May 2019

May 31, 2019

Saudi king demands firm Arab stand on Iran's 'criminal' actsSaudi Arabia's King Salman on Friday ratcheted up the rhetoric against arch-nemesis Iran, calling on Arab states to confront its "criminal" actions after attacks on oil installations sparked fears of a regional conflagration. The king's remarks came at the start of two back-to-back emergency summits in the holy city of Mecca, which drew near-unanimous support for the Sunni kingdom from Gulf and Arab states -- with the exception of Iraq. The summits came a day after hawkish US National Security Advisor John Bolton said Iran was almost certainly behind this month's sabotage of four ships, including two Saudi oil tankers, off the UAE coast.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2JKE6QR
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

The Mueller Investigation Was Always an Impeachment ProbeWhy mention the OLC guidance at all?That is the question for Bob Mueller, left hanging by the statement his office jointly issued with Justice Department flacks on Wednesday, clarifying (as it were) remarks he had made hours earlier at his parting-shot press conference.At issue is Mueller’s decision to punt on the question of whether President Trump should be indicted for obstruction of justice. In his startling remarks, Mueller sought to justify himself by citing instruction from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The longstanding OLC opinion, an outgrowth of Nixon- and Clinton-era scandals, holds that a sitting president may not be indicted. The two press offices were struggling to reconcile (a) Mueller’s pointed reliance on this OLC guidance at the presser with (b) his prior disclaimers of such reliance.According to Attorney General Bill Barr, in a meeting over two weeks before Mueller submitted his final report, the special counsel emphatically denied that his refusal to render a prosecutorial judgment on obstruction hinged on the OLC guidance. Naturally, in their continuing quest to frame Barr as the most diabolical villain since Lex Luthor, the media-Democrat complex insisted that the AG must be lying.This is what derangement will do to you. I do not think Mueller’s contradictory assertions are that hard to figure out. But if you were inclined to blame sleight of hand, the culprit would be Mueller. You’ll notice that when we finally heard from him on Wednesday, he lauded Barr’s good faith, never claiming that the AG had misrepresented him. Moreover, the conversation between them on the OLC guidance was not a one-on-one affair. There were other people in the room when Mueller denied that the OLC guidance was his rationale for abdicating.The unimpeached evidence is that Mueller said what Barr says he said.Reading Between the Lines Nevertheless, with the media howling that somebody -- Barr -- had to be fibbing, the press offices got busy. By early evening, DOJ and Mueller’s shuttering shop put out this joint statement:> The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement made clear that [his] office concluded it would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.Well, okay, that’s fine as far as it goes. If you (somewhat selectively) read the carefully crafted lines of Mueller’s report, he said he would not reach a determination on obstruction. And he did not reach one. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it cannot be said that the OLC guidance was determinative: Since Mueller technically did not make a recommendation one way or the other, the OLC guidance was never actually triggered.But if that’s the case, then the obvious question -- to go back to where we started -- is: Why mention the OLC guidance at all?Answer: Because Mueller’s brief speech on Wednesday was not a matter of reading the lines of his report; it was about reading between the lines.Remember, Mueller’s report is 448 pages long. His press-conference remarks took less than ten minutes, and the substantive discussion of obstruction was but a fraction of that. In those fleeting moments, what were the precious few highlights from the report that Mueller wanted Americans to grasp? They were, first, that the OLC guidance dictated that the president could not be charged; and second, that if Mueller were convinced that the president had not committed a crime, he would have said so . . . but he did not say so -- in Mueller’s constitutionally offensive, hyperpolitical articulation, he would not “exonerate” the president.There is only one rational explanation for this performance. Mueller wants Congress and the public to presume that if it were not for the OLC guidance, it is very likely that he would have charged the president with obstruction -- maybe not an absolute certainty, but nearly so.And then, just in case we were too dense to understand the nods and winks, Mueller took pains to emphasize that, in our constitutional system, it is up to Congress, not federal prosecutors, to address alleged misconduct by a sitting president.Simple as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. Likely felony obstruction, plus inability of prosecutors to indict, plus duty of Congress to deal with presidential criminality, equals: Impeachment is the only remedy, unless congressional Democrats are saying that Donald Trump is above the law. (Good luck, Speaker Pelosi, trying to pipe down your AOC wing, to say nothing of the 2020 primary contestants, after that one.)This should not be a surprise. We have been saying since shortly after Mueller was appointed that his investigation was not a collusion probe but an obstruction probe, and that this necessarily made it an impeachment probe.Competing Views of Obstruction As noted above, the apparent contradiction between Mueller and Barr is clarified by the timeline.To grasp this, you must first understand that Mueller and his staff are completely result-oriented. If you’ve decided to act as counsel to a congressional impeachment inquiry rather than as a federal prosecutor, the objective is to get your evidence in front of Congress, with the patina of felony obstruction.In the Nixon and Clinton situations, the rationale for impeachment was obstruction of justice. Significantly, the issue in impeachment cases is abuse of power, not courtroom guilt. Consequently, unlike a prosecutor, a counsel to a congressional impeachment committee does not need evidence strong enough to support a criminal indictment; just something reasonably close to that, enough to enable a president’s congressional opposition to find unfitness for high office.Once you understand that, it is easy to see what happened here.Mueller’s staff, chockablock with progressive activists, has conceptions of executive power and obstruction that are saliently different from Barr’s (and from those of conservative legal analysts who subscribe to Justice Scalia’s views on unitary executive power).The attorney general believes that (a) obstruction charges may not be based on exercises of a president’s constitutional prerogatives -- only on obviously corrupt acts (e.g., evidence destruction, bribing witnesses); (b) all executive power under the Constitution is reposed in the president; and thus, (c) when the chief executive takes actions the Constitution empowers him to take (e.g., firing or threatening to fire subordinates), it is not the place of an inferior executive officer, such as a federal prosecutor, to second-guess them as “corruptly motivated.” Recognizing how traumatic accusing a president of a crime is for the country, moreover, Barr thinks an obstruction offense would have to be crystal-clear and serious -- you don’t tear the nation apart over something about which reasonable minds could differ.By contrast, Mueller’s staff believes that (a) the executive bureaucracy is semi-autonomous in its areas of expertise, and thus Justice Department prosecutors are supreme, even over the president, in matters of law enforcement; (b) Congress had the constitutional power to, in effect, transfer executive authority from the president to prosecutors by enacting obstruction laws that may be enforced against the president; and therefore, (c) even if a presidential action is lawful in itself, a prosecutor may allege obstruction if the prosecutor believes the president’s motive was corrupt. Furthermore, little or no consideration should be given to whether a president’s allegedly obstructive act is especially clear or serious because the president (at least if the president is a Republican) must be treated like anyone else -- otherwise, the president is placed above the law. (Democratic presidents, to the contrary, are the law -- see, e.g., DACA, Obamacare decrees, IRS harassment of conservative groups, Fast and Furious stonewalling of Congress . . .)Playing Out the Alternative Scenarios This drastic divergence on what can constitute an obstruction offense had practical consequences here.For most of his investigation, Mueller was “supervised” by acting AG Rod Rosenstein, who did not comply with special-counsel regulations in appointing him, and who promised Democrats that he would be effectively independent. As long as the studiously passive Rosenstein was at the helm, the staff-driven Mueller was free to investigate under his loose, envelope-pushing obstruction theory. Once Barr became AG, however, it was clear that Mueller’s theory was not going to fly.So, let’s play out the alternative scenario.Let’s say that, having convinced himself he had a strong obstruction case, Mueller decided to recommend that the president be charged. That would have forced a confrontation over the issue that has been sidestepped: What are the correct standards for evaluating an obstruction allegation against a president? There would have been a brawl at Main Justice. The report would have been held up while the matter was debated.More to the point, Mueller and such top staffers as Andrew Weissmann and Michael Dreeben, who have operated at the top echelon of the Justice Department, would have known that the attorney general would win such a battle ten times out of ten. That goes double for an AG such as Barr, a highly regarded legal thinker who, besides now being AG twice, ran the OLC in the Bush 41 administration. He was not going to be intimidated or bulldozed by Mueller’s staff.Remember: Mueller’s staff is looking at this as if they were congressional impeachment counsel. Their objective is to get their evidence to Congress bearing something close to the stamp of an indictable felonies.Consequently, direct confrontation with the AG was the last thing they wanted. It would have guaranteed failure. The Mueller report’s discussion of obstruction standards would not have gotten out the Main Justice door as an authoritative statement of the law. There would have been a revised articulation of obstruction law as it applies to the president. There would have been vigorous debate over the eleven instances of obstruction Mueller wanted to allege. The report would have been scrutinized carefully by Justice Department lawyers, especially where it plays fast and loose with the facts (see, e.g., my Papadopouolos column). It might never have been released. If it had been released, it would have been discredited or dramatically revised.That would not have helped the impeachment cause.So . . . Plan B: What if we decline to make any recommendation on obstruction?Mueller’s staff calculated: If we don’t press the point of indicting the president, the AG and the Justice Department have no reason to dispute our findings, or even take on our analysis of obstruction law. They’ll be so relieved to avoid a fight over obstruction charges, they’ll be willing to let all that slide. And with Congress demanding the report, and the AG having promised maximum transparency in his confirmation hearings, we will achieve our objective: Congress will get our obstruction evidence, with an accompanying legal analysis that tends strongly in favor of finding felony obstruction. That will be the basis for any impeachment proceedings.This, then, became the plan: Mueller would decide not to decide.There was just one problem: Mueller would need a reason for not deciding. Barr was sure to ask. Mueller could not truthfully respond, “Well, we see ourselves as congressional impeachment counsel.” Barr has been quite clear (and quite right) that federal prosecutors exist to enforce the law, not to do Congress’s work -- Congress has its own bloated staff for that.Mueller’s staff would need to come up with something that would pass the laugh test. After all, there was no collusion case, so rendering a prosecutorial judgment on the obstruction question was the only thing for which a special counsel had arguably been needed. Now, Mueller was about to tell the AG he would be abdicating on that. He’d be asked to explain himself, and if he didn’t have a compelling answer, he’d need to stall.It happened on March 5, during Barr’s first meeting with Mueller after being confirmed. Taken aback by Mueller’s announcement that he would not be deciding the obstruction question, Barr pressed him repeatedly: “Is it because of the OLC guidance?” Mueller insisted that it was not. When asked what, then, was the reason, Mueller meandered about how they were still formulating their rationale.Get it? Result-oriented: Decision first, then we’ll cobble together the reasoning.Why would Mueller do this? Again, play out the alternative scenario.If the special counsel had told Barr that the OLC guidance was his rationale for not deciding, Barr would likely have told him, “Don’t worry about the OLC guidance, that’s not your job. The OLC guidance only says we can’t return an indictment now. We still need to know whether there is a prosecutable case. Just make a recommendation on that, one way or the other.”If that had happened, Mueller would have been cornered. If he recommended in favor of indictment, he would have ended up in the confrontation with Barr over obstruction law that he was trying to avoid. If he recommended against an indictment, he would have undermined the impeachment effort.So he punted. And it worked.Mueller told Barr he was still formulating his rationale for not deciding the issue. Maybe the staff really was still trying to come up with a coherent explanation; or maybe in the back (or front) of their minds, they figured “we’re still formulating” was vague enough that they could ultimately rely on the OLC guidance, even if Mueller had said it was not his rationale.Whatever the calculation was, two and a half weeks later, when Mueller delivered his final report to Barr on March 22, Mueller and his staff expressly invoked the OLC guidance.Does that mean Mueller was being dishonest on March 5? Does it mean his thinking truly was still evolving?What difference does it make?What matters is that Mueller’s shrewd staffers accomplished exactly what they hoped to accomplish: Make sure the report was disclosed to Congress intact, with 200 pages of obstruction evidence, a legal analysis that tends toward a finding of obstruction, and an express assertion by the special counsel that if he had found Trump did not commit a crime, he would have said so.And now, for good measure, Mueller took pains on Wednesday to stress that, in our system, it is Congress’s duty to address presidential misconduct.For partisan lawyers who saw their special-counsel gig as an opportunity to play congressional impeachment counsel, it is Mission Accomplished.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2QDF81n
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Cemeteries and family memories stand in border wall's waySAN JUAN, Texas (AP) — On a muggy, mosquito-filled evening near the U.S.-Mexico border, the threat of President Donald Trump's border wall brought together a large group of family members at two historic cemeteries that are part of their ancestral land.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2EO7j9f
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Saudi Arabia says firm stand needed to deter Iran, Iraq demursSaudi Arabia's King Salman told an emergency Arab summit on Friday that decisive action was needed to stop Iranian "escalations" following attacks on Gulf oil assets, as U.S. officials said a military deployment had deterred Tehran. The right of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to defend their interests after the attacks on oil pumping stations in the kingdom and tankers off the UAE were supported in a Gulf Arab statement and a separate communique issued after the wider summit.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2HQKNyF
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Trump Shakes Fox News Reporter’s Hand, Thanks Him for Asking Question He LikesPresident Trump took a break during a Thursday morning press gaggle to personally acknowledge and thank a Fox News reporter for always treating him “fairly” and giving him a question he liked.Prior to departing for a quick trip to Colorado, the president stopped to speak with reporters on the White House lawn, using much of his time to rail against Robert Mueller’s public statement and to walk back his Twitter admission that Russia helped get him elected. At one point, however, Fox News White House correspondent Kevin Corke asked the president about China, which caused Trump to approach Corke to praise him.“Come here, I want to shake your hand,” the president exclaimed while reaching out his hand. “Come here. You treated me fairly. Thank you, thank you.”Other reporters, likely thinking Trump was done with Corke after the mutual admiration session, began shouting additional questions, prompting Trump to get in additional shots at the media while heaping more praise upon Corke.“I want to ask [sic] a real reporter’s question,” he blared. “We’ll answer a real reporter’s question, okay?”This is just the latest example of the president treating Fox News employees as though they are part of his team while shunning the rest of the “Fake News” media. In recent weeks, however, while the president has continued to trumpet Fox’s opinion hosts and commentators, he’s taken pointed shots at the network’s hard-news anchors, reporters, and analysts he feels aren’t sufficiently deferential to him. Corke, it would appear, does not fall into that category.The White House correspondent, meanwhile, has a history of uncritically amplifying and supporting commentary from alt-right conspiracy-theory zealots. Back in March 2017, he mass-deleted tweets promoting unverified far-right conspiracies (such as a claim that Hillary Clinton had bisexual trysts) after The Daily Beast spotted several of them. And earlier this year, the reporter excited the QAnon community with a since-deleted tweeted hyping up a photo of a coffee cup with the letter Q on it.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/30Rb0Eu
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Robert Mueller made clear: he couldn't have indicted Trump even if he wanted toIn his first comments since his report was released, Mueller underlined that responsibility for tackling presidential wrongdoing lies with Congress If Mueller’s parting words as special counsel had a familiar ring, it is because they echoed, often verbatim, statements that appear in his lengthy report.’ Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/APFor those who hoped that Robert Mueller’s first public comments since his report was released would do what it failed to – free us from a demagogue who has taken American democracy hostage – Wednesday must have come as a disappointment. If Mueller’s parting words as special counsel had a familiar ring, it is because they echoed, often verbatim, statements that appear in his lengthy report.And yet in his characteristically restrained manner Mueller did, I believe, seek to set the record straight on his report’s most contested conclusion:“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”In the minds of many, the report’s conditional form, “If we had had confidence …”, suggested that Mueller and his team had failed to reach closure on whether Donald Trump had, in fact, obstructed justice. The language bespoke ambivalence – some actions by the president supported a finding of obstruction, others did not. The evidence was not dispositive. Reasonable persons could reach different conclusions.This is precisely how the attorney general, William Barr, spun the report. Claiming to have carefully reviewed the full 448 pages of findings, Barr announced that the report did not make a case for obstruction. No matter that nothing in the Mueller report could possibly have led Barr to conclude otherwise. His memo of 8 June 2018, when Barr was essentially lobbying to replace Jeff Sessions as head of the justice department, makes clear that the would-be attorney general was not about to endorse Mueller’s findings. Indeed, that’s why he was chosen for the job.The memo, noted by the press but barely analyzed, makes for extraordinary reading. Over 18 single-spaced pages, Barr attacks Mueller’s “Obstruction” Theory – the scare quotes appear in the original – as “fatally flawed” and “legally unsupportable”, liable to do “lasting damage to the presidency”. For Barr, James Comey’s firing was legally irrelevant, as would have been the ordered firing of Mueller. Indeed, no firing decision by the president – even if designed to derail an investigation of his own alleged crimes – can possibly qualify as obstruction for the simple reason that the president’s powers over such matters are plenary.And so, when Barr concluded, in his four-page memo on 24 March, that the Mueller investigation failed to support a case for obstruction, he had not, as some have suggested, caved in to pressure from the White House. He was simply repeating a conclusion he had boldly framed 10 months before the ink had dried on special counsel’s report.Alas, the report, once Barr permitted its released, appeared not to directly challenge this highly tendentious spin. By framing his conclusions in a conditional – “If we had had confidence” – Mueller let stand the notion that the evidence pointed in different directions and that no definitive conclusion could be reached on the matter.On Wednesday, Mueller sought to correct matters – without actually saying anything new. In an age of hysterical megaphoning, Mueller’s muted messaging sounded almost quaint. So what did we hear? Nothing we hadn’t heard before – if we’ve been listening closely. But have we?Mueller reminded us that his report “did not make a determination” as to whether the president committed a crime, but not because the evidence wasn’t there. It was, and in abundance. The only reason Mueller did not seek indictment was because the special counsel’s office “is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, was bound by that department policy”. That policy holds that a president “cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office”. Indicting the president was therefore “not an option we could consider”.This stunning statement was all there in the report, but it bears repeating. The only thing standing between Trump and an indictment is his status as president. The special counsel’s refusal to take a position on the president’s criminality had nothing to do with the quality of his evidence or the soundness of his theory. It merely reflected a stubborn, if untested, constitutional barrier to prosecution. No wonder more than 400 former federal prosecutors have signed an open letter saying Trump would face “multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice” if he were a private citizen. Their conclusion follows directly from Mueller himself.Then there is Mueller’s parting statement: “The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” However elliptical the formulation, the message resonated with three more Democratic presidential hopefuls, who on Wednesday announced their support of impeachment hearings against Trump.Whether it is politically wise for the Democrats to seek Trump’s removal is an open question. Such political calculations appear foreign to Mueller. But on Wednesday he repeated his clear belief that it is their responsibility to follow the process that the constitution dictates. * Lawrence Douglas is the James J Grosfeld professor of law, jurisprudence and social thought, at Amherst College, Massachusetts




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2Khn6AU
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Riyadh rallies allies against Tehran at Mecca summitsGulf and Arab allies rallied around Saudi Arabia Friday as it ratcheted up tensions with regional rival Iran after a series of attacks, drawing accusations from Tehran of "sowing division". Tehran, which has strongly denied involvement in any of the attacks, expressed disappointment that Riyadh plans to level the same "baseless accusations" at a summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) early on Saturday.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2W4zBSS
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

New Mexico town gets death threats after halting crowd-funded border wallA New Mexico mayor on Thursday said he and his staff received multiple death threats after they briefly halted construction of a crowd-funded, private border wall by a group that then urged supporters to tell the city to "stop playing games," and alleged it was tied to drug cartels. The Florida-based group has raised $23 million via crowd-funding site GoFundMe.com to build private border walls to halt smuggling and a surge in undocumented migrants, after funding for President Donald Trump's promised wall was blocked. Perea described the tactics of We Build the Wall as a "cheap blow," and the American Civil Liberties Union accused it of pursuing a "white Nationalist" agenda.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2EMpvQu
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Pork Producers, Corn Growers Urge Trump to Drop Mexico TariffsThe president said Thursday that 5% duties could be placed on all imports from Mexico on June 10, rising in increments to 25% in October unless Mexico halts the flow of immigrants heading to the U.S. border. “We appeal to President Trump to reconsider plans to open a new trade dispute with Mexico,” David Herring, president of the National Pork Producers Council and a hog farmer from Lillington, North Carolina, said Friday in an emailed statement.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2JPs34y
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Amit Shah: Modi's enforcer emerges from behind India's throneAs the battle-hardened drill sergeant for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah has long been considered India's second most-powerful person, and his appointment Friday as home minister elevates his position to leader-in-waiting. While Modi is the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party's people person, firing up rallies and mastering Twitter, Shah has for years made sure that Modi's orders are carried out to the letter while turning the world's biggest political party into the undisputed force across the nation of 1.3 billion people. Shah's piercing stare and strongarm tactics have made him a feared and respected figure in the Hindu nationalist party -- opposition parties and critics call him "ruthless" -- a status only increased by his role masterminding the BJP's second straight landslide election victory this month as the party president.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2XicIwD
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Stone Was Like ‘Uncle Roger,’ Miller Testifies to Grand JuryProsecutors focused their examination on Miller’s relationship with Stone and Stone’s connection to WikiLeaks founder Assange, Miller’s attorney Paul Kamenar told reporters after the proceeding. Stone was indicted by the grand jury in January on charges of lying to Congress about communications with Assange, obstruction and witness tampering.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2HMdNY5
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

White House plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace in chaos after Netanyahu calls new electionsThe White House’s hopes of rolling out its Israeli-Palestinian peace plan this year were in chaos yesterday after Benjamin Netanyahu plunged Israel into unexpected new elections.   During a meeting with Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top aide on Middle East peace, Mr Netanyahu attempted to downplay the political turmoil in his country as “a little event”. But officials and analysts said the Israeli elections in September were likely to delay the peace plan and could cause it to be shelved altogether. One US official suggested it may now have to have wait until Mr Trump's second term.   The Palestinians, who are refusing to engage with the US on the peace plan, delighted in the prospect of its delay. Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official, said the plan sometimes described as “the Deal of the Century” should now be called “the Deal of Next Century”.  The While House deliberately waited until after the Israeli election in April to make any moves on its peace initiative, hoping that a delay would spare Mr Netanyahu any political discomfort during his campaign. Letters from Jerusalem RHS When Mr Netanyahu appeared to easily win a fifth term in office, Mr Kushner and his aides began making moves to roll out the plan in stages later this year. The economic half of the plan was due to be laid out in a summit in Bahrain in June while the more controversial political half would be made public later.  However, Mr Netanyahu unexpectedly failed to form a coalition government and instead spent the early hours of Thursday morning forcing through a bill in parliament to hold fresh elections in September.  Later in the day, Mr Netanyahu tried to put a brave face on the situation as he met with Mr Kushner at his office in Jerusalem. “Even though we had a little event last night that’s not going to stop us,” Mr Netanyahu said. “We’re going to continue working together.” Special Representative for International Negotiations @jdgreenblatt45, Senior Advisor to U.S. President Jared Kushner and Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook met this afternoon with Prime Minister @Netanyahu at his Jerusalem Residence. pic.twitter.com/BmBMwSLszv— USEmbassyJerusalem (@usembassyjlm) May 30, 2019 Mr Kushner said nothing publicly about what impact the Israeli political chaos would have on his peace plan.  Speaking in Washington, Mr Trump said Mr Netanyahu’s failed effort to build a coalition was “too bad”. “They don’t need this, I mean they’ve got enough turmoil over there,” the president said.  The US State Department indicated that the Bahrain summit would go ahead as planned on June 25 to try to encourage wealthy Arab states and businessmen to invest in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. But it is not clear when, if ever, the world will see the political half of the plan, which deals with more combustible issues like the future of Jerusalem, Israel’s borders, and the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees.  “If chances for the success of the Deal of the Century were severely handicapped before last night, the chaos which will be Israel's lot over the next few months will make it virtually impossible to move forward,” said Shalom Lipner, a former Israeli official now at the Atlantic Council think tank. “If the White House ‘misfires’ and tries to advance prematurely, it risks squandering any opportunity to table a proposal when conditions might be more conducive to progress.” Mr Netanyahu failed to form a coalition before Wednesday's deadline Credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun The timeline of the new elections means that even if Mr Netanyahu wins again he is unlikely to have a government formed until at least November.  By then the US presidential election in 2020 will be in full swing and the White House’s attention will likely be more focused on the American Midwest than the Middle East.  While Mr Netanyahu was all smiles in front of his American visitors, he did little to mask his fury in the Israeli political realm.  His rage was directed at Avigdor Lieberman, his former defence minister who refused to join his government and ultimately caused the coalition talks to fail. “Avigdor Lieberman is now part of the Left,” Mr Netanyahu said.  Mr Lieberman shot back that the prime minister’s Likud party was wracked by “hallucinations and schizophrenic reactions” and suggested the party’s leaders needed psychiatric treatment.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2MgUL09
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Barr: Counter-intelligence Probe of Trump Campaign Crossed ‘Serious Red Line’Attorney General William Barr said Friday that the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign "crossed" a "serious red line" and should be "carefully looked at.""The use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed," Barr said in an interview with CBS.The attorney general is currently investigating the origins of the probe to determine whether the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of the Trump campaign was warranted. He has expressed skepticism about the explanations for some of the investigative actions taken.During testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee last month, Barr stated that "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign, angering Democratic lawmakers."I guess it's become a dirty word somehow," Barr told CBS. "I think there is nothing wrong with spying. The question is always whether it is authorized by law.""There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump campaign, And I'm not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate," he added.The New York Times reported that the FBI sent an undercover agent posing as a research assistant to ask former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos whether the campaign was working with Russia. Papadopoulos was told by a Maltese professor in early 2016 that Russia had damaging information on Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, but said he told the undercover agent he had “nothing to do with Russia.”"Republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences, and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state," Barr remarked. "That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official."FBI director Chris Wray said earlier this month that he had seen no evidence that the FBI illegally spied on the Trump campaign.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2WdOreC
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019

Trump Tariffs on Mexico Irk Key Republican Allies in CongressThe president’s announcement Thursday surprised many Republicans who hoped to focus on passing a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada known as the USMCA. Trump said he will impose a 5% tariff on all imports from Mexico -- ramping up 5 percentage points every month until hitting 25% in October -- unless Mexico takes "decisive measures" to stem migrants entering the U.S.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2QBGf1E
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 31, 2019
'No, the liberals haven't lost because there weren't any liberals in the fray to begin with.''What has happened is that left-wing orthodoxy has lost to right-wing orthodoxy.''That is at best a Pyrrhic victory for India,' argue Sonali Ranade and Sheilja Sharma.

from rediff News http://bit.ly/2XgUiw1
via Rediff News
Read more »

May 31, 2019
'The time has come to ask the extent of coercive power the State must arrogate to itself to achieve economic ends,' points out T C A Srinivasa Raghavan.

from rediff News http://bit.ly/2XfsVT6
via Rediff News
Read more »

May 31, 2019
In a grand ceremony with overtones of a United States presidential inauguration, heads of state and government, India Inc honchos, opposition leaders, Bharatiya Janata Party members and showbiz stars rubbed shoulders as they watched President Ram Nath Kovind administer the oath of office to India's 58 new ministers.

from rediff News http://bit.ly/2XfsQ1K
via Rediff News
Read more »

May 31, 2019
The news of Shah joining the Cabinet came from Gujarat BJP chief Jitu Vaghani, who tweeted a congratulatory message."Had a courtesy meeting with our mentor Amit Shah and gave my best wishes to him on his inclusion as a strong member of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi's council of ministers," he tweeted.

from rediff News http://bit.ly/2Xg5eu7
via Rediff News
Read more »

May 31, 2019
Kumaraswamy's meeting with the Congress chief comes in the backdrop of voices of dissent gaining ground in the ruling coalition in the southern state after two Congress MLAs met former chief minister S M Krishna at his Bengaluru residence on Sunday.

from rediff News http://bit.ly/2EKbEdE
via Rediff News
Read more »

May 31, 2019
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be administered oath of office for his second term along with his new council of ministers on Thursday.Modi is the first Bharatiya Janata Party leader who has been elected for the second time after completion of his five-year tenure, a feat so far achieved only by two Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.

from rediff News http://bit.ly/2XfsMiw
via Rediff News
Read more »

May 30, 2019

Michael Wolff’s ‘Draft Indictment’ of Trump Doesn’t Exist, Says Mueller’s OfficeReuters / Brendan McDermidA spokesman for Robert Mueller has emphatically denied a claim from Fire and Fury author Michael Wolff that the special counsel drew up a three-count obstruction-of-justice indictment against Donald Trump before deciding to ditch it.The unverified allegation is made in Wolff’s new book, Siege: Trump Under Fire, which is due to be published next week. It’s the sequel to Fire and Fury, which infuriated the president for its claims about the dysfunctional inner workings of his White House.The Guardian obtained a copy of the new book and reports that Wolff states his findings about Mueller’s supposed draft indictment are “based on internal documents given to me by sources close to the Office of the Special Counsel.” The newspaper writes that it’s seen the documents.However, Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, told The Guardian: “The documents that you’ve described do not exist.”Wolff claims the draft listing the president’s alleged abuses was written under the title “United States of America against Donald J. Trump, Defendant,” and it sat on Mueller’s desk for a year before being discarded.The Guardian reports the first of the three counts charged the president with corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding a pending proceeding before a department or agency. The second count is said to have charged the president with tampering with a witness, victim, or informant, while the third allegedly charged Trump with retaliating against a witness.According to Wolff, Mueller’s team drew up both the three-count indictment of Trump as well as a supporting draft memorandum of law opposing any motion from Congress or the White House that sought to dismiss it.The memo quoted by Wolff says: “The Impeachment Judgment Clause, which applies equally to all civil officers including the president… takes for granted… that an officer may be subject to indictment and prosecution before impeachment. If it did not, the clause would be creating, for civil officers, precisely the immunity the Framers rejected.”Wolff writes that Mueller agonized for a long time over whether to charge the president before ultimately deciding he could not move to prosecute a sitting president.Wolff's conclusion reads: “Bob Mueller threw up his hands. Surprisingly, he found himself in agreement with the greater White House: Donald Trump was the president, and, for better or for worse, what you saw was what you got—and what the country voted for.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2Wfbi9q
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 30, 2019

Top court rejects challenge to rules accommodating Pennsylvania transgender studentsThe justices left in place a 2018 lower court ruling that upheld the Boyertown Area School District policy, which was challenged by six former or current high school students, though the action does not set a national legal precedent. The Supreme Court scrapped plans to hear a major transgender rights case involving bathroom access in public schools in 2017 and has never issued a decisive ruling on the matter. The students challenging the policy argued that it violated their right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, known as Title IX.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2IcU8Qi
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 30, 2019

Bird attack at Disney World leaves woman with traumatic brain injuryA woman suffered severe brain injuries after she was attacked by a bird at Disney World, according to a lawsuit.Lisa Dixon was allegedly left with a traumatic brain injury and herniated discs in her neck after the animal struck her in the head at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida in May 2017.Her lawyer likened the force at which the bird struck her to being hit in the head by a baseball.It is not clear what breed the bird was.The woman, who is in her 30s and from nearby Celebration, Orlando, has filed a lawsuit at Orange Circuit Court, where she is seeking unspecified damages in excess of $15,000 (almost £12,000), according to The Associated Press.It accuses Disney of failing to properly warn visitors of the dangers seasonal nesting birds pose, among other allegations.The incident reportedly happened as Ms Dixon walked along a dock at Polynesian Village Resort where visitors can take a boat across the Seven Seas Lagoon to the Magic Kingdom or another resort, the lawsuit said.In June 2016, Lane Graves died after he was snatched by an alligator at the shore of the Seven Seas Lagoon at Disney World’s Grand Floridian Resort and Spa.The two-year-old was on holiday with his parents Matt and Melissa Graves from Elkhorn, Nebraska, at the time.Disney was not immediately available for comment when approached by The Independent.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2I6ds1s
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 30, 2019

Tornadoes tear across US in record numbers, leaving trail of devastationA vicious storm tore through the Kansas City area, spawning tornadoes that left a trail of devastation, as the US reeled from a record run of twisters.  The tornadoes downed trees and power lines, damaged homes and injured at least a dozen people in the latest barrage of severe weather that saw warnings as far east as New York City. Parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey were also under tornado warnings hours after a swarm of tightly packed twisters swept through Indiana and Ohio overnight, smashing homes, blowing out windows and ending the school year early for some students because of damage to buildings. One person was killed and at least 130 were injured. The storms in Kansas City on Tuesday were the 12th straight day that at least eight tornadoes were reported to the National Weather Service. After several quiet years, the past couple of weeks have seen an explosion of tornado activity with no end to the pattern in sight. The previous 11-day stretch of at least eight tornadoes per day ended on June 7, 1980. .@kmbc in Kansas City showing the tornado moving through Lawrence, KS on its way to Linwood. That is a massive tornado. Chopper pilot estimated it was a mile wide. KSwxpic.twitter.com/921tewWl9N— Drew Tuma (@DrewTumaABC7) May 28, 2019 "We're getting big counts on a lot of these days and that is certainly unusual," Patrick Marsh, warning coordination meteorologist for the federal Storm Prediction Centre, said. The National Weather Service had already received at least 27 more reports of tornadoes on Tuesday, suggesting that the record for consecutive days would be broken once the official totals are in. A large and dangerous tornado touched down on the western edge of Kansas City, Kansas, late on Tuesday, the National Weather Service office reported. At least a dozen people were admitted to the hospital in Lawrence, 40 miles west of downtown Kansas City, Missouri, and home to the University of Kansas, hospital spokesman Janice Early said. Damage also was reported in the towns of Bonner Springs, Linwood and Pleasant Grove in Kansas. But the Kansas City metropolitan area of about 2.1 million people appeared to have been spared the direct hit that was feared earlier in the evening when the weather service announced a tornado emergency. Assisting with search and rescue near linwood Kansas pic.twitter.com/mdSTiowT1O— Jesse Risley ������️‍�� (@Jesse_Risley) May 29, 2019 Mark Duffin, 48, learned from his wife and a television report that the large tornado was headed toward his home in Linwood, about 30 miles west of Kansas City. The next thing he knew, the walls of his house were coming down. Mr Duffin told the Kansas City Star that he grabbed a mattress, followed his 13-year-old to the basement and protected the two of them with the mattress as the home crashed down around them. "I’m just glad I found my two dogs alive," he said. "Wife’s alive, family’s alive, I’m alive. So, that’s it." The severe weather wasn’t limited to the Midwest. Tornadoes were confirmed in eastern Pennsylvania and the National Weather Service issued a tornado warning for parts of New York City and northern New Jersey. The winds peeled away roofs - leaving homes looking like giant dollhouses - knocked houses off their foundations, toppled trees, brought down power lines and churned up so much debris that it was visible on radar. Highway crews had to use snowplows to clear an Ohio interstate. People look on as they examine the damaged remains of school in Dayton, Ohio Credit: AFP Some of the heaviest damage was reported just outside Dayton, Ohio. "I just got down on all fours and covered my head with my hands," said Francis Dutmers, who with his wife headed for the basement of their home in Vandalia, about 10 miles outside Dayton, when the storm hit with a "very loud roar" on Monday night. The winds blew out windows around his house, filled rooms with debris and took down most of his trees. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine declared a state of emergency in three hard-hit counties, allowing the state to suspend normal purchasing procedures and quickly provide supplies like water and generators. Outbreaks of 50 or more tornadoes are not uncommon, having happened 63 times in US history, with three instances of more than 100 twisters, Mr Marsh said. But Monday’s swarm was unusual because it happened over a particularly wide geographic area and came amid an especially active stretch, he said. An aerial photo shows damaged homes and debris marking the path of a tornado in Celina Credit: AP As for why it’s happening, Mr Marsh said high pressure over the Southeast and an unusually cold trough over the Rockies are forcing warm, moist air into the central US, triggering repeated severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. And neither system is showing signs of moving, he said. Scientists say climate change is responsible for more intense and more frequent extreme weather such as storms, droughts, floods and fires, but without extensive study they cannot directly link a single weather event to the changing climate. Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2Wa8gTY
via Yahoo News

Read more »

May 30, 2019

No-deal Brexit is 'political suicide': HuntForeign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said Tuesday that Britain's governing Conservative Party would be committing "political suicide" if it tried to force through a no-deal Brexit. Hunt, who is among the 10 declared candidates vying to replace the outgoing Theresa May as Britain's prime minister, said trying to take the UK out of the EU without a deal would trigger a general election in which the Conservatives risked "extinction". The newly-formed Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage topped last week's European Parliament elections in Britain.




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2IkQt2X
via Yahoo News

Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Author Name

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.