Noticias Do Dia

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s extraordinary rebuke of Michael Flynn indicates that the former national security adviser has painful days ahead. But by suggesting to Flynn’s legal team that they ask for a sentencing delay, and then accepting that delay, Sullivan’s words might also indicate Flynn has given special counsel Robert Mueller little incriminating material on President Trump.

After all, had Flynn’s evidence provided a prosecution link to Trump or his inner circle, we might have expected Sullivan to treat the former national security more favorably.

That was most certainly not the case on Tuesday. Prior to accepting Flynn’s request for a sentencing delay, Sullivan asked prosecutors whether they had considered charging Flynn with treason. They said they had not. But the judge wasn’t stopping there. Flynn’s conduct, Sullivan said, filled him with disgust. He added, “You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president. Arguably, this undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Wow. While Sullivan then backtracked on his words, the judge knows the publicity of this case and its political importance. I therefore have little doubt that he had judicial grounds to motivate his rhetoric.

Again, however, if Flynn had provided some great value to Mueller, would Sullivan have been so harsh? Perhaps he would have, but I doubt it. As pertaining to plea deals such as Flynn’s, U.S. federal prosecutions are built on a system that is designed to balance leniency in return for evidence offered. In this case, Flynn’s evidence offered is supposed to be only peripherally linked to the indictment of two of his Turkey-lobbying business partners. While Flynn’s sentencing has now been delayed until March so as to offer his greater testimonial value to the government, that was not why Mueller suggested Flynn might be given a no-prison sentence. Again, the Turkey-lobbying business is peripheral to Mueller’s investigative remit: possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.

That brings us to the many redactions in Mueller’s sentencing report on Flynn. They now suggest that there is far more damaging material pertaining to Flynn that is waiting to come to light here. I strongly suspect that this will involve documentation of Flynn’s effort to subvert U.S. national interests and federal law in order to serve aggressive Turkish government interests: specifically, Turkey’s interest in extracting exiled Turkish cleric, Fethullah Gulen, from the U.S. But Flynn’s record of erratic behavior indicates that his Turkish antics were born of arrogance and greed rather than treasonous intent.

Yet for Trump, Tuesday at least was not a bad day. Put simply, Sullivan strongly implied that whatever Mueller had got from Flynn was not enough to justify Flynn receiving a lenient sentence. He has delayed sentencing so as to give Flynn more time to help the government in order to help himself.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/tuesday-was-a-bad-day-for-mike-flynn-and-a-good-day-perhaps-for-trump

December 18 at 3:55 PM

President Trump has agreed to shut down his embattled personal charity and to give away its remaining money amid allegations that he used the foundation for his personal and political benefit, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood announced Tuesday.

Underwood said that the Donald J. Trump Foundation is dissolving as her office pursues its lawsuit against the charity, Trump and his three eldest children.

The suit, filed in June, alleged “persistently illegal conduct” at the foundation, which Trump began in 1987. Underwood is continuing to seek more than $2.8 million in restitution and has asked a judge to ban the Trumps temporarily from serving on the boards of other New York nonprofit organizations.

Underwood said Tuesday that her investigation found “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”

“This is an important victory for the rule of law, making clear that there is one set of rules for everyone,” she added in a statement.

The shuttering comes after The Washington Post documented apparent lapses at the foundation. Trump used the charity’s money to pay legal settlements for his private business, to purchase art for one of his clubs and to make a prohibited political donation.

Trump denied that the organization had done anything wrong. In late 2016, he said he wanted to close the foundation before he became president to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. But the New York attorney general blocked that move while the investigation continued.

The settlement with Underwood’s office represents a concession by Trump to a state inquiry he has decried as a partisan attack. The case is one of numerous legal investigations of Trump organizations that have proliferated during his presidency.

In a court filing in New York, Underwood said that the foundation’s remaining $1.75 million will be distributed to other charities approved by her office and a state judge.

Alan Futerfas, an attorney for the Trump Foundation, issued a statement criticizing Underwood for “politicizing” the agreement.

“The Foundation has been seeking to dissolve and distribute its remaining assets to worthwhile charitable causes since Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2016 Presidential election,” Futerfas said. “Unfortunately, the NYAG sought to prevent dissolution for almost two years, thereby depriving those most in need” of the foundation’s money, he said.

Futerfas said that, over its life, the foundation had given away about $19 million, including $8.25 million donated by Trump himself. The rest of the money came from other donors, notably pro-wrestling moguls Vince and Linda McMahon, who gave $5 million. Trump later chose Linda McMahon to head the Small Business Administration.

As part of its agreement with the attorney general’s office, the foundation will be required to sell its remaining assets and donate the proceeds, said Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Underwood.

That includes a Denver Broncos football helmet signed by former quarterback Tim Tebow, which Trump bought at a charity auction in 2012 with $12,000 in Trump Foundation money. The charity also owns two large portraits of Trump, for which Trump paid a combined $30,000 in foundation money.

Trump now values the three items — for which he spent $42,000 in charity money — at a combined $975, according to a recent IRS filing.

The attorney general’s suit alleges that Trump used his charity’s money as his own piggy bank — including to help his presidential campaign by paying for giveaways at Iowa rallies.

“The Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments to not-for-profits from Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization,” Underwood wrote in the initial suit.

The Post’s reporting showed that, for years, Trump appeared to use the foundation — which was, by law, an independent entity — to make payments that bolstered his interests.

The largest donation in the charity’s history — a $264,231 gift to the Central Park Conservancy in 1989 — appeared to benefit Trump’s business: It paid to restore a fountain outside Trump’s Plaza Hotel. The smallest, a $7 foundation gift to the Boy Scouts that same year, appeared to benefit Trump’s family. It matched the amount required to enroll a boy in the Scouts the year that his son Donald Trump Jr. was 11.

The attorney general’s investigation turned up evidence that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump — all listed as officers of the charity — had never held a board meeting. The board hadn’t met since 1999. The charity’s official treasurer, Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, told investigators that he wasn’t aware that he was on the board.

State investigators asked him what the foundation’s policies were to determine whether its payments were proper.

“There’s no policy, just so you understand,” Weisselberg said.

At one point, Trump used the charity’s money to make a $25,000 political donation to Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R). The charity didn’t tell the IRS about that, as required — and instead listed that donation as a gift to an unrelated charity in Kansas with a similar name. Trump’s team blamed accounting mistakes.

In 2016, state investigators allege, Trump effectively “ceded control” of his charity to his political campaign. He raised more than $2 million at a fundraiser in Iowa that flowed into the foundation. Then, the state said, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski determined when and where it would be given away.

“Is there any way we can make some disbursements . . . this week while in Iowa?” Lewandowski wrote in an email cited in Underwood’s lawsuit.

Trump gave away oversize checks from the foundation at campaign events in the key early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, pausing his campaign rallies to donate to local veterans’ groups.

Federal law prohibits charities from participating in political campaigns. As president, Trump has called repeatedly for that law to be repealed.

Underwood has asked the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether the Trump charity broke tax laws. Both agencies have declined to comment.

In his statement Tuesday, Futerfas praised the foundation for operating with “virtually zero expenses.”

Indeed, the charity had no paid employees.

It also spent very little on advice from lawyers. From 2001 to 2016, the foundation spent $163 on legal fees — and, in many of those years, it spent nothing.

The demise of the Trump Foundation still leaves one mystery regarding a large portrait of Trump that the future president bought for $20,000 in 2007, using money from the charity. What became of it after that is unknown.

In 2017, after The Post wrote about the portrait, Trump listed it as an asset on his charity’s IRS forms. He assigned it a value of $700. But he did not say where it was.

On this year’s tax forms, however, the painting’s value was listed at $0. Trump’s attorney did not respond to a query from The Post about why.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-agrees-to-shut-down-his-charity-amid-allegations-he-used-it-for-personal-and-political-benefit/2018/12/18/dd3f5030-021b-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html

<!– –>

The White House suggested Tuesday that President Donald Trump could back down from his demand for $5 billion to fund his proposed border wall in a year-end spending bill.

Trump’s push for the money has threatened a partial government shutdown when funding for seven agencies lapses after midnight Friday. Last week, the president said he would be “proud” to close parts of the government over border security.

“We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion that we’ll work with Congress,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Fox News on Tuesday morning. She added that the Trump administration could support $1.6 billion in border security funding proposed by Senate Democrats, as long as it can “couple that with other funding resources” to get to $5 billion.

WATCH: These virtual walls could be the cheaper and more effective alternative to Trump’s $5 billion border wall

She added that “at the end of the day, we don’t want to shut down the government. We want to shut down the border.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have cast the potential lapse in funding as the “Trump shutdown.” When Pelosi goaded Trump into an Oval Office fracas last week, the characterization appeared to irritate the president.

Sanders’ comments mark a de-escalation in the White House’s rhetoric on the proposed barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump has repeatedly threatened to force a shutdown if he cannot secure money for the wall. As a candidate, he promised to force Mexico to fund the barrier.

Still, Trump himself has not weighed in Tuesday on how much money he would accept. As always, a comment or tweet from the president could trample on the message administration officials try to send. On Tuesday afternoon, he told reporters it is “too early to say” if parts of the government will shut down.

Later Tuesday, Sanders put the burden on Congress to find a solution, even though GOP lawmakers have said they do not know what Trump would accept. The White House wants to “see what the Senate can pass” and then the administration will “make a determination” on whether to sign it, she said. She added that Trump has directed agencies to see if they have money to put toward border security, though Schumer flatly said Tuesday afternoon that such an effort would not get congressional approval.

Schumer met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday. The Kentucky Republican proposed an appropriations bill that includes money for border security fencing, as well as what a Senate Democratic aide described as a $1 billion “slush fund” that Trump could use on his immigration policies. Democrats rejected the deal.

A McConnell spokesman later told NBC News that the “hypothetical slush fund” would not go toward a wall. Speaking to reporters Tuesday afternoon, McConnell said he offered a plan to Schumer that he “thought was reasonable to both sides.” He later heard back from the Democratic leader “that the offer was not acceptable,” he said.

On Tuesday afternoon, Schumer told reporters that he thought the “Republican offer today would not pass either chamber.” However, he said Democrats would “very seriously consider” a short-term measure to keep the government open if McConnell offered it.

Despite the lack of a deal, the Senate GOP leader said he is confident the government will not shut down. McConnell said is consulting the White House on how to move forward, and he hopes to hear more later Tuesday about what the president would support. He called the Trump administration “extremely flexible” on the issue.

In proposing $1.6 billion in border security funding, Schumer has said it would go to building new or repairing existing fences, rather than the wall as Trump has proposed it. The White House appears to want to claim that funding as “wall” money to promote a victory.

Trump has also claimed his administration has built large portions of the wall. But Congress has only authorized money to build fencing similar to existing structures. The president has also contended that the military could build the wall — though the Pentagon has said it has no plans to do so, yet.

On Tuesday, Pelosi told reporters that “we’ll see” if negotiations with the White House make any progress. She said the wall “is not about money,” but rather “about morality.”

“It’s the wrong thing to do. It doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It’s the wrong thing to do and it’s a waste of money,” the California Democrat said, according to NBC News.

The president has already signed spending bills for five government agencies, including the massive Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, into law. Lawmakers still have not passed spending bills for five agencies. Trump’s push for wall money as part of Department of Homeland Security funding has snagged talks to dodge a shutdown.

Schumer said Tuesday morning that he and Pelosi had not heard from the White House on two offers it made to avoid a shutdown. One includes appropriations bills for six agencies and a year-long continuing resolution to fund DHS. The other would pass a continuing resolution to keep all seven departments running.

Schumer again urged Republicans to support one of those plans on Tuesday afternoon.

Leaving McConnell’s office Tuesday, the New York Democrat said he had not heard a “peep” from the White House, according to NBC News.

As only about a quarter of the government would shut down this weekend, it would have only limited effects. Along with Homeland Security, the unfunded agencies are the departments of Transportation, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development and Justice.

While some functions like national parks would close down, some employees and law enforcement officers at those agencies would continue working without getting paid temporarily. Those would include employees such as FBI, border patrol and Transportation Security Administration agents.

WATCH: Controversial walls in history

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/white-house-suggests-it-will-back-down-on-5-billion-border-wall-demand.html

The Chicago Police Department is in mourning Tuesday after two officers were fatally struck by a train while chasing a suspect on the South Side Monday.

Shortly after 6 p.m. Monday, the officers responded to a call of shots fired in the Rosemoore neighborhood. Police said one of the body camera videos which they may never release shows the officers exit their patrol car, go up a hill to the Metra tracks at 103rd and Cottage Grove Avenue and talk about where the offender could have gone.

In the distance, the officers can see a train approaching heading north making noise. Police said it possibly masked the sound of another high-speed train South Shore Line train full of commuters that was only feet behind them and then the camera fades to black. Police said it happened fast and the officers died instantly.

VIDEO: Procession to Cook Co. Medical Examiner’s Office for fallen officers

Police identified the officers who were killed as 31-year-old Conrad Gary and 36-year-old Eduardo Marmolejo. Gary is a married father of an infant who has only been on the force for 18 months and graduated from Oak Lawn Community High Schools. Marmolejo is a married father of three young children and has been on the force for two-and-a-half years.

EMBED >More News Videos

VIDEOS: 2 Chicago police officers fatally struck by South Shore Line train (1 of 5)

Body camera video recovered after 2 police officers killed by train

Investigators have recovered body camera video from one of the officers fatally struck by a South Shore LIne train Monday.

“Shock. I mean here we are again. It highlights again just how dangerous this job can be. I often say the most dangerous thing a police officer can do is take a weapon off of an armed individual, and that’s what they were doing, with no regard for their own safety,” said Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson

Early Tuesday morning, two ambulances carried the bodies of the officers from the scene. With full police honors, the 15-mile procession wound past the 5th Police District where they were stationed, then onto the medical examiner’s office where officers saluted as a sign of respect.

VIDEO: Bodies of fallen CPD officers arrive at Cook Co, Medical Examiner’s Office

“We’ve lost two young men, both fathers, young families,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “This holiday will never be the same for those two families. While our hearts are with them we lost people who answered the call to try and make Chicago a better place.”

Johnson said 2018 has been an “immensely difficult” year for the Chicago Police Department in terms of officers killed in the line of duty, as well as an uptick in officer suicides. He noted it’s been a particularly difficult year for the 5th District.

“Pray for the families of these two heroic young men, pray for the 5th District who, even tonight, will stop at nothing to safeguard the community,” he said.

In a tweet, Governor Bruce Rauner said, “Deeply saddened to learn of the tragic deaths of officers Conrad Gary and Eduardo Marmolejo. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and the entire @Chicago_Police Department.”

It’s been a particularly tragic year for Chicago’s 5th Police District. Officers at the district told ABC7 that counselors will be on site to help officers and staff grieve.

In addition to losing these two officers, the 5th District has lost at least two others to suicides.

5th District mourning fallen officers

Commander Paul Bauer and Officer Samuel Jimenez were both members of the department that lost their lives in the line of duty.

Tuesday, two crosses were placed in front of the department offering both comfort and a grim reminder of the two officers that will no longer be walking through those doors. Police hanged memorial bunting at the entrance of Chicago Police Headquarters at 35th and Michigan.

Police said a suspect was taken into custody and a gun was recovered at the scene. Police believe he was possibly test firing a gun but he never fired shots at the officers.

Meanwhile, the South Shore Line experienced some delays to during the morning rush hours Tuesday,.

Passengers were held on the train for about two and a half hours Monday night before they were placed on buses.

Source Article from https://abc7chicago.com/watch-live-police-hang-memorial-bunting-at-cpd-5th-district-to-honor-fallen-officers/4921383/

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said Tuesday that local restrictions, including bans on indoor vaping, are needed to reduce youth e-cigarette use.

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said Tuesday that local restrictions, including bans on indoor vaping, are needed to reduce youth e-cigarette use.

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

Vaping by U.S. teenagers has reached epidemic levels, threatening to hook a new generation of young people on nicotine.

That’s according to an unusual advisory issued Tuesday U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams about the the dangers of electronic cigarette use among U.S. teenagers.

“I am officially declaring e-cigarette use among youth an epidemic in the United States,” Adams said at a news conference. “Now is the time to take action. We need to protect our young people from all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.”

The surgeon general’s advisory called on parents and teachers to educate themselves about the variety of e-cigarettes and to talk with children about their dangers. Health professionals should ask about e-cigarettes when screening patients for tobacco use, the advisory said. And local authorities should use strategies, such as bans on indoor vaping and retail restrictions, to discourage vaping by young people.

The advisory was prompted by the latest statistics on vaping among youth, which found e-cigarette use among high school students has increased dramatically in the past year.

“We have never seen use of any substance by America’s young people rise this rapidly,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at the briefing. “This is an unprecedented challenge.”

Federal officials singled out JUUL electronic cigarettes for fueling the epidemic, noting that the sleek devices are by far the most popular electronic cigarettes among young people.

The company defended its products, saying it has taken steps to prevent young people from using them. For example, the company has stopped distributing some flavorings to retail stores and has taken other steps to make sure young people don’t buy the devices online.

“JUUL Labs shares a common goal with the Surgeon General and other federal health regulators – preventing youth from initiating on nicotine,” according to a statement from Victoria Davis, a JUUL spokesperson. “We are committed to preventing youth access of JUUL products.”

The company’s move came after the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to restrict the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to young people.

Officials say they are especially alarmed by the proportion of young people who don’t realize that electronic cigarettes contain nicotine, which is a highly addictive drug. A single JUUL cartridge contains as much nicotine as a pack of 20 tobacco cigarettes.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/18/677755266/surgeon-general-warns-youth-vaping-is-now-an-epidemic

A disastrous year for Facebook has left a major dent in the wealth of its CEO and cofounder, Mark Zuckerberg, who has lost billions of dollars in net worth.

Zuckerberg began the year with about $75 billion, but, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index, he was worth about $56 billion on Monday. That’s a $19 billion drop.

Zuckerberg’s net worth has declined dramatically this year.
Bloomberg

Zuckerberg owns a 13% stake in Facebook, which this year has been beset by crises including the Cambridge Analytica scandal, accusations of mismanagement, a shareholder revolt, and questions over inappropriate content.

On July 25, Facebook’s stock price plummeted more than 20% after the company revealed disappointing second-quarter earnings. This is reflected in the sharp drop in Zuckerberg’s net worth.

Read more: Special counsel Robert Mueller was a target of Russia’s disinformation campaign, according to a report prepared for the Senate

At the stock’s lowest point, on November 24, Zuckerberg’s net worth was roughly $52 billion. Facebook’s share price has recovered slightly, and Time magazine’s Money predicts he is ultimately set to lose about $15 billion this year.

Facebook share price.
Markets Insider

The publication said that if that came to pass, Zuckerberg would lose the most money in 2018 of any of the world’s 500 richest people. This includes the likes of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who has also had billions wiped off his net worth in recent weeks as part of a wider downturn in tech stocks.

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-lost-more-money-in-2018-than-worlds-richest-people-2018-12

President Trump on Tuesday retreated from his demand that Congress give him $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, backing down amid acrimonious GOP infighting that left him with few options four days ahead of a partial government shutdown.

The news, delivered by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders in an interview on Fox News, represented a major shift from Trump’s declaration last week that he would be “proud” to shut down the government to get the money he wanted for his border wall.

Democrats, who will reclaim the majority in the House just weeks from now, have consistently refused to give Trump anywhere near the $5 billion he wants.

But Sanders told Fox News Channel: “We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion.”

“At the end of the day we don’t want to shut down the government, we want to shut down the border,” Sanders said.

Sanders said the White House was exploring other funding sources and believed it could be legally done.

“There are certainly a number of different funding sources that we’ve identified that we can use, that we can couple with money that would be given through congressional appropriations that would help us get to that $5 billion that the president needs in order to protect our border,” she said.

There was no immediate reaction from congressional Democrats to Sanders’ comments.

Funding for the Homeland Security Department, Justice, Interior, Agriculture and other agencies — comprising a quarter of the federal government — runs out Friday at midnight absent action by Congress and Trump. The funding is all hung up over Trump’s demands for the wall and Democrats and Republicans have been in a stand-off over how to resolve the dispute.

Sanders’ comments come after a series of miscalculations by the White House and Republicans in recent days over how to try and get Democrats to sign onto $5 billion to pay for the construction of Trump’s long-promised wall along the Mexico border.

Last week, in a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Trump said he would be “proud” to shut down the government over the issue, a statement that congressional Republicans openly said muddied their messaging that Democrats should be blamed for a shutdown.

Schumer and Pelosi, the likely incoming House speaker, have made clear to the White House they would not support giving the White House $5 billion to build a wall, and Democrats have largely closed ranks around them.

Republicans didn’t have a way to proceed because they lacked 60 votes in the Senate to proceed to a vote on a spending bill.

House and Senate Republicans have been in talks with the White House in recent days looking at other ways to try and secure funding, outside of the traditional appropriations process. They have looked at redirecting already approved money, among other things, according to a person briefed on the talks who requested anonymity to discuss deliberations.

Trump has threatened to shut down the entire border if Democrats don’t agree to give him the $5 billion, a threat that didn’t appear to force capitulation.

Then on Monday evening, Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he was anticipating a proposal from the White House, perhaps at 5 p.m., that never materialized. But the White House never promised a 5 p.m. proposal, and then Senate Republicans signaled they planned to move ahead on an overhaul of the criminal justice system this week, giving them very little time to negotiate a budget bill.

Meanwhile, the stock market has fallen precipitously in recent weeks, creating economic angst over Trump’s agenda. Trump has attacked the Federal Reserve, among others, for the stock market’s tumble, but it has rattled him, according to people who have spoken with him both inside and outside the White House.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose the internal White House sentiment.

“We’ll continue to have these conversations with both Senate and House Republicans and Democrats. Our team has been in constant communication,” Sanders said. “We’re going to continue to do that. I’m not going to negotiate here, but we’ve been talking to them just as recently as this morning.”

Sanders’ referenced a $1.6 billion border security bill that was agreed to in the Senate earlier this year on a bipartisan basis. However, in recent weeks Democrats have said they would support only $1.3 billion for fencing, and that the $1.6 billion package would not pass the House. That left it unclear how and whether the contours of the deal being described by the White House could take shape.

Congressional Republicans promised Trump several months ago that if he would delay a fight over the border wall until after the midterm elections, they would help him obtain the money in December. But those efforts never materialized, and he was under heavy pressure to avoid a partial government shutdown just a few days before Christmas.

“The advice he’s getting is to not do this, to just sign the bill, get this over with, and get into 2019 and then have this fight,” said Steve Moore, who was an adviser to Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-signals-its-backing-down-in-shutdown-dispute-will-find-other-ways-to-fund-border-wall/2018/12/18/159994dc-02d9-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html

President Donald Trump gave a shoutout Tuesday to Michael Flynn, wishing the former national security adviser “good luck” hours before he is sentenced in federal court for lying to the FBI.

“Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him, about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful political campaign,” the president said in a tweet.

“There was no Collusion!” he added.

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan is expected to sentence the retired Army lieutenant general — who pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with former Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak — at 11 a.m. in Washington.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has asked for no jail time and a lenient sentence, citing Flynn’s “substantial assistance” in the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between Team Trump and Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Flynn told investigators early last year that he had not discussed US sanctions against Russia with Kislyak, when in fact he had, according to his plea agreement.

Lying to the bureau carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in the slammer, though Flynn’s plea agreement states that he is eligible for a sentence of between zero and six months. He also can ask the court not to impose a fine.

His lawyers have asked the court for a sentence of probation of no more than one year, with minimal conditions of supervision, as well as 200 hours of community service.

Flynn — one of Trump’s most staunch supporters, who’d led “Lock her up!” chants about Hillary Clinton at during the president’s rallies — held the White House job for only 24 days.

His lawyers have asked the court for a sentence of probation of no more than one year, with minimal conditions of supervision, as well as 200 hours of community service.

On Tuesday, Trump also thanked Yahoo News investigative journalist Michael Isikoff — one of the first to report on the Steele dossier about possible ties between Russia and Trump — for comments the reporter made raising doubts about the truthfulness of the document compiled by a former British spy.

“Russia Dossier reporter now doubts dopey Christopher Steele’s claims!” Trump tweeted Tuesday.

“‘When you get into the details of the Steele Dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them. There’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations WILL NEVER BE PROVEN AND ARE LIKELY FALSE,’” he wrote.

“Thank you to Michael Isikoff, Yahoo, for honesty. What this means is that the FISA WARRANTS and the whole Russian Witch Hunt is a Fraud and a Hoax which should be ended immediately,” Trump wrote.

“Also, it was paid for by Crooked Hillary & DNC!” he added and asked, “who is going to restore the good name of so many people whose reputations have been destroyed?”

Isikoff, who co-authored “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump,” assailed parts of the dossier Monday during an interview on John Ziegler’s Free Speech Broadcasting podcast, according to The Hill.

“In broad strokes, Christopher Steele was clearly onto something, that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump’s campaign, and that there was multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in Trump’s campaign,” Isikoff said.

But the journalist said there was no “evidence to support” some of the details.

“When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false,” he said.

The dossier detailed efforts by Russia to coordinate with Team Trump to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.

While several details in the document have been confirmed, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, some of the more sensational details about possible blackmail Russia compiled on Trump during his visits to Moscow have not yet been verified.

The president and his allies have long slammed the dossier as a work of fiction, noting that it was paid for, in part, by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

With Post wires

Source Article from https://nypost.com/2018/12/18/trump-wishes-michael-flynn-good-luck-on-sentencing-day/

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/trump-foundation-dissolve/index.html

KVOA, virtual channel 4, is an NBC-affiliated television station licensed to Tucson, Arizona, United States. KVOA consistently delivers the stories that people care about, and a highlight of its top-rated newscasts is News 4 Tucson Investigators, the station’s award-winning investigative unit.

Source Article from https://kvoa.com/news/national-news/2018/12/17/two-chicago-police-officers-were-fatally-struck-by-train/

I hate Obamacare so much that it’s possible I’ve written more words criticizing it over the past decade than any person alive. I have supported multiple previous legal efforts against the legislation and its implementation. In the fall of 2012, after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, my Halloween costume depicted John Roberts turning into a chicken. If Congress repealed all of Obamacare tomorrow, I’d throw a party. Despite my policy preferences, I’d say the latest decision from U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of Texas declaring Obamacare unconstitutional is an assault on the rule of law.

For those still unfamiliar, the current case, Texas v. Azar, has been filed by 20 Republican states. They argue that because the individual mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax, when the Republican tax law reduced the penalties to zero, it removed the constitutional justification for the mandate. In his decision, O’Connor not only agreed with this, but further decided that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of Obamacare, and concluded that as a result it must be struck down in its entirety.

The opinion, writes libertarian law professor Jonathan Adler, an intellectual architect of a major Supreme Court challenge to the implementation of Obamacare’s subsidies, “is, in many respects, the conservative equivalent of so-called #Resistance judicial opinions that have embraced questionable legal arguments deployed to subvert objectionable Trump Administration policies.”

So what’s so bad about the decision? Basically, there are three layers of problems. First, it’s questionable why the states would have standing to sue. Second, it’s difficult to see why Congress eliminating the penalties would make it unconstitutional. Thirdly, even if one and two were established, it’s impossible to see how the mandate can be seen as inseparable from Obamacare after Congress just acted to separate it.

Let’s start with standing. In court, whatever the potential merits of a case, plaintiffs have to first establish that they have standing to sue, which requires them to show that they are injured by the action that is being challenged. In this case, there is no penalty for going uninsured, so what’s the injury? To get around this, O’Connor treats the mandate as a requirement separate from the enforcement mechanism of the penalty. He cautions against “assuming the individual plaintiffs need not comply with the individual mandate.” But there’s no assuming about it.

In fact, as I noted when the suit was brought back in February, in Roberts’ decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, he determined that somebody who went uninsured but paid the penalty would be fully compliant. “While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful,” the chief justice wrote. “Neither the act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.”

Whatever objections I may have had about Roberts’ ruling at the time, the reality is that as a lower court judge, O’Connor is bound by what the Supreme Court has decided at the time. And at no point does O’Connor grapple with the fact that the Supreme Court clearly said that without the tax, there’s no legal consequence to going uninsured.

Moving beyond standing, this fact also makes it challenging to see why eliminating the tax would thus make the mandate unconstitutional. Over the years, there have been debates about whether a significant enough increase in the mandate tax could make it unconstitutional. If, for instance, the tax were set so high that it cost the same to pay the tax as to purchase health insurance, it could be seen as effectively a legal requirement with no realistic option of avoiding it. That could warrant a revisiting of the Roberts ruling. But in this case, Congress has done the opposite. It has weakened the power of the mandate to the point where it has absolutely no teeth. If the Supreme Court said that the mandate with a tax penalty was lawful, it’s hard to see how a significantly weaker mandate would not be allowed to stand.

Once O’Connor is finished side-stepping the major arguments against his findings on standing and the constitutionality of the mandate, he then moves on to his most preposterous decision: that if the mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the act must also fall because it is inseverable.

The severability analysis in part has become a debate over whether it’s relevant to consider the actions of Congress in 2010, which passed Obamacare, or the one 2017, which repealed the mandate penalties. If looking at 2017, it’s hard to argue that the mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the law. Congress did just that when it eliminated the penalties.

O’Connor concludes that in part because the 2017 tax law was passed through reconciliation and Congress was limited in what it could pass, looking at intent regarding severability is a “fool’s errand.” But this is ridiculous. Republicans knew they couldn’t easily repeal other Obamacare regulations in the tax bill through reconciliation, so they could have chosen not to touch the mandate penalties as a result, but they did.

Absurdly, O’Connor argues that “the 2017 Congress, like the 2010 Congress, intended to preserve the Individual Mandate because the 2017 Congress, like the 2010 Congress, knew that provision is essential to the [Affordable Care Act].” To start, it’s hilarious to categorize Republicans, who have fought the mandate for nearly a decade, as thinking the underlying individual mandate so important to preserve. Furthermore, the idea that if they thought it so important to preserve, that they would choose to preserve it only on paper, even while stripping it of any power, is crazy. This also doesn’t consider that Republicans were saying the exact opposite.

Here’s how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described things just before the Senate passed the tax legislation: “The conference report will also repeal the punitive individual mandate tax at the heart of Obamacare.” So here is the top Republican in the Senate literally saying: We want to repeal the penalties because we see them as so important to Obamacare. And yet O’Connor is arguing they wanted to preserve the mandate because they viewed it as essential.

As for taking the bizarre step of going back to intent in 2010, law professor Nicholas Bagley (a fair-minded supporter of Obamacare) points out that even though the 2010 Congress viewed the mandate as essential, “the mandate that the 2010 Congress said was essential had a penalty attached to it. The finding is irrelevant to a mandate that lacks any such penalty.”

More than anybody, I can appreciate the desire to get rid of Obamacare. But the Supreme Court has already made its decision, and thus lower courts are bound by the decision. As I have been arguing for years, including in a book on the subject, the way to go about things is for Republicans to unite around a sensible free-market alternative and repeal Obamacare legislatively. What’s happening here is an effort to short-circuit the normal process and implement policy preferences through judicial activism.

Embracing unelected judges using shoddy reasoning to impose their policy preferences on the country just when they produce outcomes conservatives agree with would do significant long-term damage to everything conservatives hold dear.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/i-hate-obamacare-but-texas-judges-decision-on-its-unconstitutionality-is-an-assault-on-the-rule-of-law

LONDON—More than two years after Britons voted to leave the European Union, the U.K.’s politicians still can’t agree on what kind of Brexit they want. Now more lawmakers are calling for a do-over, a second referendum that could potentially reverse the results of the first.

About 150 members of Parliament back a new vote, including Labour, Scottish nationalists and a handful of Conservative legislators, according to Dominic Grieve, a Conservative member of Parliament who is supporting a fresh vote.

Source Article from https://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-revote-calls-for-a-second-referendum-grow-louder-11545139544

The recommendations on discipline form part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to back away from Obama-era policies aimed at reducing racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions.

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The recommendations on discipline form part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to back away from Obama-era policies aimed at reducing racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

A federal commission led by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos recommends rescinding Obama-era guidance intended to reduce racial discrimination in school discipline. And, DeVos says, it urges schools to “seriously consider partnering with local law enforcement in the training and arming of school personnel.”

President Trump created the Federal Commission on School Safety following the mass shooting in February at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. While student survivors rallied for gun control, DeVos said early on that would not be a focus of the commission’s work.

The final report highlights a single concrete gun control recommendation, pertaining to the expansion of “extreme risk protection orders,” which allow household members or police to seek the removal of firearms from a mentally disturbed person.

The recommendations on discipline form part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and DeVos to back away from Obama-era policies aimed at reducing racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions. The commission says those polices made schools reluctant to address unruly students or violent incidents.

“Students are afraid because violent students were going unpunished,” said a senior administration official, who spoke to reporters on the condition that he not be identified. DeVos instead called for a “holistic view” of school safety.

Civil rights and “discriminatory discipline”

The federal policies addressed in the report stem from 2014, when the Education Department under President Barack Obama issued detailed guidance on “how to identify, avoid, and remedy” what it called “discriminatory discipline.” The guidance promoted alternatives to suspension and expulsion and opened investigations into school districts that had severely racially skewed numbers.

The guidance had its roots two decades earlier. After the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994, more schools adopted “zero tolerance” discipline policies and added more police on campuses, particularly at low-income schools with many black and Hispanic students.

A growing body of research showed that being suspended, expelled or arrested at school is associated with higher dropout rates and lifelong negative consequences. “Just one suspension can make a difference,” says Kristen Harper, director for policy at Child Trends, a nonprofit research organization. Statistics showed that these negative consequences fell far more often on students of color, disproportionate to their actual behavior. Black girls, for example, were suspended at six times the rate of white girls.

In the wake of the 2014 guidance, more than 50 of America’s largest school districts instituted discipline reform. More than half the states revised their laws to try and reduce suspensions and expulsions.

And, a new analysis for NPR of federal data by Child Trends shows that suspensions indeed declined, particularly for Hispanic students. But the progress has been incremental, and black high school students are still twice as likely as whites to be suspended nationwide. So are students in special education.

School safety and school shootings

This conversation about discipline and civil rights ran headlong into a conversation about school safety after the killing of 17 students and school personnel on Feb. 14. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting took place in Broward County, Fla., a district that had made a concerted effort to work with local law enforcement to reduce discriminatory discipline, cut suspensions and arrests and refer students to services instead of punishment. The program was called PROMISE. It went into effect before the Obama-era guidance and was held up as a national model for discipline reform.

Emotions ran high when WLRN reported that Nikolas Cruz, who is charged in the killings, had been referred to the PROMISE program in middle school, but with no record of his receiving services. On a local radio show, Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter, Meadow, in the shooting, called PROMISE a “cancer.” “The leniency policy, the political correctness — that’s a cancer that led up to February 14th of non-reporting of criminals that go to the schools in Broward,” he said.

The state’s own post-Parkland school safety commission issued recommendations recently as well. That commission focused on physical security, such as requiring teachers to lock classroom doors.

A broader walkback

Nikolas Cruz is white. He was also suspended, repeatedly, and transferred to alternative school. There was an armed school resource officer on campus that day who remained outside rather than confront the shooter.

This announcement on discriminatory discipline, then, in some ways is better understood less in relation to the Parkland shooting and more as part of a series of actions by DeVos to reverse Obama-era guidance intended to protect the civil rights of students.

Under President Obama, the Education Department interpreted Title IX to protect transgender and gender-nonconforming students from discrimination. The department pushed campuses to take a stronger line in investigating sexual misconduct, also under Title IX, and issued guidance aiding schools’ voluntary efforts to achieve racial integration.

DeVos has pulled back the guidance in each case, sometimes pleasing critics of federal overreach, sometimes in defiance of public consensus.

A new era?

Some of the federal safety commission’s new recommendations, like directing resources toward mental health and social-emotional learning, actually echo the views of education experts who support discipline alternatives.

The question now is whether the government’s latest reversal in direction on civil rights might bring a return to the days of zero tolerance.

Anurima Bhargava, a former Justice Department official who was involved in crafting the discipline guidance, says it was written to build consensus, with a great deal of consultation with school leaders and others. “So many people weighed in — there was nobody who was against it,” she says. By that token, Bhargava finds it unlikely that the tide toward restorative and inclusive practices will fully reverse itself.

But during more than a dozen listening sessions, DeVos’ safety commission heard from people who thought the push for alternative discipline had gone too far. Among them were Judy Kidd of North Carolina’s Classroom Teachers Association, who said:

“Daily fights, concealed weapons and teachers assaulted are being ignored to reduce the number of incidents reported. This is unacceptable.”

Without the federal government, there may be little pressure for change in places like Mississippi. That was the only state analyzed by Child Trends that saw an increase in suspensions each year between 2012 and 2016. Or in Allegheny County, Pa., where black students as of 2016 were suspended seven times more often than nonblack students.

Activists like 18-year-old Nia Arrington, of the One Pennsylvania Youth Power collective, feel abandoned by this announcement. As a student in Pittsburgh public schools, in Allegheny County, she fought successfully against arming school safety officers.

“I don’t think when these people talk about keeping students safe that they have all students in mind,” she says. “They don’t think about the harsh reality some students may have faced with gun violence. A lot of students have been traumatized by guns in this country — and by the hands of the police.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/675556455/devos-to-rescind-obama-era-guidance-on-school-discipline

“I’m not saying it’s a crime. I’m saying it’s uncanny,” he explained. “The symmetry continued right up until the end, in the days leading up to the campaign, the actual election, the Russians went all in on what? Allegations of voter fraud, warnings that the election would be stolen.”

Source Article from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-chris-cuomo-donald-trump-russia-bots_us_5c18b30ee4b02d2cae8cb690

“Come on, let’s remember this fact about President Trump. Three members of his inner circle, key advisers, are now convicted felons. So much for the law and order president, folks,” he reminded viewers.

Source Article from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-don-lemon-donald-trump_us_5c18a627e4b0432554c3abb2

Michael Flynn, President TrumpDonald John TrumpReturn hope to the Middle East by returning to the Iran Deal Government shutdowns tend to increase government spending ‘Full Frontal’ gives six-bedroom house to group that works with detained immigrants MORE’s first national security adviser who began cooperating with special counsel Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE’s investigation about a year ago, will be sentenced Tuesday for lying to the FBI.

Flynn’s appearance in D.C. federal court before U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan will be viewed as a key milestone in an investigation that has prodded along for 19 months amidst high public intrigue and increasing vitriol from the president.

It is arguably the most highly anticipated sentencing yet in Mueller’s investigation, and comes on the heels of the three-year sentence handed down to Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen for a slew of federal charges that sprung from details uncovered by Mueller’s sprawling probe.

Flynn is unlikely to be sentenced to significant prison time. Citing his “substantial assistance” in ongoing investigations, Mueller recommended a lenient sentence for Flynn and has not asked for any jail time.

But Flynn and his attorneys may have scrambled his situation by arguing that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI into lying about his Russia contacts, giving new life to a theory among conservatives that the one-time Trump campaign surrogate was wronged by the Justice Department and Mueller.

Flynn’s defense attorneys asked the court to spare him from prison and sentence him to at most one-year probation last week. They cited an FBI report stating that agents did not warn Flynn of the penalties for making a false statement “because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

Without disputing Mueller’s characterization of the crime, they argued Sullivan should consider the circumstances of his interview when evaluating “the seriousness of the offense.”

The court filing added fresh drama to Flynn’s case and prompted Sullivan, who has a reputation as a hawk for any government misconduct, to ask Mueller to produce documents related to Flynn’s interview, which the special counsel filed in redacted form on Friday and Monday.

It also inspired a firm rebuke from Mueller, who wrote that Flynn “chose” to lie and asserted that Flynn, a retired three-star Army general and former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, “knows he should not lie to federal agents.”

Mueller also asked Sullivan to reject Flynn’s attempt to “minimize the seriousness of those false statements to the FBI.”

The developments have energized conservatives who have speculated that Flynn was mistreated by the FBI and duped into lying. One of the agents who interviewed Flynn was former agent Peter Strzok, who became a popular target among Republicans after a Justice Department inspector general probe unearthed text messages he sent critical of Trump prior to the 2016 election.

Trump himself suggested last week that Mueller’s prosecutors gave Flynn a “great deal because they were embarrassed by the way he was treated” and attempted to “scare” him into making up stories. The president has also seized on accounts that agents did not observe outward signs indicating Flynn knew he was lying as evidence his former national security adviser was wrongly ensnared Mueller’s probe.

Some legal experts say that the decision by Flynn to cast his FBI interview as deceptive could backfire, if the judge views him as downplaying his culpability.

“I think it’s kind of surprising, and actually potentially risky on his part,” said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former assistant U.S. attorney in D.C. “That could actually work against him.”

Federal sentencing guidelines call for Flynn to face between zero and six months in prison and up to a $9,500 fine. Others ensnared in Mueller’s probe who have pleaded guilty to the same offense received small sentences, including George PapadopoulosGeorge Demetrios PapadopoulosTrump: Sessions ‘should be ashamed of himself’ for allowing Russia probe to proceed No glory in James Comey getting away with his abuse of FBI power Papadopoulos wants to run for Congress in 2020 MORE, a former Trump campaign adviser who was released from prison after 12 days.

Flynn, once a vocal Trump campaign surrogate, served less than a month in the White House before he was forced to resign over revelations he misled Vice President Pence and other administration officials about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak regarding sanctions on Moscow during the transition.

Last December, Flynn admitted to also lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Kislyak, pleading guilty to a single false statement charge as part of a deal to cooperate in Mueller’s probe.

Flynn is viewed as a valuable witness for Mueller as he probes whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Moscow to interfere in the election. Mueller revealed earlier this month that Flynn had provided details on the “content and context” of interactions between unnamed members of the transition team and the Russian government, among other unknown subjects.

It is unclear whether or to what extent Flynn’s cooperation with Mueller poses a threat to Trump or any of his associates. Flynn is said to have provided “firsthand” insights from his work on the campaign and could be a key witness for the government if it has uncovered criminal conduct and pursues new charges. Trump insists there was no collusion between his campaign and Moscow and views the probe as a partisan “witch hunt.”

It is possible but unlikely that Tuesday’s hearing will shed new light on the information Flynn has given to government prosecutors as it relates to the core Russia probe or other criminal investigations. Flynn took part in 19 interviews with Mueller’s prosecutors and other Justice Department officials.

On the eve of his sentencing, federal prosecutors in Virginia unsealed charges against his former business partner for illegally lobbying on behalf of the Turkish government.

There is no clear end in sight for Mueller’s investigation, though there is considerable speculation that the probe is approaching its late stages. Trump has provided written answers to Mueller in response to questions of collusion but has resisted an in-person interview.

Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said on “Fox News Sunday” that only would happen over his “dead body.”

“After what they did to Flynn, the way they trapped him into perjury, and no sentence for him,” Giuliani said. “Over my dead body.” 

 

 

 

Source Article from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/421774-flynn-sentencing-marks-keystone-moment-in-mueller-investigation

Welcome to FOX News First. Not signed up yet? Click here.

Developing now, Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018

  • Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday for lying to FBI investigators amid allegations of wrongdoing during his questioning 
  • There is an effort to convince President Trump to agree to a short-term spending bill to prevent the government from shutting down on Friday, FOX News has learned
  • Fired FBI Director James Comey lashed out at House Republican lawmakers and FOX News after his closed-door testimony on Russia and the Hillary Clinton email investigation
  • Wall Street will be closely watched after big losses on Monday sent U.S. stocks to their lowest levels in more than a year and put the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite in negative territory for the year. Meanwhile, Federal Reserve will begin day one of its two-day final policy meeting of 2018
  • President Trump has been criticized for pledging to review the case of a former Green Beret charged with murdering a suspected Taliban bombmaker. One retired Army brigadier general tells FOX News why Trump’s intervention in the case is justified

THE LEAD STORY – FLYNN TO LEARN HIS FATE: Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday for pleading guilty to lying to FBI officials in the Russia investigation as outrage over alleged wrongdoing in his questioning by FBI and Justice Department investigators continues to grow … Flynn’s attorneys have claimed in recent days that he was pressured into talking to FBI investigators without having a lawyer present. That led to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordering Special Counsel Robert Mueller to turn over all of the government’s documents and “memoranda” related to Flynn’s questioning. On Monday, Mueller released Flynn’s responses in that fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview in a heavily-redacted witness report.

Some experts and lawmakers have predicted Flynn’s guilty plea will be tossed altogether. Mueller has recommended a lenient sentence for Flynn due to his cooperation in multiple investigations. – Reported by Gregg Re (@gregg_re on Twitter)

RUNNING OUT OF SHUTDOWN OPTIONS … AND TIME: The White House has been insisting that Congress provide $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border despite lawmaker resistance from both parties. Without a resolution, parts of the federal government are set to shut down at midnight Friday. FOX News is told there are some efforts to try to convince President Trump that a short-term spending bill is better That would give Trump the opportunity to fight next year over the wall. “I’m not sure that will sell,” said one source.

Some in the White House’s legislative affairs shop are coming to Capitol Hill to discuss options, although multiple Republican sources on Capitol Hill say they are running out of time. Several GOP sources suggest that the Trump administration has broad latitude to determine which workers are essential or not and may try to minimize the impact of a government shutdown. That would mean the shutdown could go for a while. The ball seems to be in the president’s court: Lawmakers from both sides seem willing to punt into the New Year, and fight then. – Reported by Chad Pergram

‘FRUSTRATED’ COMEY LECTURES HOUSE REPUBLICANS: Former FBI director James Comey blasted House Republicans – and FOX News – on Monday after exiting what he described as a “frustrating” closed-door hearing — his second Capitol Hill appearance this month where he was called to answer questions on the Russia and Hillary Clinton email probes …  “Someday, they’ll have to explain to their grandchildren what they did today,” Comey said of the Republicans on the two House committees that conducted the interview, accusing them of not defending the FBI from President Trump’s attacks.

Republicans, for their part, have accused Comey of not being forthcoming. He was called back to Capitol Hill after an appearance in early December in which he repeatedly claimed not to know or remember the answers to numerous questions. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters he was not satisfied with Comey’s answers on Monday, either. – Reported by Alex Pappas (@AlexPappas on Twitter

IN THE RED: Wall Street will brace for another potential volatile day on Tuesday after U.S. stocks closed sharply lower Monday, deepening annual losses, ahead of the final Federal Reserve policy meeting of the year and amid continued worries about the impact a trade war with China may have on the U.S. economy … At the lows of the afternoon the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen more than 600 points.

Amid the volatility, the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite are all sitting in negative territory for the 2018 year, the first down year since 2015. The Russell 2000, a basket of smaller U.S. based companies, closed in bear market territory. The Nasdaq Composite erased its 2018 gains in Monday’s sell-off, leaving only the Nasdaq 100 among the closely followed stock averages that remain positive for 2018.

Also on Tuesday, the Federal Reserve will begin its final policy meeting of 2018 – a two-day meeting expected to conclude on Wednesday. The Fed is expected to raise its short-term interest rate by a modest quarter-point, to a range of 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent. – FOX Business

A PRESIDENT’S PREROGATIVE: President Trump has been accused by some critics of trying to influence the outcome of a case involving a decorated Green Beret accused of murder in the death of a Taliban bombmaker. By announcing his decision to “review” the case via Twitter, some critics say the president wielding his influence … However, Gen. Anthony Tata, retired brigadier general of the United States Army who served as Secretary of Transportation of North Carolina from 2013 to 2015 under Governor Pat McCrory, says the president’s actions are justified.

In an op-ed for FoxNews.com, Tata writes, “President Donald Trump is perfectly within his legal authority to assert that he will review the case of West Point graduate and Special Forces Major Mathew Golsteyn, who is charged with murdering a Taliban bomb maker in Afghanistan in 2010.”

Tata continues: “As commander-in-chief, the president has the ultimate authority and responsibility to review military cases as he sees fit. His tweet does not exert command influence and is neutral in its tenor – rightfully so, as Golsteyn’s is an almost nine-year-old, complex case that puts a warrior in legal jeopardy.”

THE SOUNDBITE

THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING – EXCEPT THE WALL: “If government should take over health care, why don’t you do the wall [too]?” – Greg Gutfeld, on “The Five,” reacting to the impending partial government shutdown. WATCH

TODAY’S MUST-READS 
Steve Hilton: Hey, Trump haters (on both sides) could you just admit that this is a successful presidency?
Billionaire Richard Branson says 9-to-5 workdays will disappear
Kennedy: ObamaCare and how we got here again.

MINDING YOUR BUSINESS
Oil prices fall for third straight session on supply glut.
ObamaCare unconstitutional? What to know.
CBS nixes CEO Les Moonves $120 million severance.
Amazon looks to limit cheap ‘CRaP’ products to boost profits.
IRS worker headcount dwindling: What it means for you.
Prosecco surpasses champagne as No. 1 bubbly.

STAY TUNED

On FOX News: 
 
FOX & Friends, 6 a.m. ET: Ned Ryun, founder and CEO of  American Majority; David Rubin, a former mayor of  Shiloh, Israel; former Congressman Allen West; Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX  News’ senior judicial analyst; Joe Fedele, director of  programming for WAKY 103.5; Clayton Morris, former FOX News host; Lawrence Jones, the editor-in-chief of CampusReform.com; Jeremy Dulebohn, dog trainer; Ashley Bratcher, actress; Erika Katz, a lifestyle expert.

Special Report with Bret Baier, 6 p.m. ET: Special guests include: U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

On FOX Business:

Mornings with Maria, 6 a.m. ET: Special guests include: Steve Forbes, Forbes Media chairman; Rep. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; David Kenny, Nielsen CEO; Rob Manfred, commissioner of Major League Baseball.

Varney & Co., 9 a.m. ET: Special guests include: Bradley Tusk, Tuck Holdings CEO and founder; Andy Puzder, former CKE Restaurants CEO; U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich.; Thomas Homan, former acting ICE director; David Mulroney, former Canadian ambassador to China.

Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Noon ET: Art Laffer, former economic adviser to President Reagan.

Making Money with Charles Payne, 2 p.m. ET: Eric Schiffer, Patriarch Organization CEO; David Dietze, president and chief investment strategist of Point View Wealth Management, Inc.

Countdown to the Closing Bell with Liz Claman, 3 p.m. ET: Justin Bogie, fiscal affairs senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation; Seth Hanlon, senior fellow for the Center for American Progress.

On FOX News Radio:

The FOX News Rundown podcast: What does the future hold for ObamaCare after a judge in Texas ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional? Indiana’s Attorney General Curtis Hill joins the podcast to discuss why he and 19 other state attorneys general worked together to challenge the legality of ObamaCare. Congress needs to agree on a spending bill by Friday night in order to avoid a partial government shutdown. FOX News Radio White House correspondent Jon Decker has the latest developments and U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. discusses the possibility of a compromise. Plus, commentary by contributing editor with National Review and FOX News contributor, Deroy Murdock.

Want the FOX News Rundown sent straight to your mobile device? Subscribe through Apple Podcasts, Google Play, and Stitcher.

The Brian Kilmeade Show, 9 a.m. ET: The possibility of a government shutdown, the latest in Robert Mueller’s investigation and potential key issues in the 2020 election will be the hot topics discussed with the following guests: Allen West, former Florida congressman; Andrew McCarthy, FOX News contributor and former federal prosecutor; and Chris Stirewalt, FOX News political editor.

Benson & Harf, 6 p.m. ET: Guy Benson will be joined by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

#TheFlashback
1998: The House debates articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.
1944: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the government’s wartime evacuation of people of Japanese descent from the West Coast while at the same time ruling that “concededly loyal” Americans of Japanese ancestry could not continue to be detained.
1892: Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s ballet “The Nutcracker” publicly premieres in St. Petersburg, Russia; although now considered a classic, it received a generally negative reception from critics.

FOX News First is compiled by FOX News’ Bryan Robinson. Thank you for joining us! Enjoy your day! We’ll see you in your inbox first thing Wednesday morning.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-first-michael-flynn-to-learn-his-fate-why-trump-is-justified-in-reviewing-a-green-berets-murder-case

Two Chicago police officers were killed Monday after being struck by a metro train, authorities said.

Conrad Gary and Eduardo Marmolejo were responding to a shots fired call on the city’s South Side when a passing train hit them, Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson told reporters.

The officers were searching an area near train tracks at 103rd Street and Cottage Grove Avenue when they were struck, Johnson said. The train had been traveling at 60 mph to 70 mph, he said.

“While doing the most dangerous thing any police officer can do, and that is to chase an individual with a gun, these brave young men were consumed with identifying a potential threat to their community and put the safety of others above their own,” Johnson said.

A suspect was ultimately taken into custody and a gun was recovered, Johnson said.

Gary, 31, had been on the force 18 months. Marmolejo, 37, joined the department 2 1/2 years ago, Johnson said.

The men, both fathers, lost their lives just a week before Christmas.

“This holiday will never be the same for those two families,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said. “And while our hearts are with them, we lost people who answered the call to make Chicago a better place. We go about our lives not thinking twice and we can do that because of the men and women in the Chicago police department.”

Johnson asked Chicago to pray for the families of the officers, and for the men and women of the officers’ 5th district, “who, even tonight, would stop at nothing to safeguard their community,” he said.

“This has been an immensely difficult year for the Chicago police department,” Johnson said, “And especially for the men and women of the 5th district where they have faced tragedy after tragedy this year.”

Source Article from https://www.news5cleveland.com/2-officers-responding-to-shots-fired-incident-in-chicago-struck-and-killed-by-train

Polar vortex ‘could bring freezing Arctic air over the U.S. and send temperatures plummeting within weeks’

  • Weather researcher say there is a chance of a disrupted polar vortex
  • A polar vortex is air that rests 60,000 feet above the Arctic Circle
  • A disruption in vortex would mean Arctic air blanketing Northern Hemisphere
  • In October, National Weather Service predicted warmer-than-usual winter 

Dailymail.com Reporter

and
Associated Press

Weather researchers say that a polar vortex could hit the United States and Canada with extremely frigid temperatures either by the end of this month or in January.

Judah Cohen, who is a climate expert at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, said that the latest studies indicate there is a chance Arctic air could push southward and blanket much of the Northern Hemisphere in the coming weeks.

It all depends on the polar vortex, the patch of air 60,000 feet above the Earth’s Arctic surface, according to The Washington Post.

If the vortex stays stable, the winter will be quite ordinary, with its usual cold spells, snow storms, and thaws.

Judah Cohen, who is a climate expert at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, said that the latest studies indicate there is a chance Arctic air could push southward and blanket much of the Northern Hemisphere in the coming weeks

The frigid Arctic air could send temperatures plummeting to well below freezing. The image above shows Lower Manhattan from the Staten Island Ferry as New York Harbor is filled with large chunks of ice in February 2015

But if the vortex is disrupted, it would mean especially frigid temperatures similar to those which covered the United States in February and March.

Cohen tweeted: ‘Confidence is growing in a significant polar vortex disruption in the coming weeks. 

‘This could be the single most important determinant of the weather this winter across the Northern Hemisphere.’ 

There is disagreement over the projections of a possible disruption in the vortex.

While American climate experts say it could happen later this month, European experts are predicting that January will be when it is felt.

The findings about a possible polar vortex contradict predictions by U.S. meteorologists who said in October that this coming winter will be warmer and milder than usual.

The National Weather Service predicted a warmer than normal winter for the northern and western three-quarters of the nation – thanks to a weak El Niño brewing. 

The greatest chance for warmer than normal winter weather is in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, Montana, northern Wyoming and western North Dakota.

No place in the United States is expected to be colder than normal, said Mike Halpert, deputy director of the government’s Climate Prediction Center.

The Southeast, Ohio Valley and mid-Atlantic can go any which way on temperature, Halpert said.

Overall the winter looks a lot like the last few, Halpert said.

‘The country as a whole has been quite mild since 2014-2105,’ Halpert said.     

THE NOAA WINTER FORECAST 

 Temperature: 

  • Warmer-than-normal conditions are anticipated across much of the northern and western U.S., with the greatest likelihood in Alaska and from the Pacific Northwest to the Northern Plains.
  • The Southeast, Tennessee Valley, Ohio Valley and Mid-Atlantic all have equal chances for below-, near- or above-average temperatures.
  • No part of the U.S. is favored to have below-average temperatures.

Northern Florida and southern Georgia have the greatest odds for above-average precipitation this winter

 Precipitation

  • Wetter-than-average conditions are favored across the southern tier of the U.S., and up into the Mid-Atlantic. Northern Florida and southern Georgia have the greatest odds for above-average precipitation this winter.
  • Drier-than-average conditions are most likely in parts of the northern Rockies and Northern Plains, as well as in the Great Lakes and northern Ohio Valley. 

 Drought

  • Drought conditions are likely to persist across portions of the Southwest, Southern California, the central Great Basin, central Rockies, Northern Plains and portions of the interior Pacific Northwest.
  • Drought conditions are anticipated to improve in areas throughout Arizona and New Mexico, southern sections of Utah and Colorado, the coastal Pacific Northwest and the Central Plains.

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Source Article from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6506599/Polar-vortex-bring-freezing-air-U-S-send-temperatures-plummeting-weeks.html