorry,” and also apologized to her siblings and extended family. “If it is me, I’m so sorry.” Still, she stressed the painful uncertainty surrounding the case: “Honestly, we don’t know anything.”

Investigators have released images of a masked individual seen near the home, but no suspect has been identified. Authorities cleared family members early in the investigation, dismissing speculation Guthrie called “unbearable.” She firmly defended her loved ones, saying no one cared for or protected her mother more. In the weeks following the disappearance, multiple ransom notes surfaced. Guthrie said many appear to be hoaxes, though she believes a couple may be legitimate. “A person that would send a fake ransom note has to look deeply at themselves,” she said.

Guthrie shared that she wakes each night imagining her mother’s fear. “I wake up every night in the middle of the night. Every night,” she said. “And in the darkness, I imagine her terror… and it is unthinkable.” Despite the anguish, the family continues to hope. They have offered a $1 million reward and are urging anyone with even the smallest piece of information to come forward. In a public message, they asked the community to revisit memories, messages, or surveillance footage from the days surrounding the disappearance, emphasizing, “No detail is too small. It may be the key … We still believe in a miracle. We still believe that she can come home — hope against hope.”

Guthrie expressed gratitude for law enforcement’s efforts, but also made clear that her family cannot find peace without answers. She also offered a direct appeal to whoever may be responsible: “Someone can do the right thing, and it is never too late to do the right thing.”

As the search continues, Guthrie and her family hold on to hope while navigating an unthinkable reality. Law enforcement asks anyone with information to contact 1-800-CALL-FBI or tips.fbi.gov, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department (520-351-4900) or 88-CRIME.

Editorial credit: Kathy Hutchins / Shutterstock.com

The Kennedy Center has announced that comedian and political commentator Bill Maher will be honored with the 27th Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, settling recent public disagreement over whether he would be receiving the award. Maher is set to accept the prize on June 28, shortly before the venue temporarily closes for major renovations expected to last about two years.

The announcement comes after White House officials had previously dismissed reports of Maher’s selection, calling it “fake news.” He has often clashed with President Trump, though he also attended a private White House dinner in March 2025. Last month, Trump criticized Maher on social media, calling him “this jerk” and saying it “was a total waste of time” to host him. The Kennedy Center, now governed by a board aligned with Pres. Trump, has undergone leadership changes and remains at the center of ongoing legal disputes tied to its restructuring and planned closure.

Maher, known for his sharp political satire, joked that he “just had the award explained to me, and apparently it’s like an Emmy, except I win.”  He added that it is “humbling to get anything named for a man who’s been thrown out of as many school libraries as Mark Twain,” a writer long known for challenging social norms.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, shared in a statement: “For nearly three decades, the Mark Twain Prize has celebrated some of the greatest minds in comedy. For even longer, Bill has been influencing American discourse — one politically incorrect joke at a time.”

The Mark Twain Prize, first established in 1998, honors individuals who have made a significant impact on American humor and commentary, echoing the spirit of Samuel Clemens, a.k.a. Mark Twain. Past recipients include David Letterman, Carol Burnett, Conan O’Brien, Dave Chappelle, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Tina Fey.

Editorial credit: Kathy Hutchins / Shutterstock.com

A Los Angeles jury has delivered a major verdict in the trial examining whether major tech platforms can be held accountable for childhood social media harm linked to their products. Jurors concluded that Meta and YouTube were negligent in how they designed and operated their platforms, siding with a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as K.G.M., also referred to as Kaley.

The jury determined that Meta and Google’s YouTube contributed to a woman’s depression and anxiety stemming from compulsive social media use during her childhood. The court awarded her $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70%, and YouTube responsible for 30%.  The jury later decided on an additional $3 million in punitive damages, bringing the total damages owed to the plaintiff up to $6 million. Meta would pay $4.2 million, and YouTube $1.8 million.

The verdict follows a separate decision in New Mexico, where a jury found Meta liable for failing to protect children from online exploitation and ordered the company to pay $375 million—an outcome Meta says it plans to appeal.

The case marks a pivotal moment in a wave of lawsuits accusing social media companies of creating features that encourage compulsive use among young people. After more than a month of testimony—including appearances from executives like Mark Zuckerberg—and nearly 44 hours of deliberation across nine days, jurors determined the companies’ actions were a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles.

Kaley testified that she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, eventually spending nearly all her time on social media. She said the constant engagement contributed to depression, anxiety, and body image issues, adding that it “really affected my self-worth.” She also described feeling compelled to stay online and fearing she would miss out if she logged off. Her legal team argued that platform features—such as endless scrolling feeds, autoplay videos, and persistent notifications—were intentionally designed to keep users hooked, particularly vulnerable children. They emphasized that the case focused on product design rather than user-generated content, a strategy aimed at avoiding legal protections under Section 230, which typically shields tech companies from liability for what users post.

Attorneys for Meta and YouTube pushed back, maintaining their platforms are not inherently harmful and pointing instead to Kaley’s difficult upbringing and prior mental health challenges. Meta argued that her struggles predated social media use and noted that “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause.” YouTube’s defense also stressed limited evidence of addiction to its platform specifically.

The trial is the first in a group of thousands of similar cases brought by families and school districts nationwide, making it a bellwether that could influence future outcomes. Legal experts have compared the growing wave of social media litigation to the tobacco industry lawsuits of the 1990s, suggesting the tech sector could face increased scrutiny and significant financial consequences.

Editorial credit: FotoField / Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision siding with Cox Communications, ruling that internet service providers are not legally responsible for copyright violations committed by their users.

The case stemmed from a long-running dispute between Cox and a coalition of record labels led by Sony Music Entertainment. The music industry had argued that Cox failed to act on repeated piracy warnings and should have disconnected repeat offenders. A jury previously awarded over $1 billion in damages, but that decision was later overturned on appeal.

At the heart of the dispute was whether ISPs must police user behavior. The labels claimed Cox ignored its own enforcement system and prioritized profits, arguing, “Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law.” They pointed to the company’s limited enforcement despite widespread infringement tied to peer-to-peer platforms like BitTorrent.

Cox countered that holding providers responsible would force them to cut off internet access based on unverified accusations, potentially affecting entire households, businesses, hospitals, and schools. “That notion turns Internet providers into Internet police and jeopardizes Internet access for millions of users,” the company argued.

The court ultimately agreed, rejecting the idea that service providers can be held liable without clear intent to support infringement. The ruling also wipes out a massive damages award—reported as high as $1.5 billion—marking a significant setback for the entertainment industry’s efforts to combat online piracy through ISPs.

Writing for the court, Clarence Thomas emphasized that simply offering internet access—even with awareness that some customers may misuse it—does not make a provider liable. “Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights,” he wrote. He added that Cox neither encouraged illegal activity nor designed its service to enable it.

In a concurring opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the court’s reasoning was too narrow and suggested other legal theories might still apply in future cases. “Plaintiffs cannot prove that Cox had the requisite intent to aid copyright infringement for Cox to be liable on a common-law aiding-and-abetting theory,” Sotomayor wrote.

The decision drew support from groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and major tech companies like Google and X, which warned that holding ISPs liable could disrupt internet access nationwide.

Editorial credit: Walt Bilous / Shutterstock.com