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 > News Corporation (Page 311)

CNN’s Don Lemon: Anyone who still thinks Trump did nothing wrong is ‘mental’

Westlake Legal Group lemon01 CNN's Don Lemon: Anyone who still thinks Trump did nothing wrong is 'mental' Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 76b8c3b4-405a-5207-aafb-721090ccb0d8

CNN anchor Don Lemon claimed that those who continue to insist that President Trump did nothing wrong are “mental” and have “got a problem.”

Lemon began by calling Wednesday’s testimony “explosive” and said it was “not a good day” for the Trump administration during his nightly primetime handoff with fellow CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

“I have to say, at this point if you’re continuing to say that there was no, as they say, ‘quid pro quo,’ or the president didn’t ask, whether or not it’s impeachable, that again is not up for me to decide, not up for you to decide, that’s up for the Senate to decide and the American people,” Lemon told Cuomo. “But to deny that the president did not do something wrong at this point is… it’s… it’s mental. It is mental.”

He continued, “If you can look at the mountain of evidence and say, ‘Oh, nothing’s wrong, the president didn’t do anything wrong, he’s just rooting out corruption,’ you’ve got a problem because that is not what happened… The problem is you.”

CNN’S DON LEMON CLAIMS HE’S NOT ‘SOME LIBERAL’ DEMOCRAT: ‘I’M NOT A PARTISAN’

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

On Tuesday, the anti-Trump anchor declared he’s not “some liberal Democrat” and claimed he isn’t partisan when discussing the impeachment hearings.

“I think on this one, the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, and they are the most hypocritical. I’m not a partisan. I know people think that I’m some liberal Democrat. I’m not. They used to think I was a conservative Republican. I’m not,” Lemon. “But I don’t think the Republicans are serving themselves well.”

Fox News’ Brian Flood contributed to this report. 

Westlake Legal Group lemon01 CNN's Don Lemon: Anyone who still thinks Trump did nothing wrong is 'mental' Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 76b8c3b4-405a-5207-aafb-721090ccb0d8   Westlake Legal Group lemon01 CNN's Don Lemon: Anyone who still thinks Trump did nothing wrong is 'mental' Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 76b8c3b4-405a-5207-aafb-721090ccb0d8

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

Free Internet Is Proposed in Britain. Is It Even Possible?

Westlake Legal Group 21ukbroadband-facebookJumbo Free Internet Is Proposed in Britain. Is It Even Possible? Telephones and Telecommunications Politics and Government Labour Party (Great Britain) Great Britain Corbyn, Jeremy (1949- ) Computers and the Internet BT Group PLC

LONDON — In an election where Britain’s looming exit from the European Union has hung over the campaign, a debate about internet speeds would seem unlikely to enter the race.

But Britain’s Labour Party injected the topic into the contest last week with a surprise plan to provide high-speed fiber internet service to every household and business in the country by 2030. Free.

The proposal raised questions about how a free broadband service would work, and who would pay for it.

The party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the government would take over parts of the country’s largest internet provider, Openreach, a subsidiary of the telecommunications giant BT. The plan would reverse decades of privatization and put the government in charge of an enormous national infrastructure project.

Labour said the plan would cost roughly 20 billion pounds, or about $26 billion, and be paid for as part of a new government spending package. A tax on Facebook, Google and other tech giants would be used to maintain the network. Labour said it would save customers an average of about £30 a month on internet service, or about $39.

The idea amounts to an attempt at creating a new British social service akin to the National Health Service, which provides free medical care to all British residents.

No other country provides free government-run broadband service, said Matthew Howett, the founder and principal analyst at Assembly Research, a firm that studies telecommunications.

To catch up to other countries that have rolled out fiber more quickly, Britain would negotiate the purchase of Openreach, which has more than 32,000 employees and revenue of more than £5 billion, or about $6.5 billion.

The government would take over construction of a project that the telecommunications industry says will cost nearly £35 billion, or about $45 billion — making it one of the country’s largest infrastructure efforts.

The prospects of several other companies that compete with Openreach and have pledged billions in investment for their own initiatives would be thrown into doubt after the debut of a free government-run service.

“They all would disappear,” Mr. Howett said. “There is no way consumers are going to be paying them if they can get it for free from the government.”

The only comparable project is in Australia, where the National Broadband Network has tried to wire the country with fiber internet over the last decade. That project has been roundly criticized for delays, running over budget and not delivering the quality of service that was promised.

Governments elsewhere have taken different approaches. In South Korea and Japan, where more than 95 percent of the households and businesses have fiber broadband, the government played a crucial role, including helping companies secure loans to pay for the costs.

In Latvia and Portugal, other countries with high internet coverage, government grants have helped businesses pay for the buildup. In the United States, a fee on cellphone bills is used to pay for subsidies to businesses to expand broadband in rural areas, though it does not require fiber networks to be built.

“Lagging in fast internet is clearly a problem when the future of the global economy will depend much more on connectivity,” said Kevin Allison, who studies government tech policy with the Eurasia Group in Berlin.

Britain has wide coverage for what was once the fastest internet technology, known as superfast. But it now lags far behind other leading economies in the next-generation networks. The new technology, based on fiber rather than copper cables, delivers information faster and more reliably than the aging systems. A high-definition movie can be downloaded in less than a minute.

“Superfast is good enough for today,” Mr. Howett said. “But it’s not going to be good enough for the world we’re entering in the 2020s and 2030s.”

Only 8 to 10 percent of households and businesses in Britain are connected to full-fiber broadband, trailing the 26 percent average of the 36 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Matthew Evans, a director at techUK, an industry trade group, said Britain’s construction of fiber networks had been accelerating, with companies committing billions to digging up roads and laying new equipment.

But he warned of the political risks of a government takeover. People like free services, he said, but politicians do not like to be blamed for people’s internet problems. “It becomes an absolute political football,” he said.

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

Turkey chases Wisconsin postal worker from house to house in viral video

Westlake Legal Group Turkeys-iStock Turkey chases Wisconsin postal worker from house to house in viral video fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/lifestyle/occasions/thanksgiving fox-news/entertainment/genres/viral fox news fnc/us fnc Brie Stimson bc4b9bd8-ceb8-5d8e-bf9d-dd4e6a34d45d article

A mischievous wild turkey in Wisconsin has been seen chasing a postal worker’s truck for weeks just in time for Thanksgiving.

“OK, seriously, this turkey has been stalking the mail truck throughout the entire neighborhood,” Sherry Michaels of Waukesha County posted on Facebook Monday. “Oh my gosh, this is so funny.”

Her video shows the curious bird follow the USPS truck as the driver stops at each mailbox on the street.

In the video, the turkey runs to keep up with the truck, then stops and waits while the postal worker delivers the mail.

“Our poor mail carrier has been dealing with this for a month!” Michaels wrote in the post.

The postal worker, Jeff Byrne, told WISN-TV he’s been aware of the bird since the summer. Byrne has worked for the post office for 20 years but said it’s the first time he’s had a turkey follow his truck.

“He didn’t pay me any attention at all in the first couple of months. He’s acquainted himself quite well with the truck, and now he’s started to follow me,” Byrne said.

He told the station the bird has gotten under his skin a bit but said he’s inclined to overlook it in light of the holidays.

“He did startle me one time last week when I was coming back to the truck. He kind of jumped up and flapped his wings, feathers. Got real close to my face,” he said. “It’s Thanksgiving. I can’t say he’s annoying, too close to his holiday.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The United States Postal Service said it’s not the first time a turkey has become enamored of one of their trucks, according to WISN.

Westlake Legal Group Turkeys-iStock Turkey chases Wisconsin postal worker from house to house in viral video fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/lifestyle/occasions/thanksgiving fox-news/entertainment/genres/viral fox news fnc/us fnc Brie Stimson bc4b9bd8-ceb8-5d8e-bf9d-dd4e6a34d45d article   Westlake Legal Group Turkeys-iStock Turkey chases Wisconsin postal worker from house to house in viral video fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/lifestyle/occasions/thanksgiving fox-news/entertainment/genres/viral fox news fnc/us fnc Brie Stimson bc4b9bd8-ceb8-5d8e-bf9d-dd4e6a34d45d article

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

Mary Anne Marsh: Fifth Democratic debate’s big winners and surprising losers

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6034425549001_6034419723001-vs Mary Anne Marsh: Fifth Democratic debate's big winners and surprising losers Mary Anne Marsh fox-news/us/democratic-party fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 20786fd2-72bc-5087-98a2-615bf04e9d99

After a day of impeachment hearings with some devastating developments for President Trump, the fifth Democratic debate opened Wednesday night in Atlanta with everyone seeming a bit more nervous than usual, but then quickly settled into candidates delivering their respective campaign messages.

While many expected the debate to focus attacks on the front runners – including the newly minted member of the club, South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg – that didn’t happen.

However, Sen. Kamala Harris of California delivered a prosecutorial dissection of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii that was the attack everyone will remember, after the latter criticized the Democratic Party and Harris brought the receipts that Gabbard was never really a member of it.

RISING BUTTIGIEG FENDS OFF ATTACKS, TAKES ON FAR-LEFT FLANK AT DEM DEBATE; BIDEN STUMBLES

Here are the night’s biggest winners and losers:

WINNERS

BIGGEST WINNER: Amy Klobuchar

Overall, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was the winner of the contest than ran over two hours. She had her best performance by emphasizing her experience, productivity, electoral successes. She also emphasized the fact that women are judged by a different standard than men, citing her criticism of Buttigieg’s lack of experience while he was being hailed as a front-runner last week.

Klobuchar pulled it all together in Atlanta with a number of great points and lines — many familiar — but then she delivered the line of the night, “If you think a woman can’t beat Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi does it every single day.” Klobuchar isn’t a front runner and this debate won’t make her one. But, the senator will get another look from voters due to it and that puts her in a better position coming out of the debate than going into it.

SURPRISE WINNER: Joe Biden

Former Vice President Biden is a winner by default. Hiding in plain sight might be the best strategy for him. Biden didn’t have the mistake laden performance of past debates by receding for long stretches in the debate. Still holding on to a national lead, that strategy Wednesday night will help him hold on to it for a bit longer. Biden largely relied on his message that he can beat Trump, has the experience, and can bring people together. That might be enough, for now, to keep him in the post position but it’s not going to win the nomination without a better performance in future debates and on the campaign trail.

SURPRISE WINNER: Kamala Harris

Harris had her best performance in a long time. She went after Trump and Gabbard making the case against both in her best prosecutorial fashion. Harris may never match the electric moment she had when she went after Biden in an earlier debate, but she turned in her best performance since that one by mixing moxie and policy positions. That allows Harris to play for another day when she’s been skating at the edge of collapse. A lack of consistency has bedeviled her candidacy. But on Wednesday night she was the candidate everyone expected her to be in this campaign.

LOSERS

BIGGEST LOSER: Tulsi Gabbard

Running to be the Democratic nominee and criticizing the Democratic Party is not a winning strategy. Gabbard’s criticism of the Party may have been her way of setting up a run as an independent in the general election. Instead, Harris disqualified her for both contests by reciting her embrace of Trump and dictators since the 2016 election. Gabbard then turned her aim on Buttigieg at the end of the debate in yet another curious attack on other Democratic candidates that has been a hallmark of her candidacy.

More from Opinion

LOSER: Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg was the loser in Atlanta. He had the most to gain yet missed the opportunity to set himself apart from the front tier of candidates and generate even more of the momentum initiated by the latest polls. Buttigieg still struggles to address matters of race and that was no different on Wednesday night. The fact that Buttigieg couldn’t make the most of the debate on Wednesday night could foreshadow his ability to put the race away later in the campaign. It is his second turn in the spotlight and under the stage lights on Wednesday night he didn’t shine. Instead, Buttigieg turned in a serviceable appearance at best, missing an opportunity he’s unlikely to get again — a hot hand going into a debate as a new front-runner.

LOSER: Elizabeth Warren

Debates have been Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s bread and butter. No one has more plans, policies, or points and makes them better than Warren…but not on Wednesday night. For some reason, Warren didn’t have it. She made better points with more detail than any of the other candidates but her delivery and presence were off. A performance like those from her other debates would have helped Warren stem a tough week or two of poll numbers in early primary states. Instead, she will have to hit the trail to do it until the next debate.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

LOSER: Bernie Sanders

The independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t do anything to help himself on Wednesday night. Same lines, same attacks, same Bernie Sanders. His performance means that Sanders won’t turn his drop in the polls around with the Atlanta debate. He has plenty of money to stay in the race for months to come. But, that doesn’t mean he’s going to win a contest in the process and that’s why debates like the one on Wednesday night matter.

LOSER: Cory Booker

In every debate, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker has a moment…and that’s it. It’s just a moment. That’s not enough for him or his candidacy to make a move. Booker’s performance Wednesday night isn’t going to move the polls for him and it’s unlikely he is going do anything else at this point that will do it.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

LOSERS: Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang

Neither entrepreneur Andrew Yang nor billionaire activist Tom Steyer were able to make a real mark in this debate to make a move in the polls with voters. Steyer resorted to reciting lines from his TV ads during much of the debate. Yang had a few good lines. But, at this point, that’s a costly missed opportunity for both candidates.

LOSER: Deval Patrick

The late entrant into the 2020 Democratic race, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick not only didn’t make the debate stage he also canceled an event he organized at Morehouse College in Atlanta, the site of the debate, when only two people showed up.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY MARY ANNE MARSH

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6034425549001_6034419723001-vs Mary Anne Marsh: Fifth Democratic debate's big winners and surprising losers Mary Anne Marsh fox-news/us/democratic-party fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 20786fd2-72bc-5087-98a2-615bf04e9d99   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6034425549001_6034419723001-vs Mary Anne Marsh: Fifth Democratic debate's big winners and surprising losers Mary Anne Marsh fox-news/us/democratic-party fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 20786fd2-72bc-5087-98a2-615bf04e9d99

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

TNT’s Charles Barkley apologizes for ‘attempted joke’ after allegedly telling female reporter ‘I would hit you’

Westlake Legal Group 49206425-Charles-Barkley TNT's Charles Barkley apologizes for 'attempted joke' after allegedly telling female reporter 'I would hit you' fox-news/sports/nba fox-news/politics fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/sports fnc f58a94fb-0418-59cf-9670-64c01b711378 Danielle Wallace article

Charles Barkley apologized to a reporter Wednesday for what he called an “attempted joke,” following claims the NBA Hall of Famer had told her “I don’t hit women but if I did I would hit you.”

The TNT basketball commentator’s response came a day after Axios reporter Alexi McCammond tweeted about the alleged exchange.

CHARLES BARKLEY ALLEGEDLY TOLD REPORTER ‘I DON’T HIT WOMEN BUT IF I DID I WOULD HIT YOU’

McCammond, a politics reporter covering the 2020 presidential election, wrote: “Just FYI Charles Barkley told me tonight “I don’t hit women but if I did I would hit you,” and then when I objected to that he told me I “couldn’t take a joke.”

She said she had asked Barkley off the record for clarification on which Democratic candidate he supported for president.

“My comment was inappropriate and unacceptable,” Barkley said in a statement released by Turner Sports PR. “It was an attempted joke that wasn’t funny at all.  There’s no excuse for it and I apologize.”

“My comment was inappropriate and unacceptable. It was an attempted joke that wasn’t funny at all.  There’s no excuse for it and I apologize.”

— Charles Barkley

McCammond retweeted the apology, adding her response:

“The comments Charles Barkley made to me are not acceptable. Threats of violence are not a joke, & no person deserves to be hit or threatened like that. Silence only allows the culture of misogyny to fester. And those kinds of comments don’t merit off-the-record protections.”

As of late Wednesday, Barkley was still scheduled to appear on Thursday night’s edition of “Inside the NBA,” despite public backlash on social media about his remarks about hitting women, Front Office Sports reported. It was not immediately clear if TNT would seek any disciplinary action against him.

Meanwhile, McCammond on Wednesday received pushback for her critique of Barkley on social media given her own past tweets, which some have viewed as “racist” against Asians and African-Americans. Social media users shared screenshots of McCammond’s old tweets, some of which date to 2008. McCammond apologized and said she deleted the tweets from her account.

“Today, I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today,” she said.

The National Association of Black Journalists supported McCammond in a statement, saying that her past tweets, which she published as a student, before becoming a professional journalist, do not “negate our concerns that the comments and actions toward her by Mr. Barkley were inexcusable, as are some of the other comments she’s encountered as a result of her speaking out about what she has faced.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The association said it was unaware of McCammond’s tweets in 2018 when she was awarded NABJ’s “Emerging Journalist of the Year.”

“We have always encouraged all of our members, which includes Ms. McCammond, to be respectful of people of all backgrounds. Celebrating diversity is at the core of our mission,” the NABJ continued. “We are hopeful to see that Ms. McCammond has worked to rectify the situation concerning her past tweets.”

Westlake Legal Group 49206425-Charles-Barkley TNT's Charles Barkley apologizes for 'attempted joke' after allegedly telling female reporter 'I would hit you' fox-news/sports/nba fox-news/politics fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/sports fnc f58a94fb-0418-59cf-9670-64c01b711378 Danielle Wallace article   Westlake Legal Group 49206425-Charles-Barkley TNT's Charles Barkley apologizes for 'attempted joke' after allegedly telling female reporter 'I would hit you' fox-news/sports/nba fox-news/politics fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/sports fnc f58a94fb-0418-59cf-9670-64c01b711378 Danielle Wallace article

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

What to Watch For in Day 5 of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

The final House impeachment hearing of the week gets underway Thursday morning with joint testimony by Fiona Hill, a former Europe and Russia expert at the White House, and David Holmes, an embassy official in Kyiv.

Ms. Hill is expected to describe her concerns about the Ukraine pressure campaign and those of John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser. Mr. Holmes will be asked about a cellphone conversation he overheard in which President Trump asked an ambassador about investigations he wanted Ukraine to announce.

Who: Ms. Hill and Mr. Holmes will testify during a morning session. There is no afternoon session scheduled.

What: The House Intelligence Committee, led by its chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, will continue to examine the case for impeaching Mr. Trump. The Republican minority, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, will again work to poke holes in testimony implicating the president.

When and Where: The morning proceedings start at 9 Eastern in the House Ways and Means Committee chambers. It will most likely last until the afternoon.

How to Watch: The New York Times will stream the testimony live, and a team of reporters in Washington will provide real-time context and analysis of the events on Capitol Hill. Follow along at nytimes.com, starting a few minutes before 9.

Westlake Legal Group 00impeachment-archetypes-videopromo-image-articleLarge-v2 What to Watch For in Day 5 of the Trump Impeachment Hearings United States Politics and Government Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Holmes, David (Diplomat) Hill, Fiona (1965- )

The Impeachment Inquiry’s Main Players

Here are the lawmakers to watch as the process unfolds.

Ms. Hill is expected to testify that Mr. Bolton expressed serious concerns about the pressure campaign on Ukraine led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who was pushing Ukraine to investigate Democrats. In previous, closed-door testimony, she described a July 10 White House meeting during which Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, raised the investigations in front of Ukrainian officials and said there was a deal to grant their new president a White House meeting with Mr. Trump if he agreed to announce them.

Disturbed, Mr. Bolton abruptly ended the meeting and instructed Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers about what Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, were up to. Mr. Bolton told Ms. Hill that he was not “part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” she testified. Later, Ms. Hill said that Mr. Bolton told her that “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

Mr. Sondland said in Wednesday’s hearing that Ms. Hill’s account of the July 10 meeting does not “square with my own.”

Mr. Holmes will testify that he overheard a phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland during a lunch in Kyiv. In closed-door testimony, Mr. Holmes told lawmakers last week that he overheard Mr. Trump, who was speaking loudly, asking Mr. Sondland whether Mr. Zelensky was “going to do the investigation.” Mr. Sondland, a wealthy hotelier and political donor turned ambassador, told Mr. Trump that Mr. Zelensky “loves your ass” and would conduct the investigation and do “anything you ask him to,” according to Mr. Holmes’s statement.

In Mr. Holmes’s account, Mr. Sondland told him that Mr. Trump cares only about “big stuff that benefits the president” like the “Biden investigation” into the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Sondland largely confirmed that account on Wednesday but said he did not recall specifically mentioning Mr. Biden. Democrats believe the conversation helps establish that the president was preoccupied with persuading Ukraine to publicly commit to investigations that Mr. Trump wanted.

  • Both witnesses have already appeared for closed-door depositions in the inquiry. Read transcripts or key excerpts from their testimony here: Ms. Hill, Mr. Holmes.

  • Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured Mr. Zelensky to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including the former vice president. Here’s a timeline of events since January.

  • A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.

Video

transcript

Who Are the Main Characters in the Whistle-Blower’s Complaint?

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Congressman: “Sir, let me repeat my question: Did you ever speak to the president about this complaint?” Congress is investigating allegations that President Trump pushed a foreign government to dig up dirt on his Democratic rivals. “It’s just a Democrat witch hunt. Here we go again.” At the heart of an impeachment inquiry is a nine-page whistle-blower complaint that names over two dozen people. Not counting the president himself, these are the people that appear the most: First, Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani. According to documents and interviews, Giuliani has been involved in shadowy diplomacy on behalf of the president’s interests. He encouraged Ukrainian officials to investigate the Biden family’s activities in the country, plus other avenues that could benefit Trump like whether the Ukrainians intentionally helped the Democrats during the 2016 election. It was an agenda he also pushed on TV. “So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden.” “Of course I did!” A person Giuliani worked with, Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s former prosecutor general. He pushed for investigations that would also benefit Giuliani and Trump. Lutsenko also discussed conspiracy theories about the Bidens in the U.S. media. But he later walked back his allegations, saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. This is where Hunter Biden comes in, the former vice president’s son. He served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company run by this guy, who’s had some issues with the law. While Biden was in office, he along with others, called for the dismissal of Lutsenko’s predecessor, a prosecutor named Viktor Shokin, whose office was overseeing investigations into the company that Hunter Biden was involved with. Shokin was later voted out by the Ukrainian government. Lutsenko replaced him, but was widely criticized for corruption himself. When a new president took office in May, Volodymyr Zelensky, Zelensky said that he’d replace Lutsenko. Giuliani and Trump? Not happy. They viewed Lutsenko as their ally. During a July 25 call between Trump and the new Ukrainian president, Trump defended him, saying, “I heard you had a prosecutor who is very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.” In that phone call, Trump also allegedly asked his counterpart to continue the investigation into Joe Biden, who is his main rival in the 2020 election. Zelensky has publicly denied feeling pressured by Trump. “In other words, no pressure.” And then finally, Attorney General William Barr, who also came up in the July 25 call. In the reconstructed transcript, Trump repeatedly suggested that Zelensky’s administration could work with Barr and Giuliani to investigate the Bidens and other matters of political interest to Trump. Since the whistle-blower complaint was made public, Democrats have criticized Barr for dismissing allegations that Trump had violated campaign finance laws during his call with Zelensky and not passing along the complaint to Congress. House Democrats have now subpoenaed several people mentioned in the complaint, as an impeachment inquiry into the president’s conduct continues.

Westlake Legal Group vidxx-trump-ukraine-1-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600 What to Watch For in Day 5 of the Trump Impeachment Hearings United States Politics and Government Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Holmes, David (Diplomat) Hill, Fiona (1965- )

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.CreditCredit…Illustration by The New York Times

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

Sondland hearing exposes impeachment inquiry as ‘thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical’: Mark Levin

Westlake Legal Group Mark-Levin1 Sondland hearing exposes impeachment inquiry as 'thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical': Mark Levin fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/politics/elections/democrats fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 83f64ee2-cb10-56e0-b582-4d802fb6d9bb

Wednesday’s impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill featuring Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union,  was another example of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff orchestrating an unfair and corrupt inquiry process against President Trump, “Life, Liberty & Levin” host Mark Levin said.

“The American system and the American people have never, ever seen a process like this — ever,” the radio host claimed on “The Mark Levin Show” on Westwood One.

“It is thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical — while they’re trying to paint the president as corrupt and tyrannical,” Levin continued.

“The American system and the American people have never, ever seen a process like this — ever. It is thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical.”

— Mark Levin

TRUMP FIRES BACK AT ‘CORRUPT’ SCHIFF

It appeared Democrats were eager to hear from Sondland because, unlike some previous witnesses, Sondland was appointed directly by Trump himself, Levin noted.

“They’re not even witnesses for all intents and purposes,” he said. “That is, they have no idea what the president of the United States actually said or did because they never spoke with him [and] never met with him and know nothing about him.”

More from Media

“But Mr. Sondland is different, you see,” Levin added, describing the Democrats’ argument. “He was appointed by Trump — he had many discussions with Trump. He can remember some, he can’t remember others.”

Levin also claimed former President Barack Obama wasn’t held to the same standard in regard to providing sufficient defense resources to Ukraine.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“If Donald Trump had followed the status quo of the prior administration … Ukraine wouldn’t get a penny in offensive military armaments, not a penny, because that was the official policy of the Obama administration, of the John Kerry State Department, in which these longtime State Department employees worked — and I don’t remember them jumping up and down over that.”

In addition, Levin claimed several media pundits commenting on the Sondland testimony weren’t acting like the impartial legal analysts they were cracked up to be.

One analyst, Levin claimed, floated that Trump could be brought up on an obstruction-of-Congress impeachment article because of the testimony thus far.

Westlake Legal Group Mark-Levin1 Sondland hearing exposes impeachment inquiry as 'thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical': Mark Levin fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/politics/elections/democrats fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 83f64ee2-cb10-56e0-b582-4d802fb6d9bb   Westlake Legal Group Mark-Levin1 Sondland hearing exposes impeachment inquiry as 'thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical': Mark Levin fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/politics/elections/democrats fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/media fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/media fnc Charles Creitz article 83f64ee2-cb10-56e0-b582-4d802fb6d9bb

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

Greta Thunberg lookalike in 19th century photo sparks far-flung Twitter theories

Westlake Legal Group AP19298851953803 Greta Thunberg lookalike in 19th century photo sparks far-flung Twitter theories fox-news/entertainment/genres/viral fox news fnc/world fnc Brie Stimson article 821149dc-51f8-5c14-b4b7-597e9d806e5b

A Greta Thunberg lookalike in a circa-1898 photo of three children from the Yukon went viral this week and had some on Twitter jokingly suggesting that the climate activist is a “time traveler.”

The face of the girl in the foreground is so similar to Thunberg that fans facetiously insisted it had to be her.

GRETA THUNBERG TO SET SAIL BACK TO EUROPE SOONER THAN EXPECTED

Thunberg, 16, became a sensation last summer when she sailed across the Atlantic on a racing boat instead of flying to attend the UN Climate Active Summit in New York. Since then, she has been touring around the United States advocating for climate awareness.

“So, ‘Greta Thunberg’ is in a photo from 120 years ago, and it’s my new favourite conspiracy,” one Twitter user wrote. “Greta’s a time traveller, from the future, and she’s here to save us.”

Others joked about other far-out theories.

“This stuff on Greta Thunberg being a time traveller is ridiculous, there’s no such thing as time travel. Quite obviously she’s just immortal,” another wrote.

While Twitter had fun with the photo, some were concerned about the dangers of viral misinformation.

“There was a time not long ago when a “theory” like this would get a chuckle and if someone was seriously pushing it we may pity their instability. Nowadays any of these “theories” can grow legs and become “reality” to 1000’s of Americans,” one user cautioned.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The photo is actually from the University of Washington archives.

Thunberg hitched a ride last week on a 48-foot catamaran for UN-sponsored climate talks in Spain.

Westlake Legal Group AP19298851953803 Greta Thunberg lookalike in 19th century photo sparks far-flung Twitter theories fox-news/entertainment/genres/viral fox news fnc/world fnc Brie Stimson article 821149dc-51f8-5c14-b4b7-597e9d806e5b   Westlake Legal Group AP19298851953803 Greta Thunberg lookalike in 19th century photo sparks far-flung Twitter theories fox-news/entertainment/genres/viral fox news fnc/world fnc Brie Stimson article 821149dc-51f8-5c14-b4b7-597e9d806e5b

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

Fiona Hill Viewed Serving Trump as Risky. Now She’s an Impeachment Witness.

Westlake Legal Group 20DC-HILL-facebookJumbo Fiona Hill Viewed Serving Trump as Risky. Now She’s an Impeachment Witness. United States International Relations Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry National Security Council impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Hill, Fiona (1965- ) Brookings Institution Bolton, John R

WASHINGTON — Fiona Hill knew she was taking a risk in going to work for President Trump.

A British-born coal-miner’s daughter with a Ph.D. from Harvard, Ms. Hill is a respected Russia expert, former intelligence analyst and co-author of a 500-page book analyzing the psyche of its president, Vladimir V. Putin. So the prospect of working for a president who speaks admiringly of Mr. Putin and has expressed doubts that Russia interfered in the 2016 election gave her pause.

Her decision to join the National Security Council in April 2017 — and to stay for more than two years after Mr. Trump cozied up to Mr. Putin and publicly disparaged the nation’s intelligence agencies — strained friendships and made her a target of right-wing conspiracy theorists who spread rumors that she was a Democratic mole.

Now, it has landed her near the center of the impeachment inquiry into whether Mr. Trump abused his power to enlist a foreign leader to help him in the 2020 presidential election. Her planned appearance before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday represents the fulfillment of Ms. Hill’s worst fears about what could happen if she swallowed her reservations and went to work for Mr. Trump.

“The risk was what we see playing out in front of us — that something wrong would happen, that she would do the right thing and other people wouldn’t, and there would be a reckoning,” said Tom Wright, a former colleague and friend of Ms. Hill’s. “And afterward there could be hearings — with, at worst case, the fate of the presidency riding on it.”

On Thursday, Ms. Hill will take her turn as the latest in a series of witnesses to testify publicly before Congress. Many have been nonpartisan diplomats and national security experts who went to work for the president thinking they might be the proverbial “adults in the room” checking Mr. Trump’s impulses, only to find themselves caught up in a mess of his making, and in danger of being attacked.

Ms. Hill called her gripping account “my worst nightmare” in closed-door testimony. In it, she revealed how she and her boss at the time, John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, was alarmed at a rogue effort by allies of Mr. Trump, led by his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to deliver on the president’s desire for Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rivals.

In testimony on Wednesday, one of those allies — Gordon D. Sondland, a Trump megadonor turned ambassador to the European Union — turned on the president and top administration officials. He told lawmakers that he was only doing Mr. Trump’s bidding in pressing Ukraine for the investigations, and that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, were among those well aware of it.

In Mr. Sondland’s telling during a private interview with impeachment investigators last month, Ms. Hill was furious to the point of shaking when he stopped by her office to say goodbye to her before she left the White House, about a week before the now-infamous July 25 telephone in which Mr. Trump pressed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter. (Ms. Hill had argued against the call, saying she did not understand its purpose.)

“She was pretty upset about her role in the administration, about her superiors, about the president,” Mr. Sondland recalled in a closed-door deposition. “She was sort of shaking. She was pretty mad.”

A lawyer for Ms. Hill, Lee Wolosky, has disputed that characterization, writing on Twitter that Mr. Sondland “fabricated communications with Dr. Hill.”

Ms. Hill is neither pro-Trump nor a “Never Trumper,” and she was always circumspect in talking about Mr. Trump, friends said. She refused speaking invitations of the sort that would be routine for top advisers in past administrations — even at the Brookings Institution, where she was on leave as director of the Center on the United States and Europe.

But her own closed-door testimony reveals how fraught her time in the administration was.

In it, she described a tense White House meeting with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Bolton, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Ukrainian officials in which it became apparent that Mr. Mulvaney was working with Mr. Sondland and Mr. Giuliani to execute the president’s plan.

Ms. Hill described her horror that the Ukranians — foreign nationals — were hanging around the West Wing, outside the Situation Room, one of the most secure and sensitive spots in the White House. When Mr. Sondland moved the meeting down to a room in the White House basement, Mr. Bolton instructed her to follow them to find out what was going on.

She did so, and confronted Mr. Sondland, cutting him off when he dangled the prospect of a White House meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky.

“It has to go through proper procedure,” Ms. Hill insisted. Then she reported back to Mr. Bolton, who told her to report it to the National Security Council’s top lawyer, John A. Eisenberg.

“You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this,” she recalled Mr. Bolton saying.

Friends said that sounded like the Ms. Hill they know: straight, to the point, unafraid to push back.

“Fiona has served impeccably in the executive branch,” said Strobe Talbott, the former president of the Brookings Institution, “and, now, she’s helping Congress understand the disaster Trump has visited on the country and the world.”

Republicans view her as suspect because she worked with Christopher Steele, who later wrote an infamous dossier on Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia, when she was an intelligence officer and he was her British counterpart. And her time as an unpaid adviser to the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Foundation, founded by the Democratic philanthropist George Soros, fueled rumors spread by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

“My entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has started again,” she told House investigators, saying her attackers accused her “of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with all kinds of enemies of the president.”

Ms. Hill, 54, had an unusual path to academia. The daughter of a coal miner and a midwife, she had a hardscrabble childhood in northeast England — a childhood that bred toughness, her friends say. Once, when she was 11, a boy in her class set one of her pigtails on fire while she was taking a test. She put the fire out with her hands, and finished the test.

She learned to speak Russian and eventually made her way across the Atlantic to Harvard for a fellowship, where she studied under the scholar Richard Pipes, known for his hard-line views about what was then the Soviet Union.

Ms. Hill’s own views are more nuanced, friends and colleagues say; she is not so much a Russia hawk as a cleareyed realist. She was also very clear about the threat Russia posed to Ukraine.

“She comes from this realist tradition where you start with the proposition that this other actor is capable of killing me,” said Graham Allison, a Harvard political scientist who worked with Ms. Hill on an initiative to teach foreign governments about democracy. “I can’t figure out how to kill them without committing suicide, so now I have to find a way to live with them.”

In 2006, Ms. Hill joined the National Intelligence Council as national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, a job that required her to assess the Russian threat. In 2009, she rejoined Brookings, where she had previously been a fellow. In 2013, she and Clifford Gaddy published “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin.”

“She confirmed what I thought, which is what I’ve said very publicly for a long time: He’s the most dangerous guy on Earth,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who got to know Ms. Hill when she was an intelligence analyst.

Yet for all of her scholarly work, it was an appearance on television that landed Ms. Hill her White House job. After Mr. Trump was elected, K.T. McFarland, a Fox News commentator, recommended her to Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser.

General Flynn, whose tenure ended in scandal after 24 days, offered her the job as the National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia, though she came on after he left. Some friends warned her against it. Among them was Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Brookings, who thought Ms. Hill might have trouble in part because she was an immigrant.

“I was concerned that she might run into problems that others might not run into, and I thought that her judgment of Putin might not sit well with the president,” he said, adding: “My recommendation to her was to stay away. But she believed very strongly in the opportunity to serve.”

She got off to an uncertain start; Mr. Trump once mistook her for a low-level member of support staff. And if there was any doubt that the president had little interest in national security protocol and would rely on no one but himself, it was erased when he took notes away from his interpreter during a private meeting with Mr. Putin in Hamburg, Germany, in 2017.

Then came the disastrous Helsinki, Finland, summit in 2018, where Mr. Trump accepted the Russian president’s denial that his country had interfered in the 2016 race. In a stunning break with protocol, he also told Mr. Putin that he might let Russia interrogate a former American ambassador, Michael A. McFaul, a staunch critic of Russia’s record on human rights.

Mr. McFaul visited her at the White House to complain.

“I thought they were going to clean it up when they got back to Washington, and they didn’t,” Mr. McFaul said. “They just doubled down.”

Some colleagues of Ms. Hill’s wondered why she did not quit then. Others, like Angela Stent, a Russia expert at Georgetown University and mentor to Ms. Hill, said she contemplated leaving at times, but stayed because she wanted “to minimize the damage of some things that were happening with Russia.”

When she left the White House in July, it was as planned; she wanted to spend more time with her husband and 12-year-old daughter and her mother, who is ill. If she had been frustrated there, Mr. Wright said, she kept it to herself.

“This exit was not what she had planned,” Mr. Wright said. “I don’t think she was thinking, ‘I’m going to go out in a blaze of glory, take a moral stand and testify.’ That was definitely not her intention. She just wanted to her job with no fuss or drama.”

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

Lori Loughlin and husband plead not guilty to new charges in college admissions scandal

Actress Lori Loughlin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli have pleaded not guilty to expanded charges in the college admissions scandal.

Loughlin and Mossimo are among 11 parents additionally charged with bribery after initially pleading not guilty.

LORI LOUGHLIN ‘CONCERNED’ BY HEFTY SENTENCE FOR PARENT WHO PLED GUILTY IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS SCANDAL

Westlake Legal Group AP19323749390373 Lori Loughlin and husband plead not guilty to new charges in college admissions scandal fox-news/topic/college-admissions-scandal fox-news/person/lori-loughlin fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc Brie Stimson article 8ab08935-1880-5029-95b7-038eead7973c

​​​​​​​Actress Lori Loughlin, front, and husband, clothing designer Mossimo Giannulli, left, leave federal court in Boston after facing charges in a nationwide college admissions bribery scandal, April 3, 2019. (Associated Press)

Attorneys for the couple entered the not guilty pleas Tuesday after they waived their right to appear in the Boston federal court.

They have previously pleaded not guilty to fraud and money laundering.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The “Full House” star and her husband are accused of paying $500,000 in an attempt to get their two daughters into the University of Southern California.

Loughlin could face prison time if found guilty.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group AP19323749390373 Lori Loughlin and husband plead not guilty to new charges in college admissions scandal fox-news/topic/college-admissions-scandal fox-news/person/lori-loughlin fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc Brie Stimson article 8ab08935-1880-5029-95b7-038eead7973c   Westlake Legal Group AP19323749390373 Lori Loughlin and husband plead not guilty to new charges in college admissions scandal fox-news/topic/college-admissions-scandal fox-news/person/lori-loughlin fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc Brie Stimson article 8ab08935-1880-5029-95b7-038eead7973c

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