March, 2019 | últimas notícias

U.S. soldier Travis Atkins, who died shielding comrades from Iraq bomber, receives Medal of Honor – USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Saluting a “fallen hero,” President Donald Trump bestowed the Medal of Honor Wednesday on an American soldier who gave his life to protect three comrades from a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Army Staff Sgt. Travis Atkins, at age 31, died on June 1, 2007, after he tackled an Iraqi insurgent who was trying to detonate his bomb vest; Atkins wrapped himself around the man as the bomb exploded, protecting three colleagues from the blast.

“He put himself on top of the enemy and he shielded his men from certain death,” Trump said during a White House ceremony.

“In his final moments on earth,” Trump said, “Travis did not run.”

In an account of the incident, the Defense Department said, “Without pausing, Atkins bear-hugged the man from behind, threw him to the ground and pinned him there, shielding his fellow soldiers who were only a few feet away.”

Trump presented the Medal of Honor to members of Atkins’ family during the somber ceremony.

Barbara Bush: Did she still consider herself a Republican? ‘I’d probably say no today.’

The wall: Pentagon tells Congress how projects might be delayed to pay for President Trump’s wall

Pentagon: Pentagon’s transgender policy will ban those who require treatment for gender dysphoria

It was Trump’s eighth Medal of Honor ceremony, the first honoring a veteran of the Iraq war.

The nation’s highest military commendation, the Medal of Honor is awarded to members of the armed forces who “distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their own lives above and beyond the call of duty,” the White House said.

CLOSE

They had no known living family to attend their funerals. But when you fight for this country, Americans honor you even if they don’t know you.
Militarykind, USA TODAY

Born on Dec. 9, 1975, Atkins grew up in Bozeman, Montana, and first joined the Army in 2000, according to the Pentagon. He became an infantry team leader shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in spring 2003.

While he left the service later in 2003, Atkins decided to re-enlist two years later, the Defense Department said. He was promoted to staff sergeant while serving in Iraq in 2007, the year of his death.

Gallatin County, Montana, has declared this to be Staff Sergeant Travis W. Atkins Week.

In a Twitter post, the government said: “The citizens of our county are eternally grateful for his service and sacrifice.”

Start the day smarter: Get USA TODAY’s Daily Briefing in your inbox

President Donald J. Trump stands with Valerie Nessel, widow of Sergeant John A. Chapman as he awards Chapman the posthumous Medal of Honor on Aug. 22, 2018 in the East Room at the White House for his actions on March 4, 2002, on Takur Ghar mountain in Afghanistan. Chapman’s aircraft was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, ejecting one teammate rom the aircraft, and crippling the helicopter after it crashed in the valley below. Chapman and the remaining joint special operations team members voluntarily returned to the snow-capped mountain, into known enemy stronghold, in an attempt to rescue their stranded teammate. Sergeant Chapman’s spouse, Valerie Nessel, and family joined the President at the White House to commemorate his example of selfless service and sacrifice. Camille Fine, USA TODAY

President Donald Trump, right, salutes retired Army Capt. Gary M. Rose, left, before bestowing him with the nation’s highest military honor, the Medal of Honor, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 23, 2017. Susan Walsh, AP

Last Slide Next Slide

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/27/u-s-soldier-who-shielded-comrades-bomb-receive-medal-honor/3285665002/

22 views no comments

Charles Payne calls Ocasio-Cortez’s defense of Green New Deal ‘disingenuous’ – Fox News

Video

Charles Payne calls Ocasio-Cortez’s defense of Green New Deal ‘disingenuous’

Fox Business host Charles Payne argued Wednesday the childhood asthma crisis in some New York City neighborhoods has nothing to do with climate change, as like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. claimed.

“Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is very disingenuous,” Payne said on America’s Newsroom.

“You want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist? Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx, which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country,” Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal‘s main sponsor in the House, said during a committee hearing on Tuesday.

GREEN NEW DEAL FAILS SENATE TEST VOTE AS DOZENS OF DEMOCRATS VOTE ‘PRESENT’

The Green New Deal calls for the U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal and replace them with renewable sources such as solar power and wind. The proposed stimulus program calls for virtual elimination by 2030 of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

Republicans have railed against the proposal, saying it would devastate the economy and trigger massive tax increases.

Payne said he has lived in Harlem and talked personally and statistically about the reasons why there are a number of asthma cases in the neighborhoods of Harlem and the South Bronx. He cited several studies including a Columbia University study from 2013 that stated cockroach and mouse allergens are more common in lower income housing and neighborhoods. Payne also brought up a New York Times study from 2003 in which social workers said they encountered furniture and carpets covered in dust in these areas.

AOC BRISTLES AS GOP LAWMAKER BLASTS GREEN NEW DEAL AS ‘ELITIST’ PET PROJECT OF RICH LIBERALS

“Those are the things that have contributed to the crisis of asthma in these neighborhoods. It has zero to do with C02 emissions per se or this climate change debate. She’s (Ocasio-Cortez’s) conflating the two,” said Payne. “It’s a way of also bringing race into the conversation. I think it’s disingenuous because I would love to see these issues addressed as well in a more concrete manner.”

The Green New Deal fell at the first hurdle Tuesday as the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on the non-binding resolution, with 42 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voting “present.” No senator voted to begin debate on the legislation.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Payne also talked about the International Energy Agency’s most recent data on C02 emissions, which he said was released this week. Payne said “they went up” and said the reason is because of China and India’s use of coal.

“America, by the way, our C02 emissions, as a percentage of our GDP, down almost 50 percent in the last 20 years. We’re doing what we are supposed to do,” Payne said on America’s Newsroom. “It’s crazy to disrupt our economy by trillions of dollars when America is actually probably doing better on this than any other large growing economy in the world.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charles-payne-calls-ocasio-cortezs-defense-of-green-new-deal-disingenuous

20 views no comments

Trump says "I understand health care now" as administration renews efforts to repeal Obamacara (Affordable Care Act) – CBS News

President Trump said Wednesday he now understands the complexity of health care after failed attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and he reiterated his claim that the Republican Party will now be the “party of great health care.”

“I mean it 100 percent, I understand health care now, especially very well. A lot of people don’t understand it, we are going to be, the Republicans, the party of great health care,” said Mr. Trump in an Oval Office meeting with the interim first lady of Venezuela, Fabiana Rosales De Guaidó. “The Democrats have, they’ve let you down, they came up with Obamacare, it’s terrible.”

The president cited rising costs of premiums, saying “people are going broke trying to pay” for their health care costs. He maintained, however, that his administration had “made it better” by “administering Obamacare very well” but still slammed the policy as “horrible no good, it’s something that we can’t live with in this country.”

His comments come a day after the Justice Department took the position in court that the entire ACA should be overturned. In legal papers filed Monday, the Justice Department is now arguing for the first time that the ACA is unconstitutional.

The shift in the administration’s policy, should it prevail in court, could put millions of American’s health care coverage at risk and deliver on a signature campaign promise made by Mr. Trump. The Justice Department says that it now agrees with a lower court ruling out of Texas that declared the entire health care law invalid. That ruling came a year after the GOP’s tax bill repealed the ACA’s tax penalties for people are are uninsured. The judge in the Texas case ruled the provision was so central to the law, it couldn’t stand without it.

Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that the lawsuit is just “phase one” of terminating the ACA, often referred to as “Obamacare.” He said he expects the case could reach the steps of the Supreme Court, which has already upheld the ACA twice before.

“If the supreme court rules that Obamacare is out, we will have a plan that is far better than Obamacare,” Mr. Trump vowed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has since slammed the administration’s attempts to repeal the ACA as declaring an “all-out war on the health care of the American people.”

This is a developing story.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-on-gops-renewed-efforts-on-ending-obamacare-i-understand-healthcare-now/

28 views no comments

Boeing and F.A.A. Hearings: Live Updates – The New York Times

But she added that the government has delegated certification duties to the aviation industry since the 1920s.

“This is not a new procedure,” she said. “It has been expanded over the years.”

Ms. Chao stressed that the F.A.A. sets safety standards that airlines must meet while developing aviation technology. The certification process, she said, “is, of course, subject to oversight and supervision by the F.A.A.”

“This method of having the manufacturer also be involved in looking at these standards is really necessary, because once again, the F.A.A. cannot do it on their own,” she said. “They need to have the input from the manufacturer.”

F.A.A. chief says it will go ‘wherever the facts lead us’

In testimony prepared for the afternoon hearing, Mr. Elwell, the F.A.A.’s acting administrator, defended his agency’s procedures for certifying new aircraft. He said they are “extensive, well-established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs for decades.”

As the crashes are investigated, however, Mr. Elwell also pledged that his agency “will go wherever the facts lead us in the interest of safety.”

“The 737 Max will return to service for U.S. carriers and in U.S. airspace only when the F.A.A.’s analysis of the facts and technical data indicate that it is appropriate,” he said in the prepared remarks. “In our quest for continuous safety improvement, the F.A.A. welcomes external review of our systems, processes and recommendations.”

Mr. Elwell’s prepared testimony did not include any significant revelations about what may have led to the crash in Ethiopia. But he did shed some light on the timeline for the development of a software fix for the Max, which Boeing began working on after the Lion Air crash. Boeing provided a proposed software fix to the F.A.A. for certification on Jan. 21, more than a month before the crash in Ethiopia, according to the testimony.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/business/boeing-hearings.html

27 views no comments

Green New Deal fails Senate test vote as dozens of Democrats vote ‘present’ – Fox News

Video

Senate majority forces vote on ‘Green New Deal’ climate change proposal

Mitch McConnell says he was giving presidential candidates in the chamber a chance to support a campaign trail staple; Peter Doocy reports from Capitol Hill.

The Green New Deal, a sweeping Democratic proposal for dealing with climate change, fell at the first hurdle Tuesday as the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on the non-binding resolution, with 42 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voting “present.”

No senator voted to begin debate on the legislation, while 57 lawmakers voted against breaking the filibuster. Democratic Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona joined 53 Republicans in voting “no.” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted “no.”

The vote had been teed up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a bid to make Democratic senators — including several 2020 presidential candidates — go on the record about the measure. McConnell had called the proposal “a radical, top-down, socialist makeover of the entire U.S. economy.”

The Green New Deal calls for the U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal and replace them with renewable sources such as wind and solar power. It calls for virtual elimination by 2030 of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming. Republicans have railed against the proposal, saying it would devastate the economy and trigger massive tax increases.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called the Green New Deal “ridiculous” and displayed pictures of dinosaurs, cartoon characters and babies on the Senate floor. He said he was treating the plan “with the seriousness it deserves.”

Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, called McConnell’s move a “sham vote” that aimed to draw attention away from a real debate on the consequences of climate change. In addition to Sanders, Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — all candidates for the Democratic nomination who have endorsed the Green New Deal — voted “present” Tuesday.

“Today’s #GreenNewDeal vote is a partisan stunt to side-step needed debate on climate action, and give Republicans cover to put oil lobby checks over our kids,” Gillibrand tweeted earlier Tuesday, adding ” … I don’t play ball with bad-faith farces.”

“Climate change is an existential threat, and confronting it requires bold action,” Harris said in a statement following the vote. ” … Political stunts won’t get us anywhere. Combatting this crisis first requires the Republican majority to stop denying science and finally admit that climate change is real and humans are the dominant cause. Then we can get serious about taking action to tackle the climate crisis at the scale of the problem.”

“[McConnell’s] stunt is backfiring and it’s becoming clearer and clearer to the American people that the Republican Party is way behind the times on clean energy and that Democrats are the party willing to take action,” said Schumer, D-N.Y., who asked, “… What’s the Republican Party proposal? Is it more coal?”

However, Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper said Tuesday that he opposes the Green New Deal. The former Colorado governor said the proposal sets “unachievable goals” and shuns the private sector.

In explaining his “no” vote, Manchin said in a statement: “This climate problem is a massive one and we must act, but aspirational documents will not solve this crisis –real solutions focused on innovation will … The truth is even if we zero out our country’s use of fossil fuels tomorrow, we must face the facts that other nations have invested in and will continue to use fossil fuels to develop their economies for decades to come. We cannot successfully address our climate challenge by eliminating sources of energy that countries are committed to using.”

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER: GREEN NEW DEAL WOULD COST TRILLIONS ANNUALLY — HERE’S A BETTER IDEA

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said Democrats were being hypocritical by refusing to vote for their own plan. “I’ve never seen a bill sponsored by a dozen people who don’t want to vote on it,” he said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the Green New Deal’s main sponsor in the House, tweeted following the vote that she had encouraged Senate Democrats to vote “present” on the resolution.

“McConnell tried to rush the #GreenNewDeal straight to the floor without a hearing,” she wrote. “The real question we should be asking: Why does the Senate GOP refuse to hold any major hearings on climate change?”

At a news conference earlier Tuesday, McConnell said he believed climate change was real and at least partially caused by humans, but said the real question facing lawmakers was, “How do you address it?”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The way to do this, consistent with American values and American capitalism, is through technology and innovation,” McConnell said. ” … Not to shut down your economy, throw people out of work, make people reconstruct their homes, get out of their cars, you get the whole drift here. This is nonsense, and if you’re going to sign on to nonsense, you ought to have to vote for nonsense.”

By “basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford,” the Green New Deal would “kill off entire domestic industries” and eliminate millions of jobs, McConnell said. The plan could lead to a spike in household electric bills of over $300 a month, he said.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/green-new-deal-fails-senate-test-vote-as-dozens-of-democrats

22 views no comments

Facebook says it will now block white-nationalist, white-separatist posts – Washington Post

(Jason Alden/Bloomberg News)

March 27 at 1:00 PM

Facebook will begin banning posts, photos and other content that reference white nationalism and white separatism, revising its rules in response to criticism that a loophole had allowed racism to thrive on its platform.

Previously, Facebook had prohibited users from sharing messages that glorified white supremacy — a rhetorical discrepancy in the eyes of civil rights advocates who argued that white nationalism, supremacy and separatism are indistinguishable and that the policy undermined the tech giant’s stepped-up efforts to combat hate speech online.

Facebook now agrees with that analysis, according to people who’ve been briefed on the decision. The new policy also applies to Instagram.

The rise and spread of white nationalism on Facebook were thrown into sharp relief in the wake of the deadly neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville in 2017, when self-avowed white nationalists used the social networking site as an organizing tool.

The following year, Motherboard, a tech publication owned by Vice, obtained internal documents meant for training and guiding content reviewers that revealed Facebook treated the terms differently: The materials showed that Facebook permitted “praise, support and representation” of white nationalism and white separatism “as an ideology.” The policy drew sharp rebukes from civil rights advocates, who have argued for years that the terms are interchangeable.

Facebook’s decision comes one week after the company made another announcement to appeal to long-standing complaints from civil rights advocates: The company prohibited advertisers from excluding minorities and other protected groups from ads for housing, employment and credit.

[Facebook agrees to overhaul targeted advertising system for job, housing and loan ads after discrimination complaints]

Civil rights groups applauded the move. “There is no defensible distinction that can be drawn between white supremacy, white nationalism or white separatism in society today,” Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said Wednesday.

The organization had pushed Facebook for months to change its policies, pointing to pages such as “It’s okay to be white,” which has more than 18,000 followers and has regularly defended white nationalism. Another, called “American White History Month 2,” often posted white-supremacist memes, according to the Lawyers’ Committee. A cached version of the page from late February showed it had more than 258,000 followers before it went offline.

Facebook’s new policy comes as the company continues to struggle to take down other content that attacks people on the basis of their race, ethnicity, national origin and a host of other “protected characteristics.” Between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2018, Facebook took action against 8 million pieces of content that violated its rules on hate speech, according to its latest transparency report. Facebook is not legally required to remove this content, but its rules prohibit it.

To help enforce its policies, Facebook has developed and deployed artificial-intelligence tools that can spot and remove content even before users see it. But the technology isn’t perfect, particularly when it comes to hate speech. The company removes only about 50 percent of such posts at the moment users upload them, it said last year. As a result, such content still can go viral on Facebook — a reality the company confronted this month when users continued to upload videos of the mass shooting in New Zealand that left 50 people dead. The shooter specifically sought to target Muslims, authorities said.

[How social media’s business model helped the New Zealand massacre go viral]

To that end, civil rights groups said Facebook still had considerable work to do to address the spread of hate speech on its platform.

“As we have seen with tragic attacks on houses of worship in Charleston, Pittsburgh, New Zealand, and elsewhere, there are real-world consequences when social media networks provide platforms for violent white supremacists, allowing them to incubate, organize, and recruit new followers to their hateful movements,” Clarke said.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/27/facebook-says-it-will-now-block-white-nationalist-white-separatist-posts/

26 views no comments

U.K. Parliament Faces a Key Brexit Question: What Does It Want? – The New York Times

On Wednesday, the focus will be on the extraordinary parliamentary proceedings, orchestrated by a multiparty group led by a veteran Conservative lawmaker, Oliver Letwin. About 16 options for Brexit have been proposed, perhaps half of which will be selected for voting by the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

Those are likely to include leaving the European Union but keeping very close ties to it, revoking Brexit, putting any plan to a referendum, and quitting without any agreement.

Lawmakers will be allowed to vote for as many of the options as they want. In the first instance, that is very unlikely to produce clarity, and another day of debate and votes will probably be required on Monday.

The government has said that it will not be bound by any result of these “indicative votes.” But some lawmakers are threatening that, if necessary, they will try to legislate to force the government to accept any consensus that ultimately emerges.

Mrs. May will be hoping that the prospect of Parliament’s agreeing to closer ties with the bloc than those envisaged in her plan will spook hard-line Brexit supporters into backing her proposals.

But some Conservative lawmakers also want her to resign soon so they can install a successor in whom they have more trust to take charge of detailed trade negotiations that would take place after Brexit.

Whether Mrs. May offers a detailed timetable for her resignation remains a pressing question. On Wednesday, asked whether she wanted Mrs. May to stay on, Ms. Leadsom said it was “a matter for her,” adding “I am not going to express a view.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/world/europe/brexit-uk-parliament.html

30 views no comments

Michael Avenatti ‘nervous,’ ‘scared’ about prospect of prison time, labels Nike extortion allegations ‘absurd’ – Fox News

Video

Michael Avenatti reveals he’s concerned about the charges against him concerning his business practices

Attorney Michael Avenatti tells CBS that he’s concerned about the charges against him concerning his business practices.

Michael Avenatti labeled the latest allegations against him as “absolutely absurd,” before admitting he is “nervous” and “scared” about potentially being put behind bars.

Avenatti, the celebrity lawyer who rose to prominence last year while representing porn star Stormy Daniels and was briefly considered a potential 2020 Democratic candidate, was accused by federal prosecutors in New York of operating “an old-fashioned shakedown” by trying to extort between $15 million and $25 million from sports apparel giant Nike.

He is also simultaneously facing separate federal wire and bank fraud charges in Los Angeles, which may pose his greatest legal threat.

Avenatti was grilled about the Nike allegations by CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan, who asked directly if he tried to extort the sports giant for “millions of dollars”.

AVENATTI, FACING MULTIPLE FEDERAL CHARGES, SUGGESTS LOS ANGELES FRAUD CASE HAS CONNECTION TO TRUMP

Federal defender Sylvie Levine, Michael Avenatti, Federal Defender Amy Gallicchio, Assistant US Attorney Robert Boone, at Avenatti’s brief appearance Monday, March 25, 2019, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in New York City.
(Elizabeth Williams via AP)

“No, and any suggestion is absolutely absurd. Nike knew, from the very first moment that I had any contact with Nike, that I was insisting that the truth about what Nike had done be disclosed to federal prosecutors and investigators,” he said on the network.

“The truth is, for years Nike and its executives have been funneling payments to amateur players, high school players and to their handlers and family members in an effort to get them to go to colleges that were Nike colleges and ultimately hopefully to the NBA so they can sign a shoe deal with Nike.”

Prosecutors said Avenatti tried to extort Nike “by threatening to use his ability to garner publicity to inflict substantial financial and reputational harm on the company if his demands were not met.”

“As alleged, Michael Avenatti approached Nike last week with a list of financial demands in exchange for covering up allegations of misconduct on behalf of the company,” FBI Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney Jr. said in a statement. “The lofty price tag included a $1.5 million payoff for Avenatti’s client and upwards of tens of millions of dollars for the legal services of his firm – services Nike never requested. This is nothing more than a straightforward case of extortion”

MICHAEL AVENATTI ACCUSED OF TRYING TO EXTORT NIKE FOR UP TO $25M, FEDS SAY

Video

The counts against Avenatti in the New York case are extortion, transmission of interstate communications with intent to extort, conspiracy to transmit interstate communications with intent to extort, and conspiracy to commit extortion.

Avenatti is looking at up to 47 years in prison on the New York charges if convicted, and 50 years in the California case, which resulted from a much longer-running investigation involving a lengthier paper trail. Avenatti has strenuously denied wrongdoing, and in a tweet early Tuesday morning, thanked his supporters for their “kind words,” adding, “It means a lot to me.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News has exclusively obtained text messages and email conversations between Avenatti, 48, and the former client, Gregory Barela, which documented Barela’s efforts for several months in 2018 to locate and obtain funds he was owed pursuant to a settlement agreement that resulted from his intellectual property dispute with an out-of-state company.

Financial documents also reviewed by Fox News show that the money had been wired to an account designated by Avenatti on Jan. 5, 2018, but that Avenatti apparently continued to dodge increasingly frantic questions from the client as to where the funds were.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/us/michael-avenatti-nervous-scared-about-prospect-of-prison-time-labels-nike-extortion-allegations-absurd

17 views no comments

In Divided White House, Trump Sided With Mulvaney in Push for Nullifying Health Act – The New York Times

Mr. Trump has touted that he has kept his promises, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Grogan argued, and as a candidate, they said, he campaigned on repealing the health law. His base of voters would love it. Besides, they argued, Democrats have been campaigning successfully on health care, and Republicans should try to take it over themselves. This could force the issue.

Among those with concerns was Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, who shared that it was opposed by the new attorney general, William P. Barr. Vice President Mike Pence was concerned about the political ramifications of moving ahead without a strategy or a plan to handle the suddenly uninsured if the suit succeeds.

That meeting was followed by a smaller one, where tensions between Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Cipollone were among those voicing different opinions. But Mr. Trump had been sold, and on Monday night, the Justice Department issued a statement saying it supports the Texas judge’s decision.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump doubled down on his support for the Texas suit while talking to reporters in the Oval Office.

“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare,” he said.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/us/politics/trump-affordable-care-act-republicans.html

17 views no comments

7 mysteries in Attorney General William Barr’s letter – The Boston Globe

Attorney General William Barr’s letter is out. The Mueller report that it summarizes isn’t. So that has put the Barr letter under a lot of scrutiny.

If the Mueller report is released, all may become clear. Until then, here are some mysteries, large and small, raised by Barr’s letter:

Why did Special Counsel Robert Mueller not reach a conclusion on obstruction?

The decision puzzled some former Justice Department officials. They said prosecutors at special counsel Robert Mueller’s level typically make their own charging conclusions rather than leave them to higher-ups like William Barr.

‘‘I find this to be very unusual that there was this question left open and presented by the special counsel,’’ Tim Purdon, the former United States attorney for North Dakota during the Obama administration, told The Associated Press. ‘‘As US attorney, usually you have the last say. You’re the decider, you decide what to do.’’

‘‘But of course,’’ Purdon added, ‘‘these are unusual circumstances.’’

Some observers have suggested that Mueller was laying out the evidence for Congress.

“He appears to have created a substantial record of the president’s troubling interactions with law enforcement for adjudication in noncriminal proceedings — which is to say in congressional hearings that are surely the next step,” the experts at the legal blog Lawfare wrote.

Did Mueller actually pass the buck to Barr or did Barr take it upon himself to decide?

After Mueller decided he wouldn’t make a judgment on whether to charge President Trump, Barr stepped in and said he had made the decision — and there would be no charges.

Mueller’s team told Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about three weeks ago that it did not plan to reach a conclusion on obstruction, according to a Justice Department official who said the move was unexpected.

The official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Monday to discuss private conversations, would not say whether Mueller had asked or invited Barr to substitute his own judgment.

Why did Barr include the ‘did not exonerate’ quote from Mueller’s report?

Barr says in the letter that Mueller made a thorough factual investigation and “ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” which left Barr to make the decision.

Barr also noted that Mueller’s report “sets out evidence on both sides of the question.”

Also, Barr cited a quote from Mueller’s report saying that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

If Barr felt that no charge should ultimately be brought, why include that quote from Mueller?

Is it because of the volume of evidence Mueller amassed? Is it because not exonerating Trump was a major finding of Mueller’s report?

Is the actual Mueller report as tightly focused as the Barr letter?

The Barr letter gives the appearance that Mueller kept an intense, laser focus on exactly one thing: whether Trump and his associates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s two election interference schemes, the hacking and social media operations.

But Trump has been entangled in a dizzying variety of scandals, including ones that raise different questions about his — and his associates’ — contacts and financial dealings with Russians. That includes his attempt to strike a deal for a Trump Tower Moscow well into the 2016 campaign and his other reported financial dealings with Russians.

It’s not clear whether any other issues will be mentioned in the Mueller report or in what depth.

What did Barr cut out from the key sentence about collusion?

In the absence of the Mueller report and with only a handful of quotes from the report in the Barr letter, the smallest details are under the microscope.

Some observers have noted that Barr scrupulously bracketed the “T” in the following quote from Mueller’s report:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The bracket suggests that it’s not a full sentence and it may have been preceded by something.

It’s anyone’s guess what those words might be.

Why is there a slight difference in the wording about the two Russian election schemes?

Lawfare points out that there is a slight difference in the way Barr describes Mueller’s findings about the two Russian election interference schemes.

Barr says Mueller “did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated” with the Russian social media disinformation scheme. But as for the Russian hacking scheme, Barr said Mueller “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it” worked with the Russians.

That discrepancy in the words opens the possibility that a US person not affiliated with the campaign had worked with the Russians on the hacking scheme, Lawfare points out, saying the wording might or might not be significant.

The legal experts also point out that Barr said the hacked materials were distributed through “various intermediaries, including Wikileaks,” but Barr never mentioned whether Mueller had reached any findings on potential Trump team dealings with those intermediaries.

What investigations did Mueller refer to ‘other offices’?

“During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action,” Barr wrote.

The attorney general does not detail those investigations in his summary. One known referral from Mueller’s office has been a major thorn in Trump’s side: The case of Michael Cohen, which was handed off to the US attorney for the Southern District of New York. Cohen has cooperated and has alleged that he was directed by Trump to violate campaign finance laws.

Material from Globe wire services was used in this report.

Source Article from https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/03/26/mysteries-attorney-general-william-barr-letter/XkOyMoyvHGIFtUPs7rjB8I/story.html

35 views no comments

Boeing to release a fix for 737 Max jets Wednesday. Here’s everything we know – CNBC

<!– –>

×

últimas notícias

Ultimas Noticias

Posted!

Charles Payne calls Ocasio-Cortez’s defense of Green New Deal ‘disingenuous’

F.A.A. chief says it will go ‘wherever the facts lead us’

Senate majority forces vote on ‘Green New Deal’ climate change proposal

Michael Avenatti reveals he’s concerned about the charges against him concerning his business practices

Why did Special Counsel Robert Mueller not reach a conclusion on obstruction?

Did Mueller actually pass the buck to Barr or did Barr take it upon himself to decide?

Why did Barr include the ‘did not exonerate’ quote from Mueller’s report?

Is the actual Mueller report as tightly focused as the Barr letter?

What did Barr cut out from the key sentence about collusion?

Why is there a slight difference in the wording about the two Russian election schemes?

What investigations did Mueller refer to ‘other offices’?

Airlines

Limit MCAS corrections

Two sensors, not one

Cockpit alerts

Updated training

News Tips

Related Coverage

BREXIT FINALE?

BREXIT DEAL?

Media under fire for attacks on Trump administration after Mueller report finds no collusion