Most Viewed Videos

The coffins came one by one, some heavy and others much lighter.

As bulldozers cleared more space in a vacant lot near St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, Sri Lanka, barefoot men dripping with sweat scooped dirt with shovels in punishing heat.

One family stood in the shade. They were here for the burial of an 11-year-old boy.

“I don’t even know what to say,” said Lasanthi Anusha, a woman who came for the burial of her son’s classmate. “There were even smaller ones.”

Tuesday was the beginning of the first mass burials of the victims of Sunday’s suicide attacks in Sri Lanka, which killed more than 300 people, including many children. Soldiers and even an armored personnel carrier lined the roads as the burials took place amid widespread grief and intense security.

Of the half-dozen sites simultaneously attacked on Sunday, the church in Negombo was the hardest hit. As many as 100 people were killed in the suicide bombing there.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/world/asia/sri-lanka-bombing.html

LONDON (AP) — Like a separated couple still living together, Britain and the European Union spent 2020 wrangling and wondering whether they can remain friends.

On Thursday, the U.K. is finally moving out. At 11 p.m. London time — midnight at EU headquarters in Brussels — Britain will economically and practically leave the 27-nation bloc, 11 months after its formal political departure.

After more than four years of Brexit political drama, the day itself is something of an anticlimax. U.K. lockdown measures to curb the coronavirus have curtailed mass gatherings to celebrate or mourn the moment, though Parliament’s huge Big Ben bell will sound the hour as it prepares to ring in the New Year.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson — for whom Thursday represents the fulfilment of his promise to “Get Brexit Done” — said the day “marks a new beginning in our country’s history and a new relationship with the EU as their biggest ally.”

“This moment is finally upon us and now is the time to seize it,” he said after Britain’s Parliament approved a U.K.-EU trade deal overnight, the final formal hurdle on the U.K. side before departure.

It has been 4 1/2 years since Britain voted in a referendum to leave the bloc it had joined in 1973. The U.K. left the EU’s political structures on Jan. 31 2020, but the repercussions of that decision have yet to be felt, since the U.K.’s economic relationship with the bloc remained unchanged during an 11-month transition period that ends Thursday.

After that, Britain will leave the EU’s vast single market and customs union — the biggest single economic change the country has experienced since World War II.

A free trade agreement sealed on Christmas Eve after months of tense negotiations will ensure Britain and the 27-nation EU can continue to trade in goods without tariffs or quotas. That should help protect the 660 billion pounds ($894 billion) in annual trade between the two sides, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that rely on it.

But firms face sheaves of new paperwork and expenses. Traders are struggling to digest the new rules imposed by a 1,200-page deal that was agreed just a week before the changes take place.

The English Channel port of Dover and the Eurotunnel passenger and freight route are bracing for delays, though the pandemic and the holiday weekend mean there will be less cross-Channel traffic than usual. The vital supply route was snarled for days after France closed its border to U.K. truckers for 48 hours last week in response to a fast-spreading variant of the virus identified in England.

The British government insisted that “the border systems and infrastructure we need are in place, and we are ready for the U.K.’s new start.”

But freight companies are holding their breath. U.K. haulage firm Youngs Transportation is suspending services to the EU from Monday until Jan. 11 “to let things settle.”

“We figure it gives the country a week or so to get used to all of these new systems in and out and we can have a look and hopefully resolve any issues in advance of actually sending our trucks,” said Youngs director Rob Hollyman.

The services sector, which makes up 80% of Britain’s economy, doesn’t even know what the rules will be for business with the EU in 2021 — many of the details have yet to be hammered out. Months and years of further discussion and argument over everything from fair competition to fish quotas lie ahead as Britain a nd the EU settle in to their new relationship as friends, neighbors and rivals.

Hundreds of millions of individuals in Britain and the bloc also face changes to their daily lives. After Thursday, Britons and EU citizens lose the automatic right to live and work in the other’s territory. From now on they will have to follow immigration rules and obtain work visas. Tourists won’t need visas for short trips, but new headaches — from travel insurance to pet paperwork — still loom for Britons visiting the continent.

For some in Britain, including the prime minister, it’s a moment of pride, a reclaiming of national independence from a vast Brussels bureaucracy.

Conservative lawmaker Bill Cash, who has campaigned for Brexit for decades, said it was a “victory for democracy and sovereignty.”

That’s not a view widely shared across the Channel. France’s European affairs minister, Clément Beaune, said it was “a day that will be historic, that will be sad.”

“A number of lessons must be drawn from Brexit, starting with lies, I think, that were told to the British,” Beaune told broadcaster LCI. “And we will see that what was promised — a sort of total freedom, a lack of restrictions, of influence — I think will not happen.”

Many in Britain felt apprehension about a leap into the unknown that is taking place during a pandemic that has upended life around the world.

“I feel very sad that we’re leaving,” said Jen Pearcy-Edwards, a filmmaker in London. “I think that COVID has overshadowed everything that is going on. But I think the other thing that has happened is that people feel a bigger sense of community, and I think that makes it even sadder that we’re breaking up our community a bit, by leaving our neighbors in Europe.

“I’m hopeful that we find other ways to rebuild ties,” she said.

___

John Leicester in Le Pecq, France, contributed to this story.

___

Follow all AP stories on Brexit at https://apnews.com/Brexit

Source Article from https://apnews.com/article/brexit-relationships-europe-global-trade-coronavirus-pandemic-a5cc4350206b5c0273b41aef4d7b7381

The House Intelligence Committee voted Monday evening to release transcripts of Michael Cohen’s closed-door testimony before the panel in February and March.

“The public should judge for themselves both the evidence released today in conjunction with Cohen’s testimony related to Trump, his troubling relationship with Russia, and the efforts by Trump and those close to him to hide the relationship and potential business deals,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement. “The public also deserves the chance to judge Cohen’s credibility for themselves, including by examining some of the evidence he provided.”

The vote to make the transcripts public had a 12-7 margin.

The ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., reportedly walked out of the meeting and said to reporters: “You guys are sad, sad, sad.”

Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, told the committee that Trump attorney Jay Sekulow instructed him to lie to lawmakers in 2017 about when negotiations to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow had ended. Cohen said Sekulow ordered him to tell lawmakers in 2017 that discussions about the project ended by Jan. 31, 2016, ahead of the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. Cohen later admitted negotiations lasted until June 2016.

Sekulow’s legal team attacked Cohen’s credibility, arguing he has a long history of deception. “That this or any Committee would rely on the word of Michael Cohen for any purpose — much less to try and pierce the attorney-client privilege and discover confidential communications of four respected lawyers — defies logic, well-established law, and common sense,” they said.

Cohen pleaded guilty in November to “knowingly and willfully” making “a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation” to the House and Senate Intelligence panels about a Trump Tower in Moscow. He is serving is serving three years in prison for lying to Congress, campaign finance violations, and tax and bank fraud.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-intelligence-panel-releases-michael-cohen-transcripts

“Everyone is lying,” he continued in a post Trump shared with his 83 million followers. “The CDC, Media, Democrats, our Doctors, not all but most, that we are told to trust. I think it’s all about the election and keeping the economy from coming back, which is about the election. I’m sick of it.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-game-show-host-on-pandemic-while-undercutting-doctors-and-questioning-their-expertise/2020/07/13/a083ea5c-c51f-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html

Much of the Chicago area is under a winter storm warning beginning Saturday morning, kicking off 2022 with steady, heavy snowfall at times and hazardous road conditions that prompted Illinois officials to urge drivers to stay off roads.

Here’s a breakdown of what to expect and when, from NBC 5’s Storm Team.

9 a.m. Saturday: Storm arrives. It may start as rain or a rain/snow mix south of Chicago, but it will likely be all snow in Chicago and to the north and west.

2 p.m.: Heaviest snow arrives, especially in the thin bands of “lake-enhanced” snow due to the flow of air coming off of the non-frozen water of Lake Michigan.

8 p.m.: Snow intensity starts to taper but snow continues.

3 a.m. Sunday: Snow ends for the majority of the Chicago area but lake-effect snow will continue in southern Cook County and northwest Indiana.

Noon Sunday: All snow is finished but wind chills will be in the single digits all afternoon.

The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning beginning at 9 a.m. Saturday through midnight for much of the Chicago area. A winter storm watch was previously issued for the Chicago area from 6 a.m. Saturday until Sunday morning.

The Illinois Department of Transportation expects the winter storm will “create hazardous conditions across the state,” including extremely slick conditions and poor visibility.

“IDOT crews will be out on the roads but conditions could still be extremely hazardous, so we encourage motorists to ask themselves if they really need to make the trip,” said Illinois Transportation Secretary Omer Osman in a statement. “If you do have to travel, remember that the bitter cold and wind reduces the effectiveness of the materials we use to treat snow and ice. There will be lengthy travel times so make sure to prepare your vehicle in the event you are stranded.”

Forecasters say that steady, blowing snow will be the primary threat from the storm, causing dangerous travel conditions throughout the area.

Snow accumulations will vary widely depending on the track of the storm, but forecasters say that accumulations between four and six inches are possible, along with northeasterly winds gusting in excess of 35 miles per hour.

IDOT said more than 1,800 trucks and equipment will be deployed statewide to treat roads and respond to weather emergencies. Drivers are asked to slow down and increase driving distance if you encounter a plow or maintenance vehicle.

If you must travel, IDOT recommends:

• Take it slow, especially when approaching intersections, ramps, bridges and shaded areas that are prone to icing.
• Make sure your gas tank is full.
• Keep a cell phone, warm clothes, blankets, food, water, a first-aid kit, washer fluid and an ice scraper in your vehicle.
• Check the forecast and make sure someone is aware of your route and schedule.
• Carry a cellphone and dial *999 in the Chicago area for assistance in case of emergency.
• Reminder: Using handheld phones while driving is illegal in Illinois, unless it is an emergency situation.
• If you are involved in a crash or break down, remain inside your vehicle, which is your safest form of shelter. Exiting your vehicle into live traffic can have fatal consequences.
• Always wear a seat belt, whether you’re sitting in the front seat or back seat. It’s the law.

Source Article from https://www.nbcchicago.com/weather/chicago-winter-storm-timeline-what-to-expect-and-when/2718787/

Copyright 2014 by NewBay Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 28 East 28th Street, 12th floor, New York, NY 10016 T (212) 378-0400 F (212) 378-0470

Source Article from http://www.multichannel.com/twc-noticias-ny1-launches-series-honoring-new-yorks-latin-american-communities/374437

‘);eIFD.close();
var s = eIFD.createElement(‘SCRIPT’); s.src = ‘http://’ + (eS2?eS2:eS1) +’/layers/epl-41.js’;
eIFD.body.appendChild(s);
if (!eS2) {
var ss = eIFD.createElement(‘SCRIPT’);
ss.src = ‘http://ads.us.e-planning.net/egc/4/1b7f’;
eIFD.body.appendChild(ss);
}
eplLL = true;
return false;
}
}
eplCheckStart();
function eplSetAdM(eID,custF) {
if (eplCheckStart()) {
if (custF) { document.epl.setCustomAdShow(eID,eplArgs.custom[eID]); }
document.epl.showSpace(eID);
} else {
var efu = ‘eplSetAdM(“‘+eID+'”, ‘+ (custF?’true’:’false’) +’);’;
setTimeout(efu, 250);
}
}

function eplAD4M(eID,custF) {
document.write(‘

‘);
if (custF) {
if (!eplArgs.custom) { eplArgs.custom = {}; }
eplArgs.custom[eID] = custF;
}
eplSetAdM(eID, custF?true:false);
}
function eplSetAd(eID) {
if (eplCheckStart()) {
var opts = (eplArgs.sOpts && eplArgs.sOpts[eID]) ? eplArgs.sOpts[eID] : {};
if (opts.custF) { document.epl.setCustomAdShow(eID,opts.custF); }
document.epl.setSpace(eID, opts);
} else {
setTimeout(‘eplSetAd(“‘+eID+'”);’, 250);
}
}
function eplAD4(eID, opts) {
document.write(‘

‘);
if (!opts) opts = {t:1};
if (!eplArgs.sOpts) { eplArgs.sOpts = {}; }
eplArgs.sOpts[eID] = opts;
eplSetAd(eID);
}




‘;
}

function govideo(idvideo,id,image,file,tipo,titulo,creditos)
{
document.getElementById(‘incrustado’+id).className=’news_media_b’;
if (tipo==’video’ || tipo==’audio’)
{
var bgplayer=image;
var skinplayer=’swf/rpp.zip’;
var h=413;
var w=550;
if (tipo==’audio’){ h=123; /*bgplayer=”tmp/img/player_audio-dummy_mm.jpg”;*/ }

var fileyt = file.replace(‘watch?v=’,’v/’);





setJW6(idvideo,fileyt,bgplayer,titulo,id);

$(‘#incrustado’+id).prepend(‘X‘);
$(‘#’+idvideo+’_wrapper’).css(‘float’, ‘left’);

} else
if (tipo==’galeria’)
{
document.getElementById(idvideo).innerHTML=’X‘;
}
}







Sbado, 07 de Marzo 2015  |  9:45 pm



Créditos: EFE/Referencial

La mandataria explic que el embajador Ibarra se encontraba en Chile por vacaciones, cuando el caso apareci en los medios peruanos, y permaneci para ayudar en la respuesta a la primera nota de protesta peruana.







La presidenta de Chile, Michelle Bachelet, anunció que el embajador de su país para el Perú, Roberto Ibarra, se quedará en Santiago para trabajar la respuesta a la segunda nota de protesta enviada por Lima, sobre la denuncia peruana de espionaje.

Tras concluir el Consejo del Gabinete de su Gobierno, realizado en Cerro Castillo, la mandataria explicó que el embajador Ibarra se encontraba en Chile por vacaciones, cuando el caso apareció en los medios peruanos, y permaneció para ayudar en la respuesta a la primera nota de protesta peruana.

“Hemos recibido una nueva nota que se seguirá trabajando por los canales diplomáticos”, afirmó Bachelet, en declaraciones que reproducen medios chilenos.

Asimismo, aseguró que Ibarra “va a permanecer por unos días más, trabajando junto al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores para contestar esta nueva nota”.

Respecto al retiro del embajador peruano en Santiago por este tema, Michelle Bachelet refirió que cada Gobierno “toma las decisiones que le compete, y no haremos comentarios al respecto”.

Andina

 

TE PUEDE INTERESAR:







<!–

–>










<!– –>



Avisos
PERRED
Anuncia aqu

<!–%

if (data && data.searchResult && data.searchResult.spaces && data.searchResult.spaces[0] && data.searchResult.spaces[0].ads) {
var ads = data.searchResult.spaces[0].ads;
for (var i = 0; i < ads.length; i++) {
var ad = ads[i];

if (ad.creative && ad.creative.content && ad.creative.content.length && ad.creative.images) {
var titularText = '';
var cuerpoText = '';
var displayUrlText = '';

var content = ad.creative.content;
for (var j = 0; j < content.length; j++) {
var contentItem = content[j];
if (contentItem.key === 'Titulo')
titularText = cX.library.getAllText(contentItem.value);
if (contentItem.key === 'Cuerpo')
cuerpoText = cX.library.getAllText(contentItem.value);
if (contentItem.key === 'DisplayUrl')
displayUrlText = cX.library.getAllText(contentItem.value);
}
var images = ad.creative.images;
var imgSrc = '';
var textWidth = 295;
for (var k = 0; k









{{cuerpoText}}


{{displayUrlText}}













Source Article from http://www.rpp.com.pe/2015-03-07-embajador-chileno-en-peru-permanecera-en-santiago-anuncia-bachelet-noticia_775912.html

<!–

–>

La respuesta rápida a la pregunta en el título es: sí. Para ello necesitamos empresas informativas comprometidas en entregar información confiable, pero también necesitamos consumidores de noticias más responsables.

A pesar de que la humanidad siempre está en constante cambio, a veces nos tardamos en adaptarnos, aunque, al final, siempre imperan los cambios.

Estamos en contacto con los cambios tecnológicos y la innovación digital ha introducido un nuevo nivel de influencia en los hábitos de consumo de noticias del público en general a nivel mundial. En la última década los medios de comunicación, las aplicaciones de mensajería, los mensajes de texto y el correo electrónico proporcionan un flujo constante de noticias de personas que tenemos cerca, así como de desconocidos totales.

NOTICIA: Y tú, ¿has compartido una noticia falsa, pensando que era verdadera?

En general se supone que los medios de noticias deben informar solamente los “hechos” y los lectores o los espectadores siempre deben llegar solos a las conclusiones correctas acerca de la información que se les presenta, aunque esto es sólo parte de la suposición, porque aunque se necesita que las noticias contengan información confiable, también necesitamos que aquellos que la reciben sean consumidores responsables de medios.

Pero vivimos en una época complicada para la credibilidad de los medios de comunicación. Los medios de comunicación tradicionales, como la radio, la televisión y los periódicos viven una etapa de desconfianza por parte de la ciudadanía, según una encuesta más reciente realizada por Parametría. Según los datos de Parametría nunca antes habían registrado un porcentaje tan alto de mexicanos que dice tener poco o nada de confianza en los medios de comunicación: ocho de cada diez mexicanos desconfían de estas fuentes de información.

Los noticieros de televisión son los que presentan mayores niveles de desconfianza; el 83% de los mexicanos dijo tener poca o nada de confianza en ellos. En cuanto a los noticieros de radio, el 81% de entrevistados dijo no confiar en ellos. En cuanto a los periódicos la desconfianza llegó a 79 por ciento.

NOTICIA: Noticias falsas matan la mente: Tim Cook

La pérdida de confianza en los medios de comunicación no es un fenómeno exclusivo de México, ya que la mayoría de países presenta una baja en la confianza. Las redes sociales se han convertido en una herramienta que los ciudadanos usan cada vez con mayor frecuencia para enterarse de los acontecimientos.

El problema es que las noticias ahora aparecen en los medios sociales en partes o completas, pero extrañamente en redes sociales le damos más importancia al mensaje que a la fuente. Durante la pasada campaña electoral en Estados Unidos, miles de historias falsas fueron compartidas en medios sociales sin revisar que la información que se difundía fuera verdadera.

En México, a principios de año, en el marco de las protestas por los aumentos al precio de las gasolinas, algunos mensajes se propagaron por diferentes medios generando una atmósfera de miedo entre la gente que compartió esa información que recibía en sus redes sociales o directamente en sus teléfonos móviles en WhatsApp y que hacía referencias a “toques de queda”, “desalojos” o convocatorias y anuncios de “ataques a comercios”. Muchas de esas informaciones resultaron ser falsas.

Según estadísticas del Centro de Investigaciones Pew, 44% de los norteamericanos considera a Facebook como su principal fuente de noticias. En México, preferimos leer las noticias (47%) a verlas en video (40%) o escucharlas (17%), pero según el Estudio de Consumo de Medios y Dispositivos entre Internautas Mexicanos del IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau), los mexicanos sigue prefiriendo leer sus noticias de formas “tradicionales” (36%) frente a internet (28%). En ese sentido de los 68 millones de usuarios de internet en México, el 93% están registrados en una red social, siendo Facebook la más común con 97% de los registrados en medios sociales, según el estudio 2016 del IAB. De entre los usuarios activos de Facebook, una de sus actividades principales (38%) es buscar noticias o información de interés, y 42% usa sus redes sociales para consumir noticias.

En Estados Unidos fueron identificadas de octubre del 2016 a enero del 2017 54,000 historias falsas, según la marca de análisis de marketing digital Brandwatch; según Brandwatch al menos 10,000 noticias falsas fueron distribuidas entre octubre del 2016 y enero del 2017 en todo el mundo. Este conteo sólo muestra los resultados de las historias publicadas en inglés.

Un estudio del Centro de Estudios Pew reveló que cuatro de cada 10 estadounidenses se sienten seguros de poder reconocer una noticia falsa cuando se tope con ella. Un 45% se siente menos confiado, pero igual cree que podría reconocerlas.

NOTICIA: Y tú, ¿confías en las noticias?

Aun así los grupos más vulnerables son los más jóvenes. Según una encuesta de la agencia de marketing digital eZanga, los jóvenes tienen menos capacidad para discernir entre una noticia falsa de una verdadera. Cuando se les a los jóvenes de menos de 17 años cuál era el aspecto de los sitios web que les inspiraba más confianza, 56% respondió que el nombre y la fuente, mientras que para 44% lo más importante es la presentación visual del sitio.

Un estudio de la Universidad de Stanford difundido en noviembre pasado, descubrió que los adolescentes no pueden distinguir la veracidad de lo que leen en internet. Según los datos del el estudio, de una muestras de 7,804 estudiantes, 82% no pudo distinguir entre contenidos patrocinados e historias periodísticas reales. Además los estudiantes juzgan la credibilidad de un tuit “noticioso” basado en qué tantos detalles contiene o si tiene una buena foto adjunta, y no en la fuente. Cuatro de cada diez estudiantes de educación media creen, basándose en el título, que una foto de unas margaritas deformes es evidencia creíble de las condiciones tóxicas cerca de la planta nuclear Fukushima en Japón. Incluso si la foto no contienen una fuente o alguna referencia de la ubicación de la foto.

Según datos de Pew, la mayoría de los estadounidenses afirman que las noticias apócrifas confunden a la sociedad. El 64% cree que las noticias falsas confunden mucho, el 24% cree que se crea poca confusión y el 11% no cree que generen confusión. El 23% de los encuestados admitió haber compartido en alguna ocasión alguna historia falsa; 14% admitió que compartió alguna noticia falsa con conocimiento de que no era legítima y 16% compartieron alguna noticia apócrifa, sólo para darse cuenta después de que no era verdad.

En este problema de información apócrifa la responsabilidad parecería que sólo debe recaer en el autor y el medio que difundió dicha información. El problema es que aunque los medios dejaran de difundir información imprecisa, los lectores debemos asumir que nosotros nos convertimos en voceros de esa misma información al reproducirla en nuestros medios sociales sin verificarla. Es importante verificar ya que, al final, es difícil saber quiénes serán los receptores finales de esa información, lo que complica poder dimensionar el impacto que se creará en el lector y así evitar la cadena de desinformación que se genera a partir de las noticias apócrifas.

Para restablecer la confianza en la relación entre medios de comunicación y lectores. Por un lado necesitamos que los consumidores de noticias adapten una conciencia crítica sobre su rol como lectores de medios. Y los medios debemos de hacer énfasis en nuestros procesos de verificación de información.

Según un artículo del Foro Económico Mundial aún hay espacio en la mejora de las habilidades de pensamiento crítico para que los ciudadanos sepan recoger fuentes fidedignas y resistir sus propios sesgos. Cultivar estas habilidades de pensamiento crítico requieren de tiempo y práctica, por lo que es más importante que nunca invertir en educación. La información fidedigna y las habilidades de pensamiento crítico son indispensables para cualquier democracia y no podemos caer en el error de darlas por sentado ya que según el Foro Económico Mundial así es como han triunfado las noticias falsas.

ruy.rebolledo@eleconomista.mx

Source Article from http://eleconomista.com.mx/sociedad/2017/03/14/podemos-controlar-las-noticias-falsas

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

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

House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyNostalgia for the GOP of old Democrats, GOP dig in for public phase of impeachment battle Republicans blast Pelosi following vote on impeachment resolution MORE (R-Wyo.) is calling on Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump at rally says impeachment an ‘attack on democracy itself’ GOP lawmaker says House impeachment rules vote ‘doesn’t change anything for me’ Overnight Health Care: Warren unveils ‘Medicare for All’ funding plan | Warren says plan won’t raise middle class taxes | Rivals question claims | Biden camp says plan will hit ‘American workers’ | Trump taps cancer doctor Stephen Hahn for FDA chief MORE (D-Calif.) to immediately release the transcripts of the hearings and depositions that have taken place behind closed doors as part of the impeachment inquiry.

Cheney argued in a letter sent to Pelosi on Friday that the vote on a resolution laying out the procedures for impeachment does not bring transparency to the process. The measure passed mostly along party lines the previous day.

“Despite the vote in the House on October 31, House Democrats continue to conduct the partisan effort to impeach the President in secret,” Cheney wrote.

“Your duty to the Constitution and the American people, as well as fundamental fairness, requires that you immediately release the full transcripts of all depositions taken since you pronounced the beginning of an impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019,” she added.

The push from Cheney, the No. 3 House Republican, comes as GOP lawmakers have worked to amplify their defense of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump singles in on ‘Sleepy Joe Biden’ at campaign rally Trump at rally says impeachment an ‘attack on democracy itself’ GOP lawmaker says House impeachment rules vote ‘doesn’t change anything for me’ MORE amid an accelerating investigation into his dealings with Ukraine and efforts to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

House Republicans have repeatedly blasted the way House Democrats have conducted the impeachment investigation, with Republicans bemoaning that access to the hearings is limited to members of the three panels leading the probe: the House Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs committees.

GOP lawmakers have also repeatedly accused Democrats of selectively leaking information in an attempt to spin the narrative, with some going as far as attempting to storm a secure area in the Capitol late last month to gain access to the hearings and transcripts.

“The selective leaking in which the House Intelligence Committee has been engaged must end immediately and the full and complete record must be provided for the American people to see,” Cheney, who leads the House GOP conference’s messaging efforts, wrote to Pelosi on Friday.

“In addition, to the extent that you make any redactions in any of the transcripts, all Members of the House must be supplied copies of the full and unredacted transcripts,” she added.

One senior GOP House source told The Hill that “you can expect a bunch of our members to be sending similar letters in the coming days.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump at rally says impeachment an ‘attack on democracy itself’ Pelosi suggests impeachment inquiry could expand beyond Ukraine Schiff: Trump helped House Republicans plan to storm SCIF MORE (D-Calif.) told CNN on Thursday that transcripts of witness testimonies could be released as soon as next week.

Pelosi also told Bloomberg on Friday that she expects the chamber to begin holding public hearings in the inquiry as soon as this month.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/house/468664-cheney-calls-for-democrats-to-release-impeachment-probe-transcripts

 

Source Article from https://deadline.com/2019/09/president-trump-storm-path-alabama-prediction-continues-to-rage-1202728491/

HUNSTVILLE, Texas (KTRK) — More than 20 years ago, the dragging death of James Byrd Jr. shocked the nation.

John William King, 44, an avowed racist who orchestrated the attack, is slated to be put to death Wednesday in Huntsville. He will be the second man executed in the case.

This crime has changed the life of local filmmaker Ricky Jason, who says he’s planning to travel to Huntsville because he wants to make sure the person he calls evil is executed.

RELATED: Second man to be executed this week for 1998 dragging death of James Byrd Jr.

Jason profiled the story in a documentary. He’s remained close with the Byrd family since then and says he has a closing message for King before he’s put to death.

“A jury has spoken,” said Jason. “I’m against capital punishment, but for what you did, John William King, if you’re watching this here, you deserve it.”

During his work, Jason says he wanted to speak to each of the convicted killers. He says 15 years ago, he received a written letter from King himself.

Prior to speaking with ABC13 Eyewitness News, he hasn’t shared the letter with anyone.

In the letter, King addressed Jason, and Byrd’s son, Ross.

“Do you and Ross really want to associate with an unrepentant racist supremacist like me?,” read the letter from King. “If not, speak now, or forever bite your tongues.”

King goes on to write he wasn’t there at the time of the murder, and offered no remorse.

“That don’t show a person has changed,” said Jason. “That shows that he’s still full of hate for blacks, and people of color.”

Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed in 2011. The third participant, Shawn Allen Berry, was sentenced to life in prison.

King is set to be executed on Wednesday at 6 p.m.

Follow Nick Natario on Facebook and Twitter.

Source Article from https://abc13.com/society/letter-tells-story-of-avowed-racist-who-killed-james-byrd-jr/5267113/

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

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

Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Biden’s attorney general nominee, is expected to garner broad bipartisan support.Credit…Pool photo by Demetrius Freeman

Judge Merrick B. Garland appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday to begin his confirmation process to become the attorney general.

While Judge Garland is expected to garner broad bipartisan support to run the Justice Department, he is facing questions from Democrats and Republicans about how he will handle myriad politically charged matters that the department now faces: a federal tax fraud investigation into President Biden’s son, a special counsel’s inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, and the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that has begun to edge closer to former President Donald J. Trump’s inner circle.

He will also need to reinvigorate the department’s civil rights division as America undergoes a painful and destabilizing reckoning with systemic racism, the likes of which the nation has not seen in more than half a century. The Trump administration worked to curb civil rights protections for transgender people and minorities. It also barred policies intended to combat systemic racism, sexism, homophobia and other implicit biases, which Mr. Trump said did not exist.

In his opening statement before the committee, Judge Garland, 68, vowed to tackle systemic inequality and to combat the resurgent domestic terrorist threat that was stunningly evident on Jan. 6 during the Capitol siege.

He also told the committee that he will not let politics influence the department, which has undertaken a criminal inquiry into Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, and is looking into whether Obama-era officials erred in their decision to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign in 2016.

“The attorney general represents the public interest,” he said. “I do not plan to be interfered with by anyone.”

But Judge Garland will likely also asked whether his Justice Department will open new investigations into Mr. Trump, his former administration officials and his inner circle. Some of those officials have been accused by government watchdogs of improper behavior and lying to investigators. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump or his associates will face scrutiny for any connections to the Capitol attack. Mr. Trump was acquitted of inciting insurrection by the Senate in his impeachment trial.

Republicans may try to push Judge Garland to commit to politically charged investigations into Democrats, including Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, who misrepresented the number of coronavirus-related deaths in nursing homes, or to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mr. Biden’s son. The Justice Department has asked David C. Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware, to continue to oversee the investigation into Hunter Biden.

Last month Judge Garland said he would ensure “that there not be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans, one rule for friends, the other for foes.”

After clerking for Justice William J. Brennan Jr., Judge Garland took a job at the Justice Department in 1989, as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington under President George H.W. Bush, where he prosecuted public corruption, drug trafficking and fraud cases.

He was chosen by Jamie Gorelick, who was deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton, to serve as her top deputy; in that role, he oversaw the investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing case and other major domestic terrorism cases. He was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997 with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Judge Garland is best known for being collateral damage in a political power play by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and then the majority leader, who delayed his Supreme Court confirmation hearing for eight months so that a Republican president could fill the seat left empty by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

Civil rights advocates, police unions, Democrats and Republicans have voiced support for Judge Garland’s nomination. A bipartisan group of more than 150 former Justice Department officials, including Democrats such as Eric H. Holder Jr. and Loretta Lynch, and Republicans like Alberto Gonzales, Michael B. Mukasey and Ken Starr, the independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, signed a letter supporting him as well.

Judge Garland’s confirmation team has methodically released batches of letters of support in the days leading up to the hearing. The first set of letters sought to demonstrate that he had broad support from both parties and from Justice Department alumni. The second was meant to show that both progressives and law enforcement groups believe that he will fairly consider their interests as he tackles domestic terrorism and hot-button civil rights issues that could negatively impact them.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/22/us/joe-biden-news