Recently Added Videos

NEW YORK (AP) — Attorney Michael Avenatti has been charged with ripping off porn star Stormy Daniels, the client who made him famous.

The allegations against Avenatti were revealed in charges filed Wednesday in New York.

SEE ALSO: Avenatti expects imminent indictment in Nike extortion case

Federal prosecutors say Avenatti took money Daniels was supposed to get from a book deal.

Daniels isn’t named in the court filing, but the details of the case make it clear that she is the client involved in the case.

Avenatti rocketed to fame representing Daniels when she sued to be released from a non-disclosure agreement involving an alleged tryst with President Donald Trump.

Avenatti was previously charged in New York and Los Angeles with trying to extort money from Nike and stealing millions of dollars from clients.

He has denied all the allegations.




Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/22/michael-avenatti-charged-with-defrauding-stormy-daniels/23733095/

Ben Carson has fired back at Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., after the controversial freshman congresswoman criticized him after a hearing Tuesday.

Omar knocked the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary over his conduct during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee.

“Not sure he was fully awake, maybe he meant to reclaim his time back to sleep,” she quipped. She was playing off of Carson’s request for time during a testy exchange with Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.

DEMS USE HEARING TO REPEATEDLY QUIZ, STUMP BEN CARSON ON OBSCURE ACRONYMS

Carson, a renowned doctor and John’s Hopkins University’s former director of pediatric neurosurgery, fired back by touting his endurance during marathon surgeries.

“Since you brought it up… I know what it’s like to actually be sleepy, especially after 18-hour surgeries and operating on babies in the womb,” he said.

While he was at it, Carson also took a shot at Omar’s position on abortion. “I hope @IlhanMN knows I care about all people, even those she doesn’t recognize as having a right to life.”

Omar, in May, defended abortion access as a slew of states — particularly Alabama — passed laws imposing major restrictions on the practice. “Women’s rights are human rights,” she previously tweeted.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“No child or woman should be forced to have pregnancy against her own will. These laws do not protect women’s rights it protects the violator committing these crimes,” she said alongside an article about Alabama’s ban.

Carson, ironically, received similar criticism from the same person who appointed him to lead HUD. When Carson and President Trump were competitors during the 2016 election cycle, Trump derided him as “super low energy.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ben-carson-ilhan-omar-house-hearing

There’s no doubt President Trump pulled a stunt on Wednesday.

He invited congressional leaders House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to the White House under the pretext of negotiating an infrastructure bill, only to emerge minutes later declaring there would be no deal unless Democrats stop their endless charade about Russia and tax returns.

But at least the public knows that Democrats have a choice: They can legislate and secure a win on an agenda item they’ve been pushing for since the Obama years, or they can keep up the political game over the nonexistent Russia conspiracy and continue digging for Trump’s tax papers.

No, they can’t have it all. Politics is a business of trade-offs, and I don’t know a single person who would give me something I want if they know I’m going to go on TV immediately after and call them a lying criminal. But that’s what Democrats are asking for.

The endless probes into Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russia collusion that never was, his tax history, and his personal business is exactly today what it was two years ago: political.

It has worked. Trump’s presidency is handicapped by the accusation that he worked with Russia to steal the 2016 election, even if he was cleared. There’s a perpetual cloud over the White House with Democrats pushing conspiracy theories about Trump and his family, their businesses, and personal lives.

And for that he’s supposed to do what? Hand Democrats a $2 trillion package on national infrastructure? The legislation has upsides for everyone but more so for Democrat who have pushed the cause for years. But what does Trump have to gain from it if Democrats are going to attempt to embarrass him at every turn before the 2020 election?

Pelosi left the meeting Wednesday stating that she will “pray” for Trump. Well, I’m sure he’s grateful for that.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-arent-interested-in-legislating-and-trump-knows-it

Embattled attorney Michael Avenatti was charged by federal prosecutors in New York Wednesday with defrauding adult-film star Stormy Daniels, the client who propelled Avenatti into the national spotlight.

Avenatti, 48, faces one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. He faces up to 22 years in prison if convicted of those charges. Daniels is not named in the indictment, but a federal law enforcement official confirmed to Fox News that she is the client prosecutors claimed Avenatti defrauded.

Avenatti rocketed to fame representing Daniels when she sued to be released from a non-disclosure agreement involving an alleged tryst with President Trump in 2006. He parlayed his notoriety into numerous cable news appearances and even was floated as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2020.

Michael Avenatti, right, and Stormy Daniels speaking to reporters outside Manhattan federal court in April 2018.
(Reuters, File)

MICHAEL AVENATTI HIRES LAWYER TO DEFEND HIM IN FEDERAL FRAUD CASE IN CALIFORNIA

According to prosecutors, Avenatti stole “a significant portion” of an advance Daniels was supposed to receive from a book deal in the summer of 2018 by sending a doctored letter with Daniels’ signature to her literary agent that instructed the agent to divert the money to an account controlled by Avenatti. The lawyer then spent the money — $148,750 — “on airfare, hotels, car services, restaurants and meal delivery, online retailers, payroll for his law firm and another business he owned, and insurance.”

The indictment said that after Daniels asked Avenatti why she had not received the money, Avenatti falsely claimed he was still trying to extract the payment from the publisher. Weeks later, the lawyer allegedly “used funds recently received from another source” to pay Daniels the money she was owed.

“Michael Avenatti abused and violated the core duty of an attorney – the duty to his client,” Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in a statement. “As alleged, he used his position of trust to steal an advance on the client’s book deal.  As alleged, he blatantly lied to and stole from his client to maintain his extravagant lifestyle, including to pay for, among other things, a monthly car payment on a Ferrari.  Far from zealously representing his client, Avenatti, as alleged, instead engaged in outright deception and theft, victimizing rather than advocating for his client.”

AVENATTI ACCUSED OF TRYING TO EXTORT NIKE FOR UP TO $25M, FEDS SAY

In an emailed statement to Fox News, Avenatti said: “I look forward to a jury hearing all of the evidence and passing judgment on my conduct. At no time was any money misappropriated or mishandled. I will be fully exonerated once the relevant emails, contracts, text messages, and documents are presented.”

Avenatti also tweeted a defense of his conduct toward Daniels, writing: “No monies relating to Ms. Daniels were ever misappropriated or mishandled. She received millions of dollars worth of legal services and we spent huge sums in expenses. She directly paid only $100.00 for all that she received. I look forward to a jury hearing the evidence.”

MARK STEYN: AVENATTI A ‘FLIMFLAM’ LAWYER WHO WILL BE LUCKY TO AVOID PRISON TIME

Prosecutors on Wednesday also formally indicted Avenatti on charges that he tried to extort up to $25 million from Nike by threatening to expose claims that the shoemaker paid off high school basketball players to steer them to Nike-sponsored colleges. Avenatti also has been facing a multi-count federal indictment in Los Angeles alleging that he stole millions of dollars from clients, didn’t pay taxes, committed bank fraud and lied during bankruptcy proceedings.

Avenatti has denied the allegations against him on both coasts, saying he expects to be exonerated. The Los Angeles charges alone carry a potential penalty of more than 300 years in prison, while he could face over 60 years behind bars on the New York charges.

AVENATTI PLEADS NOT GUILTY IN FEDERAL WIRE, BANK FRAUD CASE

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, initially raised concerns about Avenatti’s conduct in November when she claimed he’d launched a fundraising effort to raise money for her legal case without telling her. She also said he had filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump, on her behalf, against her wishes.

“For months I’ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests,” she said at the time. “Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf. I learned about it on Twitter.”

EMAILS SHOW AVENATTI CLIENT RACING TO FIND SETTLEMENT FUNDS HE NOW SAYS LAWYER USED FOR ‘PONZI-LIKE’ SCHEME

At the time, Avenatti responded that he was still Daniels “biggest champion.” He said that under his retention agreement, he was entitled to keep all the money he raised for her legal defense to defray what he said were substantial costs of her case.

He repeated that statement on social media Wednesday, tweeting: “I look forward to a jury hearing all of the evidence and passing judgment on my conduct.  At no time was any money misappropriated or mishandled. I will be fully exonerated once the relevant emails, contracts, text messages, and documents are presented. I was entitled to any monies retained per my agreement with the client. My agreement for representation and compensation included a percentage of any book proceeds.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The defamation case initiated by Avenatti against Trump backfired, with a judge ordering her to pay the president’s legal bills.

When Avenatti was first charged with defrauding other clients and extorting Nike in March, Daniels said she was “saddened but not shocked,” adding on Twitter that she had fired Avenatti a month earlier after “discovering that he had dealt with me extremely dishonestly.” At the time, she did not elaborate.

Fox News’ Jake Gibson, Brooke Singman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/us/michael-avenatti-indicted-defrauding-stormy-daniels-identity-theft

On Wednesday, the Ways and Means Committee said it was focused on pursuing Mr. Trump’s federal tax information, regardless of New York’s action and the potential for getting the president’s state returns.

“Our request to the Internal Revenue Service was in furtherance of an investigation into the mandatory presidential audit program at the I.R.S.,” said Daniel Rubin, a spokesman for the committee, which is led by Representative Richard E. Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat. “State returns would not help us evaluate this program.”

At the same time, Steven M. Rosenthal, a tax lawyer and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said he would not be surprised if the president fought the state law, though he believed it passed legal muster.

“Of course, the Legislature was motivated by Donald Trump’s current refusals,” Mr. Rosenthal said, but added that he thought the bill was written broadly enough to avoid the “bill of attainder” accusation.

That opinion was echoed by Brian Galle, a law professor at Georgetown University Law School, who said that “bills of attainder have been interpreted really narrowly by the courts,” and noted that legislation often describes targeted industries or municipalities in vague terms. (In New York, for instance, state bills aimed at New York City are typically described as those affecting “a city with a population of one million or more,” as New York is the only such city in the state.)

“The bill doesn’t say you can release Donald Trump’s, and only Donald Trump’s, tax returns,” Mr. Galle said.

Lawmakers took steps to safeguard the bill from legal challenges, amending the wording so that it covered an array of public officials, federal executive branch employees and political party leaders.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/trump-state-tax-returns.html

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he has not reviewed an IRS memo that says the agency must turn over a president’s tax returns to Congress.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he has not reviewed an IRS memo that says the agency must turn over a president’s tax returns to Congress.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he has “not yet” reviewed a confidential draft Internal Revenue Service memo, which reportedly says the agency must turn over a president’s tax returns to Congress unless the president asserts executive privilege.

Appearing before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, Mnuchin said he looked at the memo for the first time “literally on the way up here.”

According to the memo, obtained by the Washington Post, disclosure of the president’s tax forms “is mandatory, requiring the Secretary to disclose returns, and return information, requested by the tax-writing Chairs.”

Mnuchin has refused to allow the IRS to turn over President Trump’s tax returns, saying Congress has no legitimate legislative purpose in seeing them. But the draft memo says the law “does not allow the Secretary to exercise discretion in disclosing the information provided the statutory conditions are met.”

Mnuchin said he is looking into why the draft memo had not reached his desk.

Breaking with recent precedent, Trump never disclosed his tax returns while a candidate for president, claiming it was because they were under audit. But that would not prevent Trump from releasing them if he so chose. IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig testified last month that there is no rule prohibiting Trump from releasing his tax returns.

Rep. Sanford Bishop of Georgia asked, “If anybody’s tax return is under audit, is there a rule that would prohibit that taxpayer from releasing it?”

Rettig replied, “I think I’ve answered that question. No.”

Mnuchin also told the panel on Tuesday that he has “had no conversations ever with the president or anyone in the White House about delivering the president’s tax returns to Congress.”

Echoing Trump, Mnuchin said voters knew the president was not releasing his tax returns and elected him anyway.

Release of his tax returns is one of many inquiries by congressional Democrats that Trump is resisting. On Monday, a federal court ruled that Trump cannot block his accounting firm from turning over his financial records, a decision Trump said he will appeal.

The issue of releasing his tax returns is also likely to be resolved by the courts.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/725702479/mnuchin-says-he-has-not-yet-reviewed-memo-mandating-irs-turn-over-trump-tax-retu

Investigations will not hold up must-pass debt ceiling hike,…

Despite the president’s claim that “you can’t investigate and legislate simultaneously,” certain must-pass pieces of legislation, including a debt ceiling hike, will…

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/trade-war-forcing-china-to-rethink-economic-ties-with-the-us.html

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/schiff-says-justice-department-agrees-turn-over-mueller-documents-n1008771

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., is cosponsoring legislation with Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., to curtail surprise medical bills.

Susan Walsh/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Susan Walsh/AP

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., is cosponsoring legislation with Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., to curtail surprise medical bills.

Susan Walsh/AP

Surprise medical bills — those unexpected and often pricey bills patients face when they get care from a doctor or hospital that isn’t in their insurance network — are the health care problem du jour in Washington, with President Trump and congressional lawmakers from both sides of the aisle calling for action.

These policymakers agree on the need to take patients out of the middle of the fight over charges, but crafting a legislative solution will not be easy.

A hearing of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee Tuesday, for example, quickly devolved into finger-pointing as providers’ and insurers’ testimony showed how much they don’t see eye to eye.

“I’m disappointed that all participants that are going to be here from critical sectors of our economy could not come to find a way to work together to protect patients from these huge surprise bills,” Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, in his opening statement.

As Congress weighs addressing the problem, here’s a guide to the bills and what to watch for.

Senate: Cassidy and Hassan

Last week, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., introduced their version of surprise-billing legislation. It would set out specific protections for patients who are at risk of surprise bills in the following scenarios: receiving emergency care from an out-of-network facility or provider; getting elective care from an out-of-network doctor at a facility that is in the patient’s insurance network; or receiving additional, post-emergency health care at an out-of-network facility because the patient cannot travel without medical transport.

The protections would mean that people in these situations could not be billed by their health providers for amounts outside of what their insurance covered. Similar protections would also be put in place for laboratory and imaging services as well as providers who aren’t physicians, such as nurse anesthetists.

Patients would still have to pay their insurance plan’s usual deductibles and copayments, which would count toward their health plan’s out-of-pocket maximum.

Doctors would be automatically paid a predetermined amount based on what other health plans in the area are paying for a similar service. It’s called the “median in-network rate.”

House: “No Surprises Act”

On the House side, the “No Surprises Act” has emerged as the primary bill. Though it has not yet been formally introduced, drafts include many of the same protections as in the Cassidy-Hassan measure, including curbs on out-of-network bills for emergency care.

Co-authored by Reps. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the measure would require health care facilities to provide 24-hour notice to patients seeking elective treatment that they are about to see an out-of-network provider. It would prohibit the facility or provider from billing patients for whatever amount their insurance companies did not cover for that service. And it would set provider payment rates based on the market in that specific area.

One key difference between the House and Senate proposals: The Cassidy-Hassan measure includes a mechanism by which health providers can challenge that basic median pay rate They would have 30 days to initiate an independent dispute resolution between only the health plan and the provider; patients would be exempted.

“The patient needs to be the reason for care, not the excuse for a bill,” Cassidy said at a press conference when the bill was unveiled.

The approach is often referred to as “baseball-style” arbitration because it’s the model used by Major League Baseball for some salary negotiations. Here’s how it works: The plan and the provider each present a final offer to an independent arbitrator for what the procedure should cost. The arbitrator then picks one of those two options.

Senate, Coming Soon: Alexander and Murray Health Care Bill

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has primary jurisdiction over the way the federal government regulates employer-sponsored plans, and Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democratic member, are preparing legislation.

That legislative package is being billed as a broader measure designed to address health care costs, which would likely include provisions aimed at surprise medical bills.

If Alexander does proceed on the broader path, his legislation could also incorporate elements such as curbs on drug pricing and price transparency, according to some industry lobbyists.

But this triggers concerns that expanding the measure’s focus — which could perhaps draw more opposition — could slow the momentum behind surprise-billing legislation.

“There’s a lot of other things going on that aren’t directly related to surprise bills,” says Molly Smith, the vice president for coverage and state issues at the American Hospital Association. “We’re paying attention to what else is getting glommed on.”

Alexander and Murray are expected to unveil details of their proposal Thursday. And, at a White House event earlier this month, Alexander said he’d like to pass it through the committee by July.

That won’t be the end of players joining in the debate.

The House Education and Labor Committee also held a hearing on the issue, with an eye toward legislation in the future. Ways and Means Subcommittee Chairman Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, is also focused on this issue, having introduced surprise-billing legislation in the last three congressional sessions.

Issues to watch

Some Capitol Hill insiders, say arbitration provisions such as those proposed in the Cassidy-Hassan measure could become a hurdle to getting surprise-bill legislation over the finish line.

At the Ways and Means hearing, for instance, a representative from the trade group that represents employer plans called the idea a “snipe hunt” used by providers and hospitals to distract Congress from fixing the problem.

But the idea of the government setting payment rates for doctors is also sensitive. Groups such as the American Medical Association have already pushed back on this idea.

“Proposals that use in-network rates as a guideline should be avoided,” said Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, an American Medical Association board member, in testimony to the Ways and Means panel. “Setting payments at these discounted rates would further disrupt the increasing market imbalance favoring health insurers.”

Cassidy, though, was optimistic at the press conference announcing his bill’s introduction.

“Greg Walden on the House side … said that he would be OK with arbitration, so obviously this is a process, we’re in negotiations,” he said at a press conference.

In fact, negotiations between the House and Senate versions of the proposed bills could lead to promising outcomes, says Claire McAndrew, the director of campaigns and partnerships at Families USA, a nonprofit group that advocates for accessible and affordable health care: “There could be an interesting potential to merge these two bills and do a really forward-thinking, consumer-friendly piece of legislation.”

What’s missing

Expensive air and ground ambulance bills have caused controversy in the past, but neither the Senate nor the House proposals appear to address them.

Helicopters are sometimes deployed to get patients in dire need to a hospital quickly, or to service patients in remote areas, often at exorbitant costs.

In addition, Smith, from the hospital association, says none of the bills address insurance network adequacy.

“At the end of the day, surprise billing happens because they don’t have access to an in-network provider,” Smith says.

At some point, legislators will also have to hammer out how the federal law will interact with the more than 20 state laws that address surprise billing, says Adam Beck, the vice president of employer health policy and strategic initiatives at America’s Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, the trade group representing health insurance plans.

Some states have stricter protections for patients, some use a different method to determine how doctors will be paid, and states want to preserve those extra protections when necessary.

“They’re not necessarily sticking points, but there are real questions they’ll have to figure out,” Beck says.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/22/725796114/surprise-medical-bills-are-driving-people-into-debt-will-congress-act-to-stop-th

CLOSE

A war of words outside the U.S. Capitol between Attorney General Bill Bar and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Buzz60

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President Donald Trump of “a cover-up” moments before he broke off infrastructure talks and held an impromptu Rose Garden press conference to attack ongoing investigations involving him. 

“We do believe it’s important to follow the facts, we believe that no one is above the law, including the President of the United States, and we believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up,” Pelosi said following a meeting with House Democrats on Wednesday to discuss their investigations of the president.

The president would reference the speaker’s missive, saying, “I don’t do cover-ups.”

The tense exchange came as Pelosi, Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer planned to hold a White House meeting on infrastructure Wednesday morning.

Pelosi has been trying to tamp down a growing clamor from Democrats who want to impeach the president. Many in the party, including some of Pelosi’s allies, are saying it’s time for Democrats to open an impeachment inquiry

Pelosi did not make the case against impeachment herself during the caucus meeting, said Rep. Gerald Connolly, instead she presided over presentations from the chairmen of the committees who are investigating the Trump administration. 

Many members walking out of the meeting insisted Democrats were unified in their approach, but accounts from some lawmakers showed not everyone was on board with the wait-and-see strategy. 

Connolly said that Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who has long pushed for impeachment gave an update on her committee’s investigations before saying the caucus should impeach Trump. 

“After she finished a long, long report she quickly said ‘we should impeach him’ and sat down and everyone laughed,” Connolly said.

Lawmakers may have laughed at Waters’ attempt to get the conversation going, but a growing number of Democrats view the administration’s stonewalling as serious enough to open an impeachment inquiry.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the committee which would handle impeachment, said members were” totally unified” in their approach to getting information from the Trump administration “and we all understand this to be an historic moment.”

However, he also said “lots of members want to put an impeachment inquiry onto the table and we want to use whatever means are necessary in order to defend the constitution, the rule of law.”

Raskin was one of a trio of senior members who pushed Pelosi to start an impeachment inquiry on Monday after the White House instructed former White House counsel Don McGahn to ignore a subpoena to appear before Congress Tuesday.

McGahn Tuesday defied the congressional subpoena and did not show up for a hearing where lawmakers had planned to press him on his interactions with Trump regarding special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The White House instructed McGahn to ignore the subpoena after the Department of Justice on Monday released a legal opinion that said he was not required to appear.

“This president – as a result of his decision to direct Mr. McGahn not to appear – has engaged in an effort to obstruct and impede and to cover up,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., the chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, the House Democrats’ messaging arm.

“I think the time has come to begin the formal process of considering impeachment as an option,” said Cicilline, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He said the inquiry should be opened to communicate to the administration the “heightened level of seriousness” of the Democrats’ investigations. But he also acknowledged that such a decision was ultimately up to Pelosi, who, so far, is not on board

Beto on impeachment: O’Rourke says he’ll risk consequences on 2020 campaign if Trump impeached

Joe Biden: Democrats may have ‘no alternative’ but to impeach President Trump

On Monday, a trio of Democratic leaders, including Cicilline, pushed Pelosi, during different meetings to move forward with an impeachment inquiry, but she held firm, according to a Democratic aide who was in the room during the meetings. The interactions were first reported by Politico.

Top House Democrats spent Tuesday insisting that the lawmakers who were calling for impeachment were still the minority of the party – for now.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday he thinks every Democrat “in their gut” feels Trump has “done some things that probably justify impeachment.”

“Having said that, this is the important point, I think the majority of Democrats continue to believe that we need to continue to pursue the avenue that we’ve been on,” he added. “If facts lead us to a broader action, so be it,” Hoyer said.

Pelosi has long said impeachment is divisive. In an exclusive interview with USA TODAY in March, she said impeachment would be “a gift” to the president if it was not bipartisan. But after a redacted version of Mueller’s report was made public, she said impeachment was possible if facts led there. 

“I see a lot more people who have seen what has occurred who would like to see an impeachment inquiry,” Tennessee Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen said Tuesday. Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said he has articles of impeachment drafted, but would like to see Mueller come in to testify before he files them.

‘There is a big picture here’:Democrats offer roadmap on Barr, Trump and what comes next

More investigations: Federal judge refuses to block House subpoena for Trump’s financial records

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Tuesday that Democrats had “no choice” but to open an impeachment inquiry “at the very least.”

Ocasio-Cortez said she didn’t speak for all of her colleagues but she noted that she had not seen “a lot of overt expression of opposition” to impeachment. 

“I think it’s really just a matter of leadership” who oppose the move, she said. Ocasio-Cortez has long supported getting Trump out of office, but she has become increasingly vocal about her desire for an impeachment inquiry after Mueller’s report was released. 

Over the weekend, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said he had read the Mueller report and determined that the president had committed impeachable offenses. However, no other Republicans have followed Amash in calling for impeachment.

Contributing: Bart Jansen for USA TODAY

Like what you’re reading?Download the USA TODAY app for more

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/22/democrats-pelosi-meet-impeachment-trump/3752337002/

Chip stocks are down 12% this month—how one trader plays a…

A put credit spread is a good, risk-conscious way to trade the volatile semiconductor cohort, says TradingAnalysis.com founder Todd Gordon.

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/chinese-ambassador-on-trade-talks-the-us-changes-its-mind-so-often.html

Yet if politics can sometimes make odd bedfellows, the Brexit Party is taking that principle to the extreme, running candidates from all over the political spectrum. The party has even recruited as candidates three former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and its successor groups, which defended deadly bombings by the Irish Republican Army in the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Farage has defended his heterodox candidate slate as the seed of a nonpartisan pro-democracy movement. Analysts are dubious, however, saying he is more likely looking for ways to lure disaffected pro-Brexit Labour voters and provide a counterbalance to his history in the anti-immigration, largely right-wing 2016 Leave campaign.

“It’s rational party competition,” said Alan Wager, a research associate at the U.K. in a Changing Europe, a research institute. “It’s wearing the clothing of idealism and optimism, but it’s not an optimistic or idealistic message really.”

John Malcolm, 75, a lifelong Conservative voter sitting beside his wife, seemed to speak for many in the crowd in Willenhall when he said he did not terribly much care whom the Brexit Party would send to Brussels.

“I wasn’t looking for someone to represent me in Europe,” he said. “I’m looking for this party to do extremely well to show what we think on this issue to the other parties.”

Voters have used the European elections for protest votes before, but the Brexit Party, born in the wreckage of Mrs. May’s deal, is unusually empty of formal policies. Its candidates rarely venture beyond its signature issue and populist themes, leaning on phrases like a “clean Brexit” but mostly dodging questions about what that means — what arrangements they would make for Britain’s borders, its airlines or its financial services industry, for example.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/europe/farage-brexit-party-europe.html

BEIJING/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – China must prepare for difficult times as the international situation is increasingly complex, President Xi Jinping said in comments carried by state media on Wednesday, as the U.S.-China trade war took a mounting toll on tech giant Huawei.

The world’s two largest economies have escalated tariff increases on each other’s imports after talks broke down to resolve their dispute, and the acrimony has intensified since Washington last week blacklisted Chinese telecom equipment company Huawei Technologies Co Ltd.

The listing, which curbs Huawei’s access to U.S.-made components, is a potentially devastating blow for the company that has rattled technology supply chains and investors, and saw several mobile carriers on Wednesday delay the launch of new Huawei smartphone handsets.

During a three-day trip this week to the southern province of Jiangxi, a cradle of China’s Communist revolution, Xi urged people to learn the lessons of the hardships of the past.

“Today, on the new Long March, we must overcome various major risks and challenges from home and abroad,” state news agency Xinhua paraphrased Xi as saying, referring to the 1934-36 trek of Communist Party members fleeing a civil war to a remote rural base, from where they re-grouped and eventually took power in 1949.

“Our country is still in a period of important strategic opportunities for development, but the international situation is increasingly complicated,” he said.

“We must be conscious of the long-term and complex nature of various unfavorable factors at home and abroad, and appropriately prepare for various difficult situations.”

The report did not elaborate on those difficulties, and did not directly mention the trade war or of the United States.

No further trade talks between top Chinese and U.S. negotiators have been scheduled since the last round ended on May 10, the same day President Donald Trump increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods and took steps to levy duties on all remaining Chinese imports.

Negotiations between the United States and China have stalled since early May, when Chinese officials sought major changes to the text of a proposed deal that the Trump administration says had been largely agreed.

However, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai, speaking to the Fox News Channel, said on Tuesday that Beijing was still open for talks.

Repercussions of the blacklisting mounted for Huawei, with some mobile operators, including the Ymobile unit of Japan’s Softbank Corp and rival KDDI Corp putting launch plans for Huawei’s new P30 Lite smartphone on hold.

Another big Chinese tech firm, video surveillance equipment maker Hikvision Digital Technology Co Ltd, could also face limits on its ability to buy U.S. technology, the New York Times reported, citing people familiar with the matter, sending the firm’s Shenzhen-listed shares down 5.54 percent.

RETALIATION

While China has not said whether or how it may retaliate to the measures against Huawei, state media have taken an increasingly strident and nationalistic tone.

U.S. firms said in a survey released on Wednesday they were facing retaliation in China over the trade war. The American Chamber of Commerce of China and its sister body in Shanghai, said members reported that they faced increased obstacles such as government inspections, slower customs clearances and slower approval for licensing and other applications.

It also said that 40.7% of respondents were considering or had relocated manufacturing facilities outside China. Of the almost 250 respondents to the survey, which was conducted after China and the United States both raised tariffs on each other’s imports this month, almost three-quarters said the impact of tariffs was hurting their competitiveness.

To cope, about one third said they were increasingly focusing their China operations on producing for Chinese customers and not for export, while one third said they were delaying and cancelling investment decisions.

Long considered a solid cornerstone in a relationship fraught with geopolitical frictions, the U.S. business community has in recent years advocated a harder line on what it sees as discriminatory Chinese trade policies.

The United States is seeking sweeping changes to trade and economic policies, including an end to forced technology transfers and theft of U.S. trade secrets. Washington also wants curbs on subsidies for Chinese state-owned enterprises and increased access for U.S. firms in Chinese markets.

China for years has blocked major U.S. tech firms, including Google and Facebook, from fully operating in its market. Those and other restrictions have fueled calls from within the U.S. business community for Washington to pursue more reciprocal policies.

Cui told Fox News Channel that U.S. restrictions on Huawei “are without any foundation and evidence” and could undermine the normal functioning of markets.

“Everybody knows Huawei is a privately owned company. It is just a normal Chinese private company,” Cui said. “So all the action taken against Huawei are politically motivated.”

Reporting by David Lawder and Stella Qiu; Additional reporting by Makini Brice and Eric Beech in Washington and Michael Martina and Ben Blanchard; writing by Tony Munroe; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore, Robert Birsel

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-xi/prepare-for-difficult-times-chinas-xi-urges-as-trade-war-simmers-idUSKCN1SS13H

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House Intelligence Committee pulled back on Wednesday from threats to enforce a subpoena against Attorney General William Barr after the Justice Department agreed to turn over materials relating to an investigation into Russian election interference.

The decision ended a standoff between the Democratic-led committee and the Justice Department for access to counterintelligence reports generated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his probe of President Donald Trump and his associates.

The dispute, one of many between the Republican administration and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, has come as Trump refuses to cooperate with numerous congressional probes into matters ranging from his personal finances and business dealings to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

“The Department of Justice has accepted our offer of a first step toward compliance with our subpoena, and this week will begin turning over to the Committee twelve categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials as part of an initial rolling production,” U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the committee chairman, said on Wednesday.

Schiff canceled a committee meeting to consider enforcement action on Wednesday.

Barr, the top U.S. law enforcement official and a Trump appointee, on May 2 snubbed the House intelligence committee, which voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for not handing over a full, unredacted Mueller report.

In a letter to Schiff on Tuesday, the Justice Department said it was willing to give Intelligence committee members and staff closed-door access to additional material if Schiff does not move forward with his threats to hold the department in contempt.

However, a request to the Justice Department from the Senate Intelligence committee for the same materials was still pending, a congressional source said.

The White House has accused Democrats of playing politics with the congressional probes.

Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Bernadette Baum

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-counterintelligence/house-panel-chief-schiff-delays-subpoena-against-barr-after-justice-dept-offer-idUSKCN1SS1M2

TARZANA, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — A DUI suspect who led police on a dangerous high-speed chase through the San Fernando Valley in a stolen RV with two dogs on her lap has been identified.

The California Highway Patrol identified the suspect as Julie Ann Rainbird, 52, of Winnetka.

The chase started around 7 p.m. in the Santa Clarita area for failure to yield, according to the California Highway Patrol.

Authorities said the RV was stolen from Giant RV in Downey. The owner of the RV, a Granada Hills woman, said not only was her RV stolen, her identity information was stolen as well. That information was used to purchase a motorcycle in Simi Valley. The theft victim was notified of that purchase on April 30, which is when she reported the crime to Simi Valley police.

The recreational vehicle smashed into at least six other cars during the chase, shredding the side of the vehicle’s passenger side open.

In the middle of the chase, one of the dogs jumped out through the smashed front windshield and ran off as she continued driving.

The pursuit finally ended when the RV collided into a car in Tarzana and the woman jumped out and fled on foot. Officers quickly tackled her and took her into custody as she was trying to jump the fence of a home in the neighborhood.

The wild ending to the chase stunned neighbors of the quiet neighborhood.

“These streets are narrow,” said Tarzana resident Craig Friedman. “Sure, she was just evading police, but my God, you gotta stop. You know you’re gonna get caught.”

AIR7 HD was over the pursuit as the suspect struck a palm tree in a shopping center before continuing. The front end and passenger’s side of the RV had significant damage, with the windshield smashed in and the door missing.

At several points, the woman was driving up to 60 mph on surface streets. The driver also smashed into several vehicles, including a sedan in an intersection.

The man who was in that vehicle suffered six broken ribs and a punctured lung and was being treated at a local hospital.

Authorities were able to recover the first dog that jumped out of the vehicle. An animal control officer was able to loop the second dog, which appeared to be injured, at the scene. It was leaving bloody paw prints behind as it stayed by the woman’s side.

The dog was being checked by a veterinarian.

The driver crashed into a white Hyundai sedan in Tarzana and fled on foot with the second dog for a short time before being taken into custody around 7:30 p.m. near Tampa Avenue and Wells Street.

Two people inside the Hyundai were injured.

Rainbird also suffered unknown injuries and was treated by first responders at the scene. She is expected to face charges that include driving under the influence, felony evading and felony hit-and-run.

Source Article from https://abc7.com/rv-driver-in-custody-after-wild-chase-through-san-fernando-valley/5311854/

May 22 at 5:39 AM

The Trump administration is considering blacklisting another major Chinese technology company in a move that would broaden a U.S. campaign to sever China’s access to American know-how and inflame a deepening trade conflict, according to an individual familiar with the debate.

Though no final decision has yet been reached, the administration is preparing to move against Hikvision, the world’s largest maker of video surveillance technology, the person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The deliberations were first reported by the New York Times.

The disclosure comes less than a week after the administration barred U.S. companies from supplying Huawei Technologies, perhaps China’s most prominent manufacturer, without first obtaining a U.S. government license. The administration earlier this week relaxed the ban, saying it would grant temporary 90-day waivers for U.S. companies to help Huawei maintain its existing networks.

U.S. officials are said to be eyeing the same penalty for Hikvision, using a Commerce Department mechanism known as the “entity list.”

Citing national security considerations, Congress last year banned federal agencies from purchasing equipment made by Hikvision and four other Chinese technology companies: Huawei, ZTE, Hytera and Dahua.

The measure was triggered by “classified information the committee reviewed in the course of our regular oversight activities,” according to Claude Chafin, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee.

Hikvision supplies surveillance cameras that the Chinese government has deployed throughout the Muslim-majority Xinjiang region to combat what it describes as separatist terrorism.

Randall Schriver, assistant secretary of defense for Asia, said earlier this month that the Chinese government is detaining 3 million Muslim Uighurs in reeducation camps. The authorities in Beijing describe the facilities as vocational training centers.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the United States, denied reports of human rights abuses. “They are real training centers,” he said. “They are not camps. They have open gates. There’s no armed guards. People could go home over weekend.”

Hikvision last month reported earning about $1.65 billion on revenue of roughly $7.2 billion in 2018. In its annual shareholder letter, the company said it had faced numerous challenges last year but remained “upbeat about growth in the domestic and overseas markets in the years ahead.”

Hikvision said it had not received notice that the United States was preparing to take any actions from it, with a spokeswoman saying that the company has taken allegations about the use of its technology in Xinjiang very seriously.

The company had “engaged with the U.S. government” about these issues since October, said Vivian Zhou. Hikvision had hired American lawyer Pierre-Richard Prosper, who had served as ambassador at large for war crimes under President George W. Bush, to advise it on human rights compliance.

“Separately, Hikvision takes cybersecurity very seriously as a company and follows all applicable laws and regulations in the markets we operate,” the spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.

Last year, the company appointed a chief compliance officer to ensure human rights protection, data security and privacy protection, as well as social responsibility, she said.

Asked about the reports, a spokesman for Foreign Ministry did not address Hikvision directly but said the U.S. was “abusing its national power” by targeting individual Chinese companies. “We are against the U.S. trying to smear and oppress companies from other countries, including China,” Lu Kang told a regular press briefing.

The Trump administration’s intensifying campaign to limit China’s access to advanced U.S. technologies comes as a year-long trade conflict defies hopes of an early settlement.

Despite the president’s continued pursuit of a trade deal, the administration has been cracking down on China in other realms. The Justice Department in December indicted two hackers who allegedly worked with the Chinese Ministry of State Security, targeting companies holding advanced technologies with military applications.

The Commerce Department is drawing up new regulations to restrict U.S. exports of 14 advanced technologies, including robotics and quantum computing, in a move motivated by concern over China’s access to American innovations.

Some Trump administration officials want to disconnect American investors and companies from Chinese companies that help beef up the Chinese military, “Big Brother” surveillance networks or those that benefit from China’s alleged theft of U.S. trade secrets.

Last year, the Commerce Department banned state-backed ZTE from doing business with American suppliers after the company violated the terms of an earlier enforcement action.

But the president reversed the ban, which would have crippled ZTE, after a personal plea from Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The episode illustrates that any move to sever Chinese companies’ links to the United States might cause collateral damage to the U.S. economy. ZTE spends about $2.6 billion annually buying products from U.S. companies such as Qualcomm and Intel. Huawei also relies heavily on American suppliers.

Administration officials recognize that the greater the number and significance of Chinese companies affected by sanctions, the greater the pain for U.S. companies and their workers.

Ellen Nakashima in Washington and Anna Fifield in Beijing contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/22/trump-administration-considers-banning-another-major-chinese-firm/

British Prime Minister Theresa May offered a “new” Brexit plan Tuesday, in a last-ditch effort to get her still-unpopular Brexit deal approved.

But May largely failed to deliver on the “new” part. Instead, she outlined a 10-point strategy that repeated compromises or plans she’s previously offered. The prime minister did offer a few notable concessions, specifically a vote on a second referendum and a vote on a type of post-Brexit customs arrangement with the EU.

It’s noteworthy that May is giving members of parliament (MPs) a chance to decide whether they want to hold a second referendum — basically, some sort of public vote on Brexit — because this is something she’s staunchly resisted before. But the prime minister didn’t offer many specifics about the referendum, including whether she supported it, how it would be executed, or what the public would even be asked.

May’s other concession, on the customs union — where EU members trade without tariffs and minimal customs checks — offers a choice that will please neither the pro-Brexit camp in her Conservative Party or the opposition Labour Party. May proposed a vote on whether MPs want a temporary customs union membership after Brexit, or a plan for a “customs arrangement” that would allow the UK to trade with the EU, but still pursue its own independent trade policy.

The referendum and customs arrangement concessions are attempts to win over opposition Labour party members even after talks between May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn broke down last week. But these offers likely don’t go far enough. Corbyn has already said nope, not a chance.

“It’s basically a rehash of what was discussed before,” Corbyn said Tuesday.

So this push to win over Labour failed — and it also backfired among the hardcore Brexiteers who already despise May’s Brexit deal and won’t like it any better now. Many only voted for it on the third try because they thought it was the only way to get her out of office. Brexiteers largely oppose any sort of customs arrangement with the EU after Brexit, and most don’t want to attempt a second referendum.

To be clear, May is only giving MPs the opportunity to vote on these options, so they can (and may) be voted down. But it’s still infuriated Conservatives MPs who don’t want these options on the table at all. May hasn’t gained any new backers, and nearly two dozen who voted for her deal the last time around have said they won’t support her on this latest attempt, according to the Guardian.

One minister told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that May has managed to “take something bad and make it truly worse.”

Of course, there were 10 points in May’s speech. Surely, you ask, there had to be something good in there? By way of an answer, I leave you with this analysis from the Guardian’s Peter Walker, which perfectly captures both the utter exasperation over Brexit and May’s impossible situation.

Walker notes that, in her speech, May repeated promises she already made before — including on workers’ and environmental rights. He points out May’s futile attempts to compromise. On the customs arrangement proposal, he writes: “who will like it? Potentially, no one.”

Put another way, May’s “serious offer” to MPs is pretty much doomed.

The prime minister had previously said that she would set a timetable for her departure after the vote on her Brexit plan and the necessary legislation to get the UK out of the European Union before the October 31, 2019 deadline.

That’s tentatively scheduled for the first week in June. Conservatives who are eager to replace May will want her out as soon as possible — even though whoever takes over as the next prime minister will inherit the exact same Brexit mess.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/world/2019/5/21/18634579/brexit-news-theresa-may-10-plan-second-referendum

Attorney General William Barr blasted federal judges who have issued more than 37 nationwide injunctions during the Trump administration, more than in the entirety of the 20th century.

In a Tuesday speech to the American Law Institute, Barr went after “improper use of nationwide injunctions against policies of all stripes” and said that the use of the injunctions to block policy gives district courts “unprecedented power.”

“One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen,” he said. “No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power.”

One example he cited was the legal battles over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which offers protections for individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children, instituted under former President Barack Obama.

He went on to emphasize the magnitude and increase of the injunctions, pointing out that the use of the rulings has increased dramatically since President Trump was inaugurated and contrasted the prevalence of the orders with those under Trump’s Democratic predecessor.

“Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit,” Barr said.

He added that according to his department’s estimates, federal judges only issued 27 nationwide injunctions during the 20th century.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ag-barr-blasts-federal-judges-who-impose-nationwide-injunctions

Now that Beto O’Rourke’s star has faded in the 2020 Democratic nomination contest, I wouldn’t bet on a comeback. In fact, I would be more surprised if the former congressman won a single state than if he dropped out of the race before Iowa.

The problem for O’Rourke is not just that he’s polling in the low single-digits per se. After all, there are a number of candidates bunched up in the single digits. If front-runner Joe Biden falters at some point, it will be a whole new race, and a number of the other candidates will have an opening to break through. I just don’t think that O’Rourke will be one of them.

The difficulty for O’Rourke is that his fundamentals are so weak. He holds no office, lost his most recent race, and he has nothing unique to offer. Ideologically, Biden has monopolized the center-left of the primary field, and the left flank is crowded by candidates who have a much stronger claim to make to those voters. There also aren’t any early primary states that are a natural fit for him.

The only thing that O’Rourke had going for him was the odd media love affair and the perception that he was young and exciting. But media turned on him shortly after he announced his run for office, and his glow seems to have faded among the general public. That’s a really big problem.

In many ways, O’Rourke is turning out to be the kind of candidate that skeptics thought Barack Obama was going to be back in 2008. That is, a young rising star who generates a lot of enthusiasm and then turns out to be a passing fad. As I wrote last December when buzz was growing for an O’Rourke 2020 campaign, the Obama comparisons were unwarranted given that Obama’s candidacy had a lot more going for it, even back in 2007.

When Obama entered the race in 2008, he generated adoring coverage from the media and excitement among a strong portion of the party that never faded. He had a sharp contrast to draw not only as the prospective first African American president, but also as the only major candidate who opposed the Iraq War before it was launched. Furthermore, Obama never experienced a similar polling crash to what O’Rourke is going through. Obama’s polling was steady throughout 2007, even during the many months he trailed Hillary Clinton, at about the 20s nationally. His support provided him a solid base from which to surge in Iowa in the fall of 2007 and then eventually take over the national lead the following February as he racked up primary wins.

Somebody like O’Rourke, who is running with a lack of accomplishments, has to be able to sustain and build the sense of excitement and enthusiasm. It’s one thing to stagnate in polls for awhile, and then shine at just the right moment, as Obama did. It’s another thing to have your time in the spotlight, have people lose interest and move on to other candidates, and then try to recapture the excitement. It’s especially hard to do with over 20 other candidates running.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dont-bet-on-a-beto-comeback

Target shares jump 7% as e-commerce gains fuel earnings beat

Target’s e-commerce sales also surged 42%, as shoppers increasingly turned to its curbside pickup service for online orders, something Amazon can’t offer.

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/us-reportedly-considering-blacklisting-chinas-hikvision.html