web analytics



Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call For Free 15/M Consultation



Westlake Legal Group > News Corporation (Page 71)

Police search for motive in 'long and horrific gun battle' off California freeway in Riverside

CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close Police search for motive in 'long and horrific gun battle' off California freeway in Riverside
CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close Police search for motive in 'long and horrific gun battle' off California freeway in Riverside

A shootout killed a California Highway Patrol officer and wounded two others Monday before the gunman was fatally shot, authorities said. Fox – Ktvu

Police on Tuesday were investigating why a man suddenly opened fire during a traffic stop near a freeway in Riverside, California, killing a patrol officer, wounding two others and sending drivers fleeing as bullets flew.

“We don’t know his motive for this crime,” Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz said. The suspect, whose truck was being impounded when the incident occurred Monday evening, died at the scene, police said.

Family members identified the deceased California Highway Patrol officer as 33-year-old Andre Moye, according to KABC-TV. Debbie Howard, a family member of Moye, told NBC4 Moye was a good person and loved his job.

Keep up with this story: The Evening Briefing newsletter brings the news straight to you and your inbox

“I’ve been knowing him since he was a baby,” she said in tears. “I don’t understand. I just don’t understand.”

CHP Commissioner Warren Stanley expressed his condolences in a tweet. “I am devastated by the tragedy that unfolded earlier in Riverside,” he wrote.

Diaz called the incident “a long and horrific gun battle.” 

The patrol officer was doing paperwork to impound the pickup when the suspect reached in, grabbed a rifle and fatally wounded the officer, authorities said. Police did not immediately say what prompted the officer to stop and impound the truck.

Jennifer Moctezuma, 31, of Moreno Valley told the Los Angeles Times she was driving home with her 6-year-old twins when a bullet pierced her front windshield.

Charles Childress, 56, a retired Marine from Moreno Valley who was in the car behind Moctezuma, helped the family crawl to the bottom of a bridge to hide, the Times reported. “He’s my hero,” Moctezuma said.

KABC-TV reported that Dennis Luther of Riverside identified the gunman as his son, Aaron Luther, 49. Luther said he watched the shootout on television. 

“It’s hard. I love him. And I’m sorry for the policeman,” he told KABC-TV. “I’m devastated. I just can’t believe it.”

Riverside shootout: California Highway Patrol officer killed, 2 others injured

Luther said his son served prison time for attempted murder but was released more than a decade ago. He said he didn’t know how his son had access to a gun, which is illegal for felons to possess. 

He said his son recently appeared depressed and had knee pain and marital problems. But his son was devoted to his two children and a stepchild, he said. 

“He lived for his kids. That’s what motivated him,” Luther said. “So I don’t know what overcame him. I mean, I wish I did know.”

Contributing: The Associated Press

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/13/california-freeway-shooting-police-search-for-motive/1995288001/

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

I am AF Branco, a nationally syndicated political/editorial cartoonist

Westlake Legal Group 77rtga012oD6Hnn5xLu2TSCeYQZVUN6dMaDa-ciK3LQ I am AF Branco, a nationally syndicated political/editorial cartoonist r/politics

Over the years I created cartoons as a hobby, until I saw America under assault by radical Leftists. Then the hobby became a calling and another form of service to the country I love and swore to protect from “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

I have appeared on Fox News, the Larry Elder Radio Show, the Lars Larson Radio Show, and more. I’ve had some of my cartoons tweeted by President Trump.

Proof: https://i.redd.it/dvirnue4z2g31.jpg

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

Chris Cuomo said 'Fredo' is an ethnic slur as he erupted in anger in a viral video. Is it?

CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close Chris Cuomo said 'Fredo' is an ethnic slur as he erupted in anger in a viral video. Is it?
CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close Chris Cuomo said 'Fredo' is an ethnic slur as he erupted in anger in a viral video. Is it?

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo got into a heated exchange with a heckler after being called “Fredo.” USA TODAY

A profanity-laced viral video showing CNN anchor Chris Cuomo erupting in anger after being called “Fredo” by a heckler has gained national attention and prompted widespread debate about the term, which he described as a slur toward Italian-Americans.

In the video, Cuomo stated that he’s been taunted as “Fredo” before, likening it to other slurs hurled at other racial and ethnic groups. As the altercation gained national attention, President Donald Trump repeated the term as an insult directed at Cuomo.

CNN spokesman Matt Dornic came out in defense of Cuomo in what he called an “orchestrated setup,” using the term “ethnic slur” to describe “Fredo,” which traces its origins to a character in “The Godfather” trilogy.

“Punk (expletive) from the right call me ‘Fredo.’ My name is Chris Cuomo. I’m an anchor on CNN,” Cuomo said in the viral video.

Cuomo has since responded to his initial comments, tweeting that this sort of harassment “happens all the time these days” in front of his family. 

“But there is a lesson: no need to add to the ugliness; I should be better than what I oppose,” he tweeted Tuesday.

What does ‘Fredo’ mean?

The term refers to the fictional Fredo Corleone — the second child of the Corleone clan in the “The Godfather” trilogy — and, as Cuomo puts it, the “weak brother.”

CNN response: CNN stands by anchor Chris Cuomo after NSFW exchange with heckler who called him ‘Fredo’

The late Mario Cuomo, Chris’ father, notably denounced the movie upon its release in 1972 for portraying stereotypes of Italian-Americans, boycotting it for years until 2013 — when he saw the film for the first time, according to the New York Times.

Fredo’s depiction in “The Godfather Part II” is not flattering. He is portrayed as weaker and less intelligent than his siblings due to a bout of childhood pneumonia. He was also a family traitor, who worked with a rival to put a hit on Michael Corleone.

“Fredo was an untrusted and untrustworthy son who, after being patronized and ‘passed over’ by his powerful family, came to betray his brother out of stupidity and ego,” said Prof. Michael Mark Cohen, an American studies professor at UC Berkeley, to USA TODAY. “So yes, that’s a custom made, deep cut kind of insult for someone like Chris Cuomo. And evidently it cut to the quick.”

Fredo’s demise in the film has become a cultural touchstone. As he recites the “Hail Mary” prayer, he is assassinated on a fishing boat at Lake Tahoe while Michael watches from a nearby lakehouse.

The scene was even alluded to by President Barack Obama at a speech he gave at the Lake Tahoe Summit in 2016. 

[embedded content]

“As I was flying over the lake, I was thinking about Fredo,” Obama said, jokingly, eliciting laughter from the crowd. “It’s tough.”

Political commentator Ana Navarro used the term to describe Donald Trump, Jr. — who is not Italian-American — on Cuomo’s own program earlier this year.

‘Fredo,’ an ethnic slur? It’s debated

Although Cuomo in the video says Fredo is an insult on par with other racial slurs, many have taken Cuomo to task for drawing that comparison.

Countless Twitter users, some of whom identified as Italian-American, repudiated the claim, saying it downplays the offensiveness of other racial slurs leveled toward people of color. 

Donald Trump racial-slur allegations: Resurface in new book ‘The Method to the Madness’

“It’s a MOVIE reference. Stop comparing it to the N-word,” tweeted one user. “THIS invalidates when things are actually offensive to marginalized peoples.”

Cohen said that there’s a legacy of ethnic slurs that can be hurled at Italian-Americans, dating back to the early 20th century — after Italians migrated en masse to the United States at the turn of the century. But none of them have the same “power to insult” as as slurs used toward people of color, especially black people, he said. 

Representatives at The National Italian American Foundation and the racial justice organization Race Forward did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.

Some on social media noted that, given Cuomo’s family history with the film, the targeted taunt may have a meaning to the CNN anchor that is not felt by an entire ethnic group.

Support for Cuomo from conservatives, liberals alike

While the term “Fredo” being compared to an ethnic slur has sparked controversy, support for Cuomo has come from conservative and liberal figures alike.

Conservative pundit and Fox News host Sean Hannity defended Cuomo’s outburst.

“He’s out with his 9 year old daughter, and his wife, and this guy is being a [expletive] in front of his family,” Hannity tweeted yesterday. “Chris Cuomo has zero to apologize for.”

‘I would say it again’: North Carolina woman who used racial slur in viral video confrontation with black women

And Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal organization Center for American Progress, defended Cuomo’s outrage.

“People who tell you it’s ok to call an Italian man Fredo are the same people who said it was ok to throw money at a woman leader and call her a (expletive),” she tweeted.

Contributing: Cydney Henderson, USA TODAY. Follow Joshua Bote on Twitter: @joshua_bote


Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/13/chris-cuomo-fredo-video-sparks-debate-fredo-ethnic-slur/1995997001/

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

New York Giants’ Pat Shurmur finds standout tackle and ‘dog’ged defender

Westlake Legal Group Pat-Shurmur-Reuters New York Giants' Pat Shurmur finds standout tackle and 'dog'ged defender Ryan Gaydos fox-news/sports/nfl/new-york-giants fox-news/sports/nfl fox news fnc/sports fnc article 1a90896b-b0bc-5fbe-8003-c579519a61f4

While the ability of the New York Giants‘ defense to make crucial stops during the upcoming season is still up for debate, head coach Pat Shurmur goes into the 2019 slate with firsthand knowledge at least someone around him can make a big tackle.

And she’s a very good dog, yes she is.

After showing up to his Monday press conference with a fresh scrape on the left side of his face, the Giants’ second-year coach revealed to reporters he’d been sacked by his dog, the New York Post reported.

Depending on what else the four-legged defender can do, it could give new meaning to the sport’s PUP list — nevermind attempting a pooch kick.


“I was putting the dog out, and she’s a big girl so she kind of ran between my legs and I just tripped,” Shurmur said. “That was it.”

The Giants coach’s cut is only the latest injury (and the most minor) to bite Big Blue this offseason.


Wide receiver Sterling Shepard fractured his thumb on the first day of training camp and fellow wideout Amba Etta-Tawo tore his Achilles. Defensive back DeAndre Baker suffered a sprained knee.

Westlake Legal Group Pat-Shurmur-Reuters New York Giants' Pat Shurmur finds standout tackle and 'dog'ged defender Ryan Gaydos fox-news/sports/nfl/new-york-giants fox-news/sports/nfl fox news fnc/sports fnc article 1a90896b-b0bc-5fbe-8003-c579519a61f4   Westlake Legal Group Pat-Shurmur-Reuters New York Giants' Pat Shurmur finds standout tackle and 'dog'ged defender Ryan Gaydos fox-news/sports/nfl/new-york-giants fox-news/sports/nfl fox news fnc/sports fnc article 1a90896b-b0bc-5fbe-8003-c579519a61f4

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

American taxpayers paid over $90 billion more under Trump tax law

Westlake Legal Group BoIzqc923adZPzLw0VPh7Htbc955fmR5L87jekEeI0I American taxpayers paid over $90 billion more under Trump tax law r/politics

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

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

How a Trump Ally Tested the Boundaries of Washington’s Influence Game

WASHINGTON — Elliott Broidy had the kind of past that might have given a more traditional White House reason to keep him at a distance: A wealthy businessman, he had pleaded guilty in 2009 to giving nearly $1 million in illegal gifts to New York State officials to help land a $250 million investment from the state’s pension fund.

But on a fall day in 2017, Mr. Broidy was ushered into the West Wing. For about two hours, he met with a handful of the most powerful people on earth, including President Trump, his chief of staff, his national security adviser and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, discussing everything from personnel recommendations to the Republican Party’s finances.

Mostly, though, according to a detailed account he later sent to an associate, Mr. Broidy talked about the Middle East, a subject that had long been important to him personally and was becoming increasingly important to him financially.

As he sat with Mr. Trump, Mr. Broidy promoted a plan for a counterterrorism force backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which he said would be supported by his private security and intelligence company, Circinus, under the leadership of Stanley A. McChrystal, the retired Army general and former commander in Afghanistan.

And at a time when Mr. Broidy was running a multimillion-dollar advocacy campaign to turn Washington against Qatar, a regional rival of the Saudis and the Emiratis, he took the opportunity to tell Mr. Trump that Qatar was part of an “axis of evil,” according to his account of the meeting.

That meeting was one of the high points of a comeback by Mr. Broidy, who after having been shunned by some Republicans in the wake of his 2009 guilty plea had worked himself into Mr. Trump’s inner circle as a top fund-raiser for his 2016 campaign and inauguration.

The stature he suddenly assumed when Mr. Trump won the election allowed him to position himself as a premier broker of influence and access to the new administration. In the process, his international business came to overlap with his efforts to influence government policy in ways that have now made him the subject of an intensifying federal investigation.

But Mr. Broidy’s tour through the White House that day was also further evidence of how Mr. Trump — who initially lacked an established network of high-dollar fund-raisers, held unformed positions on many issues and had difficulty attracting top-tier talent — came to rely on people whose backgrounds and activities would have raised red flags in other campaigns and administrations.

Among them were Paul Manafort, who was the chairman of Mr. Trump’s campaign and was later indicted for lobbying and financial crimes, and Mr. Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, who also helped run Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Prosecutors are still investigating whether the chairman of the inaugural committee and a close friend of the president, Thomas J. Barrack Jr., violated lobbying laws.

Few figures exploited the moment more ambitiously than Mr. Broidy, whose Oval Office meeting was just one element of a sophisticated effort to amass and exert influence in Mr. Trump’s Washington.

Bolstering his own access to the administration, Mr. Broidy enlisted a host of prominent figures to advance the interests of his companies, his clients or his causes. In addition to General McChrystal, there was the former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon; former defense secretaries including Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta; David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director; and the longtime diplomat Dennis B. Ross. They gave paid speeches to groups he was funding, wrote op-eds or advised Mr. Broidy, wittingly or unwittingly becoming public faces of his efforts.

While Mr. Broidy seemed to find a sympathetic audience for his positions in the upper reaches of the administration, including his campaign against Qatar, other efforts appeared to yield little action, like an arrangement to help a Malaysian financier with legal problems in the United States. And some of Mr. Broidy’s proposals, like his plan to help set up the counterterrorism force in the Persian Gulf, went nowhere.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_158902074_de96803f-23f3-4fff-bfb3-4b00c21652ca-articleLarge How a Trump Ally Tested the Boundaries of Washington’s Influence Game United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Ross, Dennis B Presidential Election of 2016 Nader, George A (1959- ) Mohammed bin Salman (1985- ) McChrystal, Stanley A Low Jho (1981- ) Lobbying and Lobbyists Inaugurations Government Contracts and Procurement Gates, Robert M foreign agents registration act Circinus LLC Broidy, Elliott Barrack, Thomas J Jr Bannon, Stephen K

Stanley A. McChrystal, the retired Army general, accompanied Mr. Broidy and his team on a trip to the Middle East.CreditSteven Senne/Associated Press

The Justice Department has been investigating, among other issues, whether Mr. Broidy violated the law by not registering as an agent of foreign interests at a time when he was promoting their causes and being paid by them, and whether, in one case, he was paid with laundered money to lobby. The Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, requires Americans to disclose efforts to shape government policy or public opinion on behalf of foreign governments and political interests. Enforcing FARA has become an increasing priority for the Justice Department.

While Mr. Broidy’s advocacy efforts could have benefited his paying clients, his representatives say the efforts were not directed or funded by those clients in a way that would require FARA registration.

“Elliott Broidy has never agreed to work for, been retained or compensated by, nor taken direction from any foreign government directly or indirectly for any interaction with the United States government, ever,” said his lawyer, Chris Clark. “Any implication to the contrary is a lie.”

But the full scope and intensity of Mr. Broidy’s activities, and the investigations into them, are only now coming into focus. Interviews and records show that:

• Federal investigators are homing in on the question of whether his involvement with the government of the United Arab Emirates and the Malaysian financier may have run afoul of FARA.

• Investigators are exploring the financial links between Mr. Broidy, the government of the United Arab Emirates and one of that government’s advisers, George Nader. According to previously unreported banking records, Mr. Nader was paid millions of dollars by the United Arab Emirates as he was working closely with Mr. Broidy on two fronts: to win security and intelligence contracts from the Emirate and Saudi governments, and to direct and fund the campaign in Washington against Qatar.

• Other banking records show that government of the United Arab Emirates continued to pay Mr. Broidy’s company tens of millions of dollars, including a payment of $24 million in late March, even as it became public that prosecutors were looking into his activities.

• Officials from one country with which Mr. Broidy has worked, Angola, say they believed his company was being paid to lobby on their behalf, rather than to provide private intelligence services, as Mr. Broidy’s representatives say.

• His efforts to help his clients in Washington were more extensive than previously known. They involved not just prominent political figures but also payments to influential think tanks, lobbyists and a nonprofit conservative media outlet that produced articles promoting his clients’ agendas and criticizing their rivals.

Four people Mr. Broidy worked with on business or advocacy efforts have been indicted. He resigned as deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee last year after it was revealed he had agreed to pay $1.6 million in hush money to a former Playboy model he impregnated, in a deal arranged by Michael D. Cohen, the president’s former lawyer.

Mr. Broidy’s current situation is a sharp turnabout from two and a half years ago, when he helped raise a record $107 million for Mr. Trump’s inauguration. He offered to arrange inaugural tickets for politicians from Angola, the Republic of Congo and Romania — countries from which he sought intelligence contracts worth as much as $266 million, documents and interviews show.

He greatly increased his giving to Republicans. He socialized with Mr. Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he was a member.

Business was good. Mr. Broidy’s company won deals worth more than $200 million from the United Arab Emirates alone. The company established an office there that employs 60 people who compile intelligence reports for the U.A.E. government.

After The New York Times, The Associated Press and other news media outlets revealed last year that he had marketed his access to the Trump team to prospective foreign clients, his company lost lucrative United States government subcontracts. Members of Congress returned donations, as did the Hudson Institute, a think tank, which returned funding for a research project on Qatari influence. Mr. Ross returned $20,000 in consulting fees he had accepted in early 2018, when he was advising Mr. Broidy on how to pursue contracts with foreign governments and how to shape American foreign policy toward those governments.

Mr. Broidy offered inaugural tickets to politicians from Angola, the Republic of Congo and Romania — countries from which he was seeking defense intelligence contracts worth as much as $266 million.CreditTodd Heisler/The New York Times

“There was a cloud that was created, and it made sense just to dissociate,” said Mr. Ross, who worked on Middle Eastern policy for administrations of both parties.

Some of the activities of Mr. Broidy and his associates are detailed in hundreds of documents and emails from the private accounts of Mr. Broidy and his wife, which were distributed to reporters anonymously starting in early 2018. Mr. Broidy sued Qatar and some of its lobbyists, accusing them of orchestrating the theft and dissemination of those documents, which Qatar denies.

Mr. Broidy’s spokesman, Nathan Miller, said those documents “have been altered and cherry-picked out of context to present a false narrative about his business activities and public educational efforts that were entirely legitimate and legal.”

But this account also relies on dozens of interviews, banking records provided by people familiar with Mr. Broidy’s work and other documents submitted in court cases or obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

“He was certainly trying to influence the administration to adopt a policy that served his political preference,” Mr. Ross said in a July interview with The Times about his work with Mr. Broidy, some of which was subsequently reported by The Daily Beast. “Was he doing it because it would serve his business interests as well? Presumably yes.”

Mr. Broidy, 62, made his own fortune. He grew up middle class in Los Angeles, and paid his way through the University of Southern California by operating a laundromat. After earning a bachelor’s degree in accounting and finance, he went to work for an accounting firm, before he was hired to handle the personal investments of one of the firm’s clients, Taco Bell’s founder, Glen Bell Jr., in the early 1980s.

After about a decade, Mr. Broidy started his own investment firm, Broidy Capital Management. He built a mansion in the hills of Bel Air and established a reputation as a generous philanthropist and pillar of Los Angeles’s Jewish community.

He assembled a large wine collection and indulged a fondness for expensive wristwatches, according to people who know him. They said he boasted that he was among the biggest private buyers of a type of 25-year-old whisky that retails for $1,800 a bottle.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mr. Broidy’s political and business focus turned toward national security in the United States and Israel.

In 2006, he was appointed by President George W. Bush, for whom Mr. Broidy had become a top fund-raiser, to a homeland security advisory panel and the Kennedy Center board of trustees. In October 2006, Mr. Bush attended a dinner at the Bel Air mansion that raised $1 million for the Republican Party.

Some of the activities of Mr. Broidy and his associates have come to light through the circulation of documents and emails from the private accounts of Mr. Broidy and his wife, Robin Rosenzweig.CreditAlex Berliner/BEI, via Shutterstock

As the 2016 presidential campaign got underway, Mr. Broidy edged back into high-profile electoral politics, supporting a succession of senators seeking the Republican nomination, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas.

When Mr. Cruz dropped out, Mr. Broidy enthusiastically began raising money for the Trump campaign.

In the weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, Mr. Broidy was in the center of the action.

He helped organize and fund a private breakfast at the Trump International Hotel two days before the inauguration that was attended by 50 to 60 people, according to people familiar with the event.

The guest list featured officials from Africa, Eastern Europe and Arab nations, as well as Republicans with ties to the incoming administration, including Mr. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.

Mr. Broidy teamed with a Nigerian-American entrepreneur to pursue an intelligence contract with the Angolan government. An early draft of the deal called for payments of as much as $64 million over five years, but someone familiar with it said the final contract was for a smaller amount.

He offered to arrange access in Washington for a pair of powerful Angolan officials who had a hand in the contract.

Days before the inauguration, the Angolans paid $6 million to Circinus. And Mr. Broidy escorted an Angolan official, André de Oliveira João Sango, then the director of external intelligence, to introductory meetings with Republican lawmakers.

A couple of days later, Mr. Sango sat at a table adjacent to Mr. Broidy’s at an exclusive “candlelight” donor dinner sponsored by Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee and attended by the president-elect, according to another Angolan official.

While Mr. Broidy’s representatives say he was not required to register as a lobbyist because he did not accept funds for lobbying, Angolan diplomats in Washington saw things differently.

“It was basically to help assist in approaching the Trump administration,” Lucombo Joaquim Luveia, a counselor at the embassy, said of the payment to Circinus.

The Angolan ambassador at the time, Agostinho Tavares, said his impression was that Mr. Broidy “sold the invitation” to the inaugural to Mr. Sango.

Mr. Luveia said that “all those arrangements were back-channeled between the lobbyist Broidy and the central government, at the presidential level., The Angolan president at the time, José Eduardo dos Santos, was replaced last year.

Mr. Broidy also provided access during inauguration week to a pair of Romanian politicians seen as critical to Circinus’s chances for doing business in the country. Mr. Broidy arranged an impromptu introduction to Mr. Trump during an informal dinner at the Trump hotel for Liviu Dragnea, then a powerful Romanian parliamentary leader.

George Nader presented himself as a liaison to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, center, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, right.Creditvia Shutterstock

Circinus subsequently competed for Romanian government contracts valued at more than $200 million, according to the Romanian news media and people familiar with the contracting process. But the contracts did not materialize. Mr. Dragnea, who was facing unrelated corruption charges in Romania at the time of the inauguration, has since been convicted. And Romanian and American officials have questioned a former Circinus executive in Romania.

Hours after Mr. Trump’s swearing-in, Mr. Broidy was abuzz as he and his wife, holding hands, walked into a late-night party in a private room at the Trump hotel.

He approached a fellow Republican donor and, in a move the donor interpreted as an early flexing of new status, Mr. Broidy suggested it was time to settle a lingering business dispute between them.

“He was exuding hubris,” said the donor, Yuri Vanetik, a characterization disputed by Mr. Broidy’s representatives. “He wanted to show that it was his world now.”

Through the transition and the early days of the administration, Mr. Broidy entertained discussions about using his newfound connections in Washington to help an array of foreign clients.

After being approached by a lawyer working with Russian executives who were under sanctions, Mr. Broidy devised a plan to try to lift the sanctions in exchange for $11 million — a deal that ultimately was not pursued.

Separately, Mr. Broidy discussed helping to end a Justice Department investigation into a flamboyant Malaysian financier who was suspected of embezzling billions of dollars from a Malaysian investment fund.

The financier, Low Taek Jho, known as Jho Low, transferred $6 million to the law firm of Mr. Broidy’s wife, Ms. Rosenzweig, to finance the effort, according to a guilty plea for bank fraud by a former Justice Department employee in a related case.

Allies of Mr. Low also talked with Mr. Broidy about using his connections to force the extradition of a Chinese dissident living in the United States, according to the court filings.

Mr. Broidy’s lawyers said their client never discussed assisting Mr. Low in any criminal matters and never lobbied to resolve the civil issues facing the financier.

Mr. Trump took office signaling a new approach to the Middle East, setting off a scramble by governments in the region to assure that their voices would be heard by the new administration. A key figure in Mr. Broidy’s activities was Mr. Nader.

An American citizen born in Lebanon, Mr. Nader, 60, entered Mr. Broidy’s life at a fortuitous moment for both men and for Mr. Nader’s patrons — primarily Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, though Mr. Nader also presented himself as a liaison to Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

To the princes, whose countries are closely allied, Mr. Broidy was a perfect messenger to try to turn the new American administration against Qatar.

Rick Gates, the former deputy chairman of the Trump campaign, is one of a number of Trump aides to have run into legal problems.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

And to Mr. Broidy, Mr. Nader was a perfect messenger to pitch Circinus’s services to the wealthy governments of the Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Not long after meeting at the Trump hotel during inauguration week, Mr. Broidy and Mr. Nader were exchanging messages about Circinus’s efforts to win hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of defense contracts with the Persian Gulf nations, and discussing the anti-Qatar campaign, according to documents and interviews.

Mr. Nader wired Mr. Broidy $2.4 million in three installments, starting less than three months after the inauguration, for the anti-Qatar public policy effort. Mr. Broidy contributed his own money, according to people familiar with the campaign. They said other donors contributed as well.

Mr. Broidy donated to two Washington think tanks — the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute — to fund conferences he intended to be critical of Qatar. Featured speakers included the former defense secretaries Mr. Panetta and Mr. Gates, as well as Mr. Bannon and Mr. Petraeus.

Mr. Gates and Mr. Bannon were paid about $100,000 each, while Mr. Petraeus was paid $50,000, according to interviews and contracts, which stipulated that Mr. Gates and Mr. Petraeus would meet privately with Mr. Broidy on the sidelines of the conference. The think tanks paid the speakers and were reimbursed by Mr. Broidy. Mr. Nader helped arrange Mr. Bannon’s appearance, The Daily Beast reported.

Mr. Broidy assured the think tanks that he was using only his own money and that it was not from foreign sources, according to people familiar with the conferences, who said he did not disclose that he was simultaneously pursuing business in the region.

But updates sent by Mr. Broidy to Mr. Nader list Circinus as the entity overseeing the advocacy campaign, which included plans for the conferences, op-eds, articles and congressional and media outreach, including to the Fox News host Sean Hannity, a favorite of Mr. Trump.

One update lists the Emirati and Saudi governments as the “clients” of the campaign, and a senior Saudi general, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, who would later be blamed by his country’s leadership for the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as a consultant. Mr. Broidy’s lawyers say that the updates were early drafts and that references to the involvement of Circinus and the Saudi and Emirati governments were errors that were corrected in subsequent drafts.

Banking records obtained by The Times show that, months after the first think-tank conference, and days before the second, Mr. Nader received the first of two payments of about $5 million worth of Emirati currency from an entity controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

“Any payments by the U.A.E. to Mr. Nader had absolutely nothing to do with the conferences or the broader educational initiative,” said Tim McCarten, a lawyer with the firm Latham & Watkins, who represents both Mr. Nader and Mr. Broidy. Mr. McCarten declined to specify the purpose of the payments.

The second $5 million payment came months after Mr. Nader began cooperating with prosecutors looking into whether Emirati money was funneled into Mr. Trump’s political operation.

The Justice Department has asked witnesses about the funding of the anti-Qatar campaign, as well as whether foreign money flowed into Mr. Trump’s inaugural.

In April, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn issued a subpoena for documents from the inaugural committee naming Mr. Broidy and companies with which he is associated, as well as Mr. Nader. Among others named were Mr. Dragnea, the Angolan politician Mr. Sango and Angola’s current president, João Lourenço. Mr. Lourenço previously served as the head of the Angolan Defense Ministry, and was also invited by Mr. Broidy to attend the inauguration, but did not go, according to the Angolan diplomats.

Leon E. Panetta, a former defense secretary, is among the prominent figures Mr. Broidy enlisted to advance the interests of his companies, his clients or his causes.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Nader was charged in June with possession of child pornography, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

The direct impact of the anti-Qatar advocacy campaign is not clear. It coincided with Mr. Trump’s public criticism of Qatar, and his expression of support for Qatar’s rivals, the Emiratis and the Saudis, though his administration attempted to walk back some of the criticism.

Mr. Broidy paid $10,000 a month to a Democratic firm, Bluelight Strategies, which worked to harness the center-left to press the administration to be tough on Qatar, according to emails and interviews.

Mr. Broidy gave $25,000 to a nonprofit group called the Jewish Institute for National Security of America to write op-eds and host news conferences criticizing Qatar, including with a retired Air Force general, Charles F. Wald.

Another nonprofit listed by Mr. Broidy as part of the advocacy campaign, the American Media Institute, received $240,000 from Mr. Broidy in 2017, according to its tax returns. Mr. Broidy and his allies were in close contact with the group’s staff as it produced articles and op-eds that advanced the interests of his clients and prospective clients, including the government of Malaysia, while criticizing their rivals, including Qatar and the Chinese dissident.

Richard Miniter, the institute’s chief executive, said its decisions were based on news judgment, rather than Mr. Broidy’s wishes. “We get tons of ideas from both donors and nondonors, but there were no conditions on the grant to do those stories,” he said.

Mr. Miniter said he was unaware before being alerted by The Times of overlap between Mr. Broidy’s business and the subjects he wanted covered.

In correspondence around the time of the Hudson Institute conference, Mr. Broidy cited Mr. Panetta and General Wald — as well as General McChrystal — as members of Circinus’s team.

The men or their representatives say those claims were exaggerated or false.

General McChrystal acknowledged that he accompanied Mr. Broidy and his team on a trip to the Middle East, where they met with Prince Mohammed bin Zayed in the summer of 2017.

The trip came after Mr. McChrystal was offered $100,000 by Mr. Broidy, according to documents and interviews.

When Mr. Broidy later dropped the general’s name in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump interjected to say that “he thinks highly of General McChrystal,” according to Mr. Broidy’s readout.

Mr. McChrystal said he accompanied Mr. Broidy to the United Arab Emirates because it seemed as if his company was pursuing worthwhile work. But he said he declined a subsequent offer for a leadership role in the company because “it didn’t fit into my time or my interests to do any more.”

Mr. Panetta’s office said he “is not and has never been involved in” Mr. Broidy’s business.

General Wald said he turned down Mr. Broidy’s invitation to join Circinus because he felt the company’s work was “mercenary,” and because of concerns about Mr. Broidy.

“Broidy is playing for both political and financial reasons,” he said, “and it’s hard to figure out which one he is interested in mostly.”

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

The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?

Westlake Legal Group ap_16204691554643_wide-3b7db66880b7ce748e86f8f7497006f2a24c0c50-s1100-c15 The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?

A visitor perused H&K rifles at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas. Such weapons were once restricted under a 1994 ban that expired with changing politics in the United States. Would Democrats revive it? John Locher/AP hide caption

toggle caption

John Locher/AP

Westlake Legal Group  The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?

A visitor perused H&K rifles at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas. Such weapons were once restricted under a 1994 ban that expired with changing politics in the United States. Would Democrats revive it?

John Locher/AP

On the presidential campaign trail in Iowa and on the op-ed page of The New York Times, former Vice President Joe Biden has made the case for going back to a nationwide ban on assault weapons and making it “even stronger.”

Some have reacted with quizzical expressions: “Back?” “Stronger?”

Yes. Twenty five years ago, when Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Congress passed the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” — commonly called the assault weapons ban.

It prohibited the manufacture or sale for civilian use of certain semi-automatic weapons that could be converted to fire automatically. The act also banned magazines that could accommodate 10 rounds or more.

“Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly — are a threat to our national security, and we should treat them as such,” Biden wrote in his weekend op-ed. “Anyone who pretends there’s nothing we can do is lying — and holding that view should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to lead our country.”

The earlier ban was enacted as a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, an election-year package meant to show that Democrats were “tough on crime.”

Times were different then. More Americans said they worried about violent crime and the threat associated with criminals armed with powerful weapons.

So among other things, Biden and Democrats got behind stricter sentencing guidelines and expanding the category of federal crimes punishable with the death penalty.

At the time, Biden defended the legislation against charges of weakness by saying: “We do everything but hang people for jaywalking in this bill.”

Eagerness to tackle crime rates made at least some Democrats in 1994 also willing to address the role of guns – particularly those perceived as more dangerous and which had been turned on innocent citizens.

In his Times op-ed, Biden salutes the senator often credited as the architect of the 1994 ban, Dianne Feinstein of California. Then in just her second year as a senator, Feinstein took over as chief sponsor of a bill originally offered by Ohio Democrat Howard Metzenbaum in 1989 after a mass shooting on a schoolyard in Stockton, Calif.

That shooting took the lives of five children and injured 28 others and a teacher.

Feinstein’s resolve to carry this legislation forward was bolstered when eight more people were killed and six injured in another California horror, this time at a law firm in San Francisco.

“It was the 1993 mass shooting at 101 California Street,” she later said. “That was the tipping point for me. That’s what really motivated me to push for a ban on assault weapons.”

But to secure the votes for passage, the ban’s sponsors agreed to allow those who already had these guns to keep them. Biden now says he would initiate a buyback program instead, although it isn’t clear how that might work or how effective it might be today.

Sponsors also accepted a “sunset provision” by which the 1994 ban would automatically expire after 10 years unless renewed by a vote of Congress. Even so, the ban only got 52 votes in the Senate on its way to inclusion in the overall crime bill, which was signed into law by President Clinton.

The world turns

By the time those 10 years had passed, however, the political climate had changed.

Republicans by then had held the House throughout the period and the Senate for all but 18 months. The GOP had just increased its numbers in both chambers in the midterm elections of 2002, a political season dominated by anxiety after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

On top of all that, the president in 2004 was George W. Bush, another Republican who was opposed to renewing the ban.

Feinstein and others made numerous efforts to restore the ban that year and over the next several years. When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 he made renewing the ban part of his agenda. Efforts were mounted again after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December of 2012, but none bore fruit.

The attempt to reinstate the ban after Sandy Hook attracted 12 fewer votes in the Senate than Feinstein had mustered in an attempt to renew the ban in 2004.


Westlake Legal Group ap_19222666015261-ef80fdaee86759838d31fe003be2a02e86d11f7d-s800-c15 The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?

Former Vice President Joe Biden says if he’s elected, he’d support a new ban on assault weapons, along with a buyback program for weapons already in private hands. Charlie Neibergall/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Charlie Neibergall/AP

Westlake Legal Group  The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?

Former Vice President Joe Biden says if he’s elected, he’d support a new ban on assault weapons, along with a buyback program for weapons already in private hands.

Charlie Neibergall/AP

Biden has come to rue much about the 1994 legislation.

It led to a surge in prison populations that has since been reviled as “mass incarceration” that proved disproportionately injurious to African Americans. Biden has been upbraided for it by his rivals since this year’s Democratic presidential contest began.

But in 1994, the most immediate consequence of the crime bill was a backlash against the assault weapons ban among gun advocates.

The midterm elections that fall were already difficult for the Democrats, who had to defend the new North American Free Trade Agreement, some higher taxes and a scandal in the House banking system.

Adding in the blowback over the assault weapons ban — particularly intense in the rural South and West — turned the midterm into a debacle for Democrats. They lost control of both the Senate and House, the latter for the first time in 40 years.

Among those defeated that fall was 42-year veteran Jack Brooks, a Texas Democrat who had been chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the crime bill passed.

Brooks had tried to have the assault weapons ban removed from the bill and was himself a longtime member of the National Rifle Association. But it was not enough to save him in rural Texas that fall.

The sense that gun control cost Democrats votes intensified after the presidential election of 2000. That year’s Democratic nominee, Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee, could not carry his home state or other swing states won by the Clinton-Gore ticket in the 1990s.

Gore surely paid a price for his stances on coal and other issues as well, but much of the blame for his narrow Electoral College loss fell on voters’ response to his positions on guns.

In 2004, when the Republican Congress refused to renew the assault weapons ban, the Democrats’ presidential nominee was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who sought to style himself as a hunter and gun owner but nonetheless also supported the ban and its renewal.

The Electoral College that year looked a lot like 2000, and Kerry could have won had he carried Ohio. But in that state, as elsewhere, a poor showing in rural counties doomed the Democratic nominee.

What effect did the ban have?

Today we can look back at the 10 years of the ban and at 15 years since its expiration.

Critics of the ban have argued that it violated Second Amendment rights while accomplishing little, and evidence suggests it did not do much to reduce the incidence of gun violence overall.

What it did, its defenders reply, was reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings.

Both sides of the debate claim vindication in subsequent research. Comparing the various studies is difficult because they use different definitions of “assault weapon” and mass shooting.

One thing is clear: Assault weapons like those once restricted by the ban were used in the most memorable events that have defined the current era of random massacre, including at Sandy Hook in 2012, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. in 2018 — and this month in Texas and Ohio.

They are the emblem of the nation’s soul sickness over these tragedies.

So today Democratic candidates stand by the assault weapons ban, despite its political costs in the past and potential costs in the future.

President Trump, for his part, now calls for having “strong background checks” for gun purchases but does not call for new restrictions on assault weapons.

“There’s no political appetite for it,” he says.

But many surveys show the opposite.

A survey done this month by Morning Consult and Politico found seven in ten voters, including 54% of Republicans, supported “a ban on assault-style weapons.” Even higher percentages supported a ban on high-capacity magazines and a purchase age of at least 21 for any gun. The survey, done Aug. 5-7, included 1,960 interviews and had a margin of error of +/- 2%.

Given that similar percentages supported a ban after the shootings of the early 1990s and after the Sandy Hook and Parkland tragedies, there would seem to be a long term pattern.

Whether that can be translated into legislative action by the current political establishment is — as always — another question.

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

States Sue Trump Administration Over Rollback of Obama-Era Climate Rule

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 29 states and cities on Tuesday sued to block the Trump administration from easing restrictions on coal-burning power plants. The move could ultimately limit how much leverage future administrations would have to fight climate change by restricting a major source of Earth-warming pollution.

The lawsuit, led by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, argued the Environmental Protection Agency had no basis for weakening an Obama-era regulation that set the first-ever national limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants.

That rule, the Clean Power Plan, required states to implement plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2022, and encouraged that to happen by closing heavily-polluting plants and replacing those energy sources with natural gas or renewable energy. Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is a major contributor to global warming because it traps the sun’s heat.

The lawsuit — by 22 states and seven cities including Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Chicago and Miami — is the latest swing of the legal pendulum in a long-running dispute over how to regulate emissions from coal plants. Previously, Republican-led states and industry groups had sued to stop Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan from going into effect, and won a reprieve when the Supreme Court in 2016 temporarily blocked the Obama administration from imposing changes.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.

The new challenge, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration’s replacement, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, ignores the E.P.A.’s responsibility under the law to set limits on greenhouse gases. It maintains that the new rule would actually extend the life of dirty and aging coal-burning plants, promoting an increase in pollution instead of curbing it.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_156677724_476a4b41-7091-4a33-a768-21ebd611f844-articleLarge States Sue Trump Administration Over Rollback of Obama-Era Climate Rule Wheeler, Andrew R United States Politics and Government Regulation and Deregulation of Industry James, Letitia Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global Warming Environmental Protection Agency environment Carbon Dioxide

E.P.A. administrator Andrew Wheeler signing the Affordable Clean Energy Rule at a ceremony in June.CreditAlex Brandon/Associated Press

It’s a legal battle that could again go all the way to the Supreme Court. This time, if justices ultimately decide in favor of the Trump administration and find the Clean Air Act does not allow the government to direct broad changes to the nation’s energy deployment, it could permanently weaken the United States’ ability to tackle its contributions to global warming.

“It would have a devastating effect on the ability of future administrations to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” said Richard L. Revesz, a professor at New York University who specializes in environmental law. “It would essentially make it extremely difficult to regulate greenhouse gases effectively,” he said.

Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, said in a statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation. But he said of the A.C.E. regulations: “EPA worked diligently to ensure we produced a solid rule, that we believe will be upheld in the courts, unlike the previous Administration’s Clean Power Plan.”

Andrew Wheeler, the administrator of the E.P.A., announced the new rule in June at an event attended by coal-industry leaders, utility lobbyists and prominent deniers of climate change science.

Unlike the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, the Trump rule does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Instead it leaves it up to states to decide whether, or if, to scale back emissions and pick from a menu of technologies to improve power-plant efficiency at the facility level.

Under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. is required to use the “best system of emissions reduction.” The Obama-era options included switching to cleaner energy sources like gas, solar or wind; putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions; or using technology that could capture and store carbon dioxide rather than releasing it into the atmosphere. The Trump-administration rule, by contrast, focuses solely on new efficiency measures for individual plants.

Mr. Wheeler argued that the Obama administration had overreached its authority with its rule and that the Trump administration’s plan was legally defensible. Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan was suspended by the Supreme Court in 2016 after challenges from 28 Republican-led states and several major industry organizations.

The coalition filing the lawsuit is led by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James.CreditMary Altaffer/Associated Press

Those groups said Mr. Obama’s plan was unduly burdensome to utilities and too costly for consumers, a position that Mr. Wheeler also embraced. He maintained that A.C.E. would lead to a reduction of 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and provide net benefits of $70 million each year. He also, however, said the new rule could lead to new coal plants being built.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, called the Trump administration’s rule “toothless,” described it as the “fossil fuel protection plan” and said the rule artificially narrows E.P.A.’s authority. “The Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to utilize the best system of emissions reduction that it can find. This rule does the opposite,” he said.

Ms. James said under the Trump administration’s suggested best system of reducing emissions, carbon dioxide pollution will come down only 0.7 percent more in the coming decade than it would if no rule existed at all.

Others joining the suit include Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia, as well as Boulder, Los Angeles, New York City and Philadelphia.

A coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund are expected to file their own legal challenge this week.

Two leading public health groups, the American Public Health Association and the American Lung Association, have already filed suit to block the Trump administration plan.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade group that represents coal producers, last week filed a motion in support of the Trump administration. Michelle Bloodworth, the organization’s chief operating officer, said in a statement that she believes the E.P.A. has a “strong legal case” but added “we also want to help E.P.A. defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation.”

For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.

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

Kyrgyzstan ex-president charged with murder following arrest: reports

Former Kyrgyzstan President Almazbek Atambayev was charged with murder Tuesday, following two violent police raids at his residence last week that left one officer dead, reports said.

Atambayev supporters held six officers hostage during the raids that left more than 100 people injured before the former president finally surrendered Thursday. He now faces corruption charges.


Prosecutors additionally charged Atambayev with hostage-taking and causing mass unrest, Reuters reported, citing state news agency Kabar.

Westlake Legal Group Kyrgyzstan-Raid-AP Kyrgyzstan ex-president charged with murder following arrest: reports Stephen Sorace fox-news/world/world-regions/asia fox-news/world/conflicts fox news fnc/world fnc ecb7532d-d89c-53cd-8d2a-ddcc61b2a837 article

Atambayev supporters repelled the first raid, in which an officer was killed, on Wednesday. Atambayev surrendered after the second raid a day later. (AP Photo/Vladimir Voronin)

National security chief Orozbek Opumbayev further accused Atambayev of planning to stage a coup, the news outlet report.

Atambayev, who was in office from 2011 to 2017, was stripped of the prosecution immunity he enjoyed as a former president in June. Authorities wanted to subpoena him as a witness in the unlawful release of a Chechen crime boss in 2013, the BBC reported.


The conflict highlights tensions between Atambayev and his handpicked successor, Acting President Sooronbai Jeenbekov. After Jeenbekov took office in 2017, he purged Atambayev loyalists holding powerful government positions, souring their relationship, according to the BBC.

Jeenbekov has also accused Atambayev of multiple counts of corruption, which Atambayev denies.

Westlake Legal Group Almazbek-Atambayev-AP Kyrgyzstan ex-president charged with murder following arrest: reports Stephen Sorace fox-news/world/world-regions/asia fox-news/world/conflicts fox news fnc/world fnc ecb7532d-d89c-53cd-8d2a-ddcc61b2a837 article

Atambayev was charged with murder Tuesday following raids on his compound that left one police officer dead, according to reported. (AP)

Kyrgyzstan is a republic in Central Asia that gained autonomy with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The nation’s first two presidents after independence were both driven from office by riots, and the latest violence has fueled concerns of more instability.


Russia, Kyrgyzstan’s main sponsor and ally, has called for restraint.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Atambayev last month, he has since publically endorsed Jeenbekov, Reuters reported.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group Almazbek-Atambayev-AP Kyrgyzstan ex-president charged with murder following arrest: reports Stephen Sorace fox-news/world/world-regions/asia fox-news/world/conflicts fox news fnc/world fnc ecb7532d-d89c-53cd-8d2a-ddcc61b2a837 article   Westlake Legal Group Almazbek-Atambayev-AP Kyrgyzstan ex-president charged with murder following arrest: reports Stephen Sorace fox-news/world/world-regions/asia fox-news/world/conflicts fox news fnc/world fnc ecb7532d-d89c-53cd-8d2a-ddcc61b2a837 article

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

Eddie Murphy Powers Comeback Bid In ‘Dolemite Is My Name’ Trailer

Westlake Legal Group 5d52dbc12400006100b772d2 Eddie Murphy Powers Comeback Bid In ‘Dolemite Is My Name’ Trailer

But the actor and comedian, whose last major film success was 2010′s “Shrek Forever After,” appears to be mounting a comeback ― and it looks like his new Netflix movie due out this fall will be a critical component of that. A trailer for “Dolemite Is My Name” dropped Monday, featuring the former “Beverly Hills Cop” star and “Saturday Night Live” trouper as real-life blaxploitation star Rudy Ray Moore. (See the preview below.)

Moore, a comic, turned the stage persona of a kung fu-fighting pimp into his memorable 1975 screen turn as “Dolemite.”

“Dolemite is my name and fucking up motherfuckers is my game,” Murphy’s Moore declares.

There are lots of fine ’70s touches in the clip, not to mention fun appearances by Wesley Snipes, Keegan-Michael Key and others.

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