Sarah Palin Has Covid, Delaying Libel Case Against The New York Times - The New York Times

Sarah Palin has tested positive for the coronavirus, forcing the delay of her defamation trial against The New York Times until next week. The trial, which was set to begin with jury selection on Monday morning, is now scheduled to start on Feb. 3.

Ms. Palin’s in-person testimony in a federal courtroom in Lower Manhattan this week was expected to be one of the focal points of the trial. Ms. Palin sued The Times in 2017 after it published an editorial that erroneously asserted a link between her political rhetoric and the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011 that left six people dead and gravely wounded Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic member of Congress. The Times later corrected the editorial.

Ms. Palin’s lawyer, Kenneth G. Turkel, said in court on Monday that his client, the former Alaska governor, was still eager to appear.

“She wants to be here for jury selection, she wants to testify live,” Mr. Turkel told the judge, Jed S. Rakoff. Ms. Palin has had three tests, all of which came back positive, according to the judge. He also said that she was not vaccinated.

It is uncommon for a defamation case against a major news organization like The Times to advance to the point that it reaches a jury. It is even less common for The Times to lose one of these cases — that has not happened in 50 years in an American court.

The law offers robust protections to journalists and news outlets when a public figure like Ms. Palin accuses them of defamation. The Supreme Court has said that it is not enough for a public figure to prove that their reputation was damaged; the publisher of the damaging report must have acted with “actual malice” by either knowing the information was false or displaying a reckless disregard for the truth.

But Ms. Palin’s lawyers have argued in court filings and in public that the law is too broad in shielding journalists from liability. The larger constitutional questions about the limits of press protections won’t come up in this trial, but they loom over the case, which is being watched closely by media organizations and First Amendment scholars.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Sarah Palin Has Covid, Delaying Libel Case Against The New York Times - The New York Times )
https://ift.tt/3fUfIKo
Case

Supreme Court will hear case about race in college admissions - MarketWatch

The conservative-dominated Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the consideration of race in college admissions, adding another blockbuster case to a term with abortion, guns, religion and COVID-19 already on the agenda.

The court said it will take up lawsuits claiming that Harvard University, a private institution, and the University of North Carolina, a state school, discriminate against Asian American applicants. A decision against the schools could mean the end of affirmative action in college admissions.

Arguments are expected to take place in the fall.

Lower courts rejected the challenges, citing more than 40 years of high court rulings that allow colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions. But the colleges and universities must do so in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity.

The court’s most recent pronouncement was in 2016, in a 4-3 decision upholding the admissions program at the University of Texas against a challenge brought by a white woman. But the composition of the court has changed since then, with the addition of three conservative justices who were appointed by then-President Donald Trump.

Two members of that four-justice majority are gone from the court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, and Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018.

The three dissenters in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, remain on the court. Roberts, a moderating influence on some issues, has been a steadfast vote to limit the use of race in public programs, once writing, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

The court already has heard arguments in cases that could expand gun rights and religious rights and also roll back abortion rights in a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling from 1973.

Last week, the justice’s weighed in for the first time on President Joe Biden’s vaccine policies, halting a rule requiring a vaccine or testing at large businesses while allowing a vaccine mandate for most of the nation’s health care workers.

The affirmative action case probably will be argued in the spring. Both suits were filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group run by Edward Blum. He has worked for years to rid college admissions of racial considerations, and the court’s new lineup breathed new life into his project.

The group is calling on the court to overturn its 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan’s law school admissions program.

The Biden administration had urged the justices to stay away from the issue, writing in the Harvard case that the challenges “cannot justify that extraordinary step” of overruling the 2003 decision.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on college admissions several times over more than 40 years. The current dispute harks back to its first big affirmative action case in 1978, when Justice Lewis Powell set out the rationale for taking account of race even as the court barred the use of racial quotas in admissions.

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Powell approvingly cited Harvard as “an illuminating example” of a college that takes “race into account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First Amendment.”

Twenty-five years later, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor likewise invoked the Harvard plan in her opinion in the Michigan law school case.

Now the Harvard program is under fire from opponents of race-based affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions claims that Harvard imposes a “racial penalty” on Asian American applicants by systematically scoring them lower in some categories than other applicants and awarding “massive preferences” to Black and Hispanic applicants.

Harvard flatly denies that it discriminates against Asian American applicants and says its consideration of race is limited, pointing out that lower courts agreed with the university.

In 2020, the federal appeals court in Boston ruled that Harvard looked at race in a limited way in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Harvard’s freshman class is roughly one-quarter Asian American, 16% Black and 13% Hispanic, Harvard says on its website. “If Harvard were to abandon race-conscious admissions, African-American and Hispanic representation would decline by nearly half,” the school told the court in urging it to stay out of the case.

The Trump administration had backed Blum’s case against Harvard and filed its own lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian American and white people at Yale University. The Biden administration dropped the Yale suit.

North Carolina’s flagship public university prevailed in a federal district court in October. U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that the school’s program was intended to produce a diverse student body and had shown the benefits of doing so.

The court accepted the North Carolina case for review even though it has not been heard by a federal appeals court. Blum filed a Supreme Court appeal with the hope that it would be bundled with the Harvard case so that the justices could rule on public and private colleges at the same time.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Supreme Court will hear case about race in college admissions - MarketWatch )
https://ift.tt/3qUJdC8
Case

Assange wins right to take US extradition case to UK’s top court - Al Jazeera English

UK High Court gives WikiLeaks founder permission to take his legal fight against US extradition to the Supreme Court.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can take his legal fight against extradition to the United States to the Supreme Court, the United Kingdom’s High Court has ruled.

While the court in London gave Assange permission to appeal, the Supreme Court must agree to accept the case before it can move forward.

The decision is the latest step in Assange’s long battle to avoid trial on a series of charges related to WikiLeaks’s publication of classified documents more than a decade ago.

US authorities want Australian-born Assange, 50, currently in jail in London as he awaits a ruling on his extradition, to face trial on 18 counts relating to WikiLeaks’s release of vast troves of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables which they said had put lives in danger.

“Make no mistake, we won today in court,” said Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, with whom he had two children while in the Ecuadorian embassy. “Our fight goes on, and we will fight this until Julian is free.”

In December, the High Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that said Assange should not be extradited because his fragile mental health meant he would be at risk of suicide.

While judges on Monday refused him permission for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court on their decision, they said his case raised an issue of legal importance that he could ask the UK’s top court to rule on.

This means the Supreme Court will have to decide whether it should hear his challenge. The ruling will stall any extradition from the UK for now.

The 18 offences Assange is accused of are 17 counts of espionage and one of computer misuse – relating to WikiLeaks’s release about 10 years ago.

Washington’s charges against Assange carry a maximum prison sentence of 175 years.

He denies any wrongdoing. His lawyers say he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment freedom of the press protections for publishing documents that exposed US military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nick Vamos, a partner at Peters & Peters solicitors in London and a former head of extradition at Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service, said it was unlikely that the appeal would be granted. Assange can only take the case to the Supreme Court if the High Court rules that there are matters of “general public importance” to consider.

Soon after WikiLeaks came to prominence, Sweden sought Assange’s extradition from the UK over allegations of sex crimes. When he lost that case against extradition in 2012, he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

After relations with Ecuador soured, Assange was dragged out by British police in April 2019 and jailed for breaching British bail conditions, although the Swedish case against him had already been dropped.

US authorities then sought his extradition.

Even if the Supreme Court decides not to hear his appeal, the legal battle is far from over. The extradition must be approved by the home secretary, whose decision can also be subject to legal challenge.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Assange wins right to take US extradition case to UK’s top court - Al Jazeera English )
https://ift.tt/3tQ6cjL
Case

A Tricky First Case for the Man Who Wrote the Rules on Nazi Looted Art - The New York Times

The diplomat and lawyer who helped author the treaty used around the world to guide restitution claims is representing the family of a childhood friend, which has been sued to surrender a painting.

Few people have done more to advance the cause of people seeking to recover property lost to the Nazis in World War II than Stuart E. Eizenstat.

As a diplomat and lawyer, Mr. Eizenstat, 79, has advised five U.S. administrations, including that of President Biden, on Holocaust issues. He has negotiated with European governments and companies, recovering more than $8 billion for Holocaust survivors and families, and helped author the landmark Washington Principles on returning looted art, a treaty now used around the world to “expeditiously” promote “just and fair solutions” to restitution claims.

“No self-respecting government, art dealer, private collector, museum or auction house should trade in or possess art stolen by the Nazis,” Mr. Eizenstat said in an essay in 2019.

But, as a lawyer, Mr. Eizenstat had never gotten involved in an individual restitution case. That changed a few months ago when he agreed to help a childhood friend whose family is being sued by the heirs of a Jewish couple whose art collection was seized by the Nazis.

Since 2015, relatives of Ludwig and Margret Kainer have pursued a claim for a painting by Pissarro, the Impressionist master, that was once a part of the Kainers’ collection. Last May, the heirs sued the family of Gerald D. Horowitz, and in the ensuing weeks Mr. Eizenstat, a childhood friend of Mr. Horowitz’s wife, Pearlann Horowitz, agreed to work on the family’s behalf.

“Different claims to artworks that changed hands during World War II have different merits; some are clear cut and some are not,” Mr. Eizenstat said in a statement to The New York Times last week. “Our investigation of the historical facts concerning this painting has convinced us that this is less than a clear cut claim that raises complex historical questions and includes contradictory information.”

Mr. Eizenstat said Mr. Horowitz, who bought the painting from a New York dealer in 1995, had acted in good faith, without any sense there was a cloud on its title. He said his efforts to reach an amicable settlement were in keeping with his life’s work and that both sides had reached an agreement in principle.

“I believed,” he said in his statement, “I was particularly qualified to undertake the task of finding a ‘just and fair solution’ to both sides, as contemplated by the Washington Principles of which I was a principal negotiator.”

Though Mr. Eizenstat’s clients are themselves Jewish, the optics of his surfacing for the first time in a restitution case, not on the side of claimants, but of defendants, have surprised some experts in the field.

“I think it’s unusual that he is showing such limited support for the claimants,” said Lynn H. Nicholas, a historian and expert on Nazi looting whose 1994 book, “The Rape of Europa,” is credited with drawing attention to the scope of the issue. “But I don’t know all the details and he may have good reason.”

The Kainer heirs are seeking the restitution of a harbor scene that Pissarro painted in 1903.Lefevre Fine Art Ltd./Bridgeman Images

The painting, “The Anse des Pilotes, Le Havre,” an oil on canvas work from 1903, depicts a harbor scene and was part of the Kainers’ collection when the couple left Germany in 1932, eventually settling in France, according to court papers. Unable as Jews to safely return after the Nazis grabbed power, the Kainers stayed away, and in their absence, their world-class art collection and other furnishings were seized by the Berlin tax office, according to the suit filed in federal court in Georgia by 15 Kainer heirs.

In 1935, more than 400 Kainer possessions, including the Pissarro and 31 other paintings, were sold at auction in Berlin, the suit says, to pay a Reich flight tax, a financial instrument that was often used to punish Jews who fled the country. In 1963, a German appeals court ruled that the tax levied on the Kainers had been discriminatory, according to James Palmer, founder of Mondex Corporation, a company that pursues restitution claims and is representing the Kainer heirs. In addition, the Kainer heirs have a page from the 1935 auction catalog that references the painting.

The painting’s path for the next 60 years is not completely clear, though it was owned for some time, Mr. Palmer says, by a German industrialist who had bought it at the auction.

In 1995, Mr. Horowitz purchased it from Achim Moeller Fine Art in New York, but only after checking with a respected database that tracks looted art. The painting was not listed.

In 2014, the Horowitz family lent the work for display at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, around which time it was identified by Mondex, which was already working with the Kainer heirs. The Kainers had died in the 1960s without children, and their current heirs claiming the painting are the children and grandchildren of cousins.

The heirs sought restitution of the painting in 2015, and presented the Horowitz family with evidence that, by 2005, the painting had been listed in the Pissarro catalog raisonné as plundered “from L. Kainer,” according to the court papers.

But Mr. Palmer said the Horowitzes did not want to move forward with discussions because they were uncertain about who were the rightful heirs. (At the time, a foundation created by Swiss bank officials had been established to serve as the heirs to the Kainers and Margret’s father. But in 2015, a German court found that the Kainer relatives, not the foundation, were the couple’s true heirs.)

More recently, the Kainer relatives have presented additional evidence to support their claim, according to their court papers, including documents showing the Kainer couple had registered the work as looted with the French Department of Reparations and Restitutions, which published a record of the work, along with a photograph, in 1949.

And auction houses have treated several other paintings from the Kainers’ collection that had been sold alongside the Pissarro in 1935 as looted property. In 2009, for example, Christie’s sold Edgar Degas’s “Danseuses,” once owned by the Kainers, for nearly $11 million under the terms of a restitution agreement. (At the time, the agreement recognized the Swiss foundation, not the relatives, as the heirs.)

Ludwig Kainer was an artist and illustrator who designed sets for Serge Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes.Atelier Binder/Ullstein Bild, via Getty Images

Margret Kainer, who died in 1968, one year after her husband.Atelier Binder/Ullstein Bild, via Getty Images

Mr. Eizenstat began advising the Horowitzes sometime after the Kainer heirs took their claim to court last spring, according to Mr. Palmer, and is helping out the lawyer on the case, Joseph A. Patella.

Mr. Palmer said he was a little intimidated when Mr. Eizenstat joined the negotiations, which are being led by the Kainer heirs’ lawyer, Jason Carter, grandson of former President Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Eizenstat worked in the Carter administration as chief domestic policy adviser and served as deputy secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. His numerous awards include France’s Legion of Honor. Last year, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum awarded him its highest honor for working “tirelessly to secure a measure of justice for Holocaust survivors.”

“He is dealing with governments and policy and dealing on a much wider macro level,” Mr. Palmer said, “so for him to be involved in a very personal level, it was a surprise.”

Mr. Eizenstat said in his statement that he joined the effort in part because Mr. Horowitz is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and unable to defend himself.

“The Horowitz family are pillars of the Atlanta Jewish and secular community, with a sterling record of philanthropic support for a wide variety of charitable organizations, including the Atlanta Holocaust Survivor Support Fund,” Mr. Eizenstat said in the statement.

One sticking point in the negotiations, Mr. Eizenstat said, had been that Ludwig Kainer “appears to have made knowingly false claims about the circumstances of the alleged confiscation of the Pissarro, and had full knowledge of who possessed it after the war.”

He did not say what those false claims were. However, Mr. Palmer acknowledged that Mr. Kainer had misled French authorities around the time he first filed his claim by reporting that the painting had been lost in France. Mr. Palmer defended Mr. Kainer’s decision, saying that at the time Mr. Kainer couldn’t afford a lawyer to file a claim in Germany, and didn’t believe he would receive justice there. He also didn’t know the painting’s location, which Mr. Palmer said was required to file a claim with German authorities.

Though the negotiations appear to have been successful, there were some bumps in the road. Last week, before an agreement was reached, Mr. Eizenstat had said the settlement talks with Mr. Carter had been “advancing in a productive manner until this shocking breach of trust and improper conduct by Mondex, making sensational allegations to the press about confidential settlement negotiations.”

Mr. Eizenstat also took note in his statement that Mondex is a for-profit company, saying, “It is well known that Mondex acts and receives compensation from the Holocaust claims of others.”

Mr. Palmer said that some portion of the fees the company collects must go toward covering costs it incurs in pursuing restitution claims, “which we do with passion and pride.”

He said that there had been no agreement to maintain any confidentiality about the talks. “Certainly a ‘just and fair’ solution requires candor and transparency,” Mr. Palmer said. But, he said, more important is that the agreement in principle “is a very productive result for all of the parties involved.”

Mr. Palmer added that during the negotiations he had told Mr. Eizenstat it was an honor to work with him. “I told him that we would not have been in existence if not for him, so I thanked him,” he said. “I am very cognizant of the contribution he has made to the rest of the world.”

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( A Tricky First Case for the Man Who Wrote the Rules on Nazi Looted Art - The New York Times )
https://ift.tt/33ZDodQ
Case

Coronavirus case surge hindering economic recovery | TheHill - The Hill

An omicron-driven surge of COVID-19 is hindering the economic recovery from the pandemic. 

The swift, record-shattering spike in coronavirus cases has dampened consumer activity, spurred layoffs and forced millions of Americans out of work to take care of themselves or a sick family member. Private sector data on dining and travel, rising weekly jobless claims, widespread staffing issues and school closures are all pointing to dismal January job gains and slower first quarter growth. 

While economists say the omicron variant will not derail the economy as a whole, millions of frontline workers, working parents and service sector businesses are staring down another brutal pandemic winter.  

"It's pretty clearly doing things that are bad to the economy,” said Claudia Sahm, macroeconomic research director at the nonprofit Jain Family Institute. 

“The underlying pace of the recovery is in a place where it can weather the storm. But there are clearly some workers and some families and some small businesses that are not going to weather the storm." 

A slowing recovery driven by rising COVID-19 cases is a major challenge for President BidenJoe BidenSunday shows preview: US reaffirms support for Ukraine amid threat of Russian invasion The Fed has a clear mandate to mitigate climate risks Biden says Roe v. Wade under attack like 'never before' MORE, who ran for the White House on a pledge to end the pandemic and rebuild the economy. The president’s approval ratings on his handling of COVID-19 and the economy have fallen steadily as both virus cases and consumer prices spiked. 

Biden’s sweeping social services and climate plan — a pillar of his economic agenda — is on ice after Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinArizona Democratic Party executive board censures Sinema Biden seeks to save what he can from Build Back Better On The Money — Labor chief touts efforts to promote job growth MORE (D-W.Va.) torpedoed the package in December and insisted Thursday negotiations must start “from scratch.” The Supreme Court also struck down Biden’s private sector vaccine mandate last week, disarming the president’s most aggressive attempt to curb the pandemic. 

While the White House is scrambling to send out millions of rapid tests and masks, omicron has already taken a toll on consumer sentiment and economic activity.  

Fifty-nine percent of adults believe normal activities pose “moderate” or “large” health risks, according to a poll from Ipsos and Goldman Sachs Investment Research, the highest total since March 2021. Those fears are likely behind a sharp drop in Transportation Security Administration airport throughput and OpenTable’s dining tracker. 

“Employers with public-facing workers, like schools and emergency service providers, appear to have had particularly large shares of their labor force isolate due to the virus,” wrote economists at Goldman Sachs in a Thursday research note. 

Roughly 12 million Americans missed work in the first ten days of January either to care for a loved one with COVID-19 or to avoid contracting it, according to a Moody’s Analytics analysis of Census Bureau data released Wednesday, twice the total during the same period in December. 

Weekly jobless claims also rose by 55,000 to a seasonally adjusted total of 286,000 last week, according to the Labor Department, reaching the highest level since October. 

Both the claims data and the Census Bureau survey cover the period when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the federal monthly jobs report—a foreboding sign for January employment growth. 

“With so many workers out, odds are high that the BLS will report employment declined in January,” tweeted Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. 

“The worker shortages will likely also give wages and inflation another temporary boost.” 

Higher pressure on wages could be cold comfort for low-earning workers struggling with both the toll of frontline jobs during the pandemic and the strain of higher prices. While omicron’s relatively tamer symptoms may limit its overall impact, infection could still mean severe consequences for low-wage and frontline workers.  

"There's a lot of focus on the fact that omicron often leads to mild symptoms. But for a worker, especially a parent, the implications are still extremely disruptive,” said Molly Kinder, a fellow at Brookings Institution who studies the impact of COVID-19 on low-wage workers.  

Workers without paid sick leave or the ability to work from home could lose significant income even from a mild case of COVID-19, Kinder said, without the safety net of federal protections or unemployment benefits that lapsed last year.  

"A lot of frontline workers just simply don't have a cushion to draw on to be able to compensate for that," she continued "And if you're a parent, what you worry about then is your child can get it or could be forced to quarantine as well and not go to school or not go to daycare." 

Omicron could also delay the return to the labor force for millions of workers who’ve remained on the sidelines because of health concerns or childcare responsibilities.   

Despite the intense pressure facing some households and businesses, Congress is unlikely to send another major relief package to Biden’s desk. While lawmakers are discussing additional spending for public health measures such as mask and test distribution, the relative strength of the economy and high inflation makes more fiscal relief a non-starter.

“I do not think that we need any additional COVID spending. We've had too much government spending and the problems of inflation and stagnant labor force supply that we're seeing are, in part, really driven by excessive amounts of fiscal support,” argued Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.  

While Sahm said the Biden administration and Congress should have never allowed pandemic unemployment aid to lapse, she acknowledged the limits of broader fiscal aid in curbing the blow of omicron. 

Even so, she and Kinder both warned against attempting to push through pandemic by forcing potentially infectious workers to come back. 

“It's a very shortsighted policy to not give workers enough leave to stay home until they're healthy, because all that's going to do is encourage workers to come back to work while they're still contagious,” Kinder said. 

“Shortchanging that because you're worried about not enough workers could shoot yourself in the foot.” 

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( Coronavirus case surge hindering economic recovery | TheHill - The Hill )
https://ift.tt/3fRqfGk
Case

The Complicated Case For A Jerami Grant Trade - Forbes

Jerami Grant is a man who knows what he wants. In 2020 he left the Denver Nuggets, a rising contender, to go play for one of the league's worst teams - the Detroit Pistons - for reasons that were important to him.

This included playing for a black head coach and general manager, while also becoming a featured offensive option for the team - a role he had never had in the NBA before.

Now, 14 months into his Pistons tenure, having averaged 21.6 points over 78 games, his name is floating around in trade rumors as he's often named as a potential final brick to a winning team, that wishes to cash in their chips for a run to the NBA Finals. 

Sticking with his own vision

On the surface, Grant probably should be flattered at the amount of interest from so many teams. Maybe he is. But that hasn't prevented him from sticking to the belief of who he is as a player, and the role he should be receiving in the future.

According to Jake Fischer of Bleacher Report, Grant has little interest returning to the role of being a bit player offensively, further wishing to play a significant role in any offense. Additionally, Grant is looking for a new contract in the area of $112 million over four years, averaging $28 million per year.

It's fair to wonder if teams interested in Grant's services cooled on the idea of trading for him due to that intel, as most winning teams already have players occupying the roles of which he's seeking.

It's also fair to wonder if Grant is being realistic in his own evaluation of his capabilities. After all, having now played the role of featured scorer for over a year, the Pistons have continued losing, currently expected to finish second-to-last in the East this season.

That's not to insinuate that Grant could work miracles on his own. Outside of Grant, Detroit does not have a large group of players ready to be competitive at this point, which surely affects the end result in the win/loss column. Laying Detroit's issues entirely at Grant's feet is unfair, but it is reasonable to argue that his impact as a featured player is limited.

Finding common ground 

Interested teams could be in for a mountain of a challenge if they were to get serious about placing a bid for Grant. 

Not only would they have to convince him to take a lesser role to help the overall effectiveness of the team, they'd also have to plan ahead for Grant's 2023 free agency where he, as mentioned, is seeking a substantial amount of money. Grant is currently earning $20 million a year - the same amount offered to him by the Nuggets in 2020 which he declined - so a raise of $8 million a year will need planning.

More than planning, it will also need to be agreed upon internally from any franchise trading for him that he is worth that kind of money. If a team isn't willing to agree to his contractual demands, logic dictates he will go elsewhere to seek his fortunes. If that transpires, the trade assets spent on acquiring Grant in the first place would be entirely wasted in the long-term view.

Those are the three major challenges that lie ahead for interested teams. Initial acquisition cost. Role acceptance. Future compensation level.

For the side of Detroit, the ask is likely straightforward. With Cade Cunningham becoming the face of the future, Detroit is likely to ask for draft compensation, young players or both. It makes sense for the Pistons to play hardball here as well, given that they're aware of Grant's wishes, which they can fulfill for the time being by giving him carte blanche offensively.

As of right now, Grant hasn't shown a desire to leave, which gives the Pistons an advantage at the negotiation table. If a team is serious about wanting him, they more than likely will need to pay up.

Adblock test (Why?)

Article From & Read More ( The Complicated Case For A Jerami Grant Trade - Forbes )
https://ift.tt/3tQgKPH
Case

With New AG, Virginia Takes New Position on Abortion Case - U.S. News & World Report

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

With New AG, Virginia Takes New Position on Abortion Case  U.S. News & World Report Article From & Read More ( With New AG, Virginia Takes New Position on Abortion Case - U.S. News & World Report )
https://ift.tt/3qRJ9mI
Case