Local crops ruined by deer and bear
Farmers in Henry and Patrick counties say deer and bear are ruining their crops at an alarming rate. A group…
Author: admin
Smith Mountain Lake has highest incident rate
The Virginia Department of Wildlife says there were 11 boating incidents at Smith Mountain Lake last year, and two deaths…
Gunshot detectors taken down
The gunshot system installed in Martinsville in 2023 has been removed. Police say the grant funding for the project had…
Crashes in Pittsylvania and Floyd counties
63-year-old James Dillard Ley II of Danville died, police say, when he failed to yield the right-of-way in his 2009…
Scoreboard roundup — 3/23/26
(NEW YORK) — Here are the scores from Monday’s sports events:
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
Rockets 124, Bulls 132
Raptors 143, Jazz 127
Warriors 137, Mavericks 131
Nets 99, Trail Blazers 134
Bucks, Clippers 129
Lakers 110 Pistons 113
Pacers 128, Magic 126
Thunder 123, 76ers 103
Spurs 136, Heat 111
Grizzlies 107, Hawks 146
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Senators 2, Rangers 1
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Jason Bateman, David Harbour unpack Clark and Floyd’s relationship in ‘DTF St. Louis’
(SPOILER ALERT) We’re over halfway through HBO’s miniseries DTF St. Louis, and the twists don’t seem to be stopping anytime soon.
By the end of episode 4, which aired Sunday on HBO, Floyd (David Harbour) has passed his physical, and his best friend Clark (Jason Bateman) and wife, Carol (Linda Cardellini), have successfully gotten him life insurance.
One of the key parts of this episode is the bromance between Clark and Floyd. Despite Clark having an affair with Carol, the show takes great pains to show that the men genuinely care for each other. In fact, Clark says that he loves Floyd. Are we to take this as just friendship, or perhaps something more? Bateman told ABC Audio this is a question that will be answered throughout the rest of the season.
“He’s in a place in his life where he’s open to anything and everything that will provide him a more fulsome life. Something that just feels a little bit more involved than what he’s been in,” Bateman said. “It’s a dangerous place for anyone to be in if you don’t have the skills to recognize bad coming.”
Bateman continued, saying that Clark is “very trusting and he’s open and he is very desperate, and those are the ingredients for a compelling show.”
As for what that means for Clark and Floyd’s relationship, Bateman said, “The Floyd relationship is something that is really fulfilling for him. Where that goes you’ll have to see, but he’s open to any direction.”
Harbour also gave a tease for what fans can expect from the characters in the show’s final episodes.
“There’s a lot of stuff in those last three episodes between me and Clark that is very special. They’re my favorite stuff in the series,” Harbour said. “It’s very complex and dense.”
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Judge allows release of deposition videos of 2 former DOGE staffers
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge is allowing the release of deposition videos of two former DOGE staffers, ruling that the risk of “embarrassment and reputational harm” is not enough to overcome the public interest in the videos.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon on Monday lifted an earlier order requiring a group of nonprofits to remove the videos from the internet after lawyers with the Justice Department argued that the former Department of Government Efficiency staffers faced threats because of the depositions’ release.
While Judge McMahon acknowledged that the former staffers faced threats, she said the DOJ could not prove a “particularized harm” to the former staffers that would overcome the public interest in their official conduct as government employees.
“Here, the testimony in the videos concerns the conduct of public officials acting in their official capacities — a context in which the public interest in transparency and accountability is at its apex,” she wrote.
Judge McMahon concluded that ordering the videos removed would have little impact on the alleged threats because the videos had been already shared hundreds of thousands of times online.
The DOJ, she said, failed to prove that ordering the removal of the videos “would materially reduce the alleged risk of harm or embarrassment.”
“The videos have already been widely disseminated across multiple platforms, including YouTube, X, TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit, where they have been shared, reposted, and viewed by at least hundreds of thousands of users, resulting in near-instantaneous and effectively permanent global distribution,” she said.
“This is a predictable consequence of dissemination in the modern digital environment, where content can be copied, redistributed, and indefinitely preserved beyond the control of any single actor,” wrote the judge.
“This decision validates our position that the publication of the videos, which document a process to destroy knowledge and access to vital public programs, was indeed in the public’s interest,” said Joy Connolly, president of the American Council of Learned Societies, one of the nonprofits that released the videos. “We look forward to continuing the pursuit of justice in reclaiming government support for important humanities research, education, and sustainability initiatives.”
The videos were initially released as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit related to the funding cuts carried out by DOGE as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to trim the size of the federal government. In the videos, two former DOGE staffer. — Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh — were questioned about their push to cut more than $100 million in humanities grants, and acknowledged they used DEI keywords and ChatGPT to identify grants to eliminate.
“You don’t regret that people might have lost important income … to support their lives?” an attorney asked one of the staffers about the grant cancellations.
“No. I think it was more important to reduce the federal deficit from $2 trillion to close to zero,” the staffer said.
“Did you reduce the federal deficit?” the attorney asked.
“No, we didn’t,” he said.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Supreme Court appears likely to set limits on mail-in ballots
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday appeared sympathetic to arguments by the Republican National Committee seeking to limit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or before.
Many justices voiced concerns about a Mississippi law being challenged by the RNC for allowing tabulation of absentee ballots that arrive as late as five days after polls close. “Both sides agree there needs to be a final decision by the voter and receipt [of the ballot] — by somebody — by Election Day,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “I think the disagreement is receipt by whom.”
For more than a century, Congress has established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for election of members of the House, Senate, and presidential electors, in specified years.
Republicans argue that the term “election” means both “ballot submission and receipt” by state election officials. Mississippi and several voter advocacy groups defending the state law insist “election” means when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots to a mailbox, drop box, or polling place.
“I think if you were looking at the text in isolation — day for the election — your first instinct might be in-person voting on that day, is what that text literally meant,” posited Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sounded skeptical of the state law.
Thirty states plus D.C. have measures providing a grace period for voters, including military service members overseas, who rely on the Postal Service or other commercial letter carriers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that allowing each state to set its own policy for late -arriving ballots has created challenges for administering a national election. “We don’t have Election Day anymore. We have election month or we have election months,” he said, skeptically.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the potentially thorny prospect of states allowing voters to recall — or, change — their ballots once mailed. “Would that be illegal?” she asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart. He said he was unaware of any instance of that happening.
The court’s three liberal justices were largely united in support of states’ ability to develop their own voting guidelines, pushing back on claims by lawyers for the RNC and Trump administration, which has advocated for “getting rid of mail-in ballots” altogether.
“The Constitution vests the issue of elections in states, unless superseded by Congress,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “If there is a policy he people who should decide this issue is not the courts.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, despite decades of precedent of states counting some timely-cast but late-arriving ballots, Congress has never sought to override the laws. “The idea of votes being cast and counted after an election is not new,” she said.
Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Republicans’ rationale for eliminating some mail-in ballots could also implicate early voting. “How are you not taking issue with early voting?” she asked RNC attorney Paul Clement. “You say casting and receipt [of ballots] has to be on Election Day.”
“These things have to be consummated by Election Day,” Clement replied.
“Once we go down this road,” said Kagan, “where are we going to end up?”
Most Americans, 58%, support allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail, according to a Pew Research Center survey late last year. But there is sharp division among parties, with 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters favoring mail-voting with 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters opposed.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempted to cut federal election funding to states that have mail ballot receipt grace periods, but it has largely been blocked by federal courts for now.
Trump has also been pushing Republicans in Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would — in part — outlaw voting by mail for anyone without a legitimate excuse, such as military service, illness, or disability, making it impossible to vote in person.
In a nod to Trump and fraud concerns raised by many conservatives, Justice Kavanaugh suggested late-arriving ballots might “open up a risk of what might destabilize election results” — namely, a swing in election outcome as tardy votes are tabulated.
“Is that a real concern?” Kavanaugh asked Stewart. “Does that factor into how we think about how to resolve the scant text and the maybe conflicting or 21 evolving history here?”
“I certainly respect the perception,” replied Stewart, a Republican. “I think one thing notable in this case and I think helpful is that there has not been much of a showing about actual fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt itself.”
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election arrived after Election Day but were still legally counted that year across 22 states and territories with a post-election grace period, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commssion.
Data on which party benefitted more from those ballots is not clear, neither is the impact of any possible changes to mail ballot rules following a Court decision.
Voting rights advocates warn that an abrupt change in policy could lead to widespread rejection of ballots that were properly cast by well-intended voters but experienced unintended delivery delays by the Postal Service or other circumstances.
Republicans insist there is ample time to educate the public on timely submission of mail-in ballots ahead of the November vote and that limiting late-arriving ballots could bolster election integrity.
A decision from the high court is expected by the end of June.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Senate set to vote on confirming Sen. Markwayne Mullin as DHS secretary
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is set to vote to confirm Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Monday night.
The vote comes amid backlash over the immigration crackdown and deportations under DHS as well as the ongoing partial shutdown of the department.
A simple majority is needed to confirm Mullin for the job; he is expected to be approved.
Mullin, a first-term Republican senator and ardent supporter of President Donald Trump, will take over DHS with little homeland security experience. During his confirmation hearing last week, Mullin said that he will work hard to earn the respect of people at the department.
“I’ll work beside them every single day to not just secure a homeland, to bring peace of mind and confidence to the agency. My goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day. My goal is for people to understand we’re out there, we’re protecting them, and we’re working with them,” Mullin said at his confirmation hearing.
Mullin’s confirmation vote comes during ongoing DHS partial shutdown — with employees of Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies under DHS not getting paid.
Travelers are experiencing long TSA lines at airports around the country during a busy spring travel season as TSA agents call out. Sunday set a new record with the highest call out rate from TSA officers since the partial government shutdown began at 11.76%, according to newly released data by the agency.
President Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he would send Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to airports starting on Monday to assist TSA officers.
Trump nominated Mullin to lead the agency earlier this month, after firing Secretary Kristi Noem. His decision came after a week of disastrous hearings on Capitol Hill for Noem and questions about her personal and professional relationships while leading DHS.
Noem has faced criticism over her handling of ICE operations in Minneapolis after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement. She was removed from leading operations in Minnesota following the scrutiny, and Border Czar Tom Homan was sent in to take over.
During his confirmation hearing, Mullin was asked about his response to the Good and Pretti shootings when he echoed initial statements from Noem and White House deputy chief Stephen Miller, calling Pretti “a deranged individual that came in to cause max damage.”
Noem later walked back her comments, claiming she did not have all of the facts at the time.
“I think I said this privately when we had a conversation. Those words probably should have been retracted. I shouldn’t have said that,” Mullin said to Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, adding he was “responding immediately without the facts.”
“That’s my fault. That won’t happen as secretary,” Mullin said.
Homan told ABC News’ Kyra Phillips on Monday that he is behind Mullin and looks forward to working with him as DHS secretary.
“We talk every day, if not several times a day. I think he’s the right guy, the right time and the right job,” Homan said. “I think he’s going to come in and you can work across the aisle, and I think, I think we got a lot of good things coming in the near future.”
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Dow closes up 600 points as Trump claims talks held with Iran
(NEW YORK) — The Dow Jones Industrial average closed up more than 600 points on Monday after President Donald Trump claimed “productive conversations” had been held between the United States and Iran.
The major stock indexes each soared more than 2% in early trading but gave up some of those gains as a flurry of headlines about the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran elicited price fluctuations.
The peace talks — which Iranian officials denied — sent the price of oil plunging on Monday on hopes that negotiations could reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end a weeks-long global energy shock.
The Dow closed up 631 points or 1.3%, while the S&P 500 jumped 1.1%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq increased 1.3%.
Each of the indexes remained below where it stood before the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran began on Feb. 28.
A selloff cascaded across global markets in recent weeks as stockholders feared economic fallout from a potentially prolonged bout of elevated oil prices.
Global oil prices plunged more than 10% on Monday after Trump made his claim about ongoing negotiations with Iran. Still, the price of oil stood above $100 a barrel, marking a steep rise since the outbreak of war.
Trump, after postponing U.S. strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure citing new negotiations with Tehran, said on Monday that talks will continue and that there are “major points of agreement.”
According to Iranian state media, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Qalibaf said, “no talks with the U.S. have taken place; reports claiming otherwise are fake news aimed at influencing financial and oil markets and distracting from the challenges facing the U.S. and Israel.”
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.