Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Lead England secured a 115-run victory over New Zealand in the first Test of their three-match series, concluding the match before lunch on day four at Lord's. England's Strong Performance New Zealand resumed on 55 for five, still 199 runs from their target, after a rain-affected third day. England's Josh Tongue quickly struck, getting Will Blundell lbw for just four in the first full over of the day. The Data Analysis Devon Conway and Glenn Phillips formed a crucial partnership of over 50 runs, steering New Zealand to 111-6. However, England's Ben Stokes removed Conway (41) thanks to a diving catch by Jacob Bethell at gully. The Impact Analysis Gus Atkinson brought England close to victory by dismissing Nathan Smith (four) and Kyle Jamieson (six), who chipped a loose delivery straight to Ben Duckett at midwicket. Phillips played steadily, ending with 44 not out from 51 balls. The Prediction England ultimately secured the win as Atkinson took his third wicket of the day – and fifth of the innings – by removing Matt Henry for a duck. This victory gives England a 1-0 lead in the series.

The Geopolitical Crossroads: Armenia's Democratic Test Voting is under way in Armenia's parliamentary election, seen as a test of the government's efforts to forge a peace deal with rival Azerbaijan and loosen ties with Moscow. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his ruling Civil Contract party are seeking a strong mandate to continue a geopolitical reorientation towards Europe and away from former imperial ruler Russia. The opposition they face includes several parties that are vocally pro-Moscow. Casting his vote on Sunday, Pashinyan said Armenia would continue strengthening its independence, statehood, democracy and rule of law. "The European Union is our main partner in democratic reform implementation and we will continue that path," he said. He also stressed that there were no tensions between Armenia and Moscow, saying, "our relations with Russia are institutional and based on mutual respect," the Armenpress news agency reported. The Strategic Shift: Armenia's Westward Reorientation Pashinyan has moved Armenia closer to the West and away from Russia since coming to power in 2018, drawing the ire of Moscow. Russian officials hit Armenian exports with restrictions in recent weeks, while high-ranking officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have made thinly veiled threats comparing Armenia's path to that already taken by Ukraine. A day before the vote, Armenian investigators said they issued six arrest warrants for members of the Strong Armenia party, accusing them of buying votes. The nation's Central Election Committee confirmed on Saturday that the party could run after a member of another opposition party, Republic, appealed for Strong Armenia to be barred over corruption allegations. Armenia's parliament, the National Assembly, must consist of at least 101 members who are elected for five-year terms. Parties must win at least 4 percent of the vote to take a seat, while blocs made up of three or more parties must hit 8 percent. Two political blocs and 17 parties are taking part in the election. The Economic Calculus: Growth vs. Regional Dependencies Most pollsters and experts have predicted Pashinyan, who came to power in 2018 following sweeping street protests, will come out ahead. Polls opened at 8am local time (04:00 GMT) on Sunday and will close at 8pm (16:00 GMT). Supporters of the incumbent leader have praised his governance, with the gross domestic product per capita doubling since he took power. "I really like how Armenia has been growing right before my eyes," 39-year-old voter Karine Darbinyan told the Reuters news agency at a rally for Pashinyan in Yerevan's central square on Friday. The 51-year-old has also sought to loosen Armenia's dependence on Moscow, after it failed to help during the Karabakh conflict, saying Armenia would pursue a balanced foreign policy after the vote. The Security Dilemma: Peace with Azerbaijan or Return to Conflict Pashinyan has framed the vote as a choice between a lasting peace with Azerbaijan or a return to war. His peace efforts have taken centre stage in his campaign, which includes an agreement he signed at the White House last August with Azerbaijan after an on-and-off war that has raged since the late 1980s. The conflict came to an end in 2023, when the Azerbaijan army seized control of the enclave and most of the Armenian population fled. Maria Titizian, editor-in-chief of EVN Report, an online news magazine based in Yerevan, said the key issues for voters are related to security and identity. "It's about how Armenia should guarantee its security in a profoundly changed, altered regional environment, what kind of relationship it should have with Russia, especially after many of the assumptions that underpinned its post-Soviet security architecture were fundamentally shaken, [and] whether it should continue deepening ties with Europe, the US, and what peace could or should look like with Azerbaijan," Titizian told Al Jazeera, speaking from the capital. The campaign has been marked by fear-mongering, she said, with the incumbent party saying that if the pro-Russian opposition wins, we will "definitely have war with Azerbaijan", and the pro-Russian parties "saying that if we cut ties with Russia, the economic fallout will be catastrophic for the country". The Opposition Challenge: Pro-Russia Forces and Democratic Concerns Pashinyan has faced a wave of criticism from the opposition and some sections of the public who have accused him of capitulating to Azerbaijan. Armenia's opposition is dominated by the Strong Armenia party, formed last year by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, who is under house arrest on charges of plotting a coup. He wants to keep Armenia close to Russia, a key supplier of energy and buyer of exports. At a Strong Armenia rally in Yerevan last week, a woman who gave her name only as Gayane said she supported Karapetyan because he would ensure "that our Armenia remains Armenian". She said her roots were in Nagorno-Karabakh, the breakaway territory inhabited by ethnic Armenians that was retaken by Azerbaijan in the 2023 war. "The current authorities have taken away that hope from us. And Samvel Karapetyan has now given us new hope that we can at least preserve our Armenia and our traditions," Gayane told Reuters. Pashinyan's democratic record is also on the ballot paper. Eight years after he swept to power on a promise to dismantle Armenia's oligarchic system, he faces increasing accusations of democratic backsliding. The government has broadly defended the actions of law enforcement agencies against individuals whom it says are trying to foment coups.

Incident Overview: Fatal Shooting in IsraelOn 2026-06-07, a shooting event in Israel resulted in one fatality and five injuries, prompting immediate emergency response and media coverage.Details of the AttackAuthorities reported that the incident occurred in a public area, though specific location details remain limited. The shooter’s identity and motive have not been disclosed pending investigation.Victim count: 1 dead, 5 injuredTime of report: early afternoonResponse: Police, medical teams, and security forces arrived on sceneCasualty Figures and Immediate ResponseThe casualty numbers underscore the severity of the event. Emergency services provided on‑site medical care, and the injured were transported to nearby hospitals for treatment.Implications for Israeli Public SecurityThis incident adds to ongoing concerns about public safety in Israel, where sporadic violent episodes have historically influenced security policies. The lack of a claimed responsibility heightens uncertainty among residents and officials.Potential Security Measures and OutlookLaw enforcement agencies are expected to increase patrols in public spaces and review surveillance protocols. Continued investigations may lead to legislative or operational adjustments aimed at preventing similar attacks in the future.

Deadly Shooting in Central IsraelA suspected terror attack in central Israel has resulted in one fatality and five injuries, with Israeli police reporting they have killed the alleged perpetrator. The incident occurred on Sunday in the Kochav Yair area near the occupied West Bank city of Qalqilya, with the attacker reportedly continuing his shooting spree in nearby towns.Attack Details and Police ResponseAccording to Israeli police, the attack began with shooting towards passersby at a gas station at the entrance to the Kochav Yair area. The attacker, identified as a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship from the nearby city of Tayibe, then continued his actions at the entrances to Tzur Yitzhak and Tzur Natan.Israeli forces intervened and, following a manhunt, killed the suspect. Police forces, border guard soldiers, and special units have been conducting searches for additional suspects, and the weapon used in the attack has been located. Authorities have imposed a security cordoning on several neighboring Arab villages and are urging the public to remain vigilant.Casualties and Medical ResponseIsraeli rescue service Magen David Adom confirmed that a 35-year-old man died of gunshot wounds in the attack. The other five casualties have been transferred to two hospitals, with two of those injured in serious condition.Lior Zilberberg from Magen David Adom described the chaotic response: "We were in a large training exercise in a nearby community when we received reports about gunshot casualties at several scenes close to us. We immediately stopped the exercise and set out with intensive care units and ambulances to multiple locations."Political Reactions and Security ImplicationsHamas commended the attack, calling it a "heroic" operation, but did not claim responsibility. The statement from the militant group comes amid ongoing tensions in the region.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office has confirmed it is holding a situational assessment on the shooting attack. The incident is likely to increase security measures in the area and may impact already fragile Israeli-Palestinian relations.Regional Security ConcernsThe attack occurs against a backdrop of increased violence in the region, with recent reports of Israeli strikes in Gaza and Lebanon that have resulted in multiple casualties. The incident may prompt heightened security operations in Arab communities within Israel and potentially lead to further tensions between Israeli authorities and Palestinian communities.Israeli authorities have urged citizens to report any suspicious activities, indicating that while the main suspect has been neutralized, concerns about potential accomplices or copycat attacks remain.

The Rise of Anti-Tech Extremism in the AI AgeWhen a 20-year-old man from Texas was arrested earlier this year for allegedly trying to burn down OpenAI's headquarters and Sam Altman's house, authorities found an anti-AI manifesto alongside his lighter and a jug of kerosene. This incident is part of a spate of attacks that has caused alarm among researchers, the tech industry and law enforcement about the rise of anti-tech extremism.In April, an Italian "nature pilled" Instagram influencer was arrested in Rome and charged with plotting a series of anti-tech attacks that took inspiration from Ted "The Unabomber" Kaczynski. Two self-described "ecofascists" that carried out a deadly anti-Muslim attack on a mosque in San Diego last month also cited "AI slop" and JD Vance's ties to Palantir as motivations for their violence in their manifesto. An Indianapolis city councilor woke up earlier this year to gunshots being fired into his home before finding a note that read "NO DATA CENTERS".The growing public backlash to the tech industry's rapid rollout of artificial intelligence has taken many, mostly-non violent forms such as local communities organizing against datacenters and political candidates promising increased oversight. Yet at the fringes, researchers say grievances against the AI industry and its leaders are animating old violent extremist movements and fomenting new ones."AI is becoming this driver of political violence, and that's a very new phenomenon," said Jordyn Abrams, a researcher at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University.AI as a Unifying Factor for Extremist GroupsWhile much of the early public discussion around generative AI and extremism focused on how malign actors like terrorist groups could misuse products such as ChatGPT for propaganda purposes or plotting attacks, there is more recent attention given to how the AI industry as a whole can radicalize people. What motivates someone to extremist violence might not be a conversation with a chatbot, researchers say, but the society-wide disruption, narrative of existential threat and lack of accountability that has come with the AI boom.In the same way that AI has come to pervade many facets of modern life, the technology has also filtered into the way that extremists think about the world. Whether it is violent anti-government groups opposing mass surveillance, ecofascists with environmental grievances, neo-Nazi accelerationists bent on collapsing critical tech infrastructure or the man who allegedly targeted Altman's house worried about superpowerful artificial intelligence destroying humanity, AI has become a fixation across the extremist spectrum."It really transcends these left-right dichotomies," said Yannick Veilleux-Lepage, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. "We're seeing a lot of different groups, a lot of different ideologies being framed through a lens of anti-AI."The Unprecedented Speed of AI TransformationThe modern anti-tech movement has a long lineage. Periods of technological change are historically accompanied by backlash from the people most affected, with researchers often pointing to the early 19th-century luddite rebellion of British textile workers smashing automated knitting machines as they demanded more labor rights. The next 200 years brought waves of violent labor disputes and political violence that accompanied tech's market disruptions, uneven accumulation of wealth and disenfranchisement of workers.In the 1990s, there was cultural pushback against the rise of the personal computer and the fear of how it would disrupt society. Common complaints included fears of replacing human workers, environmental harm and crumbling healthy social structures."Haven't you heard? It wants your job. It peddles you smut. It corrupts your kids. It's cold, sterile, inhuman. Suddenly, it's okay to hate your computer," read a New York Magazine cover story from 1995 on the "New Luddites".The same year as New York Magazine ran its cover story, the Washington Post and the New York Times published the Unabomber's anti-tech manifesto, a 35,000-word screed against industrial society that has proliferated online in the years since and become the closest thing that anti-tech extremism has to a foundational text.What separates anti-AI extremism from these previous waves of tech backlash, researchers say, is partly the speed and scale of how AI is bringing about economic, social and political change."Not only are these whole-of-society changes and not only are they really disruptive, they're happening really quickly," Veilleux-Lepage said. "There isn't time for people to build resilience or to inoculate themselves from these changes".The AI industry's longstanding talking points – that the technology will revolutionize the world, if not end it – also lend themselves to a radicalizing narrative that AI poses an existential threat and must be stopped at all costs. When Veilleux-LePage gives talks to policymakers about anti-tech extremism, one of his slides simply features a series of quotes from CEOs."In order to radicalize people, you don't actually need to have theorists or ideologues that are calling people to violence against AI, because the tech CEOs are doing a pretty good case," Veilleux-LePage said.Corporate Response and Security ConcernsAltman has often framed the changes AI will bring as something that may be difficult, but is ultimately both positive – above all, he describes the change as inevitable."I expect some really bad stuff to happen because of the technology which also has happened with previous technologies," Altman said on venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz's podcast last year.While tech CEOs are publicly optimistic about the resilience of society and the change that AI will bring about, it is also clear that they are privately concerned with the threat of political violence. Spending on personal security for executives has ballooned over the past five years amid incidents such as the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, while tech leaders such as Elon Musk now pour millions into their own protection. SpaceX revealed in its IPO filing earlier this year that it paid $4m last year to Musk's private security firm, double what it had spent only two years before.There are signs over the past year that the AI industry is shifting its rhetoric as it grapples with widespread public distrust. Altman claimed last month that AI would probably not lead to the "jobs apocalypse" that he once discussed, even as companies like Meta lay off tens of thousands of workers. OpenAI and Anthropic have meanwhile both announced funds and thinktanks this year aimed at helping civil institutions adapt to AI, with OpenAI's non-profit organization committing $250m to grants for programs that help workers navigate AI upheaval.Major AI firms are hiring national security, intelligence, and weapons experts to monitor threats and misuse of their technology, including some with a background in extremism and counter-terrorism research. OpenAI's head of intelligence previously worked as one of the foremost academic experts on the Islamic State and wrote a book on the group's belief that it was bringing about the apocalypse. OpenAI and Anthropic did not respond to requests for interviews with their intelligence or security experts.The Accountability Gap and Future RisksThe closing off of legitimate avenues to address public opposition to AI, as well as the feeling that the technology is being forced upon society, is creating what researchers describe as a gap in accountability that can further incentivize terrorism and political violence.Donald Trump, in alignment with tech leaders, issued an executive order last year attempting to block any state-level legislation that would rein in AI development and has said that nothing will slow down the US in the global AI race. Tech billionaires are also pouring millions of dollars into lobbying and political spending in an attempt to prevent regulation of AI."When authorities are too busy, or just don't care enough, to regulate and take action, then people affected are going to take action," said Mauro Lubrano, a lecturer at the University of Bath and author of Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology Extremism.Federal law enforcement documents acquired by Wired and the Intercept show that US authorities are increasingly monitoring anti-tech movements, while authorities have declared they will aggressively prosecute violent attacks. Following the attempted arson at Altman's house earlier this year, authorities vowed that "the FBI will not tolerate threats against our nation's innovation leaders".Yet researchers warn that authorities risk conflating the nationwide protests and calls for increased regulation of AI with more fringe, anti-tech extremist views, which is both inaccurate and counterproductive. Programs aimed at mass surveillance and attempts to silence nonviolent anti-AI movements will inevitably backfire, Lubrano says, further pushing people to the violent fringes if they feel their legitimate grievances aren't being addressed."We have this opportunity to be proactive in this while avoiding mistakes that we've made in the past when responding to other forms of extremism," Lubrano said. "Something tells me that we're not off to a great start".

The Lead: England's Day Four Advantage Morning everyone and welcome to a Test that has somehow dribbled into a fourth day. We've had a wicket roughly every four overs, but the rain gods have allowed only five sessions' play. England are well on top, yet they could still lose. The Event Details: A Tense Finish on a Difficult Pitch England need five more wickets before New Zealand score 199 more runs. So far, between the showers, the New Zealanders have managed only 168 for 15 wickets, so 199 for four may sound like a stretch. But they've got more batting left than you'd think because they sent in a nightwatchman, way back on Friday evening. The Data Analysis: Bowler Performance and Batting Lineup On a pitch that has been dry, uneven and widely derided, England's bowlers have only had to look at the off bail to be lethal. Ollie Robinson, when he switched to the Nursery End yesterday and Jamie Smith stood up to the stumps, promptly took two wickets in two and a half overs. He has seven for 57 in the match, Gus Atkinson four for 25, Josh Tongue four for 55. Only Ben Stokes (none for 22) has been anodyne. The Impact Analysis: New Zealand's Unexpected Batting Strength They've got an opener, Devon Conway, who's still there and who made 200 on his Test debut at Lord's. He may only have added 23, 3, 13, 1 and 19* at this address since, but that could be taken to mean that he's overdue another big one. And the two men who got most of the runs in NZ's first innings, Glenn Phillips and Kyle Jamieson, are still to come. It's as if their captain, Tom Latham, has done by accident what Don Bradman once did deliberately and got the batting order the wrong way up. The Prediction: Final Day Uncertainties Robinson has never taken eight in a Test, let alone ten, so he will still be hungry today, and the chances are that he, Atkinson and Tongue will finish the job. But a low-scoring match can be won by one fearless knock, as England found in the last first Test they played, when Travis Head beat them at their own game. So you never know. Play resumes at 11am BST and the forecast, thankfully, is as dry as the pitch.

The Final Curtain: A Pivotal Moment in Music HistoryThe Beatles' last official concert on August 29, 1966, at Candlestick Park in San Francisco marked more than just the end of a touring era—it symbolized a fundamental shift in how music would be created and experienced. As Jim Marshall's photographs capture, the band was already feeling nostalgic for what they were leaving behind, even as they stood on the precipice of their most innovative period.The Creative Divide: Studio Innovation vs. Live PerformanceTwo months before their final show, the Beatles had completed recording "Revolver," an album that would push the boundaries of popular music. Yet during their final tour, they performed none of these groundbreaking tracks. The complexity of songs like "Eleanor Rigby" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" simply couldn't be replicated in a live setting with their four-piece band configuration.This creative divide reveals a crucial moment in music history. Until the Beatles, recordings were essentially documentation of live performances. Their first album, "Please Please Me," captured songs honed on stages in Hamburg and Liverpool. By 1966, however, the Beatles had come to see the studio as a creative platform in its own right—a place where experimentation with sounds and techniques could create something entirely new.The Changing Landscape of Live MusicWhile the Beatles were pioneering studio techniques, other artists were revolutionizing the live concert experience. Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones were developing what we now recognize as the modern rock gig—longer performances, more artistic expression, and a direct connection with audiences that extended beyond simple entertainment.The Beatles' live shows, by contrast, remained stuck in the past. Their 1966 concert format resembled a package-tour variety show, with five or six acts and the Beatles appearing last for a breathless half-hour set before saying goodnight. This disconnect between their recorded work and live performances became increasingly unsustainable as their studio work grew more ambitious.The Legacy of the Final TourThe Beatles' decision to stop touring wasn't merely a practical response to the challenges of performing complex music live—it reflected a deeper artistic evolution. By focusing on studio innovation, they paved the way for future artists who would similarly embrace recording technology as an integral part of the creative process.Ironically, this decision that seemed to separate them from their audience would ultimately transform how musicians connected with fans. The studio innovations pioneered by the Beatles during this period would influence generations of artists, creating new possibilities for musical expression that continue to resonate today.The End of an Era and the Birth of a New Musical LanguageThe Beatles' final tour marked not just the end of an era for the band, but a turning point for popular music as a whole. As they transitioned from live performers to studio innovators, they helped create a new musical language that would define the decades to come.The photographs from this period, capturing the band at this transitional moment, serve as a visual document of one of music history's most significant transformations. They show a group on the cusp of their most creative period, already looking back with nostalgia at the live performances that had made them global superstars, while simultaneously embracing the future possibilities that studio recording would unlock.

The Lead: A War‑Year Timeline of Near‑Deal MomentsThe conflict that began with Operation Epic Fury on February 28 has seen several flashpoints where a US‑Iran settlement seemed possible, only to dissolve amid competing demands and renewed hostilities.April 8: Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire begins.April 11‑12: Direct talks in Islamabad.April 16‑17: Lebanon ceasefire and temporary Hormuz opening.June 1: Trump’s angry phone call with Netanyahu.Direct Talks in Islamabad: First Direct US‑Iran Negotiations Since 1979What happened: On April 11‑12, the US and Iran met in Islamabad, the first direct dialogue since the 1979 revolution. The US team was led by Vice President JD Vance with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Iran’s delegation included Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and senior security figure Ali Bagheri Kani.What went wrong: After 21 hours, Vance announced the talks would end without an agreement, citing Iran’s refusal to accept the US “final and best offer” and to provide a long‑term nuclear‑non‑proliferation commitment.Quantifying the Stakes: Ceasefire Dates, Naval Blockade, and Enriched Uranium StockpilesApril 8: Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire begins.April 12: US announces a naval blockade of Iranian ports.Iran holds an estimated 440 kg (970 lb) of uranium enriched to 60 %, short of the 90 % weapons‑grade threshold.20 % of the world’s oil and LNG pass through the Strait of Hormuz each day.During the war, transit fees for ships in the strait have reportedly reached $2 million per vessel.Lebanon casualties: >3,000 killed since March 2; >600 killed in the month after the April 16 ceasefire.Why Each Attempt Crumbled: Political Red Lines and Strategic MisalignmentsThe failures share common friction points:US demand for a definitive, long‑term nuclear commitment versus Iran’s insistence on deferring details.Israel’s continued strikes in Lebanon, violating the April 16 ceasefire and undermining Iran’s “red line” for peace.US‑imposed naval blockade that undercut any momentum from the Islamabad talks.Control of the Strait of Hormuz—Iran seeks leverage through tolls; the US pushes for pre‑war free navigation.Personal and diplomatic tensions, exemplified by Trump’s angry call to Benjamin Netanyahu, which did not translate into concrete de‑escalation.Looking Ahead: What the Pattern Suggests for Future US‑Iran DiplomacyRepeated near‑misses indicate that any viable settlement will likely require:A multilateral framework that addresses both the nuclear issue and regional security concerns, especially Israel‑Lebanon dynamics.Concrete, verifiable steps on nuclear enrichment limits, possibly linked to phased sanctions relief.Mechanisms to keep the Strait of Hormuz open without imposing punitive fees, restoring confidence in global energy markets.Continued third‑party mediation—Pakistan’s role proved useful but needs broader international backing.Without aligning these strategic interests, future talks may again stall at the “last five percent” of agreement.

The Presidential Pardon United States President Donald Trump has issued a pardon to Stephen Buyer, a former Republican congressman from Indiana who served nearly two years in prison for making illegal stock trades based on inside information after he left office. The pardon was dated Thursday and released by the White House late Friday night. The Conviction and Sentence Buyer was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 2023 for trades made while working as a consultant and lobbyist. He was ordered to forfeit more than $350,000, representing the amount of the illegal gains, as well as pay a $10,000 fine. He was released in 2025. The Supreme Court in May rejected Buyer's appeal without comment or noted dissent. Trump's Justification In granting "a full, complete, and unconditional pardon" to Buyer, Trump cited the Republican's work, both as a judge advocate general in the US army and as a politician in the US House. Trump described his career as "distinguished and highly productive". Buyer's Response Buyer said the pardon "corrects a politically motivated prosecution" and that it was "horrific to be imprisoned for a crime that I did not commit". He maintains that he is innocent. The Political Support Trump used his Truth Social media platform on May 31 to share a pair of letters requesting a presidential pardon for Buyer, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran who left office in 2011. He was a House prosecutor at Democratic President Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment trial, and in 2016, he served on Trump's transition team, focusing on veterans' issues. A letter signed by more than 40 former Republicans in Congress said Buyer was "targeted by the deep state" because of his involvement in Clinton's trial. "Like you, Mr. President, Steve has been the victim of lawfare conducted by the Biden Administration," they wrote in the April 2025 letter. A second letter, from five current House Republicans, said pardoning Buyer would bring justice to his case. The June 2025 letter was signed by Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Ken Calvert of California, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, Jack Bergman of Michigan and Pete Sessions of Texas. The Case Details Buyer, 67, was convicted in connection with insider trading involving the $26.5bn merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, announced in April 2018, and illegal trades in the management consulting company Navigant when his client Guidehouse was set to acquire it in a deal publicly disclosed weeks later. The Power of Presidential Pardon The US Constitution gives a president broad power to grant pardons for federal crimes. The pardons do not erase a recipient's criminal record but can be seen as act of mercy or justice.