Recently Added Videos

Mr. Cohen testified on Feb. 27 in a daylong public hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee about what he described as Mr. Trump’s lies about his business interests in Russia and his role in the payment of hush money to an adult film actress who claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen called the president a racist, a con man and a cheat.

The search materials were made public at the order of Judge Pauley. Last fall, when The New York Times and other news organizations asked the judge to unseal the materials, the government opposed such action.

Prosecutors cited the “need to protect an ongoing law enforcement investigation” and the privacy of “numerous uncharged third parties.”

Judge Pauley, in a 30-page opinion on Feb. 7 made clear why he thought some materials could be released while others had to remain sealed for now.

“At this stage,” the judge wrote, “wholesale disclosure of the materials would reveal the scope and direction of the government’s ongoing investigation,” the subjects of the inquiry and the potential conduct under scrutiny and other sensitive issues.

But Judge Pauley approved the release of information related to Mr. Cohen’s charges for tax evasion and false statements to financial institutions, as well as conduct by Mr. Cohen that did not result in criminal charges.

Judge Pauley ultimately ordered the government to provide him with a copy of the sealed materials and proposed redactions. On Monday, after saying he had reviewed and approved the redactions, he ordered the government to file the redacted copy on the public court docket.

The judge also said he would revisit the documents’ secrecy in the near future, directing prosecutors to provide him with a confidential update by May 15.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/nyregion/michael-cohen-documents-trump.html

Another top prosecutor has left Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, marking the second high-profile departure announcement this month and raising speculations that the Russia probe will soon be wrapped up.

Zainab Ahmad, a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York who worked extensively on counterterrorism cases, was one of the prosecutors who signed former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for lying to the FBI concerning his contacts with a Russian official.

ANDREW WEISSMANN, A TOP PROSECUTOR ON MUELLER TEAM, TO LEAVE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE IN ‘NEAR FUTURE’

But the special counsel’s office said on Monday that Ahmad is done with her work on the investigation concerning alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Zainab Ahmad has concluded her detail with the Special Counsel’s Office but will continue to represent the office on specific pending matters that were assigned to her during her detail,” Peter Carr said in a statement first reported by Yahoo! News.

Her name came up last year during Justice Department official Bruce Ohr’s closed-doors interview as part of the Republican-led House Oversight and Judiciary Committee probes.

Ohr told lawmakers that he shared details about his meetings with former British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the salacious anti-Trump dossier, with a number of his expansive circle of contacts in the department and other officials, including Ahmad.

The prosecutor’s departure came just a week after it was confirmed that Deputy Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann is planning to leave Mueller’s team “in the near future” and expected to work at the New York University School of Law.

PAUL MANAFORT SENTENCED ON FOREIGN LOBBYING AND WITNESS TAMPERING CHARGES

In addition to Ahmad and Weissmann, the FBI also announced earlier this month that David Archey, senior legal special agent on the special counsel’s team, began reporting to his new job on March 4.

The departures are likely to fuel the speculations that the Russia investigation is nearing its end following years of legal battles that netted sentences against President Trump’s associates.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Yet both the Justice Department and Mueller team are tight-lipped when the report on the alleged collusion could see the light. The report produced by the special counsel will have to undergo the DOJ scrutiny and it will be up to Trump-appointed Attorney General William Barr to determine how much information Congress will see.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson, Brooke Singman and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/another-top-russia-probe-prosecutor-left-robert-muellers-team-raising-speculations-investigation-is-nearing-its-end

Source Article from https://www.omaha.com/news/metro/rain-is-in-the-forecast-for-southeast-nebraska-but-river/article_f57da541-0214-5c1e-8916-9a6fed3cdd17.html

A federal judge has ordered redacted copies of the search warrant materials from the FBI’s raid of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s home and office last spring be made public.

The documents will be placed on the docket Tuesday, according to a brief order by U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley III.

Included in the approved redactions are Cohen’s phone numbers, apartment number, and safety deposit box number.

The materials were obtained as part of an FBI raid of Cohen’s New York City home, office, and safety deposit box last April.

Cohen pleaded guilty in August to tax and bank fraud, and to violating campaign finance law by arranging payments to silence women alleging affairs with President Trump. In November, he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about efforts to open a Trump Tower in Moscow.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, and he’s due to start that sentence in May.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-orders-release-of-michael-cohen-search-warrant-materials

March 18 at 8:07 AM

New Zealand firms are considering whether to pull their advertisements from social media following last Friday’s terror attack on two mosques.

The mass shooting killed 50 and injured dozens more. It was also live-streamed on Facebook. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern reportedly wants answers from Facebook regarding how this happened, and said that the responsibility for the removal of videos from the scene ultimately rested with social media platforms.

“We did as much as we could to remove, or seek to have removed, some of the footage that was being circulated in the aftermath of this terrorist attack,” Ardern said. “But ultimately it has been up to those platforms to facilitate their removal.”

The Association of New Zealand Advertisers and the Commercial Communications Council put out a joint statement on Monday asking firms to consider sending a similar message to social media platforms.

“The events in Christchurch raise the question, if the site owners can target consumers with advertising in microseconds, why can’t the same technology be applied to prevent this kind of content being streamed live?” the statement read.

“ANZA and the Comms Council encourage all advertisers to recognize they have choice where their advertising dollars are spent, and carefully consider, with their agency partners, where their ads appear,” it continued. “We challenge Facebook and other platform owners to immediately take steps to effectively moderate hate content before another tragedy can be streamed online.”

[The power of the haka: New Zealanders pay traditional tribute to mosque attack victims]

Some firms had already made the decision to pull their ads. New Zealand’s Lotto told Reuters it had already done so “as the tone didn’t feel right in the aftermath of these events.”

ASB Bank is reportedly considering pulling its ads, as are Burger King and telecommunications company Spark, according to the New Zealand Herald.

At least one firm’s executive is also personally pulling out of Facebook. Tony Fernandes, chief executive of AirAsia, quit Facebook on Sunday, explaining himself on Twitter (where he is still active).

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/18/after-live-streamed-new-zealand-shooting-firms-push-platforms-change-by-threatening-pull-ads/

On Monday, Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May cannot bring her Brexit deal back to Parliament for a third vote — at least in the deal’s current form.

Considering that the European Union has ruled out renegotiating the terms of Brexit, Bercow’s action creates a major obstacle. Up until now, May had hoped to bring her deal back for a third vote that might just have scraped over the line. But now, with Britain’s March 29 deadline for leaving the EU rapidly approaching, one of two things seems likely to happen: Either Britain will leave the EU without a deal, at the risk of significant economic hardship, or the EU will accept Parliament’s desire for an extension to the March 29 deadline.

While it is likely that the EU will grant an extension, Bercow’s rebuke means that May is caught between that extension and no obvious means of getting a deal-based Brexit into effect. After all, if May cannot call a vote on her deal and the EU won’t renegotiate it, what can she do?

That raises another question: What is Bercow’s thought process?

I don’t buy the speaker’s claim that he was forced into this action by parliamentary conventions reaching back hundreds of years. I suspect that Bercow’s ultimate motivation here is forcing May to call an election. Bercow is renowned for his interest in retaining public spotlight, and were he to force an election, he’d win a place as one of history’s most powerful speakers.

In the short term, however, this is just another curve ball for Brexit.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-britains-parliamentary-speaker-just-made-brexit-harder

“This is ‘bad optics.’ I hope and pray that no one in the ethno-nationalist community has had anything to do with this,” one person wrote. “Because we know what’s coming: government crackdown, surveillance, increased gun control and an emboldened Antifa harassing us.”

Another person called the shootings a “brutal wake-up call” and said the victims deserved “no sympathy.”

A user called Celtic Warrior said, “Harsh medicine, indeed, but sadly, very necessary.”

The Dominion Movement is a year-old group that describes itself as a “fraternity of young New Zealand nationalists” united by the belief that “Europeans are the defining people of this nation and that they were essential in its creation.”

“We oppose the animosity and contempt this system holds for us and our people, we reject the entire concept of White guilt,” a cached version of its website reads.

As of Tuesday, the group’s Twitter and Instagram accounts had been suspended.

Whether these groups or others have a chance to amplify whatever Mr. Tarrant says when he appears in court — his next appearance is scheduled for April 5 — is still unknown. The judge in the case could ban cameras or find other ways to suppress information, according to lawyers.

Richard Peters, the duty lawyer at the suspected gunman’s first court appearance Saturday, said he didn’t know whether the man’s decision to represent himself would draw more attention to the case or less.

But for Ms. Ardern and many others, his efforts are best ignored, in court, and on the internet.

“I don’t have all of the answers now, but we must collectively find them,” she said. “And we must act.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/world/asia/new-zealand-shooting-suspect-name.html

<!– –>

Deutsche Bank loaned more than $2 billion to Donald Trump before he became U.S. president — despite multiple red flags surrounding Trump, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The Times interviewed more than 20 former and current executives and board members at Deutsche Bank for the report, which outlined how Trump managed to secure financing from the German bank for nearly two decades despite his bankruptcies and being considered a risky client by other lenders.

The Times report comes after Germany’s two largest lenders, Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, confirmed on Sunday that they were in talks about a merger. German-traded shares of both banks jumped higher on Monday.

According to the newspaper, in some instances, Trump exaggerated his wealth and promised to reward bankers with a weekend at Mar-a-Lago — his private club in Palm Beach, Florida — in order to get loans.

Over the years, Trump used loans provided by Deutsche Bank to build skyscrapers and other high-end properties, the Times reported. For the German bank, its relationship with Trump was key in building its investment-banking business, the report said.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the Times report. The Trump Organization and the White House did not immediately reply to CNBC’s request for comment.

Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has come under scrutiny in the U.S. The New York attorney general’s office and the Democratic-controlled Intelligence Committee and Financial Services Committee in Congress have been looking into the president’s financial ties with the German bank.

For the full report on U.S. President Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank, read The New York Times.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/deutsche-bank-loaned-2-billion-to-donald-trump-over-two-decades-nyt.html


Rep. Devin Nunes warned that his litigation “is the first of many lawsuits that are coming,” arguing that Americans’ “First Amendment rights are at stake” because of Twitter’s actions. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Legal

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is suing Twitter and three of its users for $250 million in damages, alleging that he was defamed and that the social media juggernaut engages in the “shadow-banning” of conservative opinions and selectively enforces its own terms of service to benefit opponents of the Republican Party.

Nunes also claims in the 40-page lawsuit, dated Monday and addressed to the Virginia Circuit Court in Henrico County, that Twitter sought to influence his 2018 re-election race and interfere with his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Nunes oversaw that inquiry as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — a role he held until Democrats officially retook the House in January.

Story Continued Below

Fox News on Monday uploaded a copy of the complaint to its website. It was unclear whether the suit had actually been filed, since the copy did not bear a case number. Nunes’ lawyer could not be reached for comment Monday night.

Among the suit’s defendants are a Twitter user purporting to be the congressman’s mother, a Twitter user operating an account called “Devin Nunes’ cow,” and GOP communications strategist Liz Mair.

The suit references various messages critical of Nunes posted to the defendants’ accounts, as well as other accounts — including “Fire Devin Nunes” and “Devin Nunes’ Grapes” — “whose sole purpose was (and is) to publish and republish (tweet and retweet) false and defamatory statements about Nunes,” the suit alleges.

“The substance and timing of the tweets, retweets, replies and likes by Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and Devin Nunes’ cow demonstrates that all three bad actors were and are engaged in a joint effort, together and with others, to defame Nunes and interfere” with his congressional duties, Nunes’ attorney claimed in the suit.

“The full scope of the conspiracy, including the names of all participants and the level of involvement of donors and members of the Democratic Party, is unknown at this time and will be the subject of discovery in this action,” the complaint says.

Nunes on Monday evening warned that his litigation “is the first of many lawsuits that are coming,” arguing that Americans’ “First Amendment rights are at stake” because of Twitter’s actions.

“They spread this fake news and the slanderous news,” Nunes told host Sean Hannity in an interview on Fox News, accusing Twitter of “proliferating out things that they agree with, with the algorithms” he said the company has developed.

“How is it possible that I can be attacked relentlessly, hundreds of times a day by fake accounts that they claim in their terms of service should not be there?” Nunes said. “So I guarantee you if I put something out that was sexually explicit or attacked someone personally, they would stop it. They would say this is a sensitive tweet. They never did that to any of the people that were coming after me or other conservatives.”

A close ally of the president, Nunes has been the target of criticism over the past two years for his cozy relationship with the White House while overseeing the House’s investigation into Russian election meddling, which Democrats accuse him of inappropriately politicizing.

Republicans have long been incensed by what they view as Twitter’s partisan double standards for policing content on the site. Lawmakers in September called the company’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, to Capitol Hill, where he denied in two high-stakes hearings that his service suppresses conservative voices.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/devin-nunes-twitter-lawsuit-1226467

March 18 at 8:36 PM

After a gunman left 50 dead in an anti-Muslim massacre at two mosques in New Zealand, President Trump did not condemn the white supremacy extolled by the alleged shooter, nor did he express explicit sympathy with Muslims around the globe.

Instead, Trump spent the days that followed on the offensive — averaging just over a tweet per hour through the weekend as he decried various subjects, from unflattering television coverage to the late Republican senator John McCain. One of his few public defenders, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, took to the airwaves with an unusual declaration that “the president is not a white supremacist.”

In a broader planning meeting, administration officials briefly considered holding a roundtable featuring persecuted religious minorities — Muslims, as well as Christians and Jews — but the idea was scuttled when the group decided they couldn’t pull off such an event on short notice, a White House official said.

By Monday morning, Trump still had not heeded the plea of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern — whom he spoke with on the phone Friday — to offer his nation’s “sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.” But the president had contorted himself into a victim of the tragedy, griping on Twitter: “The Fake News Media is working overtime to blame me for the horrible attack in New Zealand.”

Trump’s tepid response to the New Zealand massacre has highlighted the president’s fraught and combative relationship with Islam and Muslims, which dates back at least to his campaign. Throughout his presidential bid and his presidency, Trump has made statements and enacted policies that many Muslim Americans and others find offensive and upsetting at best — and dangerous and Islamophobic at worst. 

In a lengthy manifesto, the admitted shooter, a white man from Australia, described Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose” and seemed to echo some of the U.S. president’s hard-line rhetoric on immigration, describing immigrants as “invaders within our lands.”

In response to a reporter’s question Friday, Trump said he did not view white nationalism as a rising threat around the world — despite evidence to the contrary. “I don’t really,” he said. “I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess.”

February report released by the Southern Poverty Law Center found 1,020 hate groups across the United States in 2018 — an all-time high — as well as an increase in the death toll tied to the radical right, with white supremacists in the United States and Canada killing at least 40 people. 

“What I’ve seen in the right wing — people who haven’t been as engaged in the political system until Trump came along, they really are taking his language very seriously,” said Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas Republican and Muslim who has served as a homeland security expert for the U.S. government. “He is promoting this nostalgic vision of America. He is always getting us to look backwards.”

The White House was quick to dismiss any suggestion that Trump should be connected to the massacre or the alleged attacker. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, urged the public and the media to read the entire manifesto, noting that Trump’s name is mentioned only “one time.”

Mulvaney, appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, also rejected “this idea that every time something bad happens everywhere around the world, folks who don’t like Donald Trump seem to blame it on Donald Trump.”

Yet the president has a long history of disparaging Muslims and other minorities, while simultaneously refusing to forcefully condemn white supremacy and violent nationalism. After a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017 left a woman dead, for instance, Trump held a freewheeling news conference in which he said “both sides” were to blame. 

“In the Republican Party, we’ve already had folks who liked to play footsie with the bigotry, but when it came to serious moments, they would tighten up their language, they would be careful not to be seen or misconstrued as overtly bigoted,” Elibiary said. “We haven’t traditionally had presidents go to the well of white-identity grievances, at least not in my lifetime. I haven’t seen a president try to hit those hot-button issues about us versus them.” 

Trump fueled his political rise in part with birtherism — the false and racist theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. The rest of his campaign, as well as his presidency, trafficked in language many Muslims found offensive.

At a September 2015 town hall in New Hampshire, for instance, Trump pledged to kick out of the United States all Syrian refugees, the majority of whom are Muslim, because they “could be ISIS,” a reference to the Islamic State. The following month, in a television interview, Trump said he would “certainly look at” possibly closing mosques in the country. And the next month, Trump toyed with the idea of creating a database of all Muslims in the United States.

Also during the campaign, he repeated his false claim that during the 9/11 attacks, he watched Arabs in New Jersey cheer as the twin towers crashed down. When a man claiming allegiance to the Islamic State killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub in 2016, Trump called for vigilance and was quick to praise his own tough stance.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” he wrote on Twitter, using a controversial term for terrorism perpetrated by Muslims. 

Perhaps most memorably, Trump also proposed a ban on all Muslims seeking to enter the country. 

Once in office, Trump plowed ahead with his inflammatory rhetoric — continuing to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” for instance — and actions. One of his first acts as president was to declare a temporary travel ban on individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries, an executive order that prompted mass confusion and was challenged in court on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court eventually upheld a revised version of the policy. 

One former senior administration official said Trump often associated Muslims with terrorism and rehashed grim Muslim terrorist attacks, even in private. “He thinks, and says sometimes, that Muslims are taking over Europe,” this person said. 

This former official, as well as a second person, said they’d never heard Trump use a derogatory term for Muslims in private. But they said many of his political calculations are based on how his supporters, whom he often calls “my people” or “the base,” will see an issue. The two people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Trump’s handling of the New Zealand terrorist attack, critics say, also follows a familiar pattern: The president has often seemed eager to highlight attacks and hate crimes perpetrated by Muslims but has frequently been slower and less forceful when Muslims are the victims. 

The thinking behind Trump’s comments and silences around the topic of Islam is opaque. Unlike previous presidents, Trump has shuttered much of the official faith-based infrastructure that allowed a wide range of religious leaders to advise the White House on topics ranging from church-state issues to foreign policy. Major U.S. Muslim organizations say that the administration has essentially shut down dialogue and that there is no regular contact between the White House and American Muslim leaders.

Oussama Jammal, secretary general of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, an umbrella group, said Monday that the White House’s lack of communication stands out starkly compared with past administrations. Until Trump, he said, the council and many high-profile groups met regularly with the State Department on a range of issues. 

“He’s shutting down the doors,” Jammal said. “We tried. We said: ‘Regardless of what then-candidate Trump said, or regardless of what he says as president, regardless of our differences, we’d love to meet with him, we’d like to sit down and explain more about Muslim Americans, what we do, how much we have worked with previous administrations. We don’t have to like each other, but we have to communicate.’ ”

Trump’s frequently combative stance toward Muslims and Islam, as well as his more muted response to acts of white nationalism, is reflected in the public’s view of him. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that 68 percent of U.S. Muslims said Trump made them feel “worried.” A July 2018 Quinnipiac poll also found that nearly half of voters believed Trump was racist. 

In the wake of the New Zealand massacre, Trump seemed eager to change the topic. After a tweet Friday expressing his “warmest sympathy and best wishes” for the people of New Zealand — and a brief statement decrying “the monstrous terror attacks” that transformed “sacred places of worship” into “scenes of evil killing” — the president largely devoted his weekend to personal grievance. 

Mostly alone in the White House on Saturday and Sunday, the president left the compound only for about an hour to attend church and had little on his schedule, according to current and former officials. Instead, Trump sent out more than 50 tweets, promulgating conspiracy theories about Britain, lambasting a “Saturday Night Live” rerun, criticizing General Motors for its decision to shutter an Ohio auto plant, and attacking the academic credentials and integrity of McCain.

Trump also sent three missives supporting Jeanine Pirro, the Fox News host who was suspended after she questioned the patriotism of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) because the Muslim lawmaker wears a hijab.

In addition, the president called allies “all weekend to vent,” said one person who spoke with Trump. A range of frustrations was on his mind, the person said: the 12 Republican senators who voted with Democrats to oppose his national emergency declaration at the southern border; what he viewed as unfair coverage on Fox News; what he has alleged was McCain’s role in providing a controversial Russia dossier to the FBI; and the expected timing of the release of a report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who spoke to Trump on Sunday afternoon, said the president was largely focused on his recently failed talks with the North Korean leader and his emergency border declaration — particularly Republican reaction to it. The president also complained about McCain and the dossier, Graham said.

Trump briefly mentioned the New Zealand shooter in their hour-long chat. “The one thing he said was, how could someone be so cruel?” Graham said. 

Overall, Graham concluded, “He was actually in a good spot.”

Michelle Boorstein contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-response-to-new-zealand-massacre-highlights-his-combative-history-with-muslims/2019/03/18/bca24248-4996-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html

Source Article from https://www.omaha.com/weather/missouri-river-spills-into-hamburg-iowa-other-cities-more-rain/article_2599d630-95a0-55c9-911f-0b2453435236.html

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is one of four high-ranking Democrats to sign a letter to the FBI requesting an investigation into the actions of Li “Cindy” Yang.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call Inc./Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is one of four high-ranking Democrats to sign a letter to the FBI requesting an investigation into the actions of Li “Cindy” Yang.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

High-ranking Democrats on Capitol Hill are calling for a counterintelligence investigation into a woman who has peddled access to President Trump and who founded the massage parlor where New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft is accused of soliciting sex.

Li “Cindy” Yang has been the subject of a number of reports in recent weeks, notably in The New York Times and the Miami Herald, which have detailed how she created a business that advertised “entry to events, including White House visits, ‘VIP activities at Mar-a-Lago’ and Warren Buffett’s annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway shareholders,” according to The Times.

She was photographed in February with Trump at a Super Bowl party that Kraft also attended, according to the Herald. And she also reportedly arranged for a group of Chinese business executives to attend a paid fundraiser for the president in late 2017.

If true, these allegations raise serious counterintelligence concerns,” wrote the highest-ranking Democrats on the intelligence and judiciary committees in both the House and the Senate in a letter dated Friday.

The letter, addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Secret Service Director Randolph Alles, contains questions about a number of aspects of Yang’s reported activities.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., released on Monday a statement in which they too said they support an investigation.

Yang founded the Orchids of Asia Day Spa, where Kraft is accused of visiting and soliciting prostitution twice — an accusation Kraft has called “totally false.” Yang told the Herald that she sold it long before the scandal involving the New England Patriots’ owner.

Democrats want to know the extent to which Yang or her businesses have been investigated by the FBI or state authorities for human trafficking or other violations of the law.

They also want a counterintelligence investigation into the extent that Yang or her clients interacted with Trump, Vice President Pence or other senior White House officials and whether those alleged interactions broke laws that govern international lobbying in the United States.

Yang met a number of high-level Republicans over the past year, according to the Herald:

“In 2018, she attended a Safari Night at Mar-a-Lago hosted by the president’s sister, Elizabeth Trump Grau, as well as the White House’s celebration of the Lunar New Year at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. She took photos with Florida’s soon-to-be-governor, Ron DeSantis, at a pro-Israel gala held at Mar-a-Lago, met U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao in Washington, D.C., and posed with Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, U.S. Rep. Brian Mast, U.S. Rep Matt Gaetz and former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. She also posted a photograph of herself with DeSantis at a restaurant, saying she was having ‘brunch this morning with Florida’s next Governor.’

“She was photographed with Donald Trump Jr. at a winter Mar-a-Lago gala for Turning Points USA, the conservative college organization, and met Eric Trump last month.”

No one Yang says she met with, or was photographed with, told the Herald that they remembered meeting her.

“Although Ms. Yang’s activities may only be those of an unscrupulous actor allegedly selling access to politicians for profit, her activities also could permit adversary governments or their agents access to these same politicians to acquire potential material for blackmail or other even more nefarious purposes,” wrote the Democrats.

They are also interested in probing whether Yang or any of her clients illegally contributed to campaigns in an effort to gain access to politicians.

You can read the entire letter here:

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/704557685/democrats-call-for-investigation-into-pro-trump-former-owner-of-massage-parlors

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of “shadow-banning conservatives” including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally “ignoring” lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes claimed Twitter wanted to derail his work on the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired until 2019, as he looked into alleged and apparent surveillance abuses by the government. Nunes said Twitter was guilty of “knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform.”

The lawsuit alleged defamation, conspiracy and negligence, and sought not only damages, but also an injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he said harassed and defamed him. The lawsuit is separate from Nunes’ work on the House Intelligence Committee, where he is now the ranking member.

“Twitter is a machine,” Nunes’ personal attorney, Steven S. Biss, told Fox News. “It is a modern-day Tammany Hall. Congressman Nunes intends to hold Twitter fully accountable for its abusive behavior and misconduct.”

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability at all levels, Nunes’ suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content — as opposed to merely hosting it — that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

“Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon,” Nunes’ legal team wrote. “Twitter is ‘responsible’ for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content.”

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Twitter’s algorithms and content monitoring in September 2018.
(REUTERS/Chris Wattie, File)

Additionally, as the complaint stated, Twitter has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid hosting outwardly defamatory content because of its increasingly important role in current affairs.

“Access to Twitter is essential for meaningful participation in modern-day American Democracy,” the complaint stated. “A candidate without Twitter is a losing candidate. The ability to use Twitter is a vital part of modern citizenship. A presence on Twitter is essential for an individual to run for office or engage in any level of political organizing in modern America. That is because Twitter is not merely a website: it is the modern town square. Twitter is equivalent to the private owner of a public forum who has fully opened its property to the general public for purposes of permitting the public’s free expression and debate. That is, in fact, what Twitter has always claimed to be.”

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has testified previously before Congress that his platform is a kind of “digital public square,” although he has insisted that Twitter, as a private company, retains the right to censor speech.

In large part because of Twitter’s actions, Nunes “endured an orchestrated defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope, one that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life” in the past year, according to the complaint.

“Twitter is a machine. It is a modern-day Tammany Hall.”

— Devin Nunes’ personal attorney, Steven S. Biss

The complaint also named specific Twitter accounts that spread allegedly defamatory material about Nunes. One defendant, identified as “Liz” Mair, purportedly published tweets that “implied that Nunes colluded with prostitutes and cocaine addicts, that Nunes does cocaine, and that Nunes was involved in a ‘Russian money laundering front,'” according to Nunes’ lawyers.

HOWARD KURTZ: IS TWITTER CORRUPTING JOURNALISM, OR EXPOSING ITS UTTER UNFAIRNESS?

The complaint quoted a June 22, 2018 tweet from Mair that implied Nunes invested in a winery that “allegedly used underage hookers to solicit investment.”

Mair did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment. Fox News has also reached out to Twitter for comment on the lawsuit, and was told only that “we’re not commenting at this time.” (The lawsuit seeks joint and several liability, which permits plaintiffs to recover from one defendant, and then leaves the defendants to sort out what each owes.)

The complaint also named “Devin Nunes’ Mom,” “a person who, with Twitter’s consent, hijacked Nunes’ name, falsely impersonated Nunes’ mother, and created and maintained an account on Twitter (@DevinNunesMom) for the sole purpose of attacking, defaming, disparaging and demeaning Nunes.”

Nunes lawyers’ wrote, “In her endless barrage of tweets, Devin Nunes’ Mom maliciously attacked every aspect of Nunes’ character, honesty, integrity, ethics and fitness to perform his duties as a United States Congressman.”

One tweet from the account, cited by the complaint, contained a crude drawing of Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump, and Nunes in a physically linked, symbiotic arrangement like the characters in the horror film “The Human Centipede (First Sequence).”

As of Monday afternoon, the @DevinNunesMom account was suspended by Twitter when Fox News tried to access it. The complaint stated that “Twitter only suspended the account in 2019 after Nunes’ real mother, Toni Dian Nunes, complained. … Twitter permitted @DevinNunesMom, for instance, to tweet and retweet with impunity throughout 2018.”

However, according to the complaint, “Twitter did nothing to investigate or review the defamation that appeared in plain view on its platform. Twitter consciously allowed the defamation of Nunes to continue” despite reports and purported reviews by Twitter’s content moderators.

TWITTER CEO: PLATFORM WAS PROBABLY ‘WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE’ IN BANNING ACCOUNTS

“As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes’ voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes’ investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing,” the complaint stated.

Another account named as a defendant was “Devin Nunes’ Cow,” or @DevinCow, which purportedly called Nunes a “treasonous cowpoke” and an “udder-ly worthless” criminal. The timing and substance of the tweets, according to Nunes’ team, suggested that Mair was working jointly with @DevinCow and @DevinNunesMom accounts.

In response to the lawsuit, the @DevinCow account — which was still active as of Monday evening — posted numerous tweets mocking Nunes. “I’m not quitting my day job,” one read.

Calif. GOP Rep. Devin Nunes has sued Twitter for over $250 million.
(AP, File)

The complaint also charged that Twitter “shadow-banned” Nunes in 2018 “in order to restrict his free speech and to amplify the abusive and hateful content published and republished by Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom,” and other accounts.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The shadow-banning was intentional,” the complaint continued. “It was calculated to interfere with and influence the federal election and interfere with Nunes’ ongoing investigation as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Twitter’s actions affected the election results. The combination of the shadow-ban and Twitter’s refusal to enforce its Terms and Rules in the face of clear and present abuse and hateful conduct caused Nunes to lose support amongst voters.”

The lawsuit cited numerous articles, including a Vice News story from last summer, reporting that Twitter had, for a time, downplayed the visibility of prominent conservatives in its search results.

On Monday, Sean Davis, the managing editor of The Federalist, wrote that he recently had been an apparent victim of a form of shadow-banning on Twitter.

“Twitter gave me no notice or explanation when it shadowbanned one of my Tweets about Russian interference in our elections,” Davis wrote. “But what’s worse is how Twitter apparently gives its users the fraudulent impression that their tweets, which Twitter secretly bans, are still public.”

Davis charged that Twitter “claimed in its e-mail to me that it ‘mistakenly remove[d]’ a completely anodyne tweet about public congressional testimony, but didn’t explain why it left the tweet–and metrics showing no engagement–visible to me when logged in. Is conning users a bug, or a feature?”

Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, acknowledged on Joe Rogan’s podcast earlier this month that the platform has been too aggressive in banning certain accounts.

Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s chief legal officer, said that the company would learn from its mistakes.

“Where we draw a line is when people use their voice and their platform to use their voice to silence someone else on the platform,” Gadde said on the podcast. “It’s rare for us to outright ban someone without warning.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-files-bombshell-defamation-suit-against-twitter-seeks-250m-for-anti-conservative-shadow-bans-smears

On Monday, Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May cannot bring her Brexit deal back to Parliament for a third vote — at least in the deal’s current form.

Considering that the European Union has ruled out renegotiating the terms of Brexit, Bercow’s action creates a major obstacle. Up until now, May had hoped to bring her deal back for a third vote that might just have scraped over the line. But now, with Britain’s March 29 deadline for leaving the EU rapidly approaching, one of two things seems likely to happen: Either Britain will leave the EU without a deal, at the risk of significant economic hardship, or the EU will accept Parliament’s desire for an extension to the March 29 deadline.

While it is likely that the EU will grant an extension, Bercow’s rebuke means that May is caught between that extension and no obvious means of getting a deal-based Brexit into effect. After all, if May cannot call a vote on her deal and the EU won’t renegotiate it, what can she do?

That raises another question: What is Bercow’s thought process?

I don’t buy the speaker’s claim that he was forced into this action by parliamentary conventions reaching back hundreds of years. I suspect that Bercow’s ultimate motivation here is forcing May to call an election. Bercow is renowned for his interest in retaining public spotlight, and were he to force an election, he’d win a place as one of history’s most powerful speakers.

In the short term, however, this is just another curve ball for Brexit.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-britains-parliamentary-speaker-just-made-brexit-harder


Lawmakers have accused Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan of staying quiet on what military projects could be raided to finance barriers on the southern border. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

Defense

The Pentagon on Monday sent lawmakers a lengthy list of nearly $12.9 billion in unobligated military construction funds that could be raided to build more barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border as part of President Donald Trump’s national emergency.

The move comes after Democrats accused Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan of stonewalling lawmakers on whether military projects in their states are at risk.

Story Continued Below

The Pentagon list outlines nearly $12.9 billion in projects across the military services that were unawarded as of Dec. 31. The bulk of money is concentrated in the last two fiscal years — nearly $6.8 billion for projects in the current 2019 fiscal year and nearly $4.3 billion for fiscal 2018.

After several testy exchanges during a Senate Armed Services hearing last week, Shanahan committed to the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, that he would soon provide that list.

Lawmakers in both parties are dyspeptic over potentially raiding the defense budget for a border wall — a move they fear will hurt military readiness just as it’s being rebuilt.

In a statement Monday, Reed called the move by Trump “a slap in the face to our military.”

“He is planning to take funds from real, effective operational priorities and needed projects and divert them to his vanity wall,” Reed said.

Trump aims to tap $3.6 billion in unobligated military construction funds for his signature border wall and is separately seeking to raid a Pentagon counternarcotics account for still more money.

The Pentagon says it won’t raid military housing and other projects that have been awarded or with fiscal 2019 award dates.

“The pool of potential military construction projects from which funding could be reallocated to support the construction of border barrier are solely projects with award dates after September 30, 2019,” the Pentagon said.

Trump’s newly released fiscal 2020 defense budget proposes $7.2 billion in emergency funding for the southern border, evenly split between new barriers and replenishing military construction projects that Trump is aiming to raid.

Shanahan, who took over in January after the abrupt resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, defended the move last week on Capitol Hill, telling the Senate Armed Services the border funding “will not come at the expense of our people, our readiness, or our modernization.”

But Reed and other Democrats slammed Shanahan for not giving Congress specifics on what projects might be on the chopping block as lawmakers voted on a resolution to terminate the emergency.

“I feel completely sandbagged,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told Shanahan. “You’re going to send it to us … after the vote on the emergency declaration. Members of the Senate are entitled to know from where these MilCon monies will be pulled.”

The House and Senate approved a resolution to nullify the emergency declaration, but Trump quickly vetoed the measure.

The House is set to vote next week on overriding Trump’s veto, but the effort is expected to fall short. Still Reed argued the list gives lawmakers new ammunition.

“A bipartisan majority of Congress went on record in voting to rebuke this ill-conceived idea,” Reed said. “Now that members of Congress can see the potential impact this proposal could have on projects in their home states, I hope they will take that into consideration before the vote to override the President’s veto.”

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/border-wall-pentagon-military-funds-1226145

A teenager accused of injuring her 16-year-old friend by pushing her off a 60-foot bridge in southwestern Washington in August pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor reckless endangerment.

Taylor Smith appeared in Clark County District Court, where a state prosecutor recommended no jail time. She will be sentenced on March 27.

Smith pushed Jordan Holgerson off the Moulton Falls Regional Park bridge northeast of Vancouver on Aug. 7. Holgerson suffered six broken ribs and punctured lungs.

Smith, 19, was charged with one count of reckless endangermentabout a week and a half after the incident, a misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

She pleaded not guilty in December. Last month, Smith was offered a plea deal, the details of which were not shared in court.

The 10-second video clip of the incident captured on a cellphone went viral.

Holgerson initially planned to jump off the bridge into a river about 60 feet below, but has said she changed her mind.

She said in a recent interview on NBC’s “Today” that while she was looking forward to Smith being sentenced, she was uncertain what punishment Smith should face.

“Some days, I kind of want her to be put in jail,” Holgerson said. “And some days, I think that might be too harsh.”




Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/03/18/teen-who-pushed-girl-off-bridge-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor/23695267/

“);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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/cindy-yang-donald-trump-democrats-fbi-investigation/index.html

March 18 at 2:58 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May suffered humiliating defeat in the two earlier votes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media captionSpeaker John Bercow rejects further Brexit votes without changes to motion

Speaker John Bercow has thrown the UK’s Brexit plans into further confusion by ruling out another vote on the PM’s deal unless MPs are given a new motion.

In a surprise ruling, he said he would not allow a third “meaningful vote” in the coming days on “substantially the same” motion as MPs rejected last week.

With 11 days to go before the UK is due to leave the EU, ministers have warned of a looming “constitutional crisis”.

The UK is currently due to leave the EU on 29 March.

Theresa May has negotiated the withdrawal deal with the EU but it must also be agreed by MPs.

They have voted against it twice, and the government has been considering a third attempt to get it through Parliament.

Mr Bercow cited a convention dating back to 1604 that a defeated motion could not be brought back in the same form during the course of a parliamentary session.

He said the second vote on the prime minister’s deal last week was “in order” as it was substantially different to the first, but any further votes must pass the “test” he set out to be allowed.

The BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg said the speaker’s intervention does not stop Brexit from happening, but it makes it “extremely unlikely” that the government will put another vote on the deal to Parliament this week.

She said this makes it less likely the prime minister will ask EU leaders at a summit this week for a short extension – which Mrs May had said she would do if her deal got through Parliament.

This in turn makes it more likely there will be a longer delay to Brexit, she added.

She said: “The conclusion that most people in Westminster would reach from that means that we’re heading – it’s likely – towards a closer relationship with the European Union, a softer Brexit than the one Theresa May has set out.”

However, she added: “That said, the government does believe that, although they’re not clear about what it might be yet, there is a way round this complication – but it is another significant obstacle for Number 10 tonight and it has, in the words of one senior official, made things significantly more complicated.”

Mr Bercow’s statement appeared to take Downing Street by surprise, with the prime minister’s official spokesman saying it had not been warned of its contents “or indeed the fact that he was making one”.

Later, a Number 10 spokesman said the statement had been noted and required “proper consideration”.

The role of the speaker, who is the highest authority of the House of Commons, includes controlling debates, calling MPs to speak and choosing which amendments can be debated.

Analysis by BBC political correspondent Iain Watson

How can the government get another vote on Theresa May’s deal?

Well, first of all, rules are there to be changed.

If MPs suspend or change the “standing orders” of Parliament, they could get the Brexit deal back on the agenda.

Secondly, the government could change the proposition on offer.

The former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has suggested that something “substantially” different would be to ask Parliament to vote for the deal subject to a referendum.

Or change the Parliament?

If MPs can’t discuss the same thing in the same session of Parliament, why not simply start a new one?

Read Iain’s complete analysis here.

What’s the current state of play?

The prime minister had been expected to submit her Brexit deal for MPs to vote on for a third time this week – a week after they rejected it by 149 votes – and ahead of the EU summit on Thursday.

Last week MPs also voted in favour of ruling out leaving the EU without a deal, and in favour of extending the Brexit process – though an extension would have to be agreed by all 27 EU member states.

Brexit minister Kwasi Kwarteng has confirmed Mrs May will be writing to European Council President Donald Tusk to ask to postpone the UK’s exit date.

If the EU agreed, the government would ask both Houses of Parliament to approve the change, he said.

Mr Kwarteng said the length of the extension would depend on “whether the meaningful vote goes through or not”.

“If we have a deal… we will ask for a short extension,” he said.

“Now if for whatever reason that vote doesn’t happen, or is frustrated or is voted down, we will probably ask for a long extension of the period – and that would be a matter for the EU and for our government to decide.”

European leaders are expected to discuss the UK request to extend the Brexit process and delay the UK’s departure at the summit on Thursday.

Shadow Brexit minister Matthew Pennycook said the fact that Article 50 needed to be extended was “a mark of this government’s failure”.

Meanwhile, the government has been trying to convince the DUP and Tory Brexiteers, who have both voiced concerns about the backstop – the controversial arrangement to prevent physical checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – to vote in favour of the deal.

The DUP has opposed the deal up to now and are seeking further “clarifications” on the government’s legal advice about the backstop, and how the UK could exit it.

What’s been the reaction to the speaker’s intervention?

Ministers and MPs supportive of Mrs May’s deal expressed anger at the timing of Mr Bercow’s intervention.

Conservative MP James Gray, who plans to vote for the deal after rejecting it twice, said he was “absolutely furious”; while fellow Tory Greg Hands suggested Mr Bercow was the only person in the country who was “accountable to nobody”.

Solicitor General Robert Buckland warned there was now a “constitutional crisis” and suggested the onus was on the EU to come up with “new solutions” to enable MPs to vote on the deal again.

“Frankly we could have done without this, but it is something we are going to have to deal with,” he said.

He suggested “there were ways around this” – including potentially cutting short the current session of Parliament, a move which would lead to calls for a general election.

Some opponents of the PM’s Brexit deal welcomed the Speaker’s ruling.

Conservative former cabinet minister Owen Paterson said it was a “game-changer” and would “concentrate minds” ahead of Thursday’s EU summit.

Sir Bill Cash, chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, said it seemed to make an “enormous amount of sense” given that the Brexit deal has been defeated twice and there would need to be a “substantial difference” to allow a third vote.

But the SNP’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford suggested there was now a “constitutional crisis” and he suggested the prime minister should “immediately” call a meeting of opposition leaders.

And Brexiteer Nadhim Zahawi, Tory minister for children and families, told BBC Newsnight that the Speaker had “made it now much more difficult to have the short extension” and a meaningful vote, “therefore the longer extension is now clearly on the table. I don’t believe that’s a good thing”.

The view from the EU

By BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming

The EU’s official position is that they are waiting for Theresa May to come to a summit in Brussels on Thursday with a clear statement about how she plans to proceed, and there definitely won’t be any more negotiations when she gets here.

Unofficially, EU officials wonder if the government can get itself out of this situation, either with Parliamentary wizardry or by coming up with UK-only additions to the package, such as new guarantees about the role of Northern Ireland’s Stormont Assembly in the future.

And could the joint UK/EU decision about an extension to the Brexit process, due to be taken on Thursday, be appended to the deal and then count as something new enough to justify another vote in the Commons?

But explain to diplomats that the solution might be the Queen closing Parliament and re-opening a new session with a speech and their reactions are priceless.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47614074

UTRECHT, Netherlands (Reuters) – Dutch police arrested a Turkish man suspected of shooting dead three people and wounding five on a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht on Monday.

Utrecht police announced the suspect, 37-year-old Gokmen Tanis, had been taken into custody.

The city was put into lockdown after the shooting, shortly after the morning rush hour, which authorities initially said was an apparent terrorist attack. Police conducted raids in several locations.

But hours after the shooting, the gunman’s motive remained unclear. A prosecutor said it could be for “family reasons” and Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency, quoting relatives of the gunman, said he had fired at a relative on the tram and had then shot at others who tried to help her.

Helicopters hovered over the usually quiet mediaeval town.

Authorities had raised the terrorism threat in Utrecht province to its highest level, schools were told to shut their doors and paramilitary police increased security at airports, other vital infrastructure and at mosques.

RELATED: Terror level raised following Dutch tram shooting




Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte convened crisis talks immediately after the incident, which came three days after a lone gunman killed 50 people in mass shootings at two mosques in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand.

“Our country has today been shocked by an attack in Utrecht… A terrorist motive cannot be excluded,” Rutte said.

“The first reports have led to disbelief and disgust. Innocent people have been struck by violence… We are now doing everything we can to find the perpetrator or perpetrators as soon as possible. That is now our complete focus.”

The mayor of Utrecht, Jan van Zanen, said three people had been killed and nine injured, three of them seriously. The number of injured was later lowered to five.

Dutch police issued an image of Tanis and warned the public not to approach him.

 

“FRIGHTENING”

The suspect had previous run-ins with police, the prosecutor said. Local broadcaster RTV Utrecht said earlier the suspect was known to police for both minor and major crimes, including a shooting in 2013.

The shooting took place in Kanaleneiland, a quiet residential district on the outskirts of Utrecht with a large immigrant population.

“It’s frightening that something like this can happen so close to home,” said Omar Rahhou, who said his parents lived on a street cordoned off by police. “These things normally happen far away but this brings it very close, awful.”

Witness Daan Molenaar, who said he had been sitting at the front of the tram when the shooting started, told national broadcaster NOS he did not believe it was a terrorist attack.

“The first thing I thought was, this is some kind of revenge or something, or somebody who’s really mad and grabbed a pistol,” he said.

The streets of Utrecht were emptier than usual and mosques in the city kept their doors closed on Monday. Police screened off the site where at least one body lay covered near the tram.

Dutch television showed counter-terrorism units surrounding a house in Utrecht and sniffer dogs being put to work.

Utrecht, the Netherlands’ fourth largest city with a population of around 340,000, is known for its picturesque canals and large student population. Gun killings are rare in Utrecht, as elsewhere in the Netherlands.

(Additional reporting by Toby Sterling and Anthony Deutsch; Writing by Gareth Jones; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/03/18/dutch-police-arrest-turkish-man-suspected-of-killing-three-in-tram-shooting/23694875/

<!– –>

Flight data recovered from the wreckage of an Ethiopian Airlines jet showed “clear similarities” to another deadly crash of one of Boeing‘s top-selling 737 Max aircraft last October, according to the French accident investigator that downloaded the information.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, a Boeing 737 Max 8, went down shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa on March 10, killing all 157 people on board. That occurred less than five months after a Lion Air jet crashed into the Java Sea in Indonesia during a similar stage in its flight, killing all 189 passengers and crew. Both 737 Max 8 jets were delivered to the airlines just months before their fatal flights.

The U.S. on Wednesday joined dozens of other countries in ordering airlines to ground the planes after the Federal Aviation Administration said it found new evidence that may link the two crashes.

Investigators who verified the data from the doomed Ethiopian Airlines jet’s flight data recorder found similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopia crashes, “which will be the subject of further study during the investigation,” French accident authority BEA said in a statement Monday. That echoed statements from Ethiopian Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges a day earlier.

Data from the other black box — the cockpit voice recorder — has also been extracted and has been handed over to Ethiopia’s accident investigator, BEA said. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which is participating in the investigation of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, also verified the data, BEA added.

Scrutiny has increased on the federal approval process for the new Boeing Max jets, which have been flying for less than two years.

The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous people familiar with the matter, reported Sunday that a grand jury issued a subpoena to “at least one person” involved in the development of the plane. It said a prosecutor from the criminal division of the Justice Department was listed as a contact. The Journal also said that the Transportation Department’s watchdog was scrutinizing the FAA’s certification of the new 737 planes. Boeing had added an automatic anti-stall system to the Max jets when they went into service in 2017 that was not on older 737 aircraft. Indonesia investigators have indicated that as a possible factor in the Lion Air crash in October.

Pilots said they were not informed about the new system until after the Lion Air crash. Many were given a roughly hourlong iPad training class to transition from older Boeing 737s to the 737 Max, according to Dennis Tajer, a Boeing 737 pilot and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots.

Boeing shares were down more than 2.6 percent in afternoon trading Monday, shaving nearly 60 points off the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as the day’s biggest loser in the index.

The FAA, Justice Department and the Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General declined to comment. Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WATCH: Why Boeing and Airbus dominate 99% of the large plane market

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/18/french-investigator-clear-similarities-between-boeing-737-max-crashes.html