Politics

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Donald Trump on Thursday urged the United Auto Workers union to back his campaign, a day after the union’s president met with President Joe Biden after raising concerns about electric- vehicle policies.

Trump, the former Republican president seeking a return to office in 2024, said Democrat Biden was “waging war on the U.S. auto industry” through “crippling” electric vehicle mandates and urged the UAW to endorse him. Trump made the comments in a video posted on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Biden’s campaign responded that Trump was “the most anti-union president in modern history, stacking his cabinet with anti-union officials.” It added that under Biden, “more than 120,000 auto manufacturing jobs have come back to the United States, and new auto factories are popping up across the country.”

Trump said he advocated trade policies to help U.S. autoworkers during his presidency, including renegotiating trade deals. Biden’s campaign said that he supported incentives that helped dramatically add more U.S. electric vehicle and battery production.

UAW President Shawn Fain, who represents 150,000 U.S. hourly workers at General Motors, Ford Motor, and Chrysler parent Stellantis, has held off so far on endorsing Biden for re-election and has criticized some administration EV policies. Most other major unions have already endorsed Biden.

The UAW said in May that “another Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster. But our members need to see an alternative that delivers real results.”

In his Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump vowed to “terminate” green vehicle mandates, warning that if they continued under Biden, “American auto production will be totally dead.” Many congressional Republicans have also criticized Biden’s electcric-vehicle rules, arguing they would force automakers to end gasoline-powered production.

The trade group representing nearly all major automakers last month urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ease its proposal to cut vehicle emissions through 2032, saying this approach was “neither reasonable nor achievable.”

The EPA said in April the proposed 2027-2032 standards would cut emissions by 56% and require 67% of new vehicles to be electric by 2032.

Earlier this month the UAW called on the Biden administration to soften its proposed vehicle emissions rules.

Fain said last week the UAW was not ready to endorse Biden. “We have expectations and that’s why we haven’t made endorsements yet,” he said. “We expect people to be there for us if they want our endorsement.”

(Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

source

By Moira Warburton and Josephine Walker

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Thursday he did not promise Donald Trump that he would pass a measure aimed at expunging the former president’s two impeachments.

“There’s no deal,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told NBC following a report by the Politico news outlet that he had made such an agreement with Trump, the current front-runner for his party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

A Trump representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s House allies are rallying around him as he braces for a pair of potential criminal indictments for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat – one from U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith and another in Fulton County, Georgia.

No. 4 House Republican Elise Stefanik and hardline Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene last month introduced a bill aimed at expunging Trump’s historic two impeachments, from 2019 and 2021. Both impeachments passed the then-Democratic-controlled House but in each case Senate Republicans voted to acquit him.

There is no historical precedent for expunging an impeachment, but Greene said that would not stop her from pushing the measure forward.

“We’re lawmakers. We can do things that haven’t been done before, and this one certainly needs to be done,” Greene told reporters, calling Trump’s impeachments “an embarrassment, a stain on our history, and they shouldn’t have happened.”

It is a move, however, that could make more moderate House Republicans squirm. Some of them are likely to face difficult re-election bids next year in congressional districts that are often closely contested between the two political parties.

Another Trump controversy might be the last thing they would want hovering over their campaigns.

Democrats will be vying to recapture majority control of the House, which is now narrowly held by Republicans with a 222-212 margin, in the November 2024 elections.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, called the idea of an expungement vote “a disgrace.”

NEW INDICTMENTS LOOM

Trump, the only president to have been impeached twice, said on Tuesday he had received a letter from Smith stating that he is a target of a grand jury investigation into efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. That would be his third criminal indictment since leaving office.

There is no constitutional provision providing for the House to obliterate the two impeachments approved during a prior Congress. If such a measure were to pass, the historical record of those impeachments would remain, as would the Senate trials that were triggered by the House impeachments.

The House the first time charged Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he asked Ukraine to investigate Democrat Joe Biden, who went on to win the 2020 presidential election, and Biden’s son on unsubstantiated corruption accusations. The second time it charged Trump with inciting an insurrection, relating to the attack on the Capitol by his supporters.

McCarthy voted against impeaching Trump both times. McCarthy on Thursday called both impeachments politically motivated and not based on evidence that Trump had committed a high crime or misdemeanor, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

McCarthy’s remarks came after Politico reported that Trump was outraged at the speaker for withholding his endorsement of Trump’s third run for the White House. In return for delaying that endorsement, according to Politico, McCarthy promised to work to pass the legislation.

Politico said McCarthy had promised to do so before Congress leaves for an August recess.

(Reporting by Moira Warburton and Josephine Walker in WashingtonAdditional reporting by Nathan Layne in Wilton, ConnecticutWriting by Richard CowanEditing by Scott Malone, Will Dunham and Matthew Lewis)

source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House on Wednesday expanded its war on junk fees to the rental housing market, announced a crackdown on price-fixing in food and agricultural markets, and unveiled draft merger guidelines as part of an ongoing push to aid U.S. consumers.

President Joe Biden, who has made attacks on corporate greed and power a centerpiece of his presidency, explained the government’s latest actions at the fifth meeting of his 18-agency Competition Council at the White House on Wednesday.

“It’s about basic fairness,” he told Cabinet members and other council members, underscoring the need to continue driving down inflation. “Folks are tired of being played for suckers.”

The new measures came near the second anniversary of a Biden executive order creating the council and a government-wide attack on anti-competitive practices. It has already taken aim at meatpacking, ocean shipping and consumer junk fees.

The White House said four decades of “misguided economic philosophy” had resulted in rising concentration in three-fourths of U.S. industries, costing the median U.S. household up to $5,000 a year in higher prices and lower wages.

“We cannot accept bad mergers that lead to mass layoffs, higher prices and fewer options for workers and consumers,” Biden said. “I’ve said before, capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation.”

Hannah Garden Monheit, the new director of Competition Council Policy at the National Economic Council, told Reuters the administration would “use all the tools that we have” to curb anti-competitive practices.

While the junk fee crackdown has found strong bipartisan and public support, industry has chafed at the increased oversight, accusing the Biden administration of “regulatory overreach.”

Sean Heather, a senior official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said industry agreed that transparency was critical, but didn’t want to see overly prescriptive rules for junk fees or mergers, and said government data showed the U.S. economy was no more concentrated now than it was two decades ago.

Morgan Harper, a former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau official, welcomed Bid en’s drive for more competition and said it would help smaller firms and entrepreneurs.

“We don’t really have a competitive marketplace unless we have strong government enforcement,” Harper, now at the American Economic Liberties Project, said. “Concentration issues all over the economy are hurting workers, they’re hurting small businesses, and they’re hurting consumers.”

RENTAL HOUSING FEES

Biden said three of the largest rental housing platforms – Zillow, Apartments.com and AffordableHousing.com – had agreed to disclose total, upfront data on rental costs such as application fees that can run to $100 or more per application, and “convenience fees” sometimes charged for paying rent online or disposing of trash.

A senior official said the move would not lower fees on its own, but increased transparency should cut them down by giving tens of millions of renters a chance to comparison-shop.

Biden has repeatedly called for federal agencies, Congress and private companies to address surprise fees that can jack up consumers’ cost by 20%. Three of the biggest airlines have already agreed to scrap fees for children to sit with parents.

Other actions announced Wednesday included draft merger guidelines that pave the way for tougher scrutiny of planned mergers by Big Tech companies like Amazon.com and Alphabet’s Google.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren hailed the guidelines as a sea change after four decades of lax antitrust enforcement. “Giant corporations and their armies of lobbyists will cry foul at the prospect of more competition, but this action by the Biden administration is welcome news for American small businesses, workers, and consumers,” she said in a statement.

One senior official said the goal was to eliminate “various blind spots” that had contributed to consolidation, noting that the Federal Trade Commission had received over 5,000 comments as it was shaping the new guidelines.

The White House also announced moves by the Department of Agriculture, joined by 31 states and Washington, D.C., to target price fixing and other anticompetitive behavior in highly consolidated food and agriculture sectors.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; additional reporting by Diane Bartz and Leah Douglas; Editing by Leslie Adler, Heather Timmons, Daniel Wallis and Diane Craft)

source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican and Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation on Wednesday that would authorize President Joe Biden’s administration to negotiate a tax agreement with Taiwan, seeking to foster investment as Washington works to shore up the island against a rising China.

The lawmakers, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and top Democrat Gregory Meeks, said the agreement, similar to a treaty, would facilitate investment, protect against tax evasion and allow businesses in both the United States and Taiwan to avoid double taxation.

“In addition to the advantages we will receive from more investment from Taiwan, this is another important step in safeguarding Taiwan and maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” McCaul said in a statement.

The bill is a companion to a measure introduced in the Senate in May by lawmakers including the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Washington and Taipei do not have formal diplomatic relations, so the lack of a tax agreement means Taiwanese businesses and individuals are taxed on their income by both the U.S. and Taiwanese governments.

China views democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory and has increased military, political and economic pressure to assert those claims.

Taiwan is a major global supplier of the semiconductor chips essential to a wide range of consumer goods and military equipment.

(This story has been refiled to correct a typo in the headline)

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

source

By Karen Freifeld and Luc Cohen

(Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Wednesday denied former U.S. President Donald Trump’s bid to move from New York state court to federal court the case against him stemming from a hush money payment to a porn star.

“Trump has failed to show that the conduct charged … is for or relating to any act performed by or for the President under color of the official acts of a President,” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said in a written decision.

Hellerstein also said Trump failed to show he has a federal defense to the indictment.

Trump was indicted this spring on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment to silence porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. He has pleaded not guilty.

Justice Juan Merchan of New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan set a trial for March 2024, but Trump claimed the case belonged in federal court, arguing that his actions were related to the presidency.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has said she had a sexual encounter with Trump. He denies it.

(Reporting by Karen FreifeldEditing by Chris Reese and Leslie Adler)

source

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Wednesday denied former U.S. President Donald Trump’s bid to move from New York state court to federal court the case against him stemming from a hush money payment to a porn star.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Chris Reese)

source

By Sarah N. Lynch and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. federal public defenders system could need to cut as many as 500 from its staff charged with protecting the rights of poor criminal defendants, because of a budgeting error by Congress that could leave it with a 3% to 5% shortfall, officials said.

That would mean a reduction of as many as 12% of the roughly 4,100 employees of the Federal Public and Community Defenders, the office that represents indigent federal criminal defendants, who could in turn be left to spend more time in jail awaiting trial.

The agency has already been found to be understaffed: A 2022 independent judiciary commission study found the offices need to add at least 250 more people to handle current case loads, defenders told Reuters.

An appropriations bill moving through the Republican-led House of Representatives would reduce spending during the 2024 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 for federal public defender services by about $42 million from its current $1.49 billion budget.

A version drafted by the Democratic-controlled Senate would lead to a nearly $71 million cut, federal defenders told Reuters in interviews.

The agency has already imposed a nationwide hiring freeze to brace for the cuts, according to a July 13 email seen by Reuters.

Officials warn the resulting layoffs and furloughs for public defenders, along with possible cuts and delays to payments to the 8,000 private court-appointed lawyers nationwide, would be of the magnitude experienced in 2013 when similarly-sized belt-tightening was imposed by Congress.

That year, the 87 chief judges of federal district courts warned the reductions had “a devastating and long-lasting impact” on the criminal justice system.

Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin said he is aware of the budgeting problem and hopes to fix it before Congress settles on a final version.

“We are at risk of critically underfunding their constitutionally-mandated services,” he said in a statement to Reuters.

Without significant changes, the cuts would strain offices such as in Washington, D.C., where prosecutors have charged more than 1,000 people for the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and are expected to bring as many as 1,200 more cases, according to a letter from the D.C. federal prosecutor’s office to the court last year.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the Federal Public and Community Defenders, said it is assessing the impact of the proposed legislation.

The U.S. Constitution requires the appointment of a lawyer to criminal defendants who cannot afford one. Approximately 90% of federal criminal defendants qualify.

The defendants are “the most impoverished people who are very often the most marginalized and very often people of color,” said Melody Brannon, the top federal defender in Kansas.

Melanie Morgan, a Kansas lawyer whose firm does court-appointed work, warned that reduced or delayed payments for private lawyers might deter some from participating.

“We do it because we are true believers in the system, but it comes down to dollars and cents,” she said.

Attorneys and congressional sources said the budgeting error stems from unique circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic court closures and travel disruptions.

Those disruptions gave the defender services office an unusually large surplus of $111 million that carried over into 2023, contributing to an artificially low 2023 appropriation.

But Congress didn’t re-adjust that number for 2024, leading to the shortfalls in the two perspective bills.

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Richard Cowan; Editing by Scott Malone and Daniel Wallis)

source

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) -A federal judge on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump’s request for a new trial after a jury found the former U.S. president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million.

In a 59-page decision, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan also dismissed Trump’s arguments for reducing damages to less than $1 million.

Kaplan said the unanimous May 9 verdict was “almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll,” and neither a “seriously erroneous result” nor a “miscarriage of justice.”

Trump, who is again seeking the presidency, appealed the decision, adding it to his earlier appeal of the jury verdict. His lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Carroll, 79, accused Trump, 77, of raping her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s, and defaming her in an October 2022 social media post when he branded the incident a “Hoax and a lie” and said Carroll was not his “type.”

She is also pursuing a $10 million defamation lawsuit against Trump over similar comments in June 2019, after she first accused him of forcing himself upon her in the Bergdorf Goodman store. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2024.

Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge, said her client looks forward to collecting the $5 million and the second trial.

In a separate legal setback for Trump on Wednesday, another judge rejected his bid to move a criminal case against him involving a hush-money payment to a porn star to federal court from a New York state court.

Trump faces many other legal problems, including a federal indictment over classified documents he took from the White House and possible charges over his efforts to remain president after his 2020 election loss.

JUDGE SAYS TRUMP MISINTERPRETED JURY VERDICT

In seeking a reduction in damages in Carroll’s case, Trump called the $2 million award for sexual abuse “grossly excessive” because such abuse could have included groping Carroll’s breasts through clothing, “a far cry from rape.”

But Judge Kaplan said New York’s penal law defines rape much more narrowly than ordinary people think of the term, and that Trump was wrong to insist it excused him.

“The proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm,” the judge wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and (ignored) evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump,” he added.

The judge also said the evidence justified awarding Carroll $3 million for defamation, rejecting Trump’s claim that the award was based on “pure speculation” about how Carroll’s reputation was harmed.

Carroll filed her first lawsuit in November 2019.

She amended it after Trump disparaged her in a CNN town hall one day after the $5 million verdict, calling her account “fake” and her a “whack job.”

Trump is also suing Carroll for defamation, after she said “oh yes, he did; oh yes, he did” when asked on CNN about the jury finding that he did not commit rape.

Carroll wants to dismiss that claim, saying her statement was “substantially true” and reflected her thoughts as the verdict was read.

The case is Carroll v. Trump, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-10016. Carroll’s original lawsuit is Carroll v Trump in the same court, No. 20-07311.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis)

source

By Andrew Goudsward

FORT PIERCE, Florida (Reuters) -Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a U.S. federal judge on Tuesday not to treat the former president the same as any other criminal defendant in setting the timing for his trial on charges of mishandling classified documents, citing his presidential campaign.

Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination to face Democratic President Joe Biden in the 2024 election, has pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawfully retaining national defense documents after he left office in 2021 and conspiring to obstruct government efforts to retrieve them.

Trump lawyer Christopher Kise asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, to consider the timing of the U.S. presidential campaign in deciding when to schedule the trial.

Cannon did not set a trial date during the hearing, which Trump did not attend, but appeared skeptical of prosecutors’ request for a December start. She asked prosecutor Jay Bratt if there had ever been a case involving classified information that had gone to trial in less than six months. Bratt said he could not point to a specific case.

But Cannon also did not seem inclined to grant Trump’s request for an indefinite delay, saying, “we need to set a schedule.”

The documents case is one of several prosecutions Trump is facing related to his time in the White House. Trump said on Tuesday that U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the documents case, has also sent Trump a letter telling him he is a target of a grand jury investigation into his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

During Tuesday’s hearing in the documents case, Trump attorney Kise said that because the U.S. Justice Department under Biden brought the charges, the case could be seen as the “two leading contenders for president of the United States squaring off in court.”

Prosecutor David Harbach called suggestions of political interference “flat out false.” He noted that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to distance the investigation from politics.

He said career prosecutors assigned to the case would not be working it if “we thought we were doing somebody’s political bidding.”

The charges against Trump include violations of the Espionage Act, which criminalizes unauthorized possession of defense information. Trump, 77, would face a sentence of up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Cannon initially scheduled the trial to start on Aug. 14 – a date that both the defense and prosecution opposed because they said they needed more time to prepare.

After an FBI search last year at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, that turned up classified documents central to the criminal case, Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor in a challenge he brought to the Justice Department’s investigation brought months before criminal charges were filed. Cannon’s ruling was later overturned on appeal.

(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Will Dunham, David Bario, Noeleen Walder and Daniel Wallis)

source

By Sarah N. Lynch and Jacqueline Thomsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he had received a letter from Special Counsel Jack Smith stating that he is a target of a grand jury investigation into efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election defeat.

A letter would represent the clearest sign to date that Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, may face federal criminal charges around his efforts to remain in power after losing the election to Joe Biden.

Officials have testified that during his final months in office, Trump pressured them with false claims of widespread voter fraud. His supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in a Jan. 6, 2021, bid to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s win.

Smith “sent a letter (again, it was Sunday night!) stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social media site.

His attorneys could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for Smith’s office declined to comment.

It was one of a series of developments in the various criminal investigations into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn his election defeat.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel on Tuesday announced criminal charges against 16 Trump supporters who allegedly submitted a phony slate of electors in an effort to overturn his 2020 defeat in that state. A prosecutor in Georgia is investigating a similar effort in that state.

Trump’s legal woes have so far failed to dent his efforts to win the 2024 Republican nomination. His lead in opinion polls has widened in recent months, with his unsubstantiated allegations that partisan bias was behind the investigations helping to shore up support among his base, and his Republican rivals largely joining his criticism of prosecutors.

At a town hall in Iowa with Fox News on Tuesday, Trump took personal shots at Smith while claiming, without evidence, that prosecutors were out to help Biden.

“This guy is a deranged prosecutor,” Trump said, referring to Smith. “He’s a nasty, horrible human being.”

‘YOU’RE GOING TO GET INDICTED’

Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor, said a person who receives a target letter should “presume that you’re going to get indicted, unless you give us a damn good reason why we shouldn’t.”

Smith has already brought criminal charges against Trump in a separate federal case alleging he unlawfully retained national security documents after leaving office in 2021 and conspired to obstruct efforts to retrieve them. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

According to a court filing, Smith sent a target letter to Trump’s lawyers in that case on May 19, roughly three weeks before he filed charges.

Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over that case, to consider the timing of his presidential campaign when deciding when the trial should take place. Cannon appeared skeptical of prosecutors’ request for a December start, but also did not seem inclined to grant Trump’s request for an indefinite delay.

As part of the 2020 election investigation, a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., has heard testimony from high-profile former Trump administration officials, including Mike Pence, who served as Trump’s vice president.

In his Truth Social post, Trump said Smith’s office had given him “a very short 4 days” to appear before the grand jury in the probe.

In federal investigations, targets are sometimes provided an opportunity to testify before a grand jury if they have not already done so before prosecutors seek an indictment.

In the Jan. 6, 2021, rampage at the Capitol, Trump’s supporters attacked police and forced lawmakers who were in the process of certifying the results of the 2020 election to flee for their lives.

The attack came shortly after Trump told supporters in an incendiary speech near the White House to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to “stop the steal” of the election.

More than 1,000 people have been charged with crimes connected with the riot, including some who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump’s nearest rival for the Republican nomination, criticized the investigation as politically motivated and said Trump should not be charged.

“We’ve gone down the road in this country of trying to criminalize differences in politics,” he said on CNN on Tuesday.

Trump is the first former president to be indicted.

In addition to the charges in the classified documents case, Trump faces New York state criminal charges accusing him of falsifying business records concerning a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence before the 2016 election about a sexual encounter she has confirmed but he denies.

He has pleaded not guilty in that case as well.

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a bid by Trump to block a state investigation into whether he and his allies illegally attempted to meddle with Georgia’s 2020 election.

Republican strategist Matt Dole said any indictment would likely help Trump with fundraising but could deter some moderate Republicans and hinder his chances in the general election.

“I do think that it gives soft Trump supporters pause and reason to look elsewhere for a candidate with Trump’s populism, but less of the circus – someone like Ron DeSantis,” Dole said.

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Jacqueline Thomsen; Additional reporting by Katharine Jackson, Moira Warburton, Andy Sullivan, Rami Ayyub and Nathan Layne; Editing by Scott Malone, Howard Goller, Daniel Wallis and Jamie Freed)

source