Recently Added Videos

Since the first populist protests last month, the long silence of President Emmanuel Macron — who is perceived by many in France as a conceited centrist — aggravated activists’ anger, and it showed no sign of subsiding after his concessions Monday.

Many protesters — who have led four weeks of increasingly radicalized demonstrations — hoped only to hear one thing from Macron: “I quit.”

Benjamin Cauchy, who previously had been reported as a self-proclaimed protest leader, told France 2 TV, as BBC reported: “These are half measures. We feel that Macron has got a lot more to give.”

A man walking his dog past a tag reading: Happy Christmas Manu, referring to French President Emmanuel Macron, in Paris, Sunday. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

Even as Macron broke his silence on the protests in a brief televised address, yellow-vested demonstrators vowed to keep up the pressure on a man they see as arrogant, out-of-touch and “president of the rich.”

“It doesn’t solve the problem,” a protester in a yellow vest, Alain Bouche, told BFM television from a yellow-vest roadblock southwest of Paris. He said fellow demonstrators want a national referendum, too.

Some protest representatives have said more demonstrations will be held Saturday, following those in Paris that turned violent during the previous two weekends.

Meanwhile, students opposing changes in key high school tests are calling for a new round of protests Tuesday.

The recent dissent started in neglected provinces to oppose fuel tax increases and progressed to rioting in Paris.

Graffiti scrawled throughout the French capital singles Macron out for criticism, reflecting a national sense that the former investment banker is arrogant and removed from public concerns.

“Macron is there for the rich, not for all the French,” 68-year-old retiree Jean-Pierre Meunuer said at Saturday’s protest in Paris.

Overall, Macron unveiled no radical changes, and clung to his vision for transforming France. Yet his costly promises will make it even more difficult to boost growth — already being hammered by the protests that have damaged holiday retail sales and worried tourists and foreign investors.

“It’s more of a budgetary adjustment than a change of political course,” Cauchy added. “That doesn’t correspond to what the French want.”

With new demonstrations planned for Saturday, some police officers who spent multiple weekends on crowd and riot patrol are calling for their own tax-exempt overtime pay.

Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said new measures should focus on helping France’s working classes.

“We are ready to make any gesture” that works, he said on RTL radio. “What is important now is to put an end to the crisis and find peace and unity in the country again.”

Fallout from the protests so far could cost France 0.1 percent of gross domestic product in the last quarter of the year, Le Maire warned. “That means fewer jobs, it means less prosperity for the whole country,” he said.

Macron acknowledged he may have given an impression “not to care” about the concerns of ordinary citizens and “might have hurt” some people with his comments. For instance, he wounded many when he told a jobless man he just had to “cross the street” to find work. Or when he told retirees with small pensions to stop complaining. Or when he suggested some French workers are “lazy.”

“We believed in Macron,” Bruno Passe, a retired farmer from the eastern Champagne region, told the Financial Times. “He sold us a dream that he was going to change everything, and now we are fooled.”

OPINION: PROTESTS SHOULD BE LESSON FOR GREEN ACTIVISTS IN U.S.

Before his TV speech, Macron met with local and national politicians and with union and business leaders to hear their concerns — but with no representatives of the scattered, leaderless protest movement.

He showed no signs of giving in during his TV speech. Instead, he defended his political independence and described his devotion to serving France. No French presidential or parliamentary elections are scheduled until 2022.

Protest and street violence has been a central part of France’s political culture — from the Revolution in the late 1700s to the student riots in 1968 — and the “yellow vest” movement reflects this tradition.

The yellow vests worn by the populist protesters have become the symbol of the wave of demonstrations. The protests began in November against a rise in fuel taxes — which Macron retreated from last week — but mushroomed into a plethora of sometimes contradictory demands. Lately, they have included Macron’s resignation.

Macron has appeared determined to continue trying to make the French economy more competitive globally. The middle-of-the-road leader insisted that the protesters’ “malaise” is as old as he is — 40 years — and coincides with France struggling in recent decades to keep up with globalization.

One thing he didn’t do Monday: restore a special tax on households with assets above $1.5 million that he had slashed last year. “Yellow vest” protesters have decried the end of the tax and have demanded it be revived.

STEVE HILTON: THE REAL TAKEAWAY FROM THE FRANCE CHAOS

French media reported 136,000 protesters took to the streets nationwide Saturday, which left widespread damage and tons of debris in the capital and elsewhere.

Macron denounced the protest-associated violence that led to hundreds of injuries, more than 1,000 arrests and the ransacking of stores in some of Paris’ richest neighborhoods.

Authorities will show “no indulgence” to those behind the vandalism and rioting, Macron said, adding that “no anger justifies” attacking police or looting stores.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/world/macrons-compromises-dont-subside-frances-anger-yellow-vested-populists-hoped-he-would-quit

After a judge agreed to allow a former Baylor University fraternity president to take a plea agreement in a sexual assault case that will result in no jail time, his accuser told the court and the prosecution that they had failed her.

“I am devastated by your decision to let my rapist Jacob Walter Anderson go free without any punishment,” the woman, who has not been identified, said while addressing Judge Ralph Strother on Monday in a Waco, Texas, courtroom.

Before the woman’s statement, Strother had agreed to allow Anderson, 23, to take the plea deal, which would dismiss four counts of sexual assault in exchange for a plea of “no contest” to a charge of unlawful restraint.

As part of the plea agreement, Anderson will serve three years of probation, according to NBC Dallas-Fort Worth. He will not be required to register as a sex offender.

“He stole my body, virginity and power over my body and you let him keep it all for eternity,” the woman said.

Jacob Walter Anderson, former president of a Baylor University fraternity, Phi Delta Theta.Waco Police Department

Had the judge denied the plea agreement, Anderson would have gone to trial. An attorney for Anderson did not immediately respond to a request for comment made by NBC News.

The accuser says Anderson sexually assaulted her at a fraternity party in February 2016.

Anderson and the woman were at the party when she was offered a drink that made her feel ill, she says. She claimed that after that Anderson took her outside for fresh air, then assaulted her.

Addressing Anderson directly, the woman said: “It must be horrible to be you. To know what you did to me. To know you are a rapist. To know that you almost killed me. To know that you ruined my life, stole my virginity and stole many other things from me.”

She said in her statement that on top of living with what happened to her, she now has to “live with the knowledge that the McLennan County justice system is severely broken.”

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/accuser-confronts-former-baylor-university-frat-president-court-he-gets-n946121

CLOSE

Senators leaving a briefing with CIA Director Gina Haspel say they are certain that the Saudi crown prince was involved in the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Others were upset they were excluded from the classified briefing. (Dec. 4)
AP

Dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is heard repeatedly saying “I can’t breathe’’ in the horrific final moments before his death on Oct. 2 in Turkey, according to a report Monday.

Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post, did not die as a result of a confrontation gone bad as Saudi Arabian officials have claimed. But he was instead the victim of a planned execution, CNN reported, citing a source who read a translated transcript of an audio recording. 

The CNN source describes Khashoggi as struggling against his assailants inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and fighting for air as he says “I can’t breathe’’ three times in a row.

USA TODAY could not independently confirm the CNN report.

Khashoggi appears to still be alive when screams, gasps and the sound of a saw are heard on the audiotape, the source told CNN. Turkish officials, who had the original copy of the recording, have said Khashoggi’s body was dismembered with a bone saw.

In the recording, Salah Muhammad al-Tubaiqi, head of forensic medicine at Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry, is heard sharing advice with the perpetrators in performing the gruesome task.

“Put your earphones in, or listen to music like me.’’

The CNN source also said the transcript indicates phone calls were made, presumably updating high-level figures in the Saudi government on the proceedings.

More: Jared Kushner advised Saudi prince on how to ‘weather’ Khashoggi slaying, report says

Related: Saudi crown prince ‘complicit’ in Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, key GOP senator says after CIA briefing

The account from the transcript stands in contrast to the evolving explanations put forth by Saudi leaders, who initially denied Khashoggi had been harmed, then maintained he had died when a fistfight broke out at the consulate and later said he was the victim of a rogue operation, with no involvement from the kingdom.

Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and frequent critic of the Saudi royal family, had gone into the consulate to pick up documents he needed to wed his Turkish fiancée. Video footage shows him entering the consulate but not leaving. Instead, a body double wearing his clothes is seen on video departing later.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is widely suspected of ordering the assassination, and a CIA assessment determined the heir to the Saudi throne was in frequent communication with a close adviser believed to have overseen the operation on the day Khashoggi was killed.

After receiving a classified briefing on the case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said it was obvious the crown prince was behind the killing, saying, “There’s no smoking gun, there’s a smoking saw.’’

The murder sparked an international outcry, but President Donald Trump has steadfastly stood behind the Saudis and declined to hold them accountable, pointing to their role as a U.S. ally and their purchases of American weapons.

However, the Republican-led Senate has rebuked Trump, voting 63-37 to pursue legislation calling for the U.S. to end military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a presidential adviser on the Middle East, has counseled the prince on how to handle the fallout from Khashoggi’s murder.

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/10/cant-breathe-khashoggi/2271797002/

Poland’s Solidarity labor union has joined forces with climate skeptics from America to call for “a restoration of the Scientific Method and the dismissal of ideological dogma” in the study of climate change as part of a joint declaration the union has submitted to the United Nations in partnership with a U.S.-based free-market think tank.

This is the same labor union founded under the leadership of Lech Walesa, the Nobel Prize winner who organized anti-Soviet movements in the 1980s.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly made the case that catastrophic climate change is imminent and that human emissions are largely to blame. The latest in a series of reports from the IPCC was released in October to measure “the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

The IPCC has maintained a significant presence throughout the U.N.’s 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is widely known as COP24. U.N. officials view the recently released IPCC report as a “wake up call” for conference participants to finalize negotiations for implementing the Paris climate agreement, which calls on participating countries to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Although 195 countries adopted the language of the climate agreement during a December 2015 COP meeting in Paris, the agreement cannot be fully implemented until after 55 of the countries responsible for producing a combined total of 55 percent of the world’s emissions accept the treaty’s terms, according to the U.N.

Media coverage of the intergovernmental panel’s climate change report has made the case for “urgent and unprecedented changes” built around emissions restrictions to curtail global warming that could lead to catastrophic conditions.

But the joint declaration — which was signed by Jaroslaw Grzesik, chairman of Solidarity’s energy and mining secretariat; Dominik Kolorz, president of Solidarity in Poland’s Silesian region; and James Taylor, a senior follow for environment and energy policy with the Heartland Institute — makes the point that “there is no scientific consensus on the main causes and consequences of climate change.”

The Heartland Institute, which is headquartered in Illinois, has gained international recognition for challenging the premise of theories that link human activity with catastrophic levels of global warming. The free-market think tank released the latest version of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change at a media event last week in Katowice just as the COP24 meeting was getting underway. More than 100 scientists, economists, engineers, and other experts from across globe who have insight into the dynamics of earth’s climate have come together to take part in the nongovernmental panel, which began releasing the studies in 2009.

They conclude that “[t]he global war on energy freedom, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The world’s policymakers ought to acknowledge this truth and end that war.”

Unlike its U.N. counterpart, the nongovernmental panel performs a cost-benefit analysis into the use of fossil fuels that highlights the benefits to humanity.

“Despite calling for the end of reliance on fossil fuels by 2100, the IPCC never produced an accounting of the opportunity cost of restricting or banning their use,” the report says. “That cost, a literature review shows, would be enormous. Estimates of the cost of reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the amounts said by the IPCC to be necessary to avoid causing ~2°C warming in the year 2050 range from the IPCC’s own estimate of 3.4% to as high as 81% of projected global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050, the latter estimate nullifying all the gains in human well-being made in the past century.”

Solidarity’s willingness to defy climate alarmism while making a principled stand on behalf of sound science will reverberate across Europe long after COP24 comes to an end, James Lakely, the director of communications for the Heartland Institute, said in an email.

“Propaganda fades, truth endures,” he said. “Solidarity proved with its joint statement with Heartland that it will not be pushed around by the jet-set bureaucrats of the United Nations. I think that is the case with Poland as a whole. The people of Poland get 80 percent of their power from coal. Going ‘carbon free’ in the next decade or so will destroy their economy and society. The Polish people know this, so they will not be pushed around by the UN — nor should it, as Solidarity made clear in their meeting with Heartland.”

He added:

Still, the money and organization standing behind climate change policies is considerable. That much was made clear in remarks made by Michal Kurtyka, a Polish energy official who is serving as the COP24 president.

Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C., who writes for several national publications.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/polands-solidarity-union-joins-forces-with-us-climate-change-skeptics

Other options range from the possible — including Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget — to the unlikely, including Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor and head of the Trump transition team, who angered Mr. Kushner for sending his father to jail while he was a federal prosecutor.

Mr. Trump, who enjoys embarrassing reporters and planting his own information about staff machinations, has mentioned several other names. They included Matthew G. Whitaker, the current acting attorney general who nearly every West Wing staff member has said could not be a realistic option, but who Mr. Trump likes personally.

Some White House aides made the same point about Mr. Ayers, who has never faced extensive scrutiny of his finances or his previous political work. T hey said that those questions were almost certain to come if he ascended to the higher job.

That included not just his personal fortune — worth somewhere from $12.2 million to $54.8 million — but also his tenure as executive director of the Republican Governors Association and working for Eric Greitens, the former governor of Missouri, who resigned in disgrace after a woman accused him of physically abusing her during a nonconsensual relationship.

Mr. Kushner wants Mr. Ayers to take over running the “super PAC” backing the president, which people close to Mr. Trump believes needs the kinds of fund-raising boost that Mr. Ayers can provide. Such a move would keep him in the Trump orbit, which Mr. Trump’s children in the White House want.

Mr. Kelly, meanwhile, is said to be furious with Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner. One senior administration official said that Mr. Kelly was known to have kept written notes about Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump and the things that they had done or requested, which he conspicuously left on his desk in view of his staff.

Mr. Trump, who was said to be distrustful of Mr. Kelly’s personnel judgment, will not be consulting Mr. Kelly on his successor, people close to him said. Still, Mr. Kelly returned to the White House in his role on Monday, and attended a meeting with the president.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/us/politics/white-house-hiring-trump.html

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/world/climate-change-us-coal-cop24/index.html

Addressing the House of Commons on Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May delayed a vote on her Brexit withdrawal or transition agreement with the European Union. The vote was originally planned for Tuesday but will now take place at an as yet undetermined date before Jan. 21, 2019.

May’s delay of this vote is a big deal. It proves that her plan lacks the support of the House of Commons. Still, it was necessary for a simple reason: Had the Commons voted on Tuesday, May’s plan would have been defeated and her position as prime minister imperiled to the point of a leadership challenge.

The operative question now is how May intends to attract enough votes to win a vote in the future?

The answer is far from clear. May says she’ll focus on getting improved clarity over what any border arrangement might look like if Britain and the EU have been unable to reach a post-Brexit transition arrangement when the transition period concludes on Dec. 31, 2020. Known as the “backstop,” and applying only if Britain and the EU had not agreed a trade deal by the end of the transition period, it would involve some form of border control at the United Kingdom’s Northern Ireland border with the EU member state, the Republic of Ireland. But it’s unclear whether gaining such clarity would give May the votes she needs.

And it gets worse for May. Because while British parliamentarians want to avoid any formal border with the EU, the EU demands a backstop arrangement that would allow EU customs inspectors to check goods passing across the border. The challenge for May is that her government relies on the support — and would probably collapse absent it — of a Northern Irish party, the DUP, that opposes any kind of formal border arrangement.

May’s ultimate challenge, however, is how she gets any more concessions out of the EU that might allow her to win parliamentary support for her Brexit deal. And absent that parliamentary support, a Hard Brexit, or Brexit absent any transition agreement, would follow. The vast majority of economists believe such an outcome would risk sending Britain spiraling into a recession.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-theresa-may-delayed-parliaments-brexit-vote

Former FBI Director James Comey has long been convinced of his righteousness, subconsciously comparing and contrasting his decisions to a morally-questionable proletariat. The former FBI director is a true believer in his own sublime moral superiority. He also currently portrays the chief protagonist in one of the longest running political tragicomedies since Watergate.

Sometimes a public figure’s demise is sudden, unexpected. Other times, as in the case of Comey, the end is preceded by an extended period of self-inflicted diminution; an inexorable march towards ruination of personal reputation. But in this case, hubris not only takes down the man generously imbued with it, but also does irreparable damage to an institution (the FBI) that he has repeatedly and demonstratively professed to love.

Comey’s denouement occurred on Friday. He arrived on Capitol Hill accompanied by his counsel, David N. Kelley, the man who succeeded him as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. When first subpoenaed last month to appear and testify before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, a cagey Comey employed the tactic of his chief antagonist (President Trump) in speaking directly to the people, via Twitter:

Clearly the irony of Comey decrying “selective leaking” could be lost on no one, except maybe Comey himself. His FBI headquarters was admonished by a scathing Justice Department inspector general’s report for its sieve-like qualities, and Comey famously leaked sensitive FBI documents through a surrogate to The New York Times.

Was his use of the word “resist” here a purposeful acknowledgment of the #Resistance? Difficult to not also notice the loudest message inherent in Comey’s tweet – his clear and obvious disdain for the GOP he once claimed political affiliation with, and the contemptuous derision he feels towards House Republicans in particular.

Comey has long shed any pretense of objectivity since being fired by the president in May 2017. He now employs Twitter as his cudgel of choice – again, adopting the preferred communiqué methodology of one Donald J. Trump. He has tweeted out a caution to Democrats to “please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left.” Because, according to Comey, “This President and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that.”

He has sided with Senate Democrats in questioning the testimony of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, while also lauding a Democratic candidate for winning a mid-term race in a district he reveled in pointing out had been held by Republicans since 1981. While encouraging his followers to vote in the midterm elections, he also described his wife as an “independent-voter,” then quoted her thusly: “I will not vote for another Republican until Trump is out of office.”

In a recent interview with Boston’s WGBH News, he also took an unnecessary dig at Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, warning, “He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer.” Lest we forget the gratuitous shots at his former boss at the Southern District, Rudy Giuliani, whom Comey described as somewhat of a glory-hound in his tell-all tome, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.

Again, the jokes just write themselves.

With all this “nonpartisanism” as backdrop, it’s no surprise Comey balked at the GOP-issued subpoena. It certainly wasn’t a shock when he challenged the House subpoena in court. His request to have the subpoena rejected contained the deliciously ironic concern that potential leaks would damage his credibility and harm the public’s perception of FBI investigations. It also included the employment of a consistent lamentation from Comey’s legion of media defenders – of a “corrosive narrative” emanating from the White House, and of course, anyone who dares criticize James Comey.

No defense of Comey is complete without counteracting just criticism of him and some of his cohorts as “attacks for purely partisan political reasons.”

Comey ultimately conceded to the closed-door hearing, with a caveat that the transcript of the proceedings would be released within 24 hours of its conclusion. He Twitter-snarked afterwards that it was less a “search for truth” and more “a desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating the president.”

Ah, the classic political pivot away from wrongdoing, as in: Please don’t focus on my questionable or indefensible actions. Any criticism of me is a “corrosive attack on the institutions of justice.”

Thus necessitated a review of the 235-page transcript. And like almost everything debated in 2018 America these days, opiners and commentators saw in it what they expected to see. As is typical during hearings on the Hill, the party that senses political utility in the witness’s testimony becomes a sympathetic ally lobbing softball questions and bristling at any in-depth probing of the person under subpoena. Conversely, the opposition party serves as the aggrieved party and doggedly pursues the truth – according to their version of it.

The usual partisan cast was assembled on risers last Friday, eager to express their solidarity or disassociation with the witness. Once concluded, Republicans almost immediately tasked staffers to aggregate Comey’s responses to key questions. Some then raced to Twitter to diagnose the former director with a mild bout of selective amnesia. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted the score:

Then, just like clockwork, and consistent with how Trump tends to reward those who either praise him or criticize his critics, on Sunday came a report out of the White House that the president is considering Meadows to replace current White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Democratic response to Comey’s testimony was predictably summed up by Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s, D-N.Y., take. Nadler, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, pronounced the proceedings a “waste of time” and questions about bias at the FBI during Comey’s tenure as director as “nonsense.”

A polarized take on the affair by the engaged political parties – no news there. But some who carefully scrutinized the transcript and have closely followed the investigation into bias at DOJ and the FBI did sense some interesting developments. John Solomon at the Hill noted that Comey effectively admitted that much of the infamous dossier remained unverified some six months following the original FISA application that had used it as a predicate evidentiary source.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller noticed that Comey admitted that George Papadopoulos was not the lone catalyst for the opening of “Crossfire Hurricane,” long the conventional wisdom. The counterintelligence investigation related to the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential campaign was opened in July 2016, and targeted four, now ubiquitous, individuals: Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Papadopoulos.

It certainly defies credulity that some who vocally demand accountability from the Trump administration appear so disinterested in the “faulty memory” of someone who kept copious notes of matters important enough to chronicle in his book. But was oblivious to easily discernible abnormalities related to the “loosening” of non-negotiable rules and guidelines at the FBI and DOJ. These guardrails are purposely enacted to make it damned difficult to intercept the communications of American citizens or spy on political campaigns.

Even as we hurtle towards a new Congress that will result in an orderly transfer of power in the House this coming January, none of this will go away quietly. Comey is scheduled to return for another round on the Hill in front of the committees in two weeks. Anticipate hearing more from the former director regarding just how little he knew about his command and what they were up to during an exceedingly sensitive and consequential investigation. For the public, this will undoubtedly inject even more doubts about the conduct of segments of our government once considered impartial and unbiased and duty-bound to follow the rule of law.

And that should be unsettling to all of us.

James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John’s University.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/james-comeys-hubris-has-done-irreparable-damage-to-the-fbi-he-claims-to-love

In an early decision involving abortion, newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with liberals in declining to hear a case that could have allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood in state Medicaid programs.

My colleague Kimberly Leonard has more background and details of the cases, but the basic gist is that lower court rulings prevented Louisiana and Kansas from blocking abortion provider Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid. The Supreme Court has now decided to pass on the cases.

Only four justices are needed to agree to grant a hearing on any case. So to stop it from reaching the high court, it took Kavanaugh siding with Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal justices.

Three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — all voted to hear the case.

Supreme Court watchers are hanging on every sign from Kavanaugh and Roberts as to how they may rule on abortion given the new makeup of the bench. While it’s difficult to assess what implications this particular decision says about their thinking on the issue, the decision not to hear these cases is at least noteworthy, as it suggests a certain level of caution on taking on contentious cases involving abortion in any way.

In a dissent, Thomas complained that the court wanted to shy away from the case because it involves Planned Parenthood, even though it doesn’t have any direct implications on abortion rights.

“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion. It is true that these particular cases arose after several States alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider … But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits.”

This certainly does not sound like a majority that is chomping at the bit to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Update: One Supreme Court watcher writes: “As I recall the history of this case, the first vote for cert [i.e. certiorari — granting a hearing] would have taken place before Kavanaugh’s appointment — and Roberts would have had to refuse to vote for cert then as it only takes four votes to accept the case. I assume Kavanaugh did not want to be the late-arriving fourth vote for cert, and that’s a reasonable call for a brand-new justice to make. Less defensible is Roberts apparent concern about the atmospherics of taking a case with ‘Planned Parenthood’ in the title.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-sides-with-liberal-justices-in-declining-to-hear-planned-parenthood-defunding-case

Reading this “from across the pond” message, be grateful that you do not have to suffer the bitter Brexit debate underway in Britain. Having lived and breathed Brexit for several years now as a political consultant, it is hard to remember life before.

To summarize, Britain currently faces three basic options. First, to remain in the European Union after a second referendum to that effect. Second, to leave under the terms of the deal that Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative government recently secured. Third, to face the prospect of a no-deal scenario on March 29.

Those three options might not sound too complicated, but their internal workings are as complex and unpredictable as quantum mechanics.

For example, consider the three key things that changed just last week. First, May’s government was, embarrassingly, found in “contempt” of Parliament and forced into publishing the legal advice of the attorney general, the U.K.’s “top lawyer.” This essentially acknowledged that the EU will have the upper hand under the prime minister’s deal.

Second, an EU legal opinion has acknowledged that we can change our mind on leaving the EU right up until the last moment, March 29. This bolsters those calling for a second referendum to prevent Brexit.

Third, Parliament approved an amendment to a bill that, in theory, gives it the power to “shape” the negotiating approach. This makes the possibility of a no-deal scenario more remote, as very few MPs want to see that happen.

The problem for anyone trying to understand Brexit at the moment is that no sooner is the ink dry than everything changes! But let’s try and figure this out.

In Parliament, there is clearly no majority supporting the prime minister’s deal. Neither is there a clear majority supporting another referendum, which would need parliamentary approval to take place. And there is certainly no majority for pursing a no-deal scenario with the EU. Parliament’s current debate in the build up to its Dec. 11 vote on the government’s deal is likely only to demonstrate how divided our politics are. If, on voting day the government somehow succeeds in gaining parliamentary assent, Brexit will be confirmed, but the U.K. will face several more years of hard negotiations on the final status of relations with the EU.

If the vote doesn’t pass, then a number of other possibilities follow. For one, the prime minister might resign or be removed by the Conservative Party. In that event it is highly likely the Conservative Party would elect a candidate who takes a harder Brexit line (the Conservative Party membership are strongly in favor of leaving the EU with fewer economic and political links post-Brexit). In that scenario a no-deal Brexit becomes much more likely, as the EU will not want to reopen negotiations. But May’s departure might also lead to a general election.

In that case how would the Conservative Party campaign? Most of its voters, members, and many of their MPs are in favor of leaving the EU with a limited future relationship. However, a majority of their MPs are in favour of remaining in the EU.

How would the Labour Party campaign? Most of its voters, members, and MPs are in favor of remaining in the EU. However, a significant minority of its voters are in favor of leaving the EU. It is also strongly rumored that the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, are actually in favor of leaving the EU. In short, a general election probably wouldn’t clear things up at all.

What about another referendum being called? Well, it is entirely unclear how the public would vote. What’s more, there is little clarity on what should be on the referendum ballot paper. Should it be binary a la the first vote in 2016 (i.e. leave or remain in the EU)? Or should it have options? For example, should it include May’s deal on offer, or no-deal, or remain in the EU? The questions matter because these list of choices would split the leave vote and ensure a remain win.

Suffice to say the U.K. remains as divided as it has ever been, and none of the scenarios on the table would appear to offer hope of healing that division.

James Hargrave is a policy and communications director at the public affairs consultancy JBP in Westminster, London. He previously worked for the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty’s Prison Service.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/britains-brexit-chaos-on-the-road-to-nowhere

French President Emanuel Macron, his political career in peril and his country engulfed in increasingly violent protests, pleaded with the country’s employers Monday to give their workers a bonus and also promised reduction of taxes to restore order after demonstrations have deeply shaken the nation in the past month.

In a pre-taped address broadcast, Marcon criticized “inadmissible violence” of the protests, while promising with “all means” to restore calm.

“When violence is unleashed, freedom stops,” he said.

The French president promised to speed up tax relief while urging companies to give bonuses to struggling workers by the end of the year.

“I would ask all employers who can, pay an end-of-year bonus to their employees,” he said.

Among his pledges made Monday were reiterating promises to raise the minimum wage and abolishing taxes on overtime pay starting Jan. 1, several months ahead of schedule. He also said that a tax hike that pensioners faced would also be scrapped.

All of the measures offered had been demanded by the yellow-vested protesters who have led four weeks of increasingly violent demonstrations against Macron’s presidency, seen as favoring the rich.

Macron acknowledged “anger and indignation“ among members of the public over the cost of living, but added that “no indulgence” would be given to people behind the protest violence.

The president added that “no anger justifies” attacking police or looting stores, saying both threaten France’s cherished liberty. He spent Monday meeting with local and national political leaders, unions and business leaders to hear their concerns after four weeks of protests that started in struggling provinces and spread to rioting in the capital.

His speech to the nation came after Paris’ chief prosecutor revealed Sunday nearly 1,000 people were being held in custody after weekend protests in the capital city again turned violent.

Crowds of yellow-vested protesters angry at President Emmanuel Macron and France’s high taxes tried to converge on the presidential palace Saturday, some scuffling with police firing tear gas, amid exceptional security measures aimed at preventing a repeat of last week’s rioting
(AP Photo/Rafael Yaghobzade)

The radicalizing protest movement was initially triggered by a proposed fuel tax hike and other economic policies amid high living costs in France, and the feeling that Macron is favoring the rich. But as the demonstrations continued, its participants have become more of an amorphous group with disparate demands. They are all united, however, by their disdain for Macron’s government.

Riot police officer stand in front a burning trash bin during clashes, Saturday, Dec. 8, 2018 in Marseille, southern France.
(AP Photo/Claude Paris)

The protests, particularly in Paris, have turned destructive and violent, causing more than 8,000 police to be deployed as some 10,000 demonstrators took to the streets.

TRUMP TAUNTS MACRON AFTER THOUSANDS OF PROTESTERS VIOLENTLY CLASH WITH POLICE IN PARIS; ALMOST 1,000 ARRESTED

Popular tourist sites such as the Champs Elysee and the Arc de Triomphe have been major locations of unrest, with protesters setting vehicles ablaze and police deploying tear gas and stun grenades. There has also been damage in other cities, notably Marseille, Toulouse and Bordeaux.

Finance minister Bruno Le Maire said the weeks of unrest have been an “economic catastrophe” for France, according to Sky News.

Demonstrators run away to avoid tear gas during clashes Saturday, Dec. 8, 2018 in Paris.
(AP Photo/Rafael Yaghobzadeh)

Last week, Macron withdrew a fuel tax hike — the issue that kicked off protests in mid-November — in an effort to appease the protesters, but the move was seen as too little, too late.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: RIOTS IN PARIS STREETS AHEAD OF MACRON ADDRESS

For many protesters, Macron himself, widely seen as disconnected from rank-and-file French, has become the problem. Calls for him to resign were rampant Saturday, the fourth weekend of large-scale protests.

Police officers face demonstrators in Lyon, central France, Saturday, Dec. 8, 2018. The grassroots movement began as resistance against a rise in taxes for diesel and gasoline, but quickly expanded to encompass frustration at stagnant incomes and the growing cost of living. (AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani)

“Macron is there for the rich, not for all the French,” 68-year-old retiree Jean-Pierre Meunuer told the Associated Press on Saturday. Critics say Macron’s push to swiftly modernize the French economy have punished retirees, among other groups.

PARIS CLEANS UP AFTER RIOTS AS PRESSURE BUILDS ON MACRON

Thierry Paul Valette, who helps coordinate yellow vest protesters who come to Paris told The Associated Press that people want change and “concrete, immediate, right now” measures.

Before Macron’s speech, Valette said that if the French leader withdrew his signature slashing of the wealth tax, “half of the yellow vests will go home, the other half will want him to resign and will stay in the streets,” he predicted. “Because the movement isn’t controllable.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/world/macron-to-address-france-after-latest-riots-in-paris-result-in-nearly-1000-arrests

<!– –>

Jerome Corsi, a conspiracy theorist and Roger Stone associate, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of illegally searching his phone records and leaking grand jury information.

Corsi, an avid supporter of President Donald Trump, recently claimed he faces indictment by Mueller.

Attorneys for Corsi, 72, filed the lawsuit Sunday night in U.S. District Court in Washington. In addition to Mueller, it targets the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the FBI and the CIA. The attorneys are demanding $100 million in “general and compensatory damages” and $250 million in “punitive damages” from the agencies.

In the complaint, Corsi’s lawyers argue that their client’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable or unwarranted government searches and seizures was violated when “each and every one” of the defendants looked through his digital records without a warrant and probable cause.

The complaint also accuses Mueller of directing his staff to leak information from his grand jury about Corsi to the media. Special counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined CNBC’s request for comment on the court filing.

Mueller’s team has reportedly investigated for months whether Corsi learned in advance that WikiLeaks had received Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, which U.S. intelligence services have concluded were stolen by Russian intelligence officers. WikiLeaks published troves of Democratic National Committee emails in 2016 during the presidential campaign.

A draft court filing, which was reportedly prepared by Mueller’s team before plea deal negotiations with Corsi were scrapped, showed emails sent by Corsi to longtime Trump confidant and Infowars colleague Roger Stone about WikiLeaks.

Corsi, a former Infowars employee who pushed the “birther” conspiracy questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship, has denied that he knew ahead of time about the hacking and release of Podesta’s emails.

A lawyer for Corsi did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.

The filing outlines a view of Mueller’s ongoing probe of Russian election interference that mirrors Trump’s denunciations of the special counsel.

Like Trump, Corsi claims in the document that the special counsel “and his leftist and Democrat partisan” prosecutors are compromised by political bias and other conflicts. The president has repeatedly railed against what he calls Mueller’s team of “Angry Dems” on Twitter.

Corsi also accuses the special counsel of trying to make him lie under oath that he was a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in the publication of stolen Democrats’ emails.

Trump has made similar claims. He accused the special counsel in mid-November of “threatening” witnesses “to come up with the answers they want” without regard for “how many lives [they] ruin.” He later called Mueller “a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue.

Corsi and Stone have emerged as central witnesses in the Mueller probe, which is also looking at potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Days before the lawsuit, Corsi filed a complaint against Mueller with the Justice Department, addressed to acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. Legal experts told NBC that the complaint was meritless.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/roger-stone-linked-jerome-corsi-sues-special-counsel-robert-mueller-for-350-million.html

Former FBI Director James Comey has long been convinced of his righteousness, subconsciously comparing and contrasting his decisions to a morally-questionable proletariat. The former FBI director is a true believer in his own sublime moral superiority. He also currently portrays the chief protagonist in one of the longest running political tragicomedies since Watergate.

Sometimes a public figure’s demise is sudden, unexpected. Other times, as in the case of Comey, the end is preceded by an extended period of self-inflicted diminution; an inexorable march towards ruination of personal reputation. But in this case, hubris not only takes down the man generously imbued with it, but also does irreparable damage to an institution (the FBI) that he has repeatedly and demonstratively professed to love.

Comey’s denouement occurred on Friday. He arrived on Capitol Hill accompanied by his counsel, David N. Kelley, the man who succeeded him as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. When first subpoenaed last month to appear and testify before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, a cagey Comey employed the tactic of his chief antagonist (President Trump) in speaking directly to the people, via Twitter:

Clearly the irony of Comey decrying “selective leaking” could be lost on no one, except maybe Comey himself. His FBI headquarters was admonished by a scathing Justice Department inspector general’s report for its sieve-like qualities, and Comey famously leaked sensitive FBI documents through a surrogate to The New York Times.

Was his use of the word “resist” here a purposeful acknowledgment of the #Resistance? Difficult to not also notice the loudest message inherent in Comey’s tweet – his clear and obvious disdain for the GOP he once claimed political affiliation with, and the contemptuous derision he feels towards House Republicans in particular.

Comey has long shed any pretense of objectivity since being fired by the president in May 2017. He now employs Twitter as his cudgel of choice – again, adopting the preferred communiqué methodology of one Donald J. Trump. He has tweeted out a caution to Democrats to “please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left.” Because, according to Comey, “This President and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that.”

He has sided with Senate Democrats in questioning the testimony of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, while also lauding a Democratic candidate for winning a mid-term race in a district he reveled in pointing out had been held by Republicans since 1981. While encouraging his followers to vote in the midterm elections, he also described his wife as an “independent-voter,” then quoted her thusly: “I will not vote for another Republican until Trump is out of office.”

In a recent interview with Boston’s WGBH News, he also took an unnecessary dig at Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, warning, “He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer.” Lest we forget the gratuitous shots at his former boss at the Southern District, Rudy Giuliani, whom Comey described as somewhat of a glory-hound in his tell-all tome, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.

Again, the jokes just write themselves.

With all this “nonpartisanism” as backdrop, it’s no surprise Comey balked at the GOP-issued subpoena. It certainly wasn’t a shock when he challenged the House subpoena in court. His request to have the subpoena rejected contained the deliciously ironic concern that potential leaks would damage his credibility and harm the public’s perception of FBI investigations. It also included the employment of a consistent lamentation from Comey’s legion of media defenders – of a “corrosive narrative” emanating from the White House, and of course, anyone who dares criticize James Comey.

No defense of Comey is complete without counteracting just criticism of him and some of his cohorts as “attacks for purely partisan political reasons.”

Comey ultimately conceded to the closed-door hearing, with a caveat that the transcript of the proceedings would be released within 24 hours of its conclusion. He Twitter-snarked afterwards that it was less a “search for truth” and more “a desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating the president.”

Ah, the classic political pivot away from wrongdoing, as in: Please don’t focus on my questionable or indefensible actions. Any criticism of me is a “corrosive attack on the institutions of justice.”

Thus necessitated a review of the 235-page transcript. And like almost everything debated in 2018 America these days, opiners and commentators saw in it what they expected to see. As is typical during hearings on the Hill, the party that senses political utility in the witness’s testimony becomes a sympathetic ally lobbing softball questions and bristling at any in-depth probing of the person under subpoena. Conversely, the opposition party serves as the aggrieved party and doggedly pursues the truth – according to their version of it.

The usual partisan cast was assembled on risers last Friday, eager to express their solidarity or disassociation with the witness. Once concluded, Republicans almost immediately tasked staffers to aggregate Comey’s responses to key questions. Some then raced to Twitter to diagnose the former director with a mild bout of selective amnesia. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted the score:

Then, just like clockwork, and consistent with how Trump tends to reward those who either praise him or criticize his critics, on Sunday came a report out of the White House that the president is considering Meadows to replace current White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Democratic response to Comey’s testimony was predictably summed up by Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s, D-N.Y., take. Nadler, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, pronounced the proceedings a “waste of time” and questions about bias at the FBI during Comey’s tenure as director as “nonsense.”

A polarized take on the affair by the engaged political parties – no news there. But some who carefully scrutinized the transcript and have closely followed the investigation into bias at DOJ and the FBI did sense some interesting developments. John Solomon at the Hill noted that Comey effectively admitted that much of the infamous dossier remained unverified some six months following the original FISA application that had used it as a predicate evidentiary source.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller noticed that Comey admitted that George Papadopoulos was not the lone catalyst for the opening of “Crossfire Hurricane,” long the conventional wisdom. The counterintelligence investigation related to the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential campaign was opened in July 2016, and targeted four, now ubiquitous, individuals: Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Papadopoulos.

It certainly defies credulity that some who vocally demand accountability from the Trump administration appear so disinterested in the “faulty memory” of someone who kept copious notes of matters important enough to chronicle in his book. But was oblivious to easily discernible abnormalities related to the “loosening” of non-negotiable rules and guidelines at the FBI and DOJ. These guardrails are purposely enacted to make it damned difficult to intercept the communications of American citizens or spy on political campaigns.

Even as we hurtle towards a new Congress that will result in an orderly transfer of power in the House this coming January, none of this will go away quietly. Comey is scheduled to return for another round on the Hill in front of the committees in two weeks. Anticipate hearing more from the former director regarding just how little he knew about his command and what they were up to during an exceedingly sensitive and consequential investigation. For the public, this will undoubtedly inject even more doubts about the conduct of segments of our government once considered impartial and unbiased and duty-bound to follow the rule of law.

And that should be unsettling to all of us.

James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John’s University.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/james-comeys-hubris-has-done-irreparable-damage-to-the-fbi-he-claims-to-love

New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman said Monday that Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States represent a new axis of evil.

“There’s a new axis of evil: Russia, Saudi Arabia — and the United States,” Krugman tweeted, linking to a story about how the three countries all declined to endorse the United Nation’s latest climate study.

The phrase “axis of evil” was coined by former President George W. Bush to refer to Iraq, Iran and North Korea in 2002, three countries accused of supporting terrorism or of nuclear proliferation.

The United States, along with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, at a climate summit in Poland objected to language welcoming a report produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  

The U.N. report predicted that nations had only until 2030 to prevent the global temperatures from rising to the point where there would be great risk for drought, wildfires and other disasters that could lead to global food shortages.

It said that unless nations take “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” there would be disastrous levels of global warming.

The State Department, according to a report by CNN, said it voted against welcoming the report because it did not want to be seen as endorsing it.

“The United States was willing to note the report and express appreciation to the scientists who developed it, but not to welcome it, as that would denote endorsement of the report,” it said in a statement. “As we have made clear in the IPCC and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report.”

The State Department said its decision was discussed with the other nations that voted against welcoming the report.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/media/420525-nyts-krugman-says-us-in-new-axis-of-evil-with-russia-and-saudi-arabia

The U.S. joined Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait in blocking the incorporation of a key scientific study into global climate talks in Poland. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a landmark report released in October, warned of the dire effects of a global average temperature rise of 1.5 Celsius, and outlined ways to avoid it.

On Saturday, the four major oil and gas producing nations acted together to block endorsement of the study, which was commissioned at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris. 

Read More: Al Gore: Trump administration tried to “bury” climate change report by releasing it on Black Friday

“I think it was a key moment,” Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Associated Press. “The fact that a group of four countries were trying to diminish the value and importance of a scientific report they themselves, with all other countries, requested three years ago in Paris is pretty remarkable.”

The chart below by Statista shows how global carbon dioxide emission levels have risen since 1990.

This chart shows how global carbon dioxide emission levels have risen since 1990. COP24 is attempting to build on the Paris climate deal and develop more climate-conscious policies to limit damaging emissions. Statista

The report was widely hailed by world leaders as a key step in efforts to tackle climate change. But negotiations at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, hit an obstacle on Friday when the U.S., Russia, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait objected to the conference “welcoming” the study.

Instead, they had wanted the conference to “note” the study, as they didn’t endorse its findings. 

“The United States was willing to note the report and express appreciation to the scientists who developed it, but not to welcome it, as that would denote endorsement of the report,” the U.S. State Department said in a statement. “As we have made clear in the IPCC and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report.”

Delegates criticized the countries for blocking the report’s endorsement.

“It’s not about one word or another. It is us being in a position to welcome a report we commissioned in the first place,” said Ruenna Haynes, a diplomat from St. Kitts and Nevis.

“If there is anything ludicrous about the discussion it’s that we can’t welcome the report,” she said to applause, reported the BBC.

In a tweet on Sunday, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California emphasized the need for the U.S. to take action to tackle climate change. 

“America can—and must—meet the challenge of climate change head-on. It’s up to us to do what is necessary to secure a safe, healthy future for generations to come,” she tweeted. 

The move casts doubt on whether delegates will be able to reach a consensus on measures to tackle climate change by Friday, when the conference concludes.

“It’s really an embarrassment for the world’s leading scientific superpower to be in this position of having to disbelieve a report that was written by the world’s scientific community, including a large number of pre-eminent U.S. scientists,” Meyer said.

p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::after{content:none}]]>

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/us-refuses-welcome-landmark-climate-change-report-alongside-russia-and-saudi-1251633

On Tuesday, Britain’s Parliament will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal, a long, legally-binding agreement on terms to withdraw from the European Union, and a vaguer set of political pledges for the country’s future relationship with the bloc.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/10/world/europe/may-brexit-vote-deal-fail.html

<!– –>

The European Court of Justice said Monday that the U.K. can cancel Brexit without asking for permission from other European Union (EU) member states.

Sterling jumped to day’s high, up about 0.12 percent to $1.2758 on the back of the news.

The decision followed the guidance given last week by a non-binding opinion to the court from a top European law officer.

The case was brought by a group of Scottish lawmakers who sought a legal ruling on if the U.K.’s request under Article 50 to leave the EU could be unilaterally revoked before the Brexit deadline of March 29, 2019.

Article 50 allows a country to trigger the process that takes them out of Europe’s political and economic union. U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May invoked the exit clause in March 2017.

What the court heard

The European court took evidence from the group of lawmakers who said they wanted clarity to help decisions made by the U.K. Parliament. The British government told judges that they opposed the unilateral right, arguing that the case is a politically-motivated bid to frustrate Brexit.

The court also heard from lawyers representing the European Commission and Council of the European Union — which is the executive arm of the EU and the institution that represents member states’ governments. They argued that revoking Article 50 should involve unanimous agreement from the other 27 nations.

The EU is worried that allowing a country to trigger Article 50 and then reverse the decision with no additional input could become a tool for those unsatisfied with the policies of Brussels. For the U.K. government and pro-Brexit politicians, there are concerns it could pave the way for a second referendum, giving the public an option of remaining in the EU.

Will it make any difference?

Not according to the U.K. government. May’s team have stuck fast to the message that her deal is the only reasonable outcome of Brexit and that Britain will definitely leave the European Union on March 29 next year

In a statement, the Department for Exiting the EU further played down the case’s importance: “The government has made submissions to the CJEU. In any event, the government will not be revoking Article 50.”

On Tuesday, Theresa May will put her Brexit proposal to the test in the U.K. Parliament. Should her motion fail to satisfy lawmakers, the possibility of pressing pause or cancelling Brexit may increase.

The House of Commons would still need to vote to stop Article 50 but those against Brexit can highlight that, beyond Westminster, there is now no legal impediment to stopping the divorce.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/ecj-confirms-that-uk-can-stop-brexit.html

Trump said over the weekend that John Kelly would be leaving the chief of staff position by the end of the year. However, his reported top pick to replace Kelly ― Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff ― said he’s leaving the administration by the end of the year as well. 

Source Article from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-chief-of-staff-twitter-suggestions_us_5c0e0a08e4b035a7bf5ca15a

Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott McCallum (R) is calling for Gov. Scott Walker (R) to reject some of the measures the state legislature passed to limit incoming Democratic officials’ authority. 

“It appears completely political, (like) a power grab,” McCallum told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Saturday, before adding that Walker has the chance to avoid the “appearance of sour grapes.”

McCallum, who served as governor from 2001-2003, noted that Walker should be “open and transparent and reach out in a very public fashion” to discuss the lame-duck legislation with incoming Gov. Tony Evers (D). 

Evers defeated Walker in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race in November.

The Republican-led Wisconsin state Senate passed measures last week that would curb power from Evers and state Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul (D). They also passed a measure to reduce the duration of early voting in the state.

McCallum told the newspaper that Walker should veto some of the proposals passed by the Legislature. He said that both parties have played political games in the past, but that “we seem to be going down a very slippery slope of personal power over public policy.”

“It’s the wrong time to do it,” McCallum said of the Republicans’ move to alter policies after Democrats were elected into the governor and attorney general positions. “It’s not done for the right reason. It is not transparent. It is not a good way to create public policy.”

“There are going to be differences over executive control and legislative control, but you don’t play it out in the dark of night,” he added. “You don’t make the changes after an election without hearings, without having the public involved, without having a vetting process.  You can understand why there is frustration by the public with the system.”

Evers said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he is considering all of his options for an effort to push back against state Republicans’ initiatives. He noted that he’s spoken with Walker over the phone to urge him to veto legislation. 

But he said the outgoing governor was “noncommittal.” 

“I’m not particularly encouraged at this point in time, but it’s around Scott Walker’s legacy,” Evers said. “He has the opportunity to change this and actually validate the will of the people.” 

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/420493-ex-wisconsin-gop-governor-accuses-state-republicans-of-power-grab-calls