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 Media (Page 109)

Plain Spoken, EASILY UNDERSTOOD: Habitual Drunkard

Westlake Legal Group BOTTLES Plain Spoken, EASILY UNDERSTOOD: Habitual Drunkard

The other day, I was lecturing a group of a few dozen law enforcement officers on the changes to and interpretations of Virginia’s laws by appellate courts. As part of it, I had to tell them that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, shortly after supported by a Virginia Attorney General Opinion, has declared interdiction is unconstitutional.  Manning v. Caldwell. Interdiction in Virginia law is a process by which the government can petition a judge, accompanied by proof of abuse and notice to the person, and have the person be declared “interdicted.” An interdicted person cannot be sold alcohol and cannot possess alcohol or be drunk in public. (the second is semi-redundant as that stands as its own lesser charge).

One of the officers asked why interdiction was unconstitutional and I had to inform him that it was because the 4th Circuit couldn’t understand the words “habitual drunkard” because they were too vague.

The entire room dissolved into laughter.

Nobody can make a convincing argument that “habitual drunkard” is beyond easy understanding. That’s why the judge writing this opinion spends pages 11 thru 33 trying to convince us that it is. It’s definitely a “methinks thou dost protest too much” moment. Whenever you see a judge writing that much to convince you that two words from a minor statute don’t mean what they seem to pretty clearly mean you know you’re in the result oriented zone.

Eventually, the judge says that the only thing habitual drunkard could mean (although it is too vague to actually get there) is “alcoholic” and it violates the 8th Amendment to punish someone who is acting in accord with that status.

If that’s the case then the laws that make it illegal for people under a certain age (21 in Virginia) to possess alcohol or nicotine products are status based and must to be unconstitutional as well. If possession of alcohol can’t be prosecuted because it is an “involuntary manifestation” of alcoholism then possession of chewing tobacco must be an involuntary manifestation of nicotine addiction and possession of methamphetamine must be an involuntary manifestation of meth addiction. Read this way, it appears that the 4th Circuit believes that all possessors of addictive substances are not guilty by reason of insanity because they are acting in response to an irresistible impulse. That’s ludicrous.

Or perhaps the judge is trying to tell us that “drunk in public” is in and of itself entirely unconstitutional unless it can be proven in court that the individual involved isn’t an alcoholic or addict. However, this fails the judge’s own logic because drunk in public applies to all without recourse to status as alcoholic or non-alcoholic.

At best, a kind reading of this opinion’s 8th Amendment analysis would conclude that the opinion makes it unconstitutional to give a more severe penalty for an alcoholic if she is convicted of drunk in public because of her status as an alcoholic and that the opinion bypassed the illegal possession of alcohol portion of the statute.

——-

Whence the jurisdiction?

Nowhere does the judge writing the opinion even attempt to explain how the 4th Circuit has jurisdiction to impose its will upon these statutes. This seems an awful lot like it’s an end run around the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act where the 4th Circuit would be held to a higher deference standard unless it could point to a specific US Supreme Court decision with a specific point that made the Virginia statutes clearly unconstitutional. Of course, that would be impossible because of Powell v. State of Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968):

The State of Texas thus has not sought to punish a mere status, as California did in Robinson; nor has it attempted to regulate appellant’s behavior in the privacy of his own home. Rather, it has imposed upon appellant a criminal sanction for public behavior which may create substantial health and safety hazards, both for appellant and for members of the general public, and which offends the moral and esthetic sensibilities of a large segment of the community. This seems a far cry from convicting one for being an addict, being a chronic alcoholic, being mentally ill, or a leper.

It can be argued whether this applies because it is part of a plurality opinion, but it definitely makes it very difficult to claim that the Virginia statutes fall directly afoul of US Supreme Court precedent.  Having read the 4th Circuit case, I’m sure the judges involved could have cobbled together some excuse so they could impose their will on Virginia. Nevertheless, having not done so, the 4th Circuit opinion appears to be advisory at best and courts in Virginia would be bound by their own precedent.

——-

In a world where we’ve moved away from individual responsibility, moved toward treatment solutions (arguably back toward them in a crippled, limping manner), and decided of late to ennoble the homeless at the expense of other citizens, the elimination of interdiction is not terribly surprising. However, it is and should be a legislative decision made by the Virginia General Assembly and signed off on by the governor. The 4th Circuit stretched further than it should have to get where it got. Despite the Attorney General’s collapse in the face of this opinion, and without an explanation of what would allow the 4th Circuit to step on Virginia’s sovereignty, I think that binding precedent for Virginia courts would be from Virginia’s Court of Appeals in Jackson v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 218 (2004):

Code § 4.1-322 imposes no criminal sanction for the status of being an alcoholic. It forbids specific behavior: possession of alcohol and public drunkenness by interdicted persons. Therefore, in accord with Powell and Fisher, we hold that Code § 4.1-322 does not violate the Eighth Amendment by punishing status or by imposing cruel and unusual punishment. 

Unless the General Assembly acts to change the law, I think that the trial courts of Virginia remain bound by Virginia precedent. The 4th Circuit, without some sort of statutory grant by Congress, doesn’t stand as a court in lieu of Virginia’s appellate courts and the Virginia Court of Appeals’ constitutional interpretation will trump that of the 4th Circuit in Virginia trial courts. As well, prosecutors and officers acting in accord with a statute that has been specifically found constitutional by  the Virginia Court of Appeals will be well within their rights and abilities as actors under Virginia’s binding precedent.

Westlake Legal Group BOTTLES Plain Spoken, EASILY UNDERSTOOD: Habitual Drunkard

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

Is it a sore throat or strep? How to tell the difference

Westlake Legal Group sore_throat_istock Is it a sore throat or strep? How to tell the difference Manny Alvarez fox-news/health/ask-dr-manny fox news fnc/health fnc article 1fad5dea-f084-5f86-8dfa-18d13dea9824

Dear Dr. Manny,

My kids keep getting sore throats in the winter. I can’t help but wonder. How do I know whether they have strep throat? When do I need to get them tested? 

Thanks for your question.

Not all sore throats are the same. Some of them are related to allergies, some of them are from colds, and some of them are caused by the streptococcus bacteria.

NORTH CAROLINA SEES FIRST FLU-RELATED DEATH OF 2019-20 SEASON: HEALTH OFFICIALS

You can’t verify for sure whether you or your child has strep throat without going to a doctor.

A sore throat that stems from a cold usually comes with a slew of respiratory ailments. Runny noses, coughing, sneezing, and watery eyes are all signs of a cold, not strep throat.

Strep comes suddenly. Its symptoms include a sore throat, red tonsils, white spots on the tonsils, pain when swallowing, fever, swollen neck glands, loss of appetite, headaches, and abdominal pain.

If you have any of these symptoms, check with a doctor, who can do a simple swab to verify. It’s important that you treat strep with antibiotics.

Strep is common in all ages, but it happens more in children than adults. It can also be worse in children.

Some kids are more prone to get strep more than others because they have a genetic weakness to Strep A, the bacteria which causes the infection. Typically, those children also developed tonsillitis.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Soothing a strep throat involves lots of rest and fluids. Gargling salt water will help bring the inflammation down somewhat. Eat soft, easy-to-swallow foods like mashed potatoes and applesauce. Use a humidifier.

Prevention of strep throat can be as easy as washing your hands before you eat. Another useful prevention method involves cleaning the house frequently, especially the bathroom

Do you have a health question for Dr. Manny? Email us at AskDrManny@FoxNews.com 

Westlake Legal Group sore_throat_istock Is it a sore throat or strep? How to tell the difference Manny Alvarez fox-news/health/ask-dr-manny fox news fnc/health fnc article 1fad5dea-f084-5f86-8dfa-18d13dea9824   Westlake Legal Group sore_throat_istock Is it a sore throat or strep? How to tell the difference Manny Alvarez fox-news/health/ask-dr-manny fox news fnc/health fnc article 1fad5dea-f084-5f86-8dfa-18d13dea9824

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

Marc Thiessen: Would Baghdadi be alive if Biden was president? As VP, he opposed raid that killed bin Laden

Westlake Legal Group Biden60102519 Marc Thiessen: Would Baghdadi be alive if Biden was president? As VP, he opposed raid that killed bin Laden the washington post Marc Thiessen fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox-news/us/terror fox-news/politics/executive/national-security fox-news/person/joe-biden fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc b260fe1c-a267-5b2c-a3cc-d6c35192a442 article

President Trump deserves credit for ordering the operation that killed Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It was a high-risk mission that required U.S. forces to fly hundreds of miles into Al Qaeda-controlled territory to storm a heavily armed terrorist compound.

If things had gone horribly wrong, Trump would have been blamed and borne the consequences. Just ask Jimmy Carter how the Desert One disaster affected his reelection. Trump knew the political risks but gave the order to go anyway.

Would former Vice President Joe Biden have done the same? Unlikely.

The former vice president advised President Obama not to carry out the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. As Mark Bowden, author of “The Finish: The Killing of Osama bin Laden,” explained in 2012: “The only major dissenters were Biden and [then-Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, and before the raid was launched, Gates would change his mind.”

CAL THOMAS: AL-BAGHDADI’S DEATH IS A BIG DEAL. DEMOCRATS OUGHT TO DITCH THE PARTISANSHIP AND LAUD HIS DEMISE

During a meeting in the Situation Room, Biden later recalled, Obama turned to him and asked, “Joe, what do you think?” Biden answered: “Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go.”

At the moment America had the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks in her sights, Biden was worried about politics, the absolute last thing a commander in chief should be thinking about in such circumstances.

Worse, Biden’s reason had nothing to do with national security. According to Bowden, Biden told the president that “if the effort failed, Obama could say goodbye to a second term.”

At the moment America had the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks in her sights, Biden was worried about politics, the absolute last thing a commander in chief should be thinking about in such circumstances. In the end, Bowden wrote, “Every one of the president’s top advisers except Biden was in favor of immediate action.”

More from Opinion

Yet rather than praise Trump for ordering the killing of Baghdadi, Biden blasted the president, declaring the raid succeeded “despite his ineptitude as commander in chief.”

The man who opposed the bin Laden operation criticizes the man who approved the Baghdadi operation? That’s rich. And it was the Obama-Biden administration’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 that allowed the Islamic State to rise from the ashes of defeat and build a caliphate the size of Britain. Talk about ineptitude.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Obama’s rejection of Biden’s advice not to go after bin Laden does not absolve Obama of criticism for his broader policy in the fight against terrorism. After the bin Laden operation, many pointed out the irony that Obama’s signature national security accomplishment was made possible by information gained from the CIA interrogation program that he had shut down on his third day in office.

As former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell has explained, the key piece of intelligence that led the CIA to bin Laden — information on bin Laden’s principal courier, including his nickname Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — came from detainees in CIA custody.

Similarly, Trump’s bold decision to go forward with the Baghdadi operation does not absolve him of criticism for his Syria policy. The fact is, taking out the Islamic State leader would not have been possible without the U.S. boots on the ground that Trump has announced he is withdrawing, or without the help of the Kurdish allies whom Trump is abandoning.

It was the Kurds who cultivated the source inside Baghdadi’s inner circle who gave us actionable intelligence about his location.

So the Kurds not only took 11,000 casualties in the fight to drive the Islamic State from its physical caliphate, but they also gave us the critical lead that led us to Baghdadi’s doorstep. It’s fair to ask whether the same operation would have been possible six months from now thanks to Trump’s drawdown and betrayal of the Kurds.

Our Kurdish allies deserve better. And we still need them. According to a Pentagon inspector general’s report, even before Trump’s most recent withdrawal announcement, the Islamic State was “resurging in Syria.” It has between 14,000 and 18,000 members, as well as about 3,000 foreign fighters under arms in Syria and Iraq.

The New York Times reported that before Trump’s decision to greenlight Turkey’s invasion, Kurdish forces were conducting as many as a dozen counterterrorism missions a day, but now those have ceased. The Kurds were also guarding about 10,000 captured Islamic State fighters, including about 2,000 foreign fighters.

Now, according to the State Department, more than 100 of those detainees have escaped and “we do not know where they are.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

While the loss of Baghdadi is a major blow, the Islamic State has survived similar blows before. In 2006, I helped write President George W. Bush’s speech announcing that the United States had killed Baghdadi’s predecessor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Thirteen years later, another American president has announced the death of another Islamic State leader.

Thanks to Trump, Baghdadi is dead. But the Islamic State is not. We still need to keep a boot on its neck, and that requires boots on the ground — and allies such as the Kurds.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY MARC THIESSEN

Westlake Legal Group Biden60102519 Marc Thiessen: Would Baghdadi be alive if Biden was president? As VP, he opposed raid that killed bin Laden the washington post Marc Thiessen fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox-news/us/terror fox-news/politics/executive/national-security fox-news/person/joe-biden fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc b260fe1c-a267-5b2c-a3cc-d6c35192a442 article   Westlake Legal Group Biden60102519 Marc Thiessen: Would Baghdadi be alive if Biden was president? As VP, he opposed raid that killed bin Laden the washington post Marc Thiessen fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox-news/us/terror fox-news/politics/executive/national-security fox-news/person/joe-biden fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc b260fe1c-a267-5b2c-a3cc-d6c35192a442 article

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

Obama Calls Out Woke Culture, Twitter Outrage: ‘That’s Not Activism’

Westlake Legal Group 5db92b892100001c3bad44c1 Obama Calls Out Woke Culture, Twitter Outrage: ‘That’s Not Activism’

Former President Barack Obama says “compromise” shouldn’t be frowned upon and described Twitter outrage as “not activism.” 

Speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago on Tuesday, the former president called on Americans to abandon ideological purity tests in politics. 

“This idea of purity, and you’re never compromised, and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff. You should get over that quickly,” he said. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.” 

Obama also called out what he perceived as a “danger” among younger people.

“There is this sense sometimes of ‘the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough,’” he said, then offered an example: 

“Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb. Then, I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because, ‘Man, you see how woke I was? I called you out.’ I’m gonna get on TV. Watch my show. Watch ‘Grown-ish.’ Y’know, that’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.”

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

READ: Christopher Anderson’s Written Testimony In Impeachment Inquiry

Westlake Legal Group gettyimages-72419686_custom-8a35d5cad1861ed23f9fbc9be82137368fcf9f4a-s1100-c15 READ: Christopher Anderson's Written Testimony In Impeachment Inquiry

State Department employee Christopher Anderson is testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill on Wednesday about the Trump administration’s policy on Ukraine. Win McNamee/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Westlake Legal Group  READ: Christopher Anderson's Written Testimony In Impeachment Inquiry

State Department employee Christopher Anderson is testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill on Wednesday about the Trump administration’s policy on Ukraine.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Christopher Anderson is testifying in the ongoing House impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, along with Catherine Croft.

Anderson and Croft both worked for the U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker — Anderson for almost two years. He served in Kyiv from 2014-2017 and then as special adviser for Ukraine negotiations through July 12, 2019.

In his prepared opening statement obtained by NPR, Anderson says senior officials at the White House blocked State Department officials from releasing a statement that would have condemned Russia’s action in Ukraine in November 2018.

Anderson also describes a June 13 meeting in which national security adviser John Bolton “cautioned that Mr. Giuliani was a key voice with the President on Ukraine which could be an obstacle to increased White House engagement.”

Read the statement below:

Opening Statement of Christopher J. Anderson to the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee on Oversight and Reform

October 30, 2019

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement today. I have served as a Foreign Service Officer in the State Department since 2005. I have spent most of my career serving in countries on the periphery of the Russian Federation including Mongolia, Armenia, and, most recently, Ukraine. For the last five years, I have worked in Kyiv and Washington to advance our national security interests by promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, countering Russian aggression, and defending the principles that international borders should not be changed by force. It has been a privilege to serve our country and promote our national interests on such an important foreign policy issue while working alongside dedicated and talented public servants. These efforts have benefited from strong bipartisan support.

My work in Ukraine began with a three-week temporary duty to Kyiv in March 2014 just after Russia invaded and occupied Crimea. I returned to Kyiv in September 2014 to serve as the External Unit Chief in the Political Section of our Embassy. I served in Kyiv from 2014–2017 and worked closely with Ambassador Yovanovitch from 2015–2017.

In August 2017 Ambassador Volker asked me to serve as Special Advisor for Ukraine Negotiations. I served in this position from late August 2017 until July 12, 2019. In this role, I helped develop negotiating positions, analyzed Russian and Ukrainian ceasefire proposals, and provided context on the history of the conflict and past negotiations. I also traveled with Ambassador Volker to the front lines of the conflict, to negotiate with the Russians, and to meet with European counterparts.

On November 25, 2018, Russia escalated the conflict further when its forces openly attacked and seized Ukrainian military vessels heading to a Ukrainian port in the Sea of Azov. While my colleagues at the State Department quickly prepared a statement condemning Russia for its escalation, senior officials in the White House blocked it from being issued. Ambassador Volker drafted a tweet condemning Russia’s actions, which I posted to his account.

In December 2018, Ambassador Volker and I traveled to Brussels to meet with EU officials and key NATO Allies to push for a more assertive European response to Russia’s escalation. During this visit, we met with Ambassador Sondland, who hosted a lunch bringing together key EU officials for a discussion on coordinating our response to Russia’s escalation.

When Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president in April, Ambassador Volker and I were hopeful that a newly empowered Ukrainian president could reinitiate high-level U.S. engagement. Before the inauguration in May, my colleagues and I saw a tweet by Rudolph Giuliani alleging that President-elect Zelenskyy was surrounded by enemies of President Trump. In an effort to counter the negative narrative sparked by Ambassador Yovanovitch’s withdrawal and Giuliani’s statements, we pushed for a high-level delegation to attend Zelenskyy’s inauguration. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, NSC Director Alexander Vindman, and Senator Ron Johnson, traveled to Kyiv as part of a Presidential delegation for the inauguration.

After the delegation returned, the participants wanted to brief the President on the trip. Ambassador Sondland was able to quickly arrange a meeting with the President for May 23. I participated in the preparatory meeting at the White House in which we discussed key deliverables that would demonstrate President Zelenskyy’s commitment to reform. We focused on three key areas: 1) demonstrating Zelenskyy’s independence from powerful vested interests and pursuing anticorruption reform as well as antitrust reform; 2) strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian energy cooperation; and 3) improving our bilateral security relationship which included Ukraine increasing its purchases of key U.S. military equipment.

Ambassador Volker told me after the meeting that the President had agreed to invite President Zelenskyy to the White House for a meeting and would issue a letter shortly. The President signed a letter on May 29 that included an invitation for President Zelenskyy, but the letter did not include a specific date for the visit.

On June 13, I accompanied Ambassador Volker to a meeting with National Security Advisor John Bolton. In that meeting, Bolton stated that he agreed with our three lines of effort and that he also supported increased senior White House engagement. However, he cautioned that Mr. Giuliani was a key voice with the President on Ukraine which could be an obstacle to increased White House engagement. He did suggest that perhaps the Vice President would be available to travel to Toronto to meet with President Zelenskyy in early July at the Ukraine Reform Conference that the Canadian government was hosting. We later learned that the Vice President would not attend the conference. The morning after the meeting, I sent a brief message to Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent summarizing the meeting and relaying NSA Bolton’s message about Mr. Giuliani. I sent around a more formal summary later that day to my State Department colleagues.

On June 18, Secretary Perry hosted a follow-up meeting at the Department of Energy to discuss how to move forward on these three key areas. In preparation for that meeting, colleagues in different offices in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and our missions in Kyiv and Brussels worked to develop a joint list of policy outcomes that would demonstrate Zelenskyy’s commitment to reform and improve the bilateral U.S.-Ukraine relationship.

In the meeting at the Department of Energy on June 18, there was broad agreement on the interagency framework regarding policy deliverables. There were some initial discussions about how to delineate the lines of effort among the Department of Energy, the State Department, Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, and Ambassador Taylor (who joined by phone from Kyiv). There was also general agreement that it would be important to schedule a White House visit quickly, even if the actual date of the visit was after the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. There were some vague discussions in the meeting about how to address Mr. Giuliani’s continued calls for a corruption investigation. After the meeting I spoke with Ambassador Taylor in a phone call to discuss the atmospherics of the meeting and next steps. We agreed on the importance of not calling for any specific investigations, but otherwise agreed the three lines of effort were useful.

Ambassador Volker then led a delegation to the Ukraine Reform Conference in Toronto July 1–2. We met with several Ukrainian officials including President Zelenskyy. In the meeting, President Zelenskyy highlighted progress in some of the key areas we had identified and pushed for a date for a White House visit. Volker urged him to schedule a call with President Trump in order to start building a relationship and thereby increase the chance of securing a date for the White House visit.

I was scheduled to complete my assignment as Special Advisor for Ukraine Negotiations on July 12, 2019. In the few remaining days of my assignment, I continued to push my Ukrainian counterparts for concrete progress in key reform areas. The Ukrainians remained focused on scheduling a White House visit—seeing such a visit as a critical step in empowering Zelenskyy in his negotiations with the Russians. My last day with Ambassador Volker was July 12. Catherine Croft was my successor.

In closing, I want to reiterate that my colleagues and I in the Foreign Service are non-partisan and advance the foreign policy set by our duly elected leaders. I take that commitment as well as my oath to defend the Constitution seriously. Working abroad to advance the interest of the United States has at times led to harassment and intimidation by hostile intelligence services, death threats, and other significant challenges for my family and I. I have accepted these burdens because I believe we are advancing a cause greater than ourselves and are working to promote the general welfare.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement, and I welcome your questions.

NPR diplomacy correspondent Michele Kelemen contributed to this report.

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

Today on Fox News, Oct. 30, 2019

STAY TUNED

On Fox News: 

Fox & Friends, 6 a.m. ET: Donald Trump Jr., son of President Trump and executive vice president of Development and Acquisitions for the Trump Organization; Dr. Michael Baden, forensic pathologist.

On Fox News Radio:

The Fox News Rundown podcast: “Jennifer Griffin on Surviving Triple Negative Breast Cancer” – Ten years ago, FOX’s national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin was diagnosed with Stage 3, Triple negative breast cancer shortly after giving birth to her son. After 17 rounds of chemotherapy, a double mastectomy and weeks of radiation treatments she was declared cancer-free. Jennifer joins today’s FOX News Rundown to discuss her battle with breast cancer, the importance of prevention and early detection, and why she encourages people to join this year’s Prevent Cancer Health Fair and 5k Walk/Run on Sunday, November 3rd in Washington DC.

Also on the Rundown: Betrayal, allegations of horrific crimes and a systematic cover-up. In an exclusive new four-part podcast, FOX News dives into the teen sex abuse scandal that rocked the Louisville Metro Police Department and upended the Derby City. In 2017, an officer was accused of inappropriate text messages to a teenage girl. “Derby City Betrayal” explains how that complaint would soon snowball into allegations of multiple LMPD officers coercing and assaulting teens enrolled in the local Youth Explorer program.

Fox News Investigative Unit associate producer Andrew Keiper joins the Rundown to share what the new Fox News podcast series will uncover. Click here to check out “Derby City Betrayal” and subscribe.

Plus, commentary by Democratic Strategist and FOX News Contributor Leslie Marshall.

Want the Fox News Rundown sent straight to your mobile device? Subscribe through Apple Podcasts, Google Play, and Stitcher.

The Brian Kilmeade Show, 9 a.m. ET: Special guests include: Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group; Tom Dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general and more.

Westlake Legal Group fox-news-channel-logo Today on Fox News, Oct. 30, 2019 fox-news/media fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 363f8024-36c1-504e-b7e4-804f806ab116   Westlake Legal Group fox-news-channel-logo Today on Fox News, Oct. 30, 2019 fox-news/media fox-news/entertainment/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 363f8024-36c1-504e-b7e4-804f806ab116

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

Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Westlake Legal Group ap_981911813573-1c5ac27d9f88f17b56b1fa720bfae5731aa5034b-s1100-c15 Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Czech Republic President Miloš Zeman and Chinese leader Xi Jinping shake hands in Prague in March 2016. For years, the Czech Republic kept its distance from Beijing. But this changed when Zeman, a populist, took office in 2013. Petr David Josek/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Petr David Josek/AP

Westlake Legal Group  Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Czech Republic President Miloš Zeman and Chinese leader Xi Jinping shake hands in Prague in March 2016. For years, the Czech Republic kept its distance from Beijing. But this changed when Zeman, a populist, took office in 2013.

Petr David Josek/AP

On a typical day, Prague’s City Hall is buzzing with discussions about contracts to upgrade the centuries-old city’s network of cobblestone streets or sewers. But this month, assembly members have been debating a bigger topic — China, and what to do about it.

“This is clearly a topic for our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a complicated one at that,” city assembly member Patrik Nacher lectures Prague Mayor Zdenek Hrib during open debate. “And here you are, pulling Prague into a matter of such importance.”

Hrib looks off into the distance with a stone face, not bothering to respond. For months, the 38-year-old mayor has been at the center of a controversy involving his city, Beijing and the Communist Party of China.

Back in 2016, a month before a state visit to the Czech Republic by Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Prague’s previous administration approved a sister-city relationship with Beijing. It included a provision to adhere to the “One China” policy, Beijing’s insistence that Taiwan — with its own democratically elected government — is part of China.

Nearly three years and one city election later, Hrib, who worked briefly as a medical intern in Taiwan before becoming mayor last November, began calling for the One China language to be eliminated from the agreement. “A sister-city agreement should not include things that are not related to the cities’ relationship,” he said.

Beijing swiftly punished Prague institutions that have interests in China, canceling a planned 14-city autumn tour of China by the Prague Philharmonic Orchestra — which spent two-and-a-half years in preparation and lost nearly $200,000 on the tour, says Philharmonic Director Radim Otépka. “It was the biggest project we’ve ever had,” he says.

Beijing also terminated the sister-city relationship this month, before Prague’s city assembly could vote to do so.

Westlake Legal Group czech3-edit-4648a1d671e728d9bd459346a99caf1634959161-s1100-c15 Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Prague Mayor Zdenek Hrib has become famous among civil rights advocates in Europe for standing up to Beijing by excising a provision from his city’s sister-city agreement with Beijing to adhere to the “One China” policy. This month, Beijing responded by terminating the agreement. Rob Schmitz/NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Rob Schmitz/NPR

Westlake Legal Group  Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Prague Mayor Zdenek Hrib has become famous among civil rights advocates in Europe for standing up to Beijing by excising a provision from his city’s sister-city agreement with Beijing to adhere to the “One China” policy. This month, Beijing responded by terminating the agreement.

Rob Schmitz/NPR

“It was quite obvious that the only thing that the Beijing side was focused on was their propaganda, and not the political or cultural exchange we were interested in,” Hrib tells NPR.

Czech President Miloš Zeman wrote to Xi, making it clear he did not agree with the Prague politicians who wanted the One China language excised from the agreement. He urged Xi to preserve specific areas of cooperation between the two countries, including China’s investment in its assets inside the Czech Republic.

But the sister-city termination is only the latest in a list of episodes with China’s government that have ended badly for the Czech Republic.

“There’s been this backlash building up slowly. People really feel cheated,” says Prague-based China expert Martin Hala. “And a lot of things that have been happening in relation to China have been driven by local actors.”

In particular, Hala notes one company with a big stake in China: the PPF Group, a privately held financial and investment group with more than $40 billion worth of assets.

Its Czech founder, Petr Kellner, is among the wealthiest people in Europe, worth an estimated $15 billion. PPF’s lending division, Home Credit, has become one of China’s top foreign lenders, specializing in loans for individuals with little or no credit history.

Hala says when Home Credit started doing business in China in 2007, Beijing spelled out the terms under which it would grant the lender access to its market. “According to [Home Credit’s] own accounts, they were immediately notified that this would not happen until the relationship between China and the Czech Republic improved,” says Hala, “because at that point it was still quite chilly.”

Westlake Legal Group czech2-edit-b1e2a6b60b0453095044e4a840bcbd00c4404191-s1100-c15 Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

In Prague’s City Hall, assembly members debate the termination of Prague’s sister-city agreement with Beijing. One member brought a stuffed panda bear to the podium to deliver a message to China’s government that, even though he didn’t like the terms of the sister-city agreement, Prague’s zoo still would like to have a panda promised years ago by China’s government. Rob Schmitz/NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Rob Schmitz/NPR

Westlake Legal Group  Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

In Prague’s City Hall, assembly members debate the termination of Prague’s sister-city agreement with Beijing. One member brought a stuffed panda bear to the podium to deliver a message to China’s government that, even though he didn’t like the terms of the sister-city agreement, Prague’s zoo still would like to have a panda promised years ago by China’s government.

Rob Schmitz/NPR

For years, the Czech Republic — formerly part of Czechoslovakia, a Soviet satellite — had kept its distance from Beijing. Its first president, Václav Havel, championed the cause of the Dalai Lama and Chinese dissidents. But this changed when Zeman, a populist, took office in 2013.

PPF went straight to work, hiring former Czech politicians to help flip the government’s anti-communist foreign policy into a pro-China one, arranging a Beijing visit by Zeman in 2014, even supplying a private jet to fly him back to Prague.

Zeman proclaimed his country would be “China’s gateway to Europe,” invited Xi for a state visit and appointed the CEO of a Chinese energy company as his honorary adviser after the company went on a spending spree in Prague, buying part of an airline, a football club and a brewery.

But four years later, the company, CEFC China Energy, suddenly became insolvent. Its CEO disappeared, and the head of its nonprofit arm landed in prison in New York after a U.S. federal court found him guilty of bribing African heads of state.

A Chinese state-owned company took over CEFC’s assets in the Czech Republic, but the Czech government was left with a missing presidential adviser and a pile of debt.

PPF, meanwhile, continued to thrive. “It’s now the richest private company in the Czech Republic,” says Jirí Šticky, a financial journalist for the Prague-based Reporter Magazine.

PPF declined NPR’s requests for an interview. According to a company prospectus filed in preparation to sell its shares on the Hong Kong stock exchange, the Home Credit division made loans worth nearly $15 billion to Chinese consumers in the first three quarters of this year alone, equal to nearly two-thirds of its overall lending portfolio worldwide.

That’s why, when Home Credit offered to become a corporate sponsor of Prague’s Charles University this autumn, it nearly led to the resignation of the university’s rector. As part of the sponsorship, the university would have had to sign an agreement stating it would not hurt Home Credit’s global interests — including keeping China’s government happy.

Westlake Legal Group czech1-edit-e6fff326f836216332bb1682cd090aed9de6b414-s1100-c15 Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Tourists ride a horse-drawn carriage in Prague’s old town square. The city is fighting Beijing’s efforts to influence local politics and business interests. Rob Schmitz/NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Rob Schmitz/NPR

Westlake Legal Group  Czech-Chinese Ties Are Affected As Prague Stands Up To Beijing

Tourists ride a horse-drawn carriage in Prague’s old town square. The city is fighting Beijing’s efforts to influence local politics and business interests.

Rob Schmitz/NPR

“It was translated as, the university would have to stop all their critics towards China,” says Šticky.

Charles University — Central Europe’s oldest, most prestigious learning institution — is the academic home of many influential critics of China, including Hala and his organization Sinopsis, which has examined and exposed questionable dealings with Beijing by the Czech government.

Within days of learning about the Home Credit sponsorship requirements, students, faculty and local media lambasted university leadership for selling out its academic freedom to please a sponsor with business interests in China. That prompted Home Credit to withdraw its offer and university Rector Tomáš Zima to publicly apologize for his role in the matter.

“I would like to apologize to all of you,” Zima told an overcrowded meeting of the university senate in early October. “I underestimated the reaction to this. I never thought this could threaten our academic freedoms, freedom of research and freedom to teach.”

While Zima’s apology may have saved his job — for now — his secretary in charge of the university’s Czech-Chinese center, Miloš Balabán, was forced to resign on Oct. 24, after Czech media revealed that China’s government was funding the center’s largely pro-China conferences.

Hala says all of this has left a bad taste in the mouths of Czechs, who are tired of their government and biggest institutions doing the bidding of Beijing.

“In a democracy,” he says, “there’s a cacophony of voices, and people have different opinions, and the People’s Republic of China doesn’t like that.”

The Chinese embassy in Prague did not respond to NPR’s requests for an interview.

Back at Prague’s City Hall, Hrib listens with a fatigued face as a city assembly member warns that Beijing may retaliate further. When NPR asks if he’s worried that China’s government may limit its hundreds of thousands of annual tourists to the city — something it has done in the past to countries that offend it — Hrib shakes his head.

“Because the Chinese tourists do not stay here a long time, they are using their own Chinese agencies, and they are basically not the tourists we would like to focus on,” he says.

Plus, he says, anyone who has been to Prague in its peak summer season knows the city has too many tourists anyway.

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

The Fed Is Expected to Cut Rates for a Third Time. Its Next Move Is a Mystery.

Westlake Legal Group 30DC-FEDPREVIEW-01-facebookJumbo The Fed Is Expected to Cut Rates for a Third Time. Its Next Move Is a Mystery.

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve is widely expected to lower interest rates on Wednesday for a third, and potentially final, time this year. What comes next is less clear.

Fed officials lowered borrowing costs in July and September in an effort to guard against mounting risks, including President Trump’s uncertainty-inspiring trade war and a global manufacturing slowdown. They likened the moves to taking out insurance to protect the economy.

While officials have been less direct in signaling a cut this month than they were in arguing for those earlier moves, policymakers have done little to crush investor’s expectations for a quarter-point reduction at the Oct. 29-30 meeting. Many Fed watchers view that silence as a sort of confirmation, because the central bank tries to avoid surprising markets. Doing so can cause market gyrations that ultimately restrain growth.

The central question now is whether the economy will need further insulation going forward. Economic data look decent and unemployment is at a half-century low. Mr. Trump has indicated that a “Phase 1” trade deal with China could be signed next month, which could give businesses slightly more certainty.

But job gains are moderating, consumer sentiment gauges have softened this year and manufacturing continues to falter, keeping risks alive for the central bank and the economy it stewards.

Even if those threats persist, economists believe the bar to any future interest rate move is likely to be higher than the one in place for the first three cuts. The chair, Jerome H. Powell, has often compared the current cuts to two insurance adjustment cycles in the 1990s. In each instance, the Fed lowered rates protectively three times before pausing as threats faded from view and the economy steadied itself.

“I do look at this as akin to those two instances in the ’90s when the Fed cut and then cut again and then cut a third time,” Mr. Powell said this month, speaking in a question-and-answer session in Denver. “The economy took that accommodation on board and gathered steam again, and the expansion continued. So that’s the spirit in which we’re doing this.”

The policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee is set to release its interest rate decision and statement at 2 p.m., and Mr. Powell will hold a news conference at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. Powell could use his appearance to suggest that the central bank, which has been pledging to “act as appropriate” to sustain the expansion, now plans to follow that 1990s template — taking a break after October, and waiting to see whether economic data come in soft enough to merit further action.

“I think he’ll try to differentiate what the Fed has been doing from the next stage, which will be more data-dependent,” said Michelle Meyer, United States economist at Bank of America. “He’ll have to elaborate on what exactly that means — what is ‘act as appropriate,’ at this point?”

Relatively few investors are betting on a fourth 2019 rate cut, though market pricing suggests many see another reduction by next summer.

Hints at a coming pause could usher in criticism from Mr. Trump, who has spent more than a year pressuring the politically independent central bank to more aggressively cut borrowing costs.

The president, who appointed Mr. Powell as chair, said last week on Twitter that the Fed would be “derelict in its duties” if it failed to lower rates further. He compared the central bank unfavorably to Germany, where the European Central Bank has recently cut rates deeper into negative territory. While Mr. Trump often repeats that complaint, economists and central bankers point out that Europe’s economy is experiencing a more severe slowdown than the United States, necessitating a monetary policy response.

Fed officials have said repeatedly that they ignore politics and set monetary policy based on the economic outlook.

Whatever Mr. Powell and his colleagues signal about future monetary policy, it is likely to be vague enough to leave options open. The Fed’s final 2019 meeting is December 10-11, giving officials a month and a half of economic data and geopolitical developments to parse before they have to make another decision.

“There are very good reasons for them to start to shift into a ‘let’s wait and see’ mode,” said Jay Bryson, the acting chief economist at Wells Fargo.

There are signs of continuing strength and optimism: Gross domestic product growth is slowing but remains near its potential, and consumers continue to spend. The housing market has stabilized recently, helped in part by lower mortgage rates. Stock indexes are touching new highs.

But there are also risks, including Mr. Trump’s trade fight, which is likely to continue even if the United States signs a limited deal with China.

Policymakers have been divided over the timing and necessity of rate cuts as real data and risks to the outlook painted conflicting pictures. The Fed’s decision to lower borrowing costs last month drew three dissents, the most of Mr. Powell’s tenure. Two officials wanted to leave policy unchanged unless economic data showed a more marked deterioration, while the third — James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — wanted a sharper reduction.

Yet as of September, not one Fed policymaker expected more than three rate cuts in 2019, based on quarterly economic projections released after the meeting. Those are only best-guess estimates, though, and Mr. Powell indicated that more drastic action remained possible if needed.

“There will come a time, I suspect, when we think we’ve done enough,” Mr. Powell said at his September news conference. “But there may also come a time when the economy worsens, and we would then have to cut more aggressively.”

Beyond providing updates on how the rate outlook is shaping up, the Fed could provide additional details on its asset-buying plans. The central bank announced this month that it would begin buying Treasury bills, expanding its balance sheet holdings for the first time since the aftermath of the financial crisis.

The move is an effort to ensure that the banking system has ample reserves — currency deposits at the central bank — which keeps market plumbing working smoothly. It came after an obscure but important set of money market interest rates temporarily spiked in September.

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

Former G.O.P. Lawmaker Pressed for Ambassador’s Ouster, Diplomat Will Say

Westlake Legal Group 30dc-impeach-1-facebookJumbo Former G.O.P. Lawmaker Pressed for Ambassador’s Ouster, Diplomat Will Say Zelensky, Volodymyr Yovanovitch, Marie L Whistle-Blowers Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates impeachment Giuliani, Rudolph W Foreign Aid Biden, Joseph R Jr

WASHINGTON — Robert Livingston, the former Republican congressman turned lobbyist, repeatedly told a foreign service officer assigned to the White House that the American ambassador to Ukraine should be fired because of her association with Democrats, the officer plans to tell impeachment investigators on Wednesday.

The officer, Catherine M. Croft, will testify that she “documented” multiple calls from Mr. Livingston about the ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch, while she was working at the National Security Council from mid-2017 to mid-2018. She plans to say she informed two other officials — Fiona Hill, then the senior director for Europe and Russia at the council, and George P. Kent, a Ukraine expert at the State Department — about them at the time.

“He characterized Ambassador Yovanovitch as an ‘Obama holdover’ and associated with George Soros,” she will say, referring to the billionaire liberal philanthropist, according to a copy of Ms. Croft’s opening statement reviewed by The New York Times. “It was not clear to me at the time — or now — at whose direction or at whose expense Mr. Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch.”

The testimony shifts forward by several months a timeline of known attacks on Ms. Yovanovitch by conservatives questioning, without evidence, her loyalty to President Trump. It is not clear if Mr. Livingston’s work, or those financing it, were in any way connected to efforts by two Americans with business interests in Ukraine who wanted her gone and, later, by Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Nor did Ms. Croft have anything to say about who else Mr. Livingston spoke with.

Still, the outreach is certain to interest impeachment investigators, who are scrutinizing smears against Ms. Yovanovitch to understand if they were part of a larger pressure campaign by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani to secure from Ukraine politically beneficial investigations into Democratic rivals. Mr. Trump eventually recalled her this spring from Kiev, months ahead of schedule.

Ms. Croft is one of two witnesses the House committees leading the inquiry will summon on Wednesday. Both served as advisers to Kurt D. Volker, the United States’ special envoy to Ukraine, and in other diplomatic capacities related to that country. The other is Christopher J. Anderson, who preceded Ms. Croft as Mr. Volker’s adviser.

Investigators will be keen to press both officers to confirm aspects of testimony given earlier by Mr. Volker and fill in details about his work trying to manage the demands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani on the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. They are expected to testify despite State Department orders not to.

Mr. Volker told investigators that he had not been aware of any quid pro quo demanded by Mr. Trump, but he detailed how Mr. Giuliani pressed the Ukrainians to publicly pledge that they would undergo investigations that could damage the president’s political domestic adversaries. And text messages he shared with Congress at least appeared to show that a coveted White House meeting for Mr. Zelensky would come only if they agreed to certain investigations.

According to a copy of his own opening statement, Mr. Anderson will testify that he and Mr. Volker worked to accommodate Mr. Giuliani’s influence as they tried to help Ukraine’s new government root out corruption in general and deepen its ties to the United States — but bumped up against it again and again.

Mr. Anderson plans to describe a June 13 meeting at the White House with Mr. Volker and John R. Bolton, then Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, in which Mr. Bolton indicated that Mr. Giuliani could pose a problem as they sought to build more support for Mr. Zelensky among senior White House officials.

“He cautioned that Mr. Giuliani was a key voice with the President on Ukraine which could be an obstacle to increased White House engagement,” Mr. Anderson planned to say. He will add that he wrote a summary of Mr. Bolton’s remarks about Mr. Giuliani and shared it with Mr. Kent and others at the State Department.

Other witnesses have testified that Mr. Bolton expressed alarm at Mr. Giuliani’s role in even more vivid terms on other occasions.

During another meeting of senior officials at the Energy Department a few days later, Mr. Anderson plans to testify, there were “vague discussions in the meeting about how to address Mr. Giuliani’s continued calls for a corruption investigation.”

Ms. Croft, who took over as Mr. Volker’s adviser in July, appears to have less to say about Mr. Giuliani.

As for Mr. Livingston, Ms. Croft does precisely date the outreach in her opening statement, but she was assigned to the National Security Council as Ukraine director from July 2017 to July 2018, when she left for another government posting.

In her own testimony before impeachment investigators, Ms. Yovanovitch said that she was informed upon removal that Mr. Trump had lost faith in her and had been seeking her ouster since summer 2018. Ms. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat and veteran ambassador, said that she had no bias against Mr. Trump and that her bosses at the State Department had acknowledged she did “nothing wrong.”

Mr. Livingston was once a household name in Washington, and closely associated with the impeachment of another president, Bill Clinton. In 1998, Mr. Livingston was on the cusp of being elected House speaker as Republicans were preparing to impeach Mr. Clinton, but he abruptly resigned after details of his extramarital affair became public.

Foreign Agents Registration Act filings show that Mr. Livingston’s firm, the Livingston Group, has represented Ukrainian clients in the past, including in 2018.

Ms. Croft may also have other information of interest to investigators, including about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Mr. Zelensky’s predecessor. She plans to say that during her time at the National Security Council, she staffed a September 2017 meeting between Mr. Trump and President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine and was involved that winter in Mr. Trump’s decision to sell Javelin missiles to Ukraine.

As part of their work, House Democrats are investigating whether Mr. Trump later tried to use $391 million in military aid as leverage to secure the investigations he wanted into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unproven theory about Democrats colluding with Ukraine in the 2016 election. Ms. Croft will say she learned that Mr. Trump had frozen the aid in July.

Both Ms. Croft and Mr. Anderson intend to warn about the risks of a failure by the White House to support Mr. Zelensky and Ukraine in their continuing military conflict with Russia.

“His best chance at success is with our support along with our European partners,” Ms. Croft will say. “It is my hope that even as this committee’s process plays out, we do not lose sight of what is happening in Ukraine and its great promise as a prosperous and democratic member of the European community.”

In one case, Mr. Anderson plans to say, the senior White House officials blocked the release of a statement prepared by the State Department that would have condemned Russia for attacking and seizing Ukrainian military vessels in November 2018. Mr. Volker ended up sending his own tweet.

Mark J. MacDougall, a lawyer for both witnesses, planned to tell investigators for the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform Committees that neither Ms. Croft nor Mr. Anderson is the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint about Mr. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine helped prompt the impeachment inquiry. But in a statement of his own, he will say that neither witness would be willing to answer questions they believe may be meant to identify the whistle-blower.

“To the extent we reasonably conclude that any questions directed to Mr. Anderson this afternoon are intended to assist anyone in establishing the identity of the whistle-blower, we will make the necessary objections and will give the witness appropriate instructions,” Mr. MacDougall planned to say.

His decision to offer such introductory remarks was unusual, and reflected the extent to which accounts of Republican questioning related to the activity of the whistle-blower has spooked potential witnesses.

Sharon LaFraniere contributed reporting.

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

Peter Luger given zero stars in brutal New York Times review

Westlake Legal Group peter-luger Peter Luger given zero stars in brutal New York Times review New York Post fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/food-drink/food fnc/food-drink fnc Ebony Bowden article 52c4728b-fe73-5622-a07e-98d95802d2c5

New York institution Peter Luger has been ripped as a washed-up, overpriced scam in an excoriating zero-star review by the New York Times.

The blistering critique by the newspaper’s restaurant critic Pete Wells plunges in the steak knife — describing the South Williamsburg eatery’s porterhouse as “far from the best New York has to offer.”

PAPA JOHN’S JACK-O’-LANTERN PIZZA IS HARDER TO MAKE THAN IT LOOKS

“And after I’ve paid, there is the unshakable sense that I’ve been scammed,” Wells wrote on Tuesday under the headline “Peter Luger used to sizzle. Now it sputters.”

The review has sparked a chorus of consensus online from other unsatisfied diners who agree the lauded steak icon which opened in 1887 is no longer worth the long waits and seismic bills.

“I feel like that Peter Luger review has been coming for a while now,” wrote former Yankees pitcher Phil Hughes on Twitter, calling the restaurant “wildly forgettable in every way.”

Well’s appraisal is a laundry list of complaints, describing the waiters as rude, the food dreadful and the management miserable.

The shrimp cocktail tastes like “cold latex dipped in ketchup and horseradish,” while the once-delicious German fried potatoes are now “mushy, dingy, gray and sometimes cold.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Was the Caesar salad always so drippy, the croutons always straight out of a bag, the grated cheese always so white and rubbery?” Wells pondered.

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING IN THE NEW YORK POST 

Westlake Legal Group peter-luger Peter Luger given zero stars in brutal New York Times review New York Post fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/food-drink/food fnc/food-drink fnc Ebony Bowden article 52c4728b-fe73-5622-a07e-98d95802d2c5   Westlake Legal Group peter-luger Peter Luger given zero stars in brutal New York Times review New York Post fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/food-drink/food fnc/food-drink fnc Ebony Bowden article 52c4728b-fe73-5622-a07e-98d95802d2c5

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