Top Rated Videos

Los comentarios publicados son de exclusiva responsabilidad de sus autores y las consecuencias derivadas de ellos pueden ser pasibles de sanciones legales. Aquel usuario que incluya en sus mensajes algún comentario violatorio del reglamento será eliminado e inhabilitado para volver a comentar. Enviar un comentario implica la aceptación del Reglamento.

Source Article from http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1938587-video-las-noticias-de-la-semana

“I want to try something new, to go beyond politics to all the things I’m interested in; I’m ready for a new adventure,” Mr. Wallace said. “And I hope you’ll check it out. And so for the last time, dear friends, that’s it for today. Have a great week. And I hope you’ll keep watching Fox News Sunday.”

Mr. Wallace covered the Reagan White House as an NBC News correspondent (and briefly moderated “Meet the Press”) before Roger Ailes, the co-founder of Fox News, hired him away from ABC News in 2003 to anchor the Murdoch network’s leading political news program.

An equal-opportunity interrogator of Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Wallace proved himself an outlier at times at Fox News, particularly in recent years when the network’s conservative opinion hosts closed ranks behind former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Wallace’s criticisms of Mr. Trump earned rebukes from some viewers and the president’s own Twitter account, but he also irritated liberals who wished he would denounce his partisan colleagues.

In his on-air remarks on Sunday, Mr. Wallace said that “the bosses here at Fox promised me they would never interfere with a guest I booked or a question I asked, and they kept that promise. I have been free to report to the best of my ability, to cover the stories I think are important, to hold our country’s leaders to account. It’s been a great ride.”

The anchor’s contract was up at the end of this year, and the network had wanted to keep him on, according to a person familiar with internal deliberations. “Fox News Sunday” will temporarily be hosted by a rotation of the network’s news anchors, including Bret Baier, Martha MacCallum, John Roberts, Neil Cavuto, and others.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/business/chris-wallace-fox-news.html

The de facto leader of Seattle’s autonomous protest zone said Wednesday “a lot” of protesters have already left the area following a call days earlier from the mayor for protesters to clear out. 

The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) in a statement posted to Twitter on Wednesday said that “very few” people remain in the protest zone and the “CHOP project is now concluded.” 

The statement was signed by the “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest Solidarity Committee.” 

Hip-hop artist and de facto CHOP leader Raz Simone also told CNN that many protesters have already left the zone after some were getting harmed. 

“The protesters of CHAZ [Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone] have targets on their backs, and that is an issue,” Simone told CNN. “A lot of peaceful protesters are being harmed, so it’s sad that’s where we’re at in America.”

As a result, Simone told CNN that “a lot of people are going to leave,” adding that “a lot of people already left.” 

The CHOP committee said in its statement it expects “a very small handful of holdouts to remain in the CHOP” but said no further organizing will occur to support the presence. The committee said it will shift into a phase of virtual activism. 

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan (D) said Monday the city’s police department would return to the abandoned East Precinct after a weekend during which three people were shot in the autonomous zone.

She said that protests would still be allowed, but authorities would try to scale back evening activities by asking them to voluntarily leave rather than use force. 

“It’s time for people to go home, it is time for us to restore … Capitol Hill so it can be a vibrant part of the community,” Durkan said, according to The Seattle Times. “The impacts on the businesses and residents and the community are now too much.”

Thousands of protesters have occupied the area in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood since June 8 as part of demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/504451-a-lot-of-protestors-have-left-seattles-autonomous-zone-leader-says

“He’s basically saying the United States will not secure our border and that is a big welcome sign to migrants from across the world,” Cotton said.

Cotton’s comments underscored the political pressure growing on Biden to address the growing surge of migrants reaching the southern border. In February, U.S. border agents apprehended more than 100,000 people, a 28 percent increase from January.

A repeated talking point by Mayorkas on Sunday was that the Trump administration, which took a hard line on border policy, was to blame because it “dismantled the orderly, humane and efficient way” of dealing with the migrant children. Mayorkas said the U.S. was expelling families and adults but will not turn back “young, vulnerable children.” He said the U.S. was working to address the issue with Mexico and Central American countries where the asylum seekers are coming from.

Cotton said Biden should embrace the Trump administration’s policies to address the situation at the border.

Cotton said Biden should reinstate a “public health” restriction that he lifted for minors reaching the border. Cotton said Biden should also embrace Trump-era policies intended to keep pending asylum seekers in Mexico and force migrants to make asylum claims in the first country they pass through.

“Joe Biden could reimpose all three of those things this week if he wanted to,” Cotton said.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/21/cotton-us-border-wide-open-477379

‘);eIFD.close();
var s = eIFD.createElement(‘SCRIPT’); s.src = ‘http://’ + (eS2?eS2:eS1) +’/layers/epl-41.js’;
eIFD.body.appendChild(s);
if (!eS2) {
var ss = eIFD.createElement(‘SCRIPT’);
ss.src = ‘http://ads.us.e-planning.net/egc/4/10043’;
eIFD.body.appendChild(ss);
}
eplLL = true;
return false;
}
}
eplCheckStart();
function eplSetAdM(eID,custF) {
if (eplCheckStart()) {
if (custF) { document.epl.setCustomAdShow(eID,eplArgs.custom[eID]); }
document.epl.showSpace(eID);
} else {
var efu = ‘eplSetAdM(“‘+eID+'”, ‘+ (custF?’true’:’false’) +’);’;
setTimeout(efu, 250);
}
}
function eplAD4M(eID,custF) {
document.write(‘

‘);
if (custF) {
if (!eplArgs.custom) { eplArgs.custom = {}; }
eplArgs.custom[eID] = custF;
}
eplSetAdM(eID, custF?true:false);
}
function eplSetAd(eID) {
if (eplCheckStart()) {
var opts = (eplArgs.sOpts && eplArgs.sOpts[eID]) ? eplArgs.sOpts[eID] : {};
if (opts.custF) { document.epl.setCustomAdShow(eID,opts.custF); }
document.epl.setSpace(eID, opts);
} else {
setTimeout(‘eplSetAd(“‘+eID+'”);’, 250);
}
}
function eplAD4(eID, opts) {
document.write(‘

‘);
if (!opts) opts = {t:1};
if (!eplArgs.sOpts) { eplArgs.sOpts = {}; }
eplArgs.sOpts[eID] = opts;
eplSetAd(eID);
}
//–>









Imprimir
Enviar
PDF


<!–

–>

Blogueros EH

Páginas

Temas de Interés

Nuestros Productos

<!—->

Source Article from http://www.elheraldo.co/internacional/noticias-internacionales-7-de-enero-del-2014-138087

March 18 at 2:58 PM

The speaker of Britain’s House of Commons, famous for his erudite put-downs and booming calls for “Order!” in Parliament, threw Prime Minister Theresa May’s plan to attempt to pass her Brexit deal again — on a third try, probably this week — into doubt Monday.

John Bercow said he would not allow the government to present May’s European Union withdrawal agreement to the House again unless that deal was “substantially” different from the first two times it was voted down. 

The ruling, which overturned May’s strategy to revive her Brexit deal at the 11th hour, appeared to blindside 10 Downing Street.

“The speaker did not forewarn us of the content of his statement or the fact that he was making one,” May’s spokeswoman, who by custom is not identified by name, told reporters.

Bercow’s ruling stoked further uncertainty about a process that has already been widely condemned as chaotic — and left stunned lawmakers wondering aloud what comes next. Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union on March 29.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt had told the BBC Monday morning that the government was hopeful there would be a third “meaningful vote” Tuesday on Brexit.

Robert Buckland, the government’s solicitor general, said Bercow’s announcement could have “huge reverberations” for the Brexit process. “We are in a major constitutional crisis here,” he told the BBC.

He suggested one way around the ruling would be to end the parliamentary session, start a new session and then hold a vote on May’s Brexit deal.

“We are now talking about not just days but hours to the 29th of March. Frankly, we could have done without this,” he said.

May suffered humiliating defeat in the two earlier votes.

In January, the 585-page withdrawal agreement she had spent two years negotiating with her European counterparts lost, 432 votes to 202 — with 118 members of her Conservative Party voting against her.

She then made a last-ditch pitch to E.U. leaders to improve the deal. She succeeded in having some additional legal language attached to the agreement to calm jitters over how to handle the Irish border. But that second attempt also failed last week, 391 to 242.

The government was hoping that if May’s deal passed early this week, she would go to Brussels on Thursday and ask for a “technical extension” until the end of June. If her deal did not pass, she was planning to seek a longer delay.

May spent the weekend twisting arms and cajoling rebels in her party, as well as her governing allies in the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, to get enough votes to cross the finish line. She was also expected to need support from the opposition Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has threatened to call a no-confidence vote to bring down the government.

The prime minister has warned recalcitrant Tory lawmakers that if they do not pass her Brexit deal, Britain will either have to leave the E.U. with no deal or else delay departure by months, even years. 

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, May said that not backing her deal the second time had risked “undesirable alternatives, from not leaving the EU as scheduled on March 29, to the risk of a second referendum, a general election or the increased possibility of leaving without a deal.”

May’s strategy was brought up short by the speaker’s announcement that there would be no third attempt of a sale — unless the goods on offer were new and different.

“If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on the 12th of March, this would be entirely in order,” Bercow said.

“What the government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition — or substantially the same proposition — as that of last week,” he said.

Bercow appeared to suggest that May might have some wiggle room, but not much. “This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject,” he said. “It is simply meant to indicate the test which the government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session.”

Anna Soubry, a lawmaker who left the Conservative Party over its handling of Brexit to join the new Independent Group, told Parliament: “This has to be unprecedented, the crisis that’s now upon the country. We’re due to leave the European Union in 11 days, and there is no plan, there is no certainty, and this country is crying out for it, especially business.”

“I think it would be helpful to the House to have the earliest possible indication of how the government intends to proceed in this important matter,” Bercow responded. “Part of the responsibility of the speaker is frankly to speak truth to power. I have always done that. And no matter what, I always will.”

In his ruling, Bercow quoted from the guide to parliamentary procedure that a question “may not be brought forward again during the same session” and that it was a “strong and long-standing convention” dating back to 1604.

Rory Stewart, a Conservative lawmaker, tweeted that he disagreed with the speaker “because these votes respond to an instruction in a referendum, endorsed by Parliament, which rules out dropping back to the status quo.”

In a series of votes last week, Parliament not only voted down May’s Brexit deal, but also insisted that Britain cannot leave the E.U. with no deal — a “cliff edge” scenario that could create economic havoc for both Britain and Europe.

Stewart may have also been referring to the speaker when he followed up with a tweet quoting Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty: “ ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean.’ ”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/brexit-in-disarray-after-house-speaker-moves-to-block-third-vote-on-deal/2019/03/18/0ec55516-499b-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html

Spanish matador Alberto Lopez Simon makes a pass on a bull at the Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas bullring in Madrid. The restaurant Casa Toribio, located just down the street, keeps the meat from from bulls killed in bullfighting on its menu all year long.

Alberto Simon/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Alberto Simon/AFP/Getty Images

Spanish matador Alberto Lopez Simon makes a pass on a bull at the Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas bullring in Madrid. The restaurant Casa Toribio, located just down the street, keeps the meat from from bulls killed in bullfighting on its menu all year long.

Alberto Simon/AFP/Getty Images

From the moment you step into the restaurant Casa Toribio in Madrid, you will see that it’s, well, full of bull. Along with statues dedicated to the animal, several photographs and paintings of matadors — waving red capes in their gallant outfits — adorn the walls, honoring a much-debated bloody Spanish tradition that dates back to 711 A.D. with the coronation of King Alfonso VIII.

It’s not uncommon for Spanish restaurants, especially those catering to international tourists, to advertise bullfighting, sangria and flamenco. (Note: Not all of Spain has bullfighting, sangria and flamenco.) And Casa Toribio is in a prime location — just down the street from Madrid’s famous bullring, Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas.

But for Casa Toribio, the attention given to bullfighting goes much further than aesthetics. The restaurant prides itself in offering a special dish not found on most menus: carne de toro de lidia, or meat from a bull killed in a bullfight.

“We’re the only restaurant in the world that has meat from fighting bulls all year round,” says owner Toribio Anta, who opened the restaurant in 1981. There are several photos on the walls of him posing with famous bullfighters. “It started off as a sort of joke, when 23 years ago I walked down to the Plaza to ask if I could buy some of the bull meat. And it became a huge success.”

As an Argentine who grew up in Texas, I’ve eaten more than my fair share of meat. But I’d never tried bull before — much less a bull that died in battle in front of hundreds of spectators, a breed of bull known as toro de lidia, or fighting bull. But on the morning I visited, Anta said the dish wasn’t ready yet — the restaurant is only open for lunch, and the cooks hadn’t yet finished prepping.

“It’s a tough meat,” says Anta. “We cut the meat ourselves, then cook it with red wine overnight, and then it’s stewed for four hours before we can serve it.”

Eating the bulls’ meat after a bullfight is not a new phenomenon. But Anta’s restaurant has a sort of monopoly on the industry, and he’s quick to boast about it.

“The meat from fighting bulls isn’t found anywhere else,” he says, adding that most of his clients are tourists from Latin America. “It’s not available in other restaurants because I have almost all of it.”

A bullfight almost always ends with the matador killing off the bull with his sword; rarely, if the bull has behaved particularly well during the fight, the bull is “pardoned” and his life is spared. After the bull is killed, his body is dragged out of the ring and processed at a slaughterhouse. From there, the meat is distributed to different vendors. During the bullfighting fiestas — days-long festivals in various Spanish cities throughout the year (the most famous being Pamplona’s Running of the Bulls) — local restaurants and butcher shops offer bull meat for a limited time; essentially, for as long as the festival takes place. It becomes part of the festivity itself: watching the bullfights, then eating the bulls. (Anta’s restaurant, on the other hand, has fighting bull on the menu every day of the year.)

Toribio Anta stands in his restaurant Casa Toribio, located just down the street from Madrid’s famous bullring, Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas.

Lucia Benavides /for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Lucia Benavides /for NPR

Toribio Anta stands in his restaurant Casa Toribio, located just down the street from Madrid’s famous bullring, Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas.

Lucia Benavides /for NPR

Yet as public perception toward bullfighting shifts in Spain (it’s already illegal in the autonomous region of Catalonia and in the Canary Islands), some gastronomists say the bull’s meat is actually more organic than the meat people buy in grocery stores.

“It’s the most ecological meat in the world,” says Ismael Díaz, a nutritionist and gastronomic expert who’s written a book on the topic. “In no other meat industry in the world is the animal as well taken care of, or as protected, as the fighting bull. That is, until he enters the ring.”

Díaz says that, historically, the corrida (or the “run”) was done with bulls on their way to the slaughterhouse; the more aggressive bulls were used in fights as entertainment. Once killed, the bull’s meat was given to the matador, who would take the meat back to his hometown, where it would be made into a stew for the whole village to feast on.

“Bulls were used for their meat before they were used for the fight,” says Díaz. “But that changed over the years. The fighting bull evolved into a species of its own with specific characteristics, and its secondary function became that of its meat.”

At Casa Toribio, a variety of cuts from the bull’s meat are available, but the most popular dish is the rabo de toro, or the bull’s tail. Anta says it is impossible for customers to know what bull they’ll be eating that particular day — the restaurant has hundreds of frozen bulls waiting to be cut and cooked. He says he buys bull meat from about 100 bullfighting plazas across the country — and even some in Portugal. That amounts to hundreds of fighting bulls a season, which lasts from March to November. Madrid’s plaza alone sends Anta about 500 bulls each year.

The meat from a fighting bull is “unique,” says Anta. “The smell, the taste … it’s as if we spoke of a free-range chicken versus a chicken bought at the grocery store. Right now, we have seven of the bulls that fought against [famous Spanish bullfighter] José Tomás. We want to advertise them online, in case someone wants to eat them. I’m even going to invite the bullfighter himself.”

Díaz said some parts of the meat are especially sought after when people eat fighting bull — traditional folklore says that the bull’s testicles increase fertility.

“For a long time, meat from a fighting bull was considered an energizing meat,” says Díaz. But he added that it wasn’t seen as a specialized dish until recently, when it became part of a larger trend to eat more organically.

Bulls bred for bullfighting are grass-fed, live in spacious fields and are particularly well taken care of, says Díaz. They also live a longer life than animals bred for human consumption — five to six years, as opposed to the average 18 months. Díaz argues that eating meat from fighting bulls is “more ethical” than eating meat that comes from slaughterhouses, where animals often grow up in cramped spaces, are injected with hormones and don’t get to see the light of day.

“The fighting bull lives a completely privileged life, until its horrible death,” says Díaz, who recognizes that the animal “suffers stress” when it enters the ring. He says that, while the tense fight can affect the taste of the meat, there are treatments cooks can apply to the meat that improve the taste. “So what’s better,” he asks, “a good life with a difficult death, or a limited life with a death that’s a bit less cruel?”

Neus Aragonés at the Barcelona-based Association for the Defense of Animal Rights (Asociación Defensa Derechos Animal) says that, contrary to what some people believe, bulls “don’t live like kings.”

“They’re abused even before they enter the fighting ring,” she says. “At 9 months old, they’re already tested for their aggressiveness by being provoked. Breeders want to see which bulls get angrier.”

Aragonés’ organization opposes bullfighting, but is not against eating meat; they defend the right of all animals to live a good life. She says eating the meat of an animal who faced a “cruel death” and a “questionable upbringing” is not ethical. And, she argues, meat from fighting bulls shouldn’t be considered ecological.

“They’re just sticking the ‘ecological’ label on it because they know that people are now more concerned with what they’re eating,” says Aragonés. “The bullfighting lobby is very powerful, and they’re afraid of losing that tradition.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/01/746659693/the-eating-of-the-bulls-from-the-spanish-fighting-ring-to-the-plate

China has not invited the World Health Organization to take part in an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus outbreak, according to the global health authority’s representative in the country.

Dr. Gauden Galea told Sky News on Friday: “We know that some national investigation is happening but at this stage, we have not been invited to join.”

“The origins of virus are very important, the animal-human interface is extremely important and needs to be studied,” he added. “The priority is we need to know as much as possible to prevent the reoccurrence.”

Galea said he expected to get an update from the Chinese government soon, but had not so far been asked to collaborate.

The news comes amid a growing international dispute over how the pandemic began in China late last year.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump said he was confident the coronavirus may have originated at the state-backed Wuhan Institute of Virology, but declined to describe the evidence.

“Yes, yes I have,” he said, declining to give specifics. “I can’t tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that.”

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has dismissed similar allegations, and other U.S. officials have downplayed their likelihood. Most experts believe the virus originated in a market selling wildlife in Wuhan and jumped from animals to people.

During the Sky News interview, Galea said the WHO had not been given access to laboratory logs at the institute or at the Wuhan Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Friday, May Day, is a public holiday in China and Chinese officials were not immediately available for comment on Galea’s comments.

Trump has questioned China’s handling of the crisis and cast doubt on its official death toll — comments which were challenged this week by a senior Chinese government official, who criticized the United States’ response to its own outbreak.

Trump has also attacked the WHO for its handling of the crisis, and announced April 14 that he was halting funding to the organization pending a review of its response to the initial coronavirus outbreak in China.

Galea added weight to doubts over the Chinese figures. Referring to the low number of coronavirus cases China reported between Jan. 3-16, he said: “Is it likely that there were only 41 cases for that period of time? I would think not.”

Australia has also called for a public inquiry into the origin of the outbreak.

Galea declined NBC News’ request for comment but the WHO said in a statement that the evidence pointed toward COVID-19 having an animal source and not being human-made, and called for more investigation.

“It is our understanding that a number of investigations to better understand the source of the outbreak in China are currently underway or planned… WHO is not currently involved in the studies in China.

“WHO would be keen to work with international partners and at the invitation of the Chinese Government to participate in investigation around the animal origins.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-official-says-agency-not-invited-take-part-china-s-n1197516

The Taliban have named UN-sanctioned veteran Mullah Mohammad Hasan Akhund as the leader of Afghanistan’s new government, while giving key positions to figures who dominated the 20-year battle against the US-led coalition and its allies.

Chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told a press conference on Tuesday that Taliban co-founder Abdul Ghani Baradar would be the deputy leader.

Mullah Yaqoob, the son of the Taliban founder and late supreme leader Mullah Omar, was named defence minister, while the position of interior minister was given to Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of the feared Haqqani network who also doubled up as a Taliban deputy leader.

“The cabinet is not complete, it is just acting,” Mujahid said at the Government Information and Media Centre in Kabul.

“We will try to take people from other parts of the country.”

The hardline Islamists, who swept to power last month, have been expected to announce a government since the US-led evacuation was completed at the end of August.

They have promised an “inclusive” government that represents Afghanistan’s complex ethnic makeup – though women are unlikely to be included at the top levels.

Amir Khan Muttaqi, a Taliban negotiator in Doha and member of the first regime’s cabinet, was named foreign minister.

As they transition from insurgent group to governing power, the Taliban have a series of major issues to address, including looming financial and humanitarian crises.

The announcement of cabinet appointments by Mujahid came hours after the Taliban fired into the air to disperse protesters and arrested several journalists, the second time in less than a week the group used heavy-handed tactics to break up a demonstration in the Afghan capital of Kabul.

The demonstrators had gathered outside the Pakistan embassy to accuse Islamabad of aiding the Taliban’s assault on the northern Panjshir province. The Taliban said on Monday they had seized the province – the last not in their control – after their blitz through Afghanistan last month.

Afghanistan’s previous government routinely accused Pakistan of aiding the Taliban, a charge Islamabad has denied. Former vice-president Amrullah Saleh, one of the leaders of the anti-Taliban forces, has long been an outspoken critic of neighbouring Pakistan.

Dozens of women were among the protesters on Tuesday. Some of them carried signs bemoaning the killing of their sons by Taliban fighters they say were aided by Pakistan. One sign read: “I am a mother when you kill my son you kill a part of me.”

More details soon…

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/07/taliban-name-afghanistans-new-government

The Trump administration is planning a major change to a clean water rule in the United States, exempting certain types of creeks and bodies of water from federal protection in a move that may have wide-ranging impacts.

The proposal — a campaign promise to farmers who say the regulation created too many regulatory burdens — would remove federal protection on bodies of water like creeks and streams that are only wet after it rains, but federal officials do not have data on the number of bodies of water it would impact.

The change would also reduce protections on wetlands that aren’t connected to larger bodies of water.

“Our goal is a more precise definition that gives the American people the freedom and certainty to do what they do best, build homes, grow crops, develop projects, then improve the environment and the lives of their fellow citizens,” said EPA Acting Commissioner Andrew Wheeler.

The new definition of what counts as a “Water of the United States” is intended to clarify years of legal wrangling over the rule, which at this point is effective in some states but not others. Trump has often said the Waters of the Unites States rule, known as WOTUS, had such a beautiful name but was a disaster, citing concerns from farmers and developers that it put too many restrictions on their work.

American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall and representatives from farm bureaus in all 50 states attended the rule signing Tuesday. Farmers have widely criticized the previous WOTUS rule, saying it was expensive, imposed too many restrictions, and duplicated state and local rules.

It’s unclear exactly how many streams or creeks the rule would impact. Previous EPA estimates found that about 60 percent of streams in the U.S. flow inconsistently due to rain on seasonal changes, but not all of those would be impacted by the new rule. That number includes both streams that only flow after it rains, known as ephemeral, and intermittent streams that can be impacted by seasonal changes or groundwater. Ephemeral streams would no longer be federally protected under the Trump administration’s proposal but not all intermittent streams would be impacted equally.

Dave Ross, assistant administrator in the EPA’s water office, said they know how many bodies could lose federal protection under the proposal because that data doesn’t exist.

“Right now there really isn’t a map that shows how many are in our out,” Ross told reporters on Monday.

ABC News
EPA’s proposed change to clean water rules

But he said EPA will be working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states, and tribal leadership to collect data to map out the changes. An EPA spokesperson confirmed there are generally more non-perennial streams in the west and southwest parts of the country. Some states like California already have strict clean water rules on the local level, but other states may not have as many resources to enforce rules as the federal government.

Ross said the Trump administration’s proposal is more legal than scientific, saying EPA went through multiple Supreme Court cases going back to 1985 to inform the proposed new rule. The proposal includes a new method of planning for flood events that will include more recent data, but they did not do any modeling on the impacts of climate change on drought conditions, flooding, or rain events and how that could impact bodies of water when drafting the new rule.

“I think that probably tells you everything you need to know about this rule is that it’s probably a political line-drawing exercise,” said Blan Holman, a clean water expert with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Holman said advocates are concerned about areas like the San Pedro River in Arizona, which relies on ephemeral streams for as much as half of its water flow.

“Do you really want somebody dumping pollution into one of these creek beds that that day is dry but then it’s going to rain the next day and then it’s going to wash into the San Pedro River?” he told ABC News.

He also said the Southern Environmental Law Center estimates a majority of wetlands in South Carolina could be at risk of losing protections under the proposed rule, depending on the specifics of the rule, which have not yet been released. Wetlands provide crucial habitat and help control flooding and advocates are concerned the looser protections will open them up to development.

The EPA’s proposal will be posted for 60 days of public comment.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-clean-water-rule-wide-ranging-impact/story?id=59748091

WASHINGTON — Senators engaged in the first of two eight-hour question-and-answer sessions in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Wednesday, and by the end of it each side had used its time to counter the other’s opening arguments.

Lawmakers submitted written questions to Chief Justice John Roberts, who read them aloud to the Democratic House managers and Trump’s legal defense team. They had five minutes to respond to questions, which rotated between Democratic and Republican senators.

There were themes. Republicans asked about the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment, and Democrats wondered how the Senate could do justice without hearing witnesses.

Here are some highlights from senators’ questions:

Concerns over the impeachment and removal process

  • Republican question for Trump team: Did the House bother to seek testimony or litigate executive privilege issues during the month during which it held the impeachment articles before sending them to the Senate?
  • Republican question for Trump team: Does the House’s failure to enforce subpoenas render its “obstruction of Congress” theory unprecedented?
  • Democratic question for House managers: Even if a communication or a document is covered by executive privilege, that privilege can be overcome by showing that evidence is important and unavailable elsewhere. On Jan. 22 while this trial was underway, President Trump said, “I thought our team did a very good job, but honestly we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Can you comment on whether executive privilege allows the president to conceal information from Congress, particularly if the evidence cannot be obtained elsewhere?
  • Democratic question for House managers: The president has taken the position that there should be no witnesses and no documents provided by the executive branch in response to these impeachment proceedings. Is there any precedent for this blanket refusal to cooperate and what are the consequences if the Senate accepts this position here?

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/29/trump-impeachment-trial-questions-senators-asked/4610332002/