Top Rated Videos

La periodista nos narró su propia noticia, la que nunca pensó encontrar, pero que marcó su vida, al convertirse en enamorada de Andy V.

Por: Fernando ‘Vocha’ Dávila

Lourdes Sacín es una mujer espectacular, física e intelectualmente. Su vida transcurría detrás de la noticia, pero un día ella se convirtió en la ‘pepa’ de la información, después de ser la enamorada de Andy V. La chica de reportajes serios es ahora una representante de aquellos que aman sin ser comprendidos.

¿Eres una chica rebelde?

Hasta más no poder. Quiero hacer lo que siento y equivocarme sola.

¿Y con tus jefes en los trabajos?

También. No soy de quedarme callada.

¿A qué edad fue tu primer beso?

A los 18 años y en la universidad. O sea, mientras mis amigas ya hablaban de haber estado con tal o cual chico, yo no.

¿*Estudiar Periodismo también fue ir contra la corriente?*

De hecho que sí. (mi familia) Quería que estudie Derecho, porque tengo muchos familiares abogados, pero yo elegí esta carrera.

¿Andy V fue otro acto de rebelión en tu vida?

No lo veo así. Simplemente, me enamoré.

¿Y siempre te gustaron los chicos de ese estilo?

Siempre he tenido enamorados convencionales. Él es el único extraño en mi vida, ja, ja, ja.

¿Pero qué hacía una chica de buena educación con una persona tan diferente a ti?

Es parte de la discriminación que existe en el país. Los mismos que se quejan de ser discriminados son los que salieron a criticar esa relación.

Un padre analizaría: ‘Le di una buena educación en un buen colegio y mira con quién terminó’.

Qué hay de malo que una chica, que provenga de un colegio ‘pituco’, esté con un ‘pata’ de barrio. Eso es racismo, algo estúpido que aún hay en el Perú.

¿Todos estuvieron contra ustedes?

En el Twitter mucha gente me decía: “Parece la novela ‘Qué buena raza’. Luchen por su amor”.

¿Te gustó experimentar ese intercambio cultural?

Fue una experiencia bacán. Aprendí cosas. Él tenía el barrio que a mí me faltaba.

Allí aprendiste a decir: ‘Más Naiky’…

¡Pero si esa frase es mía! Él me la copió después que un día llegó con lentes Nike, y ropa y zapatillas de la misma marca. Allí fue cuando le dije: ‘Asuu, ya más Nike no te puedes poner’.

¿Hablabas de política con Andy V?

Yo no lo buscaba para hablar de eso. Si quería tocar temas de interés nacional, de economía o inflación, tenía otros amigos. Con él yo buscaba desestresarme de mi trabajo, que prácticamente no me daba respiro. Además, apareció en un momento muy difícil.

¿Qué había ocurrido?

Había muerto mi tía, que era como mi madre, y yo estaba deprimida. Él apareció con su alegría y eso me fue conquistando.

¿Caíste rendida con sus bromas?

Sí. Él me hacía reír y me daba esa ‘calle’ que no tenía.

¿Te gustan un poco ‘pirañones’?

No, porque no lo busqué. Se dio en el camino. De tanto entrevistarlo, surgieron las cosas. Tampoco es que me hablaba de la farándula ah, solo me divertía, me hacía reír.

¿Sabías que estabas poniendo en riesgo tu trabajo?

Eso no entiendo. ¿Por qué iba a ser así? ¿Acaso no hay varias colegas del mismo programa que han estado con gente de la farándula?

Pero creo que no se ve bien, hasta es antiético tener vínculos con los personajes…

Mi relación la tenía guardada, sin exponerla, pero salió a la luz, con los escándalos que ya saben y, bueno, me sacaron.

Hasta perdiste la cabeza, pues te vi haciéndole la ‘guardia’ en una disco…

No fue así. Un supuesto amigo me dijo que lo acompañe a una discoteca y lo esperé afuera. Yo no sabía que Andy estaba allí. El ‘pata’ me llevó con engaños. Me ‘sembró’ con la gente del programa de espectáculos.

A mí me pareció que le hacías la guardia.

Para qué, si él vivía conmigo en ese tiempo. Iba a llegar a la casa.

Da la impresión que la farándula te atrapó y por eso apareciste en ‘Bienvenida la tarde’.

Si no tenía ‘chamba’, no me iba a quedar echada en mi cama. Tenía que generar ingresos, no estar dependiendo de mi familia.

Después fuiste animadora de un evento…

Eso fue de apoyo a un amigo. No cuenta hablar del tema.

¿Tus amigas lo recibían mejor a él, que sus amigos a ti?

Definitivamente, los de él a mí.

¿Ya no le respondes el teléfono?

No, es muy ‘floro’. Por eso, mejor ni contestar.

¿Te desenamoraste rápido?

¿Y quién te ha dicho eso? Estoy en proceso, en decepción.

¿Pero quieres olvidarlo?

No lo sé, estoy en proceso de cambio.

¿Te afana mucha gente de ‘Chollywood’?

Tengo bastantes galanes cerca, de faranduleros que siempre tenía.

¿Han agarrado moral?

Muchos varones se me mandan porque piensan que si he estado con Andy, puedo estar con ellos. Me invitan a salir.

¿Te cambió la fama?

Es bonito firmar autógrafos y esas cosas, pero también sé que llegó a mí de una manera brusca. Ahora ya no puedo ir en pijama a la bodega de mi casa.

Solo decirte gracias y el amor debe mandarte un abrazo, porque eres un símbolo para los que luchan por lo que quieren…

Yo veo normal mi relación y si terminamos, no es por esos prejuicios hipócritas sino porque hubo problemas entre ambos. Gracias por esta entrevista.

Source Article from http://trome.pe/fiesta/1682497/noticia-lourdes-sacinmuchos-farandula-me-invitan-salir

WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. diplomat told Congress that he was briefed on conversations President Donald Trump had with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban in which the two foreign leaders talked Trump into a negative view about Ukraine and its new leader.

George Kent, a senior State Department official responsible for Europe, told House investigators that Putin and Orban, along with Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, had “shaped the president’s view of Ukraine and (President Volodymyr) Zelenskiy.” He said Trump’s conversations with the two leaders accounted for the change in Trump’s view of Zelenskiy from “very positive” after their first call on April 21 to “negative” just one month later when he met with advisers on Ukraine in the Oval Office.

In the interim, Trump spoke by phone with Putin on May 3, and hosted Orban at the White House on May 13.

Kent’s description of those conversations, included in the transcript of his deposition by the House released Thursday, feeds into longstanding concerns from national security experts that the president’s views on key foreign issues are being influenced by Putin and other autocratic leaders such as Orban. The far-right leader of Hungary has been at the helm of a nationalist movement in Europe that has at times found common cause with Trump’s foreign policy.

Kent testified that he took notes in mid-May of a conversation he had with Fiona Hill, then the top White House official for Europe. In that role Hill frequently participated directly in Trump’s meetings and phone calls with foreign leaders, and Kent said that Hill described to him what had occurred in both the Putin call and the Orban meeting.

“Fiona assessed the conversations as being similar in tone and approach. And both leaders, both Putin and Orban, extensively talked Ukraine down, said it was corrupt, said Zelenskiy was in the thrall of oligarchs,” Kent said. “Specifically mentioning this one oligarch Kolomoisky, negatively shaping a picture of Ukraine and even President Zelenskiy himself.”

Ihor Kolomoisky, a major Ukrainian businessman, has close ties to Zelenskiy pre-dating his presidency that have been frequently cited by Zelenskiy’s critics.

Hill, through her attorney, had no immediate comment. But in her own deposition before the House, Hill described how normal White House channels on Ukraine were circumvented by others in and out of the U.S. government who ran a “shadow” foreign policy on Ukraine.

Kent’s testimony provides the first public confirmation by a senior diplomat that Orban and Putin pushed a damaging image of Ukraine to Trump, although officials previously described such a scenario to The Washington Post and The New York Times. Kent’s testimony is also pointed in saying that Orban and Putin’s views apparently wore off on Trump and succeeded in altering his view of Ukraine.

Kent testified that top Trump administration officials who had attended Zelenskiy’s inauguration in May were “very positive” about the new Ukrainian leader, who had come into office pledging to clean up corruption.

“We were cautiously optimistic that this was an opportunity to push forward the reform that Ukraine needs to succeed in resisting Russian aggression, building a successful economy, and, frankly, a justice system that will treat American investors and Ukrainian citizens equally before the law,” Kent said.

He said that was a “different” assessment of Zelenskiy than Trump got from Putin, Orban and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Kent, whose portfolio includes several former Soviet Union countries, said Putin’s motivation for turning Trump against Ukraine was “very clear.” Putin denies Ukraine’s sovereign existence and wants it to fail as an independent nation. He said Orban’s view derives from his vision of a “Greater Hungary,” including some 130,000 ethnic Hungarians who Kent said live in Ukraine.

“I would say that that’s Putin’s position,” Kent said. “I think 0rban is just happy to jam Ukraine.”

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/diplomat-testified-putin-orban-poisoned-trump-s-views-ukraine-n1078551

  • Sen. Mitt Romney says that a Senate impeachment trial held after Trump’s departure is constitutional.
  • The House impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Capitol riots.
  • Romney voted to convict Trump of abuse of power in the former president’s first impeachment trial.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Sen. Mitt Romney did not reveal if he would vote to convict former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, but he feels as though the proceedings are constitutional.

On “Fox News Sunday,” the Utah Republican and 2012 GOP presidential nominee said that the current article “suggests impeachable conduct” as it pertains to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

“I think there will be a trial and I hope it goes as quickly as possible but that’s up to the counsel on both sides,” he said. “There’s no question that the article of impeachment that was sent over by the House suggests impeachable conduct, but we have not yet heard either from the prosecution or the defense.”

 

Romney added: “I’ll get a chance to hear from them, and I’ll do my best as a Senate juror to apply justice as well as I can understand it.”

In February 2020, Romney was the only Republican senator who voted to convict the president of abuse of power in the Senate trial of his first impeachment over the Ukraine scandal.

Read More: Mitch McConnell is telling GOP senators their decision on a Trump impeachment trial conviction is a ‘vote of conscience’

Host Chris Wallace asked Romney if the current article of impeachment should be tossed as a matter of procedure, since Trump is no longer is office.

“The Democrats have the majority in the Senate and I doubt they’re going to go along with that move,” he replied. “At the same time, if you look at the preponderance of the legal opinion by scholars over the years … the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office.”

He then added: “If we’re going to have unity in our country, I think it’s important to recognize the need for accountability, for truth and justice.”

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-trump-impeachment-capitol-insurrection-trial-constitutional-2021-1

‘);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/4/10043’;
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);
}
//–>









Imprimir
Enviar
PDF


<!–

–>

Blogueros EH

Páginas

Temas de Interés

Nuestros Productos

<!—->

Source Article from http://www.elheraldo.co/internacional/noticias-internacionales-7-de-enero-del-2014-138087

March 18 at 2:58 PM

The speaker of Britain’s House of Commons, famous for his erudite put-downs and booming calls for “Order!” in Parliament, threw Prime Minister Theresa May’s plan to attempt to pass her Brexit deal again — on a third try, probably this week — into doubt Monday.

John Bercow said he would not allow the government to present May’s European Union withdrawal agreement to the House again unless that deal was “substantially” different from the first two times it was voted down. 

The ruling, which overturned May’s strategy to revive her Brexit deal at the 11th hour, appeared to blindside 10 Downing Street.

“The speaker did not forewarn us of the content of his statement or the fact that he was making one,” May’s spokeswoman, who by custom is not identified by name, told reporters.

Bercow’s ruling stoked further uncertainty about a process that has already been widely condemned as chaotic — and left stunned lawmakers wondering aloud what comes next. Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union on March 29.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt had told the BBC Monday morning that the government was hopeful there would be a third “meaningful vote” Tuesday on Brexit.

Robert Buckland, the government’s solicitor general, said Bercow’s announcement could have “huge reverberations” for the Brexit process. “We are in a major constitutional crisis here,” he told the BBC.

He suggested one way around the ruling would be to end the parliamentary session, start a new session and then hold a vote on May’s Brexit deal.

“We are now talking about not just days but hours to the 29th of March. Frankly, we could have done without this,” he said.

May suffered humiliating defeat in the two earlier votes.

In January, the 585-page withdrawal agreement she had spent two years negotiating with her European counterparts lost, 432 votes to 202 — with 118 members of her Conservative Party voting against her.

She then made a last-ditch pitch to E.U. leaders to improve the deal. She succeeded in having some additional legal language attached to the agreement to calm jitters over how to handle the Irish border. But that second attempt also failed last week, 391 to 242.

The government was hoping that if May’s deal passed early this week, she would go to Brussels on Thursday and ask for a “technical extension” until the end of June. If her deal did not pass, she was planning to seek a longer delay.

May spent the weekend twisting arms and cajoling rebels in her party, as well as her governing allies in the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, to get enough votes to cross the finish line. She was also expected to need support from the opposition Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has threatened to call a no-confidence vote to bring down the government.

The prime minister has warned recalcitrant Tory lawmakers that if they do not pass her Brexit deal, Britain will either have to leave the E.U. with no deal or else delay departure by months, even years. 

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, May said that not backing her deal the second time had risked “undesirable alternatives, from not leaving the EU as scheduled on March 29, to the risk of a second referendum, a general election or the increased possibility of leaving without a deal.”

May’s strategy was brought up short by the speaker’s announcement that there would be no third attempt of a sale — unless the goods on offer were new and different.

“If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on the 12th of March, this would be entirely in order,” Bercow said.

“What the government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition — or substantially the same proposition — as that of last week,” he said.

Bercow appeared to suggest that May might have some wiggle room, but not much. “This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject,” he said. “It is simply meant to indicate the test which the government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session.”

Anna Soubry, a lawmaker who left the Conservative Party over its handling of Brexit to join the new Independent Group, told Parliament: “This has to be unprecedented, the crisis that’s now upon the country. We’re due to leave the European Union in 11 days, and there is no plan, there is no certainty, and this country is crying out for it, especially business.”

“I think it would be helpful to the House to have the earliest possible indication of how the government intends to proceed in this important matter,” Bercow responded. “Part of the responsibility of the speaker is frankly to speak truth to power. I have always done that. And no matter what, I always will.”

In his ruling, Bercow quoted from the guide to parliamentary procedure that a question “may not be brought forward again during the same session” and that it was a “strong and long-standing convention” dating back to 1604.

Rory Stewart, a Conservative lawmaker, tweeted that he disagreed with the speaker “because these votes respond to an instruction in a referendum, endorsed by Parliament, which rules out dropping back to the status quo.”

In a series of votes last week, Parliament not only voted down May’s Brexit deal, but also insisted that Britain cannot leave the E.U. with no deal — a “cliff edge” scenario that could create economic havoc for both Britain and Europe.

Stewart may have also been referring to the speaker when he followed up with a tweet quoting Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty: “ ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean.’ ”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/brexit-in-disarray-after-house-speaker-moves-to-block-third-vote-on-deal/2019/03/18/0ec55516-499b-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html

A bald eagle prepares to take off from a pine tree in Pembroke Pines, Fla. The eagle population rebounded after protections put in place under the Endangered Species Act.

Wilfredo Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Wilfredo Lee/AP

A bald eagle prepares to take off from a pine tree in Pembroke Pines, Fla. The eagle population rebounded after protections put in place under the Endangered Species Act.

Wilfredo Lee/AP

In a move that critics say will hurt plants, animals and other species as they face mounting threats, the Trump administration is making major changes to how the Endangered Species Act is implemented. The U.S. Department of Interior on Monday announced a suite of long-anticipated revisions to the nation’s premier wildlife conservation law, which is credited with bringing back the bald eagle and grizzly bears, among other species.

Republican lawmakers and industry groups celebrated the revisions, some of the broadest changes in the way the act is applied in its nearly 50-year history.

They come at a moment of crisis for many of the world’s plant and animal species. As many as 1 million species are at risk of extinction — many within decades — according to a recent U.N. report.

Wildlife groups and Democratic lawmakers, pointing to that document, are promising to challenge the new rules in Congress and in court. “Now is the time to strengthen the ESA, not cripple it,” said New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall on a press call.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt says the revisions will help conservation efforts and increase transparency around the law.

One of the changes will allow economic costs to be taken into account while determining whether a species warrants protection. Another will weaken the initial protections given to species deemed to be threatened, one step shy of being endangered.

The changes will apply only to future listing decisions.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the changes fit “squarely within the president’s mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public, without sacrificing our species’ protection and recovery goals.”

The Endangered Species Act has maintained broad bipartisan support since its inception in 1973, but it has long drawn the ire of some who see it as being overly restrictive to business.

Ranchers, developers and fossil fuel companies have urged Republican lawmakers to change the act for decades. The regulatory overhaul announced by federal officials addresses some of their concerns, but some say it doesn’t go far enough.

“These final rules are a good start, but the administration is limited by an existing law that needs to be updated,” said Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso in a statement. “We must modernize the Endangered Species Act in a way that empowers states, promotes the recovery of species, and allows local economies to thrive.”

Modernizing the act is something that is discussed by Democrats, Republicans and career staff at federal and state wildlife agencies, but there is little agreement on what that modernization should look like.

Republicans talk about improving efficiency. Democrats talk about increasing protections. Both, at times, talk about the need for more money to fund wildlife conservation.

A bipartisan effort to increase that funding is in Congress now.

Many of the changes the Trump administration is rolling out address shared administrative concerns about the act, says Jake Li, the director for biodiversity at the Environmental Policy Innovation Center. Others, he says, are problematic and weaken the bedrock law’s effectiveness.

Among them is limiting which habitat — and how much of it — gets considered in determining whether a species is endangered. Land a species currently occupies would be the priority. But wildlife advocates say that could make it harder to account for threats from the warming climate, which has shrunk habitat for some species and will force others to migrate to new areas.

Numerous environmental groups and state attorneys general vow to sue the administration over the changes, alleging they are illegal because they’re not grounded in scientific evidence.

“We don’t take these challenges lightly,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra during a conference call. “We don’t look to pick a fight every time this administration decides to take an action. But we challenge these actions by this administration because it is necessary.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/750479370/trump-administration-makes-major-changes-to-protections-for-endangered-species

The Trump administration is planning a major change to a clean water rule in the United States, exempting certain types of creeks and bodies of water from federal protection in a move that may have wide-ranging impacts.

The proposal — a campaign promise to farmers who say the regulation created too many regulatory burdens — would remove federal protection on bodies of water like creeks and streams that are only wet after it rains, but federal officials do not have data on the number of bodies of water it would impact.

The change would also reduce protections on wetlands that aren’t connected to larger bodies of water.

“Our goal is a more precise definition that gives the American people the freedom and certainty to do what they do best, build homes, grow crops, develop projects, then improve the environment and the lives of their fellow citizens,” said EPA Acting Commissioner Andrew Wheeler.

The new definition of what counts as a “Water of the United States” is intended to clarify years of legal wrangling over the rule, which at this point is effective in some states but not others. Trump has often said the Waters of the Unites States rule, known as WOTUS, had such a beautiful name but was a disaster, citing concerns from farmers and developers that it put too many restrictions on their work.

American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall and representatives from farm bureaus in all 50 states attended the rule signing Tuesday. Farmers have widely criticized the previous WOTUS rule, saying it was expensive, imposed too many restrictions, and duplicated state and local rules.

It’s unclear exactly how many streams or creeks the rule would impact. Previous EPA estimates found that about 60 percent of streams in the U.S. flow inconsistently due to rain on seasonal changes, but not all of those would be impacted by the new rule. That number includes both streams that only flow after it rains, known as ephemeral, and intermittent streams that can be impacted by seasonal changes or groundwater. Ephemeral streams would no longer be federally protected under the Trump administration’s proposal but not all intermittent streams would be impacted equally.

Dave Ross, assistant administrator in the EPA’s water office, said they know how many bodies could lose federal protection under the proposal because that data doesn’t exist.

“Right now there really isn’t a map that shows how many are in our out,” Ross told reporters on Monday.

ABC News
EPA’s proposed change to clean water rules

But he said EPA will be working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states, and tribal leadership to collect data to map out the changes. An EPA spokesperson confirmed there are generally more non-perennial streams in the west and southwest parts of the country. Some states like California already have strict clean water rules on the local level, but other states may not have as many resources to enforce rules as the federal government.

Ross said the Trump administration’s proposal is more legal than scientific, saying EPA went through multiple Supreme Court cases going back to 1985 to inform the proposed new rule. The proposal includes a new method of planning for flood events that will include more recent data, but they did not do any modeling on the impacts of climate change on drought conditions, flooding, or rain events and how that could impact bodies of water when drafting the new rule.

“I think that probably tells you everything you need to know about this rule is that it’s probably a political line-drawing exercise,” said Blan Holman, a clean water expert with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Holman said advocates are concerned about areas like the San Pedro River in Arizona, which relies on ephemeral streams for as much as half of its water flow.

“Do you really want somebody dumping pollution into one of these creek beds that that day is dry but then it’s going to rain the next day and then it’s going to wash into the San Pedro River?” he told ABC News.

He also said the Southern Environmental Law Center estimates a majority of wetlands in South Carolina could be at risk of losing protections under the proposed rule, depending on the specifics of the rule, which have not yet been released. Wetlands provide crucial habitat and help control flooding and advocates are concerned the looser protections will open them up to development.

The EPA’s proposal will be posted for 60 days of public comment.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-clean-water-rule-wide-ranging-impact/story?id=59748091

The Department of Justice will force federal prosecutors to cut their recommended prison sentence for Republican political operative Roger Stone — a longtime ally of President Donald Trump — from the term of seven to nine years that they first suggested Monday night.

Justice Department officials objected to very stiff recommended prison term for Stone, which was made by prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.

A new sentencing recommendation is expected to be filed today in U.S. District Court in Washingon. Stone, 67, is due to be sentenced there Feb. 20 for crimes related to lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential election and his efforts to get an associate, comedian Randy Credico, to cover for his lies.

Trump early Tuesday morning blasted the original recommended sentence for Stone.

Trump called the original sentencing suggestion “disgraceful,” and also tweeted that “this is a horrible and very unfair situation.”

It is highly unusual for the DOJ to reverse a sentencing recommendation after it has been made by prosecutors in a U.S. Attorney’s office that has prosecuted a defendant.

The Justice Department is headed by Trump’s appointee, William Barr.

Grant Smith, an attorney for Stone, told CNBC, “We’ve read with interest the new reporting on Mr. Stone’s case.”

“Our sentencing memorandum stated our position on the recommendation made yesterday made by the government. We look forward to reviewing the government’s supplemental filing,” Smith said.

Stone’s lawyers, in their own sentencing recommendation filed Monday evening, had asked for Judge Amy Berman Jackson for a sentence of just probation, with no time behind bars.

Defense lawyers also said that the sentencing guidelines actually suggested a term of 15 to 21 months.

The DOJ, the Washington U.S. Attorney’s office, and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CNBC.

The sentence of 87 to 108 months first recommended by the prosecutors in the case for Stone mirrored what they said is recommended by federal sentencing guidelines, which are calculated according to a formula that takes into account the severity of the crime, the type of conduct involved and prior criminal history. 

A large fraction of the recommended sentence, as much as 62 months, comes from a so-called enhancement under federal guidelines related to witness tampering. 

Prosecutors acknowledged Monday that Jackson could consider the effect of that enhancement when she crafts Stone’s sentence, as well as “Credico’s own acknowledgement at trial that he and Stone routinely exchanged text messages with hyperbolic language and Credico’s post-trial contention that he did not seriously believe that Stone intended to do him physical harm.”

The Washington Post reported Monday evening that the original sentencing filing by prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office “came after days of intense debate within” that office.

“Front-line prosecutors,” some of whom were previously on the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who lodged the charges, “argued for a sentence on the higher end for Stone than some of their supervisors were comfortable with, according to two people familiar with the discussions,” The Post reported.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/trump-ally-roger-stone-will-get-lower-prison-sentence-recommendation.html

Today, we have secured the release of Mark Frerichs, and he will soon be home.  Mark was taken in Afghanistan in January, 2020 and held for 31 months.  His release is the culmination of years of tireless work by dedicated public servants across our government and other partner governments, and I want to thank them for all that effort.  I spoke with Mark’s sister today to share the good news and express how happy I am for Mark’s family.  Bringing the negotiations that led to Mark’s freedom to a successful resolution required difficult decisions, which I did not take lightly.  Our priority now is to make sure Mark receives a healthy and safe return and is given the space and time he needs to transition back into society.  My Administration continues to prioritize the safe return of all Americans who are held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad, and we will not stop until they are reunited with their families. We have much more work to do in many other cases, but Mark’s release demonstrates our enduring commitment.  Like our work to free Americans held in Burma, Haiti, Russia, Venezuela, and elsewhere, it is our duty to do all we can to bring our people home.

###

Source Article from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/19/statement-by-president-biden-on-the-release-of-mark-frerichs/

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., speaks to reporters Friday after her election as House Republican Conference chair. Stefanik called former President Donald Trump “a critical part of our Republican team.”

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., speaks to reporters Friday after her election as House Republican Conference chair. Stefanik called former President Donald Trump “a critical part of our Republican team.”

Alex Wong/Getty Images

GOP lawmakers have chosen Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York as the No. 3 Republican in the House, anointing a Trump loyalist to a leadership position charged with delivering party messaging.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., announced her election in a tweet.

In a statement posted to Twitter, Stefanik said she was “honored and humbled to earn the support of my colleagues.” Speaking to reporters later, she thanked former President Donald Trump whom she called “a critical part of our Republican team.”

“I believe that voters determine the leader of the Republican Party and President Trump is the leader that they look to,” she said when asked about Trump’s leadership role within the party.

Stefanik’s swift installment by secret ballot comes two days after House Republicans removed Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming from the role following her steadfast criticism of Trump over the last few months.

Stefanik’s name was quickly floated as a replacement for Cheney, who had successfully warded off an attempt on her leadership position in February. Stefanik garnered the public support of McCarthy, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and Trump.

While she appeared in some ways to be a foregone conclusion as the new conference chair, Stefanik faced some opposition from conservatives such as Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who sent a memo to colleagues this week criticizing her record as being too moderate.

Roy maintained the conference shouldn’t “rush this process just for the sake of doing it,” telling Capitol Hill reporters Thursday evening he would run for the position himself.

In Friday’s press conference, McCarthy thanked Roy, saying, “We had a healthy debate and a good election.”

Stefanik sent a letter to colleagues Wednesday detailing her vision to “unify” the conference.

“I strongly believe that one of the most important qualities in any leader is the commitment and ability to listen,” she wrote. “This week, I have had hundreds of productive and informative conversations with Members from all corners of our Conference. Today, I humbly ask to earn your vote for House Republican Conference Chair to unify our message as a team and win the Majority in 2022.”

Stefanik entered Congress in 2015, representing an upstate New York district that voted twice for former President Barack Obama. She amassed a moderate voting record and earned a reputation as one of the more bipartisan members on Capitol Hill.

But as her district shifted hard in favor of Trump, so did Stefanik.

She became a star of the MAGA-verse following her passionate defense of the former president during his first impeachment hearings, with her performance earning her personal praise from Trump and record-breaking fundraising for her reelection.

Stefanik replaces Cheney, a woman she previously called a “huge asset in the role” and whom she twice nominated for the leadership position she now assumes.

Cheney is arguably more conservative than Stefanik, who voted against Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. But the pair diverged most notably on Trump and his role in the GOP. Cheney voted for Trump’s impeachment this year following the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. Stefanik did not.

Cheney voted to certify the electoral results from the 2020 presidential election. Stefanik joined 138 House Republicans in voting to object to the counts in Pennsylvania.

Stefanik has also made her embrace of Trump abundantly clear, which aligns with party leaders such as McCarthy who are relying on the former president’s support in the next election cycle to boost Republicans’ numbers in Congress.

But even after her ousting, Cheney remains firm in her stance.

“I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office,” she told reporters following her removal from leadership.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/05/14/996540840/new-yorks-elise-stefanik-installed-as-new-gop-conference-chair

These companies have “brought a sense of crisis to US elites, which shows that China’s top companies have the ability to move to the forefront of the world in technology,” the Global Times said.

“When similar things happen time and again, the US will take steps closer to its decline. The US is a pioneer in global internet and has created Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. But in recent years, the US’ internet structure has been rigid,” it added.

U.S. moves against Chinese technology companies are happening as tensions between world’s two largest economies continue to rise. Some commentators have dubbed their relationship as the “new Cold War.”

Technology has been a key part of the dispute between the two nations, and TikTok is the latest to be dragged into the fight.

The social media app is perhaps one of the few Chinese companies to have found success in the American market. With Chinese technology firms expanding globally, one analyst recently told CNBC that the TikTok saga is part of Washington’s strategy to push back against the competition. 

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/tiktok-microsoft-deal-state-media-says-china-could-retaliate.html