Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is calling for an investigation of whether the White House is overruling Secret Service recommendations about which guests at President Trump’s Florida estate should have access to him during his frequent weekend stays.

The request to the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security follows the arrest last weekend of a Chinese woman after she bypassed layers of security and gained access to the reception area of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and was found carrying two passports and a thumb drive containing malicious software, according to court documents.

In a letter, Warren, along with Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), cited a Government Accountability Office report published last month that said the White House ultimately determines who sees the president after vetting by the Secret Service. The report said the White House did not respond to a request for comment on the GAO’s findings.

“This refusal of the White House to cooperate with this investigation, combined with the arrest earlier this week and other allegations of easy access to the President and his family at Mar-a-Lago, mean that at least one key question remains open: is the White House appropriately reviewing and making the correct recommendations regarding which individuals are granted access to the President, at Mar-a-Lago and elsewhere?” Warren, a 2020 presidential contender, and Lynch, who chairs a House panel on national security, said in the letter.

The investigation request comes amid growing scrutiny of security and possible espionage efforts aimed at Mar-a-Lago, which Trump uses both as a presidential retreat and a moneymaking resort.

Hundreds of members, overnight guests and partygoing strangers stream into the president’s “Winter White House” every weekend, requiring the Secret Service to screen them against lists of approved visitors.

When a woman — identified as Yujing Zhang, a Chinese national — approached the club last week, security officials found that she was not on the approved list but let her in anyway after a Mar-a-Lago staff members suggested that she might be the relative of a club member. Secret Service agents later detained the woman in the club’s main building.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he had a brief meeting about the incident but that he was not concerned about potential espionage efforts aimed at Mar-a-Lago. He praised the Secret Service, as well as a receptionist who first noticed that something was amiss with Zhang.

“We have very good control,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “The person at the front desk did a very good job, to be honest with you.”

On Wednesday, three other leading Senate Democrats asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to investigate whether foreign spies could exploit weaknesses at Mar-a-Lago to steal classified information.

Zhang’s arrest “raises very serious questions regarding security vulnerabilities at Mar-a-Lago, which foreign intelligence services have reportedly targeted,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.); Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-calls-for-probe-into-white-house-role-in-admitting-guests-at-mar-a-lago/2019/04/04/c7e55eae-56c7-11e9-9136-f8e636f1f6df_story.html

Chicago Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and her wife, Amy Eshleman, live in Logan Square with their 11-year-old daughter.

When Lightfoot’s sworn in as the city’s 56th mayor May 20, Eshleman will become the city’s first lady.

Here are some things to know about her:

* Eshleman is originally from Sterling, Ill., and has lived in Chicago since 1991.

Source Article from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/elections/ct-met-cb-amy-eshleman-what-to-know-20190403-story.html

The MCAS update was supposed to have been rolled out earlier this year, but it was delayed. Polana Pramesti, the head of Indonesia’s civil aviation authority, said on Thursday that she was told by the F.A.A. in a teleconference that the new software would be introduced “in a few weeks.”

But it will take airlines some time to test the new software and restore the trust of customers leery about the Max, given two fatal crashes within half a year.

In a statement released on Twitter after the news conference on Thursday, Ethiopian Airlines said pilots on the doomed flight had followed emergency procedures recommended by Boeing and approved by the F.A.A.

“It was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving,” the airline said.

In the news conference, however, Ms. Moges, the transport minister, cautioned against holding any party responsible for the plane’s fatal plunge.

“The major objective of this investigation is to make sure that there is safety in the aviation sector,” she said. “It is not to blame someone.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/world/asia/ethiopia-crash-boeing.html

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday exceeded its bounds in issuing a subpoena for the full report from special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian skullduggery concerning the 2016 elections.

Attorney General William Barr should release as much of the Mueller report as possible, as soon as possible, because the public has a right to see what all the fuss was about. Yet if he determines that some information within it is either classified or subject to grand jury secrecy rules, he is duty-bound to redact it. Unless Congress passes, and President Trump signs, a new law waiving grand jury secrecy rules, then existing laws protecting that secrecy should take legal precedence over Congress’ subpoena authority.

This is decidedly not a similar situation to the 1998 investigation of, and eventual impeachment of, then-President Bill Clinton. That investigation was led not by a special counsel, which is what Robert Mueller was, but by an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr. The difference is significant.

Under the independent counsel statute, which has since lapsed (and always was of dubious constitutionality anyway), such counsels were creatures of, and reported to, Congress. They existed independent of, and separate from, the ordinary lines of authority within the Justice Department and the executive branch. When House Speaker Newt Gingrich and company made the foolish decision to post the full Starr report immediately on the Internet, they had full power to do so because Starr’s report was specifically theirs to use as they saw fit.

Special counsels are different. Special counsels, while enjoying a modicum of separation from ordinary lines of authority in the Justice Department, are nonetheless still ultimately part of the department and the executive branch as a whole. They report to the attorney general (or his designee), and they must follow all ordinary rules of civil and criminal procedure.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), neither the attorney for the government nor anyone else may “disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” The exceptions involve disclosure to another federal grand jury or to an attorney for the government pursuing another criminal matter in certain circumstances, or to certain national security officials if the information involves foreign intelligence, terrorism, or threat of attack. If petitioned by the government or a defendant in another judicial proceeding, the court can also permit release in the other proceeding. Absent such very limited circumstances, Barr would run afoul of this almost blanket prohibition, and could be sanctioned by contempt of court if he disclosed to Congress any grand jury information in the Mueller report under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(7).

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and the Democrats surely know this, but seem not to care about the rule of law, the sanctity of the grand jury process, or the lack of any impeachment authorization in the House that could be considered a “judicial proceeding” to support their subpoena.

The Democrats are not seeking the grand jury information “to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding,” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979). Nor are they seeking grand jury information to support articles of impeachment, as the House has not authorized such inquiry, unlike 1974 when grand jury information was produced to the Judiciary Committee related to its impeachment inquiry of President Richard M. Nixon. (Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 — D.C. Cir. 1974). Likewise, the impeachment proceedings of federal district Judge Alcee Hastings provided the basis for the 11th Circuit to consider such congressional efforts a “judicial proceeding” and thus the House Judiciary Committee could subpoena grand jury documents related to Hastings’ indictment. (In re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials Grand Jury 81-1, Miami, 833 F.2d 1438 — 11th Cir. 1987).

If Nadler wants to subpoena any grand jury information contained in the Mueller report, he first needs a majority of the House to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate impeachment of President Trump.

Somehow, it doesn’t seem as if Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to open that can of worms, at least not yet.

Quin Hillyer is a senior commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. James Robertson is a lawyer in Mobile, Ala.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/jerry-nadlers-mueller-report-subpoena-isnt-legit-without-impeachment-inquiry

Crekasafra Night was nervous when she spotted the skinny young man wandering in Kentucky early Wednesday morning, she said later that day. So were her neighbors. Only the deep bruising on his face and the clear anxiety with which he addressed a passing car alerted them to the possibility that he didn’t pose any danger — he was running from it.

“He walked up to my car and he went, ‘Can you help me?'” a 911 caller told dispatchers. “‘I just want to get home. Please help me.’ I asked him what’s going on, and he tells me he’s been kidnapped and he’s been traded through all these people and he just wanted to go home.”

When police arrived, according to a Sharonville report, he told them a story that could end an Illinois family’s years-long quest for answers and justice.

His name was Timmothy Pitzen. He was 14 years old. He’d escaped on foot from a pair of men who held him against his will for nearly eight years, most recently inside a Red Roof Inn. He didn’t remember where the motel was — just that he’d gotten out and run, crossing a bridge, until he reached Newport that morning.

Police will work with the FBI to determine whether he really is the Aurora, Illinois 6-year-old who vanished in 2011 following his mother’s suicide. DNA tests will take about 24 hours, according to Aurora police.

An FBI spokesperson in Louisville said the bureau was working with Newport police, Cincinnati police, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office and Aurora, Illinois police on a missing child investigation.

Newport Police Chief Tom Collins said officers responded and the boy is receiving medical care.

According to a 911 caller, he described the kidnappers as two white males with “bodybuilder-type” builds. One had black curly hair and a spiderweb tattoo on his neck; he wore a Mountain Dew shirt and jeans. The other was short with a snake tattoo on his arms. They were driving a white newer model Ford SUV with yellow transfer paint, Wisconsin plates and a dent on the left back bumper.

Multiple police agencies, including Sharonville, said they’d been told to check Red Roof Inns in the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area. Workers at several area hotels said authorities had spoken to them or requested their guest lists, but they didn’t recall anyone who matched the description.

“It’s hard to remember people, to be honest, because of so many people coming in and out,” Kennedy Slusher, a worker at the Red Roof Inn Beechmont, said. “But to hear something like that, it’s kind of mind-blowing. It’s scary.”

Timmothy was last seen with his mother, 43-year-old Amy Fry-Pitzen, on May 11, 2011. She’d checked him out of his kindergarten class and driven him to a zoo and water parks before the boy seemingly disappeared after they checked out of a Wisconsin Dells resort.

Fry-Pitzen was then found dead by apparent suicide in a Rockford, Illinois hotel room. Police told ABC News at the time she’d left a note stating that she left Timmothy with people who “would care for him and love him” but didn’t name them.

The boy, his car booster seat and backpack were gone by the time her body was discovered. The note promised they would never be found.

The case drew widespread attention, and searchers spread across Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa but were unable to locate Timmothy. “Crime Watch Daily” covered the case in 2017, and the Amazon show “Fireball Run” also drew attention to Timmothy’s disappearance.

Angeline Hartmann, the director of digital and broadcast media for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said they are aware of the reports about Timmothy.

“Timmothy Pitzen remains an active NCMEC case, and his missing poster is on our website,” she said.

Alana Anderson, Timmothy’s maternal grandmother, told ABC News that she has been in touch with Aurora police and is expecting them to call her again as soon as they have determined whether the boy is Timmothy. She said that, if the boy really is her grandson, the family still loves him and they’ve never stopped looking for him. They want to let him know that everything will be OK.

“(I’m) cautiously hopeful, very cautiously hopeful,” Anderson said. “And if it turns out to be him, we’ll be thrilled.”

RELATED:

Everything we know about the disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen

Source Article from https://www.turnto23.com/news/national/timmothy-pitzen-possibly-found-in-kentucky-wednesday

President Trump responded with a dismissive taunt on Wednesday after a House committee chairman formally requested the IRS provide several years of his personal and business tax returns, in a move that prompted congressional Republicans to warn that Democrats had “weaponized” tax law.

Told by a reporter at the White House that Democrats wanted six years of his tax returns, Trump replied: “Is that all? Usually it’s 10. So I guess they’re giving up. We’re under audit, despite what people said, and we’re working that out — I’m always under audit, it seems, but I’ve been under audit for many years, because the numbers are big, and I guess when you have a name, you’re audited. But until such time as I’m not under audit, I would not be inclined to do that.”

The request Wednesday by Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal, who heads the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is the first such demand for a sitting president’s tax information in 45 years. The move sets up a virtually certain legal showdown with the White House.

Neal made the request in a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, asking for Trump’s personal and business returns for 2013 through 2018. Neal told Rettig that Democrats have a duty “to ensure that the Internal Revenue Service is enforcing the laws in a fair and impartial manner.”

“It is critical to ensure the accountability of our government and elected officials,” Neal said in a statement. “To maintain trust in our democracy, the American people must be assured that their government is operating properly, as laws intend.”

The president’s congressional allies registered immediate and fierce disapproval. The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, R-Texas, wrote to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to decry what he called Democrats’ “abuse” of their authority.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., arrives for a Democratic Caucus meeting at the Capitol in Washington, on April 2, 2019. Rep. Neal, whose committee has jurisdiction over all tax issues, has formally requested President Donald Trump’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service for the past 6 years. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“Weaponizing our nation’s tax code by targeting political foes sets a dangerous precedent and weakens Americans’ privacy rights, As you know, by law all Americans have a fundamental right to the privacy of the personal information found in their tax returns,” Brady said in the letter. “This particular request is an abuse of the tax-writing committees’ statutory authority, and violates the intent and safeguards of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code as Congress intended.”

That provision of tax law generally prohibits the disclosure of personal tax information.

Brady added that while “transparency in our government is enormously important,” the “privacy and freedom” of all taxpayers is paramount — and that Congress should pass new disclosure laws if it sees a problem. Violating the privacy rights of one taxpayer, Brady asserted, “begins the process of eroding and threatening the privacy rights of all taxpayers.”

A spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News that the “ability of the chairman to request such information is intended to inform the legislative process, which is how it’s been used in the past, not to engage in a politically-motivated fishing expedition.”

Congress “passed section 6103 of the tax code to prevent that kind of abuse of power and to protect every taxpayer’s privacy,” the spokesperson continued. “Those seeking an individual’s personal tax returns to exact political damage would be opening the door to future abuses of power and would poison the public trust in the ability of the IRS to keep personal information private. That’s an outcome every taxpayer and their elected representatives should want to avoid.”

Neal specifically demanded the federal income tax returns from eight entities, including Trump National Golf Club-Bedminster, as well as statements specifying whether the returns were ever under audit. Neal also demanded all administrative files, including affidavits, related to each return.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., followed up with a statement backing up his counterpart in the House.

“The law is crystal clear—the Treasury Department must provide tax returns to the Ways & Means and Finance Committees when the chairman requests them. I expect the Treasury Department to comply in a timely manner,” Wyden said. “Chairman Grassley should make the same request so Senate Finance Committee members are also able to access them.”

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

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-asks-irs-for-6-years-of-trumps-tax-returns

One of the original business news podcasts. Mirrored after the popular Wall Street Journal column. Get caught up on your commute Monday through Friday. Listen as our journalists cover top stories and share timely insights on business, the economy, markets, and politics.

Source Article from https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/whats-news/a-boeing-breakthrough/f0c4a875-f64d-4193-ac33-02c017facfc2

As the press gives more attention to the mounting accusations against former Vice President Joe Biden for inappropriate touching, it is only doing more to confirm all of the suspicions that conservatives have about liberal media bias.

The New York Times quoted two more women as saying they felt uncomfortable by the way Biden touched them, which follows two other accusations of a similar nature.

However, there is nothing particularly new about the idea that Biden is handsy. The fact was well known for years and demonstrated in many photos and videos. A number of conservatives tried to argue that his creepy behavior shouldn’t simply be dismissed as just a cuddly Biden being Biden. At the time, though, the matter was largely ignored by the media, treated as a joke, or waved off as “faux outrage.”

It’s hard to argue that the issue was irrelevant at the time, and that it’s only emerging now because Biden is considering a run for president. It’s not as if he were an obscure figure at the time these incidents occurred. He was the vice president of the United States.

The only thing that’s changed is Biden’s opponents. Had the media scrutinized Biden’s behavior back then, it would have benefited Republicans and caused headaches for the Obama administration. Now, however, Biden’s opponents are a dozen or more Democrats. Given that he’s been consistently on top of polls for the 2020 Democratic nomination, all of the rival camps are gunning for him, and hoping to destroy his candidacy before it even gets off the launch pad.

So, it’s entirely predictable that the media are suddenly focusing on Biden’s touching problem now, even while acknowledging that it was an open secret for years.

Should Biden go on to win the Democratic nomination, expect the media to go back to suddenly not caring about this issue. And any attempt by conservatives to raise it will just be shut down by pointing to President Trump’s record of boasting about grabbing women.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/that-joe-bidens-touching-is-only-becoming-an-issue-now-confirms-liberal-media-bias

Much hay has been made that Chicago just elected its first black female mayor, and an openly gay one at that, but more notable is that they didn’t elect the worst option.

Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot stepped into a 14-person bloodbath of an election resulting from the vacuum left behind by outgoing Mayor Rahm Emanuel. She was a relative outsider, a tough-on-crime prosecutor who has never held elected office before. Though Lightfoot is as left a Democrat as the rest of the race, she came under fire for her role both as a prosecutor and as chair of the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force.

In any other city, a politically savvy prosecutor beating the odds first by a slim plurality and then in a runoff wouldn’t be too notable. But this is Chicago, and the feat Lightfoot achieved isn’t just herculean; it’s promising.

In the first round, Lightfoot beat out multiple elected officials, including Bill Daley, the former Obama chief of staff and the son and brother of two previous Chicago mayors. Lightfoot then faced off Toni Preckwinkle, as much a member of the Chicago machine as one could be.

At the forefront of the mayoral runoff was the Jussie Smollett case. While no one expressed as much rage toward the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and the alleged hate crime hoaxer as Emanuel, Lightfoot expressed real criticism of Kim Foxx’s move to drop the charges. Preckwinkle found herself in a bit of a bind, as Foxx was her own personal protege.

“It’s really important that the state’s attorney be allowed to provide a fuller explanation as time goes on,” Preckwinkle said of Foxx, who was also once her chief of staff.

Polling starkly divided as the election drew nearer, with Lightfoot’s lead increasing from 28 points at the end of February to 36 points just before Foxx dropped the Smollett case. (The polls were administered by different sources, but the divide is still notable.)

The election may not be a referendum on the Smollett case specifically, but it’s at least one of the Chicago machine as a whole. For all that progressives in the city like to brand themselves as, choosing Lightfoot over a union-backed career crony is actual change and progress.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/chicago-chooses-someone-outside-the-machine-in-post-jussie-smollett-mayoral-election

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday exceeded its bounds in issuing a subpoena for the full report from special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian skullduggery concerning the 2016 elections.

Attorney General William Barr should release as much of the Mueller report as possible, as soon as possible, because the public has a right to see what all the fuss was about. Yet if he determines that some information within it is either classified or subject to grand jury secrecy rules, he is duty-bound to redact it. Unless Congress passes, and President Trump signs, a new law waiving grand jury secrecy rules, then existing laws protecting that secrecy should take legal precedence over Congress’ subpoena authority.

This is decidedly not a similar situation to the 1998 investigation of, and eventual impeachment of, then-President Bill Clinton. That investigation was led not by a special counsel, which is what Robert Mueller was, but by an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr. The difference is significant.

Under the independent counsel statute, which has since lapsed (and always was of dubious constitutionality anyway), such counsels were creatures of, and reported to, Congress. They existed independent of, and separate from, the ordinary lines of authority within the Justice Department and the executive branch. When House Speaker Newt Gingrich and company made the foolish decision to post the full Starr report immediately on the Internet, they had full power to do so because Starr’s report was specifically theirs to use as they saw fit.

Special counsels are different. Special counsels, while enjoying a modicum of separation from ordinary lines of authority in the Justice Department, are nonetheless still ultimately part of the department and the executive branch as a whole. They report to the attorney general (or his designee), and they must follow all ordinary rules of civil and criminal procedure.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), neither the attorney for the government nor anyone else may “disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” The exceptions involve disclosure to another federal grand jury or to an attorney for the government pursuing another criminal matter in certain circumstances, or to certain national security officials if the information involves foreign intelligence, terrorism, or threat of attack. If petitioned by the government or a defendant in another judicial proceeding, the court can also permit release in the other proceeding. Absent such very limited circumstances, Barr would run afoul of this almost blanket prohibition, and could be sanctioned by contempt of court if he disclosed to Congress any grand jury information in the Mueller report under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(7).

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and the Democrats surely know this, but seem not to care about the rule of law, the sanctity of the grand jury process, or the lack of any impeachment authorization in the House that could be considered a “judicial proceeding” to support their subpoena.

The Democrats are not seeking the grand jury information “to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding,” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979). Nor are they seeking grand jury information to support articles of impeachment, as the House has not authorized such inquiry, unlike 1974 when grand jury information was produced to the Judiciary Committee related to its impeachment inquiry of President Richard M. Nixon. (Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 — D.C. Cir. 1974). Likewise, the impeachment proceedings of federal district Judge Alcee Hastings provided the basis for the 11th Circuit to consider such congressional efforts a “judicial proceeding” and thus the House Judiciary Committee could subpoena grand jury documents related to Hastings’ indictment. (In re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials Grand Jury 81-1, Miami, 833 F.2d 1438 — 11th Cir. 1987).

If Nadler wants to subpoena any grand jury information contained in the Mueller report, he first needs a majority of the House to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate impeachment of President Trump.

Somehow, it doesn’t seem as if Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to open that can of worms, at least not yet.

Quin Hillyer is a senior commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. James Robertson is a lawyer in Mobile, Ala.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/jerry-nadlers-mueller-report-subpoena-isnt-legit-without-impeachment-inquiry

Presidents used to vacation in seclusion — at a ranch in Texas or a beach house in Hawaii. Screening their visitors was relatively simple: The only people who came were friends and staff.

President Trump has added vast new complications by choosing to spend his weekends with his customers.

Trump stays at the Mar-a-Lago Club, a busy beachfront resort where his quarters are a short distance from the pool, the ballroom, and the “six star” seafood buffet. That decision — to use his Palm Beach, Fla., club as both a presidential retreat and a moneymaking resort — brings hundreds of members, overnight guests and partygoing strangers into the president’s “Winter White House” every weekend.

To protect the president, that requires the Secret Service to screen hundreds of would-be visitors against preapproved lists.

But to protect his business, it has also required the Secret Service to defer to Mar-a-Lago staffers and allow in some visitors who are not on the list.

Last weekend, that complex system of lists and exceptions broke down.

When a visitor approached the club, officers found she was not on the approved list — but let her in anyway after a Mar-a-Lago staffer suggested she might be the relative of a club member.

The woman, identified as Yujing Zhang, a Chinese national, was later arrested inside the club’s main building. Authorities said she was carrying four cellphones, a laptop and a thumb drive with malicious software.

“I’m surprised that she got in. But then again, I’m not surprised,” said Shannon Donnelly, the longtime society columnist for the Palm Beach Daily News who has covered Mar-a-Lago for years.

She described a situation in which the Secret Service is dealing with two missions, to keep the president safe and to keep his customers happy.

“It’s bound to happen” that people will slip through, Donnelly said. “There’s hundreds of people coming and going when there’s an event, and half of them are members — they’re not used to being stopped.”

On Wednesday, Trump said he had a brief meeting about the incident but said he was not concerned about potential espionage efforts aimed at Mar-a-Lago. He praised the Secret Service as well as the receptionist who first noticed something was amiss with Zhang.

“We have very good control,” he told reporters at the White House. “The person at the front desk did a very good job, to be honest with you.”

Zhang is in jail, charged with making a false statement to a federal officer and entering a restricted area. On Monday, a federal judge will decide whether she should remain in custody.

Counterintelligence agents at the FBI are also looking at Zhang to see whether they can find any information that would explain her behavior, according to people familiar with the matter.

On Wednesday, three top Senate Democrats asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to investigate whether foreign spies could exploit weaknesses at Mar-a-Lago to steal classified information. Zhang’s arrest “raises very serious questions regarding security vulnerabilities at Mar-a-Lago, which foreign intelligence services have reportedly targeted,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.); Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Bernd Lembcke, Mar-a-Lago’s longtime managing director, did not respond to questions about the club’s security procedures, including whether members are checked to see whether they might be foreign agents. Neither did Trump Organization executives in New York.

Mar-a-Lago stretches the full width of narrow Palm Beach island, off the coast of South Florida. It features a beach club, a main building with dining and living rooms, two ballrooms, six hotel suites and an attached house where Trump lives.

There is a cap of 500 members. As of last year, joining required sponsorship by an existing member and a payment of $200,000 — an initiation fee that doubled the year Trump took office. The annual dues are about $14,000, according to members.

Trump has been to the club 22 times since he became president, according to a Washington Post tally.

On busy Saturdays in the winter and spring — like this past Saturday, when Zhang got in — there are hundreds of people arriving. Some are members, coming to swim, eat or play tennis.

Others are attending luncheons and galas, holding tickets that cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars. At first, these galas largely drew guests from Palm Beach’s pastel-colored social scene. These days, after a decline in that traditional banquet business, the galas are more commonly aimed at Trump’s fervid political fan base, which extends beyond the clubby island.

That busy schedule is what Trump wanted for Mar-a-Lago, according to one former senior Trump administration official. Even after he became president, Trump did not want Mar-a-Lago to become a place where visitors became uncomfortable.

So he kept it as it was — and made his aides uncomfortable instead.

“The president has no idea who most of the people around him at the club are,” said another White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. “You pay and you get in.”

When Trump is present, guests say, the first stop for visitors is a security screening in a parking lot across the street from the club.

There, past visitors said, guests give their names and identifications to Secret Service agents or police officers, who check them against a list supplied by the club. The checks are strict: One member said her 11-year-old grandson brings his passport with him when he comes to use the pool.

But visitors also described instances in which — if a name was not on the list — Mar-a-Lago security personnel would make exceptions if they knew the guest or found another staffer to vouch for them.

“Usually it’s the Mar-a-Lago people that are giving the go-ahead,” said one person familiar with the property who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering management. “If [the guest is] a familiar face, they would let them in.”

The Secret Service confirmed as much in its statement about Zhang’s arrest. “The Mar-a-Lago Club’s management determines which members and guests are granted access to the property,” the agency said.

The Secret Service has additional layers of protection around Trump. Agents stand outside the door to his residence, cordon off his table at dinner and surround him if he drops in to weddings or galas in the ballrooms. Guests cannot approach unless Trump waves them over.

“There’s no more access than they’d have than if he was in a restaurant,” said Ronald Kessler, an author who has known Trump for two decades. Kessler said his wife was yanked back by a Secret Service agent when they approached Trump’s table at Mar-a-Lago two years ago.

But, intelligence officials have said, a foreign spy might find Mar-a-Lago a gold mine — even if the spy never laid eyes on Trump. The club is full of Trump’s friends, aides and hangers-on; it could be bugged, or its computers hacked, if someone could get in the door.

In the case of Zhang, the Chinese woman arrested Saturday, she arrived at the first security checkpoint, in the parking lot across the street, and said she was headed to the club’s pool. She was not on the list. According to charging documents, a Mar-a-Lago staffer still allowed her in because the club “believed her to be the relative” of a club member whose name was also Zhang, prosecutors said.

Zhang was picked up by a club employee and driven in a golf cart to the main building. There, prosecutors said, a club receptionist stopped Zhang and asked her why she had come to the club.

Zhang said she had come from Shanghai to attend a “United Nations Friendship Event” at the club, at the invitation of a friend named “Charles.” But there was no such event scheduled, according to charging documents. The receptionist called over a Secret Service agent, the documents said, and Zhang then became “verbally aggressive” and was arrested.

Trump was in Palm Beach this past weekend, but at the time of Zhang’s entrance he was out of the club playing golf.

On Wednesday, authorities were still trying to understand her motivations.

One possibility: She really thought she had a ticket to an event at the club.

There is a Chinese entrepreneur named Charles Li, with a group called the United Nations Chinese Friendship Association, who has sold package tours in China that included tickets to galas at Mar-a-Lago, according to reporting by the Miami Herald.

The Washington Post sought to reach Li at the Beijing address listed for the association, but the building’s management said it had no such tenant.

The Post also sent messages through the Chinese social media network WeChat to a number listed for Li. When The Post asked whether this number belonged to Charles Li, the user sent back a photo of Trump doing a thumbs-up.

But then, when The Post asked about Zhang, the account did not respond, and then it blocked The Post from further contact.

Could Zhang have been at Mar-a-Lago as part of a foreign intelligence operation? Former U.S. counterintelligence officials said that was possible — but noted that it appeared to be an unsophisticated effort, lame enough to be foiled by a receptionist.

“I don’t know if it’s a sanctioned activity by the Chinese government, but there’s no doubt it’s some type of potential intelligence operation,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior FBI counterintelligence official. He is now chief executive of Cyber Defense Labs in Dallas.

He also called it “very disturbing” for someone “with that shoddy of a story to get by two or three levels of security” at a facility where the president could be in attendance. “How in the heck does that happen?”

Anna Fifield, Wang Yuan, Lyric Li and Liu Yang in Beijing; Colby Itkowitz, Karoun Demirjian and Rachael M. Bade in Washington; and Lori Rozsa in West Palm Beach, Fla., contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/you-pay-and-you-get-in-at-trumps-beach-retreat-hundreds-of-customers–and-growing-security-concerns/2019/04/03/7205bf28-5646-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

<!– –>

In another nail-biting vote in the U.K.’s Parliament, lawmakers voted by a majority of just one to force Prime Minister Theresa May to seek an extension to the Brexit process and avoid a no-deal departure.

Members of Parliament (MPs) voted for the draft legislation on Wednesday evening to prevent a shock no-deal exit on April 12 (the date of a new deadline granted by the EU) by 313 votes to 312. The bill will need to be approved by the upper house of parliament, the House of Lords, to become law.

Despite last night’s vote in favor of a delay to Brexit, it’s far from certain that the EU will grant the U.K. an extension when European leaders meet next Wednesday, April 10, at an emergency summit dedicated to Brexit.

The U.K. was originally meant to leave the EU on March 29 but granted more time by the EU. Ahead of the U.K. Parliament’s vote last night, the European Commission President Jean-Claude reiterated that April 12 was the final date for the approval of the Brexit deal and that no short extension would be possible.

MPs have rejected May’s Brexit deal three times now, and a selection of alternative Brexit options have also failed to win a majority of support.

May’s talks with opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn Wednesday also failed to reach any compromise or consensus. Whatever happens next, experts expect a longer delay to Brexit and more political and economic uncertainty.

“As an American watching this from afar, we thought this would be done by now and I think what we’re increasingly coming to terms with is that no matter what agreement is agreed right now, this is going to be a long-term process because Britain is divided,” Christopher Smart, head of macroeconomic and geopolitical research at Barings, told CNBC Thursday.

Prolonging the agony

A decision over an extension won’t be taken lightly; the EU does not want to be blamed for scuppering a Brexit deal and a disorderly Brexit could harm its own interests — but so too could an extension in which the uncertainty surrounding future relations is prolonged.

May continues talks with Corbyn on Thursday but if they cannot agree a compromise deal there are expected to be more parliamentary votes on what course Brexit should take. The ball is in Europe’s court over whether it will afford the U.K. more time if needed (and as expected) especially as it would mean that the U.K. will have to participate in European Parliament elections between May 23-26.

That could be an unappealing prospect for many politicians in Europe already wary of the rise of populist party politics — the same forces that fomented euroskeptic sentiment in the U.K. ahead of the 2016 referendum on EU membership.

While German Chancellor Angela Merkel signaled Wednesday that she was willing to grant an open extension to allow for an orderly Brexit. Her counterpart in France, President Emmanuel Macron, is not so keen on a delay and the potential disruption that could cause, however.

“It is far from clear whether an extension will be forthcoming,” Stefan Auer, associate professor in European Studies at the University of Hong Kong, told CNBC Thursday.

“Merkel seems to be willing to grant it but she’ll need to persuade Macron in France that that is in the EU’s interests and I remain skeptical of that strategy, it will cause so much mess for the EU and the U.K. it will prolong the agony,” he told CNBC’s “Capital Connection.”

Auer said it would be a “nightmare” for the EU if the U.K. took part in EU parliamentary elections in May as it would boost euroskeptics in the region. “The EU, at its heart, is a voluntary association of nation states and the credibility of that claim would be greatly diminished if the perception is created that the U.K. is somehow not allowed to leave.”

“It would not only create a political mess in the U.K. … It would also have massive political repercussions in continental Europe so I think EU leaders will be wary of that prospect — but they’re equally wary of a no-deal Brexit,” he said.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/uk-votes-to-delay-brexit-again-but-the-eu-could-refuse.html

As mourners at a New Jersey funeral on Wednesday paid their respects to the college student who was killed after she mistook a car for her Uber ride, lawmakers in South Carolina, where she died, are pushing to require ride-share vehicles to be clearly marked with illuminated signs.

Samantha Josephson, a 21-year-old University of South Carolina student from New Jersey, was killed last week. Investigators think she got into the wrong car early Friday while waiting for an Uber outside a bar in Columbia. A suspect has been arrested, and police say she apparently mistook his car for the Uber she ordered.

Nathaniel D. Rowland, 24, has been charged with murder and kidnapping. The student’s body was found in a wooded area in Clarendon County on Friday afternoon. Rowland was arrested after he was pulled over in Columbia early Saturday, police have said.

Seth Josephson told mourners Wednesday that the family’s “sadness will never end,” NBC New York reported.

“It may wane in the future, but it will always leave a hole in the heart,” he said, while reading a statement on behalf of Josephson’s family. Seth Josephson is a cousin of Samantha Josephson’s father.

Josephson’s father, Seymour Josephson, has said he would dedicate his life to improving the safety of ride-share services.

“Samantha was by herself. She had absolutely no chance. None. The door was locked, the child safety locks were on. She had absolutely no chance,” he said at a vigil in Columbia on Sunday.

In response to Josephson’s death, South Carolina lawmakers have introduced a bill that would require all ride-share drivers to display an illuminated sign to clearly mark their vehicles.

“We can’t stop a psychopath from doing something hideous, but as lawmakers, policymakers, we need to take precautions to make the likelihood that something like this happen less,” said state Rep. Seth Rose, a Democrat, according to NBC affiliate WIS of Columbia.

The bill, the “Samantha L. Josephson Ridesharing Safety Act,” was introduced Tuesday.

It would require that “transportation network company” vehicles display an illuminated sign that can be seen in darkness. The current law requires a sign or emblem that is reflective.

Uber and Lyft did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday about the proposed changes to the law or about regulations they have regarding lighted signs.

It appears from Lyft’s website that its lighted sign, called “amp” is available to higher-tier drivers in some areas. Uber also has a lighted sign called “beacon” that is described as an option, according to that company’s website.

The University of South Carolina on Monday announced a “What’s My Name” campaign to help students stay safe when requesting ride-share vehicles.

Uber announced it would partner with the university to raise awareness about safety.

“Since 2017, we’ve been working with local law enforcement to educate the public about how to avoid fake rideshare drivers,” Uber said in the statement. “Everyone at Uber is devastated to hear about this unspeakable crime, and our hearts are with Samantha Josephson’s family and loved ones.”

Uber encourages users to check the car, license plate and driver against information delivered through the app before getting in. If the information does not match, do not get in the vehicle, the company says.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-lawmakers-push-lighted-signs-ride-share-vehicles-after-n990746

President Trump responded with a dismissive taunt on Wednesday after a House committee chairman formally requested the IRS provide several years of his personal and business tax returns, in a move that prompted congressional Republicans to warn that Democrats had “weaponized” tax law.

Told by a reporter at the White House that Democrats wanted six years of his tax returns, Trump replied: “Is that all? Usually it’s 10. So I guess they’re giving up. We’re under audit, despite what people said, and we’re working that out — I’m always under audit, it seems, but I’ve been under audit for many years, because the numbers are big, and I guess when you have a name, you’re audited. But until such time as I’m not under audit, I would not be inclined to do that.”

The request Wednesday by Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal, who heads the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is the first such demand for a sitting president’s tax information in 45 years. The move sets up a virtually certain legal showdown with the White House.

Neal made the request in a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, asking for Trump’s personal and business returns for 2013 through 2018. Neal told Rettig that Democrats have a duty “to ensure that the Internal Revenue Service is enforcing the laws in a fair and impartial manner.”

“It is critical to ensure the accountability of our government and elected officials,” Neal said in a statement. “To maintain trust in our democracy, the American people must be assured that their government is operating properly, as laws intend.”

The president’s congressional allies registered immediate and fierce disapproval. The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, R-Texas, wrote to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to decry what he called Democrats’ “abuse” of their authority.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., arrives for a Democratic Caucus meeting at the Capitol in Washington, on April 2, 2019. Rep. Neal, whose committee has jurisdiction over all tax issues, has formally requested President Donald Trump’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service for the past 6 years. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“Weaponizing our nation’s tax code by targeting political foes sets a dangerous precedent and weakens Americans’ privacy rights, As you know, by law all Americans have a fundamental right to the privacy of the personal information found in their tax returns,” Brady said in the letter. “This particular request is an abuse of the tax-writing committees’ statutory authority, and violates the intent and safeguards of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code as Congress intended.”

That provision of tax law generally prohibits the disclosure of personal tax information.

Brady added that while “transparency in our government is enormously important,” the “privacy and freedom” of all taxpayers is paramount — and that Congress should pass new disclosure laws if it sees a problem. Violating the privacy rights of one taxpayer, Brady asserted, “begins the process of eroding and threatening the privacy rights of all taxpayers.”

A spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News that the “ability of the chairman to request such information is intended to inform the legislative process, which is how it’s been used in the past, not to engage in a politically-motivated fishing expedition.”

Congress “passed section 6103 of the tax code to prevent that kind of abuse of power and to protect every taxpayer’s privacy,” the spokesperson continued. “Those seeking an individual’s personal tax returns to exact political damage would be opening the door to future abuses of power and would poison the public trust in the ability of the IRS to keep personal information private. That’s an outcome every taxpayer and their elected representatives should want to avoid.”

Neal specifically demanded the federal income tax returns from eight entities, including Trump National Golf Club-Bedminster, as well as statements specifying whether the returns were ever under audit. Neal also demanded all administrative files, including affidavits, related to each return.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., followed up with a statement backing up his counterpart in the House.

“The law is crystal clear—the Treasury Department must provide tax returns to the Ways & Means and Finance Committees when the chairman requests them. I expect the Treasury Department to comply in a timely manner,” Wyden said. “Chairman Grassley should make the same request so Senate Finance Committee members are also able to access them.”

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

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-asks-irs-for-6-years-of-trumps-tax-returns

Mr. Trump encouraged one organizer to pack the ballroom for a February event beyond the 700-person limit, advising that person to tell his staff at Mar-a-Lago that he said he would allow the increase. That organizer was told that the Mar-a-Lago security team had no final say over crowd numbers, but the event still grew to around 730 guests.

In the end, Mr. Trump did not attend, and it was screened by Mar-a-Lago officials and a private security company hired by the event’s organizers.

When the president is not at his club, the security bubble becomes easier to break.

Members and guests must still present identification and check in with the club’s security team, but several layers of Secret Service protection are not in place. Laurence Leamer, a Palm Beach resident who wrote a book about Mar-a-Lago, said in an interview that the scene could be freewheeling, “like having dinner at the Outback Steakhouse,” adding that the security “seems to me to be incredibly lax.”

Mr. Trump was at his nearby golf club four miles away when Ms. Zhang showed up at the resort on Saturday, and the process that the Secret Service uses to check visitors when he is in town was in place, officials said. Ms. Zhang was screened by agents before reaching the club’s reception area, but confusion over her name and a potential communication barrier led to her entering.

On Wednesday, the Secret Service was reviewing the Saturday incident with security at Mar-a-Lago. John Cohen, a former acting under secretary at the Department of Homeland Security who worked closely with the Secret Service on protection details, said the president’s “predictable” travel to the resort had made the location vulnerable.

“That’s a nightmare for the Secret Service,” he said. “A privately owned ranch where the president and his people use the location is much easier than protecting the president when he chooses to go to a private club that’s open to members that provides services to those people in exchange for a fee.”

When people approach a checkpoint at Mar-a-Lago, the Secret Service is focused on screening them for weapons or explosives, Mr. Mihalek said.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/mar-a-lago-chinese-malware.html

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday exceeded its bounds in issuing a subpoena for the full report from special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian skullduggery concerning the 2016 elections.

Attorney General William Barr should release as much of the Mueller report as possible, as soon as possible, because the public has a right to see what all the fuss was about. Yet if he determines that some information within it is either classified or subject to grand jury secrecy rules, he is duty-bound to redact it. Unless Congress passes, and President Trump signs, a new law waiving grand jury secrecy rules, then existing laws protecting that secrecy should take legal precedence over Congress’ subpoena authority.

This is decidedly not a similar situation to the 1998 investigation of, and eventual impeachment of, then-President Bill Clinton. That investigation was led not by a special counsel, which is what Robert Mueller was, but by an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr. The difference is significant.

Under the independent counsel statute, which has since lapsed (and always was of dubious constitutionality anyway), such counsels were creatures of, and reported to, Congress. They existed independent of, and separate from, the ordinary lines of authority within the Justice Department and the executive branch. When House Speaker Newt Gingrich and company made the foolish decision to post the full Starr report immediately on the Internet, they had full power to do so because Starr’s report was specifically theirs to use as they saw fit.

Special counsels are different. Special counsels, while enjoying a modicum of separation from ordinary lines of authority in the Justice Department, are nonetheless still ultimately part of the department and the executive branch as a whole. They report to the attorney general (or his designee), and they must follow all ordinary rules of civil and criminal procedure.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), neither the attorney for the government nor anyone else may “disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” The exceptions involve disclosure to another federal grand jury or to an attorney for the government pursuing another criminal matter in certain circumstances, or to certain national security officials if the information involves foreign intelligence, terrorism, or threat of attack. If petitioned by the government or a defendant in another judicial proceeding, the court can also permit release in the other proceeding. Absent such very limited circumstances, Barr would run afoul of this almost blanket prohibition, and could be sanctioned by contempt of court if he disclosed to Congress any grand jury information in the Mueller report under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(7).

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and the Democrats surely know this, but seem not to care about the rule of law, the sanctity of the grand jury process, or the lack of any impeachment authorization in the House that could be considered a “judicial proceeding” to support their subpoena.

The Democrats are not seeking the grand jury information “to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding,” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979). Nor are they seeking grand jury information to support articles of impeachment, as the House has not authorized such inquiry, unlike 1974 when grand jury information was produced to the Judiciary Committee related to its impeachment inquiry of President Richard M. Nixon. (Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 — D.C. Cir. 1974). Likewise, the impeachment proceedings of federal district Judge Alcee Hastings provided the basis for the 11th Circuit to consider such congressional efforts a “judicial proceeding” and thus the House Judiciary Committee could subpoena grand jury documents related to Hastings’ indictment. (In re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials Grand Jury 81-1, Miami, 833 F.2d 1438 — 11th Cir. 1987).

If Nadler wants to subpoena any grand jury information contained in the Mueller report, he first needs a majority of the House to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate impeachment of President Trump.

Somehow, it doesn’t seem as if Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to open that can of worms, at least not yet.

Quin Hillyer is a senior commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. James Robertson is a lawyer in Mobile, Ala.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/jerry-nadlers-mueller-report-subpoena-isnt-legit-without-impeachment-inquiry

We’ve detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you’re not a robot.

Source Article from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-03/mueller-testimony-before-congress-inevitable-schiff-says

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

Updated 5:00 PM ET, Wed April 3, 2019

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

New York (CNN Business)Two years ago, Boeing was on top. Its stock was up 40% over the previous year. It was one of the hottest stocks around. The outlook for sales and profit was bright. And the company was about to start delivering its new 737 Max jet.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/business/boeing-737-max-crisis/index.html

    Federal immigration authorities arrested more than 280 employees of a Texas company in what officials said was the biggest single workplace raid in a decade.

    The homeland security investigations unit of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said the employees of CVE Technology Group Inc. in the city of Allen, north of Dallas, were arrested on administrative immigration violations and that they were working in the United States unlawfully.

    The raid was part of an ongoing investigation into complaints that the company may have knowingly hired people who are in the U.S. without authorization and that many of those workers were using fraudulent identification documents, the agency said.

    CVE Group Inc. is a New Jersey-based company that refurbishes and repairs consumer tech products and has a national receiving center in North Texas, according to the company’s website.

    The company could not immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday.

    “Our focus is the criminal investigation,” said Katrina W. Berger, a special agent in charge for ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations in Dallas.

    “As far as immigration-related arrests, this is the largest ICE worksite operation at one site in the last 10 years,” she said.

    Relatives of workers came to the facility after word of the operation spread, some emotional and wondering about their loved ones, NBC Dallas-Fort Worth reported.

    Anel Perez, the daughter of a worker who was been detained, told the station, “It’s not fair. It’s really sad and it makes a lot of people really angry and frustrated,”

    Berger said she could not discuss many details of that ongoing probe but that “the numbers of the administrative arrests we made today hint at the significant scope of this investigation.”

    ICE said that all those arrested would be interviewed “to record any medical, sole-caregiver or other humanitarian situations,” and that the federal agency would then determine whether any would be considered for humanitarian release.

    But the agency also said in the statement, “In all cases, all illegal aliens encountered will be fingerprinted and processed for removal from the United States.”

    Berger said that authorities were still vetting information and she did not have the nationalities, ages or any criminal backgrounds of those taken into custody.

    ICE said that search warrants were executed at CVE Technology Group Inc. and four of CVE’s staffing companies.

    Berger said that federal law requires all employers verify that workers are in the country legally with an I-9 form. ICE said an audit of those forms that began in January “confirmed numerous hiring irregularities.”

    “In this case with CVE, we received many tips that they were hiring illegal aliens who were using fraudulent documents,” she said.

    Berger, speaking generally and not about this case, said that immigration laws aim to ensure U.S. citizens and legal residents have a fair chance at getting jobs and that companies compete on the same playing field.

    In addition, workers hired illegally can be abused and exploited such as by being paid less or subjected to unsafe working conditions, she said.

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-arrests-more-280-texas-business-biggest-workplace-immigration-raid-n990766

    WEST WINDSOR, N.J. (AP) — Hundreds of mourners packed a temple in New Jersey for the funeral of a college student who authorities say mistakenly got into the wrong car and was kidnapped and killed in South Carolina.

    Services for Samantha Josephson were held Wednesday at Congregation Beth Chaim in West Windsor. Josephson, 21, was from nearby Robbinsville and attended the University of South Carolina.

    Josephson ordered an Uber ride early Friday but mistakenly got into a similar car driven by Nathaniel David Rowland , 24, authorities said. They allege that he killed Josephson and dumped her body.

    Josephson had spent the night with friends at Columbia’s Five Points bar district, authorities said. She got separated from the group, so she called an Uber to take her home around 1:30 a.m. Friday.

    The first dark car Josephson went up to was not her ride, her father, Seymour Josephson said. So she jumped into a second similar looking car, he said, adding that the vehicle’s child safety locks were on.

    After Josephson got into Rowland’s car, he attacked her, causing numerous wounds to her head, neck, face, upper body, leg and foot with a sharp object, according to arrest warrants and the coroner’s report. The documents didn’t say what was used to attack her.

    Josephson’s blood and cellphone were found in his car the next night when he was arrested two blocks from Five Points, authorities said.

    Josephson’s body was found in Clarendon County, about 65 miles (105 kilometers) from Columbia, police said.

    Rowland skipped a first court appearance, and records don’t show if he has a lawyer. He’s charged with kidnapping and murder.

    In the wake of Josephson’s death, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina Legislature to require Uber and Lyft drivers to have illuminated signs.

    Source Article from https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/04/03/funeral-held-for-student-killed-after-ride-share-mistake/

    As the press gives more attention to the mounting accusations against former Vice President Joe Biden for inappropriate touching, it is only doing more to confirm all of the suspicions that conservatives have about liberal media bias.

    The New York Times quoted two more women as saying they felt uncomfortable by the way Biden touched them, which follows two other accusations of a similar nature.

    However, there is nothing particularly new about the idea that Biden is handsy. The fact was well known for years and demonstrated in many photos and videos. A number of conservatives tried to argue that his creepy behavior shouldn’t simply be dismissed as just a cuddly Biden being Biden. At the time, though, the matter was largely ignored by the media, treated as a joke, or waved off as “faux outrage.”

    It’s hard to argue that the issue was irrelevant at the time, and that it’s only emerging now because Biden is considering a run for president. It’s not as if he were an obscure figure at the time these incidents occurred. He was the vice president of the United States.

    The only thing that’s changed is Biden’s opponents. Had the media scrutinized Biden’s behavior back then, it would have benefited Republicans and caused headaches for the Obama administration. Now, however, Biden’s opponents are a dozen or more Democrats. Given that he’s been consistently on top of polls for the 2020 Democratic nomination, all of the rival camps are gunning for him, and hoping to destroy his candidacy before it even gets off the launch pad.

    So, it’s entirely predictable that the media are suddenly focusing on Biden’s touching problem now, even while acknowledging that it was an open secret for years.

    Should Biden go on to win the Democratic nomination, expect the media to go back to suddenly not caring about this issue. And any attempt by conservatives to raise it will just be shut down by pointing to President Trump’s record of boasting about grabbing women.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/that-joe-bidens-touching-is-only-becoming-an-issue-now-confirms-liberal-media-bias