Recently Added Videos

One drugstore in Suffolk County was in the 99th percentile of opioid sales in the state from 2011 through the first quarter of 2018, the complaint said; Cardinal reported an average of 85 suspicious orders a year from the pharmacy. Still, in 2018, the drugstore continued to receive opioids from Cardinal.

The lawsuit amends an earlier suit New York State filed against Purdue Pharma, the company considered primarily responsible for unleashing the current opioid epidemic by misleading doctors about the OxyContin’s dangers and ignoring evidence that the drug was being abused.

The lawsuit adds other opioid manufacturers, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson; Mallinckrodt; Endo Pharmaceuticals; Teva Pharmaceuticals; Allergan; and many of their affiliated companies.

New York is one of three dozen states to sue opioid manufacturers, litigation that is separate from the bundle of 1,600 opioid-related federal cases being overseen by a United States District Court judge in Ohio, who hopes to help craft a single comprehensive settlement — an objective that may be out of reach.

With the exception of Alabama, which joined the federal consolidation, these states potentially stand to wrest swifter, bigger paydays for their constituents, as long as the states can prove their cases. This week Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers agreed to pay $270 million to settle a case in Oklahoma that was to go to trial in May.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/health/new-york-lawsuit-opioids-sacklers-distributors.html

When Donald Trump wanted to make a good impression — on a lender, a business partner, or a journalist — he sometimes sent them official-looking documents called “Statements of Financial Condition.”

These documents sometimes ran up to 20 pages. They were full of numbers, laying out Trump’s properties, debts and multibillion-dollar net worth.

But, for someone trying to get a true picture of Trump’s net worth, the documents were deeply flawed. Some simply omitted properties that carried big debts. Some assets were overvalued. And some key numbers were wrong.

For instance, Trump’s financial statement for 2011 said he had 55 home lots to sell at his golf course in Southern California. Those lots would sell for $3 million or more, the statement said.

But Trump had only 31 lots zoned and ready for sale at the course, according to city records. He claimed credit for 24 lots — and at least $72 million in future revenue — he didn’t have.

He also claimed his Virginia vineyard had 2,000 acres, when it really has about 1,200. He said Trump Tower has 68 stories. It has 58.

Gives incorrect number of home lots in California

At that point, only 36 lots were actually approved for sale, and by this point 5 had already been sold. That left 31 – not 55 – available for sale. Since Trump was promising he could sell them for at least $3 million each, there was a $72 million gap between his claims and reality.

Adds 10 stories to Trump Tower

Trump Tower only has 58 stories, but Trump re-numbered the floors to make it seem taller.

Now, investigators on Capitol Hill and in New York are homing in on these unusual documents in an apparent attempt to determine whether Trump’s familiar habit of bragging about his wealth ever crossed a line into fraud.

The statements are at the center of at least two of the inquiries that continue to follow Trump, unaffected by the end of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform said it had requested 10 years of these statements from Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA.

And earlier this month, the New York state Department of Financial Services subpoenaed records from Trump’s longtime insurer, Aon. A person familiar with that subpoena, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation, said “a key component” was questions about whether Trump had given Aon these documents in an effort to lower his insurance premiums.

Both inquiries stemmed from testimony last month by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who told Congress that Trump had used these statements to inflate his wealth — and then sent them to his lenders and his insurers.

Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to President Trump, testified before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 27 and submitted some of Trump’s financial statements as exhibits. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

“Mr. Trump is a cheat,” Cohen said, in describing what the statements showed.

Cohen told Congress that statements were given to Deutsche Bank, as Trump sought a loan to buy the NFL’s Buffalo Bills. Since then, Deutsche Bank and another Trump lender have also received subpoenas, from the New York State attorney general.

The statements may additionally draw the interest of the House Financial Services Committee, which is scrutinizing Deutsche. A committee spokesman declined to comment.

The White House declined to comment for this report.

The Trump Organization also declined to comment about the statements or answer questions about specific errors the statements contained. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the president’s sons who are running his business, noted on social media that Cohen has provided false testimony about other topics.

Mazars USA, the accounting firm, issued a brief statement Wednesday after the House Oversight letter became public, saying that it “believes strongly in the ethical and professional rules and regulations that govern our industry, our work and our client interactions.” It declined to comment further about Trump.

The Washington Post reviewed copies of these documents for 2002, 2004, 2011, 2012 and 2013 — obtaining them from court files, from people who received them from Trump’s company, and from Cohen. Cohen also provided copies of documents from 2011, 2012 and 2013 to Congress.

Since the 1980s, Trump has defined himself by his wealth, but he has often avoided providing proof to back up his boasts or provided documents that inflated the real values. As president, Trump has declined to release his tax returns, unlike every president since Jimmy Carter.

Trump is far from the first real estate developer to inflate his projects or wealth. But there are laws against defrauding insurers and lenders with false information. Financial and legal experts said it’s unclear at this point whether Trump will face any legal consequences. They said it depends on whether Trump intended to mislead or whether the misstatements caused anyone to give him a financial benefit.

“How much would [the errors] impact an investor?” said Kyle Welch, an assistant professor of accountancy at George Washington University. “If it’s systematic and it’s across the board, and it’s all in one direction, that’s where you have a problem.”

Welch said Trump could be protected by disclaimers that his own accountants added to the statements, warning readers that they weren’t seeing the full picture. And in an odd way, Welch said, Trump could be helped by the sheer scale of the exaggerations. They were so far off from reality, Welch wondered whether any real bank or insurer could have been fooled.

Welch said he’d never seen a document stretch so far past the normal conventions of accounting.

“It’s humorous,” Welch said. “It’s a humorous financial statement.”

Investigators for the New York State Department of Financial Services, which sent subpoenas to Aon, and the New York State attorney general — who subpoenaed Deutsche Bank — declined to comment. Aon and Deutsche Bank also declined to comment, beyond saying they plan to cooperate with investigators.

The story of Trump’s “statements of financial condition” — in essence, sales brochures for Trump the man, given out by Trump the company — goes back to the early 1980s, according to past testimony from Trump’s accountants and staffers.

In 2007, a Trump lawyer named Michelle Lokey said she had sent these statements out to Trump’s lenders, for projects in Chicago and Las Vegas, because Trump had personally guaranteed those loans. That meant that if Trump’s company defaulted on its obligations, the lenders could come after Trump’s personal assets.

Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago was one of the two properties that were not included in some Trump financial statements. Both buildings were carrying mortgages. (Joshua Lott for The Washington Post)

“Therefore they’d want information on his net worth?” an attorney asked Lokey.

“I assume,” she said.

The statements were prepared by Trump’s longtime accountants, a firm now called Mazars. In other contexts — such as when one of Trump’s companies was seeking to secure a federal contract — this firm prepared rigorously audited financial statements.

This was a different sort of job.

When compiling these statements of financial condition, those accountants have said they did not verify or audit the figures in the statements. Instead, when Trump provided them data, they wrote it down without checking to see whether it was accurate.

“In the compilation process, it is not the role of the accountant to assess the values,” said Gerald J. Rosenblum, one of the accountants. “The role is to accept those values and move them forward.”

An attorney asked: Do the values have to be logical?

“The value per se does not have to be logical,” Rosenblum said. He and Lokey were deposed as part of a lawsuit in which Trump sued a New York Times reporter for allegedly lowballing his net worth. Trump’s suit against the reporter was later dismissed.

In 2014, Trump used the same accounting firm to prepare financial information for his most expensive development project in decades, his $200 million transformation of the historic Old Post Office Pavilion in downtown Washington into a Trump International Hotel.

But in that case, Mazars vouched for the accuracy of the information, writing that the firm “is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements” using industry standard accounting rules. This was a formal audit of finances related just to Trump’s D.C. hotel, rather than a summation of all of his assets based on Trump’s own estimates.

The statements Cohen provided to The Post — and to Congress — begin in 2011. Two of them are 20-page “Statements of Financial Condition” signed by Trump’s accountants.

In his testimony to Congress, Cohen said these statements included Trump’s self-appraisals of his buildings’ value — which aimed to impress, instead of aiming for reality. Cohen said Trump would take real measures of value, such as the amount of money his tenants paid in rent, and simply inflate it until he got a number he liked.

“If you’re going off of your rent roll, you go by the gross rent roll times a multiple,” Cohen said. “And you make up the multiple.”

The documents begin with two-page disclaimers, warning of various ways in which the statements don’t follow normal accounting rules. The accountants note that Trump is the source of many buildings’ valuations — and that, contrary to normal accounting rules, he had inflated them by counting future income that wasn’t guaranteed.

Accountant’s warning

Trump calls this a “statement of financial condition.” But right away, his accounting firm is warning readers that it hasn’t checked anything in this document to be sure it’s accurate.

The accountants also note that Trump had told them to simply omit two of his major hotels, in Chicago and Las Vegas. Both buildings were carrying mortgages. That omission means that some of Trump’s actual debt load was hidden from anyone reading the statement.

“Users of this financial statement should recognize that they might reach different conclusions about the financial condition of Donald J. Trump” if they had more information, the statement concludes.

Legal experts interviewed by The Post said that sort of broad disclaimer might shield Trump from allegations that he misled his lenders and insurers. After all, his own accountants told readers they weren’t getting the full story.

“The transparent disclaimers — even if frustrating — typically wipe out a basis” for bringing charges of fraud, said Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor who is now a private attorney at Dickinson Wright.

In 2012, Trump’s statement said he owned a 2,000-acre vineyard in Virginia. But land records in Virginia show the Trump family owns about 1,200 acres. The Trump winery’s own website says 1,300 acres.

Exaggerates size of vineyard

The vineyard sits on a 1,205 acre property, of which only about 227 acres are planted with grapes.

In 2011, the statements said that Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y., was “zoned for nine luxurious homes.” In the statement, Trump said those homes would yield significant cash flow as he built them and sold them. That led him to value the property at $261 million — far more than the roughly $20 million value assigned by local assessors.

Exaggerates value of Westchester County estate

At the time, local officials assessed the land’s value at about $20 million, a fraction of the value Trump assessed.

At the time, Trump had received preliminary “conceptual approval” to build homes on the site. But local officials said he never finished the last step in the approval process to build the homes or sell the lots.

None of the homes was built.

The 2013 statement that Cohen provided — and which he said was also given to Deutsche Bank, in pursuit of a loan to buy the Bills — is different from the other two.

It is just two pages long, with a slightly different title: “Summary of Net Worth.” It does not include the usual disclaimer from Trump’s accountants, so readers aren’t told that the debts from Trump’s Chicago and Las Vegas hotels are missing.

Two buildings are missing

Here, Trump is exaggerating his wealth by leaving two major parts of his portfolio out. His buildings in Las Vegas and Chicago — both of which had loans attached to them — are simply left out of this statement. Without them, readers can’t get a full picture of how much he owes, and to whom.

This document also includes a new “asset” that wasn’t there before.

It says that Trump’s brand value — his name, essentially — was worth $4 billion, and that it ought to be counted among his assets as if it were a building or a resort. With his brand included, Trump’s net worth jumped from $4.6 billion to $8.6 billion.


Trump’s $4 billion asset

Trump added “brand value” as an asset in 2013, valued at $4 billion, doubling his net worth from previous years.

Total assets in 2013:

$9.2B

$9B

Brand

value

$6B

Total assets

in 2011:

$4.6B

Properties

under

development

Club facilities and

related real estate

$3B

Commercial

properties

Residential

properties

Real estate

licensing

Joint ventures

Other assets

0

Cash/

securities

2011

2012

2013

Trump’s $4 billion asset

Trump added “brand value” as an asset in 2013, valued at $4 billion, doubling his net worth from previous years.

Total assets in 2013:

$9.2B

$9B

Brand

value

$6B

Total assets

in 2011:

$4.6B

Properties

under

development

Club facilities and

related real estate

$3B

Commercial

properties

Residential

properties

Real estate

licensing

Joint ventures

Other assets

0

Cash/

securities

2011

2012

2013

Trump’s $4 billion asset

Trump added “brand value” as an asset in 2013, valued at $4 billion, doubling his net worth from previous years.

Total assets in 2013:

$9.2B

$9B

Brand value

$6B

Total assets

in 2011:

$4.6B

Properties under

development

Club facilities and

related real estate

$3B

Commercial

properties

Residential

properties

Joint

ventures

Real estate

licensing

Other assets

Cash/securities

0

2011

2012

2013

For Trump, the Bills would have been a financial prize far larger than any he had won in the recent past: Bids were expected to be around $1 billion.

In public, Trump had bragged that he was ready to pay $1 billion in cash. But privately, one of his lieutenants told a business contact that they were struggling with the bid.

“We are looking at the Bills but Allen and I are having trouble making the numbers work!!!” wrote Ron Lieberman, an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, in an email to a contact in the New York City parks department. “Allen” likely meant Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s longtime chief financial officer.

Lieberman’s email was released this year in response to a public-records request from a nonprofit group, NYC Park Advocates. Lieberman and Weisselberg did not respond to requests for comment this week.

Whatever Trump sent to Deutsche Bank, it seems to have been enough: The New York Times reported that Deutsche Bank agreed to vouch for Trump’s bid for the Bills, citing an unnamed executive. But Trump lost a bidding war, and somebody else bought the team.

<!– david.fahrenthold@washpost.com
–>

<!– jonathan.oconnell@washpost.com
–>

Jonathan O’Connell

Jonathan O’Connell is a reporter focused on economic development, corporate accountability and the Trump Organization.

David A. Fahrenthold

David A. Fahrenthold is a reporter covering the Trump family and its business interests. He has been at The Washington Post since 2000, and previously covered Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the environment and the D.C. police.

Credits

Graphics by Leslie Shapiro and Reuben Fischer-Baum; Design by Jason Bernert and Joanne Lee

<!–

–>

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-statements-of-financial-condition/

The British Parliament still can’t agree on what kind of Brexit it wants.

Members of Parliament (MPs) held “indicative votes” on Wednesday, casting ballots for eight different options on how the United Kingdom should break up with the European Union. The goal of the process was to reveal what kind of Brexit plan might win a majority in the House of Commons, after MPs twice rejected Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

There’s just one problem — no option won a clear majority.

A plan for a second referendum, in which any Brexit deal approved by Parliament would go back to the public for a vote, received the most “aye” votes. A customs union arrangement, where the UK would follow the same customs rules as the EU, came in second.

Earlier that day, the prime minister had announced that she would resign if Parliament backed her Brexit plan, which has twice been defeated in Parliament by very large margins. May is still planning to bring her deal for a third vote, possibly Friday, though nothing is decided yet.

The failure of the indicative votes to break the logjam in Parliament could boost her deal somewhat, as May can make the case that Parliament tried and failed to come up with an alternative. But even with May’s promise to sacrifice her premiership, her deal still might not win enough support.

MPs are expected Monday to debate and vote on the options that got the most votes, to see if it’s possible to win a majority for something. There will probably be a few more twists along the way, but here’s a breakdown of the action on Wednesday and what might happen next.

A customs union and people’s vote got the most votes

MPs were given a ballot on Wednesday, which contained eight different Brexit options. They could mark “aye” or “no” next to each, and from there, the ballots were collected and tallied. They looked like this:

Here’s a summary of the eight options and the results.

  • No-deal Brexit

This means crashing out of the EU without any agreement or transition period in place, and is the default option on April 12 if the UK can’t approve a deal. Parliament has already rejected leaving the EU without a deal, so, no surprise, this was defeated 160-400.

  • Common Market 2.0

Also known as “Norway Plus.” Not to get super in the weeds, but this is a very soft Brexit proposal, meaning the UK and the EU would have very close economic ties. The model for this is Norway, which is not an EU member but has access to the EU single market, which broadly means free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. The “plus” here is because this would also mean joining a customs union. This went down, 188-283.

  • Norway option

The same as the plan above — but without the plus, which means no customs arrangement. This lost 65-377.

  • Customs union

This would allow for membership in the customs union post-Brexit, which means the UK would follow all the EU customs rules. This plan was actually the most popular — it got 264 yes votes, and only 272 no votes — so it only lost by eight votes.

  • Labour plan

This is Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal, which focuses on a future relationship that would involve customs union membership, but with the ability for the UK to make its own trade deals. It would also allow for alignment with the single-market rules and close cooperation on issues like security and with certain EU institutions. It’s not clear the EU would go for this plan because it might involve the UK cherry-picking which EU rules it would follow, but it doesn’t matter, for now, because it lost 237 to 307.

  • Revoke Article 50, sort of

This basically called for the prime minister to stop Brexit if the UK doesn’t have a deal two days before the deadline and if Parliament agrees it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. (Article 50 is the mechanism in the EU’s Lisbon Treaty that the UK is using to leave the bloc.) This one lost 184 to 293.

  • Second referendum

This says that any Brexit deal approved by Parliament has to go back to the public for a vote. This got the most “aye” votes, with 268, but 295 people voted against it, so it was defeated by a greater margin than the customs union.

  • A “managed no-deal”

This is similar to a plan that the EU has already rejected, which would basically involve the UK leaving the EU without a deal. There would still be a transition period whereby the two sides would negotiate some free trade agreements. It was defeated 139 to 422.

Okay, so what does this all mean?

Oliver Letwin, the Conservative MP who put forward the indicative votes motion, insisted that lawmakers should debate again Monday, knocking out the biggest losers (no-deal, etc.) and debating and casting ballots again on Wednesday’s top vote-getters, likely the top four or so, but that’s still unclear. Those still might not secure a majority, but some of these plans such as the second referendum and customs union lost got more votes than May’s deal has — so it might be possible to convert a few MPs to support one of these alternative plans.

Oh, and there’s still May’s deal.

Her announcement that she would resign if Parliament backed her deal on a third vote has convinced a slew of hardliners to support her, but she still doesn’t have the votes to pass it yet. May’s key allies in Northern Island — the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) — have said they will still vote against the deal, meaning it’s unlikely that it will pass on a third go-round.

Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow also repeated Wednesday he would not allow a third Brexit deal vote without a substantially changed deal. May’s government is reportedly trying to get around this by bringing forward one part of the Brexit deal — the 585-withdrawal agreement — for a vote on Friday, and leaving off the second part, which is the short political declaration that says the EU and UK will negotiate a future economic partnership. That political declaration would be voted on separately at another time.

The point of this is to lock in a Brexit deadline of May 22. The EU said it would grant the UK an extension until that date if Parliament passed a withdrawal agreement by this week. This would make it less likely that the UK would ask for a longer, indefinite Brexit delay, which would require it to participate in European parliamentary elections, on May 23.

This gambit by May’s government might also be doomed, as some MPs will not want to take a vote without that political declaration attached. Plus, the holdouts on her deal, specifically some Brexiteers and the DUP, still object to the withdrawal agreement.

So, after a day of high drama, the UK is still deadlocked over Brexit.

Parliament did, at least, officially change the Brexit date from March 29 to April 12 on Wednesday with overwhelming support. The UK has an two extra weeks to come up with a plan — though no one knows what the heck that might be.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/3/28/18284470/brexit-parliament-indicative-votes-theresa-may-deal

President Trump has called on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to resign in a fiery early morning tweet.

The president sent out his missive Thursday morning, accusing the California Democrat of “knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking”.

Trump’s tweet read: “Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!”

The president made similar comments during an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday night.

TRUMP CALLS SCHIFF A ‘DISGRACE’ FOR PUSHING COLLUSION AGENDA, SAYS DEM MAY HAVE BROKEN LAW

“He should be forced out of office,” Trump told the host.

“He is a disgrace to our country.”

“In one way you could say it’s a crime what he did,” Trump said of the California Democrat, “because … he was making horrible statements that he knew were false.

“He would go on, night after night, talking about collusion — the collusion delusion,” Trump said.

SCHIFF FACES MOUNTING GOP CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OVER COLLUSION CLAIMS

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election found no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy after a nearly two-year-long investigation that resulted in 37 indictments.

Schiff, a vocal critic of the president, has doubled down on his claim that Trump and his administration colluded with foreign powers despite Mueller’s findings.

“Undoubtedly, there is collusion,” Schiff told the Washington Post after Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of Mueller’s investigation was released Sunday. He told the paper that the question of whether Trump or the people around him were compromised by a hostile foreign power was not in any part of Mueller’s report.

In addition to Trump saying Schiff should leave office, other Republicans – including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. — called for Schiff to step down from his leadership of the intelligence committee.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I’ll tell you one thing about Russia,” Trump continued. “If they had anything on me, it would have come out a long time ago.”

Mueller’s report will be made public – with some parts redacted – in the coming weeks, according to Attorney General William Barr.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-calls-on-adam-schiff-to-resign-accuses-him-of-knowingly-and-unlawfully-lying-and-leaking

<!– –>

The Trump administration charged Facebook on Thursday with “discrimination” in its advertising practices for housing.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is seeking damages for any person who was harmed by Facebook’s advertising policies, which until recently allowed employers and landlords to limit their audiences on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender. Facebook settled a lawsuit with the ACLU over the practice last week and overhauled its systems as a result.

“[Facebook] holds out its advertising platform as a powerful resource for advertisers in many industries, including housing and housing-related services,” the complaint says. But, “because of the way [Facebook] designed its advertising platform, ads for housing and housing-related services are shown to large audiences that are severely biased.”

HUD is asking for unspecified monetary damages and “the maximum civil penalty” against Facebook for each violation of housing laws.

A Facebook spokesperson said the company is surprised by HUD’s charge.

“While we were eager to find a solution, HUD insisted on access to sensitive information — like user data — without adequate safeguards,” the spokesperson said. “We’re disappointed by today’s developments, but we’ll continue working with civil rights experts on these issues.”

Facebook also pointed to a blog post published last week, in which the company said the advertising overhaul marked an important step for the platform and thanked the civil rights organizations that helped improve the ad tools.

“There is a long history of discrimination in the areas of housing, employment and credit, and this harmful behavior should not happen through Facebook ads,” COO Sheryl Sandberg said at the time. “Our policies already prohibit advertisers from using our tools to discriminate. We’ve removed thousands of categories from targeting related to protected classes such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion. But we can do better.”

Facebook has drawn harsh criticism for its ad-based business model in recent months. The service allows advertisers to customize their audience based on specific and often user-supplied criteria for demographics and stated interests. That’s how advertisers were able to target posts to “Jew-haters,” for example.

The self-service portal is also how Russian agents were able to purchase tens of thousands of dollars worth of inflammatory posts around U.S. elections.

Here’s the full complaint from HUD:

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/28/trump-administration-sues-facebook-over-discriminatory-advertising-practices.html

President Trump was spared charges on Sunday that would have led to his impeachment, claimed “total exoneration” and angrily pledged retribution against Democrats and media figures he blames for feeding the Russian collusion story. On Monday his Department of Justice reaffirmed support for a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate the Affordable Care Act. For Democrats who can think straight, both of these events can be helpful to their party in the long run.  

To start with, they should accept that because Trump has largely been freed from the burden of doubt he has been under during the entirely of his presidency, next year’s election won’t be the referendum they had hoped for, but a choice election that the incumbent now has a far better chance of winning. And because the special counsel did not choose to charge him with obstruction of justice, something many of Trump’s allies and aides feared was likely, impeachment is — for all intents and purposes — now off the table. Without that charge from Bob Mueller or Attorney General Bob Barr, Senate Republicans would never go along with any Democratic impeachment. Democrats should see this as a good thing.

Smart Democrats will start by expressing their relief that a U.S. president has not been charged with conspiracy and was not found to have rigged his election with an adversarial government — something that would have traumatized and likely irreparably damaged our country. Democrats should also thank Mueller for his integrity, and for a fair and lawful process. They are right to call for the full release of Mueller’s findings, as have many Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley. House committees also have more investigations planned or in the pipeline — and oversight of the White House’s security clearance process, Jared Kushner’s potential business dealings with the Saudi Kingdom and Qatar while deciding national security policy, the Trump Organization’s loans from Russians that may have made the president and/or his family members beholden to the Putin government, are all appropriate areas of inquiry. But attempts to keep the prospects of impeachment alive, no matter what Mueller’s findings reveal on potential obstruction of justice, will backfire on Democrats for certain.

House Democratic leaders, starting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has dismissed impeachment for months, affirmed Tuesday they want to focus on policy instead of probes. News of the administration’s support for ending all ACA protections has focused the minds of Democratic leaders, with Majority Whip Jim Clyburn telling CNN Tuesday morning that the Mueller chapter has “closed” and that health care is “the new chapter.” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said health care “was a defining issue of the 2018 midterm elections. We embrace this fight because House Democrats were given the majority in order to defend health care.”

The leadership will, no matter the contents of the special counsel’s report, struggle to keep everyone in line. There are those who have been around forever — such as impeachment advocate Rep. Al Green, who on Twitter promoted his lunch Tuesday with Tom Steyer in the members dining room of the House — and those who are new to the House, such as Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who decided to call for a commission on the question as soon as Trump was cleared. In a letter to her colleagues, Tlaib wrote: “I, firmly, believe that the House Committee on Judiciary should seek out whether President Trump has committed ‘High crimes and Misdemeanors’ as designated by the U.S. Constitution and if the facts support those findings, that Congress begin impeachment proceedings.”

Democrats didn’t run on Trump’s troubles or the Mueller investigation in the midterms and little has changed out on the campaign trail where Democratic candidates running to be the party’s nominee in 2020 are being asked by voters about health care, climate change, gun control, college loan reform, immigration, taxes and jobs. Not only was health care the top issue in the midterms for Democrats, it was for most voters, and the candidates who championed coverage for pre-existing conditions and other Obamacare protections won those voters by a 75 percent-23 percent margin. During the midterms, Democrats cited, to great effect, a provision from one of the GOP replacement plans that never passed, an “age tax” that would allow insurers to charge patients age 50 and over five times more for coverage.

Health care remains the Republicans’ and Trump’s worst political liability, having failed since 2011 as a party to repeal and replace it, which Trump promised in 2016 and 2017 that they would finally do. After that failure, Trump and GOP candidates also promised voters in the 2018 election they would not allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, after they eliminated the ACA’s individual mandate to purchase health care as part of their tax reform law. But that will occur should a court ultimately overturn the law.  

Health care coverage, and other pocketbook issues, are likely the reason Republicans saw an erosion of support from white women without a college degree, a key to Trump’s 2016 voting base, in the midterms. Writing for CNN, political analyst Ron Brownstein identified non-evangelical working-class white women as a key target bloc for Democrats next year “in pivotal Rust Belt states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where relatively fewer blue-collar whites are also evangelical Christians,” adding that nationwide nearly three-fifths of these women voted for Democrats last November and told exit pollsters they disapproved of Trump’s performance in office.

Those women may not have benefited from the tax cut, may see their communities suffering from Trump’s trade wars, may have not seen any factories moving back into town, and aren’t likely to see Trump fulfill his broken promise on health care, no matter how many times he rebrands the GOP as “the party of health care,” as he has this week.  President Trump is likely to spend a lot of time talking about the Mueller probe and collusion in his campaign next year, according to aides and advisers, and his allies are seeking an “investigation of the investigators.” If Democrats talk about Trump, or Mueller or Barr, these very same voters may sit 2020 out, but if the Democratic nominee talks about their challenges and the policy prescriptions that could alleviate their problems, the party is in the running to win them over and beat Trump.

A.B. Stoddard is associate editor of RealClearPolitics and a columnist. 

Source Article from https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/27/two_gifts_for_democrats_if_they_will_take_them_139866.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia said on Thursday it had sent “specialists” to Venezuela under a military cooperation deal but said they posed no threat to regional stability, brushing aside a call from U.S. President Donald Trump to remove all military personnel from the country.

Trump said on Wednesday that “all options” were open to make Russia pull troops out of Venezuela after two Russian air force planes landed outside Caracas on Saturday carrying nearly 100 Russian troops, according to media reports.

As Venezuela has descended into political turmoil this year, Russia has emerged as a staunch backer of President Nicolas Maduro while the United States backs the country’s opposition and has imposed sanctions.

Venezuela’s military attache in Moscow said on Thursday Russia had sent “servicemen” to Venezuela, but that they would not take part in military operations, Interfax news agency reported.

“The presence of Russian servicemen in Venezuela is linked to the discussion of cooperation in the military-technical sphere,” Jose Rafael Torrealba Perez was quoted as saying.

Speaking at a weekly news briefing on Thursday, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the arrivals only as “Russian specialists”.

“Russia is not changing the balance of power in the region, Russia is not threatening anyone, unlike (officials) in Washington,” she told a weekly news briefing.

“Russian specialists have arrived in Venezuela in line with the provisions of a bilateral inter-government agreement on military-technical cooperation. No one canceled this document,” Zakharova said.

Russia and China have backed Maduro, while the United States and most other Western countries support opposition leader Juan Guaido.

In January, Guaido invoked the constitution to assume Venezuela’s interim presidency, arguing that Maduro’s 2018 re-election was illegitimate.

Maduro, who retains control of state functions and the country’s military, has said Guaido is a puppet of the United States.

Reporting by Maxim Rodionov; Writing by Tom Balmforth; Editing by Gareth Jones

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-usa-russia-defence/russian-military-team-arrived-in-caracas-venezuela-military-attache-idUSKCN1R910T

The chances of President Trump listening to or acting upon any re-election advice that I offer is slim to none. However, a course of action I’m about to suggest is actually more about presidential leadership and less about 2020 politics. But, since everything is about 2020 politics, let’s first dive into a Politico piece from Tuesday that chronicled Trump’s reaction to the Mueller report during a private Capitol Hill luncheon with Senate Republicans. The piece was headlined, “‘He’s doing a victory lap’: Rejuvenated Trump pushes aggressive agenda post-Mueller.”

The “victory lap” quote was from Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, but here is what I consider most significant:

“I look at this as sort of a new election. A fresh start,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally. He said Trump put it this way: “I’ve got this behind me now. It’s a fresh start. So let’s see what we can do — starting with health care.”

Whether the president has been offered a “fresh start” on his road to re-election is still legally and politically debatable, given that the entire Mueller report has yet to be released and other investigations continue. But, if Trump thinks and acts like he has been granted a fresh start, then, by golly, it is a fresh start.

Proof of his new attitude was seen Wednesday in the Drudge Report headline “Unshackled Trump May Attend White House Correspondents Dinner.” If true, that is tantamount to the action of a conquering king.

And, one can only imagine the exuberant sound bites that will emanate from his mouth during the first post-Mueller report rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Thursday night.

Hence, Trump’s perception of triumphing over his enemies is the foundational basis for the advice that I now offer him and his re-election campaign:

Give an Oval Office prime-time speech expressing his willingness to help heal a divided nation. Trump should ask all Americans to move beyond the Mueller report, leave the 2016 election in the rear-view mirror, and have a new attitude of working together to solve our nation’s most pressing problems.   

This is a golden opportunity to show presidential leadership. Just imagine the benefits of a speech that was at once contrite, humble and authentic in tone. The president has everything to gain by asking the American people for a new opportunity to be president of all Americans, not just his base. 

The speech should be billed as “State of the Union 2.0” with a message that Trump is willing to mend fences with the media, the intelligence community, Democrats, and his enemies at large, for the good of the nation.

Furthermore, he could offer to “smoke the peace pipe” with his “enemies” in the press by proposing a White House meeting with media leaders to reset their relationship, again, for the good of the nation. I would bet that media outlets whose credibility was damaged by Mueller’s findings would be receptive to the offer.

Imagine if a new “unshackled” Trump gave such a speech, showing that he was capable of more even-tempered traditional presidential leadership? The ratings would be record-breaking and Trump would love that.

Perhaps it would even increase his job approval rating. It currently stands at a static sub-44 percent with 51.9 disapproving, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average — even after Trump tweeted on Sunday, “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

Unfortunately, less than 24 hours later, that elation translated into troubling overreach when Tim Murtaugh — the communications director for Trump’s 2020 campaign — sent a memo asking networks to ban well-known guests from the airwaves. Among the names listed were House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

With memos like that, the president risks turning his new-found victory into defeat. After all, haven’t the American people had enough White House drama?

Therefore, a “fresh start” backed with a “healing” speech — while standing on a strong economy and his record of accomplishment — offers the president the opportunity to begin a new phase in his relationship with the American people, Congress, and the media.

Hey, Tim Murtaugh — please consider my suggestion (a “wild” rally speech does not begin to qualify). But most important, and under no circumstances, should you use Trump’s “victory lap” as a justification for revenge. Such behavior is beneath the office of the president.

Myra Adams is a media producer and writer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the GOP nominee’s 2008 campaign and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team.

Source Article from https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/28/how_trump_can_help_the_nation_and_his_2020_prospects_139881.html

A historical marker commemorates the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island — the most serious in U.S. history. To the left are the cooling towers for the mothballed Unit 2 reactor, which partially melted down.

Joanne Cassaro/WITF


hide caption

toggle caption

Joanne Cassaro/WITF

A historical marker commemorates the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island — the most serious in U.S. history. To the left are the cooling towers for the mothballed Unit 2 reactor, which partially melted down.

Joanne Cassaro/WITF

Forty years ago, the most serious nuclear accident in U.S. history sparked a backlash against the industry and halted its growth for decades. Today, the remaining working reactor at Three Mile Island, Unit 1, faces new challenges, including cheaper competition in a rapidly shifting energy grid. Unit 1 at the plant, near Harrisburg, Penn., is slated to close later this year.

But mounting concerns about climate change, and the need for zero-carbon power, are also driving a new push to keep Three Mile Island and other nuclear reactors open. It’s a turnaround few would have foreseen in the chaotic days after the accident.

Confusion and fear

On March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island’s Unit 2 reactor suffered a partial meltdown after a pump stopped sending water to the steam generators that removed heat from the reactor core. The accident was a combination of human error, design deficiencies, and equipment failures.

The incident happened around 4 a.m. on a Wednesday, but it took several days before people understood the severity of the problem, as public officials struggled to explain what was happening. By Friday, then-Governor Dick Thornburgh recommended pregnant women and young children evacuate.

Jack Herbein, then vice president of generation for Metropolitan Edison, the company that operated Three Mile Island in 1979, takes questions from reporters outside the plant’s visitors center the afternoon of the accident.

Courtesy of the Historical Society of Dauphin County


hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy of the Historical Society of Dauphin County

Many more people chose to leave. At the end of the weekend, an estimated 80,000 people had fled south-central Pennsylvania. Schools and businesses closed. Local banks started running out of cash.

Joyce Corradi was a young mother of four, running a daycare out of her home in Middletown, a few miles from the plant. Her most vivid memory is pulling out of her driveway, wondering if her life would ever be the same.

“I took our marriage certificate and I took our children’s birth certificates,” Corradi says. “I was concerned that, if in the confusion things really got bad, that I could prove those were my children and that we could at least be together.”

Reporters gathered outside the Three Mile Island Observation Center, across the street from the plant, waiting for the latest updates. The accident quickly became global news.

Courtesy of The Historical Society of Dauphin County


hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy of The Historical Society of Dauphin County

Reporters gathered outside the Three Mile Island Observation Center, across the street from the plant, waiting for the latest updates. The accident quickly became global news.

Courtesy of The Historical Society of Dauphin County

She would return 10 days later. A small amount of radiation was released, but in the end, it wasn’t a disaster. In 1985 Three Mile Island reopened, minus the one damaged reactor. Although some of her friends moved away, Corradi still lives in the same house, but feels the plant always looming in the background.

“It’s kind of like living with a giant in your neighborhood,” she says. “You know it’s there. You know it could cause you problems, but you live in an uneasy compromise.”

A new challenge to the nuclear industry

That compromise is being tested, as the nuclear industry faces new challenges, including high operating costs, stagnant demand for electricity, and competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy.

Chicago-based Exelon, the current owner of Three Mile Island’s still-functional Unit 1 reactor, says the plant has been losing money for years. The company plans to close it this fall, 15 years before its operating license expires.

David Fein, Exelon’s senior vice president of state governmental and regulatory affairs, says the company is still hoping the state government can step in to keep it open. He argues losing so much carbon-free electricity would be a major blow to efforts to combat climate change.

“It’s something that, if we hope to do anything about it, then we have to preserve all the nation’s nuclear power stations,” says Fein.

Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Yet across the country, nearly a third of existing nuclear plants are either unprofitable or scheduled to close.

Explore more coverage of the 40th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident from WITF, PennLive/The Patriot-News, and PA Post.

There is only one nuclear plant under construction in the country, in Georgia, but it’s years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited the construction site last week to announce $3.7 billion in federal loan guarantees for the project.

The working cooling towers of Exelon Generation Unit 1 in the foreground are emitting water vapor. The dormant cooling towers are from Unit 2, which was permanently damaged in the 1979 accident.

Courtesy Exelon


hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy Exelon

The working cooling towers of Exelon Generation Unit 1 in the foreground are emitting water vapor. The dormant cooling towers are from Unit 2, which was permanently damaged in the 1979 accident.

Courtesy Exelon

Pennsylvania’s five existing nuclear plants account for about 93 percent of the state’s carbon-free power. Mark Szybist, a senior attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council, says without new policies, nuclear plant closures could lead to more greenhouse gas emissions.

“We’re at a point where if nuclear retires immediately, we would probably replace it with natural gas generation because we haven’t sufficiently planned to replace it with something cleaner,” he says.

Climate change and the push for zero carbon energy

All this has led to a big lobbying effort to keep nuclear plants online. In recent years other states, including New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut, have given billions of dollars in subsidies to keep their nuclear plants open. Ohio is considering doing the same.

Christina Simeone, a senior fellow with the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, thinks governments should step in.

“Once you close a nuclear plant, that’s a permanent result,” she says. “We’re going to lose a significant amount of zero carbon power.”

In addition to Three Mile Island, FirstEnergy’s Beaver Valley plant near Pittsburgh is also slated for an early retirement in 2021. Republican state representative Thomas Mehaffie recently introduced a bill to try to keep the Pennsylvania plants open.

“If we lose one or more of these plants we might as well forget about all the time and money we’ve invested in wind and solar,” says Mehaffie.

But his bill faces major opposition, from groups like the growing natural gas industry, which stands to gain if nuclear plants close, and the AARP, which says the move would hurt ratepayers.

Carbon pricing

A report published last year by Pennsylvania’s bipartisan Nuclear Energy Caucus called carbon pricing the best “long-term” solution for the state to address the economic woes of nuclear plants.

The regional grid operator for the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest, PJM, has also said putting a price on carbon is the best way for state governments to address the climate change concerns that have emerged amid their nuclear debates.

As someone who lived through the Three Mile Island accident, Joyce Corradi would be happier to see the plant close. But because the U.S. still has no real plan to deal with its radioactive nuclear waste, it will still be stored at the plant, sitting in her town indefinitely.

Even today, she avoids driving by the plant’s large, gray cooling towers.

“I find that really, forty years down the road,” she says, “I’m still sitting on top of a plant that has all the waste, a plant that cannot sell its electricity, and there’s still no real answers.”

Watch this documentary from WITF on Three Mile Island: The New Nuclear Dilemma


WITF
YouTube

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/707000226/40-years-after-a-partial-nuclear-meltdown-a-new-push-to-keep-three-mile-island-o

Media captionSpeaker John Bercow announced the results of the eight Brexit indicative votes

None of MPs’ eight proposed Brexit options have secured clear backing in a series of votes in the Commons.

The options – which included a customs union with the EU and a referendum on any deal – were supposed to help find a consensus over how to leave the EU.

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said the results strengthened ministers’ view their deal was “the best option”.

The results capped a dramatic Wednesday in which Theresa May promised to stand down as PM if her deal was passed.

The prime minister told a meeting of Tory MPs she would leave office earlier than planned if it guaranteed Parliament’s backing for her withdrawal agreement with the EU.

Her announcement prompted a number of Tory opponents of her deal to signal their backing but the Democratic Unionists suggested they would continue to oppose the agreement.

MPs hoped Wednesday’s unprecedented series of “indicative votes” would help break the parliamentary deadlock over Brexit.

The failure to identify a clear way forward led to angry exchanges in the Commons with critics of the process saying it had been “an abject failure”.

Please upgrade your browser to view this interactive

How did my MP vote on 27 March?

Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP

How MPs voted

The proposal which came closest to commanding majority support was a cross-party plan – tabled by former Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke – for the whole of the UK to join a new customs union with the EU to ensure tariff-free trade after the UK’s exit.

Its supporters included five Conservative ministers: Mark Field, Stephen Hammond, Margot James, Anne Milton and Rory Stewart.

All Conservative MPs – excluding cabinet ministers – were given a free vote, meaning they were not ordered to vote in a certain way.

Eight Conservatives voted for a referendum to endorse the deal, the proposal which secured the most affirmative votes. Labour controversially whipped its MPs to back the proposal but 10 shadow ministers abstained and Melanie Onn quit her job to vote against.

Labour’s own alternative plan for Brexit – including “close alignment” with the single market and protections for workers’ rights – was defeated by 307 votes to 237.

Five other propositions – including backing for a no-deal exit, the so-called Common Market 2.0 plan, a separate proposal to remain in the European Economic Area and one to stop the Brexit process by revoking Article 50 – all failed to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.

What’s the reaction been?

Brexiteer Mark Francois said “this attempt to seize the order paper” by MPs had failed and the public would be looking on “with amazement”.

But Conservative MP Sir Oliver Letwin, who oversaw the unprecedented process of indicative votes, said the lack of a majority for any proposition was “disappointing”.

While he said he believed MPs should be allowed to have another go at reaching a consensus on Monday, he said this would not be needed if the PM’s deal was approved before then.

Independent Group MP Anna Soubry said more people had voted for the idea of another referendum than voted for Mrs May’s deal on the two times it had been put to Parliament.

And Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett, who put forward the motion for a confirmatory referendum, said the objective had not been to identify a single proposition at this stage but to get a sense of where a compromise may lie by, in her words, “letting a thousand flowers bloom”.

The prime minister offered to pay the ultimate price, and leave office – the grandest of gestures any leader ever really has.

For a moment it seemed it might work and line up the support she so desperately needs.

But within a couple of hours her allies in Northern Ireland were refusing to unblock the progress of Theresa May’s main mission.

That might not be terminal – one cabinet minister told me the PM may yet have another go at pushing her deal through Parliament against the odds on Friday.

But if Plan A fails, Parliament is not ready with a clear Plan B that could yet succeed.

For our politics, for businesses trying to make decisions, for all of us, divisions and tensions between and inside our government – and our Parliament – are too profound to bring this limbo to an end.

Commons Speaker John Bercow said the process agreed by the House allowed for a second stage of debate on Monday and there was no reason this should not continue.

While it was up to MPs, he said there was an understanding Wednesday’s objective was to “shortlist” a number of options before moving on to consider the “most popular”.

Mr Barclay appealed to MPs to back the PM’s deal “in the national interest” when it returns to the House for a third time – which could happen as soon as Friday.

“The House has considered a wide variety of options as a way forward,” he said.

“And it demonstrates there are no easy options here. There is no simple way forward. The deal the government has negotiated is a compromise…That is the nature of complex negotiations.

“The results of the process this House has gone through today strengthens our view that the deal the government has negotiated is the best option.”

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333

President Trump said on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Wednesday night that the Russian government preferred Hillary Clinton as the president because she wouldn’t have stood up to Russia’s energy industry.

“I will tell you this about Russia, if they had anything on me, it would have come out a long time ago, probably a long time before I ran because they would have been much better off,” Trump said in his first interview since the end of Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“I hope we really get along well with them but they would have been a lot better off with Hillary Clinton as president,” he continued.

TRUMP VOWS TO RELEASE FISA DOCS NOW THAT MUELLER PROBE IS CONCLUDED, SLAMS ‘TREASONOUS’ FBI

The president went on to claim that the Kremlin had more reason to back Clinton, who would have only helped Russia’s energy industry as the Democratic candidate opposed American oil and gas drilling.

“In terms of energy, in terms of oil and gas. Look at what we’re going with the energy, it’s incredible in our country. That’s tremendous competition for Russia. Hillary wouldn’t let you drill: there’d be no oil, there’d be no gas, there’d be no anything to compete,” Trump said.

Russia much rather have Hillary than Donald Trump. I can tell you that right now.”

— Donald Trump

“Russia much rather have Hillary than Donald Trump. I can tell you that right now,” he added.

The comments from Trump came amidst the end of the Mueller investigation into the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – finding no evidence of a conspiracy to coordinate the efforts to get elected, according to the letter written by Attorney General William Barr.

While the Russia probe didn’t find evidence of collusion, it’s likely to take weeks before the Mueller report could be seen by the Congress.

TRUMP CALLS SCHIFF A ‘DISGRACE’ FOR PUSHING COLLUSION AGENDA, SAYS DEM MAY HAVE BROKEN LAW

In the same interview, Trump vowed to release the full and unredacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and related documents used by the FBI to probe his campaign, saying he wants to “get to the bottom” of how the long-running Russia collusion narrative began.

Trump said that his lawyers previously had advised him not to take that dramatic step out of fear that it could be considered obstruction of justice.

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release. I have plans to absolutely release,” Trump said. “I have some very talented people working for me, lawyers, and they really didn’t want me to do it early on. … A lot of people wanted me to do it a long time ago. I’m glad I didn’t do it. We got a great result without having to do it, but we will. One of the reasons that my lawyers didn’t want me to do it, is they said, if I do it, they’ll call it a form of obstruction.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump added: “Frankly, thought it would be better if we held it to the end. But at the right time, we will be absolutely releasing.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-russia-rather-have-president-hillary-clinton-as-she-wouldnt-have-stand-up-to-kremlins-energy-interests




One million dollars can sure buy a lot of furniture.

Thirty workers from Jordan’s Furniture in Nashua, N.H., hit it big over the weekend, winning a $1 million prize on a Powerball ticket in Saturday’s drawing. Each person will walk away with about $33,000, according to the New Hampshire State Lottery.

“We each have our individual story of why it’s important to us, but there’s a couple in our group that — I’m not gonna discuss the personal issues, but it’s really a meaningful impact for them. So it’s made it even happier all around,” Sandrea Lutkevich of Dunstable, one of the winners, said at a press conference Wednesday morning. “It’s a big impact on us all.”

According to the state lottery, winners receive $1 million if they get the five white-ball numbers but not the final Powerball number. The odds of getting the five numbers is 1 in 11,688,054. The winning numbers Saturday night were 24-25-52-60-66, with a Powerball of 5 and a Power Play of 3.

“We are all really excited to win this $1 million Powerball prize together,” Litchfield resident Julia Crema, one of the members of the winning pool, said in a statement. “We have been playing Powerball together off and on for years and we always dreamed we’d land a big winner. Today is our lucky day!”

The winning group, dubbed “The Lucky 30,” joined in a pool and “at $2 each, they happened to hit for a million dollars,” N.H. Lottery Executive Director Charlie McIntyre said at the press conference Wednesday morning, when the winning group was presented with their giant $1 million check.

The “J-Team,” as they referred to themselves, had bought the ticket from the Cumberland Farms just across the street from their store. However, they didn’t see that they had the winning ticket until the next day.

As for who can join their lottery pool, the group said it’s open to anyone at their store. When asked about the feelings of those who were asked but didn’t join, the winners immediately talked about how supportive they are.

“They’re very gracious,” one said. Another person added, “They’re happy for us.”

The jackpot for Wednesday night’s drawing is set at $750 million, the fourth highest it has ever been, according to the state lottery.

And as the group smiled with the giant check, surrounded by others saying “million-dollar smile,” Carrie Perry of Lowell, one of the winners, was sure to correct them, saying instead, “$750 million smile.”

Breanne Kovatch can be reached at breanne.kovatch@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter at @breannekovatch.

Source Article from https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/03/27/furniture-store-workers-new-hampshire-share-million-prize-powerball-ticket/Pm3HbzyjjpGNfJff1yzo3L/story.html

CLOSE

Attorney General William Barr has confirmed Robert Mueller has delivered his report upon completing his investigation into Russia meddling in 2016.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Wednesday he intends to release classified documents the FBI used to launch a probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election as he and his allies call for a deeper look into the origins of that investigation.

In a 45-minute interview on Fox News in which Trump attacked his critics and touted a summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe that found “no collusion” with Russia, Trump said his attorneys initially advised him not to release the documents used to secure a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release,” Trump told Fox. “I have plans to absolutely release.”

Trump, who had previously ordered the release of the documents before reversing course, also used the interview to criticize opponents and tout what he described as progress on his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

► Trump added his name to a chorus of Republicans calling for the resignation of Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and an outspoken Trump critic. Schiff, who has continued to question the president’s actions during the 2016 campaign, faced similar calls from Trump aides earlier in the week.

“He should be forced out of office,” Trump told Fox. “He is a disgrace to our country.”

Schiff, D-Calif., has shrugged off the criticism. “I’m more than used to attacks from my GOP colleagues and I would expect nothing less,” he told CNN earlier this week.

► The president demurred on a question about whether he would consider pardoning some of his former associates caught up in the Russia investigation, including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators about meetings with Russians during the presidential transition.

He cooperated with Mueller under a plea agreement and still awaits sentencing.

“I don’t want to talk about pardons now, but I can say it’s so sad on so many levels,” Trump said.

► Trump said he was planning to go to California in two weeks and “have a news conference there” to discuss the progress of his border wall. Trump has frequently claimed progress is being made on the wall, though he also acknowledged the work is focused on repairing and replacing existing barriers, not adding additional barriers to parts of the border that now have none.

“We will have hundreds of miles built fairly quickly,” Trump said.

► Trump said he was wary of criticizing Democratic presidential candidates and policies so early in the 2020 election cycle. On Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., however, Trump said, “I hit her too hard, too early and now it looks like she’s finished.”

Trump has been taking a victory lap since Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report released on Sunday said he had not conspired with Russia. That summary also said Mueller did not exonerate Trump on questions about whether his actions constituted obstruction of justice.

The full Mueller report could be delivered to Congress in several weeks.

“I was the most innocent human being,” Trump told Fox. 

In returning to the issue of classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act documents, Trump and other Republicans have noted FBI agents relied in part on a dossier created by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele to obtain a wiretap on Page. 

Republicans have blasted that disclosure, noting that Steele had been hired by a research firm working for Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Swaths of the records were released last year and showed that the FBI also relied on other evidence. Those documents also show that the FBI disclosed to the court that agents believed Steele was probing for information that would be damaging to Trump.  

Vast portions of those documents, however, were redacted because the FBI said they remain classified, including details about why the FBI believed Page was participating in Russia’s election meddling. Page was never charged with a crime in the case.

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/27/donald-trump-release-classified-docs-tied-start-russia-probe/3295161002/

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – China has made unprecedented proposals in talks with the United States on a range of issues including forced technology transfer as the two sides work to overcome remaining obstacles to a deal to end their protracted trade war, U.S. officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

U.S. President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese imports last year in a move to force China to change the way it does business with the rest of the world and to pry open more of China’s economy to U.S. companies.

Among Trump’s demands are for Beijing to end practices that Washington alleges result in the systematic theft of U.S. intellectual property and the forced transfer of American technology to Chinese companies.

China put proposals on the table in the talks that went further than in the past, including on technology transfer, said one of four senior U.S. administration officials who spoke to Reuters.

Negotiators have made progress on the details of the written agreements that have been hashed out to address U.S. concerns, he said.

“If you looked at the texts a month ago compared to today, we have moved forward in all areas. We aren’t yet where we want to be,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“They’re talking about forced technology transfer in a way that they’ve never wanted to talk about before – both in terms of scope and specifics,” he said, referring to Chinese negotiators. He declined to give further detail.

Reuters reported previously that the two sides were working on written agreements in six areas: forced technology transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture and non-tariff barriers to trade.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin arrive in Beijing on Thursday for a new round of talks with Chinese officials to work on a deal that would end a months-long trade war that has cost both sides billions of dollars and hurt global economic growth.

The in-person talks, which will be followed by a round in Washington next week, are the first face-to-face meetings the two sides have held in weeks after missing an initial end-of-March goal for a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to sign a pact.

Talks would continue as long as progress is being made on the core issues, the official said.

“It could go to May, June, no one knows. It could happen in April, we don’t know,” another administration official said.

The two sides still have differences over intellectual property and how to enforce a deal, he said.

‘SOME TARIFFS WILL STAY’

China wants the United States to lift its tariffs as part of a deal. Washington, which is cognizant that the tariffs give it leverage to ensure Beijing follows through on any commitments it makes, is wary of lifting them right away.

Trump said last week the United States may leave tariffs on Chinese goods for a “substantial period” to ensure compliance.

“Some tariffs will stay,” the second official said. “There’s going to be some give on that, but we’re not going to get rid of all the tariffs. We can’t.”

The topic will be addressed in upcoming talks.

“Obviously that is an issue that we need to resolve … and will be an important part of a final deal,” the first official said. He said there was some agreement on enforcement on what he termed the “backend” once a deal was in place: a structure in which both sides could raise grievances and implement tariffs if there were violations to the agreement.

Since July 2018, the United States has imposed duties on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, including $50 billion in technology and industrial goods at 25 percent and $200 billion in other products including furniture and construction materials, at 10 percent.

China has hit back with tariffs on about $110 billion worth of U.S. goods, including soybeans and other commodities.

The first official said the focus of talks had shifted from Chinese purchases of U.S. goods to the trickier structural issues, which he said Trump wanted as part of a “great” deal.

Bipartisan support at home for his tough stance on China as well as from the business community have emboldened Trump as he pushes for a deal that addresses long-standing complaints on trade, the source said.

Some officials have expressed concern that Trump would accept a deal involving big-ticket Chinese purchases of U.S. goods and falling short on structural issues.

“Who would he be pleasing by .. selling out?” the source said.

He expressed optimism that a deal would be reached.

Slideshow (6 Images)

“I’m still confident, but it takes time,” he said.

“Until any deal is finalized, it can always go either way. And the president has made clear, both in word and in action, that he’s going to walk away from deals if they’re not good deals.”

Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Peter Cooney, Simon Webb & Shri Navaratnam

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade-exclusive/exclusive-china-makes-unprecedented-proposals-on-tech-transfer-trade-challenges-remain-us-officials-idUSKCN1R905P

MPs have been voting on eight different options for the next steps in the Brexit process, including leaving without a deal, revoking Britain’s departure from the European Union, or seeking a customs union.

None of the proposals earned a majority of parliamentary support.

To find out how your MP voted on each of the options, use the look-up below.

Please upgrade your browser to view this interactive

How did my MP vote on 27 March?

Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP

Click here if you cannot see the look-up. Data from Commons Votes Services.

Ken Clarke’s customs union proposal came closest to securing a majority, losing by eight votes – 272 to 264.

Margaret Beckett’s proposal for a second referendum to validate any withdrawal agreement received the most votes, 268, but 295 MPs voted against it.

Labour’s alternative plan was the only other option to get more than 200 votes.

The full list of how MPs voted is below, in order of the option with the most support. Conservative backbenchers were given a free vote, but cabinet ministers were told to abstain.

Labour MPs were asked to back proposals put forward by the party leadership.

How did your MP vote on previous Brexit debates?

Please upgrade your browser

Your guide to Brexit jargon

Use the list below or select a button

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787


Republican senators and GOP aides said that if President Donald Trump wants them to move forward with big changes, he needs to propose them himself. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Congress

The last time the party tried to get rid of Obamacare, it cost them control of the House and several state capitols.

President Donald Trump says the GOP is now the “party of health care.” But Republicans have no real plan to deliver on that.

Trump’s unexpected demand that Republicans take another crack at replacing Obamacare came on the heels of his Justice Department backing a lawsuit intended to gut the entire law. The last time the party tried to get rid of Obamacare, it cost them control of the House and several state capitols.

Story Continued Below

Those lessons aren’t lost on Republicans. They know the more they talk about repealing Obamacare, the more likely it is that the battle over the health law and the popular protections for people with pre-existing conditions drags into the 2020 elections, damaging vulnerable Republicans. They’d rather slow-walk the issue while sticking to health care topics that have appeal on both sides of the aisle.

“We’re going to be involved in health but most of it is going to be very, very bipartisan, unlike the issue you’re bringing up, which would not be very bipartisan,” said Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the leader of the Senate Finance Committee.

That could include addressing “surprise” medical bills that hit insured people who end up with an out-of-network doctor even when they’ve chosen an in-network hospital, as well as more steps to address high drug costs and opioids.

His counterpart on the Health, Education, Labor and Education Committee, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was singing a similar tune on Wednesday, telling reporters: “We’re working in a bipartisan way.” Alexander has recently turned his focus to health care costs, rather than repeal.

Indeed, Republican senators and GOP aides said not to expect a sweeping new Republican plan in the months ahead, and said that aside from the narrower policy pushes, party leadership will focus on their longstanding message that Obamacare has “failed” and that Democrats’ “Medicare for All proposals pose a threat to the current system. Democrats control the House now, and the GOP’s vision of replacing Obamacare with block grants or other conservative proposals —ideas they couldn’t enact even when they controlled both chambers — appear now to be a pipe dream.

And if Trump wants them to move forward with larger changes, they said, the president needs to propose them himself.

“The president makes very clear that he understands the importance of health care and that he wants the Republican Party to be the party of health care,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose opposition to repeal efforts in 2017 was critical in stopping the effort. “In order to do that, he has to have a detailed plan that is going to be an improvement over the ACA.”

Even the lawmakers closest to Trump, including Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), acknowledged to reporters that Republicans, still recovering from the toxic fallout from failed repeal attempts in 2017, would be better off tackling more manageable goals like drug pricing reform going into 2020.

“I’ve been through the wars and I have a Ph.D. in health care policy now that was never on my bucket list,” Meadows said. “It’s very difficult to find anything that brings everybody together. But I do think there’s real consensus that could be found on prescription drug prices — in fact, if there’s a sweet spot to be found, it’s that.”

Most Republicans don’t want to openly defy Trump, but many are privately complaining about the president ordering them back in the Obamacare minefield.

“We need a plan, and right now we don’t have one,” said one frustrated Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “I’m not going to just throw this to the whims of our creativity.”

Other lawmakers have tried and failed in the past few days to steer Trump away from the idea, telling him the anti-ACA push is bad for his own reelection campaign.

“[Trump] knows that he made a mistake, but he’s dug in now,” said a person close to the president.

The Trump administration sent lawmakers scrambling this week when the Justice Department abruptly announced that it is backing a lawsuit led by Texas seeking to throw out Obamacare entirely, reversing a far narrower legal strategy.

That case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it may well end up before the Supreme Court. Trump told Congress he wants a plan at the ready to replace Obamacare if the court voids the law — but Republicans generally expect the legal battle to last another year or so, giving them some breathing room. Grassley, for instance, played down the need for quick action on an Obamacare replacement, saying, “We won’t know for months, and it could go well into next year” what the courts do. The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare twice, and even many conservative legal experts predict this assault on the law will ultimately fail.

The administration’s move in the court case came just after Trump declared vindication in the Mueller investigation — an odd bit of timing that changed the subject from triumphant “exoneration” to pre-existing conditions, an issue that has been a consistent winner for the Democrats, particularly in the House races in November.

As a second Republican senator put it: “Why would the president do this after the release of the Mueller report?”

“Covering pre-existing conditions was always the political knockout blow,” GOP strategist Rick Wilson told POLITICO. “No matter how much Republicans think people hate Obamacare, they’re much more likely to fear the impact of their dad getting denied cancer treatment because he had an illness once before. Trump’s move now allows Democrats to campaign on a message of ‘We’re the ones who will keep you from being thrown to the wolves.’”

Lawmakers and aides said the White House decision puts much more pressure on Senate Republicans, who remain in the majority, to craft legislation in response to Trump’s demands. Discussions have begun between the President’s team and Senate leadership, but have yielded no breakthroughs, leaving Republicans arguing over whether they should revive one of the bills they failed to pass in 2017 or cut their losses, ignore Trump, and move on.

“We’ve got a new slate. The slates been wiped clean,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “When the slate’s been wiped clean that leaves two things: Go back and do again what you’ve already done that didn’t work or find something that does.”

Other Republicans suggested they focus on strategies to stop the lawsuit itself in its tracks.

“You could probably moot the case if you deleted the individual mandate from the law, since that’s what it all hinges on,” said Rep. Greg Walden, who led House efforts in 2017 to get rid of Obamacare. “So that might be a possibility going forward.”

Democrats, meanwhile, could not be more thrilled by the Trump administration shining a spotlight on what they see a massive GOP liability, and moved swiftly to capitalize on the opportunity.

On Tuesday, they drew a stark contrast between the parties by unveiling a package of bills to shore up the Affordable Care Act and make insurance subsidies available to more middle-class consumers. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Democrats will try to force a vote on defunding the DOJ’s efforts on the case.

Democrats are confident the public is on their side. A national poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that opposition to Obamacare was in February at its lowest point since the law’s implementation. And a Washington Post poll in January found that 62 percent of Americans surveyed — and three-quarters of independents — have a negative view of President Trump’s health care agenda.

Both the president and GOP lawmakers are well aware of this political peril on health policy, but disagree sharply on how to address it. Trump told Republicans on Tuesday that they have to come up with “a plan that is far better than Obamacare” in order to neutralize the Democratic attacks that in part cost the GOP its House majority last year.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) agreed with the pressing need for Republicans to craft an identity that’s more than being the enemies of Obamacare.

“We’re going to have a 2020 election, and one of the issues will be health care,” he said. “We know what we don’t like, but we owe it to the public to say what we do like.”

Other lawmakers insisted that the onus is on Trump to set that agenda and said they’re waiting for more information from the White House.

But Meadows, who spoke to Trump on Wednesday morning, said the president provided no further guidance on crafting a health care bill other than insisting that they protect people with pre-existing conditions and lower drug costs.

“He sees those two areas as the things that most people are concerned about,” Meadows said. “He told me this morning, ‘We’re going to fix it.’”

Adam Cancryn and John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/republicans-trump-health-care-1241142

President Trump has complained in recent days that Puerto Rico has been granted too much federal disaster relief. But his administration has yet to deliver much of the money that Congress directed toward the U.S. territory following historic hurricane damage.

Trump told Senate Republicans during a Tuesday lunch meeting that while he is resigned to $600 million in supplemental nutritional assistance flowing to Puerto Rico despite his opposition, he thinks the territory received too much help.

“He thinks the amount they’ve gotten is way out of proportion with the amount that Texas and Florida and others have gotten,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., one of the senators present. Rubio noted that Puerto Rico faced unique problems in that it had a pre-existing debt crisis and was hit by two hurricanes in quick succession.

The funding immediately in question is $600 million in low-income food assistance rolled into a relief package aimed at more recent natural disasters in the mainland U.S. But the administration has held up billions already provided by Congress to the flailing territory. Much of the money flows through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But most of it has yet to actually be delivered to Puerto Rico.

The department’s explanations for dragging its feet on the aid have shifted.

In a January interview, HUD spokesperson Brian Sullivan denied that Puerto Rico had submitted the action plan necessary to disburse billions in relief funds. When Sullivan was provided a copy of that plan, published online in November 2018, he instead blamed the partial government shutdown for the delay in sending out the money, which the government had already appropriated.

“Still, the staff isn’t here to review it properly,” said Sullivan. “How do you, without appropriations, do the necessary due diligence?”

Still, Sullivan acknowledged “inconsistency” with the department’s written guidance prior to the shutdown. In that guidance, the department said it would approve grant plans submitted by Puerto Rico and other areas eligible for disaster relief within 45 days, unless the department objected to how those funds would be used. Puerto Rico’s plan was submitted Nov. 18, but HUD did not approve its plan as that guidance suggested it would.

Instead, on Jan. 14, nearly 60 days after Puerto Rico submitted that plan, HUD waived the guidance and established “an alternative requirement” for its own review of plans, further extending the timeline. To date, Puerto Rico has received 7.5 percent of the $20 billion in community development block grants owed to it by HUD, despite the fact that HUD announced the approval of more funds at the beginning of March.

On Wednesday, Sullivan said that HUD had yet to present Puerto Rico’s government with a grant contract that would allow an additional $8.2 billion in recovery grants to flow to the island, despite the fact that the department announced approval for those funds on March 1. Sullivan said that the agency was working with the Office of Management and Budget to finalize language around the grant.

Pam Patenaude, HUD’s deputy secretary and a longtime housing policy veteran who supervised the department’s recovery efforts, resigned suddenly in December, citing personal reasons. According to the Washington Post, Patenaude objected to a directive from the White House to redirect funding from Puerto Rico to other areas of the country, which would violate the law Congress passed to distribute those funds and Congress’s constitutional authority to appropriate funds.

“I didn’t push back. I advocated for Puerto Rico and assured the White House that Puerto Rico had sufficient financial controls in place and had put together a thoughtful housing and economic development recovery plan,” Patenaude told the Post.

The $600 million in food stamps for Puerto Rico has strong support in the Senate. Only 10 senators — all Republicans — opposed advancing the overall package, which is primarily aimed at disaster assistance for states that experienced natural disasters in the past several months, such as California, Alabama, and Hawaii.

According to Rubio, Trump set the stage for the administration to oppose Medicaid funding for the territory, similar to that which states receive. That funding is expected to run out by March 2020.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/trump-administration-yet-to-deliver-much-of-the-disaster-funds-it-owes-puerto-rico

President Trump is breathing a huge sigh of relief now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report has finally drawn to a close and failed to produce any evidence of Russian collusion. But now Trump needs to capitalize on the moment by strategically lifting sanctions and trying to normalize relations with Russia, lest he risks falling under the influence of establishment, pro-war influences here at home.

To maintain his hold on power, Vladimir Putin is willing to take his nation, even the world, to the brink of nuclear war. He’s already said he “wouldn’t want a world without Russia.” It would be wise for the U.S. to learn from its past mistakes and avoid its failed policy of foreign intervention and democracy-building in Russia. Trump simply needs to call a truce and make Russia a non-event.

Even before the Mueller report was released, it had been clear that Trump is no Russian pawn — he struck Syria (a close Russian ally) after former President Barack Obama refused to, and has only amped up the sanctions against Russia. These sanctions, implemented by Trump and the presidents before him, haven’t achieved their goal of regime change or a “nicer” Putin. Instead, they’ve just solidified Putin’s political position by giving the Russian people a scapegoat to blame for all their problems (the West).

Trump is a successful businessman, so he knows the persuasive role of carrots and sticks. He has demonstrated it with both North Korea and China. But if he wants to de-escalate tensions with Russia, the nation with the most nukes, he must offer its people a taste of Western economic opportunity and freedom. The more than 60 rounds of U.S. sanctions on Russian companies and individuals, and the Russian countersanctions, have severely limited trade, while visa requirements have limited travel to the West. Lifting these restrictions on Western goods and travel would allow Russian people, especially those with money and sway in Russian politics, to realize the benefits of friendship with America.

Putin fears losing the support of his people, especially his inner circle, far more than he fears the economic ramifications of the sanctions America imposes. More sanctions, as many in Congress have called for, would only further play into his hand. But strategic sanctions relief, resulting in growing respect for the West among Russians, could force Putin to seek better relations.

An improved Russia relationship would push the nation to also partner with the U.S. on foreign policy issues, and significantly decrease our spending on proxy wars like those in Syria and Ukraine waged against Russian-backed militias. Finally, we could cut back on our trillion-dollar defense budget. Right now, frankly, the U.S. has far more to fear from $22 trillion of debt than from the self-preserving dictator Putin.

Many in the Pentagon benefit greatly from our spending toward preparing for total war with Russia and China. They’re part of the same military-industrial (and now intelligence) complex that sought to pressure Trump into escalating tensions with the Russians by perpetuating the now-disproven collusion scandal. They argue Putin attempted to influence the U.S. election (as may have the Ukrainians, whom the U.S. still supports unwaveringly), and that Putin is a despot with a dismal human rights record. That part is true — but so was Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, and countless others like them. When the U.S. helped eliminate their regimes, we faced the consequences of instability, terrorism, and even more human rights abuses. Putin has the world’s largest arsenal of nukes. If we back him into a corner, should we gamble on his hesitancy to use them?

Trying to force regime change isn’t the answer, either. Russia is a motley state of different ethnicities held together by the unrelenting grasp of its dictator. If released, it would likely fall apart into many republics, some of which (like Chechnya) have a history of terrorism, while others have long been eyed by China, another powerful U.S. adversary that could neatly step in to fill Russia’s void.

We stand to gain little from regime change in Russia, but much to gain economically from normalizing relations. Detente with Russia could open up countless closed-off markets (like Belarus and Kazakhstan) to Western goods, and help to resolve other costly conflicts like North Korea and Syria. Now that President Trump has been vindicated from accusations of collusion, he can return to the negotiating table with Putin — using his trademark entrepreneurialism and a renewed resolve for peace.

Adam Barsouk is a medical student, cancer researcher, and Young Voices contributor.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/without-mueller-report-cloud-trump-should-normalize-relations-with-russia

MPs have been voting on eight different options for the next steps in the Brexit process, including leaving without a deal, revoking Britain’s departure from the European Union, or seeking a customs union.

None of the proposals earned a majority of parliamentary support.

To find out how your MP voted on each of the options, use the look-up below.

Please upgrade your browser to view this interactive

How did my MP vote on 27 March?

Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP

Click here if you cannot see the look-up. Data from Commons Votes Services.

Ken Clarke’s customs union proposal came closest to securing a majority, losing by eight votes – 272 to 264.

Margaret Beckett’s proposal for a second referendum to validate any withdrawal agreement received the most votes, 268, but 295 MPs voted against it.

Labour’s alternative plan was the only other option to get more than 200 votes.

The full list of how MPs voted is below, in order of the option with the most support. Conservative backbenchers were given a free vote, but cabinet ministers were told to abstain.

Labour MPs were asked to back proposals put forward by the party leadership.

How did your MP vote on previous Brexit debates?

Please upgrade your browser

Your guide to Brexit jargon

Use the list below or select a button

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787

Mick Mulvaney is trying to achieve as acting White House chief of staff what he never could as a conservative firebrand in Congress.

Mulvaney this week helped persuade President Trump to get behind a legal effort aimed at striking down the Affordable Care Act over the objections of some in the administration and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

His pitch came during scheduled “policy time” with Trump on Monday and spanned several meetings throughout the day. It was met with resistance from some on the president’s legal team and his Justice Department, as well as with skepticism from Vice President Pence, who favors overturning President Barack Obama’s namesake health-care law but only if Republicans are ready with an alternative, according to White House officials familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private talks.

But Trump — fresh off a victory lap following the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation — agreed with Mulvaney and was eager to forge ahead into dismantling his predecessor’s health law.

“The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care,” the president enthused while walking into a lunch of Republican senators Tuesday. He seemed to try to justify his administration’s unexpected decision, telling reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that “if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare.”

Mulvaney and his allies have told Trump that joining a lawsuit to overturn the ACA will help him fulfill a campaign promise and could help lead to his reelection, but congressional Republicans worry he’s sent the president on a suicide mission. While Republicans are united in their opposition to Obama’s signature health-care law, they remain divided on how to replace it, and Democrats are eager to exploit this tension while making health care a centerpiece of the 2020 campaign.

The behind-the-scenes role played by Mulvaney — who in Congress was a member of the hard-right Freedom Caucus and earned a reputation for frustrating Republican leadership — highlights the way he has operated as a top aide to Trump, first as budget director and now as acting chief of staff.

If Trump is well-known within the White House for having little interest in both policy and nuance, Mulvaney seems to specialize in it. But the acting chief of staff has also sought to frame his long-held views in a way that won’t undermine the president. This has allowed Mulvaney to use his proximity to power to directly shape major White House policy proposals that echo his priorities during a congressional career spent more in shouting from the sidelines than in rooms where deals were made.

He used his budget office perch to craft spending plans that drastically reduced funding for programs such as education, environmental protection and housing. Earlier this year, following a partial government shutdown he supported, it was Mulvaney who helped aggressively engineer the controversial emergency declaration plan to fund large sections of a border wall without congressional approval — and dubbed it “D-Day,” White House officials said. It was a move that deeply frustrated many Senate Republicans, but Mulvaney told the president that senators wouldn’t override him. And now he has pushed Trump into a health-care fight many in the party are eager to avoid. 

“The greatest political liability one can accrue is advocating for the disruption in coverage for Americans who are currently pleased with their own health care,” said Josh Holmes, a former senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “What’s happened in the last six months is the Democrats have taken the health-care issues and have walked to the precipice of the cliff and are ready to drop off. The only thing that’s saving them is a Republican grabbing them by the collar and jumping off instead.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who chairs the Freedom Caucus and is close with Mulvaney, said the acting chief is taking the right approach. “The 2020 elections will be more about domestic policy than they will be about foreign policy,” Meadows said. “It’s Mick Mulvaney’s sweet spot.”

In a new court filing Monday night, the Justice Department argued that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, should be thrown out in its entirety. The filing was made with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, where an appeal is pending in a case brought by Republican state attorneys general challenging the law’s constitutionality. A federal judge in Texas ruled in December that the entire law is invalid, in an opinion that went considerably further than the administration’s position at the time.

Before Monday’s filing, the Justice Department argued that there were grounds only to strike down the law’s consumer protections, including those for people with preexisting health conditions, but that the rest should be kept intact. Now the administration wants the whole law thrown out.

Politico first reported Mulvaney’s role in pushing Trump to support invalidating Obamacare. 

Mulvaney is proving to be a far different chief of staff than his predecessors. Reince Priebus, who first held the job, spent much of his time careening around the West Wing — trying to manage his presidential charge and the West Wing’s feuding factions. John Kelly, Trump’s second chief of staff, was a strict gatekeeper who worked to limit the president’s inner circle.

“What would surprise people is that the Freedom Caucus member who went to OMB and is now chief of staff is willing to evaluate things without making his opinions be a part of any calculation,” Meadows said. “The other [thing] is Mick Mulvaney has probably the second most powerful position in Washington, D.C., and yet he allows other people access to the president and doesn’t feel challenged by that.” 

Mulvaney has adopted a more relaxed approach, despite having held three different posts in the administration — at one point, he was acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and at times holding two roles simultaneously. 

White House officials say Mulvaney is generally well-liked within the West Wing, allowing robust debate and empowering various advisers and officials. He helped foster his personal relationship with Trump over golf — and was on the course with the president as recently as Sunday, where the topic of health care also came up. 

“Mick’s approach is hands-off but not hands-free,” said White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. “He is involved in every policy discussion, presidential decision-making exercise, and he and his team make sure the president is fully briefed.”

Mulvaney aides have deliberately worked to keep his profile low, arguing that Trump often sours on advisers when he reads stories that say they are controlling, shaping or trying to influence him. Mulvaney declined to be interviewed for this article. 

He asks the president detailed questions about his daily calendar, knowing that Trump does not like to be over-scheduled and likes to have free time, and adheres to what Trump wants. He has also taken it upon himself to try to serve as Trump’s inside-the-Beltway fixer, familiarizing himself with as many rules and laws as possible to help his boss avoid stumbling blocks.

Earlier this month, when Trump unleashed 52 frenzied tweets in just 34 hours, Mulvaney was on vacation in Las Vegas. He has told other White House aides that he only worries about Trump’s tweets if they threaten a legislative priority — such as alienating a needed vote — or if they announce policy or personnel.

Mulvaney has also described a steep learning curve on foreign policy, and told others how surreal it was to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Hanoi summit last month.

His health-care maneuvering was met with dismay from many in his party. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), for instance, has urged Trump to hold off on pushing for the courts to overturn Obamacare, a private pitch first reported by Axios. A Republican strategist in frequent touch with the White House said some in the administration were frustrated with Mulvaney for his “ham-handed move,” describing Mulvaney as abiding by “Freedom Caucus and club for dopes rules.”

Mulvaney has been aligned with a broad coalition of conservative groups that have worked with the Republican attorneys general who brought the ACA lawsuit and have urged that the president adopt a harder legal line, according to a former member of Trump’s domestic policy transition team and steering committee member of the Conservative Action Project. Others, including Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Attorney General William P. Barr, have been more aligned with McConnell, who has feared that any wholesale rejection of the 2010 health-care law would exert pressure on Congress to reopen debate about how to replace the ACA, according to the individual, who spoke about internal conversations on the condition of anonymity.

“Alex and, I think, Barr, have the more reserved positions,” the individual said. “The president netted out with the harder-line approach.”

Trump himself has not articulated his plan for health care, and urged members of Congress to write one. In his meeting Tuesday on Capitol Hill, he explained to senators that health care was the party’s main vulnerability because they had “owned” the economy and the border, officials with knowledge of the meeting said. He told them he decided in the motorcade ride over that his new slogan would link Republicans to being the party of health care.

Mulvaney’s defenders say that on health care, he is simply helping Trump achieve his policy objectives. When the Texas ruling was first announced, for instance, Trump tweeted that the decision was “great news for America!” 

Mulvaney’s budgets as OMB director have also prioritized the president’s goals over some of those Mulvaney himself advocated for as a fiery and conservative lawmaker. His fiscal plans have jacked up spending for military programs, a priority for Trump, and stopped short of imposing major structural changes to Medicare because Trump ordered it. Trump, however, grew angry last year when he learned Mulvaney was behind a budget request for the wall that only requested $1.6 billion.

If Mulvaney, who wears a boot on his right foot for an Achilles heel injury, struggled to transition from a conservative mischief maker who enjoyed needling his party’s leadership to a deputy in the Trump administration, he has shown few outward signs. In a closed-door speech to donors last year, Mulvaney argued that Republicans should support Trump even if they find his style distasteful, according to a recording of the event obtained by The Washington Post. 

He cited the administration’s handling of religious freedom cases and said there were many more examples.

Still, he added, “It’s not sexy.”

Alice Crites and Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-chief-of-staff-mulvaney-pushes-health-care-fight-trump-wants-republicans-fear/2019/03/27/c52a07de-50bc-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.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)Are you now $750 million richer?

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/us/powerball-drawing-750-million-numbers/index.html