Recently Added Videos

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

(CNN)This country is stuck with Obamacare. Republicans can’t find the votes to repeal or replace it. Democrats can’t agree on how to make it better. President Donald Trump just wants to move on from it. But it’s so ingrained at this point that if the courts suddenly end it, it could completely disrupt the US health insurance system — and not just for people who buy insurance on the exchanges created by the law.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/obamacare-affordable-care-act-trump/index.html

    Barbara Bush so fiercely disliked President Donald Trump that she blamed him for what she called a heart attack and, by the end of her life, she no longer considered herself a Republican.

    “I’d probably say no today,” she told USA Today’s Susan Page in an October 2017 interview on whether she was still a Republican.

    Those were excerpts, released Wednesday, of an upcoming Bush biography by Page, who spoke with the former first lady extensively in the final months of her life. Bush died last April and her husband, 41st President George H.W. Bush, died in November.

    The book, “The Matriarch,” detailed Barbara Bush’s long-standing dislike for Trump, which went back decades. In diary entries from the 1990s, which the former first lady made available to Page, she described Trump as “greedy, selfish, and ugly.” By 2016, she was “dismayed by the nation’s divisions and by the direction of the party she had worked for, and for so long.”

    In one interview, she told Page: “I don’t understand why people are for” Trump. In another, she expressed “astonishment” that women could vote for Trump.

    The former first lady suffered what she described as a heart attack in 2016, stemming from a long battle with congestive heart failure and chronic pulmonary disease. She blamed the episode on the nasty 2016 election cycle and Trump’s relentless bashing of her son, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who ran for president in 2016 too. She told Page that “angst” contributed to the heart episode.

    Bush was at first hesitant to have her son enter the race. If he had won, he would have been the third Bush president following her husband and her eldest son, 43rd President George W. Bush. But, as Page wrote, the former first lady was so alarmed by Trump, she eventually agreed that her son should seek office.

    In 2016, the former first lady would vote for her son Jeb Bush for president in the general election, while her husband voted for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. After Trump won, her husband called the president-elect to offer congratulations and Barbara Bush wrote in her diary that Trump “was very nice” in that conversation.

    After originally drafting a funny letter to former President Bill Clinton having assumed he would join the “First Ladies Club,” as she wrote, Barbara Bush wrote first lady Melania Trump welcoming her into the cohort.

    “Dear Mrs. Trump, The world thought I was writing this note to Bill Clinton. I am glad that I am not. I wanted to welcome you to the First Ladies very exclusive club,” she wrote. “My children were older and therefore I did not have the problems you do. Whatever you decide to do is your business and yours alone. Living in the White House is a joy and their only job is to make you happy. If you decide to stay in NYC that will be fine also. When you come to the White House let your son bring a friend. That is my unasked for advice. God Bless you.”

    After Trump’s election a friend in Maine gave Barbara Bush a Trump countdown clock as a joke, the new biography details. The clock displayed how many days, hours, minutes and seconds remained in Trump’s term. The former first lady put it on a bedroom table, later bringing it to Houston. The clock was by her bedside until she died, Page wrote.

    “I’m trying not to think about it,” Barbara Bush told Page in a 2017 interview just before the first anniversary of Trump’s election. “We’re a strong country, and I think it will all work out.”

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/new-barbara-bush-biography-details-dislike-trump-n987816

    Attorney Michael Avenatti tells CBS News he is “nervous” and “scared” about the possibility of going to prison, but denies he did anything wrong. On Monday he was charged in New York with attempting to extort tens of millions of dollars from Nike. On the same day, he was also charged with bank and wire fraud in California.

    If convicted in both cases, Avenatti could face up to nearly 100 years in prison. He maintains his innocence and told us he believes he will be exonerated.

    “Did you try to extort Nike for millions of dollars?” CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan asked Avenatti, less than a day after he was released on $300,000 bond.

    “No, and any suggestion is absolutely absurd. Nike knew, from the very first moment that I had any contact with Nike, that I was insisting that the truth about what Nike had done be disclosed to federal prosecutors and investigators,” he responded.

    “What is the truth?”

    “The truth is, for years Nike and its executives have been funneling payments to amateur players, high school players and to their handlers and family members in an effort to get them to go to colleges that were Nike colleges and ultimately hopefully to the NBA so they can sign a shoe deal with Nike,” Avenatti said.

    But federal prosecutors maintain a different version of the truth.

    “Avenatti was not acting as an attorney. A suit and tie doesn’t mask the fact that at its core, this was an old-fashioned shakedown,” said Geoffrey Berman, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

    They allege Avenatti attempted to use his platform to blackmail the apparel giant.

    “The complaint does suggest that you asked for up to $20 million – 1.5 for your client – and at least $20 million. And that you requested you be retained to do an internal investigation. And that if not you and they hired someone else you stand to make more money,” Duncan said.

    “Yeah, I — I — I — not gonna get into the specifics of this,” Avenatti said. “But what I will say is the way this has been framed is not accurate. It’s just not accurate. And in fact, from the very first moment that we had any meeting with Nike, we made it clear that under no circumstances would we participate in anything that did not require full disclosure to investigators and the federal government.”

    As for the wire and bank fraud charges in California, the complaint said he tried to embezzle $1.6 million from his client.

    “The client who is accusing me of embezzlement is currently on felony probation in California,” Avenatti said. “You know what he was convicted of? Multiple accounts of obtaining money under false pretenses. It turns out — and I didn’t know this at the time — that he has an extensive criminal background and rap sheet associated with his conduct. So again, nowhere does that appear in the complaint. So there’s gonna be a lot of evidence. There’s gonna be a lot of facts that have come — going to come to light.”

    “You’re facing — if convicted on all of these charges — up to the rest of your life in prison. Are you nervous?” Duncan asked.

    “Well, of course I’m nervous,” Avenatti responded.

    “Are you scared? Are you concerned? I mean, tell us I guess as someone who, again, has a history of representing people and now you’re on the other side facing some serious charges,” Duncan said.

    “I am nervous. I’m concerned. I’m scared,” Avenatti said.

    “But you also seem confident.”

    “I am confident because I believe the facts are on my side,” Avenatti said.

    In a statement, Nike told CBS News when it became aware of Avenatti’s “plans to extort the company,” it “immediately reported” it “along with the information he shared, to federal prosecutors.” Nike said it has been “cooperating with the government’s investigation into NCAA basketball for over a year” and encouraged Avenatti “to share any information he believes he has with the government.”

    In a statement, the NCAA said it will “always welcome any firsthand, credible, lawfully obtained and disclosed information of NCAA rules violations.”

    Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-avenatti-charged-with-extortion-bank-wire-fraud-the-facts-are-on-my-side/

    Beto O’Rourke traveled Friday and Saturday to South Carolina, where the job of any primary contender is to secure the support of the nearly two thirds of Democratic primary voters there who are black.

    But with the exception of a stop at a historically black college, the former Texas congressman was for the most part turning out white people.

    The few hundred people who attended O’Rourke campaign stops Friday at the University of South Carolina and a Charleston brewery were predominantly white. Attendees at those events, including a few “Beto-curious” Republicans, liked his youthful energy but were not committed to supporting him in the critical primary, the third in the nation.

    At South Carolina State University, the historically black university, Beto played the white-guy-who-gets-it role, imploring his audience to understand that while he does not have firsthand experience with racial inequality in wealth distribution, healthcare, and incarceration, he absolutely understands it.

    “I’ve not led your life – a white man who’s had a privilege in my life of not enduring any one of those things that I just described,” O’Rourke told the crowd. “But I’ve listened to those who have, and I’m listening to you today.”

    O’Rourke mentioned legalizing marijuana, changing voter ID laws, expanding Medicaid, and tying federal funds for local law enforcement to “full accountability, transparency, and reporting for use of force.”

    SCSU students generally reacted kindly to O’Rourke’s determined effort to please.

    “I do feel O’Rourke has a mentality, has a campaign not only garnered around all people, but also restoring the African-American community,” Israel Robinson, a student at SCSU and president of the NAACP campus chapter, told the Washington Examiner. He also likes Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

    Crowds at USC and SCSU consisted mostly of students who stopped at O’Rourke’s events between classes, interested in his message and attracted to the spectacle of a presidential candidate speaking on campus.

    The outdoor, standing-room-only venues with no formal check-in process gave the O’Rourke events an informal feel. His voice was hoarse from eight days of campaigning. At the Charleston event, some attendees left early because it was hard to hear O’Rourke from a small amplifier next to him on a table that he used as a stage.

    Booker, by contrast, stormed the state Saturday and attracted a significant number of black attendees, as well as a good share of whites, at well-organized campaign stops in Rock Hill and Columbia with ample seating. He is the first Democratic presidential candidate to earn an endorsement from a sitting South Carolina lawmaker – state Rep. John King, former chairman of the state’s Legislative Black Caucus.

    Booker, an African-American former mayor or Newark, N.J., who chooses to live in a low-income community there, sounded much less awkward demonstrating he understands racial inequality.

    “I come from a history of people being disrespected, disregarded,” Booker told a crowd of a few hundred at Freedom Temple Ministries in Rock Hill. He shared a story about discrimination his parents decades ago endured when trying to buy a home: They were told that a house was sold when they tried to tour it, but it was available when a white family later looked at it.

    Booker had stopped at other South Carolina churches since launching his campaign. Many congregations are politically involved, and some churches shuttle members to the polls on Election Day.

    On a stage decorated with a hand-painted “Cory For 2020” banner in front of attendees holding campaign signs, Booker touted his accomplishments as mayor of Newark and as a senator. He focused his message on unity as an antidote for inequality.

    “We weren’t called to be a nation of tolerance,” Booker said. “Go home tonight and tell somebody you tolerate them, see how they treat you. We are called to be a nation of love.”

    Booker talked about his “baby bonds” bill to address poverty, called for universal background checks for gun sales, and proposed student loan forgiveness for teachers. He said that a 70 percent marginal tax rate was too high but that he wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.

    Several attendees at Booker’s events thought that he came off as better-versed in policy details than O’Rourke.

    Ashley V. Wilkerson, a children’s book author and mother of two young children who saw Booker at the Cecil Tillis Center in Columbia, told the Washington Examiner that he was “far more comprehensive, far more detailed” than several other candidates she’s seen come through South Carolina. “He gave a lot of background knowledge and personal connections to a lot of the topics.” She also likes Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sen. Kamala Harris of California.

    The South Carolina primary is scheduled for Feb. 29, 2020.

    Blacks made up 61 percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters in 2016, up from 55 percent in 2008. An Emerson College poll released March 2, before O’Rourke announced his candidacy, found that Booker had six percent Democratic primary support in South Carolina and O’Rourke had five percent. Former Vice President Joe Biden led the field with 37 percent.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/south-carolina-and-the-unbearable-whiteness-of-being-beto-orourke

    LONDON (Reuters) – The British parliament will try to find an alternative to Theresa May’s twice-defeated Brexit deal on Wednesday as the prime minister readied a last ditch effort to win over rebels in her party, possibly by giving a timetable for quitting.

    As the United Kingdom’s three-year Brexit crisis spins towards its finale, it is still uncertain how, when or even if it will leave the European Union, though May hopes to bring her deal back to parliament later this week.

    With British politics at fever pitch, lawmakers on Wednesday grab control to have so-called indicative votes on Brexit, with 16 options ranging from a much closer alignment with the EU to leaving without a deal or revoking the divorce papers.

    Just two days before the United Kingdom had been originally due to leave the EU on March 29, some of the most influential Brexit-supporting rebels, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, have reluctantly fallen in behind May’s deal.

    The price for May could be her job, though it was unclear if even that would be enough to get her deal approved.

    “We can guarantee delivering on Brexit if this week he and others in this House support the deal,” May told Andrew Bridgen, a Brexit-supporting lawmaker in her party who has called on her to resign.

    It had been uncertain whether May would bring her deal back to parliament this week, having said she would only do so if it had sufficient support.

    She is expected to indicate a date for her departure at a showdown with Conservative Party lawmakers at a meeting of the 1922 Committee in Westminster at around 1700 GMT.

    Before that, lawmakers start a debate on what sort of EU divorce the world’s fifth largest economy should go for. They will vote at 1900 GMT on a ballot paper for as many proposals as they wish. Results will be announced after 2100 GMT.

    “The prime minister might get a deal over the line on Thursday or Friday,” said Oliver Letwin, a Conservative former cabinet minister who has led parliament’s unusual power grab.

    If not, lawmakers will try again on Monday to find a majority for an alternative, Letwin said.

    The uncertainty around Brexit, the United Kingdom’s most significant political and economic move since World War Two, has left allies and investors aghast.

    European Council chief Donald Tusk urged the European Parliament to be open to a long Brexit extension and not to ignore the British people who wanted to remain in the EU.

    The campaign chief of the 2016 “Vote Leave” group, Dominic Cummings, said opponents of EU membership should start rebuilding the network and would win by a bigger margin if there was another referendum.

    BREXIT FINALE?

    Opponents fear Brexit will divide the West as it grapples with both the unconventional U.S. presidency of Donald Trump and growing assertiveness from Russia and China.

    Supporters say while the divorce might bring some short-term instability, in the longer term it will allow the United Kingdom to thrive if cut free from what they cast as a doomed experiment in European unity.

    May’s deal, an attempt to soothe the divide of the 2016 referendum by leaving the formal structures of the EU while preserving close economic and security ties, was defeated in parliament by 149 votes on March 12 and by 230 votes on Jan. 15.

    Dozens of pro-Brexit Conservative lawmakers are still opposed to May’s deal, one of the party’s lawmakers, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters, adding the “hardcore” was holding firm.

    “There is no way we are going to vote for it, it’s just not going to happen,” Conservative lawmaker Mark Francois said.

    It is unclear if parliament’s attempt to find an alternative will produce a majority. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow will select which of the proposals will be put to a vote.

    Among the 16 options that could be voted on are a public vote on a deal, an enhanced Norway-style deal and Labour’s plan for a customs union and close alignment with the Single Market.

    Brexit supporters fear the entire divorce is at risk. The government could try to ignore the votes, though if May’s deal fails then an election could be the only way to avoid parliament’s alternative proposal.

    She still hopes to get her deal, struck with the EU in November after more than two years of negotiation, approved.

    BREXIT DEAL?

    To succeed, May needs at least 75 lawmakers to come over – dozens of rebels in her Conservative Party, some opposition Labour Party lawmakers and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up her minority government.

    The Sun newspaper said Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, told May the party’s lawmakers want her to set out a timetable to quit before the summer.

    As Brexit supporters came behind her deal, the DUP said it was not willing to risk the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    Slideshow (5 Images)

    “I am now willing to support it if the Democratic Unionist Party does,” Rees-Mogg said. Boris Johnson indicated he could come behind the deal if May gave an exit date.

    If May does not get the deal approved this week, London will have until April 12 to offer a new plan or decide to leave without a treaty. If she can get it approved this week, a departure date of May 22 will apply.

    European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said it was unclear how Brexit would unfold.

    “If you compare Great Britain to a sphinx then the sphinx would seem to me an open book. We will see in the course of this week how this book will speak,” he said.

    Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; additional reporting by Kylie MacLellan, Andrew MacAskill, William Schomberg, Elisabeth O’Leary, and James Davey; Editing by Janet Lawrence

    Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu/brexit-in-play-mays-job-on-the-line-as-parliament-tries-multiple-choice-idUSKCN1R80RM




    For sheer chutzpah, there’s no beating Donald Trump. First he declares himself totally exonerated when special counsel Robert Mueller’s report apparently stopped well short of that, and now he’s demanding a counter-investigation of those involved with the probe.

    Thus he’s using his attorney general’s summary of an as-yet-unreleased report to attack his shadowy supposed persecutors, who “have done some very, very evil things . . . some treasonous things,” including having “lied to Congress.”

    The exoneration claim comes after a probe that revealed just what a group of scoundrels and scapegraces Candidate Trump had gathered around him. Just to review, Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman, is in prison on financial fraud charges. Rick Gates, another top campaign operative, has pleaded out to charges related to money laundering and fraud, as well as lying to the FBI. Michael Flynn, a top foreign policy campaign aide and his brief-lived national security adviser, has admitted to lying to the FBI about contact with Russia. So too has George Papadopoulos, a lesser campaign aide. Trump associate Roger Stone is charged with lying, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering.

    Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, has copped to a range of charges, including lying to Congress and paying hush money to two women Trump had affairs with, in order to keep them quiet during the campaign. Prison impends in May.

    That’s exoneration, Trump style.


    You stagger out of a sea of sleaze and declare yourself Mr. Clean.

    What is accurate to say at this juncture is that Robert Mueller has apparently cleared Trump and his campaign of engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Russian operatives. And that Attorney General William Barr, taking advantage of Mueller’s decision not to offer a judgment about whether the president obstructed justice, has declared there was no such obstruction. Little surprise that Barr would come down that way; Trump picked him after Barr submitted a memo maintaining that a president couldn’t be prosecuted on obstruction charges for acts within his discretionary power, regardless of the intent behind those actions.

    So how should Democrats treat the Mueller report, if it indeed says what Barr maintains? As a firm no when it comes to impeachment, but not as foreclosing further inquiry about Trump and his possible business interests in, and financial ties with, Russia.

    Which is to say, far differently from the cynical and shameless way Trump and his allies treated special counsel Mueller and, before that, former FBI director James Comey. For months, Trump charged that Mueller was leading a “witch hunt,” an attempted “take-down” of his administration by the “Deep State,” something echoed by a number of Trumpian hacks and lackeys. Like, say, Sean Hannity, who warned his audience that Mueller was “out to get Trump at any cost,” leading “an all hands on deck effort to totally malign and if possible impeach the president of the United States.”

    Now that Mueller’s report has (apparently) come down in a way that Trump finds congenial, the president is changing his tune from that absurd, democracy-eroding rhetoric. Asked on Monday if he thought Mueller had acted honorably, Trump answered, “Yes, he did.”

    What? How could that be? How could someone leading a witch hunt determined to find collusion, regardless of whether any occurred, have concluded in Trump’s favor on that question?

    That, of course, is exactly the way Trump and the Trumpian media treated Comey as well. When the FBI first began investigating Hillary Clinton, Comey was a fearless, straight-arrow lawman. When the FBI director decided not to charge her, he was wrongly protecting her. When Comey reopened the investigation in the final days of the campaign, he was finally doing the right thing. When the FBI decided the new material didn’t warrant prosecution, Comey was again part of a rigged system protecting Clinton.

    Now some of the biggest Trumpswabs are, preposterously, demanding that the mainstream media apologize to Trump.

    There is an apology owed here, to be sure.

    It should be from Trump and the cross-eyed conspiratorialists to one Robert Swan Mueller III.

    Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeScotLehigh.

    Source Article from https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/03/26/the-apology-owed-mueller-probe/zOqliqfpBL2w8AU0kKVupK/story.html

    Education Secretary Betsy DeVosElizabeth (Betsy) Dee DeVosDeVos opens investigation into universities tied to college admissions scandal: report Celebrity college scandal exposes deeper issues in academic system Trump signs executive order on campus free speech MORE defended budget cuts to programs including the Special Olympics on Tuesday.

    Appearing before a House subcommittee Tuesday to review the department’s proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, DeVos said, “We had to make some difficult decisions.”

    DeVos’s remarks came in response to questions from Rep. Mark PocanMark William PocanTwo lawmakers just debated the merits of Nickelback on the House floor On The Money: Mnuchin urges Congress to raise debt limit ‘as soon as possible’ | NY officials subpoena Trump Org’s longtime insurer | Dems offer bill to tax financial transactions Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez back ‘end the forever war’ pledge MORE (D-Wis.), who pressed her on the amount of kids the budget cut would impact.

    “I don’t know the number of kids,” DeVos said before Pocan answered that 272,000 kids would be impacted.

    “I think Special Olympics is an awesome organization, one that is well supported by the philanthropic sector as well,” DeVos said.

    The budget proposed by President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos claims he was pressured to sign plea deal Tlaib asking colleagues to support impeachment investigation resolution Trump rips ‘Mainstream Media’: ‘They truly are the Enemy of the People’ MORE and supported by DeVos calls for nearly $18 million in cuts to the Special Olympics.

    Last year, DeVos donated a portion of her salary to the Special Olympics, according to Politico.

    Tuesday was DeVos’s first appearance before a Democrat-controlled House panel.

    Formerly the chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, DeVos was approved as Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Education following a contentious confirmation hearing with strong pushback from Republicans.

    DeVos has long been an advocate for school choice, and her proposed budget includes increased charter school funding.

    Source Article from https://thehill.com/policy/finance/435918-betsy-devos-defends-special-olympics-budget-cuts-we-had-to-make-some-difficult

    Education Secretary Betsy DeVos struggled before a congressional subcommittee on Tuesday to defend at least $7 billion in proposed cuts to education programs, including eliminating all $18 million in federal funding for the Special Olympics.

    Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan pushed DeVos on her proposed cuts to the Special Olympics and other special education programs during her testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

    When Pocan asked whether she knew how many children would be affected by the elimination of federal funding to the Special Olympics, DeVos said she did not know.

    “I’ll answer it for you, that’s OK, no problem,” Pocan said. “It’s 272,000 kids that are affected.”

    DeVos responded, “I think that the Special Olympics is an awesome organization, one that is well supported by the philanthropic sector as well.”

    Pocan at that point interrupted the education secretary to point out that the proposed budget includes a 26 percent reduction to state grants for special education and millions of dollars in cuts to programs for students who are blind.

    After referring to his own nephews with autism, Pocan asked DeVos, “What is it that we have a problem with, with children who are in special education?”

    She replied, “Supporting children with special needs, we have continued to hold that funding at a level amount and in the context of a budget proposal that is a 10 percent reduction.”

    The congressman stopped DeVos and claimed she was not answering his question.

    Pocan wasn’t the only House member to criticize DeVos over the proposed cuts to special education.

    Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., noted that past proposed budgets also attempted to eliminate federal funding for the Special Olympics.

    “I still can’t understand why you would go after disabled children in your budget,” Lee said Tuesday. “You zero that out. It’s appalling.”

    Competitors in rhythmic gymnastics dance during the Special Olympics World Games in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on March 20, 2019.Karim Sahib / AFP – Getty Images

    The Trump administration’s proposed education budget includes about $2 billion in cuts to Pell Grants on top of billions in reductions to about 30 other programs, according to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee.

    Trump also targeted education spending in both of his previous budget proposals, but Congress actually increased spending for the department’s programs that help students with learning disabilities last year, according to the National Center for Learning Disabilities.

    The Special Olympics is the world’s largest sports organization for people with intellectual and physical disabilities. Founded in 1968 by Eunice Kennedy Shriver, it works with more than 5 million athletes across 174 countries, according to the Special Olympics website.

    The organization receives some funding from the U.S. government but also has sponsorships from private companies. Some of the program’s listed sponsors include United Airlines, Toyota and The Procter & Gamble Co.

    The Special Olympics did not immediately respond to a request for comment from NBC News.

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/betsy-devos-grilled-congress-over-proposed-elimination-special-olympics-funding-n987751

    March 26 at 11:59 AM

    The European Parliament on Tuesday approved a sweeping set of changes to copyright laws that could force big tech companies to be legally responsible for the content that users upload to their websites.

    Once the rules go into effect, Internet platforms will have to be much more active in policing content posted by ordinary users. Advocates of the law say it is needed to rein in an anything-goes approach to intellectual property online. Critics say it will crimp expression on the Internet and could lead to censorship.

    The new rules, approved in a 348-to-274 vote, would force Google News and other aggregators to pay publishers for certain types of links to their articles. Services that offer users the chance to upload their own content, such as YouTube and Facebook, could be liable for videos that violate copyrights. E.U. governments are expected to approve the rules next month, which would put them on course to go into effect in two years.

    The European law differs from U.S. rules, which provide broad impunity to tech companies when copyrighted material appears on their platforms, so long as they meet certain restrictions, including removing infringing content in a timely manner and taking action against repeat offenders.

    But advocates and critics agree that the changes in Europe could create a fundamental shift in the way the Internet operates, and both sides lobbied heavily ahead of the decision. Musicians, news publishers and other content creators fought for the new law. Internet freedom advocates, along with big tech companies, scrambled to fend it off.

    “Parliament has chosen to put an end to the existing digital Wild West by establishing modern rules that are in step with technological development,” European Parliament President Antonio Tajani said in a statement.

    Although Tuesday’s changes are a wide-ranging overhaul of European copyright law — the first in two decades — two aspects received the most attention. Article 11, dubbed the “link tax” or “snippet tax” by critics, would require aggregators to pay licensing fees when they include excerpts of content when they link to articles on other sites.

    Another element of the law, Article 13, makes Internet companies legally responsible for the content uploaded to their platforms. The companies say they will have to implement filters that inevitably will also snag legal content alongside copyright violations.

    The law sparked protests among young people in Germany ahead of its passage. Wikipedia and other websites blacked out parts of their content in some E.U. countries to object to the possibility of changes.

    A “dark day for Internet freedom,” tweeted Julia Reda, a German member of the European Parliament who helped organize opposition to the bill.

    The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group that represents tech giants including Amazon, Facebook and Google. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Rules requiring sites to pay a “snippet tax” for excerpting news stories “risks restricting freedom of information online,” the CCIA said, while the new copyright rules increase “the incentives for platforms to over-filter and over-remove users’ uploads.”

    “We fear it will harm online innovation and restrict online freedoms in Europe. We urge Member States to thoroughly assess and try to minimize the consequences of the text when implementing it,” Maud Sacquet, senior policy manager for the CCIA in Europe, said in a statement.

    Google responded in its own statement: “The Copyright Directive is improved but will still lead to legal uncertainty and will hurt Europe’s creative and digital economies. The details matter, and we look forward to working with policy makers, publishers, creators and rights holders as EU member states move to implement these new rules.”

    Tony Romm in San Francisco contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europes-controversial-new-copyright-law-unsettles-us-tech-giants/2019/03/26/f8457b7a-4fd2-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html

    After the conclusion of Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump, many mainstream media outlets are being criticized for their coverage during the last two years of the probe.

    Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the report was released on Sunday and declared the investigation revealed there was no proof President Trump and his administration colluded with Russian officials to influence the 2016 election.

    Now that the investigation has concluded, some outlets are under fire for covering the probe as if it was an absolute certainty wrongdoing by the president would be uncovered.

    Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, host of Media Buzz, weighed in on the repercussions of the last two years of media coverage during an appearance on “America’s Newsroom” Tuesday.

    HOUSE DEMS DEMAND FULL MUELLER REPORT IN ONE WEEK 

    “Over the last two years the mainstream media have provided massive, relentless coverage of the Mueller probe, overwhelmingly negative towards the president at times, overhyped, overwrought, and in some instances, just plain wrong,” he said.

    “There has been substantial damage, in my view, to the credibility of many of these mainstream media organizations.

    “It’s fascinating to me that you have critics on the left, as well as the right, saying today that the press just went way too far.”

    President Trump has repeatedly attacked the media, labelling it the “enemy of the American people” throughout the duration of the Mueller investigation, and was quick to slam media coverage of him.

    TRUMP DOSSIER, MICHAEL FLYNN TESTIMONY, MICHAEL COHEN IN PRAGUE: STORIES THAT FELL FLAT DURING MUELLER PROBE

    SCHIFF FACES MOUNTING GOP CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OVER COLLUSION CLAIMS

    “The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE,” he tweeted on Tuesday. “For two years they pushed the Russian Collusion Delusion when they always knew there was No Collusion. They truly are the Enemy of the People and the Real Opposition Party!”

    President Trump consistently labelled the investigation as a witch hunt, despite the fact that 37 people with some connection to him and his adminstration now face criminal indictments.

    Kurtz argues, however, that the way in which the media presented information about the investigation was inappropriate.

    “The media convicted Donald Trump and Robert Mueller obviously did not,” he said.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “It was a very big story and it needed to be covered. But it’s how you cover it – the tone, the volume, the way in which every minor development got cranked up to 11 – that’s where I fault the media, that’s where, I think, there ought to be some revelations here.

    “Clearly, this was a massive failure,” Kurtz continued.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/media-criticized-mueller-investigation-no-collusion

    For now, the political fight over Mr. Trump’s national emergency declaration shifts to the courts, where a number of states and organizations have joined lawsuits challenging the legal merits of the order. Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, warned in a statement that the 20 states involved in legal action “are ready to fight long and hard to stop his fabricated emergency in its tracks.”

    The judicial machinations will most likely prevent the president and Pentagon officials from immediately tapping military funds for border wall construction, and the Defense Department has yet to prepare a final list of what projects could have funding delays. It is unclear when the list will be available.

    In the interim, the Pentagon has taken the first steps to begin diverting money from other Defense Department funds toward constructing fencing at the border. On Monday, Patrick M. Shanahan, the acting defense secretary, authorized the transfer of up to $1 billion from military personnel funding toward the construction of 57 miles of border fencing, improving roads and adding lighting in Yuma, Ariz., and El Paso, according to a letter sent to the Department of Homeland Security.

    Military officials have said that they do not need congressional approval for such an action. But across Capitol Hill on Tuesday, lawmakers pressed Pentagon officials about the potential effect on military construction and the merits of a wall at the southwestern border.

    “To look at the Pentagon as a piggy bank, slush fund, where you can grab money for something when you need it really undermines the credibility of the entire D.O.D. budget,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

    At a hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Smith warned Mr. Shanahan and General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Congress would respond to the reallocation of funds without congressional approval by curtailing the privilege of such reallocations in the spending bills for the next fiscal year.

    Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/national-emergency-vote.html

    <!– –>

    A Green New Deal proposal backed by numerous Democrats failed to advance in the Senate on Tuesday as Democrats protested what they called a political show vote orchestrated by majority Republicans.

    The nonbinding resolution, which calls on the United States to make an ambitious effort to slash its use of fossil fuels to fight climate change, fell short in a procedural vote. The Senate did not proceed to debating the measure, as 57 senators voted against it and 43 Democrats and independents who caucus with them — nearly all of the Democratic caucus — voted “present.” Four senators who vote with Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama and independent Angus King of Maine — voted against the resolution.

    By voting “present,” Democrats hoped not to go on the record on a bill that had no realistic chance of passing, even if they support the concept of a Green New Deal. The six Democratic senators running for president next year — who co-sponsored the original resolution introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — did not take a position on the measure Tuesday.

    Democrats have pushed for drastic action to combat climate change as the planet warms and severe weather events such as recent Midwestern flooding have devastated U.S. communities. They say the U.S. has only a limited window to combat climate change and address an existential threat.

    Republicans have gleefully criticized the Green New Deal, warning about Democratic efforts to take away anything from cars to hamburgers. They accuse Democrats of a drift toward socialism spurred in part by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a champion of the measure in the House.

    Ahead of the vote Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of using political theater to hide his lack of a plan to address a warming planet.

    “Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change. With this exercise, the Republican majority has made a mockery of the legislative process,” the New York Democrat said Tuesday.

    McConnell aimed to put Democrats on the record about whether they support the plan. He sees it as something that will fail to resonate with centrist or independent voters, who some senators will need to keep their seats — or win swing states in a presidential election next year.

    The Kentucky Republican said Tuesday that he believes in climate change and wants to address it through unspecified “technology and innovation.”

    “This is nonsense,” McConnell said of the Green New Deal. “And if you’re going to sign on to nonsense, you ought to have to vote for nonsense.”

    President Donald Trump, meanwhile, plans to use the proposal against Democrats as he runs for re-election next year. Six Democratic senators — Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — are running to challenge the president next year.

    During a Senate Republican policy lunch Tuesday, Trump signaled he wants to use the Green New Deal as a cudgel in 2020, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham.

    “He said make sure you don’t kill it too much, because I want to run against it,” the South Carolina Republican said, according to NBC News.

    Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-mcconnell-led-senate-vote.html

    “);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

    (CNN)A Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft from the fleet that was grounded after two deadly crashes made an emergency landing in Florida on Tuesday.

      Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/us/boeing-737-max-emergency-landing/index.html

      A surprise move by the Trump administration aimed at striking down the Affordable Care Act thrust the partisan battle over health care into the middle of the 2020 campaign on Tuesday, handing Democrats a potential political gift on an issue that damaged Republicans badly in last year’s midterm elections.

      In a new court filing, the Justice Department argued that the ACA, also known as Obamacare, should be thrown out in its entirety, including provisions protecting millions of Americans with preexisting health conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health-care plans.

      President Trump praised the move during a lunch with Senate Republicans, and suggested the GOP should embrace a new congressional battle over health-care policy ahead of the 2020 elections.

      “Let me tell you exactly what my message is: The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care,” he told reporters before the lunch. “You watch.”

      But neither the White House nor Republicans in Congress have offered a new plan to replace the comprehensive Obama-era law, which was passed nearly a decade ago and has grown in popularity since Trump was elected.

      Democrats immediately seized on the administration’s filing, calling it the latest attempt by Republicans to strip health insurance from Americans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday also unveiled Democratic plans for further bolstering the ACA.

      “Trump and his administration are trying to take health care away from tens of millions of Americans — again,” Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) said on Twitter, one of several tweets by presidential candidates hitting Trump on health care. “We must fight back again with everything we’ve got. And in 2020, we need to elect a president who will make health care a right.”

      As recently as November, after Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in an election dominated by the health-care issue, Republican congressional leaders had suggested they planned to move on from their years-long efforts to repeal Obamacare.

      But Trump suggested he wants to revisit the issue, after two unsuccessful efforts in 2017 to undo former president Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement. Trump has long fumed over those failures, and as recently as last week was attacking the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) for his pivotal role in quashing the effort.

      Trump spent much of his time at the Senate lunch talking about health care, according to several senators present.

      “If there’s a message to be learned from 2018 on policy, it’s health care,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters after the lunch Tuesday. “Let’s become the party of health care.”

      “He thinks that that’s the one area where we’ve fallen short and he wants to see us address it,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.). “He made that very clear.”

      But by resurfacing old battles about stripping away popular elements of the current health-care system, Trump is likely to embolden and unite Democrats who seek to make health care a top issue in 2020, said Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report. Democrats who have been divided in recent months over proposed Medicare-for-all legislation can now coalesce around the idea of protecting the ACA’s most popular provisions, she said.

      “If you’re a Republican thinking about 2020 right now, you want to be on offense on health care, not defense,” she said. “And the only way to do that is to make the focus on what Democrats want to do — on Medicare-for-all — rather than making it on what the president and the White House are suggesting.”

      The president’s comments at the Senate lunch came after the Justice Department backed invalidating Obamacare in a legal filing Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, where an appeal is pending in a case challenging the law’s constitutionality. A federal judge in Texas ruled in December that the law’s individual mandate “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power” and further found that the remaining portions of the law are void. He based his judgment on changes to the nation’s tax laws made by congressional Republicans in 2017.

      Republican senators offered differing responses to the administration’s new court filing, though none offered support for throwing out all of Obamacare without a ready replacement for its most popular elements.

      Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), a moderate Republican who has voted against multiple bills dismantling the ACA, said Tuesday she was “very disappointed” in the administration’s legal position.

      “It is highly unusual for the Department of Justice not to defend duly enacted laws, which the Affordable Care Act certainly was,” Collins said. “This decision to even go more broadly in failing to defend the law is very disappointing.”

      Some Republican senators downplayed the idea that the 2010 health-care law was immediately at risk and said they would work to make sure those with preexisting conditions would be protected no matter what.

      Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who backed previous lawsuits seeking to deem the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, said he still supported eliminating the law.

      “I think Obamacare should be gone,” he said. “We’ve got to cover people with preexisting conditions apart from Obamacare, which is what I talked about a lot.”

      The fate of Obamacare could — once again — hinge on the Supreme Court, which has installed two conservative justices since it voted to uphold the landmark health-care law in 2012.

      If the courts were to overturn the ACA, around 20 million Americans would lose their health coverage, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy think tank. The coverage gains were chiefly through the offer of private subsidized plans in state-based marketplaces and through the expansion of Medicaid in many states to people earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

      There would be ripple effects throughout the health-care industry and insurance landscape as well. Those with workplace plans could be affected, as employers would be allowed to scale back certain medical benefits, and people with preexisting conditions buying coverage on their own would no longer be guaranteed access to coverage at no extra cost.

      Democrats were eager to highlight the potential damage from a ruling to strike down Obamacare — and to change the subject after a summary of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings did not establish that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Some pointed out that relentless focus on health care helped Democrats win control of the House last year.

      “I just won my Senate race and I talked about health care, a lot,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

      While many Democratic presidential candidates have embraced health-care proposals that go beyond the Affordable Care Act to offer universal coverage, defending the law against Republican efforts to dismantle it has proven to be a potent rallying cry and an effective unifying tool.

      Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has frequently emphasized his support for Medicare-for-all in his presidential campaign, but Tuesday he sought to defend Obamacare from the Trump administration.

      “Our goal is to pass Medicare-for-all and make health care a right,” he wrote on Twitter. “Today our job is to defend the Affordable Care Act from relentless attacks by the Trump administration.”

      Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is frequently asked during town hall meetings about health care, a topic that has come up about a dozen times at events across the country, according to a tally by her presidential campaign. Warren supports Medicare-for-all but has also spoken in favor of protecting Obamacare.

      “I’ll say it for the zillionth time: We will not let the Trump administration rip health care away from millions of Americans,” she said Tuesday on Twitter. “Not now. Not ever.”

      Sean Sullivan and Paige Winfield Cunningham contributed to this report.

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-surprises-republicans–and-pleases-democrats–with-push-to-revive-health-care-battle/2019/03/26/068cc2c4-4fd3-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

      In his first interview since being arrested on multiple extortion and fraud charges, Michael Avenatti told CBS News he is “scared” and “concerned” about facing a possible long prison term. Watch an excerpt above.

      “Of course I’m nervous,” he told correspondent Jericka Duncan in a sit-down that will air Wednesday on  CBS This Morning. “I am nervous. I’m concerned. I’m scared.  I feel terrible for my family. I feel bad for my friends. Most people are sticking by me. They know me, they know what I’m all about. So I’ve been very fortunate in that regard.”

      Avenatti, who gained notoriety for representing Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, is more subdued in the clip that we’re used to seeing. That’s not surprising given that he faces potentially decades in prison after being arrested Monday on wire and bank fraud charges out of Los Angeles and counts of extortion against Nike brought by the Southern District of New York. All are federal felonies. He was released after posting $300,000 bond in Manhattan.

      “Sure I’m nervous, I’m scared — I’m all those things. And if I wasn’t, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense.”

      More clips from the interview will air tonight on CBS Evening News with Jeff Glor.

      Source Article from https://deadline.com/2019/03/michael-avenatti-cbs-interview-first-since-arrest-1202583220/

      Purdue Pharma, headquartered in Stamford, Conn., the Sackler family, which owns the company, settled a case brought by the Oklahoma attorney general.

      Jessica Hill/AP


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Jessica Hill/AP

      Purdue Pharma, headquartered in Stamford, Conn., the Sackler family, which owns the company, settled a case brought by the Oklahoma attorney general.

      Jessica Hill/AP

      Updated at 3:20 p.m.

      The first of more than 1,600 lawsuits pending against Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid OxyContin, has been settled.

      The drugmaker has agreed to pay $270 million to fund addiction research and treatment in Oklahoma and pay legal fees.

      Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter filed suit two years ago alleging Purdue helped ignite the opioid crisis with aggressive marketing of the blockbuster drug OxyContin and deceptive claims that downplayed the dangers of addiction.

      Hunter had sought $20 billion dollars in damages against Purdue and other pharmaceutical firms.

      The settlement comes one day after the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied Purdue’s appeal for a delay of the trial. It is expected to begin on May 28, with the remaining defendants, including Johnson & Johnson and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

      A judge has said the trial can be televised.

      “We see this agreement with Oklahoma as an extension of our commitment to help drive solutions to the opioid addiction crisis,” said Purdue Pharma CEO Dr. Craig Landau, in statement. “We pledge Purdue’s ongoing support to the National Center and the life-saving work it will do for generations to come.”

      Landau refers to a new National Center for Addiction Studies and Treatment to be housed a Oklahoma State University in Tulsa. It will be funded by $102.5 million from Purdue and $75 million from the Sackler family, which owns the drug company.

      “The agreement reached today will provide assistance to individuals nationwide who desperately need these services — rather than squandering resources on protracted litigation,” the Sackler family said in a statement. “We have profound compassion for those who are affected by addiction and are committed to playing a constructive role in the coordinated effort to save lives.”

      Members of the Sackler family, some of whom were expected to be called to testify at trial, are reportedly contributing to the settlement. Court documents filed in Massachusetts show the Sacklers made more than $4 billion on opioid sales between 2008 and 2016.

      The settlement also includes $20 million for medicines to be used by patients in the center, $12.5 million for counties and municipalities in Oklahoma and $60 million for legal fees.

      Some lawyers suggest the deal in Oklahoma is the beginning of many more in cases that stretch across the nation. Attorneys representing more than 1,600 lawsuits consolidated in a federal court in Northern Ohio say the resolution in Oklahoma reflects the strength of claims against Purdue.

      “We have long alleged that Purdue Pharma ignited today’s epidemic by starting the disturbing practice of deceptive opioid marketing, convincing both doctors and the American public to trust that these drugs were safe and virtually non-addictive,” said plaintiffs’ attorneys Paul J. Hanly Jr., Paul T. Farrell Jr. and Joe Rice, in a statement. “Purdue’s wrongdoing, however, does not stand alone.”

      There are nearly two dozen defendants named in the consolidated opioid lawsuits.

      The U.S. and individual states are beginning to tally health care, incarceration and law enforcement costs tied to epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the burden based on prescription drug misuse alone, in 2013, was $78.5 billion. Oklahoma estimated the opioid crisis would cost the state nearly $9 billion, according to the Washington Post. In Massachusetts, the costs, along with lost productivity, were $15.2 billion in 2017.

      The CDC says a record 47,600 people died after an opioid overdose in 2017.

      Purdue’s CEO has said the company is exploring bankruptcy amid rising pressures. The U.S. House Oversight Committee has asked Purdue to produce a trove of documents by April 4 about the marketing and sales strategies for OxyContin.

      Members of some families that lost loved ones to an opioid overdose say they are disturbed by the settlement.

      Rhonda Lotti, of Watertown, Mass., had planned to attend the trial with other members of an opioid overdose grief group. Lotti’s daughter Mariah suffered a fatal overdose in 2011 at age 19.

      “I’m disgusted,” said Lotti in an email.”How many lives were worth $270 million?”

      This story is part of a reporting partnership between WBUR, NPR and Kaiser Health News.

      Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/26/706848006/purdue-pharma-agrees-to-270-million-opioid-settlement-with-oklahoma

      Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stood shoulder-to-shoulder with his city’s police force Tuesday afternoon, denouncing prosecutors for dropping charges against “Empire” star Jussie Smollett and slamming the episode as a “whitewash of justice.”

      Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and Emanuel said they were not only furious with the outcome of Tuesday’s surprise hearing but also blindsided by the decision itself, with the officials only learning Smollett wouldn’t face charges for allegedly faking a hate crime at the same time the public found out.

      “Where is the accountability in the system? You cannot have – because of a person’s position – one set of rules applies to them and another set of rules apply to everyone else,” Emanuel said. “Our officers did hard work day in and day out, countless hours working to unwind what actually happened that night. The city saw its reputation dragged through the mud…It’s not just the officers’ work, but the work of the grand jury that made a decision based on only a sliver of the evidence [presented]. Because of the judge’s decision, none of that evidence will ever be made public.”

      Meantime, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Magats told reporters he still believed Smollett filed a false police report. He said prosecutors “stand behind the investigation and the facts,” adding, “this was not an exoneration.”

      JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S ALLEGED HATE CRIME ATTACK: A TIMELINE OF EVENTS

      Emanuel also said: “[This case] sends a clear message that if you’re in a position of influence and power you’ll be treated one way and if you’re not you’ll be treated another way.”

      Johnson blasted the prosecution for not consulting with cops and hinted the episode could further strain the relationship between the department and prosecutors.

      “I don’t know what’s unusual for the state’s attorney but we found out about when you all did,” Johnson said. “Prosecutors have their discretion of course, we still have to work with the state’s attorneys office — We’ll have conversations after this.”

      But Johnson made sure to add, unequivocally: “At the end of the day it was Smollett who committed this hoax.”

      Magats later told WLS that Smollett faced accountability by doing community service and forfeiting his $10,000 bond payment. He called it a fair and just outcome.

      Earlier Tuesday, the Cook County State Attorney’s office announced that all 16 felony counts against Smollett, 36, were dropped and the record in the case was sealed. Smollett voluntarily forfeited his $10,000 bond and Smollett’s attorney, Patricia Brown-Holmes, said the funds would likely go to the city of Chicago.

      ‘EMPIRE’ STAR JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S SALARY, NET WORTH COMPARED TO CO-STARS

      Brown-Holmes also admonished Chicago cops for asserting at the conclusion of their investigation that Smollett’s tale of being attacked by two Trump supporters had been a hoax. She said police needed to “investigate claims” before presuming suspects’ guilt and trying them in the press.

      FOX ‘GRATIFIED’ BY DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST JUSSIE SMOLLETT

      Johnson told press in February of the case: “I’m left hanging my head and asking, ‘Why?’ Why would anyone, especially an African-American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations? How could someone look at the hatred and suffering associated with that symbol…how can an individual who has been embraced by the city of Chicago turn around and slap everyone in this city by making this false claim? Bogus police reports cause real harm.”

      Smollett has maintained his innocence and previously pleaded not guilty to all 16 counts against him.

      JUSSIE SMOLLETT ALLEGED ATTACK HOAX ‘WILL FOREVER DEFINE HIM,’ CRISIS EXEC SAYS

      Smollett told police he was attacked by two masked men as he was walking home from a Chicago Subway sandwich shop at around 2 a.m on Jan. 29. The actor, who is black and openly gay, said the masked men beat him, made derogatory comments and yelled “This is MAGA country” — an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” — during an attack that lasted less than a minute.

      STARS REACT TO JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S CHARGES BEING DROPPED

      Police eventually determined the masked men were brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo, and the brothers were identified by cops as being the men seen on surveillance video buying the rope that was hung around Smollett’s neck during the alleged attack. Johnson told the press at the time that the Osundairo brothers were cooperating with authorities and the investigation was pivoting from a hate crime investigation into a case of false reporting.

      CHICAGO LEADERS SLAM JUSSIE SMOLLETT, DEMAND APOLOGIES FOR ALLEGED HOAX AND AFTERMATH

      Johnson later said on “Good Morning America” that the police department had evidence that hadn’t yet been made public that Smollett staged the attack. Johnson told anchor Robin Roberts that he worked “very closely” with the Osundairos’ attorney to investigate the matter and that Smollett was initially treated as a victim – not a suspect — in the case, which quickly gained sustained national attention.

      “It’s not the Chicago police saying [the attack was staged],” Johnson said at the time. “It’s the evidence, the facts and the witnesses that are saying it.”

      CHICAGO TURNS ON JUSSIE SMOLLETT, SAYS ALLEGED HOAX HURTS REAL HATE CRIME VICTIMS

      Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who recused herself from Smollett’s case, previously asked Johnson to let the FBI investigate Smollett’s alleged attack after the former chief of staff to former first lady Michelle Obama reportedly contacted Foxx to inform her that Smollett’s family had concerns about the probe.

      The Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President Kevin Graham then alleged that Foxx had illegally interfered with the investigation into Smollett’s alleged crime. Graham reportedly wrote to the Justice Department to investigate whether Foxx herself broke any laws related to the probe.

      CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

      Smollett’s attorneys previously blasted the Chicago P.D.’s conduct, telling Fox News they’ve “witnessed an organized law enforcement spectacle that has no place in the American legal system. The presumption of innocence, a bedrock in the search for justice, was trampled upon at the expense of Mr. Smollett and notably, on the eve of a Mayoral election. Mr. Smollett is a young man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing.”

      Fox News’ Mike Arroyo, Tyler McCarthy and Sasha Savitsky contributed to this report.

      Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-police-superintendent-eddie-johnson-furious-at-jussie-smollett-charges-being-dropped-report

      House Democrats on Tuesday failed to override President Trump’s first veto as part of their battle over border security, representing a victory for the administration that allows the president’s declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border to stand.

      The president had vetoed a Democrat-backed measure to cancel that emergency. The House voted 248-181 on Tuesday in favor of overriding – but this fell 38 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed. Only 14 Republicans voted in favor of the veto override.

      The outcome of the vote, while not surprising, now enables Trump to move forward on an issue that was a hallmark of his 2016 presidential campaign and of his presidency. Yet the vote also gave Democrats a way to focus on policy differences with Trump, days after Attorney General William Barr gave the president a boost by saying Special Counsel Robert Mueller had found no evidence Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

      TRUMP WILL SIGN BORDER SECURITY BILL, DECLARE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

      Trump had declared the border emergency under a law that lets him shift budget funds to address dire situations. His plan is to shift an additional $3.6 billion from military construction projects to work on border barriers. Congress voted this year to limit spending on such barriers to less than $1.4 billion, and Democrats accused Trump of ignoring lawmakers’ constitutional control over spending.

      Trump’s emergency declaration drew unanimous opposition from congressional Democrats and opposition from some Republicans, especially in the Senate, where critics objected that he was abusing presidential powers.

      “Both chambers of Congress – a Democratic House and a Republican Senate – resoundingly rejected the President’s sham emergency declaration by passing H.J.Res.46,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, said shortly after the vote in a joint statement. “The President’s lawless emergency declaration clearly violates the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, and Congress will work through the appropriations and defense authorization processes to terminate this dangerous action and restore our constitutional system of balance of powers.”

      Republicans argue that Trump has merely acted under a 1976 law that lets presidents declare national emergencies. Trump’s declaration was the 60th presidential emergency under that statute, but the first aimed at spending that Congress explicitly denied, according to New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks the law.

      WHAT IS A ‘NATIONAL EMERGENCY’ AND HOW CAN TRUMP USE IT TO FUND THE BORDER WALL? 

      Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said Trump was acting against the “radical left in this House that would dissolve our borders entirely if given the chance” — a stance that no Democrat has taken — while Rep. Paul Mitchell, R-Mich., called the veto override effort “a partisan whack job” because of its certain defeat.

      Even with his veto remaining intact, Trump may not be able to spend the money for barriers quickly because of lawsuits that might take years to resolve.

      Democrats were hoping to use the border emergency battle in upcoming campaigns, both to symbolize Trump’s harsh immigration stance and claim he was hurting congressional districts around the country.

      The Pentagon sent lawmakers a list last week of hundreds of military construction projects that might be cut to pay for barrier work. Though the list was tentative, Democrats were asserting that GOP lawmakers were endangering local bases to pay for the wall.

      CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

      Congress, to which the Constitution assigned control over spending, voted weeks ago to provide less than $1.4 billion for barriers. Opponents warned that besides usurping Congress’ role in making spending decisions, Trump was inviting future Democratic presidents to circumvent lawmakers by declaring emergencies to finance their own favored initiatives.

      This month, the GOP-led Senate rebuked Trump with a 59-41 vote blocking his declaration after the failure of a Republican effort to reach a compromise with the White House. Republicans were hoping to avoid a confrontation with him for fear of alienating pro-Trump voters.

      With the House override vote failing, the Senate won’t attempt its own override and the veto will stand.

      Fox News Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

      Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-fails-to-override-trumps-veto-of-measure-to-terminate-national-emergency-on-border

      The Justice Department sent a letter in support of repealing the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. Here, a sign in support of the ACA in April 2017 in New York City.

      Kevin Hagen/Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Kevin Hagen/Getty Images

      The Justice Department sent a letter in support of repealing the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. Here, a sign in support of the ACA in April 2017 in New York City.

      Kevin Hagen/Getty Images

      Updated at 1:30 p.m. ET

      In a significant shift, the Trump administration says the entirety of the Affordable Care Act should be struck down in the courts. Previously, the administration had pushed to remove the law’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions but had not argued in court that the whole law should be struck down.

      The change was announced in a two-sentence letter from the Department of Justice to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that the ruling made in December by a district court judge in Texas “should be affirmed.”

      In that case, District Judge Reed O’Connor declared the ACA unconstitutional. He ruled that a 2017 change in federal tax law eliminating the penalty on uninsured people invalidated the entire health care law.

      “The Department of Justice has determined that the district court’s comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement. The letter said the DOJ will further explain its position in a brief to be filed later.

      The Justice Department’s letter won’t change anything yet for the law, also known as Obamacare. Coverage for those who have insurance through the ACA — more than 10 million people through Medicaid expansion, and nearly 12 million more through ACA exchanges — stays the same for now. The case will continue to wind through the courts and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.

      If the case does land at the Supreme Court, it would be the third time that the court would rule on a constitutional question related to the ACA. The court upheld the law in 2012 and rejected a challenge to it in 2015.

      Meanwhile, a group of Republican state attorneys general is fighting to have the law repealed, while a group of Democratic state attorneys general is arguing to keep the law in place.

      In addition to the law’s best-known aspects — the exchanges and the federal requirement to buy health insurance — the ACA touches every part of the health care system, from how Medicare pays doctors to the Medicaid expansion that has covered millions of low-income people to whether restaurants have to post nutrition information. Hospitals would have to develop new payment systems, and an entire section of the insurance industry would go away.

      The ACA’s popularity played a role in Democrats’ success in the 2018 elections, when they took back the House. Upending the law could prove politically dangerous for the Trump administration and Republicans who are backing the law’s repeal.

      Democrats were quick to criticize the move.

      “Last night, the Department of Justice declared the entire law and all of its vital health care protections must go,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said in remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday. “Make no mistake about it, this is an escalation of the Trump administration and Republicans’ attacks on protections for people with pre-existing conditions.”

      NPR health policy correspondent Alison Kodjak contributed to this report.

      Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706869835/trump-administration-now-says-entire-affordable-care-act-should-be-repealed

      CLOSE

      Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame as the lawyer for Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, has been arrested and charged with extorting Nike, embezzlement and fraud.
      Wochit, USA TODAY

      Michael Avenatti promised to “disclose a major high school/college basketball scandal” that involves Nike at a news conference. The embattled attorney settled for dropping the names of Phoenix Suns rookie Deandre Ayton and University of Oregon standout Bol Bol via Twitter on Tuesday.

      “Nike’s attempt at diversion and cover-up will fail miserably once prosecutors realize they have been played by Nike and their lawyers at (the law firm) Boies (Schiller & Flexner),” Avenatti wrote in one tweet. “This reaches the highest levels of Nike.”

      Nike said in a statement Monday that the company “will not be extorted or hide information that is relevant to a government investigation” and it has “been cooperating with the government’s investigation into NCAA basketball for over a year.”

      Avenatti wrote on Twitter that Nike officials “have not been cooperating with investigators for over a year. Unless you count lying in response to subpoenas and withholding documents as ‘cooperating.’ “

      Nike did not have an immediate response to Avenatti’s latest claims when reached by USA TODAY on Tuesday. 

      Avenatti was indicted Monday on federal charges in two states, including over allegations he ran a scheme to extort up to $25 million from Nike. He was arraigned Monday evening and released on a $300,000 appearance bond. 

      Avenatti hinted that the mother of Ayton, the Suns’ top overall pick in last year’s draft, and others received “cash payments” from Nike.

      In another tweet, Avenatti wrote “Bol Bol and his handlers also received large sums from Nike.” Bol Bol, the son of late NBA player Manute Bol, has played nine games this season with the Ducks.  The 7-foot-2 center suffered a season-ending foot injury, but has been traveling with the team.

      Oregon made the Sweet 16 last weekend and will play Virginia on Thursday.

      A message left by USA TODAY with Oregon seeking comment on Avenatti’s allegations was not immediately returned Tuesday.

      A spokesperson for Boies, Schiller & Flexner declined to comment.

      Avenatti also claimed in one of his tweets “corruption at Nike was rampant with Merl Code,” a former Nike employee. Code was among those linked to Adidas and charged in 2017 as part of the FBI investigation into a corruption scheme in men’s college basketball that led to the downfall of Rick Pitino at Louisville. 

      Merl Code Jr., the former Clemson men’s basketball player who worked as an Adidas consultant, former Adidas executive James Gatto and business manager Christian Dawkins were convicted in October on conspiracy to commit wire fraud for their roles in funneling illegal payments to families of recruits to steer them to certain schools. 

      “At this point, we are not commenting on Michael Avenatti’s rantings,” Mark C. Moore, Code Jr.’s attorney, told USA TODAY. 

      Ayton taped over the Nike logos on his shoes during his one-and-done season at the University of Arizona last year. He signed a four-year deal with Puma last summer. 

      Ayton and the Suns did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

      Suns coach Igor Kokoskov was asked about the allegation Tuesday but declined to comment specifically on Avenatti’s accusation.

      “We can talk about basketball,” Kokoskov said. “We can talk about basketball questions and I’m going to stay away from that because I think I have nothing, I have no information to share with you guys.”

      When pressed further if the Suns have talked to Ayton or if the rookie has spoken with the FBI, Kokoskov replied: “No comment. We had a basketball meeting. We talked about basketball today. We played a game last night.”

      Ayton has previously denied allegations of receiving payments while he was a high school athlete being recruited by universities. He was widely considered to be the No. 1 high school recruit while at Hillcrest Prep Academy in Phoenix.

      An ESPN report in February 2018 claimed the FBI intercepted telephone conversations in which Arizona basketball head coach Sean Miller talked about paying $100,000 to ensure that Ayton signed with the Wildcats. Miller has denied the report.

      Contributing: Anne Ryman, Arizona Republic

      Follow A.J. Perez on Twitter @byajperez

       

       

      Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/03/26/michael-avenatti-nike-deandre-ayton-bol-bol/3276960002/

      In a stunning reversal, Chicago prosecutors on Tuesday dropped all charges against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett just weeks after he was indicted on 16 felony counts for allegedly filing a false police report.

      Smollett, 36, was seen arriving at a Chicago courtroom around 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday for an emergency hearing. Following his court appearance, his attorneys released a statement saying that the actor’s “record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him.”

      “Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement,” the statement read.

      “Jussie and many others were hurt by these unfair and unwarranted actions. This entire situation is a reminder that there should never be an attempt to prove a case in the court of public opinion. That is wrong. It is a reminder that a victim, in this case Jussie, deserves dignity and respect. Dismissal of charges against the victim in this case was the only just result.”

      Smollett was charged earlier this month by a grand jury of 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for making a false report, according to a criminal complaint.

      In February, he was charged with felony disorderly conduct after Chicago officers said he orchestrated the alleged hate crime in January on himself because he was unhappy with his salary on the show “Empire.”

      His role on the Fox series, where he played Jamal Lyon, was cut from the final episodes of the fifth season “to avoid further disruption on set,” the show’s executive producers said in a joint statement on Feb. 22.

      Smollett had told police on January 29 that he was beaten up by two masked men while he was out getting food in Chicago’s Streeterville neighborhood. The actor, who is black and gay, said his attackers hurled racist and homophobic slurs before punching him, putting a noose around his neck and pouring what he said was bleach on him.

      Brothers Ola and Abel Osundairo were arrested in February as police investigated the alleged assault but were later released by police. They are not considered suspects. In a statement following the news of Smollett’s charges being dropped, the brothers legal team said they are “still reviewing all legal stuff.”

      Smollett was then labeled as a suspect in his own alleged assault and arrested in February. Prosecutors and police said Smollett allegedly paid the Osundairo brothers $3,500 via a check to attack him and also gave them money to buy the supplies they would need to carry out the hoax crime.

      He was released from jail after posting $10,000 of his $100,000 bond.

      The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office said Tuesday that after reviewing the case, Smollett’s volunteer service and his willingness to turn his bond over to the city, “we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

      His family celebrated the decision, saying in a statement that “truth has prevailed and he has been vindicated.”

      “Our son and brother is an innocent man whose name and character has been unjustly smeared,” the family said. “Jussie is a son, a brother, a partner, a champion for human rights, and a genuine soul who would never be capable of what he was falsely accused of.”

      The actor and his attorneys have repeatedly denied the allegations against him. Mark Geragos, who represents Smollett, said in a statement to NBC News earlier this month that the indictment was “the prosecutorial overkill.”

      “This redundant and vindictive indictment is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make headlines in order to distract from the internal investigation launched to investigate the outrageous leaking of false information by the Chicago Police Department and the shameless and illegal invasion of Jussie’s privacy in tampering with his medical records,” Geragos said.

      Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-charges-against-empire-actor-jussie-smollett-dropped-n987446