Tag: motion

SEC Slams “Ridiculous” Elon Musk “Reckless Conduct” In Contempt Motion Response

On Monday night, the Securities and Exchange Commission responded to Elon Musk’s “contempt” defense, shredding Musk’s arguments and making it clear that the regulatory agency will not back down in its attempt to get Musk held in contempt of court following a February tweet regarding Tesla’s production guidance. 

Musk had argued against the contempt of court motion days ago, with his well-paid lawyers bizarrely calling it an “unconstitutional power grab”. Musk’s lawyers argued, on his behalf, that production numbers – the lifeblood of the company’s relationship to Wall Street – were immaterial, also claiming that the Tweet “dutifully complied with the [settlement] Order”.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

The SEC made it clear in their response that they saw things very differently. They eviscerated the argument that production numbers were somehow not material, arguing:

“Musk’s recognition of the significance of Tesla’s vehicle production forecasts to investors is evidenced by the frequency with which he and Tesla highlight such forecasts in their public statements. For years and continuing through the company’s most recent earnings release, Tesla and Musk have prominently featured vehicle production forecasts in their public communications, including Tesla’s investor letters, Musk’s tweets, and the company’s filings with the SEC.

While some companies emphasize forward-looking guidance on financial metrics such as revenue and earnings per share, Tesla often highlights guidance regarding expected production rates and deliveries. Given this focus on Tesla’s production capabilities, Musk cannot credibly argue that his statement, as Tesla’s CEO, that the company ‘will make around 500k’ cars in 2019 could not have reasonably contained information material to Tesla and its investors.” 

The SEC continued, referring to Musk’s Tweet as “reckless conduct” and calling it “stunning” that Musk had not sought pre-approval for a single Tweets about Tesla since his settlement forcing him to do just that: 

“The pre-approval requirement was designed to protect against reckless conduct by Musk going forward. It is therefore stunning to learn that, at the time of filing of the [contempt] motion, Musk had not sought pre-approval for a single one of the numerous tweets about Tesla he published in the months since the court-ordered pre-approval policy went into effect. Musk reads this Court’s order as not requiring pre-approval unless Musk himself unilaterally decides his planned tweets are material. His interpretation is inconsistent with the plain terms of this Court’s order and renders its pre-approval requirement meaningless.”

The SEC did not request specific relief in its brief. Before the night was over on Monday, a letter from Musk’s attorneys hit the docket, requesting the court’s permission to file a sur-reply by March 22 to respond to the SEC as all signs point to Musk wanting to continue his fight, head on, with the regulatory agency. 

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

The SEC has been looking to hold Tesla CEO Elon Musk in contempt for breaching a court ordered settlement that Musk slithered away with as a result of his fraudulent tweet from last summer claiming he had funding secured for the buyout of Tesla at $420 per share. After the SEC alleged that a recent Tweet from February 19 was in violation of Musk’s court order to have his social media posts pre-approved by a lawyer, Musk responded to the SEC action in late February by calling the agency “embarrassing”.

The SEC FOIA experts at Probes Reporter said that the agency’s contempt motion response shows that they are “playing for keeps” and will “crush Musk if needed”. 

The rest of Twitter, as usual, was vocal in its response to the filing.

“The SEC requests that this court hold Musk in contempt and impose an appropriate remedy to ensure future compliance,” the filing concludes. 

At this point, the ball is in the court of U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan, who has the authority to issue additional legal remedies such as additional fines and officer/director bars.

You can read the SEC’s full reply brief here.

Brexit set for delay after May wounded by rejection of ‘no-deal’

March 13, 2019

By William James, Kylie MacLellan and Elizabeth Piper

LONDON (Reuters) – The British parliament on Wednesday rejected leaving the European Union without a deal, further weakening Prime Minister Theresa May and paving the way for a vote that could delay Brexit until at least the end of June.

After a day of high drama, lawmakers defied the government by voting 321 to 278 in favor of a motion that ruled out a potentially disorderly “no-deal” Brexit under any circumstances.

It went further than the government’s position of keeping the threat of a “no-deal” Brexit on the negotiating table — a stance many in her party said was essential to push Brussels to make further concessions to the deal they have rejected.

While the approved motion has no legal force and ultimately may not prevent a no-deal exit, it carries considerable political force, especially as it passed thanks to a rebellion by members of May’s own Conservative Party and her cabinet.

May, who still insists it is not possible to rule out a no-deal Brexit entirely, said lawmakers would need to agree a way forward before an extension could be obtained.

The European Commission repeated that a delay would indeed require a justification – but positive comments from Germany and Ireland suggested that EU members at last saw a prospect that a viable deal would be found, and were inclined to help.

The pound rose more than 2 percent on the rejection of ‘no-deal’ and was headed for its biggest daily gain this year. [GBP/]

The government said there were now two choices – agree a deal and try to secure a short delay to Brexit, or fail to agree anything and face a much longer delay.

May said her preference was for a short delay, which would mean the government trying to pass the deal she negotiated by the middle of next week.

THIRD ATTEMPT

She hopes to find a way to persuade hardline pro-Brexit lawmakers to back her deal at the third attempt, on the grounds that the alternatives offer a less clean break with the EU.

But on Wednesday evening, senior eurosceptic lawmakers were defiant, with one, Steve Baker, declaring they would keep on voting against May’s deal if it was put forward again.

Another eurosceptic Conservative lawmaker, Andrew Bridgen, said parliament no longer represented “the people”, who had voted for Brexit, by 52 percent to 48, in a referendum in 2016.

“This is very dangerous territory we are going into with regard to our democracy,” he told Reuters.

In the text of a motion scheduled for a vote on Thursday, the government said if a deal was reached by March 20, the day before an EU summit, Britain would ask for the Brexit negotiating period to be extended from March 29, the date set in law, until June 30, just before the new European Parliament meets.

If no deal was agreed by March 20, “then it is highly likely the European Council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019”, the motion said.

After Wednesday’s vote, the European Commission promptly restated its position that it was not enough for parliament to vote against leaving the European Union without a deal — it also needed to find a deal that lawmakers could accept.

“SIGN OF REASON”

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said the EU would want to know the purpose of any British delay, but added: “I think things look a bit brighter today than they did yesterday.”

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas welcomed the British vote as “a sign of reason”.

The outcome of the vote angered many pro-Brexit members of the Conservative Party, who had wanted to retain the option of a “no-deal” exit as a bargaining chip, knowing that it would cause disruption in the EU as well as Britain.

After two-and-a-half years of negotiations and two failed attempts to pass the Brexit deal that May agreed with the EU, the vote against a no-deal exit still leaves undecided how, when and on what terms Britain will leave the club it joined in 1973.

After lawmakers crushed her deal for a second time on Tuesday, May said it was still the best option for leaving in an orderly fashion.

If Britain does seek a delay, it will require the agreement of all the bloc’s other 27 members.

The EU would prefer only a short extension, ending before EU-wide parliamentary elections on May 24-26.

May’s deal covers such issues as citizens’ rights, the status of the Irish border and Britain’s divorce bill from the EU. It takes Britain out of the EU single market and customs union, common fisheries and farm policies and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It also offers a status-quo transition period in which to negotiate trade arrangements.

Under a no-deal exit, there would be no transition period to soften the disruption to trade and regulations. Britain would quit the EU’s 500 million-strong single market and customs union and fall back on World Trade Organisation rules, which could mean tariffs on many imports and exports.

(Additional reporting by Elisabeth O’Leary and Alastair Macdonald in Brussels; Writing by Michael Holden, Guy Faulconbridge and Giles Elgood; Editing by Janet Lawrence and Kevin Liffey)

Democrats Block Motion Condemning Illegal Aliens Voting in American Elections

by Pamela Geller, Freedom OutPost: The greatest threat to the United States is the Democrat Party. The party of socialism, open-boarders, infanticide, and anti-Semitism, must not just lose in 2020: they must be routed. Democrats Block Motion Condemning Illegal Aliens Voting in American Elections, Breitbart News, Sean Moran, March 8th, 2019.  Democrats blocked a motion on Friday […]

The post Democrats Block Motion Condemning Illegal Aliens Voting in American Elections appeared first on SGT Report.

UK PM May will give parliament a ‘meaningful’ Brexit vote on Tuesday: spokesman

March 11, 2019

LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May will hold the so-called a meaningful vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday as planned, her spokesman said after media reports that she could downgrade the status of the vote.

The spokesman said the government’s motion which will be debated and voted on would be published later on Monday.

“It will be a meaningful vote,” the spokesman told reporters after being asked what the vote on Tuesday would entail – whether it would be on the Brexit deal as it stands or on a hoped-for deal that includes limitations to the so-called Irish backstop that have not as yet been agreed in Brussels.

“It’s important to note the PM spoke to (European Commision President) Jean-Claude Juncker by phone yesterday evening and talks are continuing. The PM and negotiating teams are focused on making progress so we can secure parliament’s support for the deal.”

(Reporting By Elizabeth Piper. Writing by Andrew MacAskill; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

Pound On Track For Longest Losing Streak In 10 Months As May Faces Impossible Brexit Dilemma

One day before Theresa May is expected to call a second meaningful vote on her Brexit plan, the prime minister is facing another massive defeat, with the Telegraph reporting that the vote tally will likely be unchanged from her first go-round, when the margin of defeat was an historic 230 votes, the biggest loss for a British government since before the Second World War.

Weekend talks with the EU have – unsurprisingly – yielded no progress, with the only silver lining being Jean Claud-Juncker’s suggestion that if May could show she could win a majority for a deal with an altered version of the thorny Irish Backstop, the EU27 might consider tweaking the withdrawal agreement at a make-or-break EU summit later this month.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>May

But according to MPs and cabinet ministers who have shared their grievances with the Telegraph, BBC and other British media outlets, it’s possible that May could be forced to resign before she gets there. Here’s May’s current conundrum, summarized as best we can (since, as the press readily admits, nobody knows exactly what’s going on amid the chaos): Last month, May promised to hold a series of meaningful votes: A vote on her deal, if that is defeated, a vote on whether Parliament would support a ‘no deal’ Brexit, and if that is defeated a vote on a Brexit delay. However, given that another destabilizing defeat could cede more leverage to Labour and remainer MPs – who could then try and seize control of proceedings and push through a softer version of Brexit that could involve remaining in the customs union and single market and preserving the free movement of people (i.e. Brexit in name only). Adding another layer of pressure, Labour is threatening to table a no-confidence motion in May’s government if the deal is defeated.

With this in mind, many of May’s senior cabinet ministers are pushing her to opt for a conditional vote instead, per the Telegraph.

Under the plan, instead of holding a meaningful vote tomorrow, the government would instead lay a conditional motion setting out terms that might be acceptable to Parliament to deal with the Irish backstop issue. Supporters of the plan say it would send a message to the EU about the kind of deal that might get a majority in the Commons.

“As it stands her deal is going to be defeated,” a senior party source told The Times. “It has been made clear to Downing Street that it would be eminently sensible to avoid that happening by proposing a motion that the party can support. Whether they listen or not is another matter.”

May is expected to discuss the plan Monday morning during a meeting with her senior cabinet ministers.

Though holding a conditional vote sounds like a more sensible option given where we are in the Brexit process (Brexit Day is less than three weeks away, and it might be helpful to finally establish what Parliament would support, if it’s not going to be May’s plan), there is another complication: Many opposition MPs, and even some Tories, would regard the cancellation of the meaningful vote, and the subsequent votes May had promised, as a betrayal, with some whispering that she could face a mutiny to oust her if she cancels the vote.

Case in point: The statement below, made by a Tory MP, is indicative of the “reception waiting for PM” if she cancels the vote, or opts for the conditional vote instead.

One cabinet minister “even said we’d have to remove her”. So far, PM May’s spokesman has insisted that the votes will take place this week, and that talks with the EU continue. Meanwhile, in what sounds like him washing his hands of the whole affair, chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said Monday that the main Brexit negotiations are now between May and her MPs.

So, once again May has been stuck with an impossible dilemma: Opt for the conditional vote, and risk being ousted, or go ahead with the meaningful vote(s), and risk being ousted.

Whatever she decides will probably be revealed in a statement from the PM later today.

Adding another layer of complication to the process, reports over the weekend claimed the EU was hardening its position on a Brexit Day extension, and, should the UK request one, was preparing to ask for a multi-billion pound payoff in addition to the £39 billion Britain has already agreed to pay. This, as Deutsche Bank analysts put it, will likely go down “like a lead balloon” among the Brexiteers.

Meanwhile, the pound is headed for its longest losing streak in 10 months as it becomes increasingly clear that May’s deal remains supremely unpopular.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Pound

Consuming apple peel powder can significantly improve joint function and range of motion, says study

(Natural News) You might already know that the skin is the most nutritious part of the apple, but it is still discarded surprisingly often. In fact, when it comes to applesauce production, significant amounts of apple peel end up heading for compost. Instead of letting all this nutrition go to waste, however, applesauce makers are…

Ooops! Google admits it forgot to tell users about its hidden spy microphone

from RT: All-powerful tech giant Google has apologized for forgetting to tell users that it’s Nest Secure home security system had a built-in microphone. Nothing to see here, guys! Google’s Nest Secure system allows users to connect dozens of motion detectors, magnetic door alarms and security cameras to a centralized control unit. The unit monitors […]

The post Ooops! Google admits it forgot to tell users about its hidden spy microphone appeared first on SGT Report.

Ancient Babylonian Astronomy Text Changes History

A newly-translated tablet reveals that ancient Babylonian astronomers were using methods far more advanced than imagined for that era.

The ancient Babylonians were calculating planetary displacement arcs over 1,000 years before the method’s ‘invention’.

Analysis of the tablets reveals that the Babylonian star gazers were able to calculate the position of Jupiter using geometric techniques previously believed to have been first used some 1,400 years later in 14th century Europe.

The tablets, housed at the British Museum, are believed to have been unearthed from an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia, the present day Iraq, sometime in the 1800s.

Gizmodo reports: It’s a well-known fact that the Babylonians were skilled mathematical astronomers, who preserved their knowledge on hundreds of clay tablets. But when astroarchaeologist Matthieu Ossendrijver of Humboldt University in Berlin translated an unstudied text on Jupiter, he discovered something astonishing. To track the gas giant’s path across the sky, the Babylonians used a geometric technique—the so-called trapezoid procedure—that’s a cornerstone of modern calculus. Until now, this method was believed to have been developed in medieval Europe, some 1,400 years later.

“This shows just how highly developed this ancient culture was,” Ossendrijver, whose discovery appears in today’s Science, told Gizmodo. “I don’t think anybody expected something like this would be discovered in a Babylonian text.”

The text belongs to a collection of thousands of clay tablets, inscribed with cuneiform and excavated in Iraq during the 19th century. By translating and studying them over the past century, archeologists have learned a great deal about Babylonians, including their advanced system of astronomy, which grew out of the development of the zodiac around 400 BCE.

Also priests, Babylonian astronomers believed that all Earthly happenings—the weather, the price of grain, the level of the rivers—were connected to the motion of the planets and stars. And of all the forces influencing our world from above, none were as important as Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon. He was associated with Jupiter.

As Ossendrijver explains in his paper, approximately 340 known Babylonian astronomy tablets are filled with data on planetary and lunar positions, arranged in rows and columns like a spreadsheet. Another 110 are procedural, with instructions describing the arithmetical operations (addition, subtraction, and multiplication) used to compute the positions of celestial objects.

But one collection—a set of four tablets on the position of Jupiter—appears to preserve portions of a procedure for calculating the area under a curve. These texts are fragmentary, and for decades their astronomical significance went unnoted. In 2014, Ossendrijver discovered their instruction book: a tablet, he said, that “just fell through the cracks,” and has been collecting dust in the British Museum since 1881.

One of the fragmentary Babylonian texts (left) showing a portion of a calculaton for determining Jupiter’s displacement across the ecliptic plane as the area under a time-velocity curve (right). Via Mathieu Ossendrijver
One of the fragmentary Babylonian texts (left) showing a portion of a calculaton for determining Jupiter’s displacement across the ecliptic plane as the area under a time-velocity curve (right). Via Mathieu Ossendrijver

The now-decoded “text A” describes a procedure for calculating Jupiter’s displacement across the ecliptic plane, the path that the Sun appears to trace through the stars, over the course of a year. According to the text, the Babylonians did so by tracking Jupiter’s speed as a function of time and determining the area under a time-velocity curve.

Until now, the earliest origin of this concept dated to mid 14th-century Europe. “In 1350, mathematicians understood that if you compute the area under this curve, you get the distance travelled,” Ossendrijver said. “That’s quite an abstract insight about connection between time and motion. What is shown by [these texts] is that this insight came about in Babylonia.”

In Ossendrijver’s view, it’s unlikely that this method survived the vast gulf of time between the disappearance of Babylonian culture and its emergence in medieval Europe. “I think it’s more likely they [Europeans] developed it independently,” he said, noting that the trapezoid procedure doesn’t appear to have been popular among Babylonian astronomers, and that much of their knowledge was lost when the culture died out around 100 A.D.

“Who knows what else is hidden in the thousands of tablets lying in in museums around the world?” Ossendrijver continued. “This is part of the history of science, and I hope it raises awareness of the value of protecting that heritage.”

Geneva Politicians Vote to Propose Julian Assange Asylum

The Geneva city parliament has adopted a motion demanding that the Swiss government offer asylum to controversial WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The somewhat surprising resolution was the result of an hour-long debate on Wednesday evening, framed in the context …

The post Geneva Politicians Vote to Propose Julian Assange Asylum appeared first on Global Research.

63% Of A British Audience Would Prefer To Cut Ties With Saudi Arabia

Authored by Nasim Ahmed via MiddleEastMonitor.com,

A night of compelling debate at the Emmanuel Centre in Westminster on Monday evening concluded with 63 per cent of the 1,000-strong audience voting for the motion that “The West should cut ties with Saudi Arabia”.

The debate was organised by Intelligence Squared and began with a not insignificant 37 per cent of those present admitting that they were undecided on the issue. Two hours later, the audience had heard some of the most persuasive arguments for and against the motion and Londoners had made up their mind; they cast their vote to cut ties with Saudi Arabia.

Remarkably, a mere 5 per cent went home unsure of what to do with the Kingdom, which is a testament to the skill of all four speakers. Those defending the motion were journalist and broadcaster Mehdi Hasan and Saudi Arabian-born Professor of Social Anthropology at the London School of Economics Madawi Al-Rasheed; those speaking against were Egyptian-born Middle East expert Dr Mamoun Fandy and Conservative MP Crispin Blunt. Despite their defeat, the two speakers against the motion managed to sway 10 per cent of the undecided audience members to back their argument, increasing their share of the vote from 22 to 32 per cent.

The evening, perhaps unsurprisingly, belonged to Hasan and Al-Rasheed. Saudi Arabia under the de facto rule of Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman has stumbled from one self-inflicted crisis to another: the war in Yemen; the blockade of Qatar; support for the counter-revolution in the region post-Arab Spring; the so-called “anti-corruption” clamp down; and the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi: all can be laid at the feet of the young Crown Prince.

Given Saudi Arabia’s diminishing international reputation, Hasan and Al-Rasheed were largely pushing at an open door to persuade the audience to back the motion. It was also easy for them to cite examples of the West’s hypocritical relations with the conservative Gulf state.

Hasan’s was an impassioned presentation, perhaps more so than any other speaker. Pointing to the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen where “children starved to death” and the murder of Khashoggi, which the CIA concluded was ordered by the Crown Prince himself, he said that now was the time to stand up to “an out of control government” in Riyadh.

“We need to draw a line on the sand and not allow the Saudis to get away with murder,” the broadcaster insisted. Added to his list of Saudi infractions was Riyadh’s history of supporting terrorist groups. “The Saudis are the premier league champions of terror funding,” he alleged. In taking down one of the reasons often mentioned by defenders of the US and British links with Saudi Arabia — that of fighting terrorism — Hasan alleged that in its desperation to come out on top in Yemen the Saudi government is actually aiding Al-Qaeda against the Houthi rebels.

He also made a number of assertions that had the feel of knockout blows: “Asking Saudis to fight terror is like asking the mafia to fight organised crime,” he said, adding for good measure “or asking the Trumps to fight nepotism.” Confirming his clearly well-earned reputation as a pugilistic debater, Hasan made the most controversial remark of the night by claiming that “Saudi is an ISIS that’s made it.” This allegation provoked a strong backlash from his opponents when it was their turn to speak.

Western hypocrisy was an ongoing theme. Professor Madawi Al-Rasheed cited the latest example of this abuse of responsibility by pointing to Europe’s ultimatum to elected Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on the basis of his alleged human rights violations. She described Saudi Arabia as a “pressure cooker” not dissimilar, some would say, to Venezuela, and suggested strongly that the same European governments would never try to intervene in the same way in the Kingdom’s affairs, despite its appalling human rights record.

So much for Freedom of Expression in Saudi Arabia – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

Al-Rasheed seemed to imply that there is an ongoing pattern of racism in the West’s relations with the Middle East, often described as the “bigotry of low expectations”. She said that the “top down reform is pushing Saudis out of the country” and causing instability. Despite this, Western governments have continued to sell arms, while rolling out the red carpet, to Bin Salman. The LSE Professor viewed the West’s inability to expect countries like Saudi Arabia to meet the same standard of behaviour or achievements set for most other countries as a relic of colonialism.

Despite making an effective case not to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, it was nevertheless surprising to find Mamoun Fandy and Crispin Blunt resting much of their argument on the cliché of stability and human rights. The West has always preferred the former over the latter, which has all too often meant that some of the most brutal dictators have been left to rule with an iron fist over millions of people.

Dr Fandy, however, put forward an argument that seemed to resonate with the audience. He dismissed the idea that there was such a thing as “the West” and advised against the temptation to measure Saudi Arabia with a “special yardstick”. The US atrocities in Iraq and in particular the horrific images of torture that came out of Abu Ghraib prison were, he claimed, equally monstrous and deserved to be met with sanctions by other Western countries if they were to be consistent.

The author of Saudi Arabia and the Politics of Dissent listed the many ways in which the Kingdom plays a vital role in regional and global stability, including oil supplies and the fight against terrorism. He said that cutting ties doesn’t work as a foreign policy, pointing to Cuba, Iran and North Korea as examples. He then described the call to cut ties with Riyadh as nothing but a “burning desire for revenge” by people who have an “immature romantic notion of international politics.”

The case for stability was made more forcefully by Blunt. He admitted having a rosy opinion of Bin Salman, whom he described as a “visionary and reformer” after meeting him in Riyadh in 2015. The MP for Reigate said that he has a “nuanced” view of the issue facing Saudi Arabia and sees himself as the most balanced opponent of the Saudi monarchy. He is the chair of the Detention Review Panel (DRP) — a cross-party group of British parliamentarians and lawyers — investigating the torture of women’s rights activists arrested in the Kingdom last year.

Protesters demonstrate against the war in Yemen and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi outside the Saudi Arabian embassy on October 25, 2018 in London, England [Jack Taylor/Getty Images]

In making a persuasive case against cutting ties with Riyadh, it was stressed that such a measure was reserved for countries in a state of war, which is not how one would describe Saudi Arabia’s relations with the West. Fandy and Blunt, however, suggested that in light of Saudi Arabia’s policy in Yemen and the killing of Khashoggi, arms sales and defence ties should be reconsidered without going so far as to cut ties.

Blunt encouraged the audience to think about the consequence of “camping out on the moral high ground,” and asked, “What would happen if the West cut ties with Saudi Arabia?” That would, he insisted, be a gift to China and Russia. “While it may provide moral satisfaction, full disengagement with the Kingdom would remove what oversight already exists.” Taking the stability argument to a level mocked by his opponents as “project fear”, Blunt predicted revolution and civil war, which he argued would be “infinitely worse” than the status quo. “Britain” he concluded, “has a civilising influence” on Riyadh which would be lost if the West cut ties with Saudi Arabia.

Sadly for him, two-thirds of the audience disagreed with him, and Hasan and Al-Rasheed carried the debate. That result should set alarm bells ringing in Riyadh which, given Mohammad Bin Salman’s relatively low public profile since the Khashoggi murder, must know that its international standing is at a very low ebb.

How A U.S. Nuclear Strike Works

If President Trump decided to launch a nuclear strike, how swiftly could he put things in motion? Would he have the sole power alone to launch a nuclear missiles?

Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that, according to an analysis undertaken by Bloomberg, the U.S. president’s power is absolute in this situation – he or she gives the order and the Pentagon is obliged to go along with it.

The following infographic provides an overview of the steps necessary to make it happen.

Infographic: How A U.S. Nuclear Strike Works | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

It can take as little as five minutes from the president’s decision to strike to intercontinental missiles launching from their silos.

When it comes to submarine-launched weapons, however, it takes a little bit longer – approximately 15 minutes.

Adam Schiff Showboats, Republicans Call His Bluff On Russia Probe

Authored by Sara Carter,

Republicans with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Tuesday submitted a motion to immediately publish dozens of witness transcripts in the Russia Trump investigation that were turned over for declassification review, stating it is “part of the process of publishing them for the American people to see.” Though the transcripts are unclassified, the Committee had sent them to the Intelligence Community for a review as a precautionary measure.

Let’s do it. Make the witness transcripts public and let the cards fall where they may. The committee already voted to make the documents public on a similar motion in September, 2018, when it was then led by House Republicans.

The Republican motion was in response to now Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff’s proposal to turn over all the witness interviews to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office for review. Those witness interviews, however, are already available to Mueller.

Remember, the transcripts were given to the Executive Branch for declassification review months ago. Mueller had access to Roger Stone’s transcript. When Mueller decided to press charges against Stone, the only stipulation for the Special Counsel was that they had to ask for another official copy of the transcript from the committee. The committee obliged and sent the second copy of the transcript to the Justice Department.

Showboating Schiff 

So why is Schiff making this such a big issue? He’s showboating.

He is being disingenuous when he tells media outlets that he wants to turn over the transcripts to Mueller because, as I’ve stated, he has access already.

There’s a reason for this approach.

Schiff is insinuating that the people connected to Trump, who were interviewed by the committee lied.

It’s a way of keeping the Russia Trump collusion narrative alive and well.

In his never-ending media appearances, Schiff declares that Mueller needs these transcripts to investigate possible perjury charges.

In January, Schiff told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he wanted to send them to Mueller to investigate if any witnesses had lied to Congress.

Schiff told Tapper:

“I think Bob Mueller, by virtue of the fact that he has been able to conduct this investigation using tools that we didn’t have in our committee, meaning compulsion, is in a better position to determine, OK, who was telling the truth, who wasn’t, and who could I make a case against in terms of perjury?”

He has even named some witnesses publicly, for example, he questioned whether Donald Trump Jr. had perjured himself during testimony. Schiff called out Trump Jr. in an interview in January with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s ‘This Week.’  The Democratic chairman hinted that Trump Jr. may have lied to Congress about who he called on a blocked number around the time of the infamous Trump Tower meeting. He suggested that it may have been his father President Trump and that Mueller should investigate. Further, he had made the same insinuation in the past, but days after his appearance on “This Week,” it was proven false when a story by The New York Times revealed Trump Jr. was calling two close family friends.

The Witnesses 

Making matters more interesting, Republicans today also put forward a motion to subpoena around a dozen witnesses. Those people, including officials involved in the FBI’s Russia investigation as well as people likely to be familiar with the compilation of the Steele dossier. Of course, those people may not say what the Democrats want to hear so the Democrats rejected the motion.

It’s actually a brilliant idea – we need more interviews. I think the Republicans should pounce on this opportunity to question these witnesses. Hopefully, they will ask some poignant questions we still don’t have answers to.

Who provided former British spy Christopher Steele with the salacious and unverified information in the dossier? That’s one question I’d like clarity on.

“Since the Democrats previously sought testimony from these individuals, such as James Baker and Sergei Millian, we assume they still want to speak to them,” said Jack Langer, spokesman for committee Republican Rep. Devin Nunes.

“It’s even possible some witnesses can help explain the ‘more than circumstantial evidence’ of Trump-Russia collusion that the Democrats claimed to have found two years ago but, inexplicably, never revealed to Committee Republicans or anyone else.”

James Baker is the former FBI General Counsel who was close friends with former FBI Director James Comey. Baker is now the subject of a leak investigation. He reportedly accepted documents from Perkins Coie, the law firm used by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to pay for the unverified dossier.

What about Sergei Millian?

And it would also be interesting to hear from Sergei Millian, who is widely reported to be an unwitting source of information contained in the dossier, which was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

These witnesses would surely have some interesting information to share if they were under questioned by the committee. I’m not sure it’s information that would benefit Schiff’s claim that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But I’m certain it would shed light on what really happened with the dossier and the internal machinations of the FBI’s probe into the campaign.

Read the press release below from the House Intelligence Committee:

Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued the following statement today on sending the transcripts of interviews from the committee’s Russia investigation to the Special Counsel’s office.

  • Republicans are happy the Democrats are joining us in reiterating what the Republican-led committee already voted to do in September 2018—make all the transcripts available to the executive branch, including the Special Counsel’s office, as part of the process of publishing them for the American people to see.

  • In light of the unacceptable delay in the Director of National Intelligence’s declassification review, we hope the Democrats will now join us in further increasing transparency by voting to immediately publish all the unclassified transcripts that we previously sent to the executive branch.

  • Additionally, we call on our Democratic colleagues to grant our request to subpoena numerous witnesses whose testimony the Democrats had previously sought in connection with the committee’s Russia investigation.

British PM to try to break Brexit deadlock with EU concessions

January 21, 2019

By Guy Faulconbridge and Andrew MacAskill

LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May will try to break the Brexit deadlock on Monday by setting out proposals in parliament that are expected to focus on winning more concessions from the European Union.

With just over two months until the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union on March 29 there is no agreement in London on how and even whether it should leave the world’s biggest trading bloc.

After her Brexit divorce deal was rejected by lawmakers last week, May has been searching for a way to get a deal through parliament, so far in vain.

The EU, which has an economy more than six times the size of the United Kingdom, says it wants an orderly exit but senior officials have expressed frustration and sorrow at London’s deepening crisis over Brexit.

“I have often said Shakespeare could not have written any better the tragedy we are now witnessing in Britain,” German Europe Minister Michael Roth told broadcaster ARD.

Attempts to forge a consensus with the opposition Labour Party failed so May is expected to focus on winning over 118 rebels in her own party and the small Northern Irish party which props up her government with concessions from the EU.

May will make a statement in parliament at 1530 GMT and put forward a motion on her proposed next steps on Brexit, though some lawmakers are planning to wrest control of Britain’s exit from the government.

IRELAND

May will focus on changing the Northern Irish backstop, an insurance policy to ensure no return to a hard border between the British province and Ireland.

In a sign of just how grave the political crisis in London has become, the Daily Telegraph reported that May was considering amending the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which ended 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland.

May told her ministers she would focus on securing changes from Brussels designed to win over rebel Conservatives and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, The Times said.

Ireland will not engage in bilateral talks on Brexit and will only negotiate as part of the 27 remaining members of the EU, Ireland’s European Affairs Minister Helen McEntee said.

After May’s motion is published, lawmakers will be able to propose amendments to it, setting out alternatives to her deal.

The 650-seat parliament is deeply divided over Brexit, with different factions of lawmakers supporting a wide range of options including leaving without a deal, holding a second referendum and seeking a customs union with the EU.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, chairman of the European Research Group of anti-EU lawmakers in May’s Conservative Party, said Britain is likely to leave the European Union without a deal, with a revised Brexit deal as the next likely outcome.

He said if the backstop was removed then most of the opposition to the deal from eurosceptics in her party would be removed.

Sterling was steady at $1.2836. Buying sterling is not advisable because of Brexit uncertainty, UBS Wealth Management said on Monday.

Ever since Britain voted by 52-48 percent to leave the EU in a referendum in June 2016, London’s political class has been debating how to leave the European project forged by France and Germany after the devastation of World War Two.

While the country is divided over EU membership, most agree the world’s fifth largest economy is at a crossroads and its choices over Brexit will shape the prosperity of future generations for years to come.

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

In Humiliating Defeat For May, Brexit Deal Rejected By Overwhelming 230-Vote Margin

Update 10: After trending steadily lower ahead of the vote, the pound roared into the green as the Commons adjourned for the day, as traders realized that analysts who had warned about a spectacular defeat of May’s deal being good for the pound may have been on to something.

With hundreds of Labour MPs preparing to pivot toward a second referendum this week, it appears more of Jeremy Corbyn’s positions are being foisted upon May as she scrambles to figure out what’s next for her deal.

And even May’s own cabinet is expected to pressure her to change course and advocate for staying within the customs union – something that is anathema to hard Brexiteers.

And in a potential threat to the pound and May’s government, Labour has indicated that it will try again if it loses the no confidence vote against May tomorrow.

If May loses the vote, Labour has made clear that all options – including a second referendum – are on the table.

And even if she wins, May and the EU have now gotten the message loud and clear: May’s deal is unworkable. If the EU refuses to compromise, a no deal Brexit is also clearly not going to work, since Parliament last week adopted an amendment to make sure such an outcome would require its explicit authorization.

At this point, a delay of Article 50 is looking extremely likely, unless May can win some serious concessions from the EU. But all the bloc needs to do now is dig in its heels and refuse to budge on the deal, and there will suddenly be a strong possibility that Brexit will be killed.

Though one currency strategist for TD Bank argued that it’s tough to get excited about the pound since the situation is so uncertain.

“While we have bounced since, we struggle to get excited about sterling’s upside here,” said Ned Rumpeltin, European head of FX strategy at Toronto-Dominion Bank. “We could see some market participants begin to think that the next move will be in favor of a ‘No Brexit’ outcome, but there is still a lot of blue water between here and there.”

But one thing is for sure. If there is a Brexit, it could be even softer than the deal currently on the table, as May said after the vote that May would begin cross-party talks – possibly including Labour Jeremy Corbyn – later this week, though Corbyn was quick to reject the offer in his statement.

Despite Tuesday’s surge in optimism about the possibility that Brexit could be foiled, the pound remains 15% below its pre-Brexit level. And according to a group of economists polled by Bloomberg, the best-case scenario would be another poll on whether Britain should leave the EU, which would boost the currency to $1.35. The worst case would be leaving with no deal , which could see the pound drop to $1.15.

As we noted in the tweet below from European Council President Donald Tusk, the EU27 isn’t thrilled about the outcome of the vote. Soon, we may see more bureaucrats hinting non-too-subtly that maybe its time for the UK to rethink the whole Brexit process, democracy be damned.

* * *

Update 9: The House has adjourned for the day, and cable has continued its ascent toward the $1.2850 level.

Cable

* * *

Update 8: Steve Baker, director of the Brexiteer faction in the European Research Group, has met with May to lay out what is presumably their preferred alternative to May’s Brexit plan.

A temporary free-trade agreement only about the movement of goods, which wouldn’t need the ratification of the EU’s 27 members A temporary zero tariff on some imports from the EU in order to keep food prices down The U.K. could withhold some or all of its 39 billion-pound annual contribution, as it is not in an implementation period May’s government could force the measure through by secondary legislation to an existing act of Parliament or amend future legislation

Meanwhile, amid the chaos in the aftermath of Tuesday’s vote, this quote reportedly used by Winston Churchill to mock Americans is once again being thrown around to mock the fractiousness in May’s conservative party.

“You can always count on them to do the right thing – after they have tried everything else.”

A reporter for one German newspaper, citing several EU27 sources, said they would support delaying Brexit Day until the end of June (though a recent ECJ decision granted the EU unilateral authority to do so).

* * *

Update 7: In a silver lining for May, the DUP has said it will back May in Wednesday’s no confidence vote, meaning that the only way for the opposition to topple the government would be for a number of Tory rebels to side with Labour which is…unlikely.

* * *

Update 6: Comment from European leaders are starting to break on  twitter, with the Austrian PM insisting that, though the defeat of the deal is unfortunate, there won’t be a renegotiation of the deal.

In one of the more aggressive comments, Donald Tusk seemed to imply that, if the deal is so unpopular, maybe the UK should reconsider this whole Brexit thing.

The pound has broken above $1.28.

2

* * *

Update 5: The pound kneejerked lower, but swiftly recovered as traders realized that the overwhelming defeat means the EU may now reconsider its decision not to reopen negotiations.

It’s now up on the day.

GBPUSD

May said in a speech that “we must focus on ideas that are genuinely negotiable.” She also denied that the government’s strategy is to run down the clock.

Before officially tabling his motion of no confidence, Jeremy Corbyn called for a permanent customs union, saying a permanent customs union must be secured, after gloating over the worst defeat for a government since the 1920s. No deal must be taken off the table and people’s rights and protections must be secured.

“I inform you Mr. Speaker I have now tabled a motion of no confidence in this government and I’m pleased that motion will be debated tomorrow so this House can give its verdict on the sheer incompetence of this government.”

* * *

Update 4: May has lost by a 230 vote margin. As the results were read out, the Commons erupted in commotion.

The final results: 432-202

The pound is puking.

GBOP

* * *

Update 3: Minutes before the final results are due, reporters have noted that the ‘no’ lobby is mobbed. “It’s safe to say May’s deal is sunk”, one commented.

Word is the government only has 202 votes – which would mean a sizable defeat. That would be 475 against, an overwhelming rejection that would bring her ability to schedule another vote into question.

Though that’s nothing we didn’t already know.

* * *

Update 2: The Baron amendment has been rejected by a vote of 24-600. The amendment would have called for the UK to have the ability to unilaterally leave the backstop.

The rejection of the amendment, which May opposed, is a resounding win for the prime minister. Cable has caught a slight bid on the news.

Stocks legged lower after the Brexit headline hit, which could be a sign that algos read “reject” in the headline and reflexively dumped.

Stocks

* * *

Update: The voting has just begun but there’s already been a handful of surprises. Three of the four accepted amendments have been dropped, so voting will proceed on the final amendment (the Baron amendment, backed by a cross-party group of legislators) before proceeding directly to the motion to pass.

317 is the magic number needed for the motion to pass.

Bloomberg now expects the final tally to arrive by 2:30 pm ET. Cable is flat as voting begins.

* * *

After months of fractious negotiations during which Theresa May has repeatedly tried – and failed – to win over intransigent Tories and members of the small Northern Irish party upon which she depends for her tenuous Parliamentary majority, May’s supremely unpopular Brexit withdrawal deal is finally coming up for a vote in the House of Commons.

Almost nobody, including May herself, expects it to pass. In fact, most analysts expect the deal to be defeated by a wide margin of at least 150 votes, which would be tantamount to the worst defeat for a British government in 95 years, according to Bloomberg.

At least 70 members of May’s party have publicly pledged to oppose the deal, and members of the Brexiteer European Research Group have also vowed to vote down each of the four proposed amendments that MPs will be decided before the deal comes up for a vote.

The debate and the votes will be broadcast live from Westminster following a speech from May. Readers can watch the action below:

May has just over two months to secure a withdrawal agreement palatable to both Parliament and the EU27 leaders, or risk a delay of Article 50 – which would push back the Brexit deadline – or possibly a chaotic ‘no deal’ outcome (though Parliament has recently taken steps to ensure that a ‘no deal’ exit would require the explicit approval of Parliament). UK diplomats are reportedly already working under the assumption that the March 29 “Brexit Day” will likely be delayed.

Per the Wall Street Journal, four amendments to the motion to pass the deal have been selected by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, including one that would exclude a no-deal Brexit and another that would put a time limit on the UK’s transition out of the EU. Another amendment, which May has said isn’t palatable to Brexiteers (or the EU) is the Leigh amendment, which would put a time limit on the backstop.

In theory, the amendments would give May, Parliament and the EU a better idea of what Parliament would accept. May is expected to return to Brussels within 48 hours of Tuesday’s vote to meet with EU leaders, who have recently signaled that they might be open to making some minor changes to the deal. But a stunning defeat in Parliament is seen as an essential step before this can happen.

May

Shortly before the vote was scheduled to begin, headlines crossed the wires reporting that May would return with an even better Brexit deal next week (an amendment passed last week requires May to return with a ‘Plan B’ within a few days of the deal’s defeat).

Screenshot

The latest reports suggest that May’s efforts to convince some Tories to abstain instead of voting against the deal have been ineffective, which suggests the deal likely will lose by a sizable margin. Labour has confirmed that it will be voting against the deal. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has also threatened to table a motion of no-confidence in May’s government if she loses the vote, saying that Labour would seek another general election.

As analysts try to suss out what the vote could mean for the pound, a team from Capital Economics said that an inconclusive moderate defeat could be the worst outcome because it would increase uncertainty by taking away some incentives for May and the EU to compromise.  A narrow defeat of only 50 votes could send sterling higher, perhaps above $1.30, while a miracle victory for May could send the pound all the way to $1.40.

Meanwhile, cable slipped under $1.27 as traders waited for the votes to begin (currency traders have weighed in with various takes on what they believe could happen to the pound). 

Brexit

CE published a table of odds for various outcomes, putting a heavy defeat at the highest likelihood with 53%>

CE

Given the confusion around the arcane Commons rules being invoked to push through the amendments, the House of Commons twitter account has published a handy guide to how the voting will proceed.

Looking beyond Tuesday’s vote, Deutsche Bank tabulated the odds for various Brexit outcomes. Ultimately, a loss of 150 votes or more could increase the chances that May resigns or is pushed out following the vote (text courtesy of Deutsche Bank).

A) May resignation/withdrawal of cabinet support: 20% probability. While we think this unlikely, there is a chance Prime Minister May resigns following the vote, particularly should the government’s loss be toward the top end of the scale mentioned above. Another possibility is the cabinet collectively withdraw support, making her position untenable. The main reason why we see this as unlikely is that under Conservative Party rules, unless MPs can agree on a single candidate to replace the Prime Minister, a leadership contest would follow. As Conservative MPs will find it difficult to agree on a single replacement candidate, unless Prime Minister May chooses to resign, we think the cabinet will seek to avoid a de-stabilising leadership contest. Should May resign and a leadership contest materialise, we would anticipate a pro Brexit candidate to be successful. 1While this would increase the likelihood of a no deal Brexit, our base case would be that new elections result, particularly if government policy pivots towards no deal.

B) May remains as leader: 80% probability. The government will then have to provide an updated Brexit strategy to parliament by Monday 21st January. In these circumstances, we see five corresponding scenarios, in order of least to most disruptive.

1) A cross party consensus: 30% probability. Having lost the vote, Prime Minister May pivots towards a cross party approach to EU negotiations or parliament agrees an alternative negotiating mandate and instructs the government to follow it at the next vote on the 21st January or subsequently. For a cross party compromise to be reached, we think it may be necessary for the Labour Party to call, and lose, a vote of no confidence in the government first. We envisage a new mandate would instruct the government to renegotiate the Political Declaration on the Future Relationship towards a softer future relationship. 2 In conjunct with firmer EU commitments linking the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration on the Future Relationship, such a deal should probably carry majority support in parliament. A small (two to four weeks) extension of Article 50 becomes necessary, as well as another round of EU negotiations. We envisage the EU27 would be flexible on both extending Article 50 and reopening talks on the future relationship. This is the most positive scenario, with markets being able to forecast an orderly outcome with a relatively high degree of confidence.

2) A lack of alternatives: 10% probability. Parliamentary consensus does not emerge on the next steps by the vote on the 21st January, or subsequently. Prime Minister May then uses multiple votes to force the existing deal through parliament in the face of a crash Brexit, perhaps after some cosmetic changes to the existing Withdrawal Agreement, and likely with market pressure. Again an extension of Article 50 from the EU27 becomes necessary. This is a more bearish scenario in that it may require market pressure or downside economic risks materialising for MPs to agree.

3) A second referendum: 15% probability. The government’s policy switches to seeking a second Brexit referendum, or (more likely) MPs direct the government to call one at the vote on the 21st January or subsequently. Article 50 is extended to July, or perhaps beyond. We have slightly increased the probability of a second referendum following reports over the last few days the EU27 could envisage an extension of Article 50 beyond the EU Parliament elections in late May, and perhaps well beyond when MEPs take their seats in July. We still believe a bigger sticking point to a second Brexit vote is that while parliamentary consensus could emerge to hold one, consensus on the question asked of the electorate will be more difficult.

4) A new election: 15% probability. May loses the vote and the Labour Party calls a successful confidence motion in the government. After two weeks, assuming a new government cannot be formed, a new election would follow under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. In this scenario, again an extension of Article 50 would be required. We do not see this as a positive scenario in that polls indicate both major parties are close to tied, leading to the risk of an election leading to similar parliamentary gridlock as at present. For a no confidence motion to be successful, the government will have to formally lose the support of the DUP, or a similar number of Conservative MPs from either the extreme pro Brexit or soft Brexit wings of the party.

5) A no deal/crash Brexit: 10% probability. Political deadlock leads to no deal Brexit. This could materialise if a parliamentary consensus does not emerge on an alternative deal, or Prime Minister May fails to get the current Withdrawal Agreement through parliament after multiple times of asking, and a motion of no confidence in the government is unsuccessful.

Scenarios not discussed:

May winning tomorrow’s vote. While we had attached a probability of 40% to May securing political support for the Withdrawal Agreement last week, this was contingent on May pivoting towards a cross party approach in the meantime, which has not materialised. We now do not think there is a realistic probability of the government winning tomorrow’s vote.

Revocation of A50. Following a ruling from the ECJ, it is now technically possible for the UK to unilaterally revoke the Article 50 process (the UK’s exit from the EU). Revoking Article 50 would carry an enormously high political price, however, and we do not see it as likely at this stage.

* * *

Amid all of the chaos ahead of the vote, there are really only two outcomes that most analysts agree on. May will almost certainly lose on Tuesday, and Brexit Day will almost certainly be delayed as May and the EU finally begin work on a modified deal that might have a chance of passing Parliament.

Greek PM set to squeak through confidence motion over Macedonia deal

January 15, 2019

By Renee Maltezou

ATHENS (Reuters) – Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras made an impassioned appeal to parliament for support on Tuesday, the eve of a confidence vote he is expected to survive by a whisker with the support of a handful of opposition lawmakers.

Tsipras called the confidence vote following the resignation of Defence Minister Panos Kammenos and his right-wing Independent Greeks’ party over an accord to end a long dispute between Greece and Macedonia by changing Macedonia’s name.

As parliament opened two days of debate, Tsipras said it was a “patriotic duty” to proceed with the agreement, knowing it would have a political cost. He called on lawmakers to support him, saying that his government had pulled Greece from international bailouts and a debt crisis and has more work to do in the nine months that remain before its term ends in October.

“There are times that one is judged not for his words but for his acts. There are times of critical decisions and of responsibilities,” Tsipras said.

“Addressing you all, I urge you to speak clearly and with honesty, listen to your conscience and respect the people’s interest. I call on you to give a clear response: Do you trust this government to continue?,” Tsipras said.

The vote is expected on Wednesday night.

The prime minister said last week he could call a snap election if he failed to win a majority of 151 votes.

His leftist Syriza party has 145 seats in the 300-seat chamber and the support of one independent lawmaker. Despite the resignation of Kammenos, four lawmakers from the right-wing Independent Greeks have said that they will still back Tsipras.

On Tuesday, he received another endorsement from a member of parliament from the centrist To Potami party, reaching the 151 MP mark.

The fate of the Macedonia name deal hinges on the outcome of the confidence vote, as the opposition has vowed to reject it.

The deal, reached last year, is intended to resolve a dispute that has kept Greece’s northern neighbor excluded from the EU and NATO over its name.

Greece argues that the name Macedonia represents a territorial claim over a Greek province by the same name, and has blocked the former Yugoslav republic from joining Western institutions. Under the deal, Macedonia will change its name to the Republic of North Macedonia, and Greece will accept it.

Macedonia’s parliament last week passed an amendment to the constitution to rename the country, leaving it up to Greece to ratify the deal.

Greek opponents of the agreement say Macedonia’s new name still represents an attempt to appropriate Greek identity. Groups opposing the deal will rally in central Athens on Sunday.

(Editing by Peter Graff)

Graham Calls On Trump “To Use Emergency Powers” To Build Wall

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Thursday called on President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to fund the construction of the US-Mexico border wall, after the latest round of negotiations in the Senate fell apart. 

“Speaker Pelosi’s refusal to negotiate on funding for a border wall/barrier — even if the government were to be reopened — virtually ends the congressional path to funding for a border wall/barrier,” said Graham in a statement. 

“It’s time for President Trump to use emergency powers to fund the construction of a border wall/barrier.” 

“I hope it works” 

The statement follows failed negotiations led by Graham involving moderate GOP senators, some of whom blamed both President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for being unwilling to compromise with each other.

Earlier Thursday we reported that the White House is preparing legal justification to declare a national emergency, according to CNN Chief National Security Correspondent, Jim Sciutto.

Trump, meanwhile, told reporters that he’ll “probably” declare a national emergency if the partial government shutdown drags on.

If Trump moves forward with that option, Graham told reporters that Congress could try to block it using a privileged motion. 

“If he goes down that route, apparently under the statute the House can take up a privileged motion [and] disapprove the declaration,” said Graham. “It comes over here, Senate Democrats can insist we vote on it. And if you get a majority to disapprove it doesn’t go forward.”

At which point Trump can throw his hands up and tell his base that he did everything he could.

Pro-EU lawmakers try to speed UK government’s plan B on Brexit

January 9, 2019

LONDON (Reuters) – Several pro-EU lawmakers mounted a bid on Wednesday to force Britain’s government to return to parliament in three days with a plan B for Brexit if Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal to leave the European Union is voted down next week.

Lawmakers from the governing Conservative Party and opposition Labour Party have put forward a so-called amendment in parliament which would force it to offer alternatives to her deal in three days rather than the planned 21 days.

Some local media and lawmakers quoted sources as saying the speaker of parliament had accepted the amendment, meaning it would be voted on. The office of speaker John Bercow declined to confirm that he had accepted the amendment.

By reducing the timeframe for the government to come up with alternatives to the proposed deal, it puts additional pressure on May, who looks set to lose the vote on Tuesday in a move that would cast her Brexit plans into deeper uncertainty.

Parliament restarts a debate on her deal later on Wednesday after May pulled an earlier vote in December after acknowledging she looked set to be defeated.

First, lawmakers have to approve the so-called business motion, which sets out the procedure for the debate and vote on May’s deal. It is this motion that the lawmakers are seeking to amend.

Labour’s Brexit policy chief, Keir Starmer, said: “If the prime minister’s Brexit deal is rejected, parliament must decide what happens next. This amendment has Labour’s full support.”

(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; editing by Stephen Addison)

Mueller Attorneys Caught Withholding Information in Court – When Will the Judge Realize the Mueller Special Counsel is Criminal Gang?

The Mueller gang was caught withholding millions of pages of non-classified information in its case against a Russian firm.  The corrupt Deep State operatives claimed its for national security purposes.

The Russian firm that challenged Mueller in court, Concord Management, is making a mockery of the Mueller gang and bringing this all to light!

When will US judges understand that the Mueller gang is corrupt and criminal outfit attempting a coup of the 2016 US election while covering up their own crimes?

As we’ve noted previously, in an effort to tie their corrupt investigation to Russia, the Mueller team indicted 13 Russians after presenting their cases to a grand jury in February of 2018. Immediately, these indictments were suspect as everyone on the corrupt Mueller team knew that these ‘Russians’ would never be brought to justice, even if they were real, because they would never come to the US to stand trial and risk being tossed in jail.

Unfortunately for Mueller however, this soon turned into a royal mess.

Lawyers defending one of three Russian companies indicted with the 13 Russians, Concord Management, showed up for court. Mueller’s team was caught off guard and never expected this. They immediately asked the judge for more time but the judge denied their pleas noting that they were the ones who indicted the Russian company in the first place.

As the case proceeded, the Concord attorneys noted that another of the three companies indicted by Mueller was not in existence at the time of Mueller’s indictment. They called this a case of Mueller indicting the proverbial ‘ham sandwich’.

At a subsequent court appearance, the attorneys representing Concord stated that the corrupt Mueller team’s allegations of 13 Russian individuals impacting the 2016 election were “made up” nonsense. The individuals were not even real.  The Mueller team had tried to align these individuals with Concord Management.

Concord Management’s lawyers revealed that Mueller’s team had ignored over 70 discovery requests they had made for information in the case. In response Mueller’s team offered to give Concord Management’s lawyers a massive amount of social media data from those dangerous trolls who sought to influence the US election and the majority of the data was in RUSSIAN.

 

Mueller’s lawyers then admitted that they didn’t even have English translations for the Russian social media posts. (However, somehow Mueller’s lawyers believed Americans were influenced by these Russian language posts?)

The case of the Russians soon turned into a big joke as the legitimacy of the Mueller indictment was challenged by Concord Management.

In a hearing on October 15th, Concord Management claimed that the Special Counsel’s entire case is built around a 100 year old law that the Mueller team is trying to use in a manner the law was not built for.

Then Concord Management accused Mueller of making up a crime because they don’t have evidence they need to push their cases forward

Concord Management argued that Mueller’s team wants to be able to regulate what people say on the Internet

In a follow up brief to the court on October 23rd, Concord states that Mueller’s case is a joke just like Tweety Bird screaming, “I did, I did, I taw a puddy tat”!”

In November a court denied Concord’s motion to dismiss the Concord case based on the argument that Mueller is making up a crime.

When will these judges see that the Mueller gang is the most corrupt group of investigators and attorneys in US history?  They never should have been provided the latitude they have to move forward with any case. They should have been shut down at the onset from their conflicts of interest alone.

However, the Concord case moves on. Concord Management still believes that the Mueller gang is making up a crime and the Mueller gang now seeks to make up secret procedures for communicating ex parte to the court.

Next it was uncovered that the Mueller team somehow obtained a selfie of someone in the nude. Concords attorneys argue that the method as to how the Mueller team obtained this nude selfie “surely can’t threaten the national security of the United States”? This apparently is what the Mueller team is arguing to the courts and Concord’s attorneys’ argue that the Mueller team is only trying to protect how they received a nude selfie of someone.

The attorneys for Concord argue that the Mueller team is made up of a bunch or government goons:

An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier [Concord’s attorney] resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.

Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.

Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.

“Mr. Dubelier is exactly right on Mr. Mueller’s motives and tactics,” said Sidney Powell, whose book “License to Lie” exposes years of Justice Department scandals. “His lieutenant Weissmann is the poster boy for prosecutorial misconduct and has no regard for the facts or the law. He will make up whatever he wants to win, and the entire like-minded team views as an accomplishment everyone whose life they destroy in pursuit of their objective.”

Again, the Mueller team is corrupt. Concord’s attorneys next claim that they provided documents to the court that were supposed to be protected and the Mueller team somehow obtained access to these documents:

Mr. Dubelier said he submitted evidence to the firewall lawyer only to see it fall into the hands of Mr. Mueller’s team, who began using it to further investigate Concord. “Surely a remarkable coincidence,”

Mueller’s team was stealing evidence.  Then yesterday, Concord Management filed another brief with the courts and have accused Mueller’s goons of withholding information from Concord Management:

As Law&Crime previously reported, Concord has argued Mueller is unlawfully keeping “millions of pages of non-classified discovery” materials away from the defendant and attempting to “whisper” secrets to the court in ex parte (one party only) discussions. Concord stuck with the secrecy theme on Friday by opening with a quote from Lord Acton: “Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”

The attorney’s for Concord then quoted the movie Animal House:

The Special Counsel’s argument is reminiscent of Otter’s famous line, ‘Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f**ked up . . . you trusted us. Hey, make the best of it,’” the filing continued.

Concord claims that they are completely in the dark as to whether “any investigators or staff working for the firewall counsel or the Special Counsel may have improperly transmitted the above-referenced information.”

Mueller’s team is withholding information and somehow convinced the judge that this is OK.  It’s clear that the Concord lawyers know the case is a joke and they are responding in kind. 
The judges need to wake up and this for what it is – a horrible joke on the American people.

Mueller’s Special Counsel is a national disgrace and the most audacious illegitimate deed in US history.

This Special Counsel should never have been launched. It is an illegal coup. When will the judges related to its cases see the coup for what it really is?

“This Is Going To Get Extremely Ugly”: Azealia Banks Reignites Feud With Elon Musk

The feud between Elon Musk and Azealia Banks first emerged while Musk was under fire for his famous “funding secured” tweet that later led to him being sued by the SEC for securities fraud. Banks was a guest in Musk’s home around the time Musk sent out the Tweet, reportedly invited by Musk’s then girlfriend, Grimes.

Lately, however, Banks had been relatively quiet about Musk – until last Friday.

Shareholders are trying to subpoena Banks as part of a lawsuit against Musk surrounding the “funding secured” fiasco. When Musk’s lawyer, Dean Kristy, filed a motion to argue against the subpoena, the contents of the filing set Banks off again. 

Banks took to Instagram on Friday, posting a picture of the motion and writing “They are still slighting [sic] me like I don’t have plenty more dirt to spill on Elon. This is going to get extremely ugly…Elon will learn very soon who is more powerful of us two.” 

The post has since been deleted. Banks also seemed to allude during a post on Instagram that Musk had hacked her phone, hacked her computer, had a PI follow her and even tried to poison her. 

Shareholder attorneys are trying to place Banks in Musk’s house during the fallout from Musk’s famous tweet. Banks had previously posted in depth about her time staying at Elon‘s home, claiming that while there, Grimes was comforting Musk about “being too stupid not to go on Twitter while on acid”.

So naturally, those suing Musk are trying to get subpoenas for all parties involved: Banks, Grimes and even media names that interviewed both of them about their dispute directly after it happened.

But Musk’s attorneys fired back, stating that “It is evident that this is really more of an effort to sensationalize these proceedings than a legitimate attempt to preserve evidence”. They then stated that Banks has a “history of making bold and sometimes unverified claims”.

Musk’s attorneys also brought up a story about Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey allegedly mailing his shaved beard hairs to Banks, so she could make him an “amulet to protect him from evildoers”, prompting amused questions if this is what goes on in the lives of billionaires and the Hollywood elite in California?

Citing this story, Musk’s lawyers argued that Banks is “…simply not the type of witness, or actual record, that could justify the required finding of exceptional circumstances necessary”.

“I’m now even more angered by the fact that his lawyer is falsely stating I lied after being vindicated in both incidents with Russell Crowe and Jack Dorsey,” Banks responded.

Google wins U.S. approval for radar-based hand motion sensor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google unit won approval from U.S. regulators to deploy a radar-based motion sensing device known as Project Soli.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said in an order late on Monday that it would grant Google a waiver to operate the Soli sensors at higher power levels than currently allowed. The FCC said the sensors can also be operated aboard aircraft.

The FCC said the decision “will serve the public interest by providing for innovative device control features using touchless hand gesture technology.”

A Google spokeswoman did not immediately comment on Tuesday, citing the New Year’s Day holiday.

The FCC said the Soli sensor captures motion in a three-dimensional space using a radar beam to enable touchless control of functions or features that can benefit users with mobility or speech impairments.

Google says the sensor can allow users to press an invisible button between the thumb and index fingers or a virtual dial that turns by rubbing a thumb against the index finger.

The company says that “even though these controls are virtual, the interactions feel physical and responsive” as feedback is generated by the haptic sensation of fingers touching.

Google says the virtual tools can approximate the precision of natural human hand motion and the sensor can be embedded in wearables, phones, computers and vehicles.

In March, Google asked the FCC to allow its short-range interactive motion sensing Soli radar to operate in the 57- to 64-GHz frequency band at power levels consistent with European Telecommunications Standards Institute standards.

Facebook Inc (FB.O) raised concerns with the FCC that the Soli sensors operating in the spectrum band at higher power levels might have issues coexisting with other technologies.

After discussions, Google and Facebook jointly told the FCC in September that they agreed the sensors could operate at higher than currently allowed power levels without interference but at lower levels than previously proposed by Google.

Facebook told the FCC in September that it expected a “variety of use cases to develop with respect to new radar devices, including Soli.”

The Soli devices can be operated aboard aircraft but must still comply with Federal Aviation Administration rules governing portable electronic devices.

USWGO Alt New’s Brian D. Hill files response to the Government’s MOTION, had a second child porn set up attempted on him

Note: Posted by a anonymous family member of Brian D. Hill. His family controls his accounts until Brian is off of Supervised Release where he is prohibited from using the Internet no thanks to the corrupt politician and corrupt police that was apart of framing him.

Originally by

Originally sourced from Planet Infowars

Originally posted around February 20, 2015

Brian D. Hill(left), Alex Jones(Center), and Stewart Rhodes(right)

Both Brian and his Appellate Attorney Mark A. Jones filed responses to the U.S. Attorney’s(Government’s) Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. So far the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, VA has not ruled on the matter as of yet. It appears that both the Pro Se response and attorney response make multiple fair reasons as to why the Government’s Motion should be dismissed. The U.S. Attorney has attempted to stop Brian’s Appeal as it was the U.S. Attorney that caused Brian to be convicted through usage of a Plea Agreement with the promise of a sentence of Time Served which any prisoner would love to be sentenced under. I guess Brian isn’t too happy with Time Served when under Probation when he feels he is Innocent of the crime he was accused of by the Police.

In the event that Brian’s Appeal is granted that it can have very different impacts that could happen. The Appellate Court could rule to overturn Brian’s criminal conviction or they could even rule for Brian to overturn his guilty plea then allow him to take it back to a trial. Even in the event that his Appeal does fail, he can always file a petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion proceeding under Title 28 U.S.C. Subsection 2255. He even stated in his 2nd NOTICE OF APPEAL(Doc. 62) that “If the defendant continues being denied his appeal of his conviction, then the defendant plans on overturning his unlawful conviction on Constitutional violations and through Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition also known as a 2255 Motion.”

However some do not view his Appeal or even overturning of his conviction as a good thing and have shown displeasure for Brian appealing his Judgment to overturn his criminal conviction under the possession of child pornography law. Some of those have resorted to threats to setting people up(Susan Basko, Brian’s Attorney, and maybe even as far as his family or friends) with child porn and even seem to go as far as blackmailing him with manufactured evidence to get him to stop his Direct Appeal. I asked Brian about this and he responded with a statement that “An unknown assailant sent a threat to Susan Basko, which she forwarded the text of that threatening email, to which is threatening to charge me and I think my attorney with a child porn charge if I don’t drop my appeal,” and “I think it has something to do with the hard drive released from Mayodan PD last week. That threat scares me but not too much as Basko reporting this threat to the FBI which protects me from being framed again.” The response was through text message so the grammar is not correct. It does sound like blackmail when somebody may be attempting to send illegal pornography to somebody then a anonymous email comes to threaten that very person to drop the appeal or be charged with a sex crime as a result of receiving the illegal pornography by the perpetrator or somebody connected with the perpetrator.

Last week on February 9, 2015, Mayodan Police Department has released some of his property to his Appellate Attorney Mark A. Jones which I believe had given the property to Brian himself on February 11, 2015. Then according to the 6-Page Declaration he reported to his Probation Officer that I believed was sent to me for publishing on Scribd, Brian stated under Oath to have received a laptop internal hard drive in one of the released property boxes from the Town of Mayodan’s Police Department. He looked through the contents of his hard drive looking for memorabilia but instead found child pornography in the appearance of nude children pictures. It looks like his family reacted quickly out of fear and being terrified by destroying the hard drive then disposing of it to protect him from another fabricated(set up, frame up) possession charge in addition to a violation of Supervised Release charge for receiving child pornography from the Mayodan Police Department even though unintentionally. Brian filed the Declaration with Probation to prevent himself from being framed under a Probation violation which was caused by a inappropriate release of evidential property from the Mayodan Police Department. Brian claims to have been set up with child porn again but this time he thinks is by the Mayodan Police Department by release of that 160GB hard drive to him. That hard drive isn’t even on the inventory property sheet which causes more questions that need to be asked. Did Mayodan Police intended for Brian to receive child pornography in a physical hard drive they released to his Appellate attorney during his Appeal of his criminal conviction in the U.S. District Court?

Brian told me in text message that “Somebody from Mayodan Police Department had attempted on Feb 9, 2015 to send me child porn.”

Then also told me that “All will be shown in the documents I am attaching. You must write at least a portion of what all has happened. The Probation officer has been informed and so I am sure she will contact the FBI about this. The b**tards that set me up don’t want an appeal. They make me sick Sheila, I am on the sex offender registry for a crime I never committed.”

So it appears that child porn has been sent to him a number of times in an attempt to frame him with a sex crime to discredit him. With the Mayodan Police as suspect of this latest serial crime of various serial crimes involving child porn set up attempts done to political activists to discredit them and shut them up.

If Brian and his attorney are being threatened with some form of blackmail as a result of unintentionally receiving child pornography in a hard drive released from Mayodan Police Department, would that be considered a frame up all along since Mayodan Police should not have been allowed to possess child pornography that should have been at the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation(NC SBI) since the child porn investigation on Brian was supposed to be done under the State of North Carolina. Brian sent me some photos of the property box that showed me how inappropriately the Mayodan Police attempted to seal the evidence box. Even though the sides look like there was a evidence seal, the other sides show two small holes to make it easier to carry the cardboard box that was supposed to be completely sealed by the Police. Then what even makes his criminal case even more questionable was that the only victim listed against Brian was the State of North Carolina. I guess if he has written news articles that have embarrassed North Carolina and any corrupt politicians in that state then he probably has victimized North Carolina for his crime of exercising his first amendment right as alternative media.

1424419459619 IMG 1423692145934

1424419494657 IMG 1423691310631
free upload image

It appears a cardboard box that big would enough to slip a small hard drive through without it being detected. This may make things difficult when attempting to prove whether Mayodan Police could actually be the culprit or not as the Detective Todd Brim of the Mayodan Police Department can always claim that since the box had the two holes in the sides, anybody can plant the hard drive so maybe nobody can ever be fingered as the culprit for the set up attempt on Brian D. Hill, the former USWGO Alternative News reporter. There is no doubt with what has happened to Brian that he is indeed Innocent and this incident caused by the Mayodan Police Department may further prove actual innocence to the charge that Brian was convicted under.

Keep checking this article for further updates or check for my future articles on the subject.

See Article: Former Alternative Media Head appealing criminal conviction, claimed he was framed with child pornography

We Are Change TV.US