It must be nice, having national newsrooms to run full-time damage control pro bono.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said a stupid thing recently during a one-on-one interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. That she said something ignorant is not news at all. What is newsworthy is that Newsweek felt the need to protect her where she is clearly in the wrong.

The congresswoman was asked last Friday what lessons she learned from studying former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, for which her preposterous “Green New Deal” is named.

“I think there’s a couple of lessons. One is that when we look into our history, when our party was boldest, time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act, and so on. We had and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We carried the presidency,” Ocasio-Cortez said, adding her colleagues today need to overcome “fear within our own party” about being “too bold.”

This is where her response goes awry: “They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected.”

Close, but no cigar.

The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1947. FDR died in 1945. Though there was indeed talk of such an amendment during FDR’s lifetime, the rule wasn’t introduced and passed until after the GOP took both chambers in the 1946 elections, one year after he died. And even then, it was worded so as not to apply to the sitting president.

This was a simple error on the congresswoman’s part. But Newsweek apparently thought her a damsel in need of rescuing.

“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked on Twitter for constitutional mistake – but was she actually right?” read the original headline to the magazine’s defense of the New York lawmaker.

The story adds, “The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-and-dried … [but] some eagle-eyed social media commenters pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment were inspired by Roosevelt’s monopoly on the White House and began campaigning long before his death.”

It’s a huge stretch, but let’s just say this is what Ocasio-Cortez meant when she said the GOP “had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected.” Let’s pretend for a moment the congresswoman was really referring to early efforts to limit presidential terms via a constitutional amendment and see where the Newsweek article goes:

FDR did die in office in ‘45 and the 22nd amendment did come in ‘47 but Congress did start the legislative process in 1944 prior to his death so that he would not be reelected,” another Twitter user wrote in Ocasio-Cortez’s defense. “It was not ratified soon enough and he won in ‘44. AOC did not misspeak, friends.”

The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortez’s back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: “Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy. “In March 1947, a Republican-controlled Congress approved a 22nd Amendment, with an exception that would exclude a president in office from term limits during the ratification process.”

Oh, come off it, Newsweek. You’re embarrassing yourself.

The 22nd Amendment, which wasn’t even finalized until 1951, specifically exempted presidents who were in office during the ratification process, meaning it wouldn’t have applied to FDR even if it had passed years earlier. Yet, this is the “well, actually” defense Newsweek went with on behalf of Ocasio-Cortez, who favorably cited the article this week as she was justifiably mocked on social media for being both ignorant and arrogant enough to make claims about which she was ignorant.

Perhaps realizing its cleanup attempt was as obvious as it was ridiculous, Newsweek has amended the story headline to something a bit more subtle: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked on Twitter for constitutional mistake – but here’s the full story.”

“The full story.” Sure.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/newsweek-does-damage-control-for-ocasio-cortezs-constitutional-ignorance

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending former Vice President Joe Biden amid claims by two women that he inappropriately touched them, saying such claims are not “disqualifying” for a potential 2020 presidential bid. She stressed, however, that even for the top politicians, perceptions outweigh intentions. 

“I don’t think it’s disqualifying…I think that it’s important for the vice president and others to understand is it isn’t what you intended, it’s how it was received,” Pelosi said at Politico’s Playbook breakfast on Tuesday. 

She added of Biden’s response to the criticism over his behavior toward women, “To say ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology.” Instead she said it should be: “‘I’m sorry that I invaded your space,’ because people have different perceptions of appropriate communication.” 

Pelosi said and her family have known Biden for a long time, saying even her grandchildren love him. She defended his approach to women as simply being “affectionate.”

“He’s an affectionate person to children to senior citizens to everyone. That’s just the way he is,” said Pelosi. She conceded, however, that Biden “has to understand in the world that were in now, that people'[s] space is important to them and what’s important is how they receive — not necessarily how you intended it.”

The speaker’s comments come as a second woman has stepped forward with claims of an uncomfortable encounter with Biden, claiming the former vice president reached for her face and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 fundraiser in Greenwich, Connecticut. This follows a claim by former Nevada assemblywoman Lucy Flores, who said that at a 2014 campaign event, Biden approached her from behind, smelled her hair and kissed her head. 

Pelosi offered her own suggestion on how to handle uncomfortable situations: “I’m a straight-armer,” said Pelosi, extending out her arm for a handshake. “Just pretend you have a cold, and I have a cold.” She suggested Biden should “join the straight arm club” along with her. 

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-says-joe-biden-claims-of-inappropriate-behavior-arent-disqualifying-for-2020-democratic-presidential/

“);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

a>*{vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;}
.duval-3>a>div{display: inline-block; font-size:1.0666667rem;width: 80%; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 2%;}
.duval-3>a>img{width: 18%; height: auto;}
@media screen and (max-width:640px){
.duval-3>a>*{display:block; margin: auto;}
.duval-3>a>div{width: 100%;}
.duval-3>a>img{width: 50%;}
}
]]>

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/politics/donald-trump-border-immigration-health-care-mueller-report-avenatti/index.html

    April 2 at 11:24 AM

    White House spokesman Hogan Gidley twice referred to Puerto Rico as “that country” during a television appearance Tuesday in which he defended a series of tweets by President Trump lashing out at leaders of the U.S. territory.

    In two bursts of tweets — one late Monday night and another Tuesday morning — Trump complained about the amount of federal relief money going to the island and called its politicians “incompetent or corrupt.”

    He also claimed that Puerto Rico “got 91 Billion Dollars for the hurricane,” a figure that actually reflects a high-end, long-term estimate for recovery costs. Only a fraction of that has so far been budgeted, and even less has been spent.

    As he pressed to defend Trump’s contentions, Gidley sought to make the case that the leaders of the territory, whose residents are U.S. citizens, have mishandled the aid they’ve received thus far.

    “With all they’ve done in that country, they’ve had a systematic mismanagement of the goods and services we’ve sent to them,” Gidley said. “You’ve seen food just rotting in the ports. Their governor has done a horrible job. He’s trying to make political hay in a political year, and he’s trying to find someone to take the blame off of his for not having a grid and not having a good system in that country at all.”

    Gidley later attributed his misstatements to “a slip of the tongue.”

    During the interview, Gidley was also asked about a tweet in which Trump said Puerto Rico’s leaders “only take from the USA.”

    Asked to clarify how Trump views the status of Puerto Ricans, Gidley said Trump is supportive of its people, noting that he traveled there after Hurricane Maria hit in September 2017.

    “He gave them a lot of money,” Gidley said. “They have mismanaged and misused that money. It hurts their people. That’s what he’s upset about.”

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-spokesman-twice-calls-puerto-rico-that-country-in-tv-interview/2019/04/02/5c922e06-5556-11e9-9136-f8e636f1f6df_story.html


    Some Hill Republicans warn that any dramatic disruption to regular traffic across the U.S.-Mexico border could bring President Donald Trump into a new confrontation with his own party. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo

    Immigration

    As the administration weighs immigration actions, even Trump officials and Hill Republicans aren’t sure what to make of his talk of closing the Mexican border.

    President Donald Trump is thrusting his hard-line posture on immigration back to the fore this week, with plans for a Friday trip to the southern border and possible new executive actions to restrict border crossings.

    But days after Trump renewed his long-standing threat to shut down the southern border entirely, even administration officials and congressional Republicans were bewildered and guessing at his next move on a defining issue of his presidency.

    Story Continued Below

    And some Hill Republicans warned that any dramatic disruption to regular traffic across the U.S.-Mexico border could bring Trump into a new confrontation with his own party, whose leaders warn that closing parts or all of the border would wreak economic havoc.

    On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to require that greater numbers of non-Mexican asylum-seekers stay in Mexico while they wait for their cases to be resolved and to speed up the reassignment of 750 customs officers to process arriving migrants.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration is considering closing some of the lanes at ports of entry or preventing certain types of vehicles or people from crossing the border as he tries to force Mexico to increase its enforcement, three outside advisers told POLITICO.

    “He’s trying to get Mexico’s attention,” said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that advocates for tighter restrictions on immigration.

    The administration already has taken some of those actions, though they have gotten little attention. Customs and Border Protection said in a March 29 memo to shipping companies, importers and other businesses that it would halt a Sunday screening program for commercial trucks at a Nogales, Ariz., port of entry and blamed an “unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis” for the cutback.

    The administration is considering ways to reduce the number of people crossing into the U.S. That could mean closing some lanes at ports of entry or limiting who is allowed to cross to only day workers. Another proposal under discussion would bar passenger vehicles — but not commercial trucks — from crossing the border.

    But closing the border or even limiting the flow of people through the ports of entry would not prevent migrants from attempting to cross the border illegally.

    Even some people close to the White House called Trump’s remarks “bluster” and predicted he would not close off the border from one of its largest trading partners. Mexico is the United States’s third-largest trading partner with more than $600 billion in cross-border trade last year.

    “I understand the president’s frustration but the unintended consequences of that would be bad for everybody: economic, diplomatic,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who questioned how such a move could disrupt negotiations with Mexico to handle migrations from the Northern Triangle. “I take him very seriously. But I think we should have a longer conversation about unintended consequences.”

    “It’s part of the way he negotiates, but I’m not sure that’s a particularly good idea and I’m not sure it gets the desired result,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota of the potential closed border. “Tactically it doesn’t get a result and probably has a lot of unintended consequences … there’s a lot of bilateral trade at the border.”

    Trump will travel to Calexico, Calif., to tour the border on Friday on a West Coast swing that also includes 2020 campaign fundraising. The White House has not disclosed details of the trip.

    Asked whether he thinks Trump is serious about closing the border, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) replied: “Oh, I have no idea. You’d need to ask him that.”

    Trump has made cracking down on immigration a central theme of his presidency but has struggled to get his proposals past congressional Republicans. In February, he declared a national emergency to unlock Pentagon funds he can unilaterally steer to a border wall as well as use money from other projects. That action was immediately challenged in court.

    Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah said he takes the president “seriously” and wants more details about how it would affect trade and the economy. Romney was one of a dozen Republicans who rebuffed Trump’s emergency request last month, revealing a sharp intraparty divide over border politics.

    Most Republicans agree there is a crisis on the border but disagree with tactics like closing ports of entry and the emergency request.

    According to a current and a former DHS official familiar with the situation, Trump is once again considering creating a so-called immigration czar, one person in charge of an issue that affects a dozen departments and agencies, including Homeland Security, State, Justice, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services. The position would not need Senate confirmation.

    Some of the people being considered are Francis Cissna, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services; Thomas Douglas Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs; former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach; and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, according to the former DHS official. Michael Neifach, who worked for former President George W. Bush, was approached about the job last year, the former official said.

    The White House did not respond to questions Monday. But on Sunday, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway insisted that Trump’s talk of bold action should not be dismissed. “It certainly isn’t a bluff. You can take the president seriously,” she told Fox News.

    Trump on Friday renewed past threats to close the border after his administration announced it was at a “breaking point” processing the paperwork at the border, where agents are seeing an influx of migrants. Border Patrol arrested more than 66,000 migrants in February, the highest monthly total since March 2009 — and officials have said the number rose higher still last month. “Mexico is going to have to do something, otherwise I’m closing the border,” declared Trump, who is said to fixate on border-crossing statistics.

    Trump has long criticized Mexico for failing to halt Central American migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras from coming to the U.S. border. But he had not previously put a timeline on his threat to close the border.

    On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen ordered an expansion of the administration’s “remain in Mexico” strategy, which forces certain non-Mexican asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico pending resolution of their asylum cases in the U.S.

    The secretary said her department would expand the policy — formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols — “to return hundreds of additional migrants per day.” The program already has been launched at and between several ports of entry in California and Texas.

    In a memo to Customs and Border Protection, Nielsen also called for the agency to accelerate a plan to reassign 750 customs officers to assist with Border Patrol efforts to process and house incoming migrants.

    She added in a related announcement that CBP should explore reassigning more personnel, but should notify her if it details more than 2,000 employees to emergency border work.

    “The crisis at our border is worsening, and DHS will do everything in its power to end it,” she said in a written statement. “We will not stand idly by while Congress fails to act yet again, so all options are on the table.”

    The number of family members intercepted at the southwest border soared in March, according to preliminary CBP statistics. While overall arrests remain below the higher levels of the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, the Trump administration argues families and children present unique humanitarian and security issues.

    Nielsen last week urged Congress to provide additional resources to deal with the growing number of migrants. In addition, she pressed lawmakers to change immigration laws to permit children to be detained for more than 20 days — the current limit set by a federal court order — and to allow for the swift deportation of unaccompanied minors from Central America.

    The Trump administration has implemented a number of hard-line policies to deter illegal immigration and asylum-seekers, only to see a record number of family members caught crossing the border in recent months. Border Patrol estimated that it arrested more than 55,000 family members in March, a 520 percent increase over the same month a year earlier.

    Trump last week ordered the State Department to slash aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras because those nations haven’t taken enough action to deter migrants from traveling northward. The State Department informed congressional offices in recent days that it would redirect $450 million in fiscal year 2018 funding to the countries and examine already-committed funds to see if they could be rerouted.

    “Cracking down and being harsher has not deterred anybody from coming,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “Ultimately, what would stop people from coming is if those countries improve the conditions on the ground.”

    Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/01/trump-border-republicans-1246922

    Media captionYvette Cooper: “We’re in a very dangerous situation”

    A cross-party group of MPs has put forward a bill to prevent a no-deal Brexit in 10 days’ time.

    If passed into law, the bill would require the PM to ask for an extension of Article 50 – which mandates the UK’s exit from the EU – beyond the current 12 April deadline.

    Labour MP Yvette Cooper presented the bill – which supporters hope they can pass through the Commons in one day.

    The cabinet, which remains split over Brexit, met for eight hours in No 10.

    The BBC’s John Pienaar said Theresa May’s ministers considered plans to “ramp up” no-deal Brexit preparations and a snap general election was also discussed.

    Ms Cooper’s bill would make it UK law for the PM to ask for an extension to prevent a no-deal, but it would be up to the EU to grant it – or not.

    In March, MPs voted against leaving the EU without a deal, but it was not legally binding.

    Meanwhile, the EU’s chief negotiator has said a no-deal Brexit is now more likely but can still be avoided.

    Michel Barnier said a long extension to the UK’s 12 April exit date had “significant risks for the EU” and a “strong justification would be needed”.

    France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar are meeting in Paris to discuss the impact of Brexit.

    Image caption

    Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and France’s President Emmanuel Macron

    President Macron told reporters that the EU “cannot be hostage to the political crisis in the UK”, and the government must come forward with “credible” reasons for an extension.

    He said these could include an election, second referendum, or alternative proposals for the future relationship, such as a customs union.

    Mr Varadkar said the UK was “consumed by Brexit”, but the EU should not be.

    He said the EU “needs to be open” about any proposals the UK brings, including a longer extension, and they will do what they can to “assist”.

    But he added: “We gave the UK some time, some space and some opportunity to come up with a way forward… [but] as things stand, they will leave on 12 April without a deal.”

    Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin, who supports Ms Cooper’s bill, said: “This is a last-ditch attempt to prevent our country being exposed to the risks inherent in a no-deal exit.

    “We realise this is difficult. But it is definitely worth trying.”

    Ms Cooper said the UK was “in a very dangerous situation” and MPs “have a responsibility to make sure we don’t end up with a catastrophic no deal”.

    Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World At One, she added: “We have been attempting to squeeze into just a couple of days a process that really should have been happening for the last two years – a process of trying to build a consensus around the best way forward.

    “It is what the prime minister should be doing. It is the prime minister’s responsibility to ensure we don’t leave the country less safe.”

    Why is this bill unusual?

    Image copyright
    AFP/Getty Images

    Normally the government chooses which bills to present to Parliament in order for them to become law.

    But – much to the government’s disapproval – MPs voted to allow backbenchers to take charge of business in the Commons on Wednesday.

    This gives backbenchers the opportunity to table their own bills, such as this one from Yvette Cooper.

    A copy of the bill shows that they want to push it through the commons in one day.

    As the backbenchers will be in charge, they will also be able to vote to set aside more time on another day, if they need to complete the process or hold further indicative votes.

    However, the bill would also have to be agreed by the House of Lords and receive Royal Assent before it became law – which if the Commons agrees it on Wednesday, could happen as soon as Thursday.

    Brexiteer Tory Sir Bill Cash said trying to go through these stages in one day made it a “reprehensible procedure”.

    But Speaker John Bercow said that, while it was “an unusual state of affairs”, it was “not as unprecedented as he supposes” – citing recent bills on Northern Ireland that have been passed at the same speed.

    In the latest round of indicative votes on Monday, MPs voted on four alternatives to the PM’s withdrawal deal, but none gained a majority.

    MPs rejected a customs union with the EU by three votes. A motion for another referendum got the most votes in favour, but still lost.

    The votes were not legally binding, but they had been billed as the moment when Parliament might finally compromise.

    The Independent MP Chris Leslie tweeted that MPs would be seeking more time for indicative votes to take place on Monday.

    Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb said he is considering resigning the whip after his party refused to back proposals for a customs union and Common Market 2.0 on Monday.

    He told BBC News: “If you are seen to be unreasonable, not engaging to find solutions, I don’t think it is very attractive to the people.”

    Earlier, Mr Barnier said: “No deal was never our desire or intended scenario but the EU 27 is now prepared. It becomes day after day more likely.”

    Media captionBarnier: “No-deal Brexit has become more likely”

    Mrs May’s plan for the UK’s departure has been rejected by MPs three times.

    Last week, Parliament took control of the process away from the government in order to hold a series of votes designed to find an alternative way forward.

    Eight options were put to MPs, but none was able to command a majority, and on Monday night, a whittled-down four were rejected too.

    What next?

    • Tuesday 2 April: A five-hour cabinet meeting
    • Wednesday 3 April: Potentially another round of indicative votes, and Yvette Cooper’s bill to be debated
    • Thursday 4 April: Theresa May could bring her withdrawal deal back to Parliament for a fourth vote, while MPs could also vote on Ms Cooper’s bill
    • Wednesday 10 April: Emergency summit of EU leaders to consider any UK request for further extension
    • Friday 12 April: Brexit day, if UK does not seek / EU does not grant further delay
    • 23-26 May: European Parliamentary elections

    Please upgrade your browser

    Your guide to Brexit jargon

    Use the list below or select a button

    Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47789298

    President Donald Trump escalated his attacks on Obamacare, a day after his administration asked a federal court to strike down the entire law. Speaking in the Oval Office, he said Republicans “will be the party of great health care.” (March 27)
    AP

    Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/01/trump-republicans-health-plan-vote-after-2020-election/3339232002/

    <!– –>

    Drastic measures surrounding Brexit — including a no-deal departure or a snap general election — could be on the cards after the British Parliament failed yet again to agree on any alternative options.

    Having rejected Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal three times, U.K. Members of Parliament (MPs) voted Monday evening on four alternative options in the process, but all of them were rejected by a majority of lawmakers.

    The option that came the closest to gaining a majority was a proposal to keep Britain in a permanent customs union with the EU. Meanwhile, a proposal for a confirmatory referendum on any deal got the most votes but was defeated by 292 to 280.

    There is an increasing expectation now that Britain could go in one of four directions — toward a no-deal departure from the bloc, holding a snap general election, Parliament agreeing to the U.K. remaining within a customs union with the EU and/or holding a confirmatory referendum on any eventual strategy.

    No deal or a fourth vote?

    The defeat of alternative proposals has thrown British politics and Brexit into further confusion just days ahead of a default “no-deal” departure from the EU. There is also a tangible sense of disbelief in Europe at the inability of the U.K. to agree on Brexit.

    Speaking in Brussels Tuesday, the bloc’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said a no-deal departure was becoming more likely “by the day,” and that a strong justification would be needed for the EU to agree to a longer Brexit delay.

    Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay reminded Parliament Monday night that Britain was scheduled to leave the EU on April 12 if no deal was in place. A no-deal exit is seen as a dreaded cliff-edge scenario for businesses where the country has the rely on WTO trading rules.

    But another delay to the departure date may need to be lengthy with the U.K. being urged to participate in EU Parliamentary elections in late May. A lengthy delay is a concern for pro-Brexit politicians who worry that it could lead to the whole process losing momentum.

    Prime Minister May could attempt to hold a fourth vote on her Brexit deal later this week, despite three earlier defeats of the withdrawal agreement. Meanwhile, opposition Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn called for another round of so-called “indicative votes” for Wednesday.

    Sterling fell almost 1 percent to $1.3048 following the votes Monday night and was trading around the same mark Tuesday morning; London’s FTSE 100 index was 0.3 percent higher in early deals.

    Steen Jakobson, chief investment officer at Saxobank, told CNBC Tuesday that parliamentary debates over Brexit resembled a “trench war.”

    “If we go to the market implication, the hard no-deal (Brexit) has to be priced higher and higher for every hour that passes without any decision.”

    Customs union or an election?

    As Parliament shows itself so far unwilling to find a compromise, Brexit watchers have spoken of the possibility of a snap general election. How that could turn out is anyone’s guess with Brexit throwing up unprecedented division among lawmakers and the public.

    J.P. Morgan Economist Malcolm Barr noted that “the next day or so is likely to involve no small amount of finger pointing among those seeking either a ‘softer’ Brexit or a ‘People’s vote’.” A People’s Vote refers to a referendum on the Brexit deal on offer or revoking the whole departure process.

    “We continue to think that a general election is the single most likely path forward in the coming weeks, even though that event raises a lot of questions for politicians on all sides,” Barr said in a note Monday evening.

    “With the indicative votes process having come so close to identifying a ‘softer’ path tonight, it looks likely more bargaining and tweaks to the motions will generate a positive outturn on Wednesday. It is not clear to us how PM May can forestall that, and the potential split in her party that could follow.”

    The EU’s Barnier signaled that the bloc could accept a customs union with the U.K. but noted that the only way to avoid a no-deal Brexit “will be through a positive majority in the House of Commons” (the lower house of Parliament) putting the ball back in the U.K.’s court.

    Lutfey Siddiqi, visiting professor-in-practice at the London School of Economics, told CNBC he believed that a middle way would still be found.

    “Parliament has no appetite for a no-deal Brexit or no Brexit … I can see a center of gravity emerging in Parliament where it’s towards a customs union perhaps with a confirmatory vote,” he told CNBC’s “Capital Connection” Tuesday.

    “It’s a game of brinkmanship (with the EU). We’ve got these two cars hurtling towards each other but in the British car there’s a tussle going on both for the steering wheel and for the GPS navigation system. That makes it very hard to predict the exact sequence (of events).”

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/brexit-what-could-happen-next.html

    Chicago mayoral candidates Toni Preckwinkle (left) and Lori Lightfoot speak during a March 13 forum on crime and violence.

    Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP/Getty Images


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP/Getty Images

    Chicago mayoral candidates Toni Preckwinkle (left) and Lori Lightfoot speak during a March 13 forum on crime and violence.

    Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP/Getty Images

    No matter who wins Tuesday’s election for mayor of Chicago, the United States’ third-largest city will be led by an African-American woman for the first time.

    The historic race pits Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle against Lori Lightfoot, a lawyer and former head of a police oversight board who also would become the city’s first openly gay mayor.

    The free-for-all campaign has represented a sharp contrast to almost every past election in a city that has been synonymous with Democratic machine politics and bossism for nearly a century.

    In the first-round election in February, Lightfoot, 56, and Preckwinkle, 72, were the top two vote-getters among 14 candidates. Lightfoot led the crowded field with 17.5 percent of the vote, while Preckwinkle received about 16 percent, qualifying them for Tuesday’s runoff election.

    The wide-open succession battle began with a surprise retirement announcement last year from two-term Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a prolific fundraiser and former White House chief of staff to then-President Obama. The famously combative and profane Emanuel had earlier said he planned to run for a third four-year term.

    But Emanuel’s popularity suffered major blows as he grappled with the city’s deep financial crisis and the increasingly volatile relationship between police and the black community. Those tensions rose dramatically after the 2015 release of a videotape showing a white officer firing 16 shots into Laquan McDonald, killing the 17-year-old African-American.

    Both Lightfoot and Preckwinkle have sought to brand themselves as much more progressive Democrats than Emanuel, a centrist who often feuded with public-employee labor groups, including the teachers’ union.

    After recent polls gave Lightfoot a big lead, many Emanuel backers in the city’s business community gravitated toward her.

    In her first campaign for public office, Lightfoot has argued that she’s the best candidate to “break from the status quo that has failed us” and deliver “equity, inclusion and fairness.”

    “It’s unacceptable, the condition of our communities on the South and West sides,” she said during a candidate forum last week on WBEZ-Chicago Public Media, referring to predominantly black and disadvantaged areas of the city of 2.7 million people. “The only way we are going to carve a new path for the city, to take us in a direction that our communities don’t continue to be resource starved, is to vote for change.”

    Lightfoot also appeared to benefit from the anti-incumbent, reformist mood of an electorate rocked by yet another City Hall corruption scandal.

    In January, federal prosecutors alleged attempted extortion by veteran City Council member Edward Burke. And they accused Burke of shaking down a businessman to give a campaign contribution to Preckwinkle, who is also leader of the Cook County Democratic Party.

    Preckwinkle and her backers countered that Lightfoot is not a true progressive or outsider, having worked under Emanuel and former Mayor Richard M. Daley.

    Preckwinkle also warned that Lightfoot’s thin political résumé shows she would be far too inexperienced for the daunting job.

    “It’s easy to talk about change,” said Preckwinkle, who once served as a member of the City Council, representing the ward where Obama lived. “Change is not easy. It takes hard work. It takes experience. Being mayor is not an entry-level job.”

    Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/02/708833184/history-to-be-made-as-chicago-votes-for-mayor

    President Donald Trump directed his outrage at Puerto Rico on Monday night, calling the U.S. territory “a mess” and its politicians “incompetent or corrupt,” after Senate Democrats clashed with their Republican counterparts over sending more disaster aid money.

    Senators took test votes on two competing measures — one drafted by Senate Republicans and another passed by Democratic-led House of Representatives earlier this year — that would allocate billions of dollars in aid to U.S. states and territories ravaged by hurricanes, flooding, wildfires and other natural disasters in recent months. But neither piece of legislation got the support required to advance to a full floor vote. Democrats shot down the GOP legislation while Republicans rejected the House-passed bill, which proposes more aid for Puerto Rico than the Republican version.

    No one can discern where he’s getting that figure, which is many times higher than the actual number.

    Democrats said they wanted the federal government to release the money already appropriated to Puerto Rico in a previous relief package, in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars more. Republicans echoed Trump’s claims that Puerto Puerto Rico has been given much more than disaster-hit states and hasn’t spent the money wisely.

    “The Democrats today killed a Bill that would have provided great relief to Farmers and yet more money to Puerto Rico despite the fact that Puerto Rico has already been scheduled to receive more hurricane relief funding than any ‘place’ in history. The people of Puerto Rico,” Trump posted on Twitter, “are GREAT, but the politicians are incompetent or corrupt. Puerto Rico got far more money than Texas & Florida combined, yet their government can’t do anything right, the place is a mess – nothing works.”

    “FEMA & The Military worked emergency miracles but politicians like,” Trump continued. “the crazed and incompetent Mayor of San Juan have done such a poor job of bringing the Island back to health. 91 Billion Dollars to Puerto Rico, and now the Dems want to give them more, taking dollars away from our Farmers and so many others. Disgraceful!”

    Carmen Yulin Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, the capital, responded to Trump’s remarks in her own tweets. She called the president “unhinged” and accused him of lying about the inadequate response to Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, a Category 4 hurricane that made landfall on the island in September 2017 and caused some $100 billion in damage.

    “Pres Trump continues to embarrass himself & the Office he holds. He is unhinged & thus lies about the $ received by PR. HE KNOWS HIS RESPONSE was innefficient [sic] at best. He can huff & puff all he wants but he cannot escape the death of 3,000 on his watch. SHAME ON YOU!” Cruz tweeted.

    “Mr President I am right here ready to call you on every lie, every hypocrisy and every ill fated action against the people of Puerto Rico. My voice,and the voices of the people of Puerto Rico, will continue to unmask your insentive [sic], incapable & vindictive ways. SHAME ON YOU!” Cruz tweeted again.

    The storm struck as Puerto Ricans still were recovering from Hurricane Irma, which unleashed heavy rain and high winds just two weeks earlier.

    Though 64 people died as a direct result of Hurricane Maria, an estimated 2,975 died as a result of its aftermath, according to Puerto Rico’s most recent official counts based on a study, published in August of 2018, conducted by George Washington University and the University of Puerto Rico.

    (Ricardo Arduengo/AFP/Getty Images) A car drives on a damaged road in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Humacao, Puerto Rico on Oct. 2, 2017.

    Jeremy Kirkland, general counsel to the Inspector General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, announced last Tuesday that his office has launched an internal investigation at the request of Congress to investigate whether there was any “interference” in the distribution of aid money to Puerto Rico.

    Over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer penned an op-ed in The New York Daily News, saying the Trump administration “has yet to disperse nearly $20 billion in long-term recovery and mitigation funds for Puerto Rico, more than a year after they were approved by Congress and a year-and-a-half after the historic hurricanes made landfall.”

    “[The president] claims that Puerto Rico is getting $91 billion in disaster relief,” Schumer wrote, “but no one can discern where he’s getting that figure, which is many times higher than the actual number.”

    ABC News’ Stephanie Ebbs, Anne Flaherty, Joshua Hoyos and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-lashes-puerto-ricos-incompetent-corrupt-politicians-senate/story?id=62107652

    “);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

    (CNN)White House senior adviser Stephen Miller indicated on Monday that President Donald Trump has not quite made the decision to shut down the border, saying it depends on how the week goes, according to notes from a conference call taken by a listener and obtained by CNN.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/stephen-miller-trump-shut-down-border/index.html

    Flames creep along the cedar siding on a test house hit by blown embers at a research facility run by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    Flames creep along the cedar siding on a test house hit by blown embers at a research facility run by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    An hour south of Charlotte, N.C., two forks in the road beyond suburbia, a freshly constructed house sits in a wind tunnel waiting to be set on fire.

    To the left of the house is a brick wall with a hole in the middle, made by a 2-by-4 propelled at 70 miles per hour.

    In front of the house is a metal staircase five stories tall. At the top are the hail guns.

    More than 100 fans begin to turn, slowly at first and then faster. The ember generators flicker on. The fire is about to begin.

    The past two years have been particularly costly for insurance companies that are on the hook for billions of dollars in damage done by hurricanes, wildfires, floods and other disasters. As these disasters become more frequent and expensive, in part because of climate change, insurers are investing more in this research facility that studies how to protect homes and businesses from destructive wind, water and embers.

    The research site in South Carolina has a wall of 105 fans that can generate wind gusts to blow embers. Fire engineers say most homes that burn during wildfires are ignited by embers, rather than a wall of flames.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    The research site in South Carolina has a wall of 105 fans that can generate wind gusts to blow embers. Fire engineers say most homes that burn during wildfires are ignited by embers, rather than a wall of flames.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    The facility in rural South Carolina is run by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, a nonprofit research organization funded by U.S. insurance companies. The concrete building the size of an airplane hangar can generate hurricane-force winds, realistic hail and wind-driven rain and embers.

    “This is the only full-scale lab of its kind in the United States,” explains Roy Wright, the organization’s president and CEO.

    The facility was built in 2008, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, with millions of dollars from the insurance industry. Since then, and especially in recent years, industry support for the facility has only grown.

    “We’ve hit an inflection point where we’re seeing more events impact more Americans,” Wright says. “Our members have increased their investment and said, ‘We want more researchers here. We want to see more activity playing out here.’ We are collectively responding to this changing world that we’re in.”

    Today, the annual budget is just shy of $15 million, and the facility regularly tests, among other things, the resilience of commonly used types of roofing, siding, garage doors, porches and even landscaping during disasters.

    Top: Half of the test home has cedar siding and other common combustible building materials. The other half has common fire-resistant materials such as cement siding. Bottom left: Fire engineer Daniel Gorham (far right) monitors the test from a control room at the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety research facility. Bottom right: Roy Wright is the institute’s president and CEO.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    The most recent full-scale test was a wildfire simulation. Engineers designed and built a full-size duplex home. On one side, the house has cedar siding, vinyl gutters, single-pane windows and bark mulch around the foundation. On the other side, the house is designed to be fire-resistant, with cement siding, metal gutters, double-pane windows and gravel around the foundation.

    “We’ve used construction materials and building practices that we have found through our research, and others’ research, makes a building resistant to wildfire exposure,” explains fire engineer Daniel Gorham, who helped design and carry out the fire test. For example, a 5-foot zone around the fire-resistant side of the house is devoid of combustible material, including plants.

    Daniel Gorham is a fire engineer and former firefighter who helped design and carry out the embers test.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    That’s important, Gorham says, because the majority of homes that burn during wildfires aren’t ignited by a wall of flame. Instead, embers can blow hundreds of yards or even miles, starting blazes far from the main wildfire.

    When embers land on gravel, they eventually burn out. But when embers land on mulch, dry leaves, plants, deck furniture or other combustible materials, they can start new fire. And if the house has a wood deck or siding, it’s especially likely that the house itself will eventually burn.

    The full-scale test was designed to study both scenarios side by side by directing ember-laden wind at the duplex and seeing what happened. The difference was starkly clear: After a few minutes, one side of the house was engulfed in flame, while the other side was entirely unaffected.

    Local firefighters stepped in to put out the fire before the house burned to the ground.

    “The side-by-side couldn’t be more surreal,” Wright says. “One side fully engulfed, and the other side’s getting just as many embers, just as much pummeling it, and it’s just going, ‘I can take it.’ “

    A 2018 report by Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based group that studies land management, found it costs about the same amount to build a new fire-resistant house as it does to build a typical house with cedar siding.

    The test results on how different parts of the house performed will be incorporated into public reports meant to help homeowners, business owners and local officials who set building codes and plan for disasters. There are similar reports about protecting homes against the hail, wind and wind-driven rain that accompany hurricanes and tornadoes.

    More granular versions of the research findings are shared with the companies that fund the research. Wright says companies can use that information to help set insurance rates or to educate local insurance agents who field questions directly from policyholders.

    Members of a local fire department work with research facility staff to extinguish the burning test home.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    Members of a local fire department work with research facility staff to extinguish the burning test home.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    Of course, the real test of a building’s resilience is during a real storm or fire, and in many parts of the country, the majority of homes and businesses are not built to withstand severe weather. Building codes are established and enforced locally and vary widely, even across single states.

    “That’s where sometimes the wheels fall off,” explains Thomas Welle, head of the Denver field office for the National Fire Protection Association, which develops building standards for new homes and businesses.

    Sometimes, Welle says, “standards are adopted piecemeal instead of whole. And sometimes they’re not enforced.” For example, some counties require that builders create a perimeter without combustible materials around a newly built home, but then there are no follow-up inspections to enforce that rule.

    And Welle says those in the private sector, including realtors and the insurance industry, have a role to play, especially when it comes to incentivizing upgrades to existing buildings to make them more resilient.

    Although insurance companies are barred from working together to set prices, for example, Welle explains “they can agree on some kind of best practices to at least promote that kind of thing.”

    The contrast between the resilience of the traditional building materials and that of the fire-resistant materials was stark.

    Ryan Kellman/NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Ryan Kellman/NPR

    Roof resilience is an area of particular interest to insurance companies and to homeowners who live in hurricane-prone parts of the U.S.

    After Hurricane Michael came ashore in Florida last year, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety studied which buildings were damaged and what the buildings that survived had in common.

    They found the storm’s intense wind and rain mirrored lab results that suggested unfortified garage doors and unsealed plywood on the roof could fail catastrophically during storms, leading the roof to rip off the house or water to flood in as shingles flew away.

    Similarly, wildfires in California last year offered insight about how to reduce risk in fire-prone areas. Many of the homes that burned in Southern California’s Woolsey Fire appear to have been ignited by embers landing on combustible material on or near the house. Simply changing the landscaping or porch setup could help such homes survive.

    In Northern California, the deadly Camp Fire came with a different lesson: no one is invincible. Wright’s parents lost their home in the fire.

    “There are ways to prepare for disasters,” Wright says. “But there’s always this sense of hopefulness or invincibility that it’s not going to affect you.”

    He says helping his parents file insurance claims and figure out how to piece their day-to-day lives back together has underscored the importance of presenting actionable research that can help people become more resilient to severe weather.

    “Our work here is not just about ‘What does the science look like to build the best way?’ ” he explains. “The question is, ‘Is there a better way that is affordable?’ Because if it’s not accessible to a homeowner or a business owner, it just becomes more noise in the system.”

    Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/02/704854496/step-1-build-a-house-step-2-set-it-on-fire

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Two Republican state attorneys general on Monday urged a federal appeals court to uphold the Obamacare federal healthcare law, saying that striking it down would be disruptive for patients, doctors, insurers and employers.

    The attorneys general of Ohio and Montana submitted “friend of the court” briefs to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to review a December ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, striking down the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

    Dozens of patient and healthcare industry groups, including the American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, American Cancer Society and seniors advocacy group AARP also filed briefs in support of the law.

    The briefs come less than a week after the U.S. Department of Justice, in an unexpected legal maneuver, said the entire healthcare law should be invalidated. Previously, President Donald Trump’s administration had said portions of Obamacare should be struck down and others should survive, including a state-led expansion of the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.

    The 2010 law, seen as the signature domestic achievement of Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, has been a flash point of American politics since it passed, with Republicans including Trump repeatedly attempting to overturn it.

    Democrats made defending the law a powerful messaging tool in the campaign for the November elections, in which they won a decisive 38-seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    The House submitted a filing last month to the appeals court in support of the law, as did a group of 17 mostly Democratic-led states including California and New York.

    The lawsuit that led to the Texas ruling was brought by a coalition of 20 Republican-led states including Texas, Alabama and Florida.

    It centered on the law’s so-called individual mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the mandate, ruling that the penalty was allowed through Congress’ power to tax.

    In late 2017, however, Trump, a Republican, signed a tax bill reducing the penalty for not buying insurance to zero. The states challenging the law argued that the mandate was no longer a tax, and was therefore unconstitutional.

    O’Connor agreed, and found that the rest of the law could not be separated from the mandate, meaning it must be struck down entirely.

    About 11.8 million consumers nationwide enrolled in 2018 Obamacare exchange plans, according to the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Peter Cooney

    Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-obamacare/two-republican-attorneys-general-urge-court-to-uphold-obamacare-idUSKCN1RD3DW

    “);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

    Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump could initiate chaos and grave economic disruption by finally making good on his threat to slam shut the southern border, yet he’s clearly tempted to do it anyway.

      Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/politics/donald-trump-immigration-border-closure-crisis/index.html

      A whistleblower who had worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, spending a total of 18 years in the White House, told Congress that the White House had overridden professional concerns about granting 25 different individuals clearances. The immediate response from the Trump White House was “WITCH HUNT.”

      This is wildly inappropriate. When Republicans controlled the House, both Reps. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in their role as chairmen of the House Oversight Committee, initiated investigations into security clearances. And President Trump’s former hand-picked chief of staff, John Kelly, and White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, found the process of granting clearances so disturbing that they both made a point of documenting their objections.

      Never mind that some of Trump’s associates have been indicted for shady and illegal dealings with foreign governments and that this topic should be especially sensitive.

      In spite of those concerns, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wasted no time lashing out at the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and his decision to start the process of issuing subpoenas. Notably, his criticism framed the request for documents as an “excuse to go fishing through the personal files of dedicated public servants.”

      In light of seemingly meritorious concerns about national security and the refusal of the White House to cooperate, such accusations would bar any scrutiny whatsoever for national security’s sake. Although this might yield satisfying results in the short term — goading a self-righteous opponent almost always does — there could be real consequences. We elected lawmakers of both parties on the expectation that they would show genuine concern for and provide us with a basic level of national security. To make this into a partisan issue is to make the country less safe.

      National security and the security clearances that enable civil servants to do their work must be a bipartisan concern, even if that means pushing back against the clearances obtained by the beloved daughter of the president, her husband, and other officials.

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/security-clearances-should-not-be-a-partisan-issue

      “);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

      (CNN)White House senior adviser Stephen Miller indicated on Monday that President Donald Trump has not quite made the decision to shut down the border, saying it depends on how the week goes, according to notes from a conference call taken by a listener and obtained by CNN.

      Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/stephen-miller-trump-shut-down-border/index.html

      Image copyright
      Missouri Department of Corrections

      Image caption

      Russell Bucklew argued that his medical condition would make death by lethal injection extremely painful

      The US Supreme Court has ruled that a convicted murderer on death row in Missouri has no right to a “painless death”.

      The ruling clears the way for the execution of Russell Bucklew, who asked for gas rather than lethal injection, citing an unusual medical condition.

      Bucklew, 50, argued the state’s preferred method amounts to legally banned “cruel and unusual punishment”.

      The 5-4 ruling split along the court’s ideological lines.

      Bucklew was sentenced to death in 1996 for rape, murder and kidnapping in an attack against his ex-girlfriend and her new partner and six-year-old son.

      In recent court filings, Bucklew argued that his congenital condition, cavernous hemangioma, might cause him excessive pain if he is put to death by lethal injection.

      Image copyright
      Getty Images

      Image caption

      US Supreme Court: (Front L-R) Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Jr; (Back L-R) Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh

      The condition causes blood-filled tumours in his throat, neck and face, which he said could rupture during his execution causing him extreme pain and suffocation.

      According to Bucklew, he would feel excessive pain if the state executioner is allowed to use the state’s preferred method of a single drug, pentobarbital, applied by needle.

      But the Supreme Court’s conservative justices said on Monday they considered the legal effort to be a stalling tactic.

      They said it was up to the prisoner to prove that another method of execution would “reduce a substantial risk of severe pain”, but he had not done so.

      Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Bucklew had been on death row for more than 20 years.

      “The eighth amendment [to the US constitution] forbids ‘cruel and unusual’ methods of capital punishment but does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death,” wrote Justice Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017.

      He continued: “As originally understood, the eighth amendment tolerated methods of execution, like hanging, that involved a significant risk of pain, while forbidding as cruel only those methods that intensified the death sentence by ‘superadding’ terror, pain or disgrace.”

      Liberals on the court, including Justice Stephen Breyer, argued that Bucklew’s condition should have allowed for him to be put to death by nitrogen gas, a method allowed in three states.

      “There are higher values than ensuring that executions run on time,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a separate opinion, adding that secrecy in the death penalty process has recently yielded different results in two similar cases.

      In one case in Alabama, a Muslim man was forbidden from having an imam with him during his execution, but the court halted a similar sentence after an appeal by a Buddhist who wanted his spiritual adviser present when he was put to death.

      In Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the Bucklew case, he referred to those two cases, saying the inmate in Alabama had been given ample time to voice his complaint, but chose to do so only 15 days before he was scheduled to die.

      Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47780123

      About an hour ago

      NEW YORK — A man was convicted Monday of killing a woman out running near her New York City home in a case that stirred urban fears, helped change the state’s DNA-investigation rules and raised questions about race and police procedures.

      News station video showed Karina Vetrano’s loved ones erupting in cheers as a Queens jury delivered in Chanel Lewis’ retrial, convicting him of murder and sexual abuse in Vetrano’s 2016 death. A previous trial ended in a hung jury in November; the second jury deliberated for only five hours, staying into the night to deliberate.

      “Jubilation. Justice. Justice has been served,” the victim’s father, Phil Vetrano, told reporters while leaving court.

      Lewis’ attorneys, the Legal Aid Society, called the outcome “a complete miscarriage of justice.” They had unsuccessfully sought a hearing Monday after getting an anonymous letter saying that police had pursued two white suspects before taking DNA samples from hundreds of black men — in what the defense called a “race-biased dragnet” — and coming to focus on Lewis.

      “Our client did not receive a fair trial,” the Legal Aid Society said, adding that it would appeal.

      The New York Police Department said in a statement that the anonymous letter was “riddled with falsehoods and inaccuracies,” the investigation was painstaking and “the evidence clearly shows that Chanel Lewis is responsible for her death.”

      Chief Queens Assistant District Attorney John Ryan called the case “horrifying.”

      Phil Vetrano found his 30-year-old daughter’s body, sexually abused and strangled, in August 2016 in a park where they often went for runs together.

      Lewis, 22, was arrested six months later.

      Authorities said his DNA was found on Vetrano’s neck and cellphone and in a mixture of DNA under her fingernails. His own phone contained downloaded photos of the crime scene and searches for information about the case, police said.

      And Lewis taped a confession, saying he was upset at someone else — a neighbor of his who played loud music — and “lost it” when he saw Vetrano.

      “One thing led to another,” he said in the confession. “Hitting her and stuff like that.”

      Lewis said he strangled Vetrano but didn’t sexually abuse her.

      Lewis’ defense said that the DNA evidence hadn’t been gathered properly and that the confession was coerced and didn’t match Vetrano’s injuries or some other facts.

      Before Lewis’ arrest, the investigation prompted police prosecutors to seek state permission to use a technique known as familial DNA searching — looking for people similar enough to be closely related to whoever left DNA at the crime scene, in hopes they will lead to a suspect.

      The state Commission on Forensic Science ultimately agreed in June 2017 to allow familial DNA searching in murder, rape and some other cases. The decision came over the objections of civil libertarians who said the practice entangles law-abiding people in investigations because of their family ties.

      By the time the commission gave its approval, Lewis had already been arrested.





      Source Article from https://triblive.com/news/world/man-convicted-of-killing-woman-out-jogging-in-nyc-park/


      “There’s a failure to understand how one’s actions impact others,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin said of former Vice President Joe Biden. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

      Congress

      Senate Democrats are struggling with how to respond to allegations of inappropriate behavior toward women by their former colleague.

      Senate Democrats are keeping their distance from Joe Biden as he undergoes new scrutiny over his interactions with women — with one potential presidential rival warning he will have to explain behavior that “demeaned” a woman if he enters the 2020 race.

      Biden was hit with the second allegation of inappropriate physical contact with a woman on Monday, with Amy Lappos of Connecticut joining Lucy Flores of Nevada in describing untoward conduct by the longtime Delaware Democratic senator and two-term vice president.

      Story Continued Below

      “Lucy Flores felt demeaned and that’s never OK. And if Vice President Biden decides to run for president this is something he’s going to have to address directly with the American people,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Monday evening outside the Senate chamber.

      Neither Gillibrand nor any other Senate Democrats said that Biden should be disqualified from seeking the nomination. But a series of interviews Monday made clear that the caucus was still grappling with how to respond to the blowback facing a beloved member of the party.

      Democrats have agonized over their handling of the case of former Sen. Al Franken, whom they ousted over alleged groping of women, and are clearly struggling with how to deal with seeing Biden in a new political light.

      Many Senate Democrats had privately predicted for weeks that Biden could lock up more support within the Senate than anyone else, and some of his closest allies are standing by him.

      But now there is discomfort with defending Biden among Democrats who are eager to create a sharp contrast to President Donald Trump, who bragged about sexually assaulting women on the “Access Hollywood” tape. While Senate Democrats aren’t calling for Biden’s head, they acknowledged that he’d displayed a lack of awareness about his behavior.

      After a long pause, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said of Biden: “There’s a failure to understand how one’s actions impact others.”

      “I was surprised by the allegation. It is clear that Lucy Flores felt it was inappropriate. It took courage for her to come forward and share her story, and I am glad she did,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “All of us, including the vice president, need to continue to work on changing our culture.”

      “The focus isn’t on what his intentions were, it is how his behavior is experienced and one should not invade personal space. He needs to be a lot more aware of that,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). “I would say with Trump it’s many, many degrees of worseness if there is such a word.”

      Biden is well-known for getting affectionate with supporters; he frequently hugged women when swearing in senators or interacting on the campaign trail. His supporters say it’s a core part of who he is and his down-home style of politics.

      Biden’s defenders in the Senate, several of whom acted out Biden’s touchy-feely style for reporters Monday to brush away charges of impropriety, said he will not be dissuaded from entering the race.

      Biden is “a warm, tactile person. He reaches out and he touches and it’s like this and that. It’s hardly sexy,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), gently touching an aide. “It’s a new thing that people have been affronted by it. Over 25 years I’ve never seen that before.”

      “I’m confident he’s going to run and that Joe Biden is someone who hugs people and encourages people and is incredibly engaged with people is I think a pretty well-known feature of his personality,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who has been swept up in the new story because of video footage of Biden sidling up to his teenage daughter during his swearing-in.

      Coons said those who are dredging up that video are missing crucial context: “She doesn’t think there’s anything inappropriate or unkind or in anyway unusual. And he was simply trying to encourage her in a moment that would be tough for any teenager, to have a bank of 50 TV and print cameras.”

      Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) lightly grabbed a reporter on the shoulder to demonstrate how Biden is and said simply: “If you’re looking for him to have his hand on shoulders there might be a lot of them. I just know Joe Biden, this is how he does it.”

      Manchin blamed presidential politics for bringing the spotlight to Biden’s history around women, noting that Flores supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016. He called attacks on Biden “totally wrong.”

      But most Democrats took a different tack: They said they hadn’t observed the behavior themselves and that Flores and Lappos shouldn’t be dismissed.

      “Everybody who makes an allegation should be listened to and heard and then it has to be examined in the context of how it happened. I appreciate what Lucy brought forward. I don’t have that experience with the vice president myself,” said Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).

      Bill Russo, a spokesman for Biden, pushed back hard Monday, blasting descriptions of images that suggested Biden acted inappropriately with the wife of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Coons’ daughter.

      Russo said the descriptions of those images are “smears and forgeries” that have been exploited by “right wing trolls.” He added that while Biden has said he will listen to the women who have spoken out against his behavior, “the important conversation about these issues are not advanced, nor are any criticisms of Vice President Biden validated, by … a failure to be vigilant about a cottage industry of lies.”

      Yet Lappos and Flores aren’t being accused of lying. Flores said that before an event, Biden smelled her hair and kissed her head; Lappos said he rubbed noses with her. In a statement released on Monday evening, Lappos said Biden should “step aside” if he supports women and gender equality.

      Biden’s potential rivals in the presidential race aren’t going there, yet.

      Gillibrand, who called on Franken to resign in 2017, said simply that Biden will have to do a lot more explaining if he got in the race. Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had nothing new to say Monday after expressing their concerns about the Flores incident over the weekend.

      “I personally have campaigned with him a lot in Minnesota and other places and I didn’t see anything like this, but I have no reason to believe they’re not telling the truth,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who is also running for president, said in an interview.

      Other Democrats were waiting to see how the Biden storyline would play out before commenting. For a party used to watching Republicans squirm over Trump’s offensive behavior, Democrats were clearly at pains as they sought to address Biden’s controversy.

      “We all know Joe and how he is and the caring guy that he is, but he needs to be sensitive to his actions and it’s important that he be hearing from the women,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). “It’s an important issue in the context of running against this president and all that he has done to women.”

      Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/01/biden-democrats-1247116

      “);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

      (CNN)Boeing’s 737 MAX jets will remain grounded for weeks after the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday afternoon that the plane maker continues to work on a software fix.

      Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/boeing-737-max/index.html