• H5N1 avian influenza, also called bird flu, is spreading through US chickens and now cattle.
• The FDA discovered genetic material from the virus in grocery store milk.
• Former surgeon general Dr. Jerome Adams explains why he's still eating milk, eggs, and meat.

Milk might contain remnants of the H5N1 bird flu virus that's raging through US chickens and cattle.

The Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday that it had discovered virus particles in "some of the samples collected" throughout the milk supply chain, from the cow to the shelf. The agency did not indicate how many samples tested positive or from where, but said the detections "do not represent actual virus that may be a risk to consumers."

However, the discovery suggests the virus has spread further through the US cattle population than officials previously realized. Scientists are growing more concerned that this avian influenza outbreak could make the jump into human-to-human transmission.

So far, though, many public health experts don't think this rings alarm bells about the safety of the food supply.

"I had eggs yesterday and I had milk last night, and I'll have a steak if someone gives me a steak," Dr. Jerome Adams, who was the surgeon general of the Trump administration and is now the director of health equity at Purdue University, told Business Insider on Wednesday.

"I still believe that the way we process and cook foods is going to disable most bacteria and viruses, including this one," he said.

Pasteurization should kill H5N1 in milk

The FDA oversees the nation's milk supply, and the US Department of Agriculture oversees dairy cows. Both say they believe the commercial milk supply is safe, due to the pasteurization process and the practice of disposing of milk from sick cows.

Pasteurization heats milk at a high temperature for a brief period of time to kill microbes living inside it. Some states allow the sale of unpasteurized, aka "raw," milk or cheese, which the CDC recommends avoiding.

Public-health experts told The Washington Post and The New York Times on Tuesday that they, too, believe pasteurized milk to be safe, but that the federal government should still conduct tests to confirm that. The FDA says such tests are ongoing.

"It's taking them too long to be able to reassure the public about the safety of milk," Adams said.

Some studies have shown that pasteurization deactivates H5N1 in eggs, the FDA says, and that happens at a lower temperature than milk pasteurization.

"To date, we have seen nothing that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe. Results from multiple studies will be made available in the next few days to weeks," the FDA statement said.

To be extra safe, cook meat and eggs all the way

There's probably no "significantly increased risk," Dr. Samuel Alcaine, an associate professor of food science at Cornell University, told Business Insider on April 6, but you can be extra safe by fully cooking your meat and eggs (until the yolk is firm).

Adams says he doesn't normally eat rare steak or runny eggs anyway.

"That has nothing to do with H5N1. That's just me being someone who's been in public health and food safety for a long time," he said.

His wife does eat runny eggs and rare steak, though, he added, "and I'm not telling her to change what she does."

He added that people should still follow basic food-safety practices: Wash your hands after handling raw meat or eggs, and before handling the food you'll eat. Prevent cross-contamination from raw meats or eggs and the utensils that have touched them. Always cook poultry to an internal temperature of at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit.

The biggest bird flu risk for humans isn't food

The people who are really at risk for bird flu are those who work closely with chickens, cattle, or other livestock.

The CDC says those workers should avoid unprotected, direct contact with sick animals, raw milk, animals' drinking water, animal carcasses, feces, litter, or other surfaces that could be contaminated with animals' saliva, blood, or other excretions. Workers should be provided with personal protective equipment for those situations and trained to use it properly, the agency says.

"It's spreading rapidly in these animals, and every time it spreads, it has a chance to mutate," Adams said.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/CgGqH2a
via IFTTT

• Alphabet is joining its tech peers like Microsoft, Apple, and Meta in the dividend club.
• Its $0.20 dividend is its first ever, and it also authorized an additional $70 billion in buybacks.
• The news could ease concerns of some tech investors spooked by Meta's earnings Wednesday.

Alphabet is becoming a member of the dividend club.

In its first-quarter earnings report on Thursday, Google's parent company said it's issuing a $0.20 per share dividend, its first ever.

It'll be paid on June 17 to stockholders of record as of June 10, and Alphabet plans to pay quarterly dividends in the future, the earnings release said. The company also authorized an additional $70 billion in stock buybacks.

Its earnings also helped buoy the shares. It reported total revenue of $80.54 billion in the first quarter, beating estimates. That's about a 15% year-over-year increase.

Following the news, Alphabet's stock rose roughly 13% in after-hours trading.

It joins fellow tech companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Meta in issuing dividends. Meta announced a dividend of $0.50 per share, also its first ever, in February, as well as its own buyback boost of $50 billion.

Alphabet's announcement — and that of Microsoft, which also beat estimates — could help ease tech investors spooked by Meta's earnings call earlier this week.

Despite its earnings beat, Meta's shares fell 11% on Thursday after the company issued weak revenue guidance for Q2.

The earnings report showed Meta is going to spend more than expected this year, too, due to AI investments as well as higher infrastructure and legal costs. On Wednesday's earnings call, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg warned investors it could be a while before the company's AI investments pay off.

Meantime, Microsoft CEO Sundar Pichai said in its earnings release that "our leadership in AI research and infrastructure, and our global product footprint, position us well for the next wave of AI innovation."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/qnpwxIc
via IFTTT

Operation Menai Bridge is code for the plans related to King Charles' death. Though details about the plan are tightly guarded, his passing will trigger immediate changes in both the monarchy and the UK. Here's what will happen.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/8rqKGHA
via IFTTT

• The rules are always a little different for Elon Musk.
• The Tesla CEO keeps it cool and keeps investors on his side.
• Despite his track record, Musk's promises still carry weight.

Once again, Elon Musk managed to buck expectations this week when the company's stock soared despite dismal earnings results.

Tesla quelled weeks of investor angst with Musk's word on two important future products: a long-awaited affordable model and the eventual activation of a self-driving ride-hailing fleet.

Musk did not give a timeline for when either of these things would happen (we might see one in August). Even if he did, the billionaire is famous for missing his own deadlines.

Still, Tesla's stock, which had been in a free-fall heading into Tuesday's earnings, has soared 16% in the days after. (It's still about 35% off recent highs, though).

Facebook owner Meta, on the other hand, reported relatively strong earnings for the first quarter — only to see its stock price plummet as investors worried over the cost of CEO Mark Zuckerberg's future AI ambitions.

While Musk talked cost-cutting, Zuckerberg had to warn investors the bets wouldn't pay off immediately.

Meta stock plunged in trading Thursday following the Wednesday report and is set to close down nearly 11% despite a healthy run of 27% since the start of the year.

From a bird's-eye view, the contrasting results are confusing. How can one company be rewarded by Wall Street for a sizable earnings miss, while the other is punished despite beating expectations for the quarter?

The answer is simple, but no less maddening: Elon Musk.

Over and over again, Musk has been able to quell investor worries simply by appearing calm and collected on the quarterly earnings call. For a bombastic and unpredictable executive, simply showing up as "the adult in the room" is often enough to get anxious investors back on his side.

Tuesday night was no different. Musk was cool heading into the quarterly earnings call, assuring investors that Tesla still had plans for an affordable model (without citing the reports that originally spooked investors) and painted a rosy picture of Tesla's future self-driving robotaxi business.

Sure, some of the blind trust in Musk's promises may be sycophantic. The list of things Musk unfulfilled promises for Tesla runs a mile long.

But Tesla's biggest believers often remind me that the list of things Musk has pulled off against serious odds is also impressive.

Industry experts and executives have told me several times over the years that Musk keeps investors' trust by consistently defying expectations, like making a once doomed car — the Model 3 — one of the best-selling cars in the world.

These moments are enough to keep the believers going, and Tesla's stock afloat, for now.

"The bears so far in 2024 have won this battle and been very right," Wedbush analyst and noted Tesla bull Dan Ives wrote in a Wednesday morning note to clients."But we believe the next wave of the Tesla growth story and autonomous vision is now forming and that is what we are focused on for our bullish investment thesis looking ahead."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/v5YuJiQ
via IFTTT

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed alarmed about Trump's ask for sweeping immunity for presidents.
• Jackson wanted to know how future presidents would be disincentivized to commit crimes. 
• She expressed fear it could turn the Oval Office into "the seat of criminal activity in this country."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was animated on Thursday when she discussed the potential of what could happen to the presidency if the Supreme Court were to grant presidents the sweeping immunity former President Donald Trump is seeking.

"The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes," Jackson said during oral arguments. "I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."

Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, argued for sweeping absolute immunity for former presidents that would shield Trump from special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. As multiple justices outlined during oral arguments, the issues in the case could have major implications for the future of the presidency.

Jackson appeared alarmed that some of her colleagues, especially some of the court's conservatives, seemed more afraid of limiting presidential immunity the court would neuter by the presidency by forcing future leaders to question if a political rival would try to prosecute them after they left office.

Instead, Jackson said there should be at least equal consideration given to the possibility that by granting sweeping immunity, the nation's highest court would give a green light to presidential criminality if a future president could even tangentially tie criminal actions to carrying out the job of leading the nation.

"Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that's a possibility," Jackson said later of how past leaders understood they could be prosecuted after leaving office. "That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I'm envisioning."

Jackson repeatedly underlined her points when questioning Sauer, underlining how far future presidents could push the envelope. She seemed particularly drawn to a brief filed by Georgetown Law School professor Martin Lederman that outlined how presidents with immunity could commit perjury, destroy or conceal documents, or bribe other public officials.

Jackson's concerns are based on another element of Trump's arguments, which propose that a president could not be charged with a crime unless the law they are accused of violating specifically mentions that it applies to the presidency.

The court's newest justice has considered Trump's conduct and the power of the presidency before. As a Circuit Court judge, Jackson torched the Trump White House for arguing that former White House counsel Don McGahn didn't have to cooperate with Congress' investigation.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote in 2019. "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/jGB1lhw
via IFTTT

• Self-pardoning wasn't on the table at Thursday's Supreme Court hearing.
• It was clearly on the justices' minds as they weighed if Trump should enjoy presidential immunity.
• Justice Alito asked whether every president could just pardon themselves before leaving office.

Before leaving the presidency, Donald Trump considered whether to pardon himself.

"I was given an option to pardon myself. I could've pardoned myself when I left," Trump once told NBC News. "People said, 'Would you like to pardon yourself?' I had a couple of attorneys that said, 'You could do it if you want.'"

Trump opted against it. But that was before he was the subject of four criminal prosecutions.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such a move would be permissible. But in oral arguments on Thursday, they danced around the question.

None of the justices tipped their hand on how they might decide the issue. But two conservative justices — Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — demonstrated that they were taking the question seriously.

The purpose of the hearing was for the Supreme Court to hear arguments over whether Trump should be immune from criminal prosecution for his conduct as president.

Trump's lawyers have argued that the high court should recognize a form of immunity that would shield him from Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith's indictment over his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

If Trump were to pardon himself, he would be able to get rid of the case, as well as another case brought by Smith, over his hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the presidency.

Gorsuch, himself a Trump appointee, entertained hypothetical questions about what presidents might do if they had to live with the constant worry that their successors would pursue criminal cases against them. He asked whether the dynamic would be an incentive for presidents "to try to pardon themselves" before leaving office.

"Perhaps, if he feels he has to, he'll pardon himself every four years from now on," Gorsuch said.

Gorsuch appeared cautious about tackling the subject.

"We've never answered whether a president can do that," Gorsuch said. "Happily, it's never been presented to us."

Alito, on the other hand, seemed eager to dig into the subject. He told Michael Dreeben, the lawyer representing Smith's team, that the question might be crucial as the Supreme Court deliberates the scope of presidential immunity. If the court decides former presidents could be prosecuted, then the obvious next step would be that they'd all try to pardon themselves, Alito said.

"Don't you think we need to know at least the Justice Department's position on that issue in order to decide this case?" Alito asked. "Because if a president has the authority to pardon himself before leaving office, and the DC Circuit is right that there is no immunity from prosecution, won't the predictable result be that presidents on the last couple of days of office are going to pardon themselves from anything that they might have been conceivably charged with committing?"

Dreeben referred to a 1974 memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel deeming "that there is no self-pardon authority," while noting the courts haven't decided the issue. But, he said, self-pardoning would "contradict a bedrock principle of our law that no person shall be the judge in their own case" and come with "political consequences," like the political fallout former President Gerald Ford experienced after giving Richard Nixon a blanket pardon.

"Those are adequate deterrents, I think, so that this kind of dystopian regime is not going to evolve," Dreeben said.

If Trump wins the 2024 election over President Joe Biden, he could find other ways to scuttle the two Justice Department indictments against him without necessarily pardoning himself.

As the leader of the executive branch, he may be able to order the Justice Department to withdraw the indictments, although that may not insulate him from the cases being revived under another administration.

Trump is currently on trial in New York under state criminal charges alleging he falsified business documents.

Because those aren't federal charges, a pardon couldn't make that case go away, but it could introduce complications.

The Manhattan district attorney's office has alleged that Trump faked documents in order to cover up federal election laws, keeping secret an affair with Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

In Georgia, where Trump faces another set of state-level charges, immunity is similarly out of reach. In order to obtain a pardon, he would have to be convicted and serve at least five years of a sentence.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/5bum79K
via IFTTT

• Satirical news website The Onion was sold to a company called Global Tetrahedron.
• Global Tetrahedron is also the name of a fictional evil megacorporation in a long-running Onion gag.
• But it's a real company, and Twilio founder Jeff Lawson appears to be behind it.

Jeff Lawson, the founder of cloud computing company Twilio, appears to have purchased the satirical news website The Onion from G/O Media.

A trust linked to Lawson is behind a San Francisco-based company called Global Tetrahedron, which shares the name of a fictional evil megacorporation in a long-running Onion gag, business records show.

G/O Media CEO Jim Spanfeller confirmed the sale of The Onion to Global Tetrahedron in an email Thursday to staff, first reported by New York Times journalist Katie Robertson.

"This company is made up of four digital media veterans with a profound love for The Onion and comedy based content," Spanfeller wrote. "The site's new owners have agreed to keep The Onion's entire staff intact and in Chicago, something we insisted be part of the deal."

Lawson resigned as Twilio's CEO in January following a year of deep layoffs and pressure from activist investors.

When asked whether he had purchased The Onion, Lawson played coy. "What's The Onion?" he replied. Then, "What's a Tetrahedron?"

Business Insider was unsure how to respond to these questions.

"Am I talking to Twilio founder Jeff Lawson or am I just taking crazy pills today?" Business Insider's reporter replied. Lawson did not respond.

G/O Media's spokesperson declined to comment.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/2aiGzTK
via IFTTT

• The cofounders of crypto mixer Samourai Wallet were charged with money laundering.
• The service anonymized hundreds of millions of dollars for dark web criminals, prosecutors said.
• Samourai's cofounders invited the laundering, prosecutors allege.

The cofounders of a cryptocurrency mixing service called Samourai Wallet — which rendered crypto transactions anonymous — have been arrested and charged with money laundering, according to an indictment unsealed Wednesday.

Prosecutors for the Southern District of New York claimed the crypto mixer made $2 billion worth of transactions untraceable, and that its founders — Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill — knew criminals were using the service to launder funds.

Rodriguez and Hill were charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.

The Samourai Wallet website has been seized. Rodriguez and Hill were arrested Wednesday, and the US will seek Hill's extradition from Portugal to stand trial, according to a press release.

About $100 million of the transactions executed by Samourai Wallet originated from "illegal darkweb markets, such as Silk Road and Hydra Market" — as well as various online schemes and other illegal activities, prosecutors alleged in the indictment.

And Rodriguez and Hill were well aware, the prosecutors said. They "openly invited users to launder criminal proceeds" publicly on X, in DMs, and in marketing materials passed to potential investors, according to the indictment.

Rodriguez was Samourai's CEO, and Hill was its CTO. They founded the company in 2015, according to the indictment, and the app has been downloaded over 100,000 times. All told, it netted them $4.5 million in transaction fees, according to the indictment.

"The FBI is committed to exposing covert financial schemes and ensuring no one can hide behind a screen to perpetuate financial wrongdoing," FBI Assistant Director James Smith said in a statement.

Lawyers haven't been listed for either Rodriguez or Hill and an attorney who has represented their company in the past did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment. If convicted, they each face a maximum of 25 years in prison.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/PgS1brk
via IFTTT

• Trump's lawyers say a president can get away with crimes if Congress doesn't find out about it while they're in office.
• If a president leaves before Congress can impeach and convict, they're home free, Trump's lawyers say.
• The Constitution's framers "assumed the risk of under-enforcement," his lawyer told the Supreme Court.

As the saying goes: It's not the crime; it's the cover-up.

If former President Donald Trump gets his way, a good cover-up will be enough.

In arguments before the US Supreme Court Thursday, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, said a former president can escape criminal culpability so long as they keep their conduct secret from Congress and don't get impeached.

Trump has asked the court to formally recognize sweeping legal immunity for presidents, with his lawyers arguing that impeachment and conviction would be the "gateway" for any potential criminal prosecution.

Such a ruling, Trump hopes, would squash Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith's indictment against him, alleging he criminally obstructed Congress with a plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost.

In oral arguments Thursday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked what would happen if potential criminal conduct wasn't discovered until after a president already left office.

"What if the criminal conduct isn't discovered until after the president is out of office, so there was no opportunity for impeachment?" she asked.

Sauer said the framers of the US Constitution "assumed the risk of under-enforcement" with the system they devised, which Sauer argues requires impeachment first.

"The separation of powers prevents us from righting every wrong, but it does so that we do not lose liberty," Sauer said, quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Trump was impeached — for the second time — by the US House of Representatives in the final days of his presidency over his attempts to subvert the election.

The US Senate held a trial in February, after he had already left office, and did not reach the two-thirds majority needed to convict him. No US President has ever been convicted after an impeachment.

Smith didn't bring his indictment against Trump until the summer of 2023 — more than two years after Trump left office.

While some of the conduct described in the indictment refers to Trump's open attempts to pressure members of Congress not to certify now-President Joe Biden's win, other elements of the indictment refer to details that were not fully known during his presidency.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/GnToSBA
via IFTTT

• Donald Trump appears unlikely to get the sweeping presidential immunity he wants.
• But a majority of Supreme Court justices appear ready to hand the former president an immediate victory.
• The justices appear likely to further delay a trial on Trump's efforts to overturn the election.

Donald Trump might not get the sweeping immunity he wants.

Still, the Supreme Court justices do not appear likely to dismiss the former president's claims quickly, raising the likelihood that Trump may not face trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election before November.

During arguments Thursday, Justices repeatedly underlined the historic weight of the case before them.

But for Trump the most immediate effect is that the significant issues at play will likely cause the criminal case against him to be delayed until after he wins or loses his next election.

Special counsel Jack Smith wanted justices to quickly deal with Trump's claims and then move the case to trial, which was originally scheduled to begin last month.

A back-and-forth in oral arguments underlined that enough justices would rather kick the case back to a lower court level to determine which of Trump's acts, as alleged in the indictment, are officially related to his job.

"I think you've acknowledged in response to others' questions that some of the acts in the indictment are private, and your view is that some are official," Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Sauer. "Is it your position then that that analysis of which is which should be undertaken, in the first instance, by either the DC circuit or the District Court?"

As Kavanaugh suggested, further arguments over the official and private line between Trump's actions could fall to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, in DC, who could be charged to hear and rule on the case.

A delay of this kind would make it almost impossible for Smith to try Trump before the November election. If Trump were to beat President Joe Biden, it's not hard to see how Trump would use his presidential powers to wiggle out of the case.

Smith's prosecution of Trump is the main avenue for the former president to face repercussions for his actions to overturn the 2020 election.

John Sauer, Trump's lawyer, argued that a former president should hold absolute immunity for actions that might only be tangentially related to a president's actual job. He drew his arguments from an earlier Supreme Court case that mapped the line for presidential immunity in civil matters.

Some of the court's conservative justices, especially Justice Samuel Alito, seemed especially sympathetic to Sauer's related point that there should be an extremely high bar for a court or prosecutor to question, after the fact, whether a president was truly doing their job when they ran afoul of the law.

Not every justice appeared as sold as Alito.

But even Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who appeared skeptical of some of Sauer's other arguments, suggested that Smith's team may have to alter the current indictment against Trump significantly if they want to proceed with the case quickly.

Barrett indicated the special counsel could focus solely on actions that Trump was doing outside his job.

Michael Dreeben, who argued on behalf of Smith's team, seemed hesitant to agree to such a fix.

"There's really an integrated conspiracy here that had different components, as alleged in the indictment — working with private lawyers to achieve the goals of the fraud, and as I said before, the petitioner reaching for his official powers to try to make his conspiracies more likely to succeed," Dreeben said in response. "We would like to present that as an integrated picture to the jury so that it sees the sequence and the gravity of the conduct and why each step occurred."

Barrett and other justices pressed both Sauer and Dreeben to go line-by-line through some of Trump's conduct as outlined in the indictment.

It is possible that the Supreme Court could rule that a more detailed review of Trump's conduct is best left to a lower court.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered what was almost a last-minute plea to her colleagues, questioning whether the case before them is really the one they want to use to draw a definitive line for every future president on what exactly is an "official act" in the scope of their job.

"If we see the question presented as broader than that, and we do say, 'let's engage in the core official versus not core and try to figure out the line,' is this the right vehicle to hammer out that test?" Jackson asked.

But Jackson's colleagues seem unlikely to be receptive to such a view based on Thursday's arguments, and recent history.

In June 2022, Chief Justice John Roberts admonished the court's other conservative justices for not limiting their decision in Dobbs v. Jackon to just the facts of the abortion rights case before the court. Justice Alito led a 5-4 majority that explicitly overturned Roe v. Wade. Conservative justices expressed similar concerns about Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges that found there is a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

Throughout history, justices have reached for more sweeping language than the facts of the case before them.

Multiple conservative justices, including Alito and Kavanaugh, stressed they were concerned about more than just Trump's conduct as alleged in the indictment.

"I appreciate that, but you also understand that we're writing a rule for the ages," Justice Neil Gorsuch told Dreeben at one point.

Trump would benefit from waiting for such a rule.

Because it would take so long to craft such a standard and then figure out how it applies to him, Trump could effectively avoid prosecution for any post-2020 election offenses at the federal level.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/TLXh9MW
via IFTTT