Theresa May’s Brexit “war cabinet” of senior ministers is to thrash out the thorniest issues for Britain’s future relationship with the EU at a crunch meeting.The prime minister and key cabinet ministers on different sides of the Brexit debate, including the chancellor, Philip Hammond, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, the environment secretary, Michael Gove, and the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, will begin drawing up the government’s position on the “end state” for the UK’s relationship with the EU after the transition period.The Brexit subcommittee will meet after prime minister’s questions on Wednesday afternoon and is expected to tackle the Northern Ireland border issue and immigration. On Thursday morning, ministers will meet again to discuss the future trade relationship with the EU.Senior government sources have played down the likelihood that any agreement will be reached this week. Others on the Brexit subcommittee include the remain-backing Cabinet Office secretary, David Lidington, the business secretary, Greg Clark, and the arch-Brexiter Liam Fox, the international trade secretary. Two others, the Northern Ireland secretary, Karen Bradley, and the defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, campaigned for remain but have since been more publicly optimistic about Brexit than some of their more pro-Europe cabinet colleagues.Before the meeting, Clark said there was still some way to go before the end state would become clear. “We can’t know an end state until it has been agreed by both sides,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.“We’ve got a series of meetings to make sure the end state that we want to negotiate, which requires agreement from the counter parties, meets our objectives – that we can continue to thrive, that we can continue to trade without tariffs, with the minimum of frictions. That’s what business wants and needs. That is what the purpose of this discussion is.”The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has spoken privately of his concern that the negotiations will be “hijacked” by a row over the Irish border. In discussions with MEPs in Strasbourg, Barnier said he was determined to resolve the issue as soon as possible rather than let the need to avoid a hard border be used as leverage by the British in talks about a future trade deal. Downing Street has repeatedly stated that the UK is leaving the customs union, after it was widely reported that Brexit advisers were considering a proposal that would lead to an extended customs agreement to cover goods beyond the transition period.The former chancellor Ken Clarke, a strong remain backer, said there was a clear majority in the House of Commons for staying in some form of customs union.“We have the advantage now of frictionless trade. When we do change it, we should keep most of the features of the customs union,” he told Today. “To say you are going to leave the single market and the customs union and have frictionless trade is a contradiction.”The Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, a prominent Brexiter, said the EU would not impose tariffs after Brexit, telling the programme it would be “utterly perverse … I don’t think they would be so destructive to do that”.After the British meetings this week, UK and EU officials will hodl four days of intensive talks from next Tuesday, led by Sabine Weyand, the EU’s deputy chief negotiator, and Downing Street’s senior Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins.Barnier told MEPs that after his meeting in Downing Street this week he was worried about how the negotiators would bridge the differences that have emerged between the UK and the EU over the terms of the transition period. The UK wishes to treat EU nationals who arrive during that 21-month period differently to those who are already in the country. Barnier said he had told May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, that the proposal would face strong resistance. There is high tension among Conservatives, with the pro-remain MP Anna Soubry threatening to quit the party should hard Brexiters seek to replace May with Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg as leader.Justine Greening, who stepped down as education secretary in last month’s cabinet reshuffle, said it “might be a bit of a stretch” for her to remain in the party if Rees-Mogg became leader.Johnson is to make a speech this month on the case for a “liberal Brexit”, billed as an appeal to leavers and remainers on how to make Brexit work. The British Chambers of Commerce said on Wednesday that patience was “wearing thin” with the government’s indecision. Topics Brexit Conservatives Theresa May European Union Foreign policy Europe news

Enlarge this image A woman walks past a Google sign in San Francisco. The Justice Department is launching an antitrust review of major online companies. The DOJ did not name the firms, but there have been increasing calls to regulate companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Jeff Chiu/AP hide caption toggle caption Jeff Chiu/AP A woman walks past a Google sign in San Francisco. The Justice Department is launching an antitrust review of major online companies. The DOJ did not name the firms, but there have been increasing calls to regulate companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Jeff Chiu/AP Updated at 6:43 p.m. ETThe Justice Department says it's launching a wide-ranging antitrust review of big tech companies. The DOJ didn't name specific firms in its announcement Tuesday but said its inquiry will consider concerns raised about "search, social media, and some retail services online."It's the first clear public confirmation of a major U.S. antitrust review of the tech industry. The DOJ examination promises to be the broadest and potentially toughest scrutiny of companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon. Technology FTC To Hold Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Liable For Any Future Privacy Violations Technology 'Facebook Is Dangerous:' Firms In Hot Seat As Congress Probes Big Tech The Justice Department said its antitrust division will study how major online platforms grew to have their big market power and whether they are acting in ways that have "reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers."The Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ have long been rumored to be studying the scale and reach of big tech firms. This follows fines and close inspection of U.S. tech companies by European antitrust authorities, including a new antitrust investigation into Amazon announced last week.The DOJ said its antitrust division will collect information from the public, other companies and industry participants. Business EU Investigates If Amazon Hurts Competition By Using Sellers' Data Technology EU Fines Google $1.7 Billion Over 'Abusive' Online Ad Strategies "Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands," Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a statement. "The department's antitrust review will explore these important issues."Despite having very different business models, tech companies have together faced growing concerns both in Congress and on the campaign trail, particularly over the amount of information they collect about their users and other companies. Politics Pelosi's Relationship With Big Tech Shifts As Privacy And Antitrust Questions Mount The House Judiciary Committee has launched its own investigation into tech companies' scale and reach. Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill have accused Facebook and Google of stifling conservative views. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has campaigned on the idea of breaking up big tech."I don't think big is necessarily bad," U.S. Attorney General William Barr told lawmakers at a hearing in January. "But I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers. ... I want to find out more about that dynamic."

Merely conducting a straw poll, even if Mr. Kelly and Mr. Sessions were on board, would be risky if another administration official were to tell the president, who could fire everyone involved to end the effort.Mr. McCabe told other F.B.I. officials of his conversation with Mr. Rosenstein. None of the people interviewed said that they knew of him ever consulting Mr. Kelly or Mr. Sessions.The episode is the first known instance of a named senior administration official weighing the 25th Amendment. Unidentified others have been said to discuss it, including an unnamed senior administration official who wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times. That person’s identity is unknown to journalists in the Times news department.Some of the details in Mr. McCabe’s memos suggested that Mr. Rosenstein had regrets about the firing of Mr. Comey. During a May 12 meeting with Mr. McCabe, Mr. Rosenstein was upset and emotional, Mr. McCabe wrote, and said that he wished Mr. Comey were still at the F.B.I. so he could bounce ideas off him.Mr. Rosenstein also asked F.B.I. officials on May 14, five days after Mr. Comey’s firing, about calling him for advice about a special counsel. The officials responded that such a call was a bad idea because Mr. Comey was no longer in the government. And they were surprised, believing that the idea contradicted Mr. Rosenstein’s stated reason for backing Mr. Comey’s dismissal — that he had shown bad judgment in the Clinton email inquiry.Mr. Rosenstein, 53, is a lifelong public servant. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School, he clerked for a federal judge before joining the Justice Department in 1990 and was appointed United States attorney for Maryland.Mr. Rosenstein also considered appointing as special counsel James M. Cole, himself a former deputy attorney general, three of the people said. Mr. Cole would have made an even richer target for Mr. Trump’s ire than has Mr. Mueller, a lifelong Republican: Mr. Cole served four years as the No. 2 in the Justice Department during the Obama administration and worked as a private lawyer representing one of Mrs. Clinton’s longtime confidants, Sidney Blumenthal.

As Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and others jockey to run against Donald Trump, they may also want to be wary of a dark, sober horse competing for the White House: a Prohibition party candidate.Members of the Prohibition party, which opposes the consumption of alcohol, are currently in the midst of nominating who it will run as their presidential candidate in 2020.And after the party saw its best performance in decades in 2016 – it won 5,617 votes – an unusually high number of people have thrown their hat in the ring for the party’s nomination.“With three different candidates running for the nomination, this is perhaps the most competitive race for the party’s nomination in decades,” the Prohibition party said in a statement.“[It] gives Prohibition party members a number of options as to how to approach the 2020 election.”The presidential candidate will be chosen during the Prohibition party’s national convention – held over the phone – on 13 November. No polling has been conducted on the hopefuls, but the favorite appears to be Bill Bayes, who ran as vice-president in 2016.“I think there’s a good chance that I will win,” a bullish Bayes told the Guardian.“I put out my interest in doing it right after the 2016 election.”The tight nomination race follows what was a largely theoretical run in 2016 that saw the selection of a Pennsylvania-based former US marine band member, Jim Hedges. The Prohibition party is the oldest third party in the US, but like other small parties it faces difficulties getting on the ballot in many states.Despite voters only being able to vote Prohibition in three states in 2016, Hedges pulled in the party’s best total since 1988 – but those 5,000-plus votes were a far cry from the Prohibition party’s heyday.Its best performance came in 1892, when 270,000 people voted for John Bidwell, a gold prospector, farmer and former soldier. In the 19th century the Prohibition party was progressive on at least some issues – as early as 1872 it supported women getting the vote, something which was only introduced nationally in 1920.But the party’s current platform is distinctly rightwing. The Prohibitionists are anti-abortion – the platform describes abortion as “morally repugnant” – and considers same-sex marriage “an abomination to God”. Those evangelical-esque beliefs are tied in with Trumpian views on trade tariffs and an “America First” message, alongside, of course, the curbing of alcohol use.The Prohibition party got its wish of preventing the sale and production of alcohol in 1919, but prohibition was repealed in 1933, and there seems little hope of it returning. In 2016 neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump adopted the banning of alcohol as part of their platform, though Trump is famously teetotal.Hedges’ performance has galvanized the party, however.“We really were excited,” Bayes, who lives in Mississippi, said of the 2016 result.“We were real pleased with that. We were surprised.”Hedges’ performance represented a vast improvement on 2012, when the Prohibition nominee, Jack Fellure, garnered just 518 votes, partly due to only being on the ballot in one state, partly due to his lack of tech-savvy making it difficult to coordinate a more successful campaign.“He didn’t have a cellphone, he didn’t have a computer,” said Rick Knox, the chairman of the Prohibition party.That year, bad weather thwarted the party’s bid to make the ballot in Arkansas – the application was delayed because of rain – while the Prohibition party was unable to register for the ballot in New Jersey after losing track of two party members when they moved house.In 2020, though, Knox is determined that the party will come roaring back. He is in charge of ballot access this time, and will use his experience from working on Pat Buchanan’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination in the 1990s.Knox hopes to get the Prohibition party on the ballot in seven states – including Wisconsin and Ohio, which were key to Trump’s victory in 2016. Some states in the US require a substantial fee to get a candidate on the ballot, while others require thousands of signatures – a process which requires organization, and more funding.Given those obstacles, it is difficult for any third party to make a breakthrough in the presidential race, let alone one with the Prohibition party’s tiny budget. Because of that, Knox is realistic about his party’s chances.“When you’re not a major party you operate at a disadvantage,” Knox said.“When you’re trying to run a presidential campaign with under six figures in the bank you’re not gonna fare too well.”Knox said he hopes to win 25,000 to 30,000 votes, which would be the biggest tally since 1960, but is likely to be far less than the number of people who vote for Trump or his Democratic opponent.For now, at least, the Democratic party, the Republican party, and any sort of party involving alcohol are safe. Topics US politics features

The US gov can set what is "patented processes" and what is not "patented" and what is given to the USA and what will never be listed as tech...Sort of. The US is bound by treaty obligations to recognize foreign patents. The US can, of course, ignore those obligations, and ignore the attempts of the relevant international courts to enforce them. But that would come with a significant cost, because it would free other countries to do the same thing with US patents, and if the US tried to use the international courts to enforce the obligation, the offender would simply point out that the US did it first. Case closed. So, there would be a cost, p

While reports of rape are all too common, the execution of prisoners for any type of crime in India is rare.In 2018, trial courts imposed 162 death sentences -- the highest number in nearly two decades --according to datacollated by National Law University in Delhi.However, there were no recorded executions that year,accordingto Amnesty International. Only a handful of people have been executed over the past 20 years, including three terrorists, and Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who was executed in 2004 over the rape and murder of a school girl. Recently, the Supreme Court has commuted a number of death penalties to life imprisonment.At about 8:30 p.m. on December 16, 2012, Nirbhaya and her boyfriend took a chartered bus home after watching the film "Life of Pi" at a Delhi movie theater. It's common in India for chartered buses to pick up additional passengers during odd hours.While the bus was moving, a group of men stole the pair's belongings, then took the victim to the back of the bus where they raped and assaulted Nirbhaya with iron rods, according to court documents. They also stripped and beat her boyfriend, who they held down during the attack. Source: CNN reporting Afterward, the men threw the naked victims from the front door of the moving bus and tried to run them over. They then cleaned the bus with the victims' clothes, before burning them and dividing the "loot" among themselves, including two mobile phones, a wrist watch, and a pair of shoes. Nirbhayadied two weeksafter the attack in a Singapore hospital, where doctors had been treating her for serious injuries to her body and brain. Before she died, she made statements to the authorities about the attack.Soon after the attack, police located six suspects, who knew each other before the incident. The oldest was 34-year-old school bus driver Ram Singh, who "routinely" drove the vehicle where the attack took place, according to court documents.He was accused of the victim's rape and murder but was never convicted as he allegedly killed himself in prison shortly after the trial began. His family claimed that he was murdered, according tomedia reports.The youngest, who was only 17 at the time of the attack and who cannot be named for legal reasons, was sentenced to three years in a juvenile correctional facility, and was released in 2015. The other four, aged between 28 and 19 at the time of the attack, were convicted and sentenced to death less than a year later.They include bus cleaner Akshay Thakur, part-time gym instructor Vinay Sharma, fruit seller Pawan Gupta, and Ram Singh's younger brother Mukesh Singh.In a2015 BBC interview,the younger Singh said "a decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy."In 2018, more than 33,000 cases of alleged rape were reported -- roughly 91 cases each day, according to India's National Crime Records Bureau. The number of reported rapes has risen since 2012, potentially because of greater awareness and the perception that something will be done.Legal reforms and more severe penalties for rape were introduced following Nirbhaya's death.JUST WATCHEDThe women and girls of Delhi are fighting back.ReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCHThe women and girls of Delhi are fighting back. 02:03Those included fast track courts to move rape cases through the justice system swiftly, an amended definition of rape to include anal and oral penetration, and the publication of new government guidelines intended to do away with the two-finger test which purportedly assessed whether a woman had sexual intercourse recently.The authorities also updated the law to allow the death sentence for repeat rape offenders. Prior to that, the maximum punishment for rape was life imprisonment. In 2018, the law was amended so that the death penalty can be handed down in cases where the victim is a girl under the age of 12.Experts say that the outrage following Nirbhaya's death has helped to lift the shamearound discussing rape. However, many of the problems associated with India's rape crisis continue.And high-profile rape cases have continued to hit headlines. Last year, four men confessed to the gang rape and murder of a 27-year-old woman, whom they set on fire. The four wereshot deadby police in custody after allegedly snatching weapons from police and firing at them while visiting the scene to reconstruct the crime.

Scholars come to Schwarzman for different reasons. They are entrepreneurs, humanitarians, bankers, educators—and all come to ask questions of and learn from a country and from leaders with whom they may disagree. A typical day at Schwarzman is uniquely focused on supplementing traditional coursework with experiential and peer-to-peer learning. For example, scholars organize nighttime dialogues and debates on current affairs, news, and films such as American Factory and China Global Television Network documentaries.This learning program is neither a one-way exchange nor is it isolated to the U.S.-China relationship. In fact, 40 percent of scholars are neither American nor Chinese. As international students learn more about the country, Chinese students are exposed to ideas and cultures from the rest of the world. Some scholars even joke about “American culture shock,” referring to their exposure to American culture and idiosyncrasies inside the college. But they talk openly and critically about both the U.S. and China. To be sure, there are moments when scholars hold back opinions for fear of offending a peer. Yet these sensitivities are discussed candidly in an evolving effort to achieve our own version of balanced engagement.Even if one believes that the U.S. needs an aggressive approach to counter China, engagement is essential to demystifying and understanding the country from the inside, grappling with Chinese foreign policy, and managing the complex U.S.-China relationship.Scholars are encouraged not to withdraw from challenges, but to address them head-on, remaining on the ground where we can do some good. The argument that disengagement is somehow more “moral” equates avoiding difficult topics with a moral high ground, when, in fact, the opposite is often true. As President Theodore Roosevelt famously said, “It is not the critic who counts … The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.”To be clear, we strongly oppose China’s actions in Xinjiang and its oppression of the Uighur people. The question in U.S. diplomacy remains: How can we confront the atrocity? American Schwarzman students ask, Should we directly discuss the issue with our Chinese counterparts, or do we join the U.S. echo chamber? From our perspective, Tsinghua University provides access to China’s elite, and a platform for scholars to question, critique, and investigate these sensitive topics (including the complex landscape of Chinese domestic politics and economics).In addition, students embrace the competition of ideas and pursue independent research. For example, we are both researching topics that likely would not be allowed in any other environment in China: state-sponsored cybertheft and gender and media control.As Rory Truex’s recent essay in The Atlantic stresses, the U.S.—and more specifically, U.S. colleges—should continue to publicly discuss sensitive issues in China in order to elevate awareness about specific matters and to protect the fundamental freedom of speech that is under threat from China’s efforts to control its narrative abroad.Emma Campbell-MohnSchwarzman ’17 Cambridge, Mass.

Without question the most anticipated sequence in The Comey Rule, filmmaker Billy Ray’s two-part miniseries chronicling former FBI Director James Comey’s bizarre encounters with—and eventual firing by—President Donald Trump, is the loyalty dinner.On Jan. 27, 2017, a week after his inauguration, Trump is said to have requested a private dinner at the White House with Comey, who as FBI director was in the process of formally investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.According to Comey—who claims to have taken contemporaneous notes of the clandestine tête-à-tête—and a number of his associates at the bureau, during the course of their meal, Trump repeatedly asked Comey to pledge his loyalty to him. Each time, Comey told Trump he would pledge to be honest. When Trump requested that Comey promise “honest loyalty,” he ultimately obliged.In The Comey Rule, premiering Sept. 27 on Showtime, Jeff Daniels stars as Comey and Brendan Gleeson as Trump. Ray, who is no stronger to based-on-a-true-story tales, having penned Captain Phillips and Richard Jewell, tells The Daily Beast that Comey allowed him to sneak a peek at some of those infamous contemporaneous notes—though not for the loyalty dinner. “There were some notes I wasn’t allowed to see, and I believe that was among them,” he offers.But Ray was allowed to grill Comey about the dinner sequence, asking him how the table was situated, how the room felt, and what the experience was like. Comey said, “The thing about talking to Trump is it’s like getting hit by 10 fire hoses at once, and if you can manage to get your hands on one of those fire hoses, you’ve really done something, and as you’re congratulating yourself for getting your hands on it, nine more are hitting you in the face.”The Comey Rule also features Michael Kelly as Andrew McCabe, Jennifer Ehle as Patrice Comey, Holly Hunter as Sally Yates, Peter Coyote as Robert Mueller, and Joe Lo Truglio as Jeff Sessions. It was shot over 51 days, with the cast and crew filming approximately four scenes a day. The loyalty dinner, comprising eight and a half pages of dialogue, was the only scene that got its own shooting day; it was the very first day Daniels acted opposite Gleeson. Plus, Comey and his daughter were on set that day observing the action.“It was the only day that Comey visited the set,” recalls Ray. “I absolutely wanted him there for the loyalty dinner. And I looked back over my shoulder after a couple of takes and asked, ‘How are we doing?’ and he said, ‘You have ruined my day in a great way. You are taking me back to exactly what it felt like.’”While Comey provided Ray with notes on the first draft of The Comey Rule, conversations with the Trump administration broke down early on in the production process. “There was a conversation or two very early on, but I decided it was not a good idea for me to pursue that, because they were going to ask to see the script, and that would be a disaster,” says Ray.Ray was personally selected by Comey to oversee the project—an adaptation of the former lawman’s bestselling book, A Higher Loyalty. He remembers pitching Comey on a conference call with their respective agents. Things were going smoothly until one of Comey’s book agents asked Ray how he was going to handle Trump’s election win over Hillary Clinton—a victory aided by Comey and the FBI’s announcement on Oct. 28, 2016, days before the election, that they were looking into newly discovered Clinton emails stemming from a separate case involving Anthony Weiner.“Dramatically, it’s Frankenstein. You’ve created a monster, and the monster destroyed you,” Ray replied. When Comey asked him, “Well, how did I create the monster?” Ray shot back, “Well, sir, you got him elected.” “There were other factors,” Comey maintained, to which Ray said, “You created a 6-point swing, and that was enough.”“And he picked me anyway,” says Ray. “That says everything you need to know about Jim Comey.For more, listen to Joe Lo Truglio talk about playing Jeff Sessions in ‘The Comey Rule’ on The Last Laugh podcast.

Four Indian men convicted of the gang rape and murder of a student in Delhi in 2012 have been hanged.The victim died from her injuries days after being raped by six men on a moving bus. The 23-year-old physiotherapy student was dubbed Nirbhaya - the fearless one - by the press as she could not be named under Indian law.The BBC's Vikas Pandey explains why the case brought so many to the streets to protest and why it forced the government to reform anti-rape laws and set up fast-track courts.Video by Anshul Verma

Enlarge this image Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing Tuesday. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Drew Angerer/Getty Images Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing Tuesday. Drew Angerer/Getty Images Updated at 5:22 p.m ET Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh opened on a contentious note Tuesday, with Senate Democrats raising noisy objections that much of Kavanaugh's lengthy paper trail is still off limits.The hearing proceeded despite Democrats' call for delay. Republicans, who control the Senate, hope to confirm Kavanaugh in time to join the high court when its fall term begins next month, cementing a 5-4 conservative majority. Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings To Focus On 6 Hot-Button Issues At 53, Kavanaugh would be the second-youngest member of the court and the second appointed by President Trump.Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, described Kavanaugh as one of the most qualified nominees he has ever encountered. The Yale law school graduate has spent 12 years on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., where he has authored hundreds of opinions.In his opening statement, Kavanaugh praised retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he once clerked and whose seat he would fill, as well as another judicial hero — his mother. Politics Brett Kavanaugh Investigated A President, Then Voiced Concerns About Doing Just That "My mom taught me that judges don't deal in abstract theories; they decide real cases for real people in the real world," Kavanaugh said. "And she taught me that good judges must always stand in the shoes of others."Before Kavanaugh spoke Tuesday evening, the hearing was repeatedly interrupted by protesters."What we've heard is the noise of democracy," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.In a statement Tuesday evening, the U.S. Capitol Police said a total of 70 people were charged in connection with protests at Tuesday's hearing.Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, warned that Kavanaugh would tilt the high court to the right, especially on hot-button issues such as abortion and gun control."The president that nominated you has said, 'I will nominate someone who is anti-choice and pro-gun.' And we believe what he said," Feinstein said.Feinstein was not reassured by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who said Kavanaugh told her that the high court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion is "settled law.""The question is really do you believe that it's correct law," Feinstein said.Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., scoffed at Democrats who complained that Kavanaugh is too partisan. Politics Collins Says Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh Called Roe v. Wade 'Settled Law' "You had a chance and you lost," Graham said, referring to the 2016 presidential contest. "If you want to pick judges from your way of thinking, then you better win an election."Trump also chimed in via Twitter, calling the hearings "a display of how mean, angry, and despicable the other side is." Trump charged that Democrats "will say anything, and are only looking to inflict pain and embarrassment to one of the most highly renowned jurists to ever appear before Congress."Kavanaugh himself, however, pushed back against the idea of the Supreme Court as a partisan institution."The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle," he said. "If confirmed to the Supreme Court, I would be part of a Team of Nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States." Law Brett Kavanaugh Supported Broad Leeway For Presidents Under Investigation Democrats also complained that the Trump administration blocked the release of more than 100,000 pages of documents detailing Kavanaugh's service in the George W. Bush White House. Other documents were released at the last minute, or not at all — including documents from 2003 to 2006 when Kavanaugh served as Bush's staff secretary."There's a 35-month black hole in your White House career where we've been denied access to any and all documents," Durbin said. "During that period of time, President Bush was considering same-sex marriage — an amendment to ban it — abortion, executive power, detainees, torture, Supreme Court nominees, warrantless wiretapping.""Before sitting on the bench, you were a political operative, involved in the most political and partisan controversies of our time," added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "It is precisely those views that are being hidden from us today.""I would think that anyone who wanted to sit on the nation's highest court would be proud of their record and would want the American people to see it," said Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. Enlarge this image Protesters disrupt the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh. Capitol Police said 70 people were charged in connection with the protests. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Protesters disrupt the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh. Capitol Police said 70 people were charged in connection with the protests. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, dismissed the complaints over missing documents as a distraction."There's an old saying for trial lawyers: If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. We're seeing a lot of table pounding this morning," Cruz said.Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, agreed, calling Democrats' complaints "trumped up." Law What A Justice Kavanaugh Could Mean For The Mueller Investigation And Trump "Their motives are clear," Crapo said. "Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist, fit for the job, indefinitely."Durbin also questioned Kavanaugh's credibility.During his confirmation hearing for the appeals court in 2006, Kavanaugh assured Durbin that he had not been involved in White House discussions of torture or the treatment of enemy combatants. NPR and the Washington Post later reported that Kavanaugh was involved in those discussions, offering counsel on how those policies might be judged by the Supreme Court."You are a committed textualist, Judge Kavanaugh," Durbin said. "If you are going to hold others accountable for their words, you should be held accountable for your own words." National Security The Russia Investigations: Big Implications For The New Supreme Court Justice Although Kavanaugh helped to investigate then-President Bill Clinton while working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the 1990s, he later wrote in a 2009 law review article that presidents' official duties are too demanding for them to be subject to such a probe."I believe it is vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible," Kavanaugh wrote. He suggested that Congress excuse the president from both civil lawsuits and criminal investigations while in office.Feinstein takes issue with that approach."He does not believe a sitting president should be investigated or prosecuted," she told reporters on a conference call last week. "In other words, the president is above the law." Law Who Is Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's Pick For The Supreme Court? Democrats say Kavanaugh's views on presidential immunity deserve special scrutiny now, given the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by special counsel Robert Mueller, which has already implicated a number of Trump associates."This is a president who has shown us consistently that he is contemptuous of the rule of law," Durbin said at Tuesday's hearing, noting Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey and his repeated criticism of Attorney General Jeff Sessions."And it's that president who has decided you are his man. You're the person he wants on the Supreme Court," Durbin said. "So are people nervous about this? Are they concerned about it? Of course they are.""We have to confront an uncomfortable but important question," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., added: "Whether President Trump may have selected you, Judge Kavanaugh, with an eye towards protecting himself."Two Republican members of the committee who often criticize the president agreed that judicial independence is a particular concern in the Trump era, though they seemed less skeptical of Kavanaugh than did their Democratic colleagues.Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both pointed to Trump's tweet on Monday criticizing the Justice Department over the indictments of two "popular" Republican lawmakers, just ahead of the midterms."That is why a lot of people are concerned about this administration, and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold," Flake said."The comments from the White House yesterday, trying to politicize the Department of Justice, they were wrong and they should be condemned," Sasse added. "And my guess is that Brett Kavanaugh would condemn them."The testy exchanges Tuesday morning highlight Democrats' lingering resentment over the treatment of former President Barack Obama's last Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, who was never granted a hearing by Senate Republicans.Kavanaugh, who serves alongside Garland on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, spoke highly of his colleague, describing Garland as "superb" in his opening statement.Despite their concerns, Democrats have few tools to block Kavanaugh's path to the high court. A rule change last year allows the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with a simple majority vote.Not seeing the video? Click here.

President Donald Trump may have shared classified material on Twitter Friday, when he tweeted what appears to be a a surveillance photo from a US satellite or drone. While the president possesses the ability to declassify material at will, security experts warned that publishing the material could give adversaries valuable information about the US’ intelligence gathering capabilities. The image shows the aftermath of a failed Iranian rocket launch; despite growing tensions between Iran and the US, Trump disavowed any American meddling in his tweet. “The United States of America was not involved in the catastrophic accident during final launch preparations for the Safir [Space Launch Vehicle] Launch at Semnan Launch Site One in Iran,” the president wrote in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. “I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One.” The United States of America was not involved in the catastrophic accident during final launch preparations for the Safir SLV Launch at Semnan Launch Site One in Iran. I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One. pic.twitter.com/z0iDj2L0Y3— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2019 Iran has been working on orbital launches for some time — the image Trump tweeted depicted the country’s third failed attempt at launching a rocket this year. The rocket, which Iranians hoped would carry a satellite into space, exploded on its launch pad at the Imam Khomeini Space Center in northern Iran, about 200 miles east of Tehran on Thursday.The problem was a technical one, an unnamed Iranian official told Reuters. But the president’s tweet appeared to have come from a desire to make it clear that the incident was not linked to US military activity or sabotage. Iran had not publicly accused the US of interfering in the launch ahead of Trump’s tweet, and did not do so after; however, the US does in fact have a program that aims to sabotage Iranian missile development. The US has also long denounced Iran’s space program as being a front for the development of ballistic weaponry development. Tehran has denied these claims, arguing that it would like to engage in scientific pursuits in space as other nations have done.It is not completely clear where the image Trump shared came from. Security experts told NPR that, given the image’s angle and the time at which it was taken, it could have been taken by the USA-224 American spy satellite. Other experts believe the image actually came from a military drone.Either way, such images are usually kept classified in order to occlude US intelligence gathering methods and capabilities. The CIA, the director of national intelligence, and the State Department referred questions to the White House when asked about the photograph by CNN, and the National Security Council declined to comment. A defense official told CNBC that the photograph was included in the president’s intelligence briefing Friday.Trump refused to confirm whether he’d tweeted a photograph from his security briefing while speaking to reporters Friday before boarding Marine One; instead, he defended his choice to share the image.“We had a photo, and I released it, which I have the absolute right to do,” he said. When asked explicitly where the photograph came from, Trump said, “You’ll have to figure that one out yourself.”Iran’s Information and Communications Technology Minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi was dismissive of Trump’s tweet, and said it was a matter for Iran’s defense department to address.“I have no idea about the Americans’ comment about Semnan space site and I think it is more appropriate that the respected minister of defense talk about this because it is within his realm of responsibility,” Azari Jahromi said. And early Sunday morning, local time, Azari Jahromi tweeted out what many interpreted as a taunting message to Trump: a selfie with the telecommunications satellite, known as Nahid-1, that Iran was planning to launch into space. Me & Nahid I right now, Good Morning Donald Trump! pic.twitter.com/0tQnCP7cQa— MJ Azari Jahromi (@azarijahromi) August 31, 2019 Tensions between the US and Iran have been running hot for months following the Trump administration’s launch of what it describes as a “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran.Relations between the two countries soured when Trump made good on his campaign promise of withdrawing from the multination Iranian nuclear deal that eased economic restrictions on Iran in exchange for that country suspending its nuclear program. Pressure between the two nations has intensified throughout 2019 as the Trump administration has placed new sanctions and trade restrictions on Iran. In June alone, the US accused Iran of attacking ships in the Gulf of Oman (something Iran has denied); Iran shot down a US drone; and the US claimed it backed down from a planned military strike at the last minute, targeting Iranian computer systems instead.Following the US’ exit from the nuclear agreement, Iran renewed its commitment to building out its nuclear programs. That promise became a reality when Iran officially broke part of its commitment to the 2015 nuclear deal last month: As Vox’s Alex Ward reported, Iran began to stockpile more low-enriched uranium than the 660 pounds the nuclear accord allows. This could mark the beginning of a more advanced nuclear program within Iran in the months and years to come — especially if Iran can raise money for this program by selling its oil to Europe, thereby bypassing US sanctions: There may be a way out of this mess, though. Zarif told IRNA that “if Europeans do what they have to do, our measures are reversible,” referring to Tehran’s efforts to get European nations to trade with Iran despite US sanctions imposed after Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal last year. But if that doesn’t happen — and it’s unlikely, since the US would penalize European countries for doing so — then Iran may soon be on the path to having a much more dangerous nuclear program than in recent years. Last week, Iranian officials told Reuters that while they are fully willing to come back to the table for a new nuclear deal, any renegotiation of the agreement Trump left would have to be far more generous to Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the original one: These officials said a new deal could not include restrictions on Tehran’s ballistic missile program or its uranium enrichment practices. Given the US wants to restrict both these things, it seems unlikely that the Trump administration would consent to those conditions, which means a new deal isn’t likely any time soon.In light of this ongoing international tumult, Trump’s decision to share the image of the failed rocket launch is provocative. While Trump has said he wanted to make it clear the US had not sabotaged the Iranian launch, he also either purposefully or inadvertently demonstrated what kinds of intelligence the US is capable of gathering.Imagery NPR shared of the launch Thursday was indicative of the kind of technology publicly available for monitoring and surveillance — it published images from a commercial satellite imagery company called Planet, in partnership with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, that simply showed a plume of smoke billowing from a recently-painted, blue launchpad.The image that Trump shared was of higher quality, however. It revealed substantially greater detail, including a Farsi phrase written on the pad: “National Product, National Power.” A black rectangle in one corner of the image may have concealed the classification of the photograph. Ankit Panda, an adjunct senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists specializing in satellite imagery, told NPR that the tweet reveals “some pretty amazing capabilities that the public simply wasn’t privy to before this.”Nuclear expert Joshua Pollack told CNBC, “This will have global repercussions,” giving the US’ adversaries valuable insight into the capabilities of its intelligence gathering technology, and called Trump’s decision to tweet the photo “so reckless.”The experts fear that by studying the image, Iran and other actors might now be better able to obscure their activities — particularly any nuclear activities — from the US. Saturday, Trump defended his actions on Twitter, while also attacking a few of his habitual foils and members of the US intelligence community. Being scolded by failed former “Intelligence” officials, like James Clapper, on my condolences to Iran on their failed Rocket launch. Sadly for the United States, guys like him, Comey, and the even dumber John Brennan, don’t have a clue. They really set our Country back,....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2019 ....but now we are moving forward like never before. We are winning again, and we are respected again!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2019 The tweets echo the stance the president took with reporters Friday; unconcerned by criticism over security concerns, Trump said “We’ll see what happens.”

Over the weekend, The Social Network screenwriter Aaron Sorkin teased that he’d like to direct a sequel to his much-praised movie about the origins of Facebook. Well, given all that has happened in the last nine years, it wouldn’t be too hard to find material—including a new twist with plenty of Shakespearean drama.One of Mark Zuckerberg’s mentors and early investors in Facebook, Roger McNamee, has become a fierce critic of the company and unloads both barrels in his upcoming book, Zucked. He describes his embarrassment and shame at seeing a company he once believed in become an out-of-control behemoth and how Zuckerberg and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg ignored his repeated warnings that the platform could be used to spread misinformation and foment hatred around the world.McNamee, a cofounder of venture capital firm Elevation Partners, also says that he recently went to the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division to discuss his hypothesis for how to test whether Facebook or other internet companies are in violation of federal antitrust law. His theory, in a nutshell:The hypothesis that came to mind was this: Consumers are giving up more value in data than they receive in services. This appears to be true both in the moment and over time, even if consumers are neither aware of it nor troubled by it. If the hypothesis is valid, the price of internet platform services to users has been rising for more than a decade. In the context of anticompetitive behavior against suppliers, advertisers, and competitors, the Chicago School would find that situation to be in violation of its antitrust philosophy. Does it matter that users are not complaining about the “price” of their data? Possibly, but not necessarily. Antitrust is a tool of economic policy designed to balance the interests of multiple constituencies, of which users are one. In the Microsoft antitrust case, for example, the Department of Justice acted to limit anticompetitive behavior, without any pressure from users.Officials at both agencies “expressed an openness to the hypothesis and encouraged me to develop it further,” McNamee writes. “They asked that I engage with economists to create a formula that could be tested with data.” And indeed, the FTC seems to be serious in their scrutiny of Facebook—last week, it was reported that the agency is considering a “record-setting” fine against the company for failing to protect user data.McNamee did not return calls for comment.Stay tuned . . .with reporting by Alex Pasternack

When the lead prosecutor for the special counsel’s office, Greg D. Andres, objected, challenging the relevance of the question, Mr. Downing asserted that Mr. Gates may have lied about the number of affairs under oath, which could invalidate his plea agreement.Mr. Gates pleaded guilty in February to lying to federal investigators and conspiracy to commit fraud, but he has yet to be sentenced. Under federal sentencing guidelines that the judge is not required to follow, his plea would result in a prison sentence of four years and nine months to six years. But as part of his testimony, Mr. Gates said prosecutors have agreed not to object if his defense lawyer argues that he should receive probation. The most serious of the 18 felony charges against Mr. Manafort carry a maximum of 30 years in prison.Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates had been quite close. Mr. Manafort, 69, served as both a boss and mentor for Mr. Gates, 46. When Mr. Manafort was brought on to help run the Trump campaign, he brought on Mr. Gates as his deputy. When Mr. Manafort was forced out amid allegations about his work in Ukraine, Mr. Gates continued working with the campaign, and then served as the executive director of Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee.Mr. Manafort’s allies regarded Mr. Gates’s decision to cooperate with prosecutors as an ultimate betrayal.Over three days of testimony this week, Mr. Manafort glared continuously at Mr. Gates in the witness box, his fists perched underneath his chin. Mr. Gates kept his gaze fixed on the floor in front of him.Mr. Gates provided hours of damning testimony against Mr. Manafort related to their decade of work together on behalf of Russia-aligned Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs. Mr. Gates accused Mr. Manafort of deliberately hiding income from the Ukraine work in foreign bank accounts to evade federal taxes, as well as personally directing the falsification of financial statements to obtain bank loans.The defense, in response, has worked to cast Mr. Gates, not Mr. Manafort, as the driving force behind the financial improprieties. Another defense lawyer seemed to suggest on Wednesday that Mr. Gates may have forged his boss’s signature on documents related to foreign bank accounts that the special counsel says were used to hide income.

Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China. The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals. But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest. The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau. So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial. The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive. Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community. Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years. The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system. "The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year. "No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders. In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa."If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online. Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.Several countries also expressed concern.A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs. Summary of the protests in 300 words All the context you need on the protests Timeline of events so far The background to the protests in video More on Hong Kong's history Profile of Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Carrie Lam indefinitely delayed the bill in mid-June, but that was followed by one of the largest protests, as opponents demanded it be revoked entirely. Ms Lam later reiterated that the bill was "dead" and would expire when the Legislative Council's term ended next year. But that failed to stop or slow the protests.In October, when LegCo convened after the summer break, it formally scrapped the law. But by that point, protests were entrenched and had developed into wider anger against the government and over allegations of police brutality.A former British colony, Hong Kong is semi-autonomous under the principle of "one country, two systems" after it returned to Chinese rule in 1997. The city has its own laws and its residents enjoy civil liberties unavailable to their mainland counterparts. Hong Kong has entered into extradition agreements with 20 countries, including the UK and the US, but no such agreements have been reached with mainland China despite ongoing negotiations in the past two decades. Critics have attributed such failures to poor legal protection for defendants under Chinese law. Reporting by Jeff Li, BBC Chinese.

Enlarge this image The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys along with dozens of unions, immigrant rights organizations, and community groups held a rally on December 7, 2017 at Brooklyn Borough Hall to call on the Office of Court Administration and Chief Judge Janet DiFiore to prohibit Immigration & Customs Enforcement agents from entering state courthouses, and to end coordination with ICE. Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys along with dozens of unions, immigrant rights organizations, and community groups held a rally on December 7, 2017 at Brooklyn Borough Hall to call on the Office of Court Administration and Chief Judge Janet DiFiore to prohibit Immigration & Customs Enforcement agents from entering state courthouses, and to end coordination with ICE. Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images For 25 years, schools, hospitals and places of worship have effectively been off-limits to federal immigration officers. Now, a group of dozens of former state and federal judges is asking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to add courthouses to the list of "sensitive locations" where their officers generally do not go."Judges simply cannot do their jobs — and our justice system cannot function effectively — if victims, defendants, witnesses, and family members do not feel secure in accessing the courthouse," said the judges in a letter Wednesday to Acting Director Ronald Vitiello. "ICE's reliance on immigration arrests in courthouses instills fear in clients and deters them from seeking justice in a court building.""We know firsthand that for courts to effectively do justice, ensure public safety, and serve their communities, the public must be able to access courthouses safely and without fear of retribution," the judges said. "For many, however, ICE's courthouse arrests have made courts places to avoid."In a January memo, ICE said it would limit its civil immigration enforcement actions inside courthouses to only certain people, such as gang members, those with criminal convictions, or people who pose national security threats. ICE officers won't go after family members of arrest targets unless they try to intervene. Officers "should exercise sound judgment when enforcing federal law and make substantial efforts to avoid unnecessarily alarming the public," the memo said.That assurance didn't go far enough, the judges wrote. "Following nearly two years of high profile ICE courthouse activity, only unequivocal guarantees and protections will restore the public's confidence that it can safely pursue justice in our nation's courts."In an FAQ on its web site, ICE says that "courthouse arrests seem to be occurring more frequently" because some law enforcement agencies no longer work with ICE agents as easily as they used to. "The increasing unwillingness of some jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE in the safe and orderly transfer of targeted aliens inside their prisons and jails has necessitated additional at-large arrests."

Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has said that he would prefer that Mr. Trump release his tax returns voluntarily. Still, Mr. Neal cautioned to CNN that there was the possibility of a “a long and grinding court case.” Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, has vowed to fight such a disclosure in court, arguing that Democrats have no legitimate reason to request the tax returns. In a scenario that could pit the president’s personal interests against the government’s obligations, the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, told The New York Times in November that he would honor any legal requests from Congress to release the president’s tax returns. Even if congressional Democrats do obtain Mr. Trump’s tax returns, they may face legal and political risks for releasing the documents to the public without his approval. Some Democratic voters, concerned by the possibility of witnesses ignoring congressional subpoenas, have raised the specter of jail time as a punishment or deterrent for noncompliance. But the road to such an outcome would be too long and cumbersome for effective oversight.There are three methods by which lawmakers can penalize uncooperative people or compel cooperation.First, the House or Senate can each try to imprison witnesses, but this process has been “long dormant,” according to the Congressional Research Service. It was last used in 1934 when Herbert Hoover’s commerce secretary was declared in contempt of the Senate for attempting to destroy subpoenaed materials; he was jailed for 10 days.Congress can also refer a contempt case to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. But prosecutors do not always pursue those cases.

Enlarge this image Nine-year-old Gabriella Santamaria holds up a picture of her uncle Stephen who died from a heroin overdose during a 2017 candlelight vigil for victims of drug addiction in Staten Island. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Nine-year-old Gabriella Santamaria holds up a picture of her uncle Stephen who died from a heroin overdose during a 2017 candlelight vigil for victims of drug addiction in Staten Island. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Updated at 4:37 p.m. ETThe American opioid crisis is far from over, but early data indicate the number of deaths are beginning to level off, according to Alex Azar, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, citing "encouraging" results in overdose trends.In a speech on Tuesday at a Milken Institute health summit, Azar walked through statistics suggesting deaths were plateauing and he highlighted efforts he says may be turning the tide in the drug epidemic.In 2017, the number of Americans dying from overdoses rose to 72,000 from 64,000 the previous year. However, according to new provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control, opioid overdose deaths went from 42,000 to 49,000 but stopped rising toward the end of 2017, a trend that has continued into the beginning of this year.It is "finally bending in the right direction," Azar said.He added that the death toll flattening out is "hardly a victory," especially at such high levels. Current government statistics show that opioids kill over 115 Americans each day. National The Viral Obituary Of An Opioid Addict: 'She's Just One Face' Of The Epidemic "We are so far from the end of the epidemic, but we are perhaps, at the end of the beginning," he said.Azar, a former pharmaceutical lobbyist and drug company executive, said the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services has prevented addiction by promoting evidence-based pain management and supporting treatment and recovery services."Simply put, America has prescribed, and still prescribes, a stunning amount of potentially addictive pain medications," he said.The push to fight the epidemic of opioid overdoses has been one of the few large-scale bipartisian efforts in recent years in an otherwise politically polarized nation.President Barack Obama expanded treatment options for opioid users and lobbied Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to combat the epidemic. Shots - Health News These 10 ERs Sharply Reduced Opioid Use And Still Eased Pain On Wednesday, President Trump is expected to sign a bill recently passed by Congress that expands Medicaid opioid treatment programs and workforce training initiatives, and supports FDA research to find new options for non-opioid pain relief.

An avowed Donald Trump supporter in southern Florida was charged on Friday with sending pipe bombs to critics of the president, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.Thirteen of the devices were mentioned on a federal criminal complaint. A 14th device was reported by the billionaire Tom Steyer, who has called for Trump’s impeachment.Cesar Sayoc was arrested at an auto parts shop in the city of Plantation on Friday morning. His white van, which was covered in stickers celebrating Republicans and denouncing the president’s opponents, was parked outside.Sayoc, 56, has an address in the Miami suburb of Aventura and an extensive arrest record. According to his social media accounts, he works as a booking agent for a live events company and is a former wrestler and cage fighter.Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington Sayoc had been charged with five offences including threats against former presidents, assaulting current and former federal officers and mailing explosives. The charges were filed to federal court in Manhattan.“Let this be a lesson to anyone, regardless of their political beliefs, that we will bring the full force of law against anyone who attempts to use threats, intimidation and outright violence to further an agenda,” Sessions said.Asked why most of Sayoc’s alleged targets were Democrats, Sessions said: “He appears to be a partisan.” A court filing said the stickers covering Sayoc’s van included “images critical of CNN”, the TV station frequently derided by Trump, whose New York studios were the target of two bombs.Speaking at the White House, Trump praised the “incredible job” done by investigators and promised to punish the person responsible. Speaking later at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Trump won applause from his loyalist supporters for calling for national unity and an end to political violence. But he soon attacked the media, encouraged chants of “CNN sucks” and set the audience up to boo the Democratic House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and reprise “lock her up” chants aimed at Hillary Clinton.FBI director Christopher Wray said Sayoc had been linked by a fingerprint to a package sent to the California congresswoman Maxine Waters. DNA possibly from Sayoc was also found in one of the packages, Wray said, stressing that they contained authentic explosives.“These are not hoax devices,” Wray said, adding that more could yet be in the mail.Three bombs were confirmed by authorities when charges were brought, bringing to 13 the number known to have been sent. None exploded before being found and no injuries were reported.The packages found on Friday were sent to two senators, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California; to James Clapper, a former director of national intelligence. Steyer, a donor to Democratic groups, said an additional suspect package addressed to him was intercepted in Burlingame, California.Sayoc was born in Brooklyn, New York, and registered as a Republican in 2016, according to public records. His social media accounts contain photographs and video clips in which he is wearing Trump’s signature red baseball cap with the slogan “Make America Great Again”.The 56-year-old has also posted material online denigrating Muslims and raising popular rightwing conspiracy theories including the false claim that Clinton killed a former deputy White House counsel, Vince Foster.He threatened CNN in a tweet in August. Rochelle Ritchie, a former aide to Democratic politicians, said on Friday she reported Sayoc to Twitter earlier this year after he warned her: “Hug your loved ones real close every time you leave you home.” Twitter told her Sayoc had not violated its rules. A Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment.Sayoc’s arrest record stretches back more than 25 years and includes charges for theft, battery, domestic violence and other offences. In August 2002, he was found guilty of making a bomb threat to a utilities worker.Daniel Lurvey, an attorney who represented Sayoc in some of his criminal cases, said Sayoc had been “normal and courteous” and did not seem politically angry. “I think it’s a recent phenomenon that’s happening to a lot of people who have feelings under the surface that are brought out by this divisive political climate,” said Lurvey.On Friday afternoon, police and security guards were blocking off an upmarket 27-story condominium block in Aventura, where Sayoc has been listed as a resident.Neighbours said they were surprised. But one, Dan Ochsenschlagen, said there had been friction on the condominium board between Sayoc’s mother, the registered owner of the apartment, and other board members. Ochsenschlagen said Sayoc’s mother, who often made political statements, was president of the board for 17 years until she was voted out last December.“Some of the things that were going on were very questionable,” Ochsenschlagen said. He said he had reported what he called “financial irregularities” to police in Miami. The Guardian was not immediately able to verify the claims.Authorities hoped Sayoc’s arrest would end the steady discovery of more matching envelopes, containing what appeared to be pipes packed with explosives and connected to wires, across the US. The criminal complaint against Sayoc said the packages included photographs of the targets’ faces that had been crossed out with a red “X”.The first package was discovered on Monday in a mailbox at the New York home of George Soros, a wealthy liberal donor. It was followed by similar packages intercepted by the secret service that were addressed to the homes of Obama and Clinton.Over the following days packages were found addressed to former vice-president Joe Biden, former attorney general Eric Holder, former CIA director John Brennan, Waters and the actor Robert De Niro. All are high-profile opponents of Trump.The package addressed to Booker was intercepted in Florida while the one for Clapper was discovered at a post office in Hell’s Kitchen, Manhattan. It was addressed to Clapper at the offices of CNN, a few blocks away, where he is employed as an analyst.CNN’s Manhattan offices were evacuated on Wednesday when another suspected pipe bomb was sent there, meant for Brennan. Both former intelligence officials have been outspoken critics of Trump’s actions in office. Clapper on Friday said the packages were part of campaign of “domestic terrorism” intended to sow fear.“This is not going to silence the administration’s critics,” Clapper told CNN. “But anyone who has in any way been a public critic of President Trump needs to be on extra alert and take some precautions particularly with respect to mail.”Clapper praised the FBI for its work and for persevering in the face of abuse from the president. Trump has accused the FBI of being involved in a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine him and of botching an inquiry into a private email server used by Clinton. “Will the FBI ever recover its once stellar reputation?” he asked in a tweet in August.Shortly before the arrest, Trump complained that the attempted bombings were damaging his party’s prospects for next month’s midterm elections. He also appeared to stoke conspiracy theories.“Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this ‘Bomb’ stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows – news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!”, Trump said. The president had also complained in a 3am tweet he was being unfairly blamed for the attempted bombings.The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, said Trump’s reaction was “wholly inappropriate” and showed he had “never fully made the transition” to being presidential. “Am I hopeful that the zebra changes his or her stripes today? No,” Cuomo said on CNN.Supporters of Trump speculated without evidence that the devices were not viable and could not have harmed people. Cuomo said: “No one can say that they were fake bombs. These were dangerous devices that could explode.”De Niro made his first remarks on the pipe bomb discovered at his offices in lower Manhattan. “I thank God no one’s been hurt, and I thank the brave and resourceful security and law enforcement people for protecting us,” he said. “There’s something more powerful than bombs, and that’s your vote. People must vote!” Topics US pipe bomb packages Cory Booker James Clapper Florida US politics US crime Donald Trump news

NEW DELHI—India hanged four men convicted of the 2012 gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old student, aiming to send the message that the nation takes women’s safety seriously.The attack, in which the woman was repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted with a metal bar on a moving bus in New Delhi before being dumped on a roadside, became one of India’s most high-profile crimes against women. The victim, who can’t be named publicly under Indian law, died in a Singapore hospital from her injuries 13 days after the attack....

As many as 100,000 California residents who lost property, jobs and loved ones in fires linked to PG&E Corp. will get their day in court. It will be in bankruptcy court, where rules shield the utility giant from potentially crippling jury payouts.PG&E isn’t broke. It is following the survival strategy used by other troubled companies to put a lid on damage claims. For victims, that amounts to a loss of negotiating power and likely means a fraction of the compensation they might receive in a jury trial. California investigators have connected PG&E equipment to fires that killed more than 100 people, destroyed 26,000 buildings and burned at least 330,000 acres in 2017 and 2018. Lawyers for fire victims estimate that the utility, which filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, is liable for as much as $54 billion in wildfire claims.Before filing, PG&E told investors its fire-related liabilities could total more than $30 billion. The company is now offering $20.4 billion to cover all damages, including reimbursement to insurance companies. Of that, $7.5 billion is for residents and business owners hurt by the fires. Richard Kelly, then the company’s chairman, said bankruptcy was “the only viable option to address the company’s responsibilities to stakeholders.”