Most Viewed Videos

Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Bernie SandersBernie SandersSanders leads in Iowa ahead of caucus: poll The Memo: Trump threatens to overshadow Democrats in Iowa Kerry denies considering presidential bid: ‘Any report otherwise is categorically false’ MORE‘s 2020 presidential campaign, on Monday pushed back against President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump shares then deletes tweet praising Chiefs for representing ‘Great State of Kansas’ Ken Bone endorses Andrew Yang for president: ‘#YangGang all the way!’ Loeffler works to gain traction with conservatives amid Collins primary bid MORE‘s accusations that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is working to “rig” the primary contest against the Vermont senator.

“It is not currently rigged. Last time it was rigged,” Weaver, who as served Sanders’s 2016 White House campaign manager, said on MSNBC as the Iowa caucuses got under way. 

Weaver added that Trump’s comments are an attempt to paint the primary as a tool of the political establishment — and himself as the only candidate working outside of the machine.

“We’re not going to play that game,” Weaver said. “The danger for Trump is the people who support Trump, working class people in Pennsylvania, people who voted for Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaIowa poll snafu leaves Democrats guessing on eve of caucuses Iowa caucuses will test a year of organizing Iowa and New Hampshire haters should think twice MORE twice and then voted for Trump, people in Iowa [are the] same way. Those people could be brought back by Bernie Sanders, not Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden responds to GOP senator’s impeachment warning Sanders leads in Iowa ahead of caucus: poll The Memo: Trump threatens to overshadow Democrats in Iowa MORE.”

Trump, in a series of tweets over the weekend, claimed that the DNC was working in tandem with former New York mayor and 2020 White House hopeful Michael BloombergMichael Rubens BloombergThe Memo: Trump threatens to overshadow Democrats in Iowa Bloomberg dismisses Trump claims: He ‘lies about everything’ Biden stretches lead to 17 points in Texas: poll MORE to “rig the election” against Sanders. Trump also alleged without evidence that Bloomberg was in talks with the DNC to “have the right to stand on boxes” during Democratic debates. 

The comments came after the DNC abruptly announced that it was nixing the donor threshold for a primary debate in Las Vegas later this month. The move could present an opening for Bloomberg, a billionaire businessman self-funding his entire campaign, to reach the debate stage. 

For the Nevada debate, Bloomberg and the rest of the candidates need to reach 10 percent support in at least four national polls, or 12 percent support in two sanctioned early-state surveys from Nevada and South Carolina, according to the new criteria. They could also participate in the Feb. 19 debate if they earn at least one pledged delegate at the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary. 

Asked about the allegations in Los Angeles on Sunday, Bloomberg said that Trump “lies about everything” and that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that he’d make a statement such as that one. 

“This is what happens when someone like me suddenly rises in the polls. All of a sudden, the other candidates get scared, and I think Donald Trump knows that I can beat him,” Bloomberg said. 

But the new criteria have sparked opposition from many of Bloomberg’s primary opponents who have worked hard to build up a base of donors. Weaver said last week that the change is the “definition of a rigged system.”

Sanders, who has predicated his 2016 and 2020 presidential bids around progressive policies such as Medicare For All and college debt cancellation, has emerged as a favorite in the primary contest, according to state and national polls. A Real Clear Politics average of polling shows he leads in Iowa by 3.7 percentage points.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481289-sanders-campaign-rejects-trump-claims-democratic-primary-is-not-currently

U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of increased tariffs on Chinese goods is an indication that U.S.-China trade negotiations “might have reached a sticking point,” Goldman Sachs said on Sunday.

The bank said in a note that chances of a successful deal are now lower, but suggested that an increase in tariffs could still be avoided — especially if the Chinese delegation still attends its meeting with U.S. negotiators this week.

Referring to Trump’s latest gambit, Goldman economists said: “This represents a shift from the optimistic statements from US officials over the last few weeks and suggests that the probability of a near-term agreement is at least slightly lower than it seemed to be recently.”

U.S. officials had claimed in recent weeks that trade talks were going well, and sources had told CNBC that a deal was possible by this Friday. But major sticking points were said to remain, such as intellectual property theft and a disagreement as to whether tariffs should remain in place as a way to ensure Beijing sticks to its commitments.

Trump said in a Sunday afternoon Twitter post that the current 10% tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods will rise to 25% on Friday. He also threatened to impose 25% levies on an additional $325 billion of Chinese goods “shortly.”

Yet Goldman said it believes an agreement could still be reached, adding that it is still “slightly” more likely to happen than an increase in duties. It put the odds of a tariff escalation by the end of the week at 40% currently.

Investors will have a very clear signal to monitor, the bank added.

“The most important near-term indicator to watch will be whether the large delegation of Chinese officials comes to Washington on May 8, as scheduled. If they do, this would indicate that they believe a deal is still reasonably likely,” Goldman said.

If both sides end up meeting after all, the tariff rate would rise only if they are unable to reach an agreement by Thursday — before the hike takes effect on Friday, it added.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He had planned to bring a large delegation to Washington on Wednesday to hash out a trade deal. But two sources briefed on the talks told CNBC the Chinese side may back out of this week’s negotiations.

Goldman warned that could be a sign of an extended trade war: “If the upcoming visit is canceled, an agreement in the coming week would then seem very unlikely. In such a scenario an increase in the tariff rate to 25% would become the base case.”

The U.S. imports goods from China totaling $539.5 billion and the trade deficit stood at $419.2 billion in 2018, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. If Trump follows through with his threats, virtually all goods imported from China to the U.S. would face some sort of tariff.

But there is still hope yet, as Trump has the power to “walk the policy back through an executive order if negotiations progress favorably throughout the week,” Goldman said.

— CNBC’s Spencer Kimball contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/goldman-sachs-on-trumps-threat-of-trade-tariff-on-china.html

Humala reconoció este miércoles los audios investigados por Fiscalía, pero rechazó la versión de que estos lo impliquen con situaciones ilícitas. | Fuente: Flickr Congreso

Ollanta Humala desmintió el miércoles que sus más de 100 audios investigados en Fiscalía lo impliquen en la presunta compra de testigos en el caso Madre Mía. Sin embargo, el diario El Comercio publicó este jueves que Jorge Ávila sí se retractó por dinero sobre las acusaciones que en 1992 presentó contra el expresidente.

¿Qué es el caso Madre Mía, quién es Jorge Ávila y qué tiene Humala que ver con esto? RPP Noticias te lo explica.

La base militar. Todo se remonta a 1992. Ollanta Humala era capitán del Ejército y estaba destacado en Huánuco como jefe de la Unidad Contrasubversiva. Su labor era dirigir la base militar Madre Mía (San Martín) para la identificación y captura de terroristas. 

El 17 de junio de ese mismo año, sin embargo, un ciudadano lo denunció ante la Fiscalía de Tocache. Este denunciante era Jorge Ávila, quien entonces aseguraba que Humala había ordenado un ataque contra él y sus familiares tras confundirlos con integrantes de Sendero Luminoso. Según dijo en ese momento, fue secuestrado y torturado, pero logró escapar. Su hermana, Natividad Ávila Rivera, y su cuñado, Benigno Sulca Castro, desaparecieron. 

La investigación y el proceso quedaron truncos por las contradicciones de los testigos. | Fuente: AFP

Proceso trunco. Este testigo clave explicó, además, que el denunciado había dirigido estas acciones bajo el seudónimo de ‘Capitán Carlos’. El relato de Ávila fue atendido por el Poder Judicial, que abrió proceso en 2006 por los delitos de homicidio calificado, desaparición forzada y lesiones graves. 

No obstante, el caso no pasó más allá del análisis y nunca se abrió juicio oral. La Sala Penal Nacional decidió archivarlo en 2009, luego de que varios otros testigos se desdijeron. El propio Ávila también varió su alegato y limpió de responsabilidad a Humala. Con todo esto, en última instancia, la Sala Penal Transitoria de la Corte Suprema ordenó retirar del proceso al principal acusado.

El caso volvió a conocerse cuando Humala era candidato, pero la investigación se archivó nuevamente. | Fuente: Andina

Olvido y reapertura. Con testimonios contradictorios, la investigación se estancó y la Fiscalía optó por archivarla. Sin embargo, en enero de 2011, cuando Humala candidateaba por segunda vez a la presidencia, el caso fue abierto nuevamente. 

¿La razón? Se desempolvó otra denuncia hecha años atrás por Gustavo Pacheco, quien era candidato al Congreso por Solidaridad Nacional. Pero la nueva acusación por desaparición forzada no trascendió, pues la Fiscalía de Tocache aplicó la sentencia de la Corte Suprema que desestimaba la acusación contra Humala por inconsistente.

El diario El Comercio reveló este jueves que la víctima y testigo Jorge Ávila recibió 4,500 dólares para cambiar su versión. | Fuente: El Comercio

¿Quién es Amílcar? En su reciente entrevista con El Comercio, Ávila sostuvo que Amílcar Gómez Amasifuén fue el intermediario de los 4,500 dólares que recibió para dejar de acusar al expresidente ante los fiscales. Gómez, suboficial del Ejército, es conocido por su participación en el levantamiento de Locumba.

Esta asonada, realizada en Tacna en el año 2000 contra el régimen de Alberto Fujimori, fue dirigida por Humala y su hermano Antauro. De ahí su cercanía. No obstante, Gómez fue exculpado del soborno. La Sala Penal Liquidadora, que le imputaba haber pagado 4,000 dólares a Ávila, lo absolvió junto a su primo Robinson Gómez Reátegui en agosto de 2011, cuando Humala ya era presidente.

Source Article from http://rpp.pe/politica/judiciales/que-es-el-caso-madre-mia-y-por-que-ollanta-humala-es-el-principal-implicado-noticia-1046768

A Massachusetts man is facing a federal murder charge after authorities alleged he attacked a pair of hikers with a machete on the Appalachian Trail in Virginia, killing one and severely injuring the other.

James L. Jordan, 30, of West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, was arrested early Saturday following the deadly attack in Wythe County, Virginia, that a federal prosecutor described Sunday as “senseless and brutal.”

Jordan was arrested on the trail after two hikers contacted the Bland County Sheriff’s Office and reported “a man with a machete assaulting people,” according to the Wythe County Sheriff’s Office.

Southwest Regional Jail
James L. Jordan in a police booking photo.

A motive for the attack is under investigation by the FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, division.

The Wythe County Sheriff’s Office said deputies quickly went to the Appalachian Trail and found two badly injured hikers, a man and a woman. The victim’s names were not immediately released and it was unclear which one had died.

Jordan was charged with one count of murder within the special maritime territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and one count of assault with the intent to murder within the special maritime territorial jurisdiction of the United States, authorities said.

The suspect is expected to appear in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia, on Monday, authorities said. It’s unclear if Jordan has retained an attorney.

STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images
Layers of blue mountains on the Appalachian Trail.

“I commend local law enforcement in Wythe and Smyth Counties for mobilizing successful rescue and tactical operations in this remote region. Thanks to their efforts, the suspect was safely apprehended and the seriously wounded victim received critical medical care,” Thomas T. Cullen, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, said in a statement.

“We will continue to work with our state and local partners to bring the perpetrator of this senseless and brutal attack to justice,” Cullen added.

The slaying was the first murder on the Appalachian Trail, a 2,160-mile wilderness path that stretches from Maine to Georgia, since 2011 when hiker Scott Lilly, 30, of South Bend, Indiana, was slain and left in a shallow grave in Amherst County, Virginia. No one has been arrested in the homicide.

The most infamous murder on the Appalachian Trail occurred in May 1981 near Pearisburg, Virginia, when the bodies of two hikers, Robert Mountford Jr. and Laura Susan Ramsay, both of Maine, were found in their sleeping bags. Mountford had been shot three times in the face, while Ramsay was stabbed repeatedly with a long nail, authorities said.

Randal Lee Smith was arrested in the double homicide. He pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder.

The slayings became the subject of the 1984 book “Murder on the Appalachian Trail” by author Jess Carr.

Smith was paroled in 1996 after serving 15 years of a 30-year prison sentence.

Smith returned to the Appalachian Trail in May 2008 and was arrested for shooting and wounding two fishermen near where he killed Mountford and Ramsey, authorities said. He later died in prison.

ABC News’ Ben Stein contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-man-facing-federal-charges-fatal-machete-attack/story?id=62992155

Cuatro personas navegaban en la embarcación “La Nena” que zozobró en las aguas del rio Uruguay, próximo a la planta de UPM. 

Dos de los tripulantes, Héctor López y Nicolás Benitez, pudieron nadar hasta la costa y dar aviso a las autoridades.

Prefectura trabaja intensamente en el lugar para encontrar al resto de la embarcación

Al caer la tarde, recibieron un pedido de auxilio por una embarcación que zozobró con tres navegantes a bordo.

La búsqueda es encabezada por el prefecto Carlos Vidal en un bote Zodiac.

Source Article from http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/prefectura-encontro-personas-desaparecidas.html

New York lawmakers approved a bill Friday to strip Gov. Andrew Cuomo of the extraordinary authority to issue COVID-19 directives — a power it granted last year. But the measure allows existing orders to be extended. Cuomo is seen here during a news conference last month.

Seth Wenig/POOL /AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Seth Wenig/POOL /AFP via Getty Images

New York lawmakers approved a bill Friday to strip Gov. Andrew Cuomo of the extraordinary authority to issue COVID-19 directives — a power it granted last year. But the measure allows existing orders to be extended. Cuomo is seen here during a news conference last month.

Seth Wenig/POOL /AFP via Getty Images

New York lawmakers voted to strip Gov. Andrew Cuomo of his extraordinary emergency powers on Friday, saying that current COVID-19 circumstances no longer justify the expansive powers Cuomo was granted last year. But the legislation also allows the governor to extend orders he has already issued.

New York’s Senate and Assembly, both of which are led by Cuomo’s fellow Democrats, approved the move on Friday. The Senate vote was 43-20; the Assembly vote was 107-43.

The votes took place as a pair of political crises are undermining the governor’s standing. At least three women have accused Cuomo of sexual harassment, and his administration was found to have undercounted the coronavirus’ horrible toll on nursing home residents. Those crises have fueled calls for Cuomo to resign, and for him to be impeached.

Earlier this week, Cuomo apologized for acting “in a way that made people feel uncomfortable,” but he denied inappropriate conduct and refused to resign. The state’s attorney general is conducting an investigation into the harassment allegations.

Several lawmakers who voted against the legislation Friday said they did so only because they believe it doesn’t do enough to wrest power back from the executive branch.

“What more could this governor possibly do?” Republican Sen. Fred Akshar said, adding that Cuomo has issued some 96 orders during the pandemic. Approving the bill, Akshar said, “is worse than doing nothing.”

The bill, which is identical in both chambers, allows the governor’s COVID-19 directives to stay in effect for 30 days. But while it would stop Cuomo from issuing any new directives without lawmakers’ approval, it also would allow the governor’s existing directives to be extended.

The measure’s supporters said it would be unsafe to suddenly lift all of the orders, noting that despite the arrival of vaccines, the pandemic isn’t over. Cuomo has used the powers to enact a number of policies, from establishing capacity maximums for movie theaters to creating color-coded restriction zones and setting up quarantine restrictions for travelers.

But during Friday’s debate, several lawmakers called for Cuomo’s orders to be lifted immediately, and for him to face recriminations for his handling of the pandemic.

“I support impeachment,” Democratic Assemblyman Charles Barron said, emphasizing that he doesn’t think the legislation goes far enough to strip Cuomo of the special powers. Accusing Cuomo of obstruction and abuse of power, Barron said he would vote for both the Republican and the Democratic versions of the bill to rescind the emergency powers.

During debate on the bill, many lawmakers referenced the political turmoil Cuomo is now in. But as they discussed repealing the governor’s emergency powers, many legislators also returned to a common theme: that their constituents are ready for their lives and businesses to start returning to normal.

“We demand to go back to work. We demand to send our children back to school,” Republican Assemblyman Robert Smullen said, calling for his colleagues to repeal the law that granted Cuomo the powers last year.

The legislature gave Cuomo the extraordinary leeway to issue new orders last year, as New York faced a quick succession of challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic, which imposed unprecedented disruptions on everyday life in communities around the world.

But now, the bill states, “The legislature finds that there has been progress in the fight against the virus with the approval and distribution of multiple vaccines in recent months.”

With the worst of the COVID-19 emergency now seemingly over, lawmakers said, it was time to restore the balance of powers.

“This is the last good chance we have to reassert ourselves as a legislature,” Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes, a Republican, said.

The bill leaves intact any emergency powers the governor’s office had before the pandemic. But it also says the legislature can terminate a state disaster emergency if both chambers approve a concurrent resolution.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/03/05/974083354/new-york-legislature-strips-cuomo-of-extraordinary-emergency-powers-with-a-cavea

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California says a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border would be “immoral.” Instead, she favors something she calls a “technological wall.” Another top House Democrat, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, calls it a “smart wall.”

Instead of building an actual physical barrier of steel, concrete, or some other material, Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats advocate employing an array of high-tech devices — drones, infrared sensors, surveillance cameras, and more — to keep track of activity at the border without physical impediments to discourage illegal crossings.

“We cannot protect the border with concrete,” Clyburn said recently. “We can protect the border using the technology that is available to us to wall off intrusions.”

The problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall — in past debates, it was often referred to as a virtual fence — is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country.

That is especially important given the nature of the migrants crossing the border illegally today. In the past, many were single adult men who could be caught and quickly returned to Mexico. But now, according to the Department of Homeland Security, about two-thirds of the crossers are families and unaccompanied children who, by U.S. law, cannot be quickly returned. Once in the United States, their asylum claims — the vast majority are ultimately judged without merit — take a long time to process. During that time, many simply disappear into the country.

The point, for those illegal immigrants, is not to enter the United States without being detected. It is to enter, be caught, and begin the asylum process that will allow them to stay, one way or the other.

A smart wall is no obstacle to such crossers. On the other hand, a physical barrier would be a big obstacle and, if placed in key areas of the border, would likely reduce illegal crossings significantly. That is precisely the kind of barrier that Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats oppose.

“The virtual fence does not actually block the entry of anyone like a real wall or fence does,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter controls on immigration. “The virtual fence only works if there are enough Border Patrol agents around to arrest the illegal crossers who are detected.”

“Most importantly, this technology would not help in the case of caravan migrants pushing through the obsolete and aging barriers we have in many places,” Vaughan added. “And it does not help at all if the people who cross are detected only to be released after they state a fear of return, or because they brought a minor with them, or if they are unaccompanied minors led across by smugglers.”

Given the nature of the illegal flow across the border, a virtual wall would be even less effective than it might have been in the past.

Still, Democrats insist it is what is needed. Rep. Scott Peters, who delivered the recent Democratic weekly address, discussed his home city of San Diego and called for “sensors and radar … cameras mounted on drones … [and] state-of-the-art technologies to detect tunnels.”

“That is what real border security looks like, and I can tell you that San Diegans want that border security,” Peters said. “But we do not want a wall.”

Under Peters’ plan, the Department of Homeland Security would have to rely on technology at the border; if it wanted to build a physical barrier, it would have to get special congressional permission.

Peters briefly acknowledged that San Diego has a border fence. What he did not tell listeners was that building that physical barrier saved the city from a crisis in the 1980s by dramatically reducing the flow of illegal immigrants. This is from a 2017 account in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

While barbed wire had been strung between parts of Tijuana from San Ysidro in the 1950s, that barrier was easily foiled. In the 1980s, migrants overran the border and the Border Patrol, some dashing across Interstate 5. Thousands gathered nightly on a small slice of the border that Americans called “the soccer field” and Mexicans referred to as “La Canela.” There, men, women and children waited for nightfall before making their passage into El Norte.

The breaking point came in 1986, when Border Patrol agents in the San Diego apprehended 629,656 people, slightly more than the population of Las Vegas.

When agents attempted to stem the tide in San Ysidro, new routes were blazed in the rugged terrain to the east. “We would have caravans of cars,” said Donna Tisdale, who lives on a ranch in the East County hamlet of Boulevard. “They came at all hours of the day and night.”

In 1989, construction began on a new layer of fencing in San Diego County. A line of surplus helicopter landing pads, turned on their side and welded together, marched 46 miles east, rising to heights of 6 feet to 10 feet. A secondary layer, 13 miles long and 15 feet to 18 feet high, came in 1996. Later, a third layer was added in heavily trafficked spots, including where the border meets the Pacific Ocean at San Diego’s Friendship Park.

Large numbers of unauthorized immigrants continued to flow into the U.S., but they moved away from the coast, trying to slip around the fences.

San Diego faced an intolerable situation in the 1980s. The border fence was a key part of the solution. Now, a congressman from San Diego is dead set against building a physical barrier to stop illegal crossings in other parts of the country the way it did in San Diego.

Peters reflects his party’s leadership and their determination to stop the construction of any more barriers on the border. But Democrats from Pelosi down still want to appear strong on border security. Now, they are advocating sensors and drones and cameras that would watch an unfenced border — while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-in-border-fight-democrats-want-technological-wall-that-wont-keep-anybody-out

Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, criticized GOP colleagues who plan to object during the counting of states’ electoral votes in Congress on January 6.

The Electoral College formally certified President-elect Joe Biden‘s victory over President Donald Trump last Monday—with the Democrat garnering 306 votes to the president’s 232. But some close allies of Trump in Congress have said they plan to object to vote tallies from several key battleground states in a longshot bid to overturn the election results. Trump and his supporters have claimed without evidence that Biden won through widespread voter fraud.

The Quote

During an interview with CNN on Monday morning, Kinzinger called out conspiracy theories being pushed by Trump and his supporters on social media. The Republican lawmaker has been highly critical of the misinformation about the election being circulated online.

“Now, you believe that somehow on January 6 the U.S. Congress can overthrow the results of an election, or that we even have a role in determining who the president is. We don’t,” Kinzinger told CNN, commenting on what Trump supporters think because of widely debunked conspiracy theories circulating on social media.

“But there has been some not serious people in Congress that have convinced their base, for retweets and money, that we can as members of Congress go out and determine that we just want Trump to be the president again in 2020,” the congressman added.

Why It Matters

Representative Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican, is leading the effort to object to the vote tallies of several key battleground states that went for Biden. Representative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, said over the weekend that he plans to throw his support behind Brooks’ plan.

“I’m joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn’t run clean elections,” Gaetz said Saturday at conservative group Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit.

The Constitution does allow for members of Congress to submit their objections in writing to any state’s electoral votes. But in order for the objection to be discussed, a member of the House and Senate must both sign on to the objection. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, along with other Senate GOP leaders, has urged his colleagues to not join any House efforts to object. But several Republican senators have suggested they are open to the idea.

For the objection to succeed in overturning a state’s results, both the Senate and the House must agree to the objection with a simple majority vote. The prospect of even one of the chambers of Congress agreeing to an objection is considered highly unlikely. Even in the GOP-controlled Senate, there are enough Republican senators who are expected to join their Democratic colleagues in shooting down any objections. Meanwhile, the House is narrowly controlled by Democrats.

GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger questions witnesses during a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on September 16. Kinzinger on Monday criticized GOP colleagues planning to object to President-elect Joe Biden’s win when the electoral votes are counted in Congress on January 6.
KEVIN DIETSCH/POOL/AFP/Getty

Opposing View

Trump and his supporters claim that Biden won through widespread voter fraud. They argue that the election results must be overturned in order to save the Republic, alleging that the election was “rigged.”

However, there is no evidence to support these allegations. Trump and his allies have filed dozens of failed lawsuits, as judge after judge has rejected or dismissed the allegations—pointing out that attorneys have not provided any evidence. Even judges appointed by Republicans and Trump himself have rejected the claims.

Attorney General William Barr, who has been widely seen as one of Trump’s most loyal Cabinet members, said at the beginning of December that there is no evidence of fraud that would change the election’s results. Barr later submitted his resignation after significant criticism from the president.

Newsweek reached out to press representatives for Gaetz and Brooks for comment but did not hear back before publication.

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/gop-rep-calls-colleagues-planning-objections-bidens-win-not-serious-people-1556409

Tara Reade, the ex-Senate staffer who alleged that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, acknowledged Friday in an Associated Press interview that she did not explicitly accuse the former vice president of sexual assault or harassment in a limited report she filed. Reade later characterized the AP story, which was published Saturday, as false in a tweet.

Reade responded this week to additional transcripts and notes from interviews she did with the AP in 2019, in which she admitted to “chickening out” of filing an official complaint that actually alleged explicit sexual misconduct of any kind. The AP noted that Reade did not raise allegations of sexual assault against Biden until this year, when he became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

Biden on Friday outright denied her claims again and called on the Senate and National Archives to produce any such complaint should it exist.

Reade conceded to the AP Friday that even if any record of her official complaint does surface, it “would not corroborate her assault allegations because she chose not to detail them at the time.”

“I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade earlier told the AP of her having filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office.

The former staffer said she does not have a copy of the Senate report, and Biden has insisted he’s not aware that any complaint exists against him.

“I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault,” Reade told the AP Friday, insisting that she did file an “intake form” at the Senate personnel office. She said the supposed documentation would include her contact information and general complaints against Biden, but nothing specifically about sexual assault or harassment.

However, in a Saturday afternoon tweet, Reade later rebuked the AP’s story, saying flatly: “This is false.”

Biden and his campaign have repeatedly denied Reade’s allegation that the then-Delaware senator put his hand up her skirt and penetrated her 27 years ago. The former vice president told MSNBC Friday “this never happened” and called on the Senate and the National Archives to release her complaint if one exists.

Newsweek reached out Saturday to representatives of Biden as well as Reade for a comment on this story.

Reade participated in several 2019 interviews in which she described “chickening out” of previously filing any official record of sexual assault against Biden. She cited “retaliation” as one factor behind her reluctance to do so.

A recently uncovered Larry King Live segment from August 11, 1993 purported to show Reade’s mother telling CNN that her daughter did not make the accusations public at the time because “she chose not to out of respect for [Biden].”

Reade was one of eight women who came forward last year alleging Biden subjected them to uncomfortable touching and shows of affection during his Senate tenure. But she did not go so far as to accuse him of sexual assault or harassment until this year.

Speaking with Newsweek in March, Reade said her primary purpose in escalating the allegations was to push back against “powerful men.”

The AP noted Friday that it declined to publish details of her 2019 interviews because reporters were unable to corroborate her accusations, citing several contradictions in her statements.

Updated 4:24 PM ET, to include Reade’s tweet responding to the AP report.

Tara Reade, the ex-Senate staffer who now alleges Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, acknowledged Friday that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in previous filings and interviews prior to this year, only that she was made to feel “uncomfortable.”Sean Rayford / Stringer/Getty Images

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/tara-reade-says-her-joe-biden-senate-complaint-does-not-contain-sexual-assault-harassment-1501616?amp=1

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

Washington (CNN)Roger Stone said Sunday he would tell the truth about his communications with President Donald Trump and did not shut the door on the possibility of cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/politics/roger-stone-cooperation-robert-mueller/index.html

Updated 4:53 AM ET, Sat April 4, 2020

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

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/health/how-to-make-your-own-mask-wellness-trnd/index.html

    The price index idea, which the pharmaceutical industry and many medical providers have vigorously opposed, is still under review from the Office of Management and Budget and may begin as a five-year pilot program next year. But it would apply to only a small subset of the drug market, and would not affect the prices paid for more typical prescription drugs that are sold at retail pharmacies. An executive order on drug prices would most likely have no force of law on its own, but could direct the Department of Health and Human Services to pursue or expand this approach.

    Outside of the doctor’s office or hospital, the federal government does not buy many medications itself. Under current law, Medicare’s main prescription drug program farms out its drug purchasing to private insurance companies, and is barred from negotiating with drugmakers directly. The federal government does buy drugs for some populations, including veterans and federal prisoners, but they represent only a small fraction of the nation’s drug market.

    “The frustration that the U.S. pays much higher prices for drugs has been a persistent theme of this administration,” said Peter Bach, the director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, in an email. “We will have to see what is ordered to understand what could actually be implemented by executive order. The scope will have to be pretty limited in that the government itself does very little purchasing of drugs. It is all done through intermediaries that we pay for the service.”

    The Department of Health and Human Services published a white paper of possible drug pricing policies last year, and has begun rolling out regulations to help enact portions of it. Congress is also seriously considering a handful of measures related to drug pricing, some of which may become law this year.

    A bill introduced by Senator Rick Scott, a Republican from Florida, has not advanced to a committee hearing, but comes the closest to what the president described Friday. Mr. Scott’s bill would link a drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration to a requirement that the drug’s retail list price in the United States be no higher than the lowest price charged in Canada, France, Britain, Japan or Germany.

    Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/upshot/trump-drug-prices-executive-order.html

    <!– –>

    The U.S. and China moved closer to a trade deal during talks this week, but negotiators still need to hammer out some sticking points as they push for a final summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    A Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier Liu He met with U.S. officials Wednesday and Thursday as the two sides try to strike an agreement and end a potentially devastating trade conflict. While the Trump administration has shown optimism about inking a trade overhaul long sought by the president, negotiators still have some differences.

    Ahead of a Thursday meeting with Liu, Trump told reporters that “intellectual property and theft” and “certain tariffs” — two of the key topics in the talks — are some of the remaining sticking points.

    “If we have a deal, there will be a summit. I’d say we’ll know over the next four weeks,” the president said.

    The two sides were going line by line through deal text Thursday, with a break for a meeting between Trump and Liu, an administration official told CNBC. They will continue to work through the deal on Friday.

    The world’s two largest economies still disagree over whether the U.S. will use tariffs as an enforcement tool, the official acknowledged. Trump has previously said his administration’s tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods could stay in place even after the sides strike a deal. China has pushed for the removal of duties as part of an agreement.

    The U.S. and China had not set a date or place for a summit between Trump and Xi as of Thursday.

    The talks come as investors and businesses watch closely for developments that could ease tensions between the U.S. and its largest trading partner. The escalating series of tariffs imposed by both China and the U.S. has rattled financial markets and led to concerns about issues rippling throughout both economies.

    Trump, who won the White House partly on his pledges to crack down on what he called Chinese trade abuses, seeks a victory that he can promote during his 2020 reelection bid.

    “If it’s not a great deal, we’re not doing it,” he told reporters at the White House earlier Thursday. “But it’s going very well.”

    The two sides are eyeing a series of agreements on different subjects tied together by one enforcement tool, the administration official said. The U.S. and China have not decided how much of the agreement to finish now and how much to leave for the potential meeting between Trump and Xi.

    The U.S. would give China until 2025 to follow through on commitments to purchase more goods from the U.S., the person added. But different products would be subject to separate timelines. Trump has long decried the trade deficit between the U.S. and China and pushed for Beijing to buy more American goods.

    Negotiators have not set a time frame for addressing structural issues, such as stopping intellectual property theft or forced technology transfers.

    Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/us-and-china-make-progress-on-trade-deal-but-enforcement-is-an-issue.html

    El homenaje al cumplirse 33 años de que el último gobierno de facto argentino iniciara la guerra con Gran Bretaña por la soberanía del archipiélago tuvo lugar en la ciudad fueguina de Usuahia, “capital de nuestras islas Malvinas”, dijo la presidenta durante su discurso, frente a excombatientes, funcionarios provinciales y prácticamente todo el gabinete nacional.

    Recordó que el conflicto bélico no fue iniciado por un gobierno elegido por el pueblo sino por una dictadura militar cuya llegada al poder “no fue cuestionada” por las potencias internacionales, y cuya decisión de invadir las islas no tuvo nada que ver con la democracia. “Así que no nos vengan a hacer cargo de una guerra que no fue nuestra -fustigó la Presidenta-. De lo único que nos hacemos cargo es de la sangre de nuestros combatientes, y nos haremos cargo siempre porque somos un pueblo soberano y orgullos que siempre va a homenajear a sus muertos y a su bandera”.

    “Los que estuvieron en las trincheras fueron los verdaderos héroes y combatientes”, destacó la mandataria al recordar “el miedo” con que la sociedad argentina vivió durante los meses que duró el conflicto. “Fueron mártires, porque enviar (a la guerra) a un chico de 18 años sin entrenamiento ni preparación a un territorio inhóspito, es una práctica de martirologio”, definió.

    Además, garantizó que la Argentina seguirá reclamando la apertura de un proceso de diálogo con Gran Bretaña para debatir la soberanía de las islas, y así completar “el cachito de independencia territorial que nos falta, porque no va a haber un 9 de Julio completo hasta que no podamos recuperar nuestras Malvinas”.

    En este sentido repasó los “avances” diplomáticos y los apoyos que Argentina recogió de parte de distintos países y organismos internacionales en su pedido de diálogo con el Reino Unido, y destacó que una “considerable” parte de la sociedad inglesa “ha comenzado a comprender” que “es indispensable tener un diálogo maduro como manda la resolución 165 de Naciones Unidas”, entre otros mandatos de la legislación internacional. “El mundo no aguanta más guerras, ya hay demasiadas muertes”, puntualizó.

    La jefa de Estado volvió a rechazar la figura de “amenaza” con que Gran Bretaña catalogó a la Argentina para incrementar el envío de armamentos y equipos de defensa militar a archipiélago, y acusó a Cameron de utilizar ese argumento en vez de hablar del incremento del gasto armamentìstico de su gestión para abastecer a los lobbies “que te venden armas y aconsejan ir a la guerra”.

    “Somos la coartada de un gobierno que tuvo que pasar de 46 a 400 bancos de alimentos para dar de comer a un millón de ingleses”, dijo Cristina Kirchner y recalcó que la Argentina “no es un peligro para nadie en términos militares o de armamentismo. No nos corre ningún lobby. Tal vez sí seamos un ‘peligro’ cuando otros pueblos vean cómo nuestro país dio vuelta la historia e instaló un modelo de sociedad más solidaria, equitativa y justa”.

    Por otra parte, remarcó que “puedo mirar de frente a los combatientes y veteranos porque fuimos nosotros los que les reconocimos los derechos e instalamos Malvinas como una cuestión internacional de lucha contra el colonialismo”, y por ello se reconoció “con orgullo” como una “presidenta malvinera”.

    “Somos el gobierno que tomó al toro por las astas, que sacó de las sombras a los combatientes, que hizo ese museo y que ahora desclasificó toda la información que hay” sobre la guerra de Malvinas. Destacó también que en los próximos días se celebrarán los 150 años de la llegada de inmigrantes galeces a la Patagonia argentina y en este sentido destacó que “hay más ingleses viviendo en la Argentina continental que en Malvinas, viviendo armoniosa y pacíficamente. Entonces, por qué no la terminan” con que somos un peligro, cuestionó.

    Source Article from http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/ultimas/20-269584-2015-04-02.html

    North Korea fired off a few projectiles on Friday night — setting off a chaotic half day where it seemed the sputtering relationships between Washington, Seoul, and Pyongyang could come crashing down.

    South Korea’s military initially said that its northern neighbor launched a short-range “missile” into the Sea of Japan from Wonsan in the country’s east between 9:06 am and 9:27 am local time on Saturday. Shortly after, though, Seoul revised its analysis to say Pyongyang set off “several projectiles,” thereby downgrading the kind of weapons used. It remains unclear how many projectiles North Korea fired or what kind were shot, although what is certain is they didn’t travel more than about 120 miles.

    The specifics matter here. The United States and North Korea are engaged in months-long negotiations over how to dismantle Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he’s fine with the protracted talks as long as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un doesn’t test any more missiles, especially ones that can reach the US carrying a nuclear warhead. Kim’s last test of that kind came in November 2017.

    But should Kim conduct another long range missile test, it’s conceivable Trump and aides around him — particularly National Security Adviser John Bolton — could decide diplomacy has failed and revert back to the “fire and fury” threats of 2017.

    People familiar with the scene inside the White House Friday night told me there was some fear about that possibility.

    “Trump is pissed off, like Kim fucked him over,” a source told me anonymously shortly after Bolton briefed the president. Senior aides were “urging him not to tweet anything” until he spoke with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who leads his own talks with North Korea to improve ties on the peninsula. US officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, spoke to their South Korean counterparts.

    Many experts didn’t think North Korea’s show of force crossed Trump’s red line, but they said the danger lied in how the president would react to the news.

    “The talks now depend on whether the president responds proportionately to the launches, or instead decides to overreact or ignore them,” Adam Mount, an expert on North Korea’s nuclear program at the Federation of American Scientists, told me. “It’s not clear this president is willing or able to discern facts about the projectiles fired.”

    But Friday night and early Saturday morning came and went without any reaction from the president — until 9:42 am.

    So it seems that the worst was avoided, although the episode seemingly left a mark on the president. “Trump is not happy, but not flipping out like last night,” one person familiar with the situation told me.

    Why it’s not time to panic about North Korea’s “projectile” test

    The question now is why North Korea would risk angering Trump by firing off a few “projectiles.” There are two main hypotheses.

    First, Kim hoped that his talks with the US and South Korea would’ve paid off by now, but that hasn’t happened yet.

    In February, Trump and Kim met in Vietnam to make a deal on ending North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, but the summit ended early as both sides made demands the other couldn’t accept. Since then talks have all but stalled and there has been little sign of progress.

    “It sounds like Kim wants Trump to get moving on US-North Korea issues, and he’s not being shy about it,” Grace Liu, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told me.

    Second, the US and South Korea are engaged in a military exercise, although they scaled it down to avoid any tensions with the North. Pyongyang considers these drills as nothing short of a thinly veiled prelude to invasion and has historically reacted with shows of force. It’s very possible, then, that launching a few short-range projectiles was just another of those signs of displeasure.

    That means Friday night’s perilous moment surely wasn’t meant as an incitement for war. The problem is that incitement may come soon.

    Pyongyang says it will give Washington by the end of 2019 to strike a nuclear deal or it may find other ways to get America to comply. Experts I spoke to say that means the window for a negotiated agreement is closing fast — which in turn implies future North Korean provocations might be a lot more troubling still.

    Source Article from https://www.vox.com/world/2019/5/4/18529307/north-korea-projectile-missile-trump-kim

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Sunday she has “no red lines” when it comes to passing hundreds of billions in emergency aid to state and local governments.

    Her comments came after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said last week he wouldn’t support a new coronavirus relief bill without a provision removing liability from companies that bring workers back amid the coronavirus outbreak.

    “My red line going forward on this bill is we need to provide protection, litigation protection, for those who have been on the front lines,” he told Fox News on Tuesday.

    Speaking with CBS’ “Face the Nation” after the House passed Pelosi’s HEROES Act late last week, Pelosi was asked about McConnell’s stance.

    “Well we have no red lines, but the fact is the best protection for our workers and our employers is to follow very good OSHA mandatory guidelines and we have that in our bill,” Pelosi said. “And that protects workers, protects their lives, as well as protects the employer if they follow the guidelines. Remember, when people go to work, they go home, they could bring it home to their children or they could bring it to a senior living in their home. This is beyond just the individual at work.”

    The HEROES Act contains a provision requiring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue standards requiring workplaces to design and implement infection control plans in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, in addition to preventing workplaces from retaliating against workers who report workplace outbreak issues.

    Among other provisions, the HEROES Act would provide nearly $1 trillion in emergency relief to struggling state and local governments that have seen revenue sources dry up amid the coronavirus pandemic. An NBC News survey of 33 states and Washington, D.C. found that the outbreak will cost states hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue in the upcoming fiscal year.

    Congressional Republicans and the White House have said the bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Pelosi said Sunday that “no bill” becomes law “without negotiations.” She said the prior four bills on coronavirus aid have all been passed in a bipartisan manner.

    “The bill that Leader McConnell put forth, CARES 1, was his offer,” Pelosi said. “Nobody said it doesn’t have a chance because he just put it forth, the interim PPP bill was his offer.”

    She said she has confidence significant aid will be passed for state and local governments because lawmakers know teachers, sanitation workers, health care workers, police and firefighters are all at risk of losing their jobs otherwise.

    Pelosi’s comments echoed budget officials across the country who spoke with NBC News expressing hope that Congress will pass additional funding so they can avoid massive cuts. During the last economic downturn in 2009, the slow recovery for state and local governments put a drag on how quick the overall economy was able to emerge from the Great Recession.

    Republicans, meanwhile, are split over the path forward for state relief — both on whether more money should be provided and if existing appropriated funds for states can be made more flexible. States received $150 billion in emergency funding in earlier COVID-19 legislation, but the Treasury Department has said that money can only be used to cover costs directly associated with the pandemic, not on filling budget gaps.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that “none” of the budget issues his state is facing is a result of any preexisting financial conditions. His state is facing a budget hole of more than $54 billion.

    “We’re not looking for charity, we’re not looking for handouts,” Newsom said, adding that states “are facing unprecedented budgetary stress. It is incumbent upon the federal government to help support these states through this difficult time.”

    Newsom added the funding is “not a red issue or a blue issue.”

    “This is impacting every state in America,” he said.

    Elsewhere, on “Face the Nation,” Gary Cohn, formerly Trump’s top economic adviser, said he thinks aid for state and local governments is “very important” and that states having to lay off such workers “would be the complete wrong outcome here.”

    “So the federal government does have to step in and help out states just like they’ve helped small businesses and big businesses,” Cohn said. “They should help the states.”

    But Cohn said that “doesn’t mean they should return the states to perfect financial condition.”

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-no-red-lines-bill-help-struggling-state-local-governments-n1208896

    Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on Wednesday described third-trimester abortions as something done “in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.” Later that day, Northam’s Communications Director Ofirah Yheskel tried to clarify that Northam was referring to the fact that women seek third-trimester abortions only “except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities.”

    Northam’s clarification isn’t much of an improvement, it’s more of a double-down: Rather than just choosing to end the life of any baby, he would advocate or support women who play God and only choose to give birth to healthy babies. This is wrong. Yet he’s not alone in proposing to eradicate from society those who seem like they would pose problems for parents and society alike. The humane, moral thing to do is encourage parents and society to value life in all its forms and try to help parents raising children with special needs.

    Northam’s comments do not represent a new concept. From ancient Sparta to the Holocaust, people with abnormalities, deformities, and diseases have been targeted and eradicated. When men give their moral compass over to the need to become like God (truly the oldest, darkest lie of all time) they lose their sense of justice, humanity, equality, and humility. In mankind’s quest to control the human population through power or or greed, dispelling of people who are deformed or “less than,” he pulls society downward through a maze of moral quagmires, bringing destruction — and with it, the spirit of humanity.

    For people born with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, or any other myriad of diseases and problems, simple tasks life presents do pose tremendous challenges, to say nothing of the things that overwhelm other members of society. However, people with special needs also bring a unique kind of joy, peace, and light to many people. Watch this quick clip to get a glimpse of what I mean.

    Occasionally, some people shine a light on these incredible people. When Gerber chose a Down syndrome boy in Feb. 2018 to be its “Gerber baby” poster boy that year, how could you not help but cheer? Who among us really would look at his smiling face and say abortion would have been better?

    Still, the convenience of abortion perpetuates the myth that society is better off without people who might struggle — whether from autism, Down syndrome, or something else. New York offers, and perhaps Virginia will offer, abortion on demand: dangling the carrot of last-minute infanticide in front of parents who would undoubtedly be aware of the struggles raising a baby with special needs will present and choose to balk.

    While political officials might tout abortion as some kind of “final solution,” many parents are tempted to choose, or do choose, abortion because they truly do fear the challenge of raising a child with needs. They worry they will be unable to withstand the emotional, physical, financial, and marital pressures. In this video on Upworthy, Christine Grounds and Jonathan Mir describe how difficult it has been to raise their son Nicholas, who was born with microcephaly. “We had no idea that, in utero, there was anything wrong with Nicholas,” Grounds recalled. “I’m pretty sure no one would have been able to say conclusively that he has microcephaly,” she said. “But I would have terminated the pregnancy.”

    While it’s tempting to lash out or point fingers at parents like this, that too is a reactive solution full of the kind of righteous indignation the Left hates. We must rise up to help these parents. We must connect them with nonprofit organizations, religious organizations, pregnancy resource centers, healthcare providers, and any physical or emotional support we can offer. ( Here’s one such list to start with.) Conservatives cannot continually advocate for a culture of life without also tangibly stepping alongside those same parents who choose life, and who then must endeavor to raise a child under difficult circumstances. We must continue to call out people like Northam for advocating such a selfish, heinous “solution” to children with special needs and help parents who choose life instead.

    Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ralph-northam-and-democrats-reveal-their-disgusting-distaste-for-any-fetus-with-abnormalities