web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > article (Page 185)

Hillary Clinton ‘intimidated’ by Tulsi Gabbard’s $50M lawsuit, won’t accept legal documents, lawyer claims: report

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6125696452001_6125703820001-vs Hillary Clinton ‘intimidated’ by Tulsi Gabbard's $50M lawsuit, won’t accept legal documents, lawyer claims: report fox-news/us/democratic-party fox-news/politics/the-clintons fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/tulsi-gabbard fox news fnc/politics fnc Dom Calicchio dadac837-db8a-5356-bc7e-889f3fe5888b article

Hillary Clinton or her representatives have, on at least two occasions, declined to accept legal papers delivered in connection with Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit against her, Gabbard’s attorney claims.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who is seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, filed a $50 million lawsuit against Clinton last week over the former secretary of state’s insinuation that Gabbard was a “Russian asset.”

Brian Dunne, an attorney representing Gabbard, told the New York Post that Secret Service agents turned away a process server Tuesday when the server tried to deliver the lawsuit to Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., north of New York City.

SANDERS SUPPORTERS FUME AS CLINTON ALLIES NAMED TO KEY DEM CONVENTION COMMITTEES

Dunne said the server was instructed instead to deliver the papers to the Washington office of Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, but Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, also declined to accept the legal papers, according to the Post.

“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” Dunne told the newspaper. “But I guess here we are.”

“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process. But I guess here we are.”

— Brian Dunne, attorney for Tulsi Gabbard

Dunne told the paper his team is considering what steps to take next.

During a Jan. 23 appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Gabbard accused Clinton of using “smear tactics” against her in an attempt to suppress her freedom of speech.

“I have dedicated my entire adult life to serving our country,” said Gabbard, 38, a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard who served in Iraq before being elected to Congress in 2012, “and for Hillary Clinton and her powerful allies to attempt to smear me and accuse me — really implying that I’m a traitor to the country that I love — is something that I cannot allow to go unchecked.”

TULSI GABBARD RIPS CNN OVER TOWN HALL SNUB: ‘WE RECEIVED NO EXPLANATION’

Clinton had said in an October 2019 interview that one of the Democratic presidential candidates was “the favorite of the Russians” and was being groomed as a third-party candidate for the 2020 general election in November.

Clinton never mentioned Gabbard by name, but when asked to confirm whether the former first lady was referring to Gabbard, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded, “If the nesting doll fits … ” a reference to popular Russian dolls.

The remarks from Clinton drew immediate pushback from Gabbard on Oct. 18.

“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and the personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a … concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know – it was always you, through your proxies and … powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

Gabbard’s camp announced the lawsuit soon after the congresswoman’s Jan. 21 remarks, in which she criticized Clinton for claiming about Sen. Bernie Sanders that “nobody likes him” and that “he got nothing done” as a lawmaker.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It’s time to grow up, you know? This isn’t high school,” Gabbard told WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H., referring to the Clinton comments.

Gabbard had supported Sanders in the 2016 race, and visited a Sanders campaign office in Plymouth, N.H., earlier this week in what was being viewed as a sign of dealmaking among Democratic candidates as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary draw closer, The Washington Post reported.

Fox News’ Julia Musto contributed to this story.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6125696452001_6125703820001-vs Hillary Clinton ‘intimidated’ by Tulsi Gabbard's $50M lawsuit, won’t accept legal documents, lawyer claims: report fox-news/us/democratic-party fox-news/politics/the-clintons fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/tulsi-gabbard fox news fnc/politics fnc Dom Calicchio dadac837-db8a-5356-bc7e-889f3fe5888b article   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6125696452001_6125703820001-vs Hillary Clinton ‘intimidated’ by Tulsi Gabbard's $50M lawsuit, won’t accept legal documents, lawyer claims: report fox-news/us/democratic-party fox-news/politics/the-clintons fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/tulsi-gabbard fox news fnc/politics fnc Dom Calicchio dadac837-db8a-5356-bc7e-889f3fe5888b article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says — and now Paul may force the issue

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6125468059001_6125474269001-vs Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says -- and now Paul may force the issue Gregg Re fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox news fnc/politics fnc article 8bdbe63d-e726-54a9-85d7-ec0e02334383

Chief Justice Roberts blocked Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul from posing a question during the Senate impeachment trial that would have named the alleged whistleblower at the center of the episode, Fox News is told — and Paul may try to force the issue during the question-and-answer session Thursday.

Roberts, for now, has ball control because he actually receives the questions in note cards from senators, then reads the question aloud in the Senate chamber to be answered by either House Democratic managers or Trump’s defense team. But, Fox News has learned Roberts may soon lose his grip on the proceedings amid a torrent of criticism both inside and outside the Senate.

The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis condemned what he called Roberts’ “arbitrary and unilateral censorship of senators and Senate business,” and reported that Roberts had initially sought to block even general questions of the whistleblower. When Republicans threatened a vote rebuking Roberts on the record, Davis reported, Roberts backed down and decided only to prohibit mentioning the whistleblower’s name.

Asked by Fox News whether Paul would press the issue during the question period, a spokesman for the senator told Fox News only, “tbd” — short for “to be determined.”

A reporter for Roll Call said that during a break in the trial Wednesday, Paul was fuming.

“I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul shouted, according to reporter Niels Lesniewski, who noted that Paul’s complaint was “audible from the galleries above the chamber.”

“If I have to fight for recognition, I will,” Paul said.

“If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”

— Kentucky GOP Rep. Rand Paul

Roberts, under the Constitution, presides over the impeachment trial. But the precise contours of his authority are not clearly established, and remain up for debate; Democrats have even said they will attempt a long-shot motion to give Roberts the unprecedented power to approve or reject witnesses, for example.

Republicans have sought more information on the whistleblower ever since the intelligence community watchdog found several indicators that the person might have a political bias. Fox News has previously reported the whistleblower is a registered Democrat and had a prior work history with a senior Democrat running for president.

The whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid, openly admitted back in 2017 that a “coup” had started against the president from within the administration.

He also openly solicited intelligence community members to help impeach and “get rid” of Trump, years before Trump’s call with Urkaine’s leader that triggered the current impeachment proceedings.

Additionally, Zaid acknowledged that the whistleblower had contact with a prominent Democratic presidential contender, amid reporters that he had served closely with Joe Biden when he was vice president. Trump’s alleged pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden is at the center of the current probe.

Although Democrats have argued that the whistleblower’s possible bias is irrelevant, Republicans have noted that lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has made public inconsistent statements concerning his panel’s contacts with the whistleblower.

It could be, Republicans have suggested, that the whistleblower coordinated his complaint with Schiff’s panel for partisan reasons — a disclosure that, if true, would likely undermine the credibility of the impeachment proceedings. Thus far, the impeachment effort has arguably been elevated in importance from normal partisan bickering in part by the gravitas afforded to the supposedly well-meaning whistleblower at the center of the case.

Wednesday’s lengthy question-and-answer session contained other notable moments, including another spirited constitutional argument by liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Multiple media outlets, including CNN, mischaracterized Dershowitz throughout the day as saying that presidents can do “anything” as long as they can argue it’s in the “public interest.” In fact, Dershowitz maintained that criminal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, regardless of its motivation.

Instead, Dershowitz maintained the Senate should not be in the business of removing presidents based on nebulous “abuse of power” charges that the framers expressly rejected.

‘COUP HAS STARTED,’ UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER’S ATTORNEY PROMISED IN 2017, VOWING TO IMPEACH AND ‘GET RID OF’ TRUMP

When House Democratic impeachment manager Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., claimed “all scholars” except for Dershowitz agreed that impeachment didn’t have to involve crimes or criminal-like conduct, there were audible groans from the GOP side of the chamber.

Dershowitz rose later, turned to Nadler, and said he was simply ignorant of the facts. Dershowitz reiterated that the “abuse of power” charge was vague and indeterminate, and was precisely the kind of article of impeachment that the framers wanted to reject — as evidenced by their explicit repudiation of the charge of “maladministration.”

It would be difficult if not impossible, Dershowitz said, to determine that a president has acted with corrupt “motive,” given that countless presidents consider both the national interest and their personal political gain when making decisions. In a thinly veiled shot at former President Barack Obama, Dershowitz asserted that everyone would agree that it would not be impeachable if a president decided to threaten to bomb Syria if it crossed a kind of “red line,” only to retreat because his pollsters said it would not be popular.

Separately, a string of newly resurfaced video clips of former national security adviser John Bolton spurred Trump and his supporters Wednesday to highlight what they described as serious credibility questions — raised by both Democrats and Republicans — amid the Senate impeachment trial, as the president tweeted, “GAME OVER!”

‘GAME OVER’: TRUMP DECLARES VICTORY AFTER STRING OF BOLTON VIDEOS APPEAR TO UNDERMINE HIS CREDIBILITY

In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating “corruption” in Ukraine was a “high priority” for the Trump administration.

Bolton also called Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “warm and cordial,” without mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton’s forthcoming book that Trump explicitly told him he wanted to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. (Zelensky has said his communications with Trump involved no pressure for any investigation.)

Fox News later identified clips of Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager, in which he says Bolton had a distinct “lack of credibility” and was prone to “conspiracy theories.” This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify in the impeachment trial as an important and believable witness.

WHITE HOUSE TELLS BOLTON TO REMOVE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS FROM MANUSCRIPT, THROWING TESTIMONY INTO DOUBT

“This is someone who’s likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories,” Schiff told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018, when Trump named Bolton national security adviser.

“And I’ll, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration,” he said. “So, you add that kind of thinking to [former U.S. attorney] Joe diGenova and you have another big dose of unreality in the White House.”

Schiff made similar arguments back in May 2005, saying in an interview with CNN’s “Crossfire” that Bolton was “more focused on the next job than doing well at the last job” when he was up for nomination as ambassador to the United Nations under then-President George W. Bush.

“And particularly given the history, where we’ve had the politicizing of intelligence over WMD [weapons of mass destruction], why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is John Bolton’s politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and other issues, why we would want someone with that lack of credibility, I can’t understand,” Schiff had said.

Bolton himself had admitted in the past that he would be more than willing to lie if he felt it was in the nation’s best interest.

“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.

But, speaking to CNN on Monday, Schiff took a different approach — calling Bolton essential to the “search for truth.”

“I think for the senators, and I’m just not talking about the four that have been so much the focus of attention, for every senator, Democrat and Republican, I don’t know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you don’t want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment,” Schiff said on CNN’s “New Day.”

WHITE HOUSE TELLS BOLTON TO REMOVE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS FROM MANUSCRIPT, THROWING TESTIMONY INTO DOUBT

Seemingly responding to charges of hypocrisy, Schiff remarked on the Senate floor late Wednesday: “I’m no fan of John Bolton, but I like him a little more now than I used to.”

Whether or not the Senate will vote to call Bolton as a witness — or whether he will legally be able to testify — remain open questions. Republicans have suggested that Schiff himself should testify.

Any witness resolution would likely require four Republican defections in the Senate, because in the event of a 50-50 tie, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is highly likely to abstain rather than assert his debatable power to cast a tie-breaking vote. The witness question will be decided later this week, after the question-and-answer session of the trial wraps up.

Republicans, who have a 53-47 majority in the chamber, have suggested to Fox News that they would amend any witness resolution that subpoenas Bolton to also require the appearance of several additional witnesses favorable to the Trump administration — likely killing support in the Senate for the whole witness package altogether.

In the meantime, concerns over Bolton potentially divulging classified information, as well as violating the legal principle of executive privilege, have emerged. On Wednesday, the White House revealed it had told Bolton not to publish his upcoming tell-all book about his time in the Trump administration until classified material is removed from the manuscript.

“Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” Ellen J. Knight, a National Security Council (NSC) aide, wrote in a letter to Bolton attorney Charles J. Cooper last week, which was obtained by Fox News.

Bolton’s book has disrupted Trump’s impeachment trial. The New York Times reported that Bolton’s draft manuscript includes a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on military aid to Ukraine to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden — a central part of the case against Trump.

The letter from the NSC was transmitted to Bolton’s attorney on Jan 23. The New York Times article about the manuscript came out on Sunday, Jan. 26 — three days after the letter was transmitted. That indicates that the NSC had already made the determination that there was top secret information in Bolton’s manuscript before anything became public.

Earlier in the day, CNN reported that the letter amounted to a threat against Bolton. But sources told Fox News this was not a “threat,” saying the letter merely points out that there is top secret information contained in the manuscript that cannot be released to the public.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6125468059001_6125474269001-vs Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says -- and now Paul may force the issue Gregg Re fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox news fnc/politics fnc article 8bdbe63d-e726-54a9-85d7-ec0e02334383   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6125468059001_6125474269001-vs Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says -- and now Paul may force the issue Gregg Re fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox news fnc/politics fnc article 8bdbe63d-e726-54a9-85d7-ec0e02334383

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’

Lena Dunham is reflecting on her relationship with Jack Antonoff and says that two years following their split, she’s now on a dating break.

The actress said as much in an interview with Cosmopolitan UK for the magazine’s March cover issue and opened up in a big way about her outlook on love, her health struggles and her sobriety, in which she spent time in rehab.

“I look back and we had a great ride, we cared for each other, but you know what? We were both starting our careers and that was our true passion,” Dunham, 33, told the outlet. “The love you have for someone doesn’t disappear because you don’t have them; it’s just logistically it doesn’t work anymore.”

LENA DUNHAM REVEALS SHE IS ONE YEAR SOBER: ‘LET’S DO THIS’

Despite their breakup, the “Girls” creator said her relationship with the Bleachers frontman, 35, is positive and said she simply “fell in love” too early in life.

Westlake Legal Group lena-dunham-jack-antanoff-reuters Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’ Julius Young fox-news/person/lena-dunham fox-news/entertainment/tv fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 685e4aa6-66d4-59cb-b8c5-d29352976272

Actress Lena Dunham, left, said she was engaged after splitting with Jack Antonoff, right. Now she’s ‘totally single.’ (Reuters)

“I love him so much. He is a dear, dear friend of mine. Has it been easy every second? No, it’s not easy to divide life with someone,” she explained. “There are definitely moments where I was catty, rude or sassy, but he has been beautifully accepting of those and I’ve been able to be accepting of his anger too. What’s really nice is we don’t try to pretend that we don’t have this history together, but we’re also willing to move forward.”

Dunham and Antonoff reportedly met in 2012 after they were set up on a blind date by his sister Rachel and comedian Mike Birbiglia.

LENA DUNHAM AWKWARDLY TRIES TO KISS BRAD PITT AT ‘ONCE UPON A TIME … IN HOLLYWOOD’ PREMIERE

Although the pair dated for many years, Dunham and Antonoff never got engaged despite the actress tweeting in November 2017 that she was sure she overheard him planning a proposal, only to learn he was jokingly bashing her privately to his sister.

“I thought jack was furtively planning a proposal 💍 to me with his sister and he just admitted I actually caught him “talking s–t” about me!” she wrote at the time.

Dunham then quipped “they were huddled and I heard him say ‘Lena’ and ‘finger’ so obviously it seemed like an engagement ring talk,” before adding, “Anyway I want Cardi B‘s ring.” Dunham and Antonoff’s split was confirmed by multiple outlets in January 2018.

The funnywoman told Cosmo in her interview that she continued to date following her split from Antonoff and revealed that she got engaged to a boyfriend who she claimed proposed with a shoelace from a pair of Timberland boots as they were snowed in at her parents’ home.

LENA DUNHAM, AMY SCHUMER BONDED OVER SHARED INTERNET HATE

“I’d just had a hysterectomy, I’d broken up with my boyfriend, I was in the process of breaking up with my business partner — I had no business buying a pair of shoes, [let alone] getting engaged,” she told the magazine. “Then I just went, ‘You know what? I’ve been dating since I was 15 years old. I’m allowed to take a break.’”

She continued: “Sobriety for me means so much more than just not doing drugs. It also means that I abstain from negative relationships. It means I’ve taken a hiatus from dating, which has been amazing for me.”

Dunham said she has since been single for some 14 months which she maintains has brought her “a lot of clarity” and said the past couple years of her life have also “been the best time of my life.”

“I realized that until I was in a dynamic with someone who made me feel super-safe, I didn’t want to do it,” she explained. “People right now will go, ‘Oh my god, you haven’t had sex in over a year,’ and I’m like, ‘No, actually it’s been the most healing thing.’”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Dunham touched on the idea of starting a family, something she was adamant wasn’t going to be a discussion of if, but rather when it happens.

“Here’s the thing; if I meet someone who I think would be great to raise children with, that’s wonderful, but I’ve compromised on too many things in my life,” she maintained. “I’m not going to compromise on that.”

Westlake Legal Group lena-dunham Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’ Julius Young fox-news/person/lena-dunham fox-news/entertainment/tv fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 685e4aa6-66d4-59cb-b8c5-d29352976272   Westlake Legal Group lena-dunham Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’ Julius Young fox-news/person/lena-dunham fox-news/entertainment/tv fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 685e4aa6-66d4-59cb-b8c5-d29352976272

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’

Lena Dunham is reflecting on her relationship with Jack Antonoff and says that two years following their split, she’s now on a dating break.

The actress said as much in an interview with Cosmopolitan UK for the magazine’s March cover issue and opened up in a big way about her outlook on love, her health struggles and her sobriety, in which she spent time in rehab.

“I look back and we had a great ride, we cared for each other, but you know what? We were both starting our careers and that was our true passion,” Dunham, 33, told the outlet. “The love you have for someone doesn’t disappear because you don’t have them; it’s just logistically it doesn’t work anymore.”

LENA DUNHAM REVEALS SHE IS ONE YEAR SOBER: ‘LET’S DO THIS’

Despite their breakup, the “Girls” creator said her relationship with the Bleachers frontman, 35, is positive and said she simply “fell in love” too early in life.

Westlake Legal Group lena-dunham-jack-antanoff-reuters Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’ Julius Young fox-news/person/lena-dunham fox-news/entertainment/tv fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 685e4aa6-66d4-59cb-b8c5-d29352976272

Actress Lena Dunham, left, said she was engaged after splitting with Jack Antonoff, right. Now she’s ‘totally single.’ (Reuters)

“I love him so much. He is a dear, dear friend of mine. Has it been easy every second? No, it’s not easy to divide life with someone,” she explained. “There are definitely moments where I was catty, rude or sassy, but he has been beautifully accepting of those and I’ve been able to be accepting of his anger too. What’s really nice is we don’t try to pretend that we don’t have this history together, but we’re also willing to move forward.”

Dunham and Antonoff reportedly met in 2012 after they were set up on a blind date by his sister Rachel and comedian Mike Birbiglia.

LENA DUNHAM AWKWARDLY TRIES TO KISS BRAD PITT AT ‘ONCE UPON A TIME … IN HOLLYWOOD’ PREMIERE

Although the pair dated for many years, Dunham and Antonoff never got engaged despite the actress tweeting in November 2017 that she was sure she overheard him planning a proposal, only to learn he was jokingly bashing her privately to his sister.

“I thought jack was furtively planning a proposal 💍 to me with his sister and he just admitted I actually caught him “talking s–t” about me!” she wrote at the time.

Dunham then quipped “they were huddled and I heard him say ‘Lena’ and ‘finger’ so obviously it seemed like an engagement ring talk,” before adding, “Anyway I want Cardi B‘s ring.” Dunham and Antonoff’s split was confirmed by multiple outlets in January 2018.

The funnywoman told Cosmo in her interview that she continued to date following her split from Antonoff and revealed that she got engaged to a boyfriend who she claimed proposed with a shoelace from a pair of Timberland boots as they were snowed in at her parents’ home.

LENA DUNHAM, AMY SCHUMER BONDED OVER SHARED INTERNET HATE

“I’d just had a hysterectomy, I’d broken up with my boyfriend, I was in the process of breaking up with my business partner — I had no business buying a pair of shoes, [let alone] getting engaged,” she told the magazine. “Then I just went, ‘You know what? I’ve been dating since I was 15 years old. I’m allowed to take a break.’”

She continued: “Sobriety for me means so much more than just not doing drugs. It also means that I abstain from negative relationships. It means I’ve taken a hiatus from dating, which has been amazing for me.”

Dunham said she has since been single for some 14 months which she maintains has brought her “a lot of clarity” and said the past couple years of her life have also “been the best time of my life.”

“I realized that until I was in a dynamic with someone who made me feel super-safe, I didn’t want to do it,” she explained. “People right now will go, ‘Oh my god, you haven’t had sex in over a year,’ and I’m like, ‘No, actually it’s been the most healing thing.’”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Dunham touched on the idea of starting a family, something she was adamant wasn’t going to be a discussion of if, but rather when it happens.

“Here’s the thing; if I meet someone who I think would be great to raise children with, that’s wonderful, but I’ve compromised on too many things in my life,” she maintained. “I’m not going to compromise on that.”

Westlake Legal Group lena-dunham Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’ Julius Young fox-news/person/lena-dunham fox-news/entertainment/tv fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 685e4aa6-66d4-59cb-b8c5-d29352976272   Westlake Legal Group lena-dunham Lena Dunham says she got engaged following Jack Antonoff split, is now ‘totally single’ Julius Young fox-news/person/lena-dunham fox-news/entertainment/tv fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 685e4aa6-66d4-59cb-b8c5-d29352976272

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sean Hannity on impeachment trial: ‘This thing is over. It’s finished’

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6096898958001_6096890350001-vs Sean Hannity on impeachment trial: 'This thing is over. It's finished' Victor Garcia fox-news/shows/hannity fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article a20b4a52-200c-5eba-9997-fd4367ee785e

Sean Hannity echoed President Trump Thursday, saying the drama in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial is “over.”

“Let me sum it up for you one more time. This thing is over. It’s finished. Everything else will be a mere formality,” Hannity said on his television program. “Now we know how this will end. The president will be acquitted. And thankfully, in two hundred and seventy-nine days, we will have an election in this country.”

BEN SHAPIRO: DEMS ARE WILLING TO WATCH SENATE TRIAL ‘GO DOWN IN FLAMES’  TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN

Hannity accused Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., of once again being dishonest about whether he had any interaction with the Ukraine phone call whistleblower.

“First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said during Wednesday’s impeachment proceeding. “I haven’t met them or communicated with him in any way. The conspiracy theory, which I think was outlined earlier, that the whistleblower colluded with the Intel Committee staff to hatch an impeachment inquiry is a complete and total fiction.”

The host took the House Intelligence Committee chairman to task for his comments.

“[Schiff] first said that that he said, ‘I should have been more clear. Yeah. There was contact with my office and the whistleblower.’ Now he’s saying it didn’t happen,” Hannity said. “A complete, total fiction when even the liberal Washington Post will give a Democrat four Pinocchios because he’s lying.”

“Now, if the congenital liar has nothing to hide,” Hannity continued, “then why did he refuse to call the hearsay whistleblower/non-whistleblower for testimony, which he originally promised to do?” Hannity asked. “Why did he admit there was contact with his staff, with the whistleblower?”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hannity also blasted Democrats and media members for disrespecting Trump supporters.

“I guess they think we, the American people are stupid. They clearly don’t like the way we vote,” Hannity said. “They seem to hate our way of life. They seem to hate our values. They seem to hate our choice for president.”

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6096898958001_6096890350001-vs Sean Hannity on impeachment trial: 'This thing is over. It's finished' Victor Garcia fox-news/shows/hannity fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article a20b4a52-200c-5eba-9997-fd4367ee785e   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6096898958001_6096890350001-vs Sean Hannity on impeachment trial: 'This thing is over. It's finished' Victor Garcia fox-news/shows/hannity fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article a20b4a52-200c-5eba-9997-fd4367ee785e

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Newt Gingrich: ‘Arrogant elitist’ Schiff was exposed when he said Trump’s future ‘cannot be decided at the ballot box’

Westlake Legal Group Gingrich-Hannity Newt Gingrich: 'Arrogant elitist' Schiff was exposed when he said Trump's future 'cannot be decided at the ballot box' fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/hannity fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate/democrats fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 0af95124-568f-5f39-bace-b34d5f26739f

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said Wednesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has exposed himself as an “arrogant elitist” in recent remarks in which he claimed the 2020 election result cannot be trusted.

Gingrich told “Hannity” that Schiff believes he is more righteous than the average American voter.

“[W]hat Schiff said the other day was very chilling. He said, ‘we can’t let this up to the voters’,” said Gingrich. “He is such an arrogant elitist. He thinks he is more important than the American people.”

“That’s what is at stake here. I would hope that after they think about it, that not a single Republican will [vote to] have any more witnesses,” the former House Speaker added.

Earlier this week, Schiff said Trump’s alleged “abuse of office” will “permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government” if the Senate does not “remed[y]” the matter by convicting him.

“For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” the Burbank Democrat claimed.

Earlier in his interview, Gingrich told host Sean Hannity he had also heard remarkable comments from Obama confidant David Axelrod about Democrats apparently becoming disillusioned with impeachment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“[Axelrod] sat through a focus group of Democrats in Chicago and it was 80 minutes — 80 minutes — before any of them mentioned the impeachment, at which point everyone in the group said, ‘That’s over, it’s not going to happen, I don’t want to talk about it.'”

“Democrats need to understand, this is not working,” Gingrich added. “The Democrats ought to be voting to have no more witnesses. The Democrats, frankly, want to vote to acquit and close it down tomorrow.”

Westlake Legal Group Gingrich-Hannity Newt Gingrich: 'Arrogant elitist' Schiff was exposed when he said Trump's future 'cannot be decided at the ballot box' fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/hannity fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate/democrats fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 0af95124-568f-5f39-bace-b34d5f26739f   Westlake Legal Group Gingrich-Hannity Newt Gingrich: 'Arrogant elitist' Schiff was exposed when he said Trump's future 'cannot be decided at the ballot box' fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/hannity fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate/democrats fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 0af95124-568f-5f39-bace-b34d5f26739f

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

2 satellites narrowly avoided hitting each other over Pennsylvania, officials say

Two defunct satellites expected to come within a few feet apart and possibly collide instead sped past each other in opposite orbits Wednesday.

Experts initially warned the satellites, an Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) and the Gravity Gradient Stabilization Experiment (GGSE-4), could collide and send debris through space at remarkable speeds.

TARANTULA NEBULA STUNS IN NEW VIEW FROM THE SPITZER SPACE TELESCOPE

Westlake Legal Group nasa-satellite-pic 2 satellites narrowly avoided hitting each other over Pennsylvania, officials say Louis Casiano fox-news/science/air-and-space fox news fnc/science fnc article 8dd7ce88-3d5e-5235-bda8-7e144e528fd4

Two satellites crossed path with each other Wednesday, worrying experts who theorized the two could collide and send debris hustling through space. (NASA) (NASA)

The crossover occurred about 560 miles above Pittsburgh around 6:39 p.m., Agence France-Presse reported. The IRAS was launched in 1983 as part of a joint mission with NASA, Britain and the Netherlands, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The other was a U.S. Air Force experiment launched in 1967, according to NASA.

Had they hit each other, it could have created thousands of pieces of debris, with some 1,000 pieces possibly measuring more than 10 centimeters, astrodynamicist Dan Oltrogge told the news outlet.

Any debris created would not have posed a threat to Pittsburgh, experts said. Around 20,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball are currently orbiting around Earth.

LeoLabs, a satellite-tracking company, tracked the paths of both satellites and said it had not found evidence of new debris.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

“Thankfully our latest data following the event shows no evidence of new debris. To be sure, we will perform a further assessment upon the next pass of both objects over Kiwi Space Radar occurring later tonight,” its tweet read.

The last collision of large satellites in space occurred in 2009 when a commercial U.S. Iridium spacecraft hit a defunct Russian satellite over Siberia, the BBC reported.

Fox News’ Christopher Carbone contributed to this report. 

Westlake Legal Group nasa-satellite-pic 2 satellites narrowly avoided hitting each other over Pennsylvania, officials say Louis Casiano fox-news/science/air-and-space fox news fnc/science fnc article 8dd7ce88-3d5e-5235-bda8-7e144e528fd4   Westlake Legal Group nasa-satellite-pic 2 satellites narrowly avoided hitting each other over Pennsylvania, officials say Louis Casiano fox-news/science/air-and-space fox news fnc/science fnc article 8dd7ce88-3d5e-5235-bda8-7e144e528fd4

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Josh Hawley: Even GOP senators who don’t like Trump are finding it ‘hard to convict’ him

Westlake Legal Group Video-2 Josh Hawley: Even GOP senators who don't like Trump are finding it 'hard to convict' him fox-news/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate/republicans fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 34c7c8d6-1abc-5010-b8de-8f24fe3fbaa3

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday that although some Republican senators are considering voting in favor of calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, none appear interested in voting to convict him on the articles presented by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

“Let’s be honest here, there are a lot of senators on the Republican side who do not like the president,” Hawley said. “They would be happy to vote against him … if they can find grounds to.”

GUTFELD: CNN HOST DON LEMON, RICK WILSON EXHIBITED ‘CLASSISM’ BY MOCKING TRUMP SUPPORTERS

“They can’t find any grounds to because there aren’t any, and the longer the House managers talk, the more obvious that becomes.”

Host Tucker Carlson asked Hawley about the possibility that three Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama — could potentially vote with Republicans to acquit Trump, and defy the apparent wishes of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

“I think it’s very possible, Tucker. I think what it tells you is that they just don’t have a case,” he said of Schiff and the other Democratic impeachment managers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I think we are watching here with the questioning tonight, the Democratic case just fall apart.”

Hawley noted that Schiff said earlier Wednesday evening that the impeachment case against Trump is about bribery and extortion, a claim Hawley said left him incredulous because neither offense was included in the articles of impeachment.

“We are wondering: Why are we here exactly?” asked Hawley, adding that it is becoming clear the trial is a partisan avenue to “overturn” the results of the 2016 election.

Westlake Legal Group Video-2 Josh Hawley: Even GOP senators who don't like Trump are finding it 'hard to convict' him fox-news/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate/republicans fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 34c7c8d6-1abc-5010-b8de-8f24fe3fbaa3   Westlake Legal Group Video-2 Josh Hawley: Even GOP senators who don't like Trump are finding it 'hard to convict' him fox-news/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate/republicans fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 34c7c8d6-1abc-5010-b8de-8f24fe3fbaa3

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: Trump’s conviction in impeachment trial not justified even if Bolton claims are true

Westlake Legal Group image Gregg Jarrett: Trump’s conviction in impeachment trial not justified even if Bolton claims are true Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate fox-news/politics/elections/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 27ea7cac-0b94-5667-8d4b-a4c915f843f3

After sitting on their hands and listening to arguments for a week in President Trump’s impeachment trial, senators were finally allowed to pose their own questions Wednesday. It proved to be illuminating.

As is often the case, the first question was the most penetrating and important one. It got to the heart of the Democrats’ principal accusation regarding why they contend the president should be removed from office.

Democrats claim that when Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into what Trump called troubling actions by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump was seeking a political advantage against a prospective opponent in the November presidential election. This, argue Democrats, was an impeachable “abuse of power,” and was the basis of the first article of impeachment approved by House Democrats in December.

‘GAME OVER,’ TRUMP DECLARES, AS OLD BOLTON, SCHIFF VIDEOS SURFACE AMID IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

Trump’s legal team has countered that the president had every right to ask Ukraine to examine and produce any evidence of a potentially corrupt act by a U.S. public official. The act to be examined was Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was allegedly investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company that employed his son.

By any reasonable and objective standard, Hunter Biden’s employment was highly suspicious and unusual. At a time when his father was serving as vice president and in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama-Biden administration, Hunter Biden was being paid $83,000 a month to sit on the natural gas company’s board – despite having absolutely no experience in the energy sector and no experience in Ukrainian affairs.

More from Opinion

The question put to Trump’s defense team by Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah was: “If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interest, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1?” 

More than any other question, this one needed answering. Setting aside whether Trump was genuinely motivated by electoral gain, Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explained that presidents often make decisions that have multiple or “mixed motives.” This is an obvious truth.

As I argued in my last column, nearly all presidential actions involve some ancillary political calculation. Sometimes there is a dual or overlapping purpose.

History is replete with examples of how presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, have rendered decisions that benefited themselves and the nation simultaneously. This does not mean their judgments constituted an abuse of power. If it were otherwise, nearly all presidents would be impeached and evicted from office.

Philbin reasoned that all elected officials are mindful of how their conduct will affect their political standing because “there’s always some personal interest in the electoral outcome of policy decisions.”

In asking President Zelensky to look into then-Vice President Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the prosecutor allegedly investigating Burisma was fired, Philbin explained that Trump had a legitimate public purpose.

“If there were a motive that was of public interest, but also some personal interest, it follows more clearly that it cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense,” Philbin said. He added that “lots of their own witnesses from the State Department said that, on its face, it (Joe Biden’s actions) appeared to be a conflict of interest.”

Constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz was even more animated in defense of the multiple motives argument when he spoke in President Trump’s defense at the impeachment trial.

“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And, mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz again cited the example of President Lincoln, who encouraged General William T. Sherman to grant his men leave from the battlefield to return to Indiana to cast votes for Lincoln’s reelection in 1864.

Did Lincoln use the power of his office for personal and/or political gain? Of course, he did. Was it an impeachable “abuse of power?”  No, said Dershowitz, “because the president believed it was in the national interest. He believed that his own reelection was essential to victory in the Civil War.”

The retired Harvard Law School professor added: “Everybody has mixed motives, and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached. How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and their pollsters? If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”

Dershowitz tied his constitutional analysis together by stating: “For it to be impeachable, you would have to discern that he [the president] made a decision solely on the basis of, as the House managers have put it, a corrupt motive and it cannot be a corrupt motive if you have a mixed motive that partially involves the national interest and partially involves electoral interests.”

Only an unlawful act by the president would be impeachable, Dershowitz concluded. Yet, House managers have not alleged a crime or violation of the law in their articles of impeachment.

The defense argument – blending history, precedent and common sense – renders the prospect of the Senate calling new witnesses, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton, superfluous.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume – as The New York Times has reported – that Bolton’s upcoming book recounts how Trump mentioned in a conversation that he “wanted” to withhold $391 million in U.S. security assistance from Ukraine unless that nation investigated the Bidens. Let’s further assume that Trump’s motive was, in part, political.

This still does not meet the proper impeachable standard for several reasons.

First, can anyone truly argue that the behavior of the Bidens was not suspicious enough to merit an investigation? Democrats’ own witnesses said it posed a serious conflict of interest. Evidence produced by Republicans during the Trump impeachment trial has raised the specter of influence peddling and self-enrichment.

Video clips were played of the media asking persistent questions regarding the Bidens and airing stories suggestive of corruption. This demonstrates that President Trump had a legitimate basis to ask Ukraine to scrutinize what happened. It was a matter of public interest.

Even accepting the leaked story about the Bolton book is accurate, a president wanting to do something and actually doing it are two very different concepts. Lots of presidents want to do things they never choose to do.

After delaying U.S. military aid to Ukraine, Trump released the funds to the nation without any strings attached. No “quid pro quo” ever came to fruition. The idea – if there ever was one – was discarded.

Importantly, President Zelensky and his foreign minister both stated they were never pressured to investigate anything and had no idea that American aid was temporarily halted until well after the fact.

President Trump may have talked with Bolton about conditioning aid to Ukraine on an investigation of the Bidens, but such action never occurred. To remove Trump from office for merely discussing something with a senior aide is to turn Congress into the “thought police” where contemplation is tantamount to an impeachable offense.

Finally, there’s the matter of Bolton’s suspected breach of confidential communications with Trump and the disclosure of classified material. Presidents have the right to obtain confidential advice and to engage in private deliberations without the intrusion of the legislative branch.

The principle of executive privilege has been recognized and respected since President George Washington invoked it more than two centuries ago. It is a paramount privilege when matters of national security are at stake. Trump’s conversation with his national security adviser is most likely covered by the privilege.

It is deeply disturbing that Bolton would have the temerity to write a book that would breach this privilege and profit by it financially.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Three days before The New York Times reported its story based on (you guessed it) anonymous sources, a senior director at the National Security Council sent a letter to Bolton’s lawyer. The letter warned that the manuscript submitted to the council contains “significant amounts of classified information,” including some “at the TOP SECRET level.”

Under federal law, and perhaps as well as under the nondisclosure agreement that Bolton signed as a condition to his employment, publication of the existing manuscript could subject him to criminal charges.

The Times reports that Bolton has already circulated his book manuscript to “close associates” – something Bolton denies doing. If the newspaper report is correct and those individuals did not have the highest security clearance, the law may already have been broken.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Whoever leaked to the Times could also be prosecuted if the information conveyed was deemed classified. Regardless of the security issues, senators are still not entitled to pierce the veil of executive privilege unless Trump waives the privilege or the federal courts determine that it does not apply.

Is it really worth a protracted legal battle for the Senate to gain access to a purported presidential discussion of a “quid pro quo” that, in the end, never actually happened? To pose the question is to answer it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group image Gregg Jarrett: Trump’s conviction in impeachment trial not justified even if Bolton claims are true Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate fox-news/politics/elections/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 27ea7cac-0b94-5667-8d4b-a4c915f843f3   Westlake Legal Group image Gregg Jarrett: Trump’s conviction in impeachment trial not justified even if Bolton claims are true Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/senate fox-news/politics/elections/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 27ea7cac-0b94-5667-8d4b-a4c915f843f3

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Contagion’ climbs iTunes movie charts as coronavirus outbreak spreads

Westlake Legal Group Contagion-Coronavirus 'Contagion' climbs iTunes movie charts as coronavirus outbreak spreads Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/media fox-news/health fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 5a8bb129-abc2-59a4-8277-f73286aa45a3

The outbreak of the deadly coronavirus has caused a recent surge in viewership of the 2011 thriller “Contagion.”

As more cases of coronavirus have emerged in the U.S., The Hollywood Reporter reported the Steven Soderbergh flick in the Top 10 films on iTunes on Tuesday, joining Oscar-nominated films like “Joker,” “Parasite,” “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood,” and “Ford v Ferrari,” as well as other new releases.

“Contagion” has since floated around the 15th spot in the ranking.

The film, which stars Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law and Kate Winslet, follows the rapid spread of a worldwide disease as the U.S. government and the healthcare community struggle to contain the illness and find a cure.

There are five confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S. However, a Philadelphia-based pharmaceutical company is helping to fast-track a vaccine to help quell the deadly outbreak.

Backed by a fresh $9 million grant from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which receives money from public and private funding, Inovio Pharmaceuticals will begin developing the vaccine along with University of Pennsylvania-based research facility, the Wistar Institute, to ensure that it is available within the next few months.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Over 200 Americans were evacuated from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak, and landed at a military base in California on Wednesday. A team dressed in white protective suits could be seen gathered near the airplane after it landed, and three charter buses were parked nearby. A statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the team was made up of CDC medical officers who were deployed to again assess the health of passengers.

Fox News’ Perry Chiaramonte, Angela Bertorelli, and Alexandria Hein contributed to this report. 

Westlake Legal Group Contagion-Coronavirus 'Contagion' climbs iTunes movie charts as coronavirus outbreak spreads Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/media fox-news/health fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 5a8bb129-abc2-59a4-8277-f73286aa45a3   Westlake Legal Group Contagion-Coronavirus 'Contagion' climbs iTunes movie charts as coronavirus outbreak spreads Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/media fox-news/health fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 5a8bb129-abc2-59a4-8277-f73286aa45a3

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com