| At rally, Trump says Russia probe backers tried to steal power illegally Posted: 28 Mar 2019 06:25 PM PDT  Declaring the country "hurt" by the probe, Trump called his opponents "losers" and celebrated the fact the investigation had come to a close. "After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead. "The Russia witch hunt was a plan by those who lost the election to try and illegally regain power by framing innocent Americans – many of them, they suffered – with an elaborate hoax," he said.
|
| Theresa May’s EU Brexit deal rejected by Parliament a third time Posted: 29 Mar 2019 01:05 PM PDT  Britain now has until April 12 to announce a new plan to leave the European Union, or leave the bloc without a deal and risk a disorderly exit.
|
| Corporations are endangering Americans. Trump doesn't care Posted: 30 Mar 2019 03:00 AM PDT  From Boeing to Monsanto and beyond: this week has revealed the tip of the iceberg of regulatory neglect 'Trump and his appointees have unambiguously signaled to corporations they can now do as they please.' Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images Why didn't Boeing do it right? Why isn't Facebook protecting user passwords? Why is Phillip Morris allowed to promote vaping? Why hasn't Wells Fargo reformed itself? Why hasn't Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) recalled its Roundup weedkiller? Answer: corporate greed coupled with inept and corrupt regulators. These are just a few of the examples in the news these days of corporate harms inflicted on innocent people. To be sure, some began before the Trump administration. But Trump and his appointees have unambiguously signaled to corporations they can now do as they please. Boeing wanted to get its 737 Max 8 out quickly because airlines want to pack in more passengers at lower fuel costs (hence the "max"). But neither Boeing nor the airlines shelled out money to adequately train pilots on the new software made necessary by the new design. Nonetheless, Trump's FAA certified the plane in March 2017. And after two subsequent deadly crashes, the US was slower to ground them than other countries. Last week Facebook admitted to storing hundreds of millions of Facebook users' passwords in plain text that could be searched by more than 20,000 Facebook employees. The admission came just a year after the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed that Facebook shared the personal data of as many as 87 million users with a political data firm. In reality, Facebook's business model is based on giving personal data to advertisers so they can tailor their pitches precisely to potential customers. So despite repeated reassurances by Mark Zuckerberg, the firm will continue to do what it wants with personal information. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the power to force Facebook to better guard users' privacy. But so far Trump's FTC has done nothing – not even to enforce a 2011 agreement in which Facebook promised to do just that. Altria (Phillip Morris) was losing ground on its sales of cigarettes, but the firm has recently found a future in vaping. Because inhaling nicotine in any form poses a health hazard, the FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb wanted to curb advertising of vaping products to teenagers. Gottlieb thought he had Altria's agreement, but then the firm bought the vaping company Juul. Its stock has already gained 14% this year. What happened to Gottlieb? He's out at the FDA, after barely a year on the job. Wells Fargo has publicly apologized for having deceived customers with fake bank accounts, unwarranted fees and unwanted products. Its top executives say they have eliminated the aggressive sales targets that were responsible for the fraud. But Wells Fargo employees told the New York Times recently that they're still under heavy pressure to squeeze extra money out of customers. Some have witnessed colleagues bending or breaking internal rules to meet ambitious performance goals. What has Trump's Consumer Financial Protection Agency done about this? Nothing. It's been defanged. This week, a federal jury awarded $80m in damages to a California man who blamed Monsanto's (now Bayer's) Roundup weedkiller for his cancer, after finding that Roundup was defectively designed, that Monsanto failed to warn of the herbicide's cancer risk, and that the company acted negligently. It was the second jury in eight months to reach the same conclusion about Roundup. Roundup contains glyphosate, a suspected carcinogen. Cases from more than 1,000 farmers and other agricultural workers stricken with non-Hodgkin lymphoma are already pending in federal and state courts. What has Trump's Environmental Protection Agency done about glyphosate? In December 2017 its office of pesticide programs concluded that glyphosate wasn't likely to cause cancer – although eight of the 15 experts on whom the agency relied expressed significant concerns about that conclusion, and three more expressed concerns about the data. These are just tips of a vast iceberg of regulatory neglect, frozen into place by Trump's appointees, of which at least 187 were lobbyists before they joined the administration. This is trickle-down economics of a different sort than Trump's corporate tax cuts. The major beneficiaries of this are the same big corporations, including their top executives and major investors. But these burdens are trickling down as unsafe products, fraudulent services, loss of privacy, even loss of life. Big money has had an inhibiting effect on regulators in several previous administrations. What's unique under Trump is the blatancy of it all, and the shameless willingness of Trump appointees to turn a blind eye to corporate wrongdoing. Trump and his Republican enablers in Congress yell "socialism!" at proposals for better balancing private greed with the common good. Yet unless a better balance is achieved, capitalism as we know it is in deep trouble. Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. He is also a columnist for Guardian US
|
| Pet zebra shot and killed by owner in Florida after escaping Posted: 29 Mar 2019 06:47 AM PDT  A man has shot and killed his pet zebra after it escaped from his ranch in Callahan, a town in Florida.The animal, reportedly named Shadow, broke free from Cottonwood Ranch and ran down a main road, chased by several vehicles.Witnesses said the zebra was eventually cornered in a cul-de-sac around two miles from the ranch, where the owner shot and killed it.Bill Leeper, the local sheriff, said he understood that Shadow was injured during the escape and that the owner chose to euthanise the zebra while police officers were at the scene.Witnesses told WJXT-TV that the animal did not appear injured but the decision was made to kill it so that it could not hurt anyone."I had to stop and think a minute," Jenee Watkins told the news outlet."It's not every day you see a zebra trotting through your neighbourhood."Officials have confirmed that the owner did not have a valid license to keep a zebra on his ranch.A state permit is required to own and keep a zebra in Florida.It is unclear whether he will face charges over the lack of permit.Officials said the investigation into the animal's escape and death was ongoing.
|
| Trump threatens to shut border with Mexico next week Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:57 AM PDT  The president returns to a familiar threat as Democrats continue to deny him funding for construction of a border wall.
|
| Ben Shapiro responds to being called 'alt-right' and 'radical' by media Posted: 30 Mar 2019 05:01 AM PDT  The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro reacts to the media's attacks against him on 'Fox & Friends.'
|
| IKEA's New Eco-Friendly Collection Is Our Summer Aesthetic Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:10 AM PDT |
| Chance of UK 'no-deal' Brexit has risen 'sharply', says France Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:45 AM PDT ![Chance of UK 'no-deal' Brexit has risen 'sharply', says France]( "Chance of UK 'no-deal' Brexit has risen 'sharply', says France") French President Emmanuel Macron's office said on Friday the risk of Britain leaving the European Union without a deal had risen "very sharply" following parliament's rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May's withdrawal agreement for a third time. "France is well prepared (for no deal) and will accelerate its preparations for such a scenario," the Elysee said in a statement. It said it was now up to Britain to present an alternative plan in the coming days -- whether new elections, a second referendum, or a proposal for a customs union -- otherwise the country would leave the EU with no deal.
|
| Police standoff on an Atlanta-area freeway halts traffic Posted: 29 Mar 2019 03:06 PM PDT  ATLANTA (AP) — A police standoff brought traffic to a standstill Friday on an Atlanta-area freeway as officers confronted a motorist who they believed was armed and matched the description of a robbery suspect.
|
| Venezuela's Maduro announces ban on rival holding public office Posted: 29 Mar 2019 01:43 AM PDT  Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's regime, bolstered by a Russian military deployment infuriating the US, on Thursday announced a ban on Washington-backed self-declared interim leader Juan Guaido holding public office. It was the latest scuffle between Maduro and Guaido, who lay rival claims to be the legitimate leader of the oil-producing South American nation of 30 million people.
|
| Boeing anti-stall system was activated in Ethiopia crash: source Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:34 AM PDT  Boeing's MCAS anti-stall system, which was implicated in the October crash of a 737 MAX 8 airliner in Indonesia, was also activated shortly before a recent accident in Ethiopia, a source with knowledge of the investigation said Friday. The information is among the preliminary findings from the analysis of the "black boxes" retrieved from Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which crashed southeast of Addis Ababa on March 10, killing 157 people, the source told AFP on condition of anonymity. The information retrieved from the plane's voice and data recorders was presented Thursday to US authorities, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the source said.
|
| Who is paying for Monsanto's crimes? We are Posted: 30 Mar 2019 03:00 AM PDT  A US court ordered Monsanto to pay $80m in damages because it hid cancer risks. That's a small consolation for victims 'And while Bayer may dole out a few billion dollars in damages, who is really being made to pay?' Photograph: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images The chickens are coming home to roost, as they say in farm country. For the second time in less than eight months a US jury has found that decades of scientific evidence demonstrates a clear cancer connection to Monsanto's line of top-selling Roundup herbicides, which are used widely by consumers and farmers. Twice now jurors have additionally determined that the company's own internal records show Monsanto has intentionally manipulated the public record to hide the cancer risks. Both juries found punitive damages were warranted because the company's cover-up of cancer risks was so egregious. The juries saw evidence that Monsanto has ghost-written scientific papers, tried to silence scientists, scuttled independent government testing and cozied up to regulators for favorable safety reviews of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Even the US district judge Vince Chhabria, who oversaw the San Francisco trial that concluded Wednesday with an $80.2m damage award, had harsh words for Monsanto. Chhabria said there were "large swaths of evidence" showing that the company's herbicides could cause cancer. He also said there was "a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of its product … and does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue." Monsanto's new owner, the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, asserts that the juries and judges are wrong; the evidence of a cancer risk is invalid; the evidence of bad corporate conduct is misunderstood and out of context; and that the company will ultimately prevail. Meanwhile, Monsanto critics are celebrating the wins and counting on more as a third trial got underway this week and 11,000 additional plaintiffs await their turn. As well, a growing number of communities and businesses are backing away from use of Monsanto's herbicides. And investors are punishing Bayer, pushing share prices to a seven-year low on Thursday. Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Tom Claps has warned shareholders to brace for a global settlement of between $2.5bn and $4.5bn. "We don't believe [Monsanto] will lose every single trial, but we do believe that they could lose a significant majority," he told the Guardian. Following the recent courtroom victories, some have cheered the notion that Monsanto is finally being made to pay for alleged wrongdoing. But by selling to Bayer last summer for $63bn just before the Roundup cancer lawsuits started going to trial, Monsanto executives were able to walk away from the legal mess with riches. The Monsanto chairman Hugh Grant's exit package allowed him to pocket $32m, for instance. Amid the uproar of the courtroom scuffles, a larger issue looms: Monsanto's push to make use of glyphosate herbicides so pervasive that traces are commonly found in our food and even our bodily fluids, is just one example of how several corporate giants are creating lasting human health and environmental woes around the world. Monsanto and its brethren have targeted farmers in particular as a critical market for their herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, and now many farmers around the world believe they cannot farm without them. Studies show that along with promoting illness and disease in people, these pesticides pushed by Bayer and Monsanto, DowDuPont and other corporate players, are endangering wildlife, soil health, water quality and the long-term sustainability of food production. Yet regulators have allowed these corporations to combine forces, making them ever more powerful and more able to direct public policies that favor their interests. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren this week called for taking back some of that power. She announced on Wednesday a plan to break up big agribusinesses and work against the type of corporate capture of Washington we have seen in recent years. It's a solid step in the right direction. But it cannot undo the suffering of cancer victims, nor easily transform a deeply contaminated landscape to create a healthier future and unleash us from the chains of a pesticide-dependent agricultural system. And while Bayer may dole out a few billion dollars in damages, who is really being made to pay? We all are. Carey Gillam is a journalist and author, and a public interest researcher for US Right to Know, a not-for-profit food industry research group
|
| Mueller report: How Trump avoided interview with special counsel during Russia investigation Posted: 29 Mar 2019 03:32 AM PDT  It was March 2018, nearly 10 months into his Russia investigation, when special counsel Robert Mueller III, a man of few words, raised the stakes dramatically in a meeting with Donald Trump's lawyers: If the president did not sit down voluntarily for an interview, he could face a subpoena.In the months that followed, Mr Mueller never explicitly threatened to issue a subpoena as his office pursued a presidential interview, a sit-down for which the special counsel was pushing as late as December.But with that prospect hanging over them, Mr Trump's legal team conducted a quiet, multi-pronged pressure campaign to avert such an action and keep the president from coming face-to-face with federal investigators - fearful he would perjure himself.At one point last summer, when a lull in talks had the president's attorneys worried that Mr Mueller was seriously contemplating a subpoena, White House lawyer Emmet Flood wrote a memo laying out the legal arguments for protecting the president's executive privilege. He sent the document to Mr Mueller's office and to the deputy for top Justice Department official Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the probe, according to two people familiar with Mr Flood's outreach.Meanwhile, the Trump lawyers sent a steady stream of documents and witnesses to the special counsel, chipping away at Mr Mueller's justification for needing an interview with the president.[[gallery-0]] In the end, the decision not to subpoena the president is one of the lingering mysteries of Mr Mueller's 22-month investigation, which concluded last week when he filed a report numbering more than 300 pages.The special counsel did not find a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but - in an unusual move - failed to come to a decision about whether Mr Trump obstructed justice, according to a summary of the Mueller report released by attorney general William Barr. An interview with the president would have been pivotal to helping assess whether the president had corrupt intent, a key element of such a charge, legal experts said.It is an open question whether a subpoena would have survived the court challenge Mr Trump's lawyers say they would have waged. The Supreme Court has never issued definitive guidance on issuing a subpoena to a president, but had Mr Mueller pursued one, the courts could have established a precedent for future presidents.In assessing whether to pursue such a high-stakes move, the special counsel was not operating with complete autonomy. That was a contrast with predecessors such as Kenneth Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton and had broad leeway under the now-expired independent counsel statute.But Mr Mueller was supervised by Mr Rosenstein, a Trump appointee. The special counsel, Mr Rosenstein noted in one letter to a Republican senator, "remains accountable like every other subordinate."Mr Rosenstein himself was under intense political pressure: Mr Trump mused about firing the one-time George W Bush appointee and former US attorney for Maryland, whom he derided at one point as "the Democrat from Baltimore." And House conservatives threatened to impeach Mr Rosenstein, accusing him of withholding information about the Russia probe.Internal Justice Department discussions about whether to subpoena the president - including Mr Rosenstein's views on such an action - remain tightly held.In the final months of the probe, there was upheaval in the department's leadership. Mr Trump ousted attorney general Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from the investigation. He was replaced temporarily by his former chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, who was publicly critical of the special counsel before joining the department.A month before Mr Mueller submitted his report, Mr Barr was confirmed as attorney general. He had questioned Mr Mueller's obstruction-of-justice inquiry in a June 2018 memo to Mr Rosenstein months before his appointment, writing that "Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction."If Mr Mueller wanted to push for a subpoena, he did not force the issue with Justice Department leaders. Mr Barr told lawmakers last week that no decision the special counsel wanted to take was vetoed during the investigation.The Justice Department and the special counsel's office declined to comment.More answers could be revealed in Mr Mueller's full report, which House Democrats are pushing Mr Barr to release.What is known is that the president's lawyers now believe keeping their client from sitting down with investigators was their greatest victory."The president would not have helped his case had he gone in," said Mark Corallo, a former spokesperson for Mr Trump's legal team. "No lawyer worth his salt would let that happen."The president was initially inclined to sit for an interview with Mr Mueller. He thought he could deliver a convincing performance and put a swift end to the probe.Negotiations between the sides began around Thanksgiving 2017, and an interview was scheduled for January 2018, according to a person close to the legal team and a former senior administration official.But John Dowd, then the president's lead attorney, cancelled the session. He had argued against it because he feared Mr Trump could misspeak or even lie. And a practice session with the president further convinced Mr Dowd that the president could be a problematic interviewee, these people said.White House officials declined to comment.Over the next 12 months, Mr Mueller tried repeatedly to reschedule the interview, to no avail.Mr Trump continued to state publicly that he would be glad to sit for an interview - he believed being seen as willing to talk with prosecutors showed "strength," according to a former administration official with direct knowledge of his thinking. But the president came to agree with his lawyers that doing so would be too risky, especially after former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in December 2017, current and former White House aides said.Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said that some of what Mr Trump's legal advisers were hearing from Mr Mueller "raised our suspicion that this is a trap, rather than a search for more information."As the standoff continued, Mr Mueller's team discussed at length the idea of issuing a subpoena, if necessary, to compel Mr Trump to sit for an interview, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.The discussions - which included Mr Mueller, his top deputy James Quarles, and prosecutors Michael Dreeben and Aaron Zebley - centred both on whether a subpoena was legally feasible and what the costs of such a move might be to the overall investigation, the person said.A fight over a presidential subpoena would have been likely to set legal precedent.Under President Richard Nixon, the US Supreme Court ruled that investigators could subpoena evidence from a sitting president and ordered Nixon to turn over materials including secret recordings made in the Oval Office. That ruling did not, however, address testimony by the president.When Mr Starr was independent counsel, he issued a subpoena to Mr Clinton ordering the president to testify before a grand jury about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mr Clinton's team considered challenging the subpoena in court but instead decided that it would be politically damaging to be seen as fighting the investigation. Mr Clinton's lawyers agreed that he would voluntarily sit for an interview, and Mr Starr withdrew the subpoena - leaving open the question of whether a president can be compelled to give testimony.Robert Ray, a former independent counsel now in private practice at Thompson & Knight, said Mr Mueller's team would have had to weigh whether a subpoena could survive the court challenge that was all but certain to come from the Trump White House.The Supreme Court has never issued definitive guidance on the question, but in a previous independent counsel investigation, of Mike Espy, an agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration, an appellate court offered some clarity on the bounds of how the White House could fight a subpoena by citing presidential privilege.On the basis of the precedent from that case - which was focused on documents, rather than an interview – Mr Mueller would have had to demonstrate both a need to subpoena Mr Trump to advance his investigation and show that he could not get the information he sought in any other way, Mr Ray said.Another major factor was time: Mr Mueller had to consider the likelihood that such a move would bog the investigation down in a lengthy legal battle."That's a major fight, and you have to decide whether, in the country's best interests, it's worth it," Mr Ray said.Mr Mueller broached the topic during a tense meeting on 5 March 2018, at the special counsel offices in Southwest Washington, as Mr Trump's attorneys maintained that the president had no obligation to talk to investigators.The special counsel noted there was an option if Mr Trump declined: He could be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, as The Washington Post previously reported.Mr Dowd erupted angrily."You're screwing with the work of the president of the United States," he told Mr Mueller, according to two people briefed on the discussion.After that meeting, the special counsel team changed its approach: trying to coax Mr Trump to sit for an interview voluntarily.Prosecutors hoped the president would agree to meet, mindful that they could not explicitly threaten a subpoena unless they were prepared to issue one, according to a person familiar with the matter.Still, Mr Trump's legal advisers felt after the March meeting that a subpoena threat hung over the president."The whole exercise was premised on the idea that that was a legal option they could pursue, and we were never absolutely sure until the end that they would not," said one Trump adviser familiar with the legal negotiations.That threat governed the president's legal strategy in the months that would follow.Mr Trump's lawyers left the distinct public impression that they were not an equal match for Mr Mueller, a venerated former FBI director. Mr Dowd and Ty Cobb, another legal adviser to Mr Trump, were overheard by a reporter discussing over lunch at a popular Washington steakhouse how much they would cooperate with Mr Mueller. Mr Giuliani developed a habit of misspeaking in meandering television interviews.But behind the scenes, Mr Trump's legal advisers had a quiet weapon: a husband-and-wife pair of criminal lawyers, Jane and Martin Raskin, who brought rigor and regimen to the team when they came aboard in April 2018.While Mr Giuliani and attorney Jay Sekulow managed the public relations strategy, the Raskins did most of the lawyering from a temporary office they set up in Washington. They declined to comment.Mr Giuliani said that roughly 80 per cent of the Trump team's interactions with the special counsel's office were handled by Jane Raskin, who has known both Mr Mueller and Mr Quarles for years. She knew Mr Mueller from her time as a federal prosecutor in Boston, while her husband had worked with Mr Quarles.She communicated mostly by email, developing a written record that Mr Trump's attorneys intended to use as evidence of their cooperation and responsiveness if they ended up in court fighting a subpoena.Martin Raskin, meanwhile, did a great deal of the writing and editing of legal arguments, including a "counter report" defending the president that Mr Giuliani said has been prepared but may never be released.Central to the Trump strategy - developed first by Mr Cobb and Mr Dowd and later carried out by Mr Giuliani, Mr Sekulow and the Raskins, as well as Mr Flood, who from his White House perch represented the office of the presidency - was to cooperate fully with every request for documents and witnesses from Mr Mueller, including Mr Trump's written answers to some questions.Their goal: to satisfy Mr Mueller's hunt for information to the extent that the special counsel would not have legal standing to subpoena the president's oral testimony."We allowed them to question everybody, and they turned over every document they were asked for: 1.4 million documents," Mr Giuliani said. "We had what you would call unprecedented cooperation."Mr Trump's lawyers, citing the independent counsel investigation of Mr Espy, argued that to justify a subpoena of Mr Trump, Mr Mueller needed to prove he could not get the information in any way other than by asking the president."No matter what question they would say they wanted to ask, I felt confident we could turn it over and say, 'You already have the answer to it,'" Mr Giuliani said. "If they said, 'Why did you fire Comey?' I'd give them five interviews, and particularly the Lester Holt tape, where he goes into great detail as to his reasons."Mr Giuliani was referring to Mr Trump's May 2017 interview with the NBC Nightly News anchor in which the president said he was thinking about "this Russia thing" when he fired James Comey as FBI director, one of the actions Mr Mueller was investigating as possible obstruction of justice.All the while, Mr Giuliani said, the legal team was not convinced that it would have prevailed in court. "Honestly, I don't know who would have won," he said. "I think our argument got better as time went on. But I don't know if we would have won."As Mr Mueller's lawyers quietly laboured, a political storm was raging around them.Mr Trump, his lawyers and his allies in Congress routinely attacked Mr Mueller and his investigators as compromised and corrupt. The president repeatedly urged an end to the probe, which he condemned as a "witch hunt," a "fraud" and a "hoax" that was wasting taxpayer money.Mr Rosenstein urged lawmakers to respect the confidential work of the special counsel, saying in a June 2018 letter to senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the probe would comply with all laws and Justice Department policies.But Mr Rosenstein also noted that Mr Mueller was not an entirely independent actor - and that his work was being closely supervised."Under the terms of his appointment, both by statute and by regulation, special counsel Mueller remains accountable like every other subordinate Department official," Mr Rosenstein wrote.A few months later, Mr Flood sent his memo on the scope of executive privilege. While it made broad arguments, the document could have been construed to pertain to Mr Mueller's push to interview the president, according to someone with knowledge of the contents.Notably, Mr Flood sent the memo not just to Mr Mueller's office, but also to Mr Rosenstein by way of his top deputy, Edward O'Callaghan.Mr Flood declined to comment.As each month passed without a subpoena, the president's attorneys increasingly doubted that Mr Mueller would seek to obtain one, according to people with knowledge of internal discussions.Mr Mueller's team kept insisting it needed to interview the president - but never followed through with an actual demand.Mr Mueller and Mr Quarles would stress that they needed to know Mr Trump's intentions when he fired Mr Comey and took other actions that could have thwarted the Russia investigation. Jane Raskin would respond by pressing them for a legal justification for seeking to interview the president, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.The president's team asked, "What evidence have you obtained that justifies you interviewing the president?" according the person, who added that Mr Mueller's office was "never able to articulate a compelling case. They never gave up asking, but they had no good answer for that question."In the absence of an interview, Mr Trump's attorneys offered Mr Mueller a substitute: The president would provide answers to a set of questions about Russia and the campaign, submitted in writing. But, citing executive privilege, they refused to provide answers to questions pertaining to the president's time in office - questions that went to the heart of the special counsel's inquiry into possible obstruction of justice.However, the process of compiling answers dragged. Mr Trump's lawyers found it difficult to get the president to focus on drafting the submission, according to people familiar with the sessions. Mr Trump's meetings with his lawyers were frequently interrupted by phone calls and other White House business.Finally, in late November 2018, the lawyers sent Mr Trump's answers to Mr Mueller.In December, Mr Mueller's team made one more request for an interview with the president.And in January, the special counsel's office contacted Mr Trump's lawyers to ask some follow-up questions, according to people familiar with the request.But Mr Trump's lawyers again declined. They neither agreed to an interview nor answered the additional questions.Two months later, Mr Mueller submitted his report without having spoken to the president. The investigation was over.The Washington Post
|
| Friday's Brexit vote is last chance to secure exit delay: Attorney General Posted: 29 Mar 2019 03:11 AM PDT ![Friday's Brexit vote is last chance to secure exit delay: Attorney General]( "Friday's Brexit vote is last chance to secure exit delay: Attorney General") LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Attorney General Geoffrey Cox urged lawmakers to approve the government's EU withdrawal agreement on Friday, saying it was lawmakers' last chance to ensure that Brexit will be delayed until May 22. "This is therefore the last opportunity to take advantage of our legal right," Cox told parliament, citing conclusions of a European Council summit at which the EU agreed to a delay, conditional on the withdrawal agreement being approved this week. Cox was opening a debate that is expected to conclude with a vote at 1430 GMT. ...
|
| Woman with YouTube channel pleads not guilty to abusing kids Posted: 29 Mar 2019 02:57 PM PDT  PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona woman who had a popular YouTube channel featuring children pleaded not guilty Friday to charges she abused some of her seven adopted children by pepper-spraying them, striking them with a clothes hanger and making them take ice baths.
|
| New Australian laws could see social media execs jailed over terror images Posted: 29 Mar 2019 10:41 PM PDT  Australia pledged Saturday to introduce new laws that could see social media executives jailed and tech giants fined billions for failing to remove extremist material from their platforms. The tough new legislation will be brought to parliament next week as Canberra pushes for social media companies to prevent their platforms from being "weaponised" by terrorists in the wake of the Christchurch mosque attacks. Facebook said it "quickly" removed a staggering 1.5 million videos of the white supremacist massacre livestreamed on the social media platform.
|
| Singapore airport still ranked best in the world Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:56 AM PDT  Singapore's Changi Airport was voted world's best airport for the seventh consecutive year according to the Skytrax ranking, which is determined by around 13.73 million travellers voting in a global customer satisfaction survey.
|
| University confirms death of missing student from New Jersey Posted: 30 Mar 2019 04:45 PM PDT  Police say a University of South Carolina student from New Jersey, who was found dead about a day after she was reported missing, was murdered.
|
| California lawmakers propose sweeping reforms to counter college admissions scandal Posted: 28 Mar 2019 08:50 PM PDT  The package includes measures seeking to phase out the SAT and ban preferential admissions for students related to a college's donors or alumni.
|
| What we learned from Barr's summary of the Mueller report Posted: 29 Mar 2019 01:13 PM PDT  What's in the attorney general's summary of the Trump-Russia investigation? And will the report be made public? Full four-page letter of Barr's summaryFollow the latest US politics news William Barr sent his summary of the Muller report to Congress on Sunday Photograph: Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images Barr is still reviewing Muller's report William Barr: Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation. Barr immediately makes clear that his letter will only be a summary of the top-line conclusions from Robert Mueller's 22-month investigation. At just four pages long, the letter makes no claim to outline the full substance of the special counsel's findings, nor does it detail the evidence Mueller has amassed or the legal reasoning behind his decision making. Instead, we have the bare bones. Mueller had handed the full report to the attorney general less than 48 hours earlier, and Barr makes clear he is still reviewing its contents. On the size of the investigation In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. Here, the sheer size of the Mueller investigation is laid bare for the first time. Although the cost of the Russia investigation has been public for some time, along with the 37 public indictments issued by Mueller, the scale of the evidence he has amassed has not been known. Barr is clearly alluding to how comprehensive the special counsel's investigation has been. While the length of Mueller's final report is not known, it is likely to be based on hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence. Democrats have made clear they want access to as much of the report and its underlying evidence as possible. No new indictments The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments yet to be made public. This is the first of Barr's major announcements: Mueller will issue no fresh charges as the investigation wraps up. This is clearly good news for members of Donald Trump's inner circle, including his son Donald Trump Jr, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and, indeed, for Trump himself. There had been speculation that a number of sealed indictments in the same district court handling the Mueller prosecution could relate to further indictments from the special counsel. This is now clearly not the case. However, other criminal investigations involving the president and members of his inner circle are ongoing, most notably in the southern district of New York. Barr makes no comment on the status of these proceedings. On collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." This is undoubtedly a pivotal conclusion of the investigation. Following almost two years of investigation Barr says that Mueller has found no evidence to prove that any member of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. He quotes only a partial sentence from the report to substantiate this. Also of note here is Barr's supplying a short definition of how Mueller defined collusion. Quoting directly from Mueller's report in a short footnote, Barr says the special counsel counted collusion as an "agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference". This means that for any member of the campaign to be accused of colluding with Russia they would have had to have done so knowingly. Barr says that Mueller found two ways in which Russians interfered during 2016: a coordinated internet disinformation campaign and direct computer hacking. He provides no further details on the crimes themselves but further information on at least some of these actions has already been made public by Mueller through criminal indictments. On obstruction of justice The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr briskly moves on to the last major revelation from Mueller: the special counsel was unable to decide whether Donald Trump obstructed justice during the investigation. Barr once again hangs a partial sentence quoted from the report making clear that Mueller did not completely clear Trump of obstruction. But the scant details make it impossible to understand the legal reasoning behind Mueller's decision nor all the evidence taken into account to make it. Conclusion on obstruction of justice After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. This revelation is likely to be the most controversial, at least until more of Mueller's report is released. It was Barr and his deputy Rod Rosenstein, both appointed to their positions by Trump himself, that decided the president should face no prosecution over obstruction of justice. Although Barr displays those he consulted with to make that decision and cites justice department guidelines governing the process, there is no escaping that the decision not to prosecute the president was made by one of his own cabinet members who has already privately described Mueller's investigation of obstruction of justice as "fatally misconceived". Barr explains his decision not to charge Trump with obstruction Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense. Barr provides a little elaboration on his decision not to charge Trump with obstruction. Critically, Barr makes the point that at least part of the reason Trump is not being charged is due to the lack of an underlying crime. That while there may be sound arguments for Trump obstructing justice, it was not itself a criminal act because there had been no crime in the first place. There is also a suggestion from Barr here that while many of these potentially obstructive actions took place in public – it seems likely he is partially referring to Trump's public comments on his decision to fire FBI director James Comey – there are others the public may not yet know about. Will the public see the Mueller report? As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies. The attorney general concludes by making a commitment to making parts of Mueller's report available to the public. In a letter to lawmakers on 29 March, Barr said a redacted version of the report would be delivered to Congress by mid-April, possibly before. Senior Democrats have indicated they will issue a subpoena for the full report if they are not satisfied with what Barr provides.
|
| Israeli troops wound Palestinians, anniversary rally approaches Posted: 29 Mar 2019 12:34 PM PDT  Around 200 Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured by Israeli fire at the protests, Gaza medics say, as the demonstrations turned into an often deadly standoff between Gazans hurling rocks and petrol bombs and Israel troops on the other side of the fence. Israel defends its use of lethal force, saying that its troops are defending the border and Israelis living near it. With security already featuring prominently as an issue in Israeli elections due on April 9, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of Gaza will be a key issue as he seeks a fifth term in office.
|
| Pope signs law to prevent child abuse in Vatican and its embassies Posted: 29 Mar 2019 06:20 PM PDT  Although the city state within Rome is tiny, and very few children live there, the sweeping legal changes reflect a desire to show that the Catholic Church is finally acting against clerical child abuse after decades of scandals around the world. It is the first time a unified and detailed policy for the protection of children has been compiled for the Vatican and its embassies and universities outside the city state. The law sets up procedures for reporting suspected abuse, imposes more screening of prospective employees, and sets strict guidelines for adult interaction with children and the use of social media.
|
| The Latest: Police standoff on Atlanta-area freeway ends Posted: 29 Mar 2019 08:52 AM PDT  ATLANTA (AP) — The Latest on a freeway standoff outside Atlanta (all times local):
|
| 'Hoarder' pleads guilty to potentially largest theft of classified information in history Posted: 29 Mar 2019 08:11 AM PDT  A former US National Security Agency contractor, portrayed as an eccentric hoarder by his lawyers, pleaded guilty on Thursday to stealing classified documents in a deal likely to put him in prison for nine years. Harold Martin, 54, who worked for several private firms and had clearances to access top secret information, was arrested over two years ago for what may have been the biggest breach of classified information in history. When Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided his home south of Baltimore in 2016 they found stacks of documents and electronic storage devices amounting to 50 terabytes of files, including classified ones, prosecutors said. US Department of Justice prosecutors said in a statement that Mr Martin's actions risked the disclosure of top secret information to America's "enemies." One of their allegations was that Mr Martin talked online with people in Russian and other languages but they never found proof he shared stolen information with anyone. His lawyers said he was a hoarder who liked to take work home with him. "His actions were the product of mental illness. Not treason," lawyers Deborah Boardman and James Wyda said in a statement. Mr Martin and the government agreed that if the federal court in Baltimore accepted the plea agreement, he would be sentenced to nine years in prison on the charge of willful retention of national defense information, prosecutors said.
|
| Returning to work is easier after baby #2. Here's why Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:38 AM PDT  For reporter Victoria Freile, it was far less stressful returning to work after having a second child.
|
| O'Rourke officially joins US presidential race, citing 'moment of truth' Posted: 30 Mar 2019 11:27 AM PDT  Beto O'Rourke, the youthful Democrat who seized national attention last fall with an unexpectedly strong Senate campaign in conservative Texas, formally launched his presidential candidacy Saturday in his hometown of El Paso, vowing to bring a unifying dynamic, progressive values and generational change to American politics. "This is our moment of truth, and we cannot be found wanting," he told an enthusiastic crowd of at least 1,000. Speaking from a spot only blocks from the border with Mexico, he underscored some of his most vigorous differences with the man he hopes to succeed in the White House -- Donald Trump -- without ever naming the US president.
|
| Southeast Asia should be aware of Iran's tactics to evade oil sanctions: U.S. Posted: 28 Mar 2019 08:50 PM PDT  The United States is keen to see that Malaysia, Singapore and others are fully aware of illicit Iranian oil shipments and the tactics Iran uses to evade sanctions, a top U.S. sanctions official said on Friday. Sigal Mandelker, under-secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, told reporters in Singapore the United States had placed additional "intense pressure" on Iran this week.
|
| May Risks Fresh Defeat on Day U.K. Meant to Leave: Brexit Update Posted: 29 Mar 2019 04:39 AM PDT  Key Developments:May's Northern Irish allies, the DUP, confirm they won't back the Withdrawal Agreement in Friday's voteVote expected at 2:30 p.m.Read our guide to the parliamentary numbers hereSNP lawmakers suspect Labour MPs will back the deal. The Labour Party is confident of beating the government's motion on Friday, an official familiar with the matter said, adding that any rebellion among its members is likely to be fewer than 10 MPs. Meanwhile one of the lawmakers thought to have been a potential rebel, Lisa Nandy, said in an interview that while the government is moving in the right direction on assurances regarding the U.K.'s future relationship with the European Union, it isn't enough to win her vote.
|
| Oil posts biggest quarterly rise since 2009 on OPEC cuts, sanctions Posted: 29 Mar 2019 12:55 PM PDT ![Oil posts biggest quarterly rise since 2009 on OPEC cuts, sanctions]( "Oil posts biggest quarterly rise since 2009 on OPEC cuts, sanctions") The May Brent crude oil futures contract, which expired Friday, gained 57 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $68.39 a barrel, marking a first-quarter gain of 27 percent. U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures rose 84 cents, or 1.42 percent, to $60.14 a barrel, and posted a rise of 32 percent in the January-March period. GRAPHIC: Crude futures quarterly performance - https://tmsnrt.rs/2HSqli7 U.S. sanctions on Iran and Venezuela have boosted prices this year.
|
| HRW urges New Zealand's Ardern to discuss Muslims in China Posted: 29 Mar 2019 04:24 AM PDT  BEIJING (AP) — A rights group has urged New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to raise concerns about reported Chinese government abuses of Muslims during her upcoming visit to Beijing that was shortened after the killing of 50 worshippers at two mosques in New Zealand.
|
| More than a dozen parents involved in college admissions scam to appear in court Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:34 AM PDT  The parents are expected to plead not guilty.
|
| US woman kidnapped in Afghanistan says husband's abuse was just like captors' Posted: 29 Mar 2019 12:32 PM PDT  Caitlan Coleman says her Canadian husband, Joshua Boyle, was violent towards her before, during and after their kidnapping Caitlin Coleman leaves the Ottawa court house in Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday. Photograph: Lars Hagberg/AFP/Getty Images A Canadian man who was kidnapped with his wife in Afghanistan was controlling and violent towards her before, during and after their five-year hostage ordeal, she told a Canadian court on Friday. Caitlan Coleman, 33, gave testimony for a second day at the trial of Joshua Boyle, 35 who faces 19 criminal charges, including sexual assault, unlawful confinement and uttering death threats. Coleman was pregnant when she and Boyle were kidnapped by a Taliban-linked group while backpacking in Afghanistan in 2011. They spent five years as hostages, and had three children together before they were rescued by the Pakistani military. Coleman testified that during their captivity in the hands of the militant Haqqani network, Boyle dictated all aspects of her life. His behaviour "was just like my captors'", she told the court. "I was never to disagree with him, even on small things," she told the court. "In the past, he made it clear he didn't feel any guilt hurting me." Coleman, dressed in a white blazer, black dress and black headscarf, spoke through video link in an adjoining room in order to avoid being in the same room as Boyle. She had travelled from Pennsylvania, where she currently lives with her family, to testify. Boyle, wearing a navy blazer and maroon pants, sat at the front row of the courtroom, frequently taking notes on a yellow legal pad. He was briefly joined by his parents. Coleman described a pattern of abusive behaviour that culminated in a vicious assault after the couple had returned to Canada, in which Boyle demanded sex then hit her when she refused. She told the court she felt "very, very frightened" during the 27 November incident. "Josh told me to get on the bed. He took ropes he kept in a bag … and he started to tie my hands and legs." Boyle sexually assaulted her, then refused to release her, Coleman told the court. "He said he couldn't trust me, so he wasn't going to untie me," she said. She was only able to free herself after Boyle fell asleep, she told the court. "Looking back, I should have tried to leave," she said. "But I didn't." In her previous testimony, Coleman had described a "rollercoaster" relationship with Boyle, whom she met at age 16 in a Star Wars-themed online chatroom. "He was my first kiss," she told the court on Wednesday. Coleman quickly fell in love with Boyle, but she told the court that he became an emotionally and physically abusive partner, critiquing her drinking and interactions she had with men. Coleman told the court that the abuse continued in Afghanistan, where the final two years of captivity were the worst. He would choke, bite and spank her as punishment, she said. While in captivity, Boyle demanded she remain in a bathroom stall for extended periods of time – telling his wife he couldn't stand the sight of her. Coleman testified that Boyle also joked about killing her by lighting her on fire or spilling cooking oil on her. "This was probably the darkest period of my life," she told the court. During their five years as prisoners in Afghanistan, the couple and their small children are believed to have been shuttled between more than 20 locations. The court had previously heard that Boyle's violence continued after the couple returned to Canada. Coleman testified that he would often hit her and demand sex; on one occasion, he forced her to swallow powerful sleeping medication, she testified. "He stood in the bathroom and watched me take them that time … I took them because I knew that if I didn't he would hit me harder," she told the court on Wednesday. On Friday Coleman told the court that when the couple was back in Ottawa, Boyle gave her a detailed list of rules dictating her diet, weight, appearance and frequency of sex. "I would be punished if I did not follow this list," she testified, adding that Boyle withheld meals from her, and threatened corporal punishment if she did not comply. Coleman told the court that the rules required her to address her children as "Sir" and "Madam", "so I could understand I was beneath everyone." During her testimony, Coleman also said her former husband was paranoid about reports of the family in the media. "He was so focused on the fact that world's eyes were on us … he said we have to look like a happy family," she said. Coleman told the court that during interviews, Boyle – once an aspiring journalist – attempted to control the narrative of the couple's time in Afghanistan. "He would give verbal or physical instructions about what could be answered … what story we could tell or what part of captivity we could talk about," said Coleman. The 19 charges against Boyle are all related to alleged events after the family returned to Canada. Coleman was the alleged victim in 17 of the offences; a publication ban protects the identity of a second alleged victim. The trial is expected to last eight weeks.
|
| How We'd Spec It: The New BMW 3-Series in Its Proper Configuration, with an Inline-Six and Few Options Posted: 29 Mar 2019 02:37 PM PDT  Yeah, BMW's turbo fours are good these days, but we still want the M340i's sweet six.
|
| Fish Fry Fridays: McDonald's, Wendy's, Chick-fil-A and more serve up fish sandwiches for Lent Posted: 28 Mar 2019 09:54 PM PDT  Fish fare is most prevalent on Fridays leading up to Easter, when some Catholics avoid meat. Chains like McDonald's and Chick-fil-A are joining in.
|
| The War Between Trump and Schiff is Just Starting Posted: 29 Mar 2019 09:53 AM PDT  A proponent of Trump-Russia collusion theories, Rep. Adam Schiff has been enveloped by fallout from the conclusions of Mueller's investigation.
|
| Instant Pot Duo60 7-in-1 vs. Instant Pot Max Posted: 28 Mar 2019 06:48 PM PDT  Face-Off: Instant Pot Duo60 7-in-1 vs. Instant Pot Max Following its December 2013 release, the Instant Pot Duo60 7-in-1 multi-cooker became an internet sensation and an Amazon best seller, insp...
|
| Tunisia says it will coordinate Arab response to U.S. move on Golan Posted: 29 Mar 2019 02:17 PM PDT  Tunisia will coordinate with fellow Arab countries to contain any fallout from the U.S. decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Foreign Minister Khemaies Jhinaoui said on Friday. "We will work with fellow Arab countries and the international community to contain the expected repercussions of this decision in the various regional and international forums," Jhinaoui told the meeting in Tunis.
|
| UK lawmakers reject Brexit deal for third time Posted: 29 Mar 2019 02:51 PM PDT  British MPs on Friday rejected Prime Minister Theresa May's EU divorce deal for a third time, opening the way for a long delay to Brexit -- or a chaotic "no deal" withdrawal in two weeks. The pound slipped as lawmakers defied May's plea to end the deadlock that has plunged Britain into a deep political crisis, defeating her withdrawal agreement by 344 votes to 286. The EU has set a deadline of April 12 for a decision, with two likely options: Britain leaves with no deal at all, or agrees a lengthy extension to allow time for a new approach.
|
| AP PHOTOS: Editor selections from Latin America, Caribbean Posted: 28 Mar 2019 10:01 PM PDT  This photo gallery highlights some of the top news images made by Associated Press photographers in Latin America and the Caribbean that were published in the past week.
|
| Parents in College Scandal Face Judge and Tough Plea Deals Posted: 29 Mar 2019 01:52 PM PDT  Now they're on the road again, this time appearing in federal court in Boston on Friday as the clock ticks down on plea bargains for their alleged role in the biggest college admissions scam the U.S. has ever prosecuted. "The government's being very aggressive," said Patric Hooper, who is representing oncologist Greg Colburn and his wife, Amy. The first wave of parents, 15 of them, began to appear at noon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Page Kelley, who set bail and addressed other preliminary issues.
|
| Is This 356 The Genesis Of Sports Cars? Posted: 29 Mar 2019 08:45 AM PDT  This was until Ferry Porsche decided to roll up his particularly capable sleeves. With America in full swing making cars bigger and bigger, heavier and heavier, and adding engines that were the equivalent of six Austin Minis strung together the concept of a sports car in the form we now know them as, didn't exist. Porsche took his ideas to Austria to get the ball rolling, and came up with the 356.
|
