Recently Added Videos

A helicopter crashed onto the roof of a 54-story building Monday afternoon in Midtown Manhattan, killing the pilot, New York City police and fire officials said. No one else was injured in the crash, which officials said appeared to be an accident — not an act of terrorism. The crash sparked a two-alarm fire at the building, located at 787 7th Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets, not far from Times Square.

A New York City Police Department source told CBS News that the helicopter crash-landed on the roof but did not go into the building. The weather was foggy and rainy at the time.

A photo tweeted by the FDNY showed firefighters on the roof amid the scorched wreckage after the fire was put out. Only a small portion of the helicopter, possibly part of the tail section, appeared to be still intact.

Firefighters amid the wreckage of a helicopter that crashed onto the roof of a Manhattan office building, June 10, 2019.

FDNY via Twitter


The helicopter took off at around 1:32 p.m. from the 34th St. heliport and crashed 11 minutes later, according to Police Commissioner James P. O’Neill. It’s unclear where it was headed.

The pilot, identified as Tim McCormick, was the only person aboard the helicopter. “McCormick is an experienced pilot and very well respected in the aircraft community,” said Paul Dudley, airport manager in Linden, New Jersey, where the helicopter flew out of. Dudley said he believes the helicopter must have had a mechanical problem and that McCormick was trying to land on top of the building to spare the people on the ground.

Fire Commissioner Daniel A. Nigro said some fuel leaked from the crash but that it was no longer an issue.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo was on the scene shortly after the crash and told CBS New York that it appeared the helicopter tried to make an emergency landing on the roof.

“There was a helicopter that made a forced landing, emergency landing, or landed on the roof of the building for one reason or another,” Cuomo said. “There was a fire that happened when the helicopter hit the roof. … The fire department believes the fire is under control. There may be casualties involved with people who were in the helicopter.”

Cuomo also said the incident does not appear to be terror-related.

“If you’re a New Yorker you have a level of PTSD from 9/11 … so as soon as you hear an aircraft hit a building, I think my mind goes where every New Yorker’s mind goes. But there’s no indication that that is the case,” Cuomo said.

During a press conference, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio also stressed that it appeared to be an accident. “I want to say the most important thing first: There is no indication at this time that this was an act of terror and there is no ongoing threat to New York City based on all the information we have now.”

NYC mayor: No indication of terrorism in helicopter crash

The FAA issued a statement providing further details, including that the helicopter was an Agusta A109E. “FAA air traffic controllers did not handle the flight. The National Transportation Safety Board will be in charge of the investigation and will determine probable cause of the accident. We will release the aircraft registration after NYC officials will release the pilot’s name,” the agency said.

A view of 787 7th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. A helicopter crashed on the building’s roof on June 10, 2019.

BRENDAN MCDERMID / REUTERS


“The building shook,” a man who said he worked on the 38th floor told CBS New York. “It sounded like a small engine plane at first then I just felt the building shake,” he said. 

Hundreds of people who worked in the building had to evacuate. 7th Avenue is closed to traffic and the NYPD advised people to avoid the area.

President Trump was briefed on the incident and lauded the emergency personnel who responded to the scene. “Phenomenal job by our GREAT First Responders who are currently on the scene,” the president said in a tweet.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/helicopter-crashes-into-midtown-manhattan-building-today-live-updates-2019-06-10/

WASHINGTON — Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, who played a key role in the Watergate hearings in the 1970s, compared the findings in the Mueller report to Watergate on Monday as Democrats launched an ambitious wave of hearings and votes targeting President Donald Trump and his administration.

Dean, who has been critical of Trump’s actions in office, said the decision by former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to turn down a subpoena to testify before the committee amounted to “perpetuating a cover-up,” adding that the report by Robert Mueller documenting Trump’s actions had highlighted several key areas calling for congressional intervention.

“Special counsel Mueller has provided this committee with a road map,” Dean said in his opening statement at the Monday afternoon hearing.

Earlier Monday, before Dean’s testimony, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., reached a deal with the Department of Justice over obtaining underlying evidence from the Mueller report related to possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

The House planned to vote Tuesday on a civil contempt resolution that would authorize Democrats, with the assistance of the House general counsel, to go to court and enforce subpoenas, including against McGahn. Separately, the measure includes language that would reaffirm the authority that House committee chairs have to expedite going to court to enforce their subpoenas.

And the House Intelligence Committee was expected to hold a rare open hearing Wednesday on the counterintelligence implications of the Mueller report, at which Stephanie Douglas and Robert Anderson, former executive assistant directors of the FBI’s national security branch, are scheduled testify.

The Democrats’ push began Monday with testimony from Dean, who in a brief appearance and eight pages of written testimony laid out six “illustrative” examples of parallels between the Mueller report and Watergate.

Dean wrote that while both Trump and Nixon were not found to have committed crimes, both the Russia probe and Watergate resulted in obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report, he wrote, “finds no illegal conspiracy, or criminal aiding and abetting, by candidate Trump with the Russians,” and during Watergate, he said, “I am aware of no evidence that Nixon was involved with or had advance knowledge of the Watergate break-in and bugging, or the similar plans for Senator McGovern.”

“Yet events in both 1972 and 2016 resulted in obstruction of the investigations,” he continued.

Dean told the panel that McGahn should testify before the Judiciary Committee. McGahn has defied a subpoena from Nadler to do so.

“First, he is a key witness in understanding the Mueller report. Secondly, I believe as an attorney, he has an ethical obligation to testify,” Dean wrote in his testimony. “I sincerely hope that Mr. McGahn will voluntarily appear and testify. His silence is perpetuating an ongoing cover-up, and while his testimony will create a few political enemies, based on almost 50 years of experience I can assure him he will make far more real friends.”

At the White House Monday, Trump dismissed Dean’s statement, telling reporters that the former White House counsel had “been a loser for many years.” He tweeted something similar shortly before the testimony began, adding that “Democrats just want a do-over which they’ll never get!”

Dean’s testimony on Mueller’s report Monday came in lieu of an appearance by the author himself. Mueller, who had been negotiating with the committee about providing testimony to Congress about his two-year investigation, recently made clear that he does not want or plan to speak further about the investigation.

Still, Nadler said last week that he was “confident” the special counsel will still come speak to Congress soon — and is prepared to issue a subpoena to compel him to do so, if necessary.

Other witnesses slated to testify at the hearing Monday included Joyce White Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama; Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan; and John Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-launch-trump-investigative-offensive-watergate-figure-john-dean-testimony-n1015876

CLOSE

President Donald Trump has called off plans to place tariffs on Mexico.
Buzz60

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pushed back Monday against criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration deal with Mexico, calling it a “significant win” for the U.S.  He disputed reports that Mexico had already agreed to most of the provisions months ago, before last week’s frenzied negotiations

Pompeo also repeated President Donald Trump’s claim that there are other undisclosed elements of the agreement, but he declined to provide any specifics.

“There were a number of commitments made. I can’t go into them in detail here,” Pompeo told reporters in a hastily announced news conference Monday. 

Mexico’s foreign secretary Marcelo Ebrard said on Monday that there were no additional elements of the agreement.

Asked specifically about Trump’s assertion that Mexico had agreed to buy more U.S. agricultural products, Ebrard responded: “There is no agreement of any kind that hasn’t been made known. Everything I am saying was made known Friday.” 

In that 468-word deal announced Friday, Mexico agreed to increase security along its southern border with Guatemala, where many Central Americans are crossing into Mexico on their way to the U.S. Pompeo said Mexican officials promised to send 6,000 National Guard troops to stop those crossings, the largest such deployment. 

Mexico also agreed to expand a U.S. policy in which migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. will be sent back to Mexico to wait for their claims to be adjudicated, a process that can take months.

“I’ve seen some reporting that says that these countless hours were nothing, that they amounted to a waste of time,” Pompeo said in remarks at the State Department. 

The New York Times reported Saturday that Mexico had already agreed to most of the provisions outlined in Friday’s deal during previous rounds of negotiations. The news organization said, for example, that Mexico promised in December to let the U.S. deport more asylum-seekers back to Mexico until their asylum claims were adjudicated. 

Pompeo sharply rejected that report.

“The scale, the effort, the commitment here is very different from what we were able to achieve back in December,” he said. Friday’s deal “wouldn’t have happened” if Trump hadn’t threatened to impose an escalating series of tariffs on all Mexican imports, he said. 

Trump said on May 30 that he would impose a 5% tariff on all Mexican goods, starting June 10, unless the Mexican government stopped the flow of migrants to the U.S. border. Trump said he would increase those levies 5 percentage points each month, until they hit 25%.

“It’s what prompted this series of conversations,” Pompeo said of Trump’s tariff threat. 

Critics have said Trump created a crisis with the threatened tariffs and then “solved” it by signing off on a relatively modest agreement.  

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the deal “nothing more than warmed up leftovers.”  

“The president claims a bogus agreement with Mexico, which contains policies that Mexico volunteered to do months ago,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor Monday.

But Pompeo said Friday’s deal was “diplomacy at its finest.”

He said the U.S. had been sending about 200 asylum-seeks a day back to Mexico and under the new deal, the U.S. could send back “thousands” every day.

“We now have the capacity to do this full throttle … in a way that will make a fundamental difference in the calculus” for migrants hoping to come to the U.S., he said. 

The Trump administration had initially demanded that Mexico agree to be designated as a safe third-party country, which would have meant accepting asylum applications from thousands of Central American migrants.

Ebrard said Mexico rejected that. He did say the U.S. would re-evaluate the migration situation after 45 days, and they might hold broader talks with other countries to negotiate asylum policies across the region.

Contributing: correspondent David Agren

More: Trump is avoiding a crisis of his own making with US-Mexico migrant deal, critics say

More: Donald Trump rips U.S. Chamber of Commerce for attacking his tariff strategy

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/10/mexico-tariffs-pompeo-defends-immigration-deal-amid-criticism/1411749001/

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said Monday that photos of travelers had been compromised as part of a “malicious cyberattack,” raising concerns over how federal officials’ expanding surveillance efforts could imperil Americans’ privacy.

Customs officials said in a statement Monday that the images, which included photos of people’s faces and license plates, had been compromised as part of an attack on a federal subcontractor.

CBP makes extensive use of cameras and video recordings at airports and land border crossings, where images of vehicles are captured. Those images are used as part of a growing agency facial-recognition program designed to track the identity of people entering and exiting the U.S.

CBP says airport operations were not affected by the breach, but declined to say how many people might have had their images stolen. CBP processes more than a million passengers and pedestrians crossing the U.S. border on an average day, including more than 690,000 incoming land travelers.

A CBP statement said the agency learned of the breach on May 31 and that none of the image data had been identified “on the Dark Web or Internet.” But reporters at The Register, a British technology news site, reported late last month that a large haul of breached data from the firm Perceptics was being offered as a free download on the dark web.

CBP would not say which subcontractor was involved. But a Microsoft Word document of CBP’s public statement, sent Monday to Washington Post reporters, included the name “Perceptics” in the title: “CBP Perceptics Public Statement.”

Perceptics representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

CBP spokeswoman Jackie Wren said she was “unable to confirm” if Perceptics was the source of the breach.

The breach raised alarms in Congress, where lawmakers have questioned whether the government’s expanded surveillance measures could threaten constitutional rights and open millions of innocent people to identity theft.

“If the government collects sensitive information about Americans, it is responsible for protecting it — and that’s just as true if it contracts with a private company,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement to The Post. “Anyone whose information was compromised should be notified by Customs, and the government needs to explain exactly how it intends to prevent this kind of breach from happening in the future.”

Wyden said the theft of the data should alarm anyone who has advocated expanded surveillance powers for the government. “These vast troves of Americans’ personal information are a ripe target for attackers,” he said.

Civil rights and privacy advocates also called the theft of the information a sign that the government’s growing database of identifying imagery had become an alluring target for hackers and cybercriminals.

“This breach comes just as CBP seeks to expand its massive face recognition apparatus and collection of sensitive information from travelers, including license plate information and social media identifiers,” said Neema Singh Guliani, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “This incident further underscores the need to put the brakes on these efforts and for Congress to investigate the agency’s data practices. The best way to avoid breaches of sensitive personal data is not to collect and retain it in the first place.”

CBP said copies of “license plate images and traveler images collected by CBP” had been transferred to the subcontractor’s company network, violating the agency’s security and privacy rules. The subcontractor’s network was then attacked and breached. No CBP systems were compromised, the agency said.

It’s unclear whether passport or facial-recognition photos were included in the breach.

Perceptics and other companies offer automated license-plate-reading devices that federal officials can use to track a vehicle, or its owner, as it travels on public roads.

Immigration agents have used such databases to track down people who may be in the country illegally. Police agencies have also used the data to look for potential criminal suspects.

Perceptics, based in Tennessee, has championed its technology as a key part of keeping the border secure. “You want technology that generates data you can trust and delivers it when and where you need it most,” a marketing website says.

The company also said recently that it had installed license-plate readers at 43 U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint lanes across Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, saying they offered border guards “superior images with the highest license plate read rate accuracy in North America.”

The federal government, as well as the group of private contractors it works with, has access to a swelling database of people’s cars and faces, which it says is necessary to enhance security and enforce border laws.

The FBI has access to more than 640 million photos, including from passports and driver’s licenses, that it can scan with facial-recognition systems while conducting criminal investigations, a representative for the Government Accountability Office told the House Committee on Oversight and Reform at a hearing last week.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he intended to hold hearings next month on Homeland Security’s use of biometric information.

“Government use of biometric and personal identifiable information can be valuable tools only if utilized properly. Unfortunately, this is the second major privacy breach at DHS this year,” Thompson said, referring to a separate breach in which more than 2 million U.S. disaster survivors had their information revealed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. “We must ensure we are not expanding the use of biometrics at the expense of the privacy of the American public. “

Nick Miroff and Tony Romm contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/10/us-customs-border-protection-says-photos-travelers-into-out-country-were-recently-taken-data-breach/

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (KABC) — Charles “Chase” Merritt was found guilty of murder in the killing of a family of four, who disappeared in 2010 and were later discovered thee years later near Victorville.

Merritt is accused of killing the McStay family of four in 2010. The 62-year-old Merritt had pleaded not guilty to charges he murdered his business partner, Joseph McStay, his wife Summer, and the couple’s four and three-year-old sons.

The family vanished from their home in 2010 in Fallbrook. The remains of the family were discovered in two shallow graves in 2013 near Victorville. Merritt was arrested a year later.

A verdict was reached Friday by jurors, but it was not announced publicly until Monday.

Source Article from https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/southern-california-man-convicted-of-killing-family-of-four-family-found-buried-in-desert

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/us/helicopter-building-new-york/index.html

Republicans cheered the agreement. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said “today’s good faith provision from the administration further debunks claims that the White House is stonewalling Congress.”

News of the deal also comes just hours before the committee is scheduled to convene the first of a series of hearings focused on the findings of Mr. Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation — a much-anticipated session that underscores the Democrats’ dilemma in the wake of Mr. Mueller’s report.

Because the Trump administration has blocked relevant witnesses from testifying, Monday’s session will star John W. Dean, a former White House counsel who turned against President Richard M. Nixon during the Watergate affair, and former federal prosecutors, who will assess the implications of the special counsel’s findings. The testimony is expected to be limited to the contents of Mr. Mueller’s 448-page report already voluntarily made public by Mr. Barr.

Weeks ago, the Judiciary Committee requested — and then subpoenaed — the full text of Mr. Mueller’s report without redactions, as well as all of the evidence underlying it. Mr. Barr initially refused and after negotiations broke down, Mr. Trump asserted executive privilege over all the material. Democrats then voted to recommend the House hold Mr. Barr in contempt.

But in recent weeks, the Justice Department appeared amenable to a proposed compromise that would give the committee access to F.B.I. interview summaries with key witnesses, contemporaneous notes taken by White House aides, and certain memos and messages cited in the report.

The more limited request outlined in recent weeks includes the F.B.I. summaries — called 302 reports — with Mr. McGahn, who served as a kind of narrator for Mr. Mueller as he assembled an obstruction case. Mr. Mueller ultimately concluded that Justice Department policy prevented him from contemplating charges against Mr. Trump and instead left action to Congress.

Democrats asked for summaries from interviews with Annie Donaldson, Mr. McGahn’s chief of staff; Hope Hicks, the former communications director; Reince Priebus and John F. Kelly, former White House chiefs of staff; Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s one-time fixer and personal lawyer; and Mr. Sessions, among others.

Democrats had also requested detailed notes taken by Ms. Donaldson about White House meetings and Mr. McGahn’s interactions with the president that proved pivotal for Mr. Mueller’s team, as well as notes taken by Joseph H. Hunt, Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff when he was attorney general. Other documents in the narrowed request included a draft letter justifying the firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director; a White House counsel memo on the firing of Michael T. Flynn as national security adviser; and other documents created by the White House.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/politics/mueller-judiciary-committee.html

Even as he again hailed his administration’s last-minute, much-heralded deal on Friday with Mexico as a “successful agreement” to address illegal immigration at the southern border, President Trump on Sunday bluntly suggested he might again seek to impose punishing tariffs on Mexico if its cooperation falls short in the future.

The president and other key administration officials also sharply disputed a New York Times report claiming the Friday deal “largely” had been negotiated months ago, and hinted that not all major details of the new arrangement have yet been made public.

In its report, the Times acknowledged that Mexico’s pledge to deploy up to 6,000 national guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala “was larger than their previous pledge,” and that Mexico’s “agreement to accelerate the Migrant Protection Protocols could help reduce what Mr. Trump calls ‘catch and release’ of migrants in the United States by giving the country a greater ability to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico.”

U.S. officials had been working to expand the migrant program, which already has led to the return of about 10,000 people, and said Friday’s agreement was a major push in that direction. Nevertheless, the Times, citing unnamed officials from Mexico and the U.S., reported that the concessions already had been hashed out in a more limited form.

WATCH: ACTING DHS SECRETARY DISPUTES NEW YORK TIMES REPORT, SAYS ‘ALL OF’ THE DEAL IS ‘NEW’

“Another false report in the Failing @nytimes,” Trump wrote. “We have been trying to get some of these Border Actions for a long time, as have other administrations, but were not able to get them, or get them in full, until our signed agreement with Mexico. Additionally, and for many years Mexico was not being cooperative on the Border in things we had, or didn’t have, and now I have full confidence, especially after speaking to their President yesterday, that they will be very cooperative and want to get the job properly done.”

That might have been a reference to discussions about Mexico becoming a “safe third country,” which would make it harder for asylum-seekers who pass through the country to claim refuge in the U.S. The idea, which Mexico has long opposed, was discussed during negotiations, but Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard has said his country did not agree to it, even as Mexican diplomats said negotiations on the topic will continue.

And, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” insisted “all of it is new,” including the agreement to dispatch around 6,000 National Guard troops — a move Mexico has described as an “acceleration.”

A Mexican Army soldier near an immigration checkpoint in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico, this past Saturday. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

“This is the first time we’ve heard anything like this kind of number of law enforcement being deployed in Mexico to address migration, not just at the southern border but also on the transportation routes to the northern border and in coordinated patrols in key areas along our southwest border,” he said, adding that “people can disagree with the tactics” but that “Mexico came to the table with real proposals” that he said will be effective, if implemented.

The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico headed off a 5 percent tax on all Mexican goods that Trump had threatened to impose starting Monday. The tariffs were set to rise to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019.

But, Trump suggested Sunday, the threat of tariffs is not completely removed.

“Importantly, some things not mentioned in [yesterday’s] press release, one in particular, were agreed upon,” Trump continued. “That will be announced at the appropriate time. There is now going to be great cooperation between Mexico & the USA, something that didn’t exist for decades. However, if for some unknown reason there is not, we can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs – But I don’t believe that will be necessary. The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged @CNN, will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!”

Democrats seeking to unseat President Trump in 2020, meanwhile, said the Times report was evidence that the administration merely was trying to save face, after Trump suddenly announced his plan for the tariffs less than two weeks ago, on May 30.

Bernie Sanders, for example, derided Trump on Sunday for purportedly picking unnecessary and economically costly fights with a variety of countries.

“I think what the world is tired of and what I am tired of is a president who consistently goes to war, verbal war with our allies, whether it is Mexico, whether it is Canada,” Sanders said.

But, in a tense moment on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders struggled when asked by host Dana Bash why he had called the situation at the southern border a “fake crisis” engineered by the White House.

“Immigration officials have arrested or encountered more than 144,000 migrants at the southern border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years,” Bash began. “Border facilities are dangerously overcrowded; migrants are actually standing on toilets to get space to breathe. How is that not a crisis?”

Sanders responded that the president has been “demonizing” immigrants.

Beto O’Rourke, in a separate interview, conceded only that Trump may have helped accelerate the implementation of a previously existing arrangement.

“I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago,” O’Rourke said on ABC News’ “This Week.” “They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has.”

Mexican officials, meanwhile, insisted that they would remain engaged in active negotiations with the Trump administration.

“We want to continue to work with the U.S. very closely on the different challenges that we have together, and one urgent one at this moment is immigration,” Mexican diplomat Martha Barcena said Sunday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

She told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the countries’ “joint declaration of principles… gives us the base for the road map that we have to follow in the incoming months on immigration and cooperation on asylum issues and development in Central America.”

Barcena added that the U.S. wanted to see the number of migrants crossing the border to return to levels seen in 2018.

Fox News’ Bret Baier, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-very-profitable-tariffs-mexico-deal-breakthrough

Trump says Facebook, Amazon and Google were colluding with…

In a live interview with CNBC, Trump addressed antitrust, saying, “obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly.”

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/10/trump-if-president-xi-does-not-attend-g20-more-china-tariffs-will-go-into-effect-immediately.html

Analyzing the episode begins with trying to make sense of what Mr. Dowd was saying in his circular, halting way, legal experts said.

His message might be interpreted “as a thinly veiled offer of a pardon conditioned on Flynn keeping his mouth shut,” Mr. Sklansky said.

If so, he said, that would amount to obstruction of justice, and any conversations between the president and Mr. Dowd about sending such a message to Mr. Flynn would no longer be protected by attorney-client privilege because they would be considered part of a crime. In that case, a judge might have ordered Mr. Dowd to comply with a subpoena to disclose the discussions.

However, Mr. Sklansky stressed, all of that depends on two things that remain unclear: whether that is the correct interpretation of Mr. Dowd’s remarks and whether Mr. Trump in fact told him to send that message with corrupt intent. And because Mr. Dowd would certainly have invoked attorney-client privilege to avoid voluntarily answering questions about those interactions, he said, it would mean a lengthy subpoena fight in court for his testimony.

It was probably not worth it for Mr. Mueller’s investigators to take on that challenge — especially if all they had to make the case to a judge were their suspicions about a difficult-to-parse statement, said Samuel W. Buell, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Duke University.

“It’s a little bit of a Catch-22 because the privilege is so carefully protected by the courts that the exceptions only kick in when you can show they apply,” Mr. Buell said. “How can you show they apply before you have that information? You have to have a circumstantial case already that someone and their lawyer were engaging in obstruction before you can get to the conversations between them.”

Mr. Buell also noted that it was common for defense lawyers to fish around for information that might be helpful to their client, and while Mr. Dowd’s comments may have walked “somewhat dangerously close to the line,” Mr. Buell’s assessment was that “it strikes me as veiled enough that it’s nothing a prosecutor could base a witness-tampering charge on.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/09/us/politics/john-dowd-voice-mail.html

June 9 at 3:36 PM

Midway through Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech these days, her fans start jumping from their seats like pistons, firing with cheers and applause each time she rattles off another new policy punchline.

“Here’s a good one,” the senator (D-Mass.) said last week at a community-college gym filled with about 1,700 people. It was a plan to impose new ethics rules on Supreme Court justices. “I really could do this all night long. But let me do — let me do just one more.”

She did a dozen more, each greeted with an ovation: A law to force the release of politicians’ tax returns. A wealth tax on those worth more than $50 million. New rules to limit company size. And on and on.

Six months after launching her candidacy amid blundering apologies for her longtime claims of Native American ancestry and nagging questions about whether she could compete on a national stage, Warren is experiencing something unusual in the crowded Democratic field: momentum.

It is not showing up in national polls, which have remained largely steady with Warren in the single digits, far behind former vice president Joe Biden.

But energized crowds have been flocking to her events in early-voting states. Her nonstop stream of policy positions, which add up to what would be a restructuring of American capitalism, has helped shape the broader debate.

Some state-level surveys show Warren near Biden at the top of the field. A poll by the Des Moines Register, CNN and Mediacom, which published over the weekend, combined probable caucusgoers’ first choice, second choice and candidates they are “actively considering” to show that Biden and Warren are evenly matched by this measure with 61 percent each.

Biden has the edge in the “first choice” category, with 24 percent. But Warren’s performance on that front — 15 percent described Warren as their first choice, compared with 16 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and 14 percent for South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg — reflected a stronger position for Warren than she held in previous Iowa polling.

Warren has captured the attention of many voters on the ground, both with her policy proposals and her willingness to make unequivocal statements that often seem to rise above the din of the campaign. It took only a few hours after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, for instance, as other prominent Democrats hesitated, for Warren to issue a Twitter thread explaining why, after reading the document, she believed it was time for impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

Many voters have been skeptical of whether she has the “gumption” to take on Trump, said Craig Wellman, 71, of Clear Lake, Iowa, who attended an event over the weekend for former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper. But Wellman said he was now excited by Warren because of the way she has “fought her way back” and shown herself to be “undaunted” by the president’s attacks.

“She’s got chutzpah,” Wellman said, before stopping to choose a different word. “Forgive me, but she’s just got balls.”

Warren has presented her vision for taxing the super wealthy to shift money to programs aimed at boosting economically struggling and middle-class Americans as a path to make gains with some previously pro-Trump voters, and has traveled to conservative areas such as rural West Virginia to make her case.

Even as she rejected a Fox News invitation for a town hall, calling the network a “hate-for-profit racket,” one of its pro-Trump hosts, Tucker Carlson, recently praised Warren’s notion of “economic patriotism,” saying, “She sounds like Donald Trump at his best.”

The blueprints have convinced voters such as Tina Pyzik, 60, a resident of Kalamazoo, Mich., who has two grown children. Pyzik walked into a recent Warren event having donated to six Democratic presidential candidates, and left with her mind made up.

“Most of the people that I love that are running have the same beliefs that I do, the same ideas that I do, the same changes that they want to see — but I haven’t heard clear-cut ideas,” she said. “This just solidified it for me today that I am going to work on her campaign in Michigan. I’m all in. She has clear ideas and she wants to put them into practice.”

Warren’s apparent rise stands in contrast to some of her rivals, most notably former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), who have struggled to maintain early momentum and settle on a defining message.

At multicandidate forums — most recently, one by the California Democratic Party — Warren is regularly earning the loudest cheers. Her “I have a plan for that” slogan has become a recognizable meme, featured on the campaign’s popular T-shirt.

How high Warren can go remains an open question. She is splitting the party’s more liberal voters with Sanders, and many Democrats wonder whether she would be the strongest candidate to take on Trump, given her left-leaning ideas and the president’s seeming ability in the past to get under her skin. Recent surveys measuring potential head-to-head matchups against Trump show Biden with significant leads and Warren in a closer contest.

One early setback — when Warren faced backlash to her announcement that she’d taken a DNA test showing that she had slightly elevated markers for Native American ancestry — still hovers over her campaign.

What had been intended as evidence of her heritage was criticized as a tone-deaf claim of cultural identity. The senator ultimately apologized for calling herself Native American over two decades, but the matter prompted concern among Democrats that she would struggle to defeat Trump, who has mocked her with the racially insensitive epithet “Pocahontas.”

On a recent appearance on “The Breakfast Club,” a popular morning radio show that draws a largely young, African American audience, Warren was repeatedly questioned about her past claims of Native American ethnicity, with one host comparing them to a white woman pretending to be black.

Warren said she had been told of this ostensible background by her relatives. “This is what I learned from my family,” she said.

Recent positive coverage of Warren’s campaign has especially rankled Sanders allies, according to a person familiar with the campaign’s inner workings who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to speak publicly. Sanders’s team privately complains that Warren has gotten credit for ideas it says he pioneered years earlier, such as making it easier to join unions.

In other presidential campaign cycles, the “candidate of ideas” label has sometimes been a ticket to nowhere, as Democrat Bill Bradley found in 2000 and Republican Ron Paul in 2012. Democrats for the moment appear to want assurances that a candidate has plans for cementing liberal change and reversing Trump’s policies.

“Not all voters will be comfortable with her policy positions, but I think she earns respect from voters for being specific and continuing to grind out more and more solutions,” said Jennifer Palmieri, an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and John Edwards’s 2004 and 2008 efforts. “You win people over slowly. It’s more of a tortoise than a hare strategy.”

Warren’s slow-and-steady approach has been a mantra for her campaign, partly out of necessity. The senator passed on what could have been a sizzling fight in 2015 against Clinton, only to face the reality in 2019 of a more crowded field with contenders who may have a fresh-faced appeal.

Warren has been boosted by an extensive organization and a relentless schedule. She used more than $10 million from her Senate reelection fund for an early investment in Iowa, where she has the largest staff of any campaign.

She dismissed her high-dollar campaign fundraiser and decided not to hire a traditional pollster, instead embarking on a blistering campaign schedule. By her campaign’s count, she had held 95 town hall meetings in 20 states and Puerto Rico through Wednesday, taken more than 422 audience questions, held 65 media availabilities and posed for selfies with more than 28,000 voters.

In the mode of Howard Dean’s losing 2004 campaign and Barack Obama’s winning 2008 effort, Warren has focused heavily on grass-roots organizing, creating a social media network for supporters and hitting up everyone who emailed, texted or appeared at a campaign event.

Two rudimentary policy calculators on her site, which let voters estimate how they would benefit under her student loan and child-care plans, have proven popular and serve as another recruiting tool.

To attend her events, which have grown larger in recent weeks, attendees must submit to placing colored stickers on their lapels, which mark them as a person for whom information has been gathered. Campaign aides ask attendees at every event to text their Zip code to a campaign database, capturing their phone numbers. The reward for giving up your data is a reply text with a photograph of Warren’s golden retriever, Bailey.

Campaign workers then reach out, often repeatedly, to recruit these people to volunteer.

Many of Warren’s backers cite her policy specifics and her ability to explain them. “She is better than most college professors,” said John Godfrey, an academic administrator in Ann Arbor, Mich. “She has managed to do it without being a wonk. She is able to craft a narrative.”

David Weigel and Holly Bailey in Iowa contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warrens-nonstop-ideas-reshape-the-democratic-presidential-race–and-give-her-new-momentum/2019/06/09/f07c7984-87d1-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html

A motorcyclist died in Florida after he was struck by lightning and crashed on a major highway, authorities said.

The 45-year-old man was riding his motorcycle southbound on Interstate 95 in east-central Florida’s Volusia County on Sunday afternoon when a lightning strike hit his helmet, causing him to veer off the roadway and crash. He didn’t survive, according to the Florida Highway Patrol.

An off-duty Virginia State Police trooper reportedly witnessed the lightning strike and the resulting crash, authorities told Orlando ABC affiliate WFTV.

The Florida Highway Patrol posted an image on social media showing the remnants of the man’s helmet.

The odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 13,000, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.

Nine out of every 10 people in the United States who are struck survive, according to a 2016 study presented at the International Lightning Detection Conference and International Lightning Meteorology Conference.

However, lightning strikes can leave a person with many long-term health problems, including muscle soreness, headaches, cognitive problems and nausea.

Direct lightning strikes are rare.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-motorcyclist-hit-lightning-dies-crash/story?id=63601529

The change was caused, in part, by another strained trade relationship that developed under the Trump administration. The Port of Los Angeles’s top trading country is China, and the ongoing trade war between the two nations contributed to a 3 percent decline in trade through the California port in the first four months of 2019.

But some here worry that Mexico could eventually lose patience with the Trump administration’s trade tactics, souring the relationship.

The need for trade with Mexico is readily apparent to Ruben Norton, 36, who runs a sporting goods store with his father just blocks from the border checkpoint. Their business, first opened in 1947, is dependent on that cross-border commerce.

“Without Mexico, this place and Laredo is a ghost town,” Norton said, gesturing around his store. “With everything we’re doing, at what point do we jab them enough that Mexico just gives us the middle finger?”

The end of the tariff threat?

Friday’s announcement did not necessarily indicate the end of tensions.

The U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration states that the two countries would “continue their discussions on the terms of additional understandings to address irregular migrant flows and asylum issues, to be completed and announced within 90 days, if necessary.”

The New York Times reported Saturday that the two neighbors had come to this agreement months ago, leading to allegations the president had manufactured both the crisis and its conclusion.

The president denied the Times report Sunday morning on Twitter.

A White House official confirmed to NBC News that Mexico had already agreed to send troops to its southern border and take U.S. asylum seekers as they wait for their legal cases in the U.S. to proceed, as The Times had reported. In the latest declaration, Mexico will send 600 more soldiers to its southern border and speed up its timeline for other portions of the agreement.

The official noted the White House planned to take a wait-and-see approach, leaving enough room to force another negotiation if the president finds Mexico’s actions ineffective.

The possibility of more negotiations and Trump’s tweet on Sunday that the United States “can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs,” offers little comfort to the people of Laredo, where a level of fear and uncertainty continues to linger despite the relief some felt Friday night after the announcement.

“It’s great we don’t have them starting Monday. That’s awesome,” Gonzalez said. “No one has to worry about Monday. I don’t have to worry about Tuesday and Mexico retaliating. But what happens in 90 days? As we get closer, this administration seems to like to do things at the last minute. Every administration likes to do things different, but how do businesses plan for that? It causes chaos.”

This business community has already felt the squeeze of the Trump administration’s tariffs.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-border-town-feels-stress-trump-tariff-threat-against-mexico-n1015551

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/trump-mexico-tariffs/index.html

BEIJING (Reuters) – “Foreign forces” are trying to hurt China by creating chaos in Hong Kong over an extradition bill that has prompted mass protests in the former British colony, an official Chinese newspaper said on Monday.

Riot police surrounded Hong Kong’s parliament early on Monday after what had been a peaceful protest against the bill descended into running clashes between police and protesters.

Hundreds of thousands had jammed Hong Kong’s streets earlier on Sunday to protest against the bill in the biggest demonstration in years. Many said they feared the bill put the city’s vaunted legal independence at risk.

Organizers said there were more than a million protesters, although police put the number at about 240,000.

The China Daily said in an editorial the bill was much-needed legislation.

“Any fair-minded person would deem the amendment bill a legitimate, sensible and reasonable piece of legislation that would strengthen Hong Kong’s rule of law and deliver justice,” it said.

“Unfortunately, some Hong Kong residents have been hoodwinked by the opposition camp and their foreign allies into supporting the anti-extradition campaign.”

Some protesters in the Special Administration Region (SAR)had been misled about the changes proposed in the bill, while others were trying to promote a political agenda, the English-language publication said.

“They have failed to realize that the opposition camp is using them merely as pawns in its maneuvers to reap political gains by damaging the SAR government’s credibility and reputation, or that some foreign forces are seizing the opportunity to advance their own strategy to hurt China by trying to create havoc in Hong Kong,” the China Daily said.

It did not say who those foreign forces might be.

Foreign governments have expressed concern at the proposed law, warning of the impact on Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial hub and noting that foreigners wanted in China risked getting ensnared in Hong Kong.

Human rights groups have repeatedly cited the alleged use of torture, arbitrary detentions, forced confessions and problems accessing lawyers in China.

Hong Kong officials have defended the plans, even as they raised the threshold of extraditable offences to crimes carrying penalties of seven years or more.

Another Chinese newspaper, the widely read Global Times tabloid, said on Monday Hong Kong opposition groups and their international supporters were “politically hyping up” normal Hong Kong legislative activity.

The Hong Kong government would not back down, said the paper, which is published by the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily.

“The Hong Kong SAR government and mainstream public opinion have worked hard for rule of law and righteousness, and will absolutely not give up halfway,” it said in an editorial in its main Chinese-language edition.

The protests were otherwise barely mentioned in mainland China.

A “Hong Kong” keyword search on China’s Twitter-like platform Weibo on Monday showed only posts from verified accounts, mainly government sites and media organizations.

Slideshow (2 Images)

One of the few posts that acknowledged the protests was from the pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po, which accused “Hong-Kong separatists” of organizing people clad in black to rush at police and cause a “clash”.

More specific terms associated with the protests, such as #OpposeChineseExtradition, were censored.

BBC and CNN reports on the protest were blanked out in China, although the channels can only be viewed in high-end hotels and a small number of apartment buildings and are not available to most Chinese.

Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Additional reporting by Huizhong Wu; Editing by Paul Tait

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-extradition-march-china/chinese-paper-says-foreign-forces-trying-to-create-havoc-in-hong-kong-idUSKCN1TA0U4

But Democrats in both the Senate and Assembly also made a key concession, dropping their demand that Newsom agree to provide healthcare to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. The governor’s proposal, an expansion of the program that was ultimately accepted, will allow those in the U.S. illegally full access to Medi-Cal services up to age 25, as long as they meet financial eligibility requirements. Legislators had wanted to include older immigrants too, a proposal that carried a substantially larger price tag.

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-budget-agreement-gavin-newsom-water-tax-spending-20190609-story.html

Even as he again hailed his administration’s last-minute, much-heralded deal on Friday with Mexico as a “successful agreement” to address illegal immigration at the southern border, President Trump on Sunday bluntly suggested he might again seek to impose punishing tariffs on Mexico if its cooperation falls short in the future.

The president and other key administration officials also sharply disputed a New York Times report claiming the Friday deal “largely” had been negotiated months ago, and hinted that not all major details of the new arrangement have yet been made public.

In its report, the Times acknowledged that Mexico’s pledge to deploy up to 6,000 national guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala “was larger than their previous pledge,” and that Mexico’s “agreement to accelerate the Migrant Protection Protocols could help reduce what Mr. Trump calls ‘catch and release’ of migrants in the United States by giving the country a greater ability to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico.”

U.S. officials had been working to expand the migrant program, which already has led to the return of about 10,000 people, and said Friday’s agreement was a major push in that direction. Nevertheless, the Times, citing unnamed officials from Mexico and the U.S., reported that the concessions already had been hashed out in a more limited form.

WATCH: ACTING DHS SECRETARY DISPUTES NEW YORK TIMES REPORT, SAYS ‘ALL OF’ THE DEAL IS ‘NEW’

“Another false report in the Failing @nytimes,” Trump wrote. “We have been trying to get some of these Border Actions for a long time, as have other administrations, but were not able to get them, or get them in full, until our signed agreement with Mexico. Additionally, and for many years Mexico was not being cooperative on the Border in things we had, or didn’t have, and now I have full confidence, especially after speaking to their President yesterday, that they will be very cooperative and want to get the job properly done.”

That might have been a reference to discussions about Mexico becoming a “safe third country,” which would make it harder for asylum-seekers who pass through the country to claim refuge in the U.S. The idea, which Mexico has long opposed, was discussed during negotiations, but Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard has said his country did not agree to it, even as Mexican diplomats said negotiations on the topic will continue.

And, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” insisted “all of it is new,” including the agreement to dispatch around 6,000 National Guard troops — a move Mexico has described as an “acceleration.”

A Mexican Army soldier near an immigration checkpoint in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico, this past Saturday. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

“This is the first time we’ve heard anything like this kind of number of law enforcement being deployed in Mexico to address migration, not just at the southern border but also on the transportation routes to the northern border and in coordinated patrols in key areas along our southwest border,” he said, adding that “people can disagree with the tactics” but that “Mexico came to the table with real proposals” that he said will be effective, if implemented.

The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico headed off a 5 percent tax on all Mexican goods that Trump had threatened to impose starting Monday. The tariffs were set to rise to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019.

But, Trump suggested Sunday, the threat of tariffs is not completely removed.

“Importantly, some things not mentioned in [yesterday’s] press release, one in particular, were agreed upon,” Trump continued. “That will be announced at the appropriate time. There is now going to be great cooperation between Mexico & the USA, something that didn’t exist for decades. However, if for some unknown reason there is not, we can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs – But I don’t believe that will be necessary. The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged @CNN, will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!”

Democrats seeking to unseat President Trump in 2020, meanwhile, said the Times report was evidence that the administration merely was trying to save face, after Trump suddenly announced his plan for the tariffs less than two weeks ago, on May 30.

Bernie Sanders, for example, derided Trump on Sunday for purportedly picking unnecessary and economically costly fights with a variety of countries.

“I think what the world is tired of and what I am tired of is a president who consistently goes to war, verbal war with our allies, whether it is Mexico, whether it is Canada,” Sanders said.

But, in a tense moment on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders struggled when asked by host Dana Bash why he had called the situation at the southern border a “fake crisis” engineered by the White House.

“Immigration officials have arrested or encountered more than 144,000 migrants at the southern border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years,” Bash began. “Border facilities are dangerously overcrowded; migrants are actually standing on toilets to get space to breathe. How is that not a crisis?”

Sanders responded that the president has been “demonizing” immigrants.

Beto O’Rourke, in a separate interview, conceded only that Trump may have helped accelerate the implementation of a previously existing arrangement.

“I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago,” O’Rourke said on ABC News’ “This Week.” “They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has.”

Mexican officials, meanwhile, insisted that they would remain engaged in active negotiations with the Trump administration.

“We want to continue to work with the U.S. very closely on the different challenges that we have together, and one urgent one at this moment is immigration,” Mexican diplomat Martha Barcena said Sunday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

She told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the countries’ “joint declaration of principles… gives us the base for the road map that we have to follow in the incoming months on immigration and cooperation on asylum issues and development in Central America.”

Barcena added that the U.S. wanted to see the number of migrants crossing the border to return to levels seen in 2018.

Fox News’ Bret Baier, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-very-profitable-tariffs-mexico-deal-breakthrough

CLOSE

Proposed amendments to a Hong Kong extradition bill that would allow the transfer of criminals to China drew hundreds of thousands of protesters.
Wochit

Hundreds of thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Hong Kong on Sunday to demonstrate against proposed amendments to an extradition bill, which would allow the transfer of those accused of crimes to mainland China. 

The massive demonstration took place just three days before Hong Kong’s full legislature considers the bill, which critics fear would let China target political opponents in the former British colony and could undermine its judicial independence. 

The Sunday protest was one of the biggest in recent Hong Kong history. Police estimated the crowd at 240,000; organizers said it was closer to 1 million. 

After around 10 hours of peaceful protest, tensions rose when a group of protesters stormed the barriers at the government headquarters. The group briefly made it to the lobby, but police responded with batons and pepper spray. 

Here’s a closer look:

Why is the bill controversial? 

Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997 when it was handed over to China as a territory. However, the city is still semi-autonomous, retaining its own political, social and legal systems as part of the “one country, two systems” agreement. 

Opponents say the extradition bill will allow China to increase control over Hong Kong’s legal system and will target political dissidents, who critics fear could then face unfair trials. Proponents, namely the city’s government, say the revised bill will help fight crime and maintain order. 

Hong Kong currently limits extraditions to jurisdictions with which it has prior agreements with, or on a case-by-case basis. China was excluded because of concerns over its troubled history with legal independence and human rights.

The amendments would allow Hong Kong courts to extradite people to jurisdictions even lacking this prior agreement. Despite widespread opposition, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam has championed the legislation. 

More: 20 years on, freewheeling Hong Kong is more like the rest of repressed China

Who are the protesters? 

People from all walks of life marched in the streets Sunday, from toddlers to the elderly, wearing white to symbolize the color of light, according to the South China Morning Post. 

“If I didn’t come out now, I don’t know when I would have the chance to express my opinion again,” said Kiwi Wong, a 27 year-old protester. “Because now we’ve got to this stage, if you don’t come out to try to do what you can, then it will end up too late, you won’t be able to say or do anything about it.”

Retired primary school teacher Pun Tin-chi expressed his frustration with officials, telling the Post the amendments will prevent Hong Kong from becoming a safe haven for criminals. 

“I don’t even know what I can say to these officials,” Tin-chi said. “All I can say is, I am already 70 years old and I cannot believe I am witnessing how they have been telling lie after lie.”

Activist Lee Cheuk-yan, a former Hong Kong legislator, said the autonomy of Hong Kong needs to be protected and noted potential economic drawbacks to the revisions. 

“The people of Hong Kong want to protect our freedom, our freedom of speech, our rule of law, our judicial system and also our economic foundation, which is welcome to international investors,” Cheuk-yan said. “If international investors lose confidence in Hong Kong because of this evil bill, then Hong Kong, economically, would also be destroyed.”

More: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ‘smears’ China on 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests

What is the government response? 

In a statement late Sunday, the government acknowledged the rights of the protesters to voice their criticisms.

“We acknowledge and respect that people have different views on a wide range of issues,” the statement said. “The procession today is an example of Hong Kong people exercising their freedom of expression within their rights as enshrined in the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.”

Lam’s government claims the revisions are needed in order to close legal loopholes. It will formally put forward the amendments of the bill on Wednesday and hopes for approval by the end of the month. 

Contributing: The Associated Press

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/09/hong-kong-hundreds-thousands-protest-extradition-bill/1402089001/