Businesses need to brace for tougher regulatory landscape in 2025ROUND ROCK, Texas (AP) — ROUND ROCK, Texas (AP) — Dell Technologies Inc. (DELL) on Tuesday reported fiscal third-quarter earnings of $1.13 billion. On a per-share basis, the Round Rock, Texas-based company said it had net income of $1.58. Earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, came to $2.15 per share. The results surpassed Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of five analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of $2.06 per share. The computer and technology services provider posted revenue of $24.37 billion in the period, which did not meet Street forecasts. Four analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $24.56 billion. This story was generated by Automated Insights ( http://automatedinsights.com/ap ) using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on DELL at https://www.zacks.com/ap/DELL
NoneUnited, Apple rolling out new way to track lost luggage with AirTagsScheffler goes on a run of birdies in the Bahamas and leads by 2Tweet Facebook Mail Detectives are investigating after a woman was sexually assaulted while walking along the underpass of Melbourne's Flinders Street Station earlier this year. Police believe the woman was walking with friends near the Flinders Walk end of the station when she was approached by a man about 1.50am on October 14. The man sexually assaulted the woman while she was walking up the stairs, according to police. READ MORE: Donald Trump named Time's Person of the Year and rings New York Stock Exchange opening bell The woman was assaulted while walking in Flinders Street Station. (Simon Schluter) The man fled the scene along the underpass. Police have described the man as being about 170cm tall, aged in his late 30s, of a large build with dark hair and a dark beard and moustache. He was wearing a dark-coloured hoodie with dark pants and shoes. Anyone who witnessed the incident, has CCTV footage or information is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP : Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play .
Hemant Soren stands vindicated. The Jharkhand Chief Minister who spent months behind bars in alleged corruption cases has emerged victorious in one of the most difficult political battles of his life. The JMM-led coalition is poised to form its government with partners Congress, the RJD and the CPI(ML) without much ado. The Jharkhand Assembly Elections 2024 not only gave him the opportunity to prove himself innocent, it also pushed the BJP and its politics of alleged vendetta and aggressive Hinduism to the oblivion at least for the time being. After the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested the son of “Guruji” Shibu Soren on January 31 this year in an alleged land scam case under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the political dynamics of the state underwent a change. The JMM accused the BJP and the Narendra Modi-led union government of political vendetta and targeting him for not falling in line. It also raked up the issue of the humiliation of a tribesman insult of the state of Jharkhand. But JMM’s main emphasis was on the planks of development and secularism as it successfully tried to consolidate the tribals and the Muslims. The JMM’s gamble paid off as it staunchly protested against the proposed Universal Civil Code. The BJP tried to break the possible consolidation of the Muslim-tribals votes by assuring that the tribals would be kept out of the UCC. Buoyed on the success of the NRC and the issue of infiltration of Bangladeshis in Assam, the BJP tried to play the trump card in the state of Jharkhand as well, but it failed. The BJP failed to the gauge the impact of this issue and overhyped it. From stalwarts like PM Narendra Modi and Amit Shah to local leaders, all took additional efforts to raise the issue that millions of Bangladeshis have infiltrated and affected the democracy of the state, particularly that of Santhal Pargana. The saffron party targeted the Muslim community without taking its name and tried to sell the idea that the minority would disturb the demographic balance and dominate in the coming years, an old story it had played in other parts of the country that the Hindus are in danger. The Election Commission slammed the saffron party for posting on its social media sites a video showing a group of men capturing the house of a leader of the party. It wanted to drive the point that the outsiders would capture your house one day. The ploy did not work and the people did not accept what the BJP wanted to say. Similarly, the BJP’s attempt of humiliating the tribal people did not work when it played the card of Champai Soren. After Hemant Soren was released from jail on bail, he became the Chief Minister of the state once again and Champai Soren vacated the seat, but reluctantly and grudgingly. The BJP lapped up the occasion, took Chmpai under its wings with the promise of making him the Chief Minister of the state after the election. However, it backfired. Champai Soren failed to bring his own vote bank to the BJP, he failed to impact his old area of impact- Kolhan. Even his son Babu Lal Soren lost the Ghatshila seat on the BJP ticket to JMM’s Ram Das Soren. All the tricks of the BJP failed, all its cards fell on the ground and the people of Jharkhand voted against the saffron party. Written By Pramode MallikBroker Complaint Alert Introduces AI-Driven Solutions to Revolutionize Crypto Recovery and Enhance Investor ProtectionNone
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a nationwide directive restraining all courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing orders to survey mosques to determine whether temple structures lie beneath them. This interim order serves as a sweeping pause on the growing litigation initiated by Hindu groups seeking to reclaim places of worship, effectively stalling proceedings in trial and high courts, and marking a significant intervention by the judiciary in a matter fraught with religious sensitivities and legal complexities. Also Read : Women should not misuse cruelty law for ‘personal vendetta’ against husbands: Supreme Court The directive came from a special bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, which clarified that trial courts cannot “overreach” the Supreme Court while it adjudicates on challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Also Read : Preventive detention must meet strict threshold: SC highlights right to personal liberty “As the matter is sub judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that, though fresh suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and no proceedings shall be undertaken therein till further orders of this Court. Further, in the pending suits, no Court will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc., till the next date of hearing/further orders of this Court,” ordered the bench, which also included justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 17, 2025”. Also Read : Supreme Court asks states/UTs to report statistics on vacant posts in prisons The directive comes amid a surge in litigation initiated by Hindu groups seeking the reclamation of alleged historical temple sites, prompting a host of legal proceedings in district and high courts. These disputes have sparked significant controversy and conflicting orders, amplifying political and communal tensions across the country. From Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi to Shahi Eidgah in Mathura, from Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal to the Taj Mahal in Agra, from the Dargah Sharif in Ajmer to the Bhojshala in Madhya Pradesh, a host of petitions seeking the redetermination of the character of different structures have sprung up across the country. Despite the significance of the issue, the matter had seen little progress in the Supreme Court over the last two years. Justice Khanna took over as CJI from justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on November 11. He then formed a three-judge bench on December 7, paving the way for Thursday’s intervention. The Places of Worship Act, enacted in 1991, is central to this issue. The Act, which the court is deliberating on at the instance of the two sides – one challenging it and another seeking its strict enforcement -- was enacted to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The law expressly prohibits altering the religious nature of sites and includes stringent penalties for violations, though it exempted the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya due to ongoing litigation at the time. In its order on Thursday, the Supreme Court also pointed to its 2019 Ayodhya verdict, in which a five-judge bench underscored the Act’s importance in protecting the secular fabric of the country. The judgment had stressed that the legislation embodies the principles of equality and non-retrogression, which disallow revisiting settled issues. “When you have a judgment by a Constitution bench laying down certain principles, civil courts cannot run a race with the Supreme Court,” observed the bench on Thursday, adding that no other court in the country should pass orders on such disputes until the top court decides the matter. The restraining order was issued amid a sharp contest between lawyers representing Hindu and Muslim parties. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Muslim organisations, strongly advocated for halting proceedings, especially surveys, in subordinate courts to avoid conflicting decisions. Senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Singh and Vikas Singh, representing Hindu groups, opposed the order, arguing that such a restraint should not be issued without a full hearing. Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, also contended that external parties should not be allowed to interfere in ongoing suits. However, the bench was categorical, noting that the issues under consideration went beyond challenges to the 1991 Act and extended to its applicability and enforcement. “It would not be just and fair for any other court to pass orders while these questions remain pending before us,” said the bench. During the proceedings, the bench also remarked that those assailing the validity of the Act will have to present an effective counter to Section 3 of the Act. This provision imposes a prohibition on individuals and groups of people against converting, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination -- or even a different segment of the same religious denomination. The court granted the Union government four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act, which has been awaited for over two years despite mounting petitions. Although the Supreme Court admitted petitions challenging the Act in March 2021, the Centre has refrained from filing a definitive response. This delay came amid mounting challenges to the Act, primarily from Hindu petitioners who claim that it infringes on their fundamental rights to reclaim and restore religious sites allegedly destroyed during historical invasions. Petitioners include BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who argues that the Act impedes his right to pray at temples forcibly converted during foreign invasions, and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who contends that the legislation discriminates against Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Upadhyay asserts that the law violates these communities’ fundamental rights to preserve and manage their places of worship. Another notable challenge came from Kumari Krishna Priya, a member of the Kashi royal family, who argues that the Act is discriminatory because it exempted the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi site while denying similar exemptions to other significant places such as the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura. Recent years have seen an upsurge in legal suits seeking surveys of prominent mosques, including the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, to ascertain whether they were built atop demolished temple structures. These cases have proliferated in lower courts, leading to a patchwork of judicial orders that have further polarised opinions. While the Supreme Court initially refrained from issuing a blanket stay on such cases, Thursday’s directive underscores the urgency of stemming the escalating disputes until the apex court delivers a definitive ruling. The Places of Worship Act, enacted by the Congress-led government in 1991, aimed to freeze the status of all religious sites as of August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. For decades, the law remained uncontested, facing no significant legal challenge. However, the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment rekindled demands for reclaiming other religious sites, fuelling arguments over the Act’s constitutionality. The petitioners argue that the law unjustly prevents Hindus from addressing historical wrongs and restoring religious sites destroyed or converted during invasions. They claim the Act imposes a one-sided restriction on Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh communities while exempting others. On the other hand, Muslim groups, including the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, argue that striking down the law would shatter communal harmony and undermine the secular ethos of the Constitution. They caution that reopening these disputes could reignite fears among minorities and destabilise the country’s social fabric. Muslim clerics and groups welcomed the Supreme Court’s directive, even as Hindu petitioners termed it a “small impediment” in their struggle to reclaim their religious sites. “We welcome the directives of the Supreme Court and this will be a relief not just for the entire state but also for the entire country. The common people, especially Muslims, were restless over filing of suits against their religious places. We expect that Supreme Court, in its final judgment, will strengthen the implementation of the Places of Worship Act so that this stops all future controversies as well. This will be in the interest of the nation,” All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) member and Lucknow’s city qazi Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali said. On the other hand, Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain, who has filed petitions on behalf of Hindu parties seeking surveys of mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, said they will continue the fight for “liberation” of Kashi, Mathura and other places of worship. “The order passed by apex court is a small impediment in our struggle to get back our cultural heritage. But together we can and we will succeed. Miles to go before I sleep,” Jain wrote in a post on X.(CNN) — Donald Trump’s transition team is quietly strategizing how to assuage the anti-abortion wing of the Republican Party amid concerns that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s past comments supporting abortion access could complicate his confirmation as the president-elect’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Republican senators and anti-abortion leaders have already sounded the alarm about Kennedy, who was running as a Democrat as recently as last year, and his past support for abortion access until fetal viability, which Trump’s team sees as a key vulnerability. Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, a new member of Senate GOP leadership, recently told Fox News: “It’ll come up in the hearing 100%. There’s no question that this will be an issue. I will raise it if no one else does.” Trump’s team has already begun giving assurances to anti-abortion leaders that they plan to stack other top health care positions with anti-abortion advocates to help alleviate those concerns, two people with direct knowledge of the conversations said. “I made clear to them that this needs to be tended to,” one anti-abortion leader, who spoke with the transition team over their concerns, told CNN. “We have some serious policy and personnel concerns that have been propriety to our community for 30 years. The expectation they’ve given me is they will have an assistant HHS secretary who more aligns with us.” Few in Trump’s orbit were surprised by his decision to name Kennedy to the top health care role since he had repeatedly vowed on the campaign trail to give the former independent presidential candidate, who endorsed him in August, power over health policy. But questions over Kennedy’s ability to win over Senate Republicans vital to his confirmation arose with the transition team both before and after he was offered the position, two sources briefed on the matter told CNN. Even before Trump selected him, the team had discussed staffing HHS with deputies who are more conservative on reproductive rights to signal that the agency would not deviate from Trump’s position, sources briefed on the discussions said. Once those staffing decisions are made, Kennedy is expected to meet with anti-abortion rights senators on the Hill. Abortion opponents say they have two priorities they want Kennedy to address: installing anti-abortion advocates in top roles and restoring the anti-abortion policies enacted in Trump’s first term. “There’s no question that we need a pro-life HHS secretary, and of course, we have concerns about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I believe that no matter who is HHS secretary, baseline policies set by President Trump during his first term will be re-established,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told CNN. Some of the policies anti-abortion advocates, like SBA Pro-Life America, have said they want in a second Trump term are for HHS to revive restrictions on federal funding going to family planning organizations that provide information about abortion. One Republican senator, who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, said Republican senators concerned about Kennedy’s position on abortion will expect him to commit to reintroducing the restrictions on federal funding when he meets with them privately ahead of his confirmation hearings. “My general sense is that those of us who are more on the pro-life side of the spectrum here certainly don’t want the federal government promoting abortions,” the Republican senator said. “I think it’s pretty simple, and I think that would be the expectation.” Anti-abortion groups are also calling for the Trump administration to bring back an expansive approach to enforcing so-called “conscience protections,” which allow doctors and even hospitals to opt out of performing the procedure, and pushing for a reversal of several Biden-era policies, including guidance instructing hospitals to perform abortion in medical emergencies, even in states that ban the procedure, as well as a policy that allows for abortion pills to be obtained without an in-person doctor’s visit. Trump, amid pressure from anti-abortion groups and allies, said in April he believes abortion policy should be left to the states to legislate and later vowed to veto a federal abortion ban as president should such a bill reach his desk. In a statement to CNN, Trump transition spokesperson Katie Miller said Kennedy “has every intention of supporting President Trump’s agenda to the fullest extent.” “This is President Trump’s administration that Robert F. Kennedy has been asked to serve in and he will carry out the policies Americans overwhelmingly voted for in President Trump’s historic victory,” Miller said. A spokesperson for Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment. But Kennedy himself is aware of the concerns about him, two people familiar with the discussions said, and plans to personally assure senators that he supports Trump’s view that abortion should be left to states. During the 2024 campaign, Kennedy adopted several different positions, drawing criticism at various points from both abortion rights organizations and anti-abortion groups. In August 2023, while still running in the Democratic primary, Kennedy said he would sign a law banning abortion after three months of pregnancy if he were elected, though his campaign walked back his statement at the time. During a podcast interview in May, when he was running as an independent, Kennedy said he opposed any government limits on abortion at the state or federal level but walked back his comment after blowback from anti-abortion advocates, including from inside his own campaign. In the final months of his campaign, before he suspended his bid and endorsed Trump, Kennedy advocated for abortion to be legal until fetal viability and endorsed the framework implemented under Roe v. Wade. But he often downplayed the importance of abortion access as a salient political issue for voters, minimizing it as one of several “culture war issues” that are less important than “existential issues” like the national debt, inflation, attacks on freedom of speech and the increase in diagnoses of chronic diseases. In recent conversations with Trump’s transition team, Kennedy has indicated that he has little interest in shaping abortion policy, even as his role as secretary would give him broad authority over abortion access, including access to abortion medication. Instead, he has said he plans to focus more of his efforts on his promises to curb obesity and upend the nation’s food industry, sources familiar with the talks said. There is also a general belief within Trump’s orbit that, despite being controversial, Kennedy may secure at least a couple of Senate Democratic votes. However, that sentiment is not strong enough to prevent the transition from working to reassure concerned Republicans. Kennedy’s wavering on the issue led Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence — who staunchly opposes abortion rights and declined to endorse Trump this year — to call on GOP senators to reject his nomination. “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as secretary of Health and Human Services,” Pence said in a statement following Trump’s selection of Kennedy for the HHS role, calling the pick “deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who had lobbied Trump during his 2024 campaign to support a 15-week national abortion ban with exceptions, recently told The Dispatch of Kennedy: “I want to see what he has to say about abortion. ... That will matter a lot to me.” Some GOP senators, including those who sit on the chamber’s Pro-Life Caucus, said they are confident Kennedy will honor Trump’s position. “Being a Cabinet secretary is not an exercise in individuality, you know? These people serve the principal, the principal is the president,” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told CNN. “So, I assume that he will support the president’s policies, whatever his personal position is. You don’t get hired because of your personal positions.” Hawley added: “I don’t want to presume I know the answers, but I’d be really surprised if he didn’t say ‘I’ll support the president’s policies on this and faithfully execute those.’” Fellow Missouri Republican, Sen. Eric Schmitt, acknowledged he has concerns about Kennedy’s views on abortion but defended him nevertheless, arguing he was picked by Trump to shake things up and “challenge a lot of things that so-called scientists don’t seem to want to challenge anymore.” “So am I going to agree with him on everything? I am ardently pro life. Of course not. But again, I think the president deserves the opportunity to put people in place who are going to implement change within, within these agencies that got way too big, way too powerful and they’re not accountable to anyone,” Schmitt told reporters in the Capitol. CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Ted Barrett contributed to this report. The-CNN-Wire TM & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.I can’t sugarcoat how progressives feel at the close of 2024: rough. President-elect Donald Trump won back the White House with a campaign that was bigoted and fascist. And from President Joe Biden’s backing of Israel’s ghastly war in Gaza to his ill-fated decision to seek reelection, progressives aren’t celebrating his tenure, either. The next few years will see an onslaught of challenges. If you look closely, you’ll see signs people aren’t just going to roll over and accept it. Here are five that caught my eye. The American public has had it with economic elites. Union activity has been on an upswing for a few years, with union petition filings in 2024 significantly up over 2023. After a successful national strike in 2023, the United Auto Workers won an election in Tennessee this year, a significant breakthrough in the traditionally anti-union South. And more Amazon warehouse workers and drivers are pushing to join. Meanwhile, communities in places such as Wisconsin fought back against a private-equity takeover of nursing care. And nationally, widespread anger exploded over the greed of health insurance companies. Trump likes to play a populist on TV. But if he moves to slash workers’ rights, cut taxes for CEOs and erode access to health care, he’ll have a fight. The movement for a ceasefire in Gaza drew support from a vast, diverse coalition of young people — with additional support from faith communities, unions, environmentalists and others who’d previously stayed “in their lane.” They haven’t succeeded yet. But they’ve won broad, bipartisan public support for a ceasefire, an arms embargo on Israel and, more generally, foreign policy informed by human rights. Democratic politicians, in particular, won’t be able to avoid this issue. Temperatures continue to rise. Natural disasters worsen, and our leaders fail us on climate. The Biden administration’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, is unleashing record investments in green jobs, fueling unprecedented growth in renewable power. Meanwhile, Indigenous-led efforts are quietly reintroducing species to their natural habitats. The more local support initiatives such as these win, the harder they’ll be to reverse. One of the worst moments of the 2024 campaign was the ridiculous slander of Haitian Americans in Springfield, Ohio, by Trump, and other right-wingers. Springfield natives turned out to support their Haitian neighbors. Locals flocked to Haitian restaurants, churches and community centers to show their solidarity. The lesson is that, while hardline immigration measures can attract support in the abstract, people feel differently when they realize members of their communities could be affected. Progressives should defend their immigrant neighbors without apology. They may win some unlikely allies if they stand up for what’s right. Forget “red states” and “blue states” — there’s support for progressive ideas in all 50 states. Just look at the election. Several conservative states passed ballot measures to raise the minimum wage, guarantee paid leave, protect abortion access and liberalize marijuana laws. Once you filter out the noise around candidates and ask people about progressive policies directly, even “red state” voters tend to support them. The key is to make candidates run on those policies — without watering them down. Our politics are a mess. But the U.S. isn’t lost — only our leaders are. When Americans organize around our common decency, it will be a lot harder for bullies such as Trump to walk over us. Certo is the communications director of the Institute for Policy Studies. He wrote this for InsideSources.com . Get local news delivered to your inbox!
Guelph Council officially opposes to use of notwithstanding clauseFrom Juliana Taiwo-Obalonye, Abuja In a move to enhance Nigeria’s educational and developmental landscape, President Bola Tinubu has appointed new chief executive officers for several key agencies, including the National Universities Commission (NUC), the Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC), the Solid Minerals Development Fund/Presidential Artisanal Gold Mining Initiative (SMDF/PAGMI), and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). According to a statement issued by Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, he named Abdullahi Ribadu as Executive Secretary of the NUC. A distinguished academic, Ribadu is currently a visiting professor at the commission and has previously served as vice chancellor at both the Federal University of Technology in Yola and Sule Lamido University in Jigawa State. His expertise in veterinary reproduction is expected to bring a unique perspective to the NUC’s initiatives. He named Salisu Shehu as Executive Secretary at NERDC. Renowned for his work in educational and human psychology, Shehu played a crucial role in establishing the School of Continuing Education at Bayero University, Kano, and has served as Vice-Chancellor of Al-Istiqamah University in Kano. His appointment the Presidency said signals a commitment to advancing educational research and development in Nigeria. The President also appointed Jabiru Tsauri as the National Coordinator of NEPAD. Tsauri holds a Master’s degree in International Affairs and Diplomacy from Ahmadu Bello University and brings extensive experience in legislative affairs, global governance, and public service to this critical role. The President also approved the renewal of the appointment of Fatima Shinkafi as the executive secretary of the Solid Minerals Development Fund/Presidential Artisanal Gold Mining Initiative (SMDF/PAGMI). She was first appointed into the job by President Muhammadu Buhari and is said to be one of the driving forces of the changes in the solid mineral sector. President Tinubu expressed confidence that these appointments will infuse fresh energy and commitment into their respective organizations, ultimately fulfilling the expectations of Nigerians for progress and development. The new appointees are expected to leverage their diverse expertise to drive initiatives that align with the administration’s vision for a prosperous Nigeria.
SC State 72, IU Indianapolis 62
50 PTI workers acquitted in May 9 case PESHAWAR: Additional District and Sessions Judge Tila Muhammad acquitted 50 workers of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) accused of vandalism in a case pertaining to the May 9, 2023 protest, citing lack of evidence. During the trial, the prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in acts of arson and vandalism in the jurisdiction of Faqirabad Police Station. It was claimed that the suspects had set a cinema on fire and threatened its employees with dire consequences. Following the incident, police had registered cases against nearly 50 PTI workers. However, the defense counsel, Advocate Ali Zaman, argued that the allegations were baseless and politically motivated. He stated that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence linking the accused to commission of the alleged crimes. He said that the case lacked merit and was filed on political grounds, requesting the judge to acquit the accused for want of evidence. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the evidence, the court ruled in favour of the defense, acquitting all 50 accused.Harris still fared better against Trump than any other potential Democratic nominee, poll finds