The Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort arrives in New York, Monday, March 30, 2020. | AP Photo
The USNS Comfort arrived in New York on Monday, bringing a massive Navy hospital ship to help relieve city hospitals overwhelmed by coronavirus patients.
The 1,000-bed floating hospital docked Monday at Pier 90 on Manhattan’s West Side, and is set to begin treating patients Tuesday.
Advertisement
“Our nation has heard our plea for help here in New York City,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said as he greeted the ship at Pier 90. “There could not be a better example of all of America pulling for New York City than the arrival of the USNS Comfort.”
The ship, emblazoned with red crosses on its white hull, will not treat coronavirus patients, but will take on other patients including trauma cases, freeing up beds at local hospitals focused on combating the pandemic. It will have 750 beds ready to treat patients immediately.
The Comfort is staffed by 1,200 medical personnel and equipped with operating rooms, a medical laboratory, a pharmacy, digital radiology, a CAT scan, two oxygen-producing plants and a helicopter deck.
“We needed this boost. We needed this hope,” de Blasio said, calling it a “beacon of hope” to see the ship entering city waters and “coming here to save the lives of New Yorkers in our hour of need.”
At regular hospitals in the city, as many beds as possible will be converted into intensive care units.
The Comfort was last deployed to New York after the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Today, like then, we bring a message to all New Yorkers: Now your Navy has returned, and we are with you, committed in this fight,” said Rear Adm. John Mustin, vice commander of United States Fleet Forces.
The ship departed Saturday from Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia. It was undergoing maintenance when President Donald Trump pledged to deploy it to New York, which was expected to take two weeks but was sped up to eight days.
The Comfort has traveled around the world on U.S. humanitarian missions.
“This ship represents all that is good about the American people,” Mustin said.“Now this great ship will support and serve our fellow Americans in this time of need.”
President Trump said Friday that Democrats “unfortunately have the votes” to impeach him in the House but predicted he would “win” in a trial in the Republican-led Senate.
“The Republicans are very unified,” Trump said, as he again insisted he had said nothing inappropriate during the July call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Trump’s comments to reporters at the White House came as fallout continued Friday from the late-night release of text messages by House investigators, while another key figure, the inspector general of the intelligence community, testified on Capitol Hill behind closed doors.
The texts released late Thursday show how State Department officials coordinated with Zelensky’s top aide and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to leverage a potential summit between Trump and Zelensky on a promise from the Ukrainians to investigate an energy company, Burisma, that had employed Hunter Biden.
Early Friday, Ukraine’s chief prosecutor also said he would conduct an “audit” of an investigation related to Burisma.
12:20 p.m.: Romney criticizes Trump’s ‘brazen and unprecedented’ appeals to Ukraine, China
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on Friday condemned Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens as “wrong and appalling,” breaking ranks with most Republicans on Capitol Hill who have largely avoided criticizing the president.
In a pair of tweets, Romney referenced that fact that Biden is running for president.
“When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated,” Romney said in one tweet.
“By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling,” he added in another.
12:05 p.m.: E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland gave $1 million to Trump inaugural committee through LLCs
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union who’s become a key figure in the Ukraine controversy, has been a longtime donor to the Republican Party, previously supporting the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.
In the 2016 campaign, he supported Jeb Bush’s campaign and the super PAC supporting Jeb Bush.
When Trump became the party’s presumptive nominee, Sondland signed on to the joint finance operation between the campaign and the party as a major fundraiser, or a “bundler” who collects big checks on behalf of the nominee.
Sondland was announced as the Oregon and Washington state co-chair of Trump Victory in July 2016. He was listed as a co-host of an August 2016 fundraiser in Seattle in his capacity as Trump Victory co-chair, according to an invitation. Tickets for that fundraisers cost as high as $100,000 per couple.
But once media outlets reported plans of that fundraiser, Sondland and another Portland hotelier, Bashar Wali, said their names were added without their approval and declined to participate as co-hosts, the Willamette Week reported at the time. The two men said through a Provenance Hotels spokeswoman that they refused to participate due to Trump’s anti-immigrant stance.
Sondland eventually donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee through four limited-liability companies, state and federal records show. Buena Vista Investments LLC and BV-2 LLC gave $350,000 each, and Dunson Cornerstone Inc. and Dunson Investments LLC gave $150,000 each, inaugural committee records show.
All four companies are registered in Washington, under Sondland’s name. Sondland was among at least 47 people or corporations who gave $1 million or more to the Trump inaugural committee, which drew $107 million. Sondland’s donations were first reported in 2017 by the Intercept, the Center for Responsive Politics and other outlets.
— Michelle Ye Hee Lee
12 p.m.: Cornyn tweets that Justice is investigating Biden ‘conflicts of interest’
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) tweeted Friday morning that the Justice Department is “investigating foreign government influence, VP Biden conflicts of interest, and possible corruption.”
A spokesman for Cornyn clarified that the senator was referring to the ongoing investigation being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham into various activities surrounding the FBI’s Russia probe, but he declined to say whether he had been informed if that investigation included an examination of Biden.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages, and an FBI spokeswoman declined to comment.
When asked by a reporter later Friday morning if the Justice Department was looking into Biden, Trump said, “Well, that you’d have to ask Attorney General Barr, but I can tell you just as an observer that what I saw Biden do with his son, he’s pillaging these countries, and he’s hurting us.”
The Biden family’s Ukraine dealings would seem far afield of what has been publicly revealed about Durham’s work. When it was first announced that Barr had tapped Durham to conduct the review, a person familiar with the matter said the prosecutor was seeking to determine if the U.S. government’s “intelligence collection activities” related to the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate.”
A Justice Department spokeswoman said more recently that Durham was “exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”
“While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating,” the spokeswoman said.
— Matt Zapotosky
11:45 a.m.: Trump won’t say whether he’s asked countries to investigate any nonpolitical opponents
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump said he didn’t know if he had ever asked a foreign leader to investigate a person who wasn’t his political opponent, though he said he had a right to do so.
“You know, we would have to look,” Trump said. “But what I looked for and will always ask for is anything having to do with corruption.”
Reporters asked him several times if that included enlisting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s help, but Trump ignored the question.
“I’ll tell you what’s okay,” he continued. “If we feel there is corruption, we have a right to go to a foreign country.”
11:30 a.m.: Trump says Democrats have votes to impeach him in House
Trump told reporters Friday that it appears House Democrats have the votes to impeach him but predicted that he would be acquitted in a trial in the Republican-led Senate.
“The Democrats unfortunately, they have the votes,” Trump said as he prepared to leave the White House. “They can vote very easily, even though most of them, many of them, don’t believe they should do it.”
“If they proceed, they’ll just get their people, they’re all in line, even though many of them don’t want to vote, they have no choice,” Trump added. “They have to follow their leadership. And then we’ll get it to the Senate, and we’re going to win. The Republicans have been very unified.”
Trump said Democrats would “pay a tremendous price at the polls” for impeaching him.
He continued to insist that he had done nothing inappropriate during his July call in which he pressed Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.
“When I speak to a foreign leader, I speak in an appropriate manner,” Trump said.
10:30 a.m.: Trump shares purported employer of whistleblower in a tweet
In the midst of several midmorning tweets, Trump identified the purported employer of the whistleblower as the CIA.
In the tweet, Trump quoted longtime Republican operative Ed Rollins from an appearance on Fox News.
“I think it’s outrages that a Whistleblower is a CIA Agent,” Trump quoted Rollins as saying, misspelling “outrageous.”
Federal laws offer only limited protection for those in the intelligence community who report wrongdoing — even when they follow all the rules for doing so.
“If he wants to destroy this person’s life, there’s not a lot to stop him right now,” whistleblower attorney Bradley P. Moss told The Washington Post last week.
Both The Post and the New York Times have published stories identifying the whistleblower as a CIA officer, drawing objections from the whistleblower’s lawyers, who say he is entitled to anonymity under the law.
10 a.m.: Trump camp to air anti-Biden ads in key early primary states
Beginning this weekend, the Trump campaign is airing more than $1 million worth of TV ads in early primary states that accuse Joe Biden and his son Hunter of corruption in Ukraine, according to Brad Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager.
The commercials will air in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, Parscale tweeted.
The anti-Biden ads are part of a larger $8 million ad buy focused on impeachment, which the Trump camp is trying to spin to its advantage.
CNN said Thursday it would not run the ad because the allegations of corruption against the Bidens highlighted in the ad are unsubstantiated.
9:50 a.m.: Intelligence community inspector general meeting with Congress about whistleblower complaint
Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, will appear before the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to discuss the complaint from a whistleblower that touched off the impeachment probe against Trump.
He arrived on Capitol Hill shortly before 10 a.m. for a scheduled 10:30 a.m. hearing.
The hearing is necessary “to establish additional details, leads and evidence” in the probe, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote in a letter to colleagues last week. The hearing will not be public.
“We have to flesh out all of the facts for the American people. The seriousness of the matter and the danger to our country demands nothing less,” Schiff wrote.
Atkinson alerted Schiff and other congressional committee leaders to the whistleblower’s complaint last month, but at the time, acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire would not allow Atkinson to share the full complaint with the committees.
9 a.m.: House Republicans object to White House subpoena
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee on Friday made public a letter to Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) in which they objected to his threatened subpoena of White House records related to Trump’s call with Zelensky.
“You decided to issue this subpoena without consulting Republicans and without allowing Members to debate the terms of the subpoena,” the Republicans wrote in the letter, dated Thursday. “Your memorandum cherry-picks and misstates information to propagate a misleading narrative about the President’s actions. We object strongly to the issuance of this subpoena and your stated reasons for issuing it.”
Cummings said earlier this week he would issue a subpoena if the White House didn’t reply with document requests by Friday.
8:50 a.m.: Trump seizes on unemployment rate in arguing against impeachment
Trump seized the release of new unemployment numbers Friday morning to argue against his impeachment.
“Breaking News: Unemployment Rate, at 3.5%, drops to a 50 YEAR LOW,” he tweeted. “Wow America, lets impeach your President (even though he did nothing wrong!).”
Trump made no mention that the same report showed the economy adding a modest 136,000 jobs in September, in what is likely to be interpreted as further evidence that the country is headed for a slowdown.
8:25 a.m.: Schiff says Republicans must decide if Trump has ‘absolute right’ he claims
In a morning tweet, Schiff responded to Trump’s late-night assertion that he has an “absolute right” to enlist foreign countries in corruption investigations.
Trump’s contention, in a tweet, came at the end of a day in which he publicly urged both Ukraine and China to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden.
“It comes down to this,” Schiff tweeted. “We’ve cut through the denials. The deflections. The nonsense. Donald Trump believes he can pressure a foreign nation to help him politically. It’s his ‘right.’ Every Republican in Congress has to decide: Is he right?”
Minutes after Schiff’s tweet, Trump doubled down on his assertion.
“As President I have an obligation to end CORRUPTION, even if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or countries,” he tweeted. “It is done all the time. This has NOTHING to do with politics or a political campaign against the Bidens. This does have to do with their corruption!”
6:45 a.m.: Ukraine’s new chief prosecutor to ‘audit’ Biden case
KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s new chief prosecutor said Friday his office will conduct an “audit” of an investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that had recruited Hunter Biden for its board.
A criminal probe of the company was closed in 2016, and Trump has alleged it was because of pressure by Hunter Biden’s father, Joe Biden, who was then vice president. Trump has insisted that Ukraine open a new investigation.
Ukrainian officials said previously that the probe was focused on the years 2010 to 2012, before the younger Biden joined the board. They also have said that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.
Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka told a news conference that he is aware of at least 15 investigations that may have touched on Burisma, its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky, an associate named Serhiy Zerchenko, and Biden, and that all will be reviewed. He said no foreign or Ukrainian official has been in touch with him to request this audit.
6:30 a.m.: Trump wanted Ukraine’s president to launch investigations before face-to-face meeting, texts show
House investigators released numerous text messages late Thursday night illustrating how senior State Department officials coordinated with the Ukrainian president’s top aide and Trump’s personal lawyer to leverage a potential summit between the heads of state on a promise from the Ukrainians to investigate the 2016 U.S. election and an energy company that employed Biden’s son.
The texts, which former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker provided investigators during a nearly 10-hour deposition Thursday, reveal that officials felt Trump would not agree to meet with Zelensky unless Zelensky promised to launch the investigations — and did so publicly.
Although the texts do not mention Biden by name, congressional Democrats leading an impeachment inquiry are pointing to them as clear evidence that Trump conditioned normal bilateral relations with Ukraine on that country first agreeing “to launch politically motivated investigations,” top Democrats said in a statement Thursday night.
“heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington,” Volker texted Zelensky’s aide, Andrey Yermak, on July 25, hours before Trump and the Ukrainian president spoke via phone.
— Karoun Demirjian, Rachael Bade, Josh Dawsey and John Hudson
6 a.m.: Trump asserts ‘absolute right’ to investigate corruption
Trump on Thursday night asserted an “absolute right” to investigate corruption, which he said includes reaching out to foreign countries for assistance, and suggested that he might sue House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif).
He comments on Twitter came hours after he told reporters that he would like to see investigations of the Bidens not only by Ukraine but also China, prompting an uproar from congressional Democrats.
“As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Later, he took aim at Pelosi for standing by Schiff’s comments in a hearing last week.
Trump has called for Schiff to resign for remarks in which he embellished Trump’s phone call with Zelensky. Schiff later said his remarks were intended as a parody and that Trump should have recognized that.
Pelosi defended Schiff during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that aired Thursday morning on “Good Morning America,” saying his remarks were “fair.”
“Nancy Pelosi today, on @GMA, actually said that Adam Schiffty Schiff didn’t fabricate my words in a major speech before Congress,” Trump said in his tweet. “She either had no idea what she was saying, in other words lost it, or she lied. Even Clinton lover @GStephanopoulos strongly called her out. Sue her?”
5 a.m.: Members of Congress getting pressed on developments back home
With Congress in recess, House and Senate members are getting pressed on developments in the Ukraine controversy while back home.
Here is a video of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) responding to a constituent Thursday night at a town hall in Templeton, Iowa, who asked a pointed question about the president: “When are you guys going to say, ‘Enough?’”
5 a.m.: CNN declines to run Trump campaign ads
CNN said Thursday that it will not run two Trump campaign ads because they disparage the network’s journalists and make “demonstrably false” claims while discussing impeachment and pushing unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against Biden.
The network’s decisions come as the Trump administration escalates its attacks on congressional Democrats’ impeachment efforts and continues to lash out at media organizations it tries to discredit as “fake news.”
CNN’s move brought renewed ire from Trump’s reelection campaign, as Communications Director Tim Murtaugh called the news network a “Democrat public relations firm” that “spends all day protecting Joe Biden.”
“Nancy Pelosi’s in the clutches of a left wing mob. They finally convinced her to impeach the president,” McConnell says directly to the camera in a 17-second video. “All of you know your Constitution. The way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority with me as majority leader.
“But I need your help,” he adds, standing in front of a picture of an elephant. “Please contribute before the deadline.”
The McConnell campaign, according to Facebook’s “Ad Library,” started running the digital ad last week, a few days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry over whether Trump improperly pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate political rival and possible 2020 opponent Joe Biden.
The ad features the same video, but McConnell’s team has paired the video with different captions that all are mostly focused on the topic of impeachment.
“Your conservative Senate Majority is the ONLY thing stopping Nancy Pelosi from impeaching President Trump. Donate & help us keep it!” one caption reads.
McConnell campaign manager Kevin Golden told The Courier Journal the impeachment inquiry is energizing the Senate leader’s supporters.
“Few issues energize conservative voters like liberal overreach,” Golden said in a statement. “And the Democrats latest outrageous attempt to impeach President Trump has activated our base to new heights.”
Another caption from Team Mitch goes after Pelosi’s fellow California Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee.
“BREAKING: Adam Schiff LIED. His office secretly coordinated with the source of this laughable impeachment inquiry,” the caption reads. “Help me stop it.”
That caption appears to reference the New York Times reporting this week that Schiff received an early account of the whistleblower’s complaint regarding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The complaint from the anonymous whistleblower, reportedly a CIA officer, led to the White House releasing a summary of the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
According to the call’s summary, Trump told Zelensky to reopen an investigation into a Ukrainian energy company connected to Biden’s son, Hunter.
McConnell reportedly told the White House to release the transcript of the phone call, something that McConnell and his spokespeople have not commented on.
The president also claimed Thursday that McConnell put out a statement referring to the president’s phone call with the president of Ukraine as “the most innocent phone call (transcript) that I’ve read.”
McConnell’s office has not responded to questions about Trump’s assertion, though the Senate leader dismissed criticism of the call last week and said it is “laughable to think this is anywhere close to an impeachable offense.”
On the Senate floor, McConnell has defended his record of standing up for Ukraine, especially against the Russian government.
Democrats and some Republican critics of Trump have said the president’s requests to Ukraine and China are a blatant attempt to have a foreign power interfere with next year’s election.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
It would take a simple majority of the House (218 votes) to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate.
A trial would then be held in the Senate, where it would take at least two-thirds (or 67 votes) of the chamber to convict Trump and remove him from office.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. But as majority leader, McConnell would have some power in setting up ground rules for a trial, including timing.
“So I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell told CNBC on Monday, referring to the impeachment trial. “How long you’re on it is a whole different matter.”
The new campaign ad from McConnell shows the Senate leader sees the impeachment matter as a chance to raise funds for his 2020 reelection campaign.
Amy McGrath, a former Marine Corps pilot and one of several Democrats in Kentucky vying to unseat McConnell in 2020, endorsed the impeachment inquiry last week.
McGrath has also urged McConnell to show “patriotic courage” and get to the truth of the allegations in the whistleblower complaint.
The “deadline” mentioned by McConnell in the new video refers to this past Monday, Sept. 30.
That was the third-quarter cutoff for donations to Senate, House and presidential candidates.
Candidates now have until Oct. 15 to file reports with the Federal Election Commission that reveal their fundraising and spending totals.
According to Facebook’s Ad Library, McConnell’s campaign spent a little over $63,000 on digital ads between Sept. 27 and Oct. 3.
That represents about 44% of the roughly $143,500 that Facebook data shows Team Mitch spent from May 2018 to Oct. 3, a decent-sized sum in a brief amount of time.
According to the most recent FEC data, McConnell had a sizable war chest for his 2020 reelection bid, with nearly $7.9 million in cash on hand.
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was recalled to Washington for “consultations” on April 29, 2019. The whistleblower complaint cited a Rudy Giuliani interview with a Ukrainian journalist published on May 14, 2019, where he stated that Yovanovitch was “removed … because she was part of the efforts against the President.” Seen here, Yovanovitch, center, sits during her meeting with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kiev, Ukraine, on March 6, 2019. Mikhail Palinchak, Presidential Press Service Pool Photo via AP
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., joins Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., right, at a news conference as House Democrats move on depositions in the impeachment inquiry of Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 2, 2019. J. Scott Applewhite, AP
Gobierno de EEUU tiene un “abanico de opciones” para que México pague el muro fronterizo
El secretario de prensa de la Casa Blanca, Sean Spicer dijo que la propuesta de aplicar un impuesto del 20% a las importaciones de México es tan solo una de varias opciones que se discuten para pagar el muro en la frontera sur.
Spicer indicó que el presidente Donald Trump aún no toma una decisión final sobre la manera en que Estados Unidos recuperaría los gastos del muro fronterizo que propuso.
Horas antes Spicer había dicho que Trump quería aplicar un arancel del 20% a todas las importaciones provenientes de México y pronóstico que ese gravamen generaría unos 10.000 millones de dólares al año.
En declaraciones a los reporteros a bordo del avión presidencial, el vocero de la Casa Blanca dijo que el presidente había discutido el plan con líderes del Congreso y que quería incluir la medida en un paquete de reforma fiscal integral.
Pero el jefe de gabinete de Trump, Reince Priebus, señaló posteriormente que el gobierno tiene “un abanico de opciones” para pagar el muro.
El secretario de prensa de la Casa Blanca, Sean Spicer, habla con periodistas en el avión presidencial estadounidense en el viaje de regreso desde Filadelfia. Enero 26 de 2017. (Foto: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
Pagar el muro es inaceptable por dignidad, dijo canciller mexicano
Luis Videgaray, el secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de México dijo que la sugerencia de que su gobierno pague por el muro fronterizo planeado por el presidente Donald Trump es “totalmente inaceptable por dignidad”, lo que provocó la cancelación de la primera reunión de los líderes de ambos países.
“Hay temas que son (inaceptables) por dignidad, que no tienen que ver con las exportaciones o la economía, sino con el corazón y el orgullo de los mexicanos. Así como ofrecemos respeto, los mexicanos debemos respetarnos a nosotros mismos, nuestra historia y símbolos nacionales” afirmó el canciller en una conferencia de prensa en la Embajada de México en Washington.
Videgaray reiteró que México no pagará el muro “bajo ninguna circunstancia” y que hay “cosas que no pueden ni serán negociables”.
Del mismo modo dijo que EEUU puede defender sus fronteras como quiera pero pretender que México pague por el muro es “pasar de una acción soberana a algo que es profundamente inaceptable”.
Miami deja de ser una “ciudad santuario”
Miami deja de ser una “ciudad santuario”, como se llaman a las ciudades refugio para los inmigrantes indocumentados.
El alcalde Carlos Giménez ordenó detener a los inmigrantes indocumentados, haciendo caso a lo que ordenó el presidente Donald Trump, que previno a los alcaldes que podría retirar los fondos federales a las ciudades que no acaten su decreto sobre inmigración firmado el miércoles.
“Es una decisión correcta”, celebró el presidente Trump en Twitter, haciendo referencia a la decisión de Giménez.
Venezuela rechaza declaraciones del vicepresidente colombiano
Venezuela rechaza “categóricamente las denigrantes y ofensivas declaraciones del Vicepresidente de la República de Colombia- Germán Vargas Lleras- contra el pueblo venezolano”, según informó cancillería hoy en un comunicado.
Dichas declaraciones fueron emitidas en Tibú, Departamento del Norte de Santander y -según el gobierno de Venezuela- expresan abiertamente odio, discriminación e intolerancia contra los venezolanos.
Asimismo el comunicado expresa que Venezuela “lamenta profundamente el tono hiriente y degradante” del vicepresidente y “exige al gobierno de Colombia las excusas debidas a los venezolanos ofendidos por las expresiones xenófobas y discriminatorias emitidas por su vicepresidente”.
La declaración a la que se refiere el escrito, la hizo el funcionario en el marco de un programa de viviendas sociales que advirtió que no eran para venezolanos. “Estas casas son para población desplazada que vive en Tibú, no vaya a dejar meter los venecos, por nada del mundo… esto no es para los venecos” puntualizó el vicepresidente.
Rusia envía un avión supertanque a Chile para ayudarle a combatir el fuego
El gobierno ruso anunció que enviará un avión supertanque a Chile para ayudar a combatir el peor incendio forestal al que se ha enfrentado el país.
Se trata del avión IIyushin II-76 que- según medios locales- es capaz de llevar 42.000 litros de agua o retardantes de fuego y de aterrizar en terrenos no pavimentados.
“Aceptamos generoso apoyo (del) gobierno ruso del avión IIlyushin Il-76 para combatir incendios”, escribió la presidenta de Chile Michelle Bachelet en su cuenta de Twitter.
Desde hace más de una semana, las llamas se propagan rápidamente y ya consumieron 289.974,71 hectáreas de terreno*, sobre todo en la región central de Chile, avivadas por fuertes vientos, altas temperaturas y una prolongada sequía.
* Según último informe de la Corporación Nacional Forestal (Conaf)
Aceptamos generoso apoyo gobierno ruso del avión Ilyushin Il-76 para combatir incendios. Además, ya hemos solicitado ayuda de helicópteros.
Grisham said she hoped Democrats would “come to their senses” but described them as intent on impeaching Trump despite him doing “nothing wrong.”
“As we’re preparing in the White House, this is what has been shown,” Grisham said. “They have made their intentions very clear.”
Grisham’s remarks seemed to suggest that the White House views impeachment to be likely if not inevitable. However, when pressed, she pushed back on the notion that she believes impeachment to be a foregone conclusion but said the White House is “expecting” it.
Grisham also reiterated that Trump believes the impeachment inquiry to be a “sham,” pointing to criticisms he has voiced on his Twitter feed.
“I wouldn’t say it is a foregone conclusion, I would say it’s what we’re expecting it, yes,” Grisham said.
“[Democrats] know the votes are not there in the Senate. So, if you’re going to impeach the president are you going to remove him? Unlikely. But I’m prepared for the president to be impeached and I’m prepared for the votes to not go that way depending on what the evidence says,” Conway told reporters at the White House.
“I would hope that we are going to have a process that we haven’t had so far,” she added, saying the White House would like to see open hearings and be able to cross-examine witnesses.
Their remarks came one day after the House voted along party lines to approve procedures for the impeachment inquiry, paving the way for the second phase in which Democrats expect to take hearings public and draft articles of impeachment that will later be voted on.
Trump has insisted that he did nothing wrong on the call and that there was no quid pro quo involved in his dealings with Ukraine, a message Grisham reiterated Friday. She described the investigation as a “stupid impeachment sham from the Democrats.”
Grisham also said Trump was serious when he raised the prospect of performing a televised “fireside chat” reading of his call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky during an interview with the Washington Examiner.
“Anything he says is always a consideration,” Grisham said, though she declined to say when it could happen.
“He has got nothing to hide. I think that’s the point that is not getting across,” she continued. “That phone call was a normal phone call with a foreign leader.”
The White House has accused Democrats of an unfair process in the five weeks since Pelosi announced the inquiry, criticizing party leaders for holding closed-door depositions and not voting to formalize the inquiry.
Grisham would not say Friday whether the vote would change the White House’s unwillingness to cooperate. Thus far, the White House has refused to furnish documents pursuant to subpoenas and sought to block witnesses from testifying.
“If things are actually open and transparent as purported, I would believe that we would participate,” Grisham said on Fox.
// Async load of cx.js
(function(d,s,e,t){e=d.createElement(s);e.type=’text/java’+s;e.async=’async’;
e.src=’http’+(‘https:’===location.protocol?’s://s’:’://’)+’cdn.cxense.com/cx.js’;
t=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];t.parentNode.insertBefore(e,t);})(document,’script’);
break;}}
–>
Las empresas Facebook, Google y un grupo de medios de comunicación lanzaron una iniciativa este lunes para hacer frente a las noticias falsas en Francia, donde los medios están bajo los focos ante la proximidad de las elecciones presidenciales.
Facebook dijo que trabajaría con varias organizaciones francesas de noticias, entre ellas Agence France-Presse, BFM TV, y los diarios L’Express y Le Monde para asegurarse de que no se publiquen noticias falsas en su plataforma.
Google también dijo que era parte de la iniciativa, llamada “Doble Chequeo” por los socios.
Facebook ha afrontado críticas de que no hizo suficiente para impedir la publicación de informaciones falsas en su plataforma durante la campaña en Estados Unidos y en respuesta ha reforzado las medidas para intentar hacer frente al problema.
Ha habido preocupaciones similares de que puedan diseminarse noticias falsas en Facebook antes de las elecciones en Francia, que serán en dos vueltas entre abril y mayo.
En Estados Unidos, Facebook dijo que a los usuarios les sería más fácil distinguir los artículos falsos y añadió que trabajará con organizaciones como la web de contraste de datos Snopes, ABC News y Associated Press para comprobar la autenticidad de las historias.
El mes pasado, Facebook abrió también una iniciativa contra las noticias falsas en Alemania, donde las autoridades gubernamentales habían expresado su preocupación de que las noticias falsas y el “discurso del odio” en Internet puedan influir en las elecciones parlamentarias de septiembre, en las que la canciller Angela Merkel buscará un cuarto mandato.
erp
var docUrl = document.URL;
var urlInfo = docUrl.split(“/”);
if ((urlInfo != null) && (urlInfo.length >= 4))
{
var seccion = urlInfo[3].toLowerCase();
NEW YORK – One person was killed when a helicopter crashed on the roof of a 54-story building in midtown Manhattan Monday, sparking a fire and drawing a massive emergency response.
It happened shortly before 2 p.m. under rainy conditions at the AXA Equitable building at 787 Seventh Ave. The crash spurred an evacuation as crews raced to the top floor to douse the flames.
Authorities say the pilot killed in the crash was the sole occupant of the helicopter, which was privately owned.
The pilot has been identified as Tim McCormack, of Dutchess County.
No one in the building or on the ground was injured.
The helicopter was owned by an upstate New York man who apparently used it to commute to the city.
The crash happened in a part of the city that is under a flight restriction due to its proximity to Trump Tower. Mayor Bill de Blasio says the helicopter would have needed the approval of LaGuardia Tower before heading there, but it’s unclear if that happened.
The mayor says there’s no indication that there is any terrorism linked to the crash, and says there is no ongoing danger to New Yorkers.
City officials say the crash sparked a fuel leak, which has since been mitigated. They say the building is safe.
“Thank God no other people were injured in this absolutely shocking, stunning incident,” said Mayor de Blasio, who lauded emergency crews for their quick response.
The helicopter had taken off from the 134th Street heliport and crashed approximately 11 minutes later.
Video posted to social media appeared to show the helicopter flying erratically ahead of the crash, suddenly plunging in the air before climbing higher.
The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the crash.
Jeremy Corbyn was never expected to be the leader of the UK Labour Party, until he was. He was never expected to last in the role, until he did. He was never expected to seriously challenge Theresa May and the Conservative Party in the 2017 election, until he did.
And he is never expected to be prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Corbyn is a left-wing member of Parliament who calls himself a socialist; who’s had decades in politics to accumulate a lengthy record; who’s been haunted by charges of anti-Semitism in his party; who was called everything from a “big girl’s blouse” to “Joseph Stalin” by his main political rival just this year; who’s been noncommittal about Brexit; and who’s currently the most unpopular opposition leader since people have been tracking these things.
So he’s not someone who could ever really be prime minister, right?
And yet maybe, it could still happen.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn answer questions during the ITV Leaders Debate at Media Centre in Salford, England, on November 19, 2019.Jonathan Hordle/ITV via Getty Images
The United Kingdom is holding general elections on December 12, in what Corbyn himself has called a “once-in-a generation” vote. Corbyn will lead the Labour Party against Boris Johnson, the current prime minister and head of the Conservative Party.
Labour’s somewhat muddled stance on Brexit in an election that is absolutely all about Brexit may also be a liability. Labour has said it will renegotiate a new Brexit deal with closer EU ties but will also back another referendum, giving voters the option to remain within the European Union.
Meanwhile, Johnson and the Conservatives are staking their political fortunes on the promise of delivering Brexit by January 31. Other opposition parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats, have carved out a strong position on staying in the EU.
Labour’s platform is trying to please both Brexit supporters and opponents. Amid such polarization, that stance might please no one at all.
Yet Corbyn remains enormously popular with Labour’s activist base, and his ascension to Labour leader has energized the party as he’s moved it leftward, crowding out more centrist figures. He may be the best hope for those who want to figure out a way to stop the UK from leaving the EU — or those who, at the very least, aren’t interested in Johnson’s brand of Brexit.
If British politics in the age of Brexit have proven anything, predictions (or even polling) are not always reliable. A Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn looks unlikely right now. But nothing is for sure until British voters go to the polls on December 12.
To understand why Corbyn is such a divisive figure, and why his party has struggled to define itself during Brexit, here’s what you need to know about the Labour leader who may never enter 10 Downing Street, but who will shape his party — and Britain’s political future — no matter what.
A brief introduction to Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn describes himself as a socialist. His politics are a throwback to an older version of Britain’s Labour Party, which embraced government control of parts of the economy and big social welfare programs.
Corbyn was first elected to Parliament in 1983, representing Islington North, a reliable Labour seat in London he’s now held for more than 35 years.
Corbyn came to Parliament in a year that was otherwise horrible for the Labour Party. Its 1983 election manifesto (sort of like a party platform in the US) was one the most left-wing in the party’s history to date. One Labour MP at the time famously called it the “longest suicide note in history” after Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher, destroyed Labour that year in one of the largest electoral victories in the postwar era.
Jeremy Corbin in 1984, one year after he was elected to Parliament to represent Islington North.Graham Morris/Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
That helped begin Labour’s rightward shift to a more moderate, centrist party that is socially liberal but somewhat more fiscally conservative and free-market oriented. That transformation culminated in the election of Tony Blair as Labour leader in 1994. Under Blair, Labour took power in 1997, an era that’s sometimes referred to as “New Labour.”
But Corbyn didn’t shift to the center with the rest of his party. He stayed on the margins, maintaining his ties with other veterans of old Labour and those outside of the party in leftist UK politics.
“He basically spent most of his time opposing the policies of his own party,” Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, told me. Especially when Tony Blair was prime minister, “he was in opposition to everything that was going on,” despite his party being in control of government.
Corbyn, then, was very much an outsider who remained on the backbenches (meaning he never held a ministerial position) for years.
Corbyn’s foreign policy in particular has gotten him into quite a bit of trouble, and it continues to today. He worked closely with Stop the War coalition, which was formed after 9/11 to oppose the intervention in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Stop the War coalition opposed the Iraq War, as did Corbyn. Blair, of course, supported it, a position that would come back to haunt Blair and the Labour Party.
Corbyn has a lot of political baggage, and for 30 or so years, he was kind of an obscure figure in Labour politics — until 2015, that is.
How Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader — and why he’s stayed there
Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015 in an extraordinary upset. He started as a 200-to-1 outsider when the contest began but ended up winning 60 percent of the vote from the Labour Party.
His victory was startling at the time, but in retrospect it makes some sense. The era of New Labour had lasted for more than a decade, but Labour lost its majority in 2010, and Conservatives beat them again in 2015.
The dissatisfaction with Labour during this period had a lot to do with its policies under Blair, namely support for the Iraq War. Many British voters also blamed Labour for the 2008 recession, since the party was in charge at the time of the financial market crash.
Jeremy Corbyn, member of Parliament for Islington North and candidate in the Labour Party leadership election, speaks to supporters outside Great St Mary’s church in Cambridge, England, on September 6, 2015.Rob Stothard/Getty Images
Voters, particularly younger ones, didn’t love the policies of the Conservatives. The party pursued austerity — in other words, basically lots of spending cuts to social and public services. Other issues, like climate change, also motivated the next generation of voters.
Taken together, voters began to blame the establishment politicians of the past for these failures. Within the Labour Party, some also saw the more moderate Blairites as not all that different from the Conservative politicians.
Corbyn emerged against this backdrop as a politician in his 60s who was untainted by those establishment politics. “What you got was the oldest candidate looking like the freshest and the newest,” David Kogan, author of Protest and Power: The Battle for the Labour Party, told me. It’s not unlike the political rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the US.
Corbyn went from impossible odds to looking like the favorite. This was terrifying for most politicians in the party, who saw Corbyn’s ascension as a huge electoral disadvantage, given his leftist politics. At the time, Blair said that with Corbyn as leader, “The party won’t just face defeat but annihilation.”
But Labour’s membership also surged after Corbyn’s victory. The party had less than 200,000 members (people who pay dues) before the 2015 election; in 2018, that number surged to more than 500,000 members, making Labour the largest political party in the UK.
As Kogan explained, Labour’s ranks swelled because Corbyn’s victory brought back those traditional Labour members who had fallen away during the Blair years. It also attracted a new base of young voters, many of whom came of age post-2008 recession and supported Corbyn’s left-wing economic policies, though they were also motivated by those other issues, like climate change.
Corbyn energized the activist base of the Labour Party. But divisions between this coalition of “Corbynistas” and other veterans of the party, specifically lawmakers, did not disappear. In 2016, Corbyn faced a leadership challenge shortly after the June Brexit referendum. Labour lawmakers voted against him in a confidence vote, citing, among other things, his failure to do enough to promote Remain, Labour’s official position in the 2016 referendum.
But Corbyn soundly defeated his challenger in that contest, achieving the party’s backing with a slightly greater margin than in 2015. It showed just how strong Corbyn’s support was among the party base, and how quickly he — and his supporters — had started to reshape the party.
The next test for Corbyn came in the 2017 election. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May called a vote in an attempt to shore up her Brexit mandate. She started out with a 20-point lead and looked likely to deliver another Conservative majority.
Instead, that advantage evaporated. Conservatives lost seats and their majority. Labour increased its number of seats in Parliament by 31. May managed to form a government and retain control by entering into an arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party, a conservative party in Northern Ireland. But as Brexit unfolded, that control proved to be pretty precarious.
Meanwhile, Corbyn once again defied expectations with Labour’s relative success. That helped undercut some of the doubters.
But not all of them. Those divisions within Labour persist. Though the base of the party has mostly gone all-in for Corbyn, many lawmakers are still in that more moderate mold. Controversies, particularly criticism of Corbyn for his handling of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, have publicly torn the party apart.
And, of course, there’s the Brexit debate.
Jeremy Corbyn’s big, huge, unavoidable Brexit problem
Corbyn has always been ambivalent about the European Union, which has made him something of an odd fit to be leader during the Brexit debate. Though he voted Remain in 2016, he hasn’t exactly been a full-throated defender of the EU. And he was outright antagonistic at the start of his political career.
Corbyn’s left-wing critique of the EU is a minority view within the party, Eric Shaw, an honorary research fellow in politics at the University of Stirling, told me. But it’s a view some of Corbyn’s associates, who share his ideological bent, support. “The European Union embeds free market principles, embeds corporate power, and membership impedes the capacity of the British government to achieve socialism,” Shaw said, summing up the left-wing critique of the EU.
Protesters hold up placards and Union Jack flags at a pro-Brexit demonstration promoted by the UK Independence Party in central London on December 9, 2018.Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images
They’re sometimes called “Lexiteers,” essentially left-wing Brexiteers.
Corbyn voted to leave the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU, in 1975. As a member of Parliament, he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, which helped form the current version of the EU.
“The whole basis of the Maastricht Treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability,” Corbyn said at the time, arguing against the treaty in Parliament. “That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom — or any other government — would wish to carry out.”
Fast-forward to the Brexit referendum in 2016: Labour and Corbyn officially supported Remain (so did then-Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron as well as his successor, Theresa May.)
But Corbyn’s Brexit problem hasn’t gone away. It’s only gotten worse — for both him and the Labour Party.
Labour’s “fence-sitting” on Brexit is hurting its chances in the 2019 election
In March 2017, the UK Parliament overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50, the provision in the EU’s Lisbon Treaty that gives countries the power to withdraw from the bloc. That set off a countdown to a March 2019 Brexit, which, of course, has not happened yet.
At the time, Corbyn and Labour supported triggering Article 50, though some members of his party joined the more than 100 MPs that rebelled against initiating the divorce. This vote happened before the EU and UK ever sat down for serious negotiations, so few knew what kind of Brexit deal then-Prime Minister Theresa May would bring back from Brussels. But the argument at the time was pretty simple: The UK voted to leave, 52 percent to 48 percent, so their representatives had to back the will of the people.
Supporters of Britain’s main opposition Labour Party hold placards as they wait for leader Jeremy Corbyn to arrive at a campaign visit in Colwyn Bay, North Wales, on June 7, 2017.Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
As mentioned above, the UK held general elections in June 2017, a few months later. May wanted to bolster her majority for Brexit negotiations. Labour backed Brexit, but campaigned for a softer version, meaning closer ties with the EU. In that election, May lost her Conservative majority and Labour did much better than expected.
But “better than expected” meant that Labour remained in the opposition, which also meant it didn’t have the power to solve Brexit. Still, Labour frequently joined with the pro-Remain opposition — such as the Scottish National Party and some pro-Remain rebels within the Conservative Party — and helped spoil the Brexit plans of both May and Johnson, forcing all those extensions and blocking a no-deal Brexit.
Corbyn and the Labour Party, then, stood against whatever the Conservative government brought back. At the same time, Labour vacillated on coming up with its own clear position that wasn’t simply anti-May or anti-Johnson or anti-no-deal.
Labour has some reason for this ambiguity on Brexit. Much of his party favor remaining in the European Union, and that includes a huge portion of its base in cities and even those young, grassroots activists who helped get Corbyn elected. But there are Labour seats in constituencies that voted Leave, many in traditional working-class strongholds such as in the north of England.
Though such voters make up a much smaller percentage, they’re still seen as an important part of Labour’s traditional base. (Does this sound familiar, maybe?) And that’s why Labour defended its somewhat amorphous position on Brexit. Unlike Conservatives, who are more explicitly in favor of leaving the EU (though there are pro-Remain people among them), Labour had a much more complicated coalition to represent.
But in trying to please everyone, Labour risks disappointing everyone. If you want to Leave, you have the Conservative Party and the Brexit Party, both of which promise to deliver that. Johnson and the Conservatives have a clear message: Brexit by January 31. The same is true on the other side of the political spectrum. The much smaller Liberal Democrats, as well as the Greens and the Scottish National Party, also have clear messages: no Brexit.
Labour is trying to find a compromise between the two extremes. And in the polarized Brexit era, that might be the worst of all strategies.
In a recent tweet, here’s how Corbyn described Labour’s position: “Secure a credible deal in three months. Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.”
“That’s our Brexit policy,” he concluded.
Secure a credible deal in three months.
Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.
The problem with that Brexit policy: it runs into the same problem Labour has had all along: It’s not quite a commitment to Brexit, but it’s also not quite a commitment to stay in the EU.
“It’s a position that is Labour sitting on the fence,” Eunice Goes, a professor of politics at Richmond University in London, told me. “They’re not declaring in favor of Brexit or of remaining” in the EU.
If you’re a voter who’s eager to stay in the European Union, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that. And if you’re a voter who really wants to Leave, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that either.
Corbyn is selling this as, “We’ll give you a final say on Brexit in six months.” But contrast that with the coherent messages of Labour’s competitors, from Johnson and the Conservative (“Get Brexit Done”) to the Liberal Democrats (“Stop Brexit”). Labour’s stance is much more complicated and unclear, and it will also prolong the divorce process even more — taking weeks or months for negotiations, weeks or months for a referendum, and then who knows what comes after that. It’s just a lot.
There are also some logistical problems here. Renegotiating a new deal and getting those extensions also depends on the EU. After May, and after Johnson, will the EU renegotiate with a third prime minister?
Then there’s the issue of holding a second referendum with the option to Remain. If Labour holds such a referendum, will the party — including Corbyn — campaign against the brand-new deal he just renegotiated, and urge people to vote for Remain? Why would the EU go through the exercise of renegotiating a deal if the UK government is going to actively campaign against it?
And then there’s dealing with the fallout of whatever the outcome: a Brexit plan, or voting to Remain, which is likely going to enrage a huge chunk of people in a polarized country.
It’s still not really clear where Corbyn himself stands on the issue of leaving or remaining. Sure, he supports a second referendum — but what outcome does he want? Corbyn has repeatedly dodged this question. During his first debate with Johnson in November, he wouldn’t give a straight answer other than to say a second referendum was the best option.
In a BBC Question Time session with party leaders, Corbyn, when pressed, finally said he would take a “neutral stance” on any referendum — meaning he wouldn’t campaign for Leave or Remain. In other words, he’ll sit on the fence regarding Brexit, right up to the end. What that might mean for his party, especially the pro-Remain lawmakers who really want to remain, is unclear.
Many experts I spoke to think Labour is taking this muddled approach for the wrong reasons. There are Labour districts that voted Leave in 2016, but Labour is still largely a Remain-leaning party. Even in 2017, research showed that most people who voted Labour — even in those Leave-voting districts — voted Remain.
Paul Webb, a professor of politics at the University of Sussex, said that based on analysis of the 2017 election, even in those Leave-voting areas, “The overwhelming majority of people who voted for Labour in those seats were Remainers, and they weren’t Leavers. So they might have been majority Leave seats, but Labour voters in those seats were Remainers.
“In a sense, by worrying too much about these places,” Webb added, “Labour is kind of pandering to its opponents and people who weren’t inclined to vote for the party anyway.”
In other words, Labour’s attempts to retain Leave voters may not be a winning electoral strategy. And even if it was, a soft Brexit/second referendum might not be the option that appeals to them, especially if Brexit is driving the vote. (And in this election, it’s all about Brexit.) And Conservatives are still framing a vote for Labour as a vote to Remain, anyway.
This is where Corbyn’s public skepticism of Europe comes in. Corbyn’s biggest critics say it’s his distaste for the EU that’s ultimately preventing him from taking Labour off the fence and embracing a more explicitly Reman position.
In other words, it really doesn’t matter what Corbyn says or does — he still comes off as a secret Leave supporter. And Labour’s half-baked Brexit stance hasn’t dispelled that impression.
“He actually wants a position going into this election that will allow him to Leave, because that’s what he really wants to do,” Fielding, the University of Nottingham professor, said, though he acknowledged others might disagree with him.
But, he added, that’s why Corbyn is “to-ing and fro-ing and why he’s been so unwilling — on this one issue — to defy Labour members.”
Brexit isn’t Corbyn’s only problem
Brexit may be a huge problem for Labour. But if you hate Brexit, you’re probably not going to cast a vote for a Conservative MP. There’s a risk, though, that Remain-leaning parties like the Liberal Democrats and Greens could split the votes with Labour, allowing a more pro-Brexit candidate to slip through.
The bunch of Remain parties — including the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Welsh party, Plaid Cymru — have pledged to only run the strongest candidate among their parties in certain districts in an effort to avoid any vote-splitting. Some polling has shown that so-called “tactical voting” could boost Labour’s electoral chances, but the party hasn’t signed on. Voters may take it on themselves to vote tactically, or to bet that voting Labour is still the best option to defeat Brexit. But it’s hard to say right now how that will shake out.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses a European Parliament election campaign rally in Bootle, Merseyside, on May 18, 2019.Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
And Corbyn is still a problem even beyond Brexit. His political past is still a weakness; voters outside of the core of the Labour Party still see him as a radical figure who espouses extreme positions. His critics are also trying to paint him this way — but many of the policies Labour is promoting in its 2019 manifesto, such as more money for the National Health Service, more affordable housing, and evens some of those the nationalization plans, are pretty popular with the general public.
The anti-Semitism crisis within Labour is likely to be another problem for Corbyn. As mentioned above, Corbyn has been more critical of Israel’s government than most members of his party.
But since his ascension to party leader in 2015, he’s also been accused of showing “poor judgment” on the issue of anti-Semitism.
Some Jewish Labour MPs came under attack from the far right, specifically Jewish women MPs who faced incredible vitriol. But there was also evidence that some Labour Party members were also spewing hateful rhetoric at lawmakers. This turned into a crisis this past spring, when nine Labour MPs left the party. The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission launched a formal investigation into the party over those anti-Semitism allegations, a pretty dramatic step.
Corbyn is accused of not having properly condemned the attacks and of allowing this to fester within the party’s ranks. This has damaged “his moral stance as a good man,” Kogan told me. “The accusation of allowing anti-Semitism to take place and not be dealt with, and that’s affected him in his claims to be a different sort of politician.”
The problem isn’t going away, either. The Jewish Chronicle used its front page in early November to call on voters to reject Corbyn. “If this man is chosen as our next prime minister, the message will be stark: that our dismay that he could ever be elevated to a prominent role in British politics, and our fears of where that will lead, are irrelevant,” the newspaper wrote.
The UK’s chief rabbi has also questioned Corbyn’s fitness to be prime minister, weeks into the campaign.
And another former Labour MP, Ian Austin, who left the party over allegations of anti-Semitism earlier this year, said he refused to vote for Corbyn because of his “extremism.” He encouraged voters to select Johnson instead.
Speaking of the current prime minister, contrasting the two further highlights Corbyn’s unpopularity. Johnson is undoubtedly an energetic campaigner, but he’s also a divisive figure who has a lot of baggage. The fact that Corbyn can’t capitalize on Johnson’s weaknesses shows just how broadly he’s disliked.
“I have no doubt that if (as we say here) he was to be run over by a London bus and replaced by the most capable of Labour’s leaders, Keir Starmer, Labour’s ratings would dramatically rise,” Shaw told me, adding that the Conservatives “are prayingfor Corbyn’s good health.”
A July survey found that the public trusts Johnson — a guy who once got fired for lying — more than Corbyn. Just 21 percent of people have a positive opinion of Corbyn; 61 percent have a negative opinion, according to YouGov. In an August YouGov poll, 48 to 35 percent of voters said Corbyn becoming prime minister would be a worse outcome than a no-deal Brexit.
If you’re thinking, “Sure, but Corbyn didn’t do so bad in 2017!” you’re not wrong — but he’s pretty much been trending downward ever since. His approval has steadily decreased, in some instances hitting truly dismal numbers. His approval rating has ticked up slightly in recent weeks to an average of just 22 percent, according to Howard Clarke, a polling expert at the University of Texas at Dallas. But 22 percent going into a general election is horrendously bad.
As Clarke told me via email, recent polls showed Johnson’s approval rating at around 49 percent — not great, but a heck of a lot better than 22 percent.
Harold Clarke, Ashbel Smith professor of political science at the University of Texas at Dallas School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences
“That’s what makes this election such a complicated choice for a lot of people,” Amanda Sloat, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told me. “You have voters that are opposed to Brexit, but are very concerned about what a Corbyn government would mean for the country’s social and economic policies.”
Is Labour doomed?
“It’s not looking like a good shot,” Kogan told me about Labour’s chances in the next election.
Johnson and the Conservatives have a strong lead in the polls. Corbyn remains unpopular. Labour’s Brexit policy is still wishy washy. But with less than a month go before Britain votes, it’s probably too soon to call it. Johnson’s lead could evaporate — and Corbyn could do better than expected once again.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses Labour activists during a campaign rally in Whitby, England, on December 1, 2019.Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
Even so, it’s unlikely Labour will win a majority in the 650-seat House of Commons. There have been swings in the polls for Conservatives, with some showing a dramatic lead and others showing a smaller margin of victory, but they’re still ahead in most. Most experts I talked to think Conservatives will win —maybe not with an overwhelming majority, but likely just enough to get Johnson’s Brexit deal through.
Even if that doesn’t happen, an outright Labour majority is still looking difficult to achieve. Instead, the more likely scenario is a hung Parliament, where no one party wins the majority. In this case, it’s possible Labour will do well enough to form some sort of alliance with the Scottish National Party (likely for the price of another Scottish independence referendum), or to at least get the votes of some other pro-Remain parties. Basically, enough anti-Brexit voters will potentially hold their noses for Corbyn to at least try to foil Brexit.
However, experts I talked to agreed that if Labour is defeated outright, Corbyn will almost certainly lose his position as leader. Labour should clean up in these elections. Conservatives have been in charge for 10 years and even they’re promising more spending on things like the National Health Service, in an acknowledgment that the general public is fed up with the Conservatives’ past austerity policies.
Boris Johnson himself is a strange figure in British politics — he’s not all that well-liked nor deeply trusted within the Conservative Party, unable to completely shake the reputation that he’s just out for himself.
If Labour can’t capitalize on this, particularly in this “once-in-a-generation” election, it will be a strong indictment of its leader. But Corbyn’s influence won’t necessarily fade even when he’s gone. He may fail in this election, but the leftward shift he set in motion within Labour could very well outlast him.
Donald Trump has used an interview to hardcore right-wing outlet Newsmax to tear into former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who gave devastating testimony about him to the 6 January committee this week.
“The woman is living in fantasy land,” he told the network. “She’s a social climber.” Ms Hutchinson’s testimony has been received with both horror and admiration, and critics have struggled to dislodge the perception that it makes a criminal conviction of Mr Trump much more likely.
Meanwhile, committee vice chair Liz Cheney delivered a fiery speech last night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Wednesday night, receiving thunderous applause from an audience of relatively mainstream Republicans and Trump critics.
In excoriating remarks, Ms Cheney said Mr Trump’s efforts have turned out to be “more chilling and more threatening” than first imagined.
“Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution,” she said, to a round of applause.
Meanwhile, fellow Republican committee member Adam Kinzinger has hailed Ms Hutchinson as a ‘hero’ and ‘true patriot’ for her testimony, and revealed since then others have come forward to clarify their statements and recall other events.
“My life changed about a week ago and I now literally have two armed guards outside this studio right now that follow me around everywhere,” Mr Holder said on the programme.
AOC: At ‘bare minimum’ pro-Trump colleagues who sought pardons should be expelled from Congress
The New York lawmaker appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Tuesday after a jaw-dropping hearing held by the special committee investigating January 6, where she said it was time for Democrats to start acting on the evidence they already had.
Trump blasts Jan 6 witness as ‘social climber’ living in ‘fantasy land’
Former president Donald Trump pushed back against former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson after her explosive testimony before the select committee investigating the January 6 riot.
The former president spoke to Newsmax and disputed the story Ms Hutchinson said she heard secondhand – that Mr Trump tried to lunge at a US Secret Service agent in his presidential limousine in an attempt to take him to the US Capitol to join his supporters.
“Is there something wrong with her?” Mr Trump said.
Liz Cheney: Trump as ‘domestic threat’ trying to ‘unravel’ US rule of law
Rep Liz Cheney said on Thursday that the Jan 6 committee will consider criminal referrals for attempts by members of Trumpworld to intimidate or affect the testimony of witnesses before their panel.
Ms Cheney toldGood Morning America: “It’s something we take very seriously. And it’s something that people should be aware of. It’s a very serious issue, and I would imagine the Department Justice would be very interested in and we’ll take that very seriously as well.”
The attempts they have witnessed so far “gives us a real insight into how people around the former president are operating”, she added.
John Bowden reports on what the Wyoming Republican said:
Ex-Secret Service agent as Trump’s girth would prevent him grabbing steering wheel
But in interviews with Insider, former Secret Service agents had a hard time imagining the episode.
“Trump’s not a little guy, right? And the space to actually be able to lunge towards the wheel is not that big,” one former agent told Insider. “I don’t mean to sound disparaging to the former president, but just his girth would prevent him from actually getting to the steering wheel.”
Ex-White House counsel Pat Cipollone subpoenaed by Jan 6 committee
The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol has issued a subpoena commanding former Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to give evidence in a deposition set for 6 July.
Mr Cipollone, who served as former president Donald Trump’s top White House lawyer from 2019 to the end of his term in 2021, met with committee investigators for an informal interview on 13 April, but has heretofore refused repeated requests for him to sit for a deposition or give evidence in a public hearing.
Jan 6 committee ‘seemed to know’ Hutchinson testimony would ‘refresh’ memories of others
Bulwark columnist Amanda Carpenter notes that the January 6 committee appears to have known that Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony might cause others to rethink their testimony or refresh their memories.
Rep Adam Kinzinger also said as much during an appearance on The Late Show on Wednesday night.
Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson says two Secret Service agents told her that former president Donald Trump assaulted a member of his protective detail and tried to grab the wheel of an armoured SUV after he was told he could not join a riotous mob of his supporters at the US Capitol
“This president, who helped create the hatred that made Saturday’s tragedy possible, should not come to El Paso,” he tweeted Monday. “We do not need more division. We need to heal. He has no place here.”
This president, who helped create the hatred that made Saturday’s tragedy possible, should not come to El Paso. We do not need more division. We need to heal. He has no place here.
O’Rourke’s comments came after the Texas congresswoman who represents El Paso on Monday said Trump is not welcome in her district as the community mourns the death of the shooting victims.
The El Paso shooter allegedly wrote a white nationalist manifesto ahead of his attack in the area near the U.S.-Mexico border, and many Democrats have pointed to the president’s rhetoric as encouraging violence.
Escobar said it is “probably unfair” to say the shooter came to El Paso because Trump held a February rally in the city, but she said Trump needs to reflect on his words and actions at rallies that could be inciting violent attacks such as the shooting.
Another mass shooting occurred within one day of the El Paso massacre when a gunman opened fire in Dayton, Ohio, killing nine.
Noticias Telemundo’s “Inmigración, Trump y los Hispanos” (Immigration, Trump and the Hispanic Community) Town Hall broadcast on Sunday, February 12 at 7PM/6 C, ranked # 1 in Spanish-language TV in primetime across all key demographics, averaging 1.57 million total viewers, 708,000 adults 18 to 49 and 325,000 adults 18 to 34, according to Nielsen. The news special moderated by Noticias Telemundo News Anchor José Díaz-Balart also positioned Telemundo as the #1 Spanish-language network during the entire primetime on Sunday, across all key demos.
“Noticias Telemundo is empowering millions of Latinos with reliable and TRANSPARENT information at a time of change,” said José Díaz-Balart. “Viewers trust us because they know our only commitment is to present the facts the way they are, with professionalism and a total commitment to our community.”
“Immigration, Trump and the Hispanic Community” also reached 1.6 million viewers on Facebook, generating 23,000 global actions on the social network.
The Town Hall answered viewers’ questions about the impact of President Trump’s immigration policy on the Hispanic community. The news special featured a panel of experts, including immigration lawyer and Telemundo contributor Alma Rosa Nieto; Telemundo conservative political analyst Ana Navarro; the Deputy Vice President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Clarissa Martínez, and CHIRLA’s Executive Director, Angélica Salas. In addition, “El Poder en Ti”, Telemundo’s robust community initiative, launched an Internet site for Hispanics looking for information, tools and resources on immigration in parallel to the Town Hall.
“Inmigración, Trump y los Hispanos” is part of a series of Noticias Telemundo specials, including “Trump en la Casa Blanca,” produced the day after the elections, and “Trump y los Latinos,” which aired on Inauguration Day. All of these programs share an emphasis on allowing audiences to express their views and empower them by giving them access to trustworthy, rigorous and relevant information presented under Noticias Telemundo’s banner “Telling It Like It Is” (“Las Cosas Como Son” in Spanish).
Noticias Telemundo is the information unit of Telemundo Network and a leader provider in news serving the US Hispanics across all broadcast and digital platforms. Its award-winning television news broadcasts include the daily newscast “Noticias Telemundo,” the Sunday current affairs show “Enfoque con José Díaz-Balart” and the daily news and entertainment magazine “Al Rojo Vivo con María Celeste.” The rapidly-growing “Noticias Telemundo Digital Team” provides continuous content to US Hispanics wherever they are, whenever they want it. Noticias Telemundo also produces award winning news specials, documentaries and news event such as political debates, forums and town halls.
El presidente de Brasil, Michel Temer. Foto: AFP / Evaristo Sa
RÍO DE JANEIRO.- Cuando faltan cuatro días para que enfrente un juicio en el Tribunal Superior Electoral por abuso de poder político y económico en la campaña de 2014, que podría dejarlo fuera del poder, el presidente brasileño, Michel Temer, recibió ayer dos malas noticias: el desempleo no para de subir y quiebra récords, y su escasa popularidad continúa a la baja.
Según el Instituto Brasileño de Geografía y Estadística (IBGE), el índice de desocupación superó por primera vez la barrera del 13%, y se ubicó en 13,2% para el trimestre diciembre-febrero, cifra que equivale a 13,5 millones de brasileños que buscan trabajo y no lo consiguen.
El nuevo récord negativo representa un aumento de 1,3% respecto del trimestre anterior, y de 3% en relación con el mismo período del año pasado.
Este mes, Temer había festejado con bombos y platillos el anuncio de que las contrataciones del sector privado formal habían registrado en febrero el primer aumento neto (35.600 puestos) desde marzo de 2015. Pero en el trimestre diciembre-febrero, el número de empleados del sector formal cayó un 1% trimestral y un 3,3% interanual, totalizando 33,7 millones de personas, de una fuerza laboral total de 89,3 millones de personas.
El desempleo ha tenido una tendencia creciente desde 2014, cuando era de apenas 4,8%. Desde entonces, con la crisis económica derivada de la caída del precio de las materias primas que exporta, las derivaciones de las investigaciones anticorrupción en la estatal Petrobras, y el proceso de impeachment a la ex presidenta Dilma Rousseff que sumió al país en la incertidumbre política, Brasil atravesó la peor recesión de su historia, con dos años seguidos de contracción del PBI, en 2015 y 2016.
La recuperación económica es el objetivo prioritario del gobierno de Temer -que asumió el poder tras la destitución de Dilma-, y para ello impulsó reformas estructurales, como el congelamiento del gasto público y la flexibilización laboral -ambas ya aprobadas por el Congreso-, así como una resistida modificación del sistema de jubilaciones, aún bajo análisis.
Aunque se logró reducir la inflación, que estaba en alza en los últimos años (hoy es del 4,7%), los pronósticos de crecimiento son revistos constantemente; se pasó de esperar una expansión del 1% para este año a expectativa más moderada, de entre el 0,5 y el 0,7%.
En medio de este contexto, la firma Ibope divulgó ayer una nueva encuesta sobre la popularidad del gobierno de Temer, que le advirtió que el nivel de aprobación de su gestión sigue en caída y hoy se sitúa en apenas 10%. Según datos del sondeo realizado para la Confederación Nacional de la Industria, el 55% de los consultados califica la actual administración como mala o muy mala; para el 31% es regular, y el 4% prefirió no responder.
El nuevo relevamiento apunta a un deterioro en la imagen del mandatario desde la anterior encuesta, en diciembre pasado. Entonces, Temer tenía una aprobación del 13%, mientras que el 46% lo consideraba malo o muy malo, el 35% regular, y el 6% no opinó.
Ibope también pidió a los entrevistados comparar el desempeño de Temer con el de Dilma, y los resultados fueron desfavorables para el actual presidente: el 41% cree que la gestión de Temer es peor; el 38% que es igual, y sólo para el 18% es mejor (un 3% de los encuestados prefirió no expresarse).
La percepción del gobierno está vinculada, aunque no de manera directa, a las noticias publicadas en los últimos meses con los hechos de corrupción y los avances de la justicia. En ese sentido, el sondeo identificó que el 54% de los brasileños recuerda noticias desfavorables del gobierno o de Temer.
Los datos de la encuesta y del desempleo llegaron en un día de movilización callejera contra las reformas económicas propuestas por el gobierno, y mientras los sindicatos se preparan para una huelga general el 28 de abril, en rechazo de la reciente aprobación de la nueva ley de trabajo que amplia la tercerización, y de la propuesta oficialista para cambiar el sistema jubilatorio.
Antes, sin embargo, Temer atravesará un gran desafío la próxima semana, cuando el martes el Tribunal Superior Electoral empiece a juzgar si la campaña por la reelección de la fórmula Rousseff-Temer de 2014 recibió financiamiento ilegal de la compañía Odebrecht. Si la Corte confirmara las acusaciones, el mandato actual sería anulado, Temer tendría que dejar el poder y el Congreso debería elegir un sustituto para gobernar el país hasta las elecciones de octubre de 2018.
Las cifras que impactan en el ánimo popular
13,2%
Tasa de desempleo
La cifra de desocupados de la población económicamente activa es de 13,5 millones de brasileños, un aumento del 1,3% respecto del trimestre anterior
4,7%
Tasa de inflación
Desde que asumió el poder en agosto pasado, el gobierno de Temer logró controlar la variable, que en enero de 2016, cuando gobernaba Dilma Rousseff, había superado el 10%
10%
Imagen positiva
La consultora Ibope reveló que la popularidad del presidente continuó cayendo en las últimas semanas. Además, el 41% de los consultados cree que la gestión de Temer es peor que la de su destituida predecesora
Cada año, especialistas en VIH de todo el mundo se reúnen para intercambiar las últimas novedades sobre la infección, los avances y las nuevas estrategias de tratamiento. Este año, la IX Conferencia de VIH de la Sociedad Internacional de Sida (IAS), también conocida como la conferencia de la ciencia del VIH, tuvo lugar en París.
Y si bien es cierto que todavía no hay noticias de la tan esperada vacuna o de una cura definitiva, cada vez empieza a hablarse con más fuerza de la remisión de la infección, del uso de la inmunoterapia para frenar al virus y de tratamientos con antirretrovirales de larga duración. La resistencia del virus a algunas drogas sería la contracara de los pasos dados hacia adelante para mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas con VIH y detener la epidemia. A continuación, las últimas novedades en el tema, que pueden ayudar a los 120.000 argentinos que conviven con el VIH en nuestro país:
De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de remisión
En el mundo, solo una persona logró la cura de la infección por VIH. Su nombre: Timothy Ray Brown, el “paciente de Berlín”, quien no volvió a presentar la infección tras un trasplante de médula ósea de un donante con una rara mutación genética. Nadie más salvo él alcanzó la cura.
Sin embargo, un grupo de personas con VIH se destaca entre los 34 millones de infectados en el mundo: se trata de un puñado de no más de 50 personas que lograron la remisión del virus, o sea, pueden mantener una carga viral indetectable sin tomar antirretrovirales. “Lo que tienen en común es que son personas que se trataron cuando apenas se infectaron de VIH -en las primeras dos semanas-, o que fueron tratadas desde el nacimiento (en casos de transmisión vertical). Como en ese momento el organismo no está todo colonizado por el VIH, empezar el tratamiento de inmediato ayudaría a que mejoren las propias defensas, que se pueda controlar el virus y luego, en algún momento, suspender y estar varios meses sin tomar antirretroviales”, explica Omar Sued, director de investigaciones en la Fundación Huésped.
Si bien no hay una definición establecida del estado de remisión, Sued explica que dos puntos importantes son que durante un año el paciente haya interrumpido el tratamiento y que durante ese tiempo la carga viral se haya mantenido en niveles indetectables. Entender los mecanismos que hicieron que este grupo, conocido como “elite controllers”, pueda mantener su carga viral suprimida sin utilizar fármacos podría conducir a beneficios para otras personas con el virus.
Los médicos advierten, por supuesto, que nadie debe suspender su tratamiento sin la orden de un especialista.
Foto: Archivo
La importancia de los reservorios
Los antirretrovirales logran controlar la carga del VIH en la sangre y otros fluidos corporales. Sin embargo, una de las ventajas del virus tiene que ver con su “escondite”, que no es otro que el genoma en las células. Si bien allí el VIH no se replica, sí permanece en un estado de latencia y no puede ser atacado por los fármacos.
“La idea de los reservorios y el por qué hay tanto énfasis es porque sabemos que eso nos impide la cura de la infección”, explica la investigadora del Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida (INBIRS), Natalia Laufer.
En la última conferencia de la ciencia del VIH se presentaron numerosos estudios referidos a la medición de los reservorios, uno de los cuales fue realizado por el INBIRS. “Lo que se está viendo es que cuanto menor es el tamaño de los reservorios mayor es la posibilidad de llegar a la cura de la infección. Claramente cuanto más tempranamente se diagnostica la infección y se empieza el tratamiento, se evita que se establezca un mayor número de reservorios”, dice Laufer.
Para abordar el problema, las estrategias, aún en estudio, van desde la reactivación del virus “dormido” hasta la utilización de inmunoterapia para contener la replicación y favorecer la eliminación viral.
Medicamentos para el cáncer usados para tratar el VIH
Fármacos que suelen utilizarse para el tratamiento del cáncer también podrían servir para el tratamiento del VIH. “Favorecerían el estado de remisión”, explica Sued. Se trata de terapias inmunológicas que estimulan las defensas y que, a diferencia de los medicamentos citostáticos (utilizados en quimioterapia), tendrían efectos adversos menores.
Hasta el momento, solo hay estudios en primates y pequeñas investigaciones realizadas en humanos, aunque los primeros resultados abren la posibilidad de estar ante un nuevo camino de estrategias para estimular la respuesta inmune.
Foto: Archivo
Tratamientos de larga duración
De forma oral o a través de inyectables, algunos tratamientos se encaminan a realizarse con drogas de larga duración en el organismo. Por ejemplo, se presentaron estudios sobre la aplicación de una inyección cada cuatro semanas o cada ocho semanas. “Esto favorece la adherencia y la comodidad de la persona, al no tener que estar pensando siempre en la pastilla”, explica Sued.
Otra estrategia presentada consistiría en la toma de los antirretrovirales durante cuatro o cinco días, hacer una pausa de dos o tres días, y luego repetir el proceso. “No es algo que se pueda hacer en la práctica clínica, pero se está evaluando. Hay gente que ya lo hacía en su vida diaria y a partir de eso se empezaron a plantear estos esquemas. Se utilizan drogas que tienen una vida media muy larga, como es el caso del Efavirenz. Es una estrategia que se plantea sobre todo para adolescentes y niños, en los que puede costar más la adherencia al tratamiento”, dice Laufer.
La resistencia a los ARV
Puede ocurrir que, ante un tratamiento interrumpido o mal llevado, el VIH genere resistencia a determinadas drogas. “El virus tiene la posibilidad de generar mutaciones, que son las que impiden que haya una vacuna efectiva porque va cambiando su conformación, entonces la vacuna no puede atacar lo que tiene que atacar”, señala Laufer. La especialista indica que si bien estos no son los virus que más se suelen transmitir, esto no quita que no pueda ocurrir.
Según un informe reciente presentado por la OMS, un diez por ciento de las nuevas infecciones en 11 países de África, Asia y América Latina corresponden a variantes del virus resistentes a algún fármaco.
Y agrega: “En el comunicado de la OMS se habla de lograr que no haya nuevos casos en el 2022, pero sabemos que estamos muy lejos de eso. Si se suma que hay personas que están tomando el tratamiento y no logran controlar la infección porque tienen el virus resistente, esto empeoraría la posibilidad eventualmente de controlar la epidemia”, argumenta Laufer.
Sued, por su parte, aclara que ante una complicación por una resistencia del virus, hay, no obstante, otras opciones. “Tenemos 30 medicamentos para VIH, o sea que si hay uno que no funciona siempre hay una alternativa. Con los medicamentos que hay prácticamente todos los pacientes tienen la opción del tratamiento.”
Foto: Archivo
Menor número de drogas
Si el presente del tratamiento antirretroviral está planteado a partir de la utilización de tres drogas, cada día hay más indicios de que podría realizarse solo con dos. En este sentido, la Fundación Huésped ya presentó los estudios Gardel, Paddle y el último fue el Andes, en el que combinaron los fármacos 3TC con darunavir, en comparación a la terapia de estas dos drogas más tenofovir.
“Demostramos con 140 pacientes que sí, que no es necesario dar tenofovir, con lo que se ahorra en comprimidos, toxicidad y costo. La idea es empezar a coformular esa medicación y probarla en otros 190 pacientes para tener un tratamiento con darunavir que sea de una sola pastilla por día”, dice Sued.
Una nueva vacuna en estudio
Hace dos años se probó una vacuna preventiva en Tailandia, que exhibió una efectividad baja, de solo 30 por ciento. Tras analizar sus componentes activos y combinarlos con otros nuevos, una nueva versión de esta vacuna, que protegería contra diversas cepas del virus, comenzó a ser probada en África, en un estudio que incluye a 4500 personas en alto riesgo de contraer la infección. Se espera que alcance un piso de eficacia de al menos 60 por ciento. Sin embargo, habrá que esperar: los resultados se conocerán recién en dos o tres años.
If recent history is any indication, and of course it is, Michael Cohen’s testimony this week in front of Congress is about to make any lunatic ramblings by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., look like the musings of a wise sage.
Cohen, President Trump’s former gofer, will on Tuesday deliver what is expected to be three days of testimony implicating his ex-boss in a series of crimes Cohen has already pleaded guilty to, including campaign finance violations (Zzz…), lying to Congress, and lying to the FBI.
Cohen has admitted that he lied about the timeline of a real estate venture that the Trump Organization has pursued for decades, including into the 2016 election. Cohen also claimed that he acted on behalf of Trump during the election when he paid hush money to women who claimed they had separate affairs with Trump years before.
A federal judge sentenced Cohen to three years in prison for those crimes, which have some relation to Trump, and others, which don’t, including Cohen’s extensive history of tax evasion and bank fraud.
So far, there is no strong evidence that Trump himself was engaged in any legal wrongdoing. The president denies he ever told Cohen to lie about the pursuit of a Trump Tower in Moscow, a project Trump has dreamed about since the 1980s, and he denies that the payments to his alleged mistresses from roughly 12 years ago were made to influence the 2016 election.
And there’s no reason why Cohen’s testimony should carry any weight. He most recently embarrassed himself in a nationally televised interview by insisting over and over again that he was “taking responsibility” for his crimes.
Cohen is “taking responsibility” by going to prison the same way a deadbeat drunk is “taking responsibility” for being unemployed. When you’re fired from your job, “taking responsibility” is your only option.
There has never been a time that Cohen didn’t look like a delusional mess.
On Election Day 2016, after it was clear that Trump had won the presidency, Cohen reportedly told a group of friends, “Nobody’s going to be able to fuck with us. I think I’m going to run for mayor.”
I imagine Cohen’s grandmother nearby offering an encouraging, “Some day you will, baby! You will!”
In March of last year, Cohen referred to himself as Trump’s “Ray Donovan,” a TV character who made the problems of celebrities go away. If that was Cohen’s paid responsibility for Trump as a “fixer,” the president should ask for a full refund.
But classic Cohen is his interview in 2015 with the Daily Beast, which sought comment from him for a story on Trump’s divorce from Ivana. Apparently unaware that Ray Donovan is not real, Cohen nonetheless channeled his fictional persona, telling the reporter, “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”
Now that Cohen’s going to prison, though, he’s supposedly gone from Ray Donovan to repentant deacon.
No one took him seriously before, and they shouldn’t take him seriously now.
Ver el video de un gatico juguetón reduce la ansiedad y llena de optimismo. Eso concluyó la investigadora social Jessica Gall Myrick, de la Universidad de Indiana (EE. UU.), en un estudio de 2014 y quizá esta es una de las claves de BuzzFeed. Este portal ha hecho de los felinos su arma, no tan secreta, para reinar en Internet (cada mes registra 200 millones de visitantes únicos). De hecho, los gatos obtienen casi cuatro veces el tráfico de los perros con más clics. Claro que los mininos ayudan, pero detrás del éxito de BuzzFeed hay mucho más.
El gigante estadounidense de Internet ha conquistado a los lectores con sus listados, videos y formatos tipo quiz porque los conoce mejor que nadie. Como si fuera un detective, Gilad Lotan, vicepresidente de Ciencia de Datos en BuzzFeed, se dedica a rastrear cada like y cada compartido para entender sus gustos y necesidades. No importa si se trata de una publicación sobre las 12 ventajas de madrugar, uno sobre los mejores tuits de la noche electoral en Estados Unidos u otro sobre la radicalización de los medios en Palestina e Israel. Lotan estuvo en Medellín como invitado del Festival Gabo hablando sobre inteligencia artificial y el uso de datos en el periodismo. EL COLOMBIANO conversó con él.
¿BuzzFeed puede predecir qué contenido será viral?
“¡Esa es una noticia falsa! Nuestro equipo de científicos de datos no les dice a los creadores qué escribir ni tampoco podemos adivinar qué va a volverse un fenómeno viral y que no. Lo que hacemos es recopilar datos y rastrear las métricas más significativas. Hacemos experimentos en tiempo real en la red, por ejemplo, con dos títulos distintos para una misma noticia e identificamos cuál funciona mejor. Así rastreamos las tendencias y ayudamos a comprender el rendimiento del contenido a través de la lente de los datos. Si las métricas evidencian que la pieza ha roto un récord en Estados Unidos, por ejemplo, una tecnología con inteligencia artificial lo notifica y les sugiere a los editores a nivel global traducirla. Aclaro que tomamos decisiones basadas en datos, pero no dejamos que estos decidan qué cubriremos”.
¿Ese rastreo de datos diferencia a BuzzFeed de los medios de comunicación tradicionales?
“Buzzfeed, desde sus primeros días, se centró en la construcción de una tecnología propia, basada en datos. Hicimos modelos de predicción, sistemas de clasificación y recomendación que nos ayudan a ubicar el contenido adecuado frente a los usuarios correctos. Además, nos centramos en la personalización, impulsada por datos, el aprendizaje automático y las técnicas de inteligencia artificial para identificar la forma óptima de enrutar el contenido”.
Registran más de 7.000 millones de contenidos vistos mensualmente. ¿Así llegaron a ser un gigante mediático?
“Siempre hemos sido conscientes de cómo los lectores responden a los contenidos. Hay una cultura de aprendizaje, experimentación e iteración. Nuestra filosofía es sencilla: intentar cosas nuevas para entender qué hace que las audiencias se enganchen. Otro factor clave: BuzzFeed fue uno de los primeros en considerar que las plataformas externas como Facebook y Snapchat son increíblemente importantes”.
¿Qué siente cuando la gente solo se centra en los videos de gatos de Buzzfeed?
“¡Son increíbles! A todo el mundo les encanta verlos, es un hecho
estadístico”.
Se esperaba que Internet fuera una fuente abierta y democrática de información. Pero los algoritmos, como el que usa Facebook, a menudo nos guían hacia artículos que reflejan nuestras preferencias y opiniones.
“Es complicado. Los sistemas algorítmicos han sido útiles para la sociedad. Piense en un mundo sin toda la información impulsada por Google o sin el acceso a su red de contactos gracias a Facebook. Pero al igual que ha sucedido con cada nueva tecnología que irrumpe en la sociedad y se vuelve popular, surgen consecuencias no deseadas, en especial teniendo en cuenta la brecha entre la función para la que estos sistemas fueron diseñados y para lo que realmente se utilizan”.
Por ejemplo…
“El feed de noticias de Facebook fue creado para generar enganche e interacciones entre amigos. Se pensó para que usted comparta fotos de su familia, responda a una broma, haga actualizaciones sobre lo que está haciendo y hacia dónde va. No fue diseñado como la plataforma dominante en la que las personas en todo el mundo consumen noticias y, sin embargo, se ha convertido en eso. Entonces, el conjunto de algoritmos que rigen el suministro de noticias tiene en cuenta el compromiso con el contenido al decidir qué parte de las publicaciones mostrar y por cuánto tiempo. Esos sistemas de recomendación nos ayudan a encontrar amigos y amigos de amigos, algo útil. Pero cuando se usan en el espectro político, nos impulsan a conectarnos y a seguir a más políticos con agendas similares. Si bien Facebook cuenta con una amplia base de usuarios y una alta conectividad (cada usuario está en promedio a 4 conexiones de distancia de cualquier otro a través de la red), estos sistemas algorítmicos nos están metiendo en burbujas que refuerzan y reflejan las preferencias ideológicas.
¿Cómo romper ese
círculo vicioso?
“El primer paso es identificar lo que está ocurriendo y entender el fenómeno. Luego, hay varias intervenciones que pueden diseñarse. ¿Qué tal si empezamos mostrando diferentes perspectivas alrededor de un mismo tema? Las noticias de Buzzfeed lo hacen con un módulo llamado “fuera de su burbuja” que existe para cubrir ciertos eventos. Ahora soy yo quien pregunta: ¿Qué pasaría si los lectores fueran conscientes de que el contenido que ven es más de lo mismo y se les diera la oportunidad de explorar otras perspectivas? ¿A los lectores les importaría?
Estar en una burbuja que anula otras formas de pensar nos afecta, pero ¿qué pasa cuando las personas pierden la confianza en la sociedad? Esta es la gran pregunta en el debate sobre las noticias falsas.
“Si bien hay una falta de confianza en las redes sociales, también hay menos fe en las instituciones, incluyendo los medios de comunicación. Cada empresa de medios debe estar preocupada y centrada en la construcción de este vínculo con sus lectores. Para Buzzfeed se trata de reconocer que nuestros lectores habitan un paisaje informativo cada vez más complejo. En lugar de pretender que no existe, es nuestro deber ayudarles a navegarlo. De ahí el enfoque en la identificación de noticias falsas. También somos un altavoz para los ciudadanos y exigimos que los actores poderosos rindan cuentas, ya sea el actual presidente de EE. UU. o Facebook, como una plataforma”
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
