Twins seeing ‘ideal version’ of reliever Jorge Alcala

posted in: News | 0

It’s not uncommon to see 98- and 99-mph pitches from Jorge Alcala. Sometimes even 100. But when 101 flashed on the T-Mobile Park scoreboard on Saturday night, it was a ‘wow’ moment from the 28-year-old Twins right-hander.

“Pretty unbelievable,” Twins manager Rocco Baldelli said.

But not, apparently, to Alcala, who somewhat downplayed his excitement over the fastest pitch of his career, which was officially clocked at 101.2, per Statcast.

“Very happy,” Alcala said through interpreter Mauricio Ortiz. “But the most important thing right now is that I’m feeling healthy.”

That’s something the Twins haven’t seen for a sustained period of time from Alcala in quite a while.

In 2022, Alcala threw just 2 1/3 innings at the major-league level, landing on the injured list with an elbow issue in April and never returning, eventually undergoing surgery. Last year, he threw 17 1/3 innings as he was slowed by a radial stress fracture in his forearm that cost him most of the season.

But the Twins always knew he had the stuff to be a late-inning reliever. It was just a matter of keeping him healthy.

“He’s worked very hard to get to this point,” Baldelli said. “He’s overcome some things and this is what I think the ideal version of Jorge Alcala looks like, and it’s always been in there. This is a guy that we’ve always believed in.”

Though the upside with Alcala has always been high, the Twins haven’t really gotten to see much of him at his best at the major-league level. Even this season, Alcala began the year with the Twins but was optioned twice to Triple-A before returning in late May and starting to establish himself as a later-inning option.

“Whenever you have the opportunities, take advantage, and right now I just feel great that I’m in these types of opportunities,” Alcala said.

The reliever has a 1.88 earned-run average in 28 2/3 innings this season and, the Twins have been pleased with how he has responded to what they’ve asked of him.

Specifically, Baldelli noted that Alcala was coming in and throwing his best stuff right out of the gate, something which they addressed with him after he would enter games throwing in the lower 90s earlier this season.

“When you throw one inning most of the time, you have to come in ready to go. You have to come in throwing strikes,” Baldelli said. “You have to come in with your best stuff, and you have to go right at the hitters. He’s doing a wonderful job of that right now from the first pitch on. Earlier in the year, some of those things I think weren’t taking place consistently.”

Case in point: Seattle’s Luke Raley, the first batter Alcala faced in the seventh inning on Saturday, saw three pitches above 97 miles per hour to begin his at-bat.

The next batter, Ty France, got the 101.2 mph heat from a healthy Alcala showing the potential the Twins knew was in him.

“It’s the best, just to feel healthy,” Alcala said. “You can focus on a lot of things, you don’t have to worry about your body. For me, being healthy right now is the best thing that has happened.”

Related Articles

Minnesota Twins |


Twins pull away late in win over Mariners

Minnesota Twins |


Twins’ Ryan Jeffers taking spring training approach to right himself

Minnesota Twins |


Byron Buxton, Pablo López lead Twins past Mariners

Minnesota Twins |


Willi Castro’s versatility lands him in small club

Minnesota Twins |


Twins lose lead late and drop game in extra innings to Mariners

Supreme Court sends Trump immunity case back to lower court, dimming chance of trial before election

posted in: Adventure | 0

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have some immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.

In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices returned Trump’s case to the trial court to determine what is left of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump. The outcome means additional delay before Trump could face trial.

The court’s decision in a second major Trump case this term, along with its ruling rejecting efforts to bar him from the ballot because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct and possibly uncomfortable role the justices are playing in the November election.

“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

Roberts was joined by the other five conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a scathing dissent.

Sotomayor, who read a summary of her dissent aloud in the courtroom, said the protection afforded presidents by the court “is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless.”

Trump posted on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

Smith’s office declined to comment on the ruling.

The ruling was the last of the term and it came more than two months after the court heard arguments, far slower than in other epic high court cases involving the presidency, including the Watergate tapes case.

The Republican former president has denied doing anything wrong and has said this prosecution and three others are politically motivated to try to keep him from returning to the White House.

In May, Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a felony, in a New York court. He was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 presidential election to a porn actor who says she had sex with him, which he denies. He still faces three other indictments.

Smith is leading the two federal probes of the former president, both of which have led to criminal charges. The Washington case focuses on Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. The case in Florida revolves around the mishandling of classified documents. The other case, in Georgia, also turns on Trump’s actions after his defeat in 2020.

If Trump’s Washington trial does not take place before the 2024 election and he is not given another four years in the White House, he presumably would stand trial soon thereafter.

But if he wins, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek the dismissal of this case and the other federal prosecution he faces. He could also attempt to pardon himself if he reclaims the White House. He could not pardon himself for the conviction in state court in New York.

The Supreme Court that heard the case included three justices appointed by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — and two justices who opted not to step aside after questions were raised about their impartiality.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni, attended the rally near the White House where Trump spoke on Jan. 6, 2021, though she did not go the Capitol when a mob of Trump supporters attacked it soon after. Following the 2020 election, she called it a “heist” and exchanged messages with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand firm with Trump as he falsely claimed that there was widespread election fraud.

Justice Samuel Alito said there was no reason for him to step aside from the cases following reports by The New York Times that flags similar to those carried by the Jan. 6 rioters flew above his homes in Virginia and on the New Jersey shore. His wife, Martha-Ann Alito, was responsible for flying both the inverted American flag in January 2021 and the “Appeal to Heaven” banner in the summer of 2023, he said in letters to Democratic lawmakers responding to their recusal demands.

Trump’s trial had been scheduled to begin March 4, but that was before he sought court-sanctioned delays and a full review of the issue by the nation’s highest court.

Before the Supreme Court got involved, a trial judge and a three-judge appellate panel had ruled unanimously that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the appeals court wrote in February. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the trial in Washington, ruled against Trump’s immunity claim in December. In her ruling, Chutkan said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

Related Articles

National Politics |


Stephen L. Carter: If Trump wins, liberals might regret this social media ruling

National Politics |


Supreme Court denies Steve Bannon bid to remain out of prison

National Politics |


7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll

National Politics |


Noah Feldman: It just got easier to be convicted of a crime

National Politics |


Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

Celebrity chef Justin Sutherland charged with threats of violence against girlfriend in St. Paul

posted in: News | 0

Prosecutors charged celebrity chef Justin Sutherland Monday with threatening to commit a crime of violence against his girlfriend in St. Paul.

Sutherland’s girlfriend later told police that during an argument on Friday, he “grabbed her neck with both hands and squeezed for approximately five to six seconds,” according to a criminal complaint charging Sutherland with one felony. “While strangling her, Sutherland said, ‘I could kill you.’”

She called her sister and Sutherland ripped the phone from her hand and broke it on the counter, so the woman ran to a neighbor’s house to use the phone, the complaint said. When she walked back to the house, Sutherland was standing in the backdoor with a handgun pointed at her, made a comment about her “talking to their racist neighbors” and said, “Take two more steps. I dare you,” the complaint continued.

The woman said she slowly walked toward Sutherland because he still had the gun pointed at her, and he told her, “I’m not kidding. I’ll shoot you. This is my property,” according to the complaint. The woman said she knocked the gun from Sutherland’s hand and Sutherland’s friend came in the room, so she locked herself in the bathroom.

Police arrested Sutherland and an investigator went to talk to him at the Ramsey County jail. He asked what he was being charged with. He was told he was being held on threats of violence and assault. “Sutherland said that was a lie and requested a lawyer,” the complaint said.

Sutherland is making his first court appearance in the case on Monday morning. An attorney for him wasn’t immediately listed in the court file.

Related Articles

Crime & Public Safety |


Celebrity chef Justin Sutherland arrested on suspicion of domestic assault, threats of violence

Crime & Public Safety |


Lakeville police investigating suspected homicide in Amazon warehouse parking lot

Crime & Public Safety |


How Legos went from humble toy to criminal black market item fueled by LA heists

Crime & Public Safety |


Teen arrested after St. Paul homicide charged with felony gun possession

Crime & Public Safety |


St. Paul man sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for two sexual assaults five years apart

The Supreme Court keeps hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to regulate social media platforms

posted in: Adventure | 0

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-President Donald Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute, while another upheld the Texas law. But both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be “protection against the Silicon Valley elites.”

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms “are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas,” Abbott said. “That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.”

But much has changed since then. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and, besides changing its name, eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back many users previously banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.

President Joe Biden’s administration sided with the challengers, though it cautioned the court to seek a narrow ruling that maintained governments’ ability to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy and protect consumer interests. Lawyers for Trump filed a brief in the Florida case that had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the state law.

The cases are among several the justices have grappled with over the past year involving social media platforms, including one decided last week in which the court threw out a lawsuit from Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing federal officials of pressuring social media companies to silence conservative points of view.

During arguments in February, the justices seemed inclined to prevent the laws from taking effect. Several justices suggested then that they viewed the platforms as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, rather than like telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation.

But two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared more ready to embrace the states’ arguments. Thomas raised the idea that the companies are seeking constitutional protection for “censoring other speech.” Alito also equated the platforms’ content moderation to censorship.

The justices also worried about too broad a ruling that might affect businesses that are not the primary targets of the laws, including e-commerce sites like Uber and Etsy and email and messaging services.

___