Most Viewed Videos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats in the House of Representatives are gearing up to issue subpoenas to try to obtain Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full report on Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election and President Donald Trump’s actions related to the inquiry.

The question is: how successful will they be?

Attorney General William Barr, who has broad authority under Justice Department regulations to decide how much of Mueller’s report to release, sent lawmakers a four-page letter on March 24 explaining Mueller’s “principal conclusions” and has promised to release the nearly 400-page report by the middle of this month, with some parts blacked out, or “redacted.”

That has not satisfied Democrats, who control the House. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Wednesday to authorize a subpoena to compel the Justice Department to hand over the complete report, without redactions, as well as underlying evidence.

Here is an explanation of the legal hurdles Democrats must clear in their subpoena effort, important judicial precedents and Barr’s rationale for keeping parts of the report confidential.

CAN CONGRESS SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary.

If Barr refuses to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to obtain the full report and underlying investigative material, the House could vote to hold him “in contempt” and turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Legal experts said that process could take years.

Barr’s “principal conclusions” letter said Mueller’s inquiry did not establish that Trump’s campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr also said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the Republican president committed obstruction of justice but also did not exonerate him. Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not engaged in criminal obstruction.

The letter provided scant details of the findings, though Trump immediately claimed “complete and total exoneration.” The Mueller investigation has cast a cloud over Trump’s presidency. House Democrats have launched a series of investigations into Trump, who is seeking re-election in 2020.

A situation analogous to the current subpoena fight unfolded during the presidency of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. In 2012, the House, then controlled by Republicans, subpoenaed internal Justice Department documents related to a failed federal law enforcement operation to track illegal gun sales, dubbed “Fast and Furious.” Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, refused to comply. The House voted to hold him in contempt, marking the first time in U.S. history that Congress took such action against a sitting member of a president’s Cabinet.

The Justice Department later turned over thousands of pages of documents but the matter was not resolved until after Obama left office, with a settlement reached in 2018.

WHY DID BARR NOT SIMPLY RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr told lawmakers in a March 29 letter that he was making “redactions that are required” before releasing the Mueller report. He cited four reasons for redactions: protecting secret grand jury proceedings; safeguarding intelligence-gathering sources and methods; shielding material that could affect ongoing investigations; and protecting information that would unduly infringe on personal privacy and reputations.

Grand juries are groups of citizens who meet in secret and decide whether to authorize criminal indictments or demands for evidence sought by prosecutors. U.S. law generally requires that information obtained from grand jury proceedings be kept secret, though there are exceptions that let Congress, and even the general public, see it.

Barr also could redact information by citing a legal doctrine called executive privilege, which allows the president to withhold information about internal executive branch deliberations from other branches of government.

WHAT LAWS AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS APPLY?

Federal law and judicial precedent could play a role in the subpoena fight.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves “grave hostile acts of a foreign power” or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

Slideshow (2 Images)

A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

H.R. Haldeman, who had served Nixon as White House chief of staff, sought to block that information from Congress, citing the same grand jury secrecy provision mentioned by Barr. The dispute ended up before a panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington, which ruled 5-1 against Haldeman. The court said Congress clearly needed the material to conduct an effective impeachment investigation, and noted that the Democratic-led House Judiciary committee had taken “elaborate precautions to insure against unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure of these materials.” The committee approved articles of impeachment against Nixon as Congress began the process of trying to remove him from office. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on impeachment.

If Barr were to cite executive privilege in redacting material, a 1974 Supreme Court ruling could come into play. Nixon withheld tape recordings and other material subpoenaed by Jaworski, citing executive privilege. The high court then ordered him to give the material to a federal district court, saying the president’s interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the judiciary’s need for evidence.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham and Noeleen Walder

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-subpoena-explainer/explainer-can-democratic-subpoenas-force-the-release-of-muellers-trump-russia-report-idUSKCN1RE2GW


MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto faced fresh questions on Wednesday about his dealings with a company at the center of a conflict-of-interest scandal, after it emerged that he enjoyed rent-free use of a house belonging to the firm as a campaign office.

Already under pressure over the government’s handling of the presumed massacre of 43 students abducted by corrupt police in southwestern Mexico in September, Pena Nieto is facing his most difficult period since taking office two years ago.

On Nov. 3, the government announced a Chinese-led consortium had won a no bid contract to build a $3.75 billion high-speed rail link in central Mexico.

Three days later, the government abruptly canceled the deal, just before a report by news site Aristegui Noticias showed that a subsidiary of Grupo Higa, a company that formed part of the consortium and had won various previous contracts, owned the luxury house of first lady Angelica Rivera.

Under public pressure, Rivera said she would give up the house. But neither she nor Pena Nieto have addressed the apparent conflict of interest stemming from the government’s business with Grupo Higa.

On Wednesday, Aristegui Noticias published a new story that said Pena Nieto used a different property belonging to another Grupo Higa subsidiary as an office when he was president-elect in 2012.

Eduardo Sanchez, the president’s spokesman, said Pena Nieto unwittingly used the property. Sanchez said it was leased from the Grupo Higa firm by Humberto Castillejos, the president’s legal adviser, who lent it rent-free to Pena Nieto’s team.

“If I invite you to my house, do you come to my house and ask me under whose name it is? Neither does the president,” Sanchez said, denying there were conflicts of interest.

The spokesman also said there were no more properties Pena Nieto or his team had used belonging to Grupo Higa.

“No, there is no other house that was used in a professional capacity,” Sanchez said.

Castillejos could not immediately be reached for comment.

Jorge Luis Lavalle, a senator with the opposition conservative National Action Party, said the public saw a clear conflict of interest in the dealings of Pena Nieto and his government with Grupo Higa.

“It needs to be investigated. All these doubts need to be dispelled fully and clearly,” he said. “We now have another case with no explanation.”

(Additional reporting by Ana Isabel Martinez; Editing by Simon Gardner and Tom Brown)

Source Article from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-mexico-president-idUSKCN0JA22220141126

No injuries were reported in the attack, which marked a significant escalation between the U.S. and Iran. Hostility between the longtime foes has often played out in Iraq, whose government is allied with both countries.

Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard said on its website that it launched the attack against an Israeli “strategic center of conspiracy” in Irbil. It did not elaborate, but in a statement said Israel had itself been on the offensive, citing the recent strike that killed two Revolutionary Guards.

Earlier, a U.S. defense official and Iraqi security officials said the strike was launched from neighboring Iran.

One Iraqi official in Baghdad initially said several missiles had hit the U.S. consulate in Irbil and that it was the target of the attack. Later, Lawk Ghafari, the head of Kurdistan’s foreign media office, said none of the missiles had struck the U.S. facility but that areas around the compound had been hit. A statement issued by the interior ministry of Iraq’s Kurdistan region said the missiles were launched from outside Iraq, from the east, without naming Iran.

The U.S. defense official said it was still uncertain exactly how many missiles were fired and exactly where they landed. A second U.S. official said there was no damage at any U.S. government facility and that there was no indication the target was the consulate building, which is new and currently unoccupied.

Neither the Iraqi official nor the U.S. officials were authorized to discuss the event with the media and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Satellite broadcast channel Kurdistan24, which is located near the U.S. consulate, went on air from their studio shortly after the attack, showing shattered glass and debris on their studio floor.

The attack came several days after Iran said it would retaliate for an Israeli strike near Damascus, Syria, that killed two members of its Revolutionary Guard. On Sunday, Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency quoted Iraqi media acknowledging the attacks in Irbil, without saying where they originated.

The missile barrage coincided with regional tensions. Negotiations in Vienna over Tehran’s tattered nuclear deal hit a “pause” over Russian demands about sanctions targeting Moscow for its war on Ukraine. Meanwhile, Iran suspended its secret Baghdad-brokered talks aimed at defusing yearslong tensions with regional rival Saudi Arabia, after Saudi Arabia carried out its largest known mass execution in its modern history with over three dozens Shiites killed.

The Iraqi security officials said there were no casualties from the Irbil attack, which they said occurred after midnight and caused material damage in the area. They spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

One of the Iraqi officials said the ballistic missiles were fired from Iran, without elaborating. He said the projectiles were the Iranian-made Fateh-110, likely fired in retaliation for the two Revolutionary Guards killed in Syria.

Another U.S. official said in a statement that the U.S. condemned what it called an “outrageous attack against Iraqi sovereignty and display of violence.”

U.S. forces stationed at Irbil’s airport compound have come under fire from rocket and drone attacks in the past, with U.S. officials blaming Iran-backed groups.

The top U.S. commander for the Middle East has repeatedly warned about the increasing threats of attacks from Iran and Iranian-backed militias on troops and allies in Iraq and Syria.

In an interview with The Associated Press in December, Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie said that while U.S. forces in Iraq have shifted to a non-combat role, Iran and its proxies still want all American troops to leave the country. As a result, he said, that may trigger more attacks.’

The Biden administration decided last July to end the U.S. combat mission in Iraq by Dec. 31, and U.S. forces gradually moved to an advisory role last year. The troops will still provide air support and other military aid for Iraq’s fight against the Islamic State.

The U.S. presence in Iraq has long been a flash point for Tehran, but tensions spiked after a January 2020 U.S. drone strike near the Baghdad airport killed a top Iranian general. In retaliation, Iran launched a barrage of missiles at al-Asad airbase, where U.S. troops were stationed. More than 100 service members suffered traumatic brain injuries in the blasts.

More recently, Iranian proxies are believed responsible for an assassination attempt late last year on Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi.

And officials have said they believe Iran was behind the October drone attack at the military outpost in southern Syria where American troops are based. No U.S. personnel were killed or injured in the attack.

Al-Kadhimi tweeted: “The aggression which targeted the dear city of Irbil and spread fear amongst its inhabitants is an attack on the security of our people.”

Masrour Barzani, prime minister of the semi-autonomous Kurdish-controlled region, condemned the attack. In a Facebook post, he said Irbil “will not bow to the cowards who carried out the terrorist attack.”

———

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Matthew Lee in Washington, Zeina Karam in Beirut, Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran and Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.

———

This story has been corrected to show U.S. officials did not say the U.S. consulate had been been damaged.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/missiles-target-us-consulate-north-iraq-casualties-83412862

Leaders at two dating app giants in Texas — Match Group and Bumble — have moved to set up funds to aid people affected by the state’s new abortion ban. Here, abortion-rights supporters march near the Texas state capitol in Austin earlier this year.

Sergio Flores/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Sergio Flores/Getty Images

Leaders at two dating app giants in Texas — Match Group and Bumble — have moved to set up funds to aid people affected by the state’s new abortion ban. Here, abortion-rights supporters march near the Texas state capitol in Austin earlier this year.

Sergio Flores/Getty Images

The dating-app company Bumble has created a special fund to help people affected by Texas’ new abortion ban. The CEO of Match, which owns Tinder, is creating a similar fund. Both companies are based in Texas and are led by women.

“I’m not speaking about this as the CEO of a company,” Match Group CEO Shar Dubey said in a note sent to employees Thursday night. “I’m speaking about this personally, as a mother and a woman who has fervently cared about women’s rights, including the very fundamental right of choice over her body.”

“I immigrated to America from India over 25 years ago and I have to say, as a Texas resident, I am shocked that I now live in a state where women’s reproductive laws are more regressive than most of the world, including India,” Dubey added.

The Texas law bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, which is earlier than most people would realize that they’ve become pregnant. It also extends enforcement powers to the general public.

Match Group says its leader, not the company itself, is creating the fund, which would provide aid to any Match employees in Texas who are forced by the new abortion restriction to seek care outside the state. Dallas-based Match owns Tinder, Plenty of Fish and a dozen other apps.

Dubey’s message came the day after Bumble, which is based in Austin, said it was setting up a fund to support reproductive rights.

“Bumble has created a relief fund supporting the reproductive rights of women and people across the gender spectrum who seek abortions in Texas,” the company said as the state’s new abortion law took effect this week.

“We’ll keep fighting against regressive laws like” the one in Texas, the company said, noting that it was founded by women and is led by CEO Whitney Wolfe Herd.

Match Group CEO Dubey also called the Texas law regressive — a “big step back in women’s rights,” she said, noting that it does not allow exceptions to the ban for victims of rape or incest.

Bumble’s tweet announcement of its fund has met with a mixed response. Some commenters asked the company to reconsider the move — but others said the company should move out of Texas altogether.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033980404/texas-abortion-ban-bumble-match-funds

La caracterización de Carlos Álvarez que motivó la carta del contralor Edgar Alarcón | Fuente: RPP/Twitter @soledadnalvarte

No se amilana. El humorista Carlos Álvarez caracterizó este jueves a su personaje del ‘contralor Alacrón’ en el programa Conexión de RPP Noticias, pese a la carta notarial que le envió hoy el contralor Edgar Alarcón para que deje de imitarlo. 

En una breve entrevista con Milagros Leiva, ‘Alacrón’ advirtió a la periodista que la tenía ‘chuponeada’.  “Yo sé mucho y tengo más llamadas chuponeadas, incluso la suya”, dijo. 

Además reveló que grabó al ministro de Economía, Alfredo Thorne, “porque estaba a punto de venderle unos carritos”.

Carta Notarial. Este jueves, el contralor Alarcón, envió una carta notarial a Álvarez para pedirle que no lo imite con la advertencia de posibles acciones legales. Esto a propósito de una imagen que apareció en Twitter en la que se ve al cómico caracterizado como el funcionario.

En declaraciones a RPP Noticias el comediante lamentó los términos de la carta y pidió que se entienda “el trabajo de un humorista político.  “Es una broma, no podemos asumir que el personaje Alacrón sea el personaje real. Es un personaje inspirado en la actualidad, en la sátira, nada más. No hay ninguna animadversión personal”, afirmó. 

El humorista grabó un programa con la caracterización de su personaje del ‘contralor Alacrón’ para Willax TV. | Fuente: Andina

Source Article from http://rpp.pe/lima/actualidad/audio-carlos-alvarez-imito-al-contralor-alacron-en-rpp-noticias-noticia-1056608

President Trump on Friday night slammed a BuzzFeed News report, which alleges the president has been implicated in a crime, saying its release marked a “very sad day for journalism” after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team released a rare statement claiming the outlet got its facts wrong.

Trump went to Twitter to remind his 57.5 million followers that BuzzFeed, an outlet he once called a “failing pile of garbage,” once also published the unverified and salacious dossier by former British spy Christopher Steele that was used to justify the FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to then-candidate Trump.

BUZZFEED ROCKS MEDIA INDUSTRY AFTER MUELLER TEAM DISPUTES REPORT: ‘MEDIA ERRORS ARE ALWAYS ANTI-TRUMP’

“Remember it was Buzzfeed that released the totally discredited ‘Dossier,’ paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats (as opposition research), on which the entire Russian probe is based!” he tweeted. “A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!”

Trump’s comments came after Mueller’s team detoured from its “no comment” media strategy and released a statement refuting the BuzzFeed story, which alleged that Trump instructed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about real estate deals in Russia.

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” special counsel spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement Friday.

But while the language of the denial was tepid, Mueller’s rare statement suggested that none of the assertions in the BuzzFeed story are correct, the Washington Post reported.

MUELLER TEAM DISPUTES BUZZFEED REPORT CLAIMING TRUMP TOLD COHEN TO LIE

The BuzzFeed report, based on two anonymous sources, claims that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress about a Trump Tower project in Moscow during the 2016 presidential election.

BuzzFeed also claims Mueller learned of the instructions to lie to Congress from “interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”

Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, also issued a rare statement of praise of the Mueller team for refuting the story and suggested the Department of Justice should go after the leakers of the false information.

“Now the DOJ must reveal the leakers of this false BuzzFeed story which the press and Democrats gleefully embraced. And maybe House Dems should wait to investigate until the Mueller report is filed. 4 have started already. There may be nothing to legitimately investigate,” he wrote in a tweet.

“I commend Bob Mueller’s office for correcting the BuzzFeed false story that Pres. Trump encouraged Cohen to lie,” Giuliani added. “I ask the press to take heed that their hysterical desire to destroy this President has gone too far. They pursued this without critical analysis all day.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief, Ben Smith, issued a statement reiterating that the outlet stands “by our reporting and the sources who informed it” and urged the special counsel “to make clear what he’s disputing.”

Fox News’ Alex Pappas, Brooke Singman, Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blasts-buzzfeed-over-botched-report-alleging-he-told-cohen-to-lie

Tras la caída ante Alemania, la decepción de Messi al recibir el trofeo fue evidente.

La decisión de la FIFA de otorgarle el Balón de Oro de Brasil 2014 al astro argentino Lionel Messi fue recibida con sorpresa y críticas.

Messi deslumbró en el inicio del campeonato, marcando cuatro goles en tres partidos de la fase de grupos, pero su estrella fue perdiendo brillo hacia el final del torneo.

Un total de 10 jugadores fueron nominados. Por Argentina también aparecieron Angel Di María y Javier Mascherano. Por el campeón, Alemania, estuvieron Mats Hummels, Toni Kroos, Philipp Lahm y Thomas Muller. El brasileño Neymar, el holandés Arjen Robben y el colombiano James Rodríguez, líder goleador del torneo, completaron la lista.

A diferencia de mundiales anteriores, la selección corrió por cuenta del Comité de Estudios Técnicos de la FIFA, un grupo de 13 expertos de distintas nacionalidades.

Previamente, el elegido surgía de una votación a cargo de medios de comunicación acreditados en el torneo.

Controversia histórica

Para muchos el mejor jugador del torneo fue el colombiano James Rodríguez.

Por otra parte, Messi no apareció en el once ideal del Mundial, basado en el índice que mide el rendimiento de los futbolistas a lo largo del torneo.

Sin embargo, no es la primera vez que la decisión del Balón de Oro genera controversia.

Para muestra, basta recordar que en el Mundial de 1998, el brasileño Ronaldo fue el premiado tras perder con Brasil la final ante Francia en un partido en el que pasó desapercibido.

Es además la quinta vez consecutiva que el ganador no pertenece al equipo que se coronó como campeón.

Cuando España ganó en Sudáfrica 2010 el premio se lo llevó el uruguayo Diego Forlán en una decisión que también trajo polémica.

De mayor a menor

Ganadores del Balón de Oro

España 1982 Paolo Rossi (ITA)

México 1986 Diego Armando Maradona (ARG)

Italia 1990 Salvatore Schillachi (ITA)

Estados Unidos 1994 Romario (BRA)

Francia 1998 Ronaldo (BRA)

Corea-Japón 2002 Oliver Kahn (ALE)

Alemania 2006 Zinedine Zidane (FRA)

Sudáfrica 2010 Diego Forlán (URU)

Brasil 2014 Lionel Messi (ARG)

Messi arrancó el Mundial en gran forma, recibiendo cuatro premios al jugador más valioso del partido (MVP) por su actuación en los tres encuentros de la primera fase y en el choque de octavos de final ante Suiza.

Ante Bélgica en cuartos de final el mejor jugador fue su compañero Gonzalo Higuaín y, en semifinales, el más destacado fue el portero Sergio Romero. Ya en la final, ante Alemania el 10 argentino tuvo escasos momentos de protagonismo.

Según muchos analistas, el premio se basó más en la fama y la indudable calidad de Messi. Para el ex capitán de la selección de Inglaterra y comentarista de la BBC, Rio Ferdinand, el galardón debió corresponderle a James Rodríguez.

“Jugó un fútbol de ataque y emocionante y buscó hacerle daño a los rivales. Messi tuvo algunos momentos mágicos, pero uno quiere verlo rindiendo de forma consistente”.

La opinión de Ferdinand se vio reflejada en encuestas de varios diarios deportivos como Marca, As, la Gazzetta dello Sport y L’Equipe donde James apareció en el primer lugar de preferencias.

El técnico de Argentina, Alejandro Sabella, salió en defensa de Messi señalando que “jugó un gran Mundial” y “fue un factor fundamental para que llegáramos donde llegamos”.

Sin embargo, para el recuerdo quedará su imagen de decepción, recibiendo el trofeo al final del partido en el que más se esperaba su contribución.

clic

Vea también: Argentina aplaude a sus jugadores y a un Messi que no es inmortal

Source Article from http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2014/07/140714_wc2014_brasil2014_messi_balon_de_oro_hr.shtml

Britain has granted a conditional authorization to Merck’s coronavirus antiviral, the first pill shown to successfully treat COVID-19. It is the first country to OK the treatment, although it was not immediately clear how quickly the pill would be available.

The pill was licensed for adults 18 and older who have tested positive for COVID-19 and have at least one risk factor for developing severe disease. The drug, known as molnupiravir, is intended to be taken twice a day for five days by people at home with mild to moderate COVID-19.

An antiviral pill that reduces symptoms and speeds recovery could prove groundbreaking, easing caseloads on hospitals and helping to curb outbreaks in poorer countries with fragile health systems. It would also bolster the two-pronged approach to the pandemic: treatment, by way of medication, and prevention, primarily through vaccinations.

MERCK’S COVID-19 PILL COULD CARRY SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS, SCIENTISTS WARN

Molnupiravir is also pending review at regulators in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced last month it would convene a panel of independent experts to scrutinize the pill’s safety and effectiveness in late November.

Initial supplies will be limited. Merck has said it can produce 10 million treatment courses through the end of the year, but much of that supply has already been purchased by governments worldwide.

In October, U.K. officials announced they secured 480,000 courses of molnupiravir and expected thousands of vulnerable Britons to have access to the treatment this winter via a national study.

“Today is a historic day for our country, as the UK is now the first country in the world to approve an antiviral that can be taken at home for COVID-19,” said Britain’s health secretary, Sajid Javid.

FILE – In this undated file image provided by Merck & Co. shows their new antiviral medication. The pharmaceutical Merck has agreed to allow other drugmakers worldwide to make its COVID-19 treatment, the first pill that has been shown to be effective against the disease, in a move aimed at helping millions of people in poorer countries access to the drug.  
(Merck & Co. via AP, File)

“We are working at pace across the government and with the NHS to set out plans to deploy molnupiravir to patients through a national study as soon as possible,” he said in a statement, referring to the U.K.’s National Health Service. Doctors said the treatment would be particularly significant for people who do not respond well to vaccination.

Merck and its partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutic have requested clearance for the drug with regulators around the world to treat adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease or hospitalization. That’s roughly the same group targeted for treatment with infused COVID-19 antibody drugs, the standard of care in many countries for patients who don’t yet require hospitalization.

Merck announced preliminary results last month showing its drug cut hospitalizations and deaths by half among patients with early COVID-19 symptoms. The results have not yet been vetted by outside scientists.

The company also did not disclose details on molnupiravir’s side effects, except to say that rates of those problems were similar between people who got the drug and those who received dummy pills.

MERCK COVID-19 TREATMENT PILL COULD BE AVAILABLE BY END OF YEAR, DR. ADALJA PREDICTS

The drug targets an enzyme the coronavirus uses to reproduce itself, inserting errors into its genetic code that slow its ability to spread and take over human cells. That genetic activity has led some independent experts to question whether the drug could potentially cause mutations leading to birth defects or tumors.

In company trials, both men and women were instructed to either use contraception or abstain from sex. Pregnant women were excluded from the study. Merck has stated that the drug is safe when used as directed.

Molnupiravir was initially studied as a potential flu therapy with funding from the U.S. government. Last year, researchers at Emory University decided to repurpose the drug as a potential COVID-19 treatment. They then licensed the drug to Ridgeback and its partner Merck.

Last week, Merck agreed to allow other drugmakers to make its COVID-19 pill, in a move aimed at helping millions of people in poorer countries get access. The Medicines Patent Pool, a United Nations-backed group, said Merck will not receive royalties under the agreement for as long as the World Health Organization deems COVID-19 to be a global emergency.

But the deal was criticized by some activists for excluding many middle-income countries capable of making millions of treatments, including Brazil and China.

Still, experts commended Merck for agreeing to widely share its formula and promising to help any companies who need technological help in making their drug — something no coronavirus vaccine producers have agreed to.

“Unlike the grotesquely unequal distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, the poorest countries will not have to wait at the back of the queue for molnupiravir,” said Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni, a senior health adviser to the People’s Vaccine Alliance. Fewer than 1% of the world’s COVID-19 vaccines have gone to poor countries and experts hope easier-to-dispense treatments will help them curb the pandemic.

Previously Merck announced licensing deals with several Indian generic drugmakers to manufacture lower-cost versions of the drug for developing countries.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The U.S. reportedly paid roughly $700 per course of molnupiravir, for about 1.7 million treatments. Merck says it plans to use a tiered pricing strategy for developing countries. A review by Harvard University and King’s College London estimated the drug costs about $18 to make.

While other treatments have been cleared to treat COVID-19, including steroids and monoclonal antibodies, those are administered by injection or infusion and are mostly for hospitalized patients.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/health/uk-authorizes-mercks-covid-19-pill-first-shown-to-treat-disease

¿Qué es lo que Facebook debería mostrar en tu timeline cada vez que te conectas? Ésa es una pregunta difícil y probablemente no exista una sola respuesta correcta, sino más bien tantas como usuarios tiene la red, es decir, más de 1,600 millones de ellas.

Ése es el reto que enfrenta la red social más grande del mundo, uno que le obliga a cambiar constantemente el algoritmo que determina qué cosa debe ver cada usuario basándose en las preferencias de cada uno de ellos, como anunció hoy.

Un nuevo cambio en ese algoritmo rector aumentará la cantidad de publicaciones de tus amigos y menos de las páginas que sigues. Ésa podría ser una buena noticia para algunos, pero es mala para muchos otros, especialmente las empresas o marcas, que verán reducido su impacto.

Adam Mosseri, vicepresidente de producto de Facebook, explica en un artículo cómo la línea de tiempo está organizada de forma tal que la gente “pueda ver primero lo que le interesa y no se pierda cosas importantes de sus amigos. Sin esas clasificaciones la gente no se involucra y se va insatisfecha. Por eso una de nuestras tareas más importantes es lograr que esas clasificaciones funcionen”.

Mosseri dice además que el éxito de Facebook “se basa en ofrecerle a la gente las historias más relevantes para ellos. Si pudieras ver miles de historias todos los días y elegir las 10 más importantes para ti, ¿Cuáles serían? La respuesta debería ser tu News Feed. Es subjetiva, personal, y única. Y define el espíritu de lo que intentamos alcanzar”.

Por ello, profundiza el ejecutivo, la actividad de los amigos es prioritaria. Según un estudio realizado por la compañía, el News Feed debe cumplir con dos funciones básicas:

  1. Informar, aunque el criterio sobre lo que es informativo o interesante puede variar de persona a persona. Puede ser una publicación sobre un hecho actual, una historia sobre tu celebridad favorita, una noticia local, o una receta. “Siempre estamos trabajando para comprender mejor qué resulta interesante e informativo para ti personalmente, para que esas historias aparezcan bien arriba en tu News Feed.”
  2. Entretener, esto puede significar seguir a una celebridad o un deportista. Para otros se trata de ver videos en vivo y compartir fotos graciosas con sus amigos. “Trabajamos duro para comprender y predecir qué publicaciones de Facebook te resultarán entretenidas, para asegurarnos de que no te las pierdas.”

Mosseri añade: “Nuestro trabajo no es elegir qué historias debe leer el mundo, sino conectar gente e ideas, y juntar a las personas con las historias que les resultan más significativas. No favorecemos ciertos tipos de fuentes ni ideas. Nuestro objetivo es entregar las historias que, según hemos aprendido, le interesan más a un individuo. Hacemos esto no solo porque creemos que es lo correcto, sino también porque es bueno para nosotros. Cuando la gente ve contenidos que le interesan, es probable que pasen más tiempo en el News Feed y disfruten de la experiencia.”

El cambio en el algoritmo se da tras una ola de críticas a la red social, que señalaban una marcada tendencia a mostrar más noticias con un sesgo conservador, las cuales fueron negadas por la empresa.

No obstante, el ejecutivo recuerda que este nuevo cambio en la plataforma responde al hecho de que la red es una obra en proceso: “Consideramos que apenas el 1% de nuestro trabajo está terminado, y estamos dedicados a mejorar a medida que avanzamos.”

Source Article from http://www.forbes.com.mx/facebook-nuevo-cambio-algoritmo-noticias/

via press release:

NOTICIAS  TELEMUNDO  PRESENTS:

“MURIENDO POR CRUZAR,” AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE INCREASING NUMBER OF IMMIGRANT DEATHS ALONG THE BORDER, THIS SUNDAY, AUGUST 3 AT 6 P.M./5 C

Carmen Dominicci and Neida Sandoval present the Telemundo and The Weather Channel co-production

Miami – July 31, 2014 – Telemundo presents “Muriendo por Cruzar”, a documentary that investigates why increasing numbers of immigrants are dying while trying to cross the US-Mexican border near the city of Falfurrias, Texas, this Sunday, August 3 at 6PM/5 C.  The Telemundo and The Weather Channel co-production, presented by Noticias Telemundo journalists Carmen Dominicci and Neida Sandoval, reveals the obstacles immigrants face once they cross into US territory, including extreme weather conditions, as they try to evade the border patrol.  “Muriendo por Cruzar” is part of Noticias Telemundo’s special coverage of the crisis on the border and immigration reform.

 

“‘Muriendo por Cruzar’” dares to ask questions that reveal the actual conditions undocumented immigrants face as they try to start a new life in the United States,” said Alina Falcón, Telemundo’s Executive Vice President for News and Alternative Programming.  “Our collaboration with The Weather Channel was very productive. They have a unique expertise in covering the impact of weather on people’s lives, as we do in covering immigration reform and the border crisis. The result is a compelling documentary that exposes a harrowing reality.”

“Muriendo por Cruzar” is the first co-production by Telemundo and The Weather Channel.  Both networks are part of NBCUniversal.

Source Article from http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/31/noticias-telemundo-presents-muriendo-por-cruzar-this-sunday-august-3-at-6pm/289119/

El hospital Carlos III, donde permanece ingresada la primera persona contagiada de ébola fuera de África, la auxiliar de enfermería Teresa Romero, se ha visto obligado a contratar personal extra para poder atender todos los casos sospechosos y en investigación que van llegando al centro. En algunos casos, suplirán a profesionales de enfermería que se han negado a trabajar con enfermos de ébola alegando que las condiciones de seguridad no son las adecuadas. “Hay trabajadores que están renunciando a sus contratos para no tener que entrar”, asegura Elvira González, vicesecretaria provincial del Sindicato de Auxiliares de Enfermería (SAE).

Según relata, hay enfermeros y técnicos de enfermería que han presentado formalmente su renuncia en la Consejería de Sanidad y otros que se han negado a atender enfermos de ébola en las condiciones actuales. En principio, un profesional sanitario está obligado a atender a cualquier enfermo, pero en este caso el hospital no está obligando a nadie a entrar, añade. “Ahora mismo, cuando está en cuestión si el traje es el correcto, si el protocolo es el correcto, un profesional sanitario podría acusar a la Administración de delito de salud pública si le obligan a trabajar en condiciones que no son las adecuadas”, explica. “Ni en la Consejería de Sanidad están seguros de la infalibilidad del protocolo y por eso no están obligando a nadie”, añade.

“Que sepamos, a la gente nueva la han contratado hasta el día 21”, asegura una trabajadora del centro. “No sé cuántos son en total pero ayer ya había muchísimas caras nuevas y no pude contar”, añade. Cree que aún llegarán más porque a medida que se vaya llenando la quinta planta del hospital, la que la Consejería de Sanidad decidió vaciar ayer para instalar a los casos sospechosos, harán falta más profesionales. “Solo en la sexta [donde estuvieron ingresados los misioneros repatriados y ahora se encuentra la auxiliar] en cada turno hay más de 12 personas trabajando”, añade esta fuente, que pide no ser identificada.

“Conozco a mucha gente que está poniendo excusas: que si tengo el periodo, que si me mareo, que si me da claustrofobia”, señala. “A la gente le entra ansiedad y así no se puede entrar, con ese nerviosismo”, añade. Los profesionales que atienden a Romero y al resto de personas aisladas en el hospital han empezado a recibir terapia psicológica para intentar manejar el estrés que les provoca la situación y sobre todo, para mantener la calma y no cometer un error fatal.

La Consejería de Sanidad no ha facilitado, a preguntas de este diario, cuántos profesionales han renunciado, cuántos se han negado a entrar en las habitaciones de aislamiento y a cuántos ha contratado y por cuánto tiempo para realizar esas tareas.

Source Article from http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412855529_233792.html

Rioters try to break through a police barrier at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

John Minchillo/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

John Minchillo/AP

Rioters try to break through a police barrier at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

John Minchillo/AP

The officer who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection acted within department policy, the U.S. Capitol Police announced on Monday.

“After interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing all the available evidence, including video and radio calls, the United States Capitol Police has completed the internal investigation into the fatal shooting of Ms. Ashli Babbitt, which occurred in the Speaker’s Lobby on January 6,” the department said in a statement.

“USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

The officer, who is not being named to protect their safety, will not face disciplinary action from the department.

The USCP decision comes after the Justice Department in April said it would not pursue charges against the officer who fatally shot Babbitt as she attempted to breach a barricaded, shattered glass door leading to the House chamber.

Since Babbitt’s death, the far right has painted the rioter as a martyr who was felled by a system intent on villainizing Trump supporters.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/1030354113/capitol-police-officer-ashli-babbitt-riot

  • The Jan. 6 committee said it is prepared to recommend criminal contempt charges against Mark Meadows.
  • Meadows’ lawyer said he will not appear for a deposition scheduled for tomorrow.
  • The committee said if he doesn’t appear, it’ll recommend that “the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution.”

The chair and vice chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot said it is prepared to recommend criminal contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Meadows’ attorney said in a letter to the panel Tuesday that Meadows’ deposition, scheduled for Wednesday, is “untenable” because the committee “has no intention of respecting boundaries” related to former President Donald Trump’s broad assertions of executive privilege regarding the Capitol riot investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a member of the January 6 investigatory panel, said last week that Meadows undermined his own argument for withholding information from the committee because he wrote about matters related to the Capitol riot in his new memoir.

“Tomorrow’s deposition, which was scheduled at Mr. Meadows’s request, will go forward as planned,” committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney said in their Tuesday statement. “If indeed Mr. Meadows refuses to appear, the Select Committee will be left no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution.”

Meadows is the third Trump ally that the committee has advanced or is prepared to advance contempt proceedings against. Last month the Justice Department indicted former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on two criminal contempt charges after Congress referred him. And the panel last week moved forward to recommend criminal contempt charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former top Trump appointee at the Justice Department.

The department has previously declined to bring criminal contempt charges against those who defy congressional subpoenas. But lawmakers on the bipartisan select committee have said they hope that will change under the Biden administration and allow the committee to fully investigate the Capitol riot.

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/jan-6-committee-prepares-to-recommend-criminal-charges-against-meadows-2021-12


ÚN | Jesús Hurtado.- Ante la inminente publicación de los precios de los carros nuevos y de los parámetros para determinar el valor de los autos usados, las secciones de clasificados de diarios y páginas web especializadas en la materia eliminaron el precio de venta de los vehículos que anuncian.

Las páginas en Internet se limitan a ofrecer la información básica del carro y dar el teléfono del vendedor, única manera de conocer el precio.

Entretanto, los clasificados de los periódicos solo anuncian el valor de autos con 15, 20 o más años de uso, algunos de los cuales tienen valores que superan el precio referencial de los autos nuevos producidos por ensambladoras mixtas o del Gobierno.

La medida tomada por las empresas del ramo también se relaciona con el cuidado que tienen estas de ser acusadas de especuladoras, pues se sabe que el precio de los carros con poco uso duplica el valor de los vehículos nuevos.

Source Article from http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/actualidad/economia/clasificados-eliminan-precios-de-carros-usados.aspx

Image copyright
AFP

Image caption

Ni siquiera el protagonista de la historia, el presidente Morales, se imaginó las aristas de esta trama.

Si fuera una telenovela, algún espectador pensaría que el guión es demasiado fantasioso, que la trama descarrila en su obsesión por atraer más televidentes. Pero no es un programa de ficción, es la historia del presidente boliviano Evo Morales, su hijo supuestamente fallecido que resulta que está vivo y su exnovia, presa.

La intriga comenzó el 3 de febrero de este año con un primer capítulo más bien anodino, aburrido: el mandatario fue denunciado por tráfico de influencias pocos días antes de un referendo en el que buscaba una reforma constitucional para presentarse a una nueva reelección.

Nuestro primer actor por orden de aparición es Carlos Valverde, periodista, quien ese día revela la existencia de una relación amorosa entre el mandatario y la empresaria Gabriela Zapata, quien pronto se volverá la actriz principal de la historia.

Zapata no era una empresaria cualquiera, era gerente comercial de la empresa china CAMC que había firmado en los últimos años contratos con el Estado por algo más de US$500 millones en distintas áreas, incluyendo la producción de litio, azúcar y líneas férreas.

Dos días después la trama se vuelve más íntima, el presidente se ve forzado a dar una conferencia de prensa en la que reconoce una relación con Zapata entre 2005 y 2007, de la cual nació un niño.

El niño

El mandatario se transforma entonces en el narrador de la historia: el hijo nació pero enfermó, él pasó dinero pero cuando quiso verlo, o quizás porque quiso verlo, supo que su hijo había muerto.

Image copyright
EPA

Image caption

La fiscalía boliviana señaló que Zapata fue detenida por “riesgo de fuga”.

Otras voces entran en el relato, el senador Arturo Murillo de la alianza opositora Unidad Demócrata (UD) le reclama al presidente por no preocuparse del hijo enfermo o de no “ponerle flores en el cementerio” cuando supo de su muerte.

El vicepresidente, Álvaro García Linera, responde que Morales “asistió” al hijo cuando hizo un viaje para una intervención vinculada con su salud y asegura que Morales insistió ”varias semanas” para saber sobre la suerte de esta intervención.

Y cuando pensamos que la historia se terminaba en esa muerte, en esa tumba, el guionista decide recurrir a uno de los trucos más absurdo de las telenovelas: revivir al muerto.

La noticia

“Tengo derecho a conocer a mi hijo, a cuidarlo, a protegerlo, es mi obligación. Espero que me lo traigan en las próximas horas“, dice Morales el lunes 29 de febrero, un día que sólo se repite cada cuatro años, ideal entonces para noticias inauditas.

¿Qué había pasado? Gabriela Zapata estaba presa, arrestada por cargos de lavado de dinero, malversación de fondos y abuso de influencia.

Pero eso pasó a un segundo plano, la nueva actriz protagónica se llamaba Pilar Guzmán, su tía.

El sábado 27 de febrero en la mañana, Guzmán declara que el niño estaba vivo y en buen estado, versión que luego fue corroborada por una de las abogadas de Zapata.

El domingo, miembros del gobierno boliviano emplazan a Zapata a que presente al niño ante un juez para que se compruebe que está vivo, algo que hasta ahora no ha ocurrido.

¿Por qué?

Image copyright
EPA

Image caption

La exnovia de Evo Morales fue detenida el viernes y desde el domingo duerme en un centro de reclusión para mujeres.

Como en toda historia, la telenovela boliviana tiene tramas paralelas.

El 21 de febrero, la consulta por la reforma constitucional termina con la derrota del proyecto de reelección.

Es una noticia política que retumba en todos los pasillos del poder de Bolivia, se trata al fin y al cabo de la primera derrota electoral de Morales en los 10 años que lleva en el cargo.

Pero la noticia de que el presidente tendría un hijo que estaba muerto pero ahora está vivo convierte estas líneas del argumento en algo secundario, casi intrascendente.

Ahora todos los espectadores quieren saber lo que la ministra de Transparencia y Lucha contra la Corrupción de Bolivia, Lenny Valdivia, puso en un simple y contudente interrogante.

“La gran pregunta es por qué la señora Zapata ocultó a este niño durante ocho años”.

Source Article from http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2016/03/160229_bolivia_hijo_evo_morales_zapata_az

Jayapal said she personally called Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday morning when it looked like Democrats might relent to a GOP proposal on unemployment aid and told him: “We cannot weaken this thing any more, or I don’t know what’s going to happen in the House.”

Jayapal said the Senate changes proved “relatively minor in the grand scheme of things,” with the exception of the minimum wage hike — a loss the left had already been bracing for. To get the wage raised, she said, “this makes it clear that we’ll have to reform the filibuster.”

House passage, whether Tuesday or Wednesday, would deliver on Biden’s top policy ambition from the 2020 campaign: a rapid investment in vaccines, school reopenings and other public health measures intended to revive an ailing economy.

Two moderate House Democrats voted against Biden’s package in February: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Kurt Schrader of Oregon.

Schrader announced Monday that he plans to support it after the Senate’s changes, noting that he still has concerns about “the size and scope” of the bill but says “the Senate changes provide meaningful relief for Oregonians in need.”

Still, whether or not the party is fully united on the final vote, most Democrats argue that they’re making an informed leap toward spending that’s designed to combat virus-era job losses on par with the depths of last decade’s Great Recession.

“When people get the money, they’re not going to admire it in their bank vault. They’re going to spend it,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said. “That’s going to multiply the economic impact, and it’s going to be hugely beneficial.”

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/09/covid-house-vote-preview-474405