In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don’t attack people. 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.
Huge crowds marched near Parliament in London on Saturday to demand a second Brexit referendum.CreditSimon Dawson/Reuters
Showdown in Parliament on a new Brexit deal.
Three times before, Britain’s Parliament took up a thorny divorce agreement between Britain and European Union. And three times before, Parliament resoundingly voted it down.
The first deal was presented by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May. And the process has driven Britons to anger, frustration, relief and despair. But on Thursday, Mr. Johnson announced that he and European leaders had agreed on a new Brexit deal, creating the potential for a breakthrough in the nation’s yearslong quagmire.
Now, he must get British lawmakers to approve it. Parliament is sitting in a special “super Saturday” session for the first time since the invasion of the Falklands in 1982. The prime minister, who has vowed to get the country out of the bloc by the deadline, Oct. 31, has worked the phones, lobbying, cajoling and pleading with lawmakers to back him.
Lawmakers are debating the prime minister’s Brexit deal with impassioned speeches, shouts and jeers. A vote is possible this afternoon.
Mr. Johnson needs 320 votes to pass his deal, and the vote is too close to call.
Boris Johnson makes his pitch to Parliament.
In what commentators called the biggest political speech of his life, Prime Minister Boris Johnson argued strenuously in the House of Commons on Saturday that his deal was the best available Brexit deal and that Britain could not waste another day in extracting itself from the European Union.
“Now is the time for this great House of Commons to come together,” he said, “as I believe people at home are hoping and expecting.” Amid shouts from the opposition benches, he added that any further delay to Brexit would be “pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust.”
Mr. Johnson cast his deal as a fulfillment of decades of conflict in Britain over its place in the European Union. He said it would allow the entire country to benefit from future trade deals and avoid a dreaded hard border on the island of Ireland.
Mr. Johnson’s odds are complicated by the fact that he does not have a working majority in Parliament and has not won a major vote there in the three months he has been in office.
Theresa May makes the case for a deal similar to hers.
“Standing here, I have a distinct sense of déjà vu,” Mrs. May said to knowing laughter, given that her deal had been rejected in the same chamber three times.
For Mrs. May, it was a dramatic intervention, given that she was showing support for Mr. Johnson, who had often not supported her.
She said it was time for Parliament to vote for a deal on Brexit, having promised to abide by the democratic will of the people.
“If the Parliament did not mean it, then it is guilty of the most egregious con trick on the British people,” Mrs. May said. “You cannot have a second referendum simply because you don’t agree with the results of the first.”
“If you don’t want ‘no deal,’” she declared at one point, “you have to vote for a deal.”
Cheers erupted at from the backbenchers the end of her speech.
It was the most visible appearance by Mrs. May in the nation’s Brexit debate since she stepped down from her job and relinquished leadership of the Conservative Party in the wake of her own stinging defeats.
But it also put her in an awkward position. During her negotiations with Brussels, Mrs. May once said that no British prime minister could accept a deal that would keep Northern Ireland in the European Union’s customs territory.
Although Northern Ireland would remain in the United Kingdom’s customs territory under Mr. Johnson’s deal, the arrangement would impose the same customs checks between Britain and Northern Ireland that Mrs. May once ruled out.
A resounding ‘no’ from the Labour leader.
Jeremy Corbyn, Britain’s left-wing opposition leader, who spoke after Prime Minister Boris Johnson but before Theresa May in the Commons on Saturday, urged lawmakers to vote against the deal.
“This deal is not good for jobs, damaging to our industry and a threat to our environment and our natural world,” he said. “It should be voted down today by this House.”
He argued that the deal was worse than the agreement reached by Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May.
“We simply cannot vote for a deal that is even worse than the House rejected three times,” he said.
Mr. Corbyn argued that the new deal would cost every citizen in the country, on average, more than $2,500 and would lead to “a race to the bottom in regulation and standards.”
House speaker accepts a lawmaker’s pivotal amendment.
Some lawmakers who support Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal don’t trust him or his hard-line Brexit backers, fearing that their colleagues could pull a procedural trick to force Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal.
They also worry that Parliament could approve Mr. Johnson’s deal on Saturday, absolving the prime minister of any obligation to delay the Brexit deadline. And then next week, they fear, when he introduces the accompanying legislation, pro-Brexit lawmakers will vote it down, and Britain could crash out of the bloc without a deal.
So a former Conservative lawmaker, Oliver Letwin, whom Mr. Johnson kicked out of the party, put forward an amendment to make approval of the deal conditional on also passing necessary legislation.
In essence, the so-called Letwin Amendment, which was chosen by the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow for a vote, would turn Parliament’s up-or-down vote on Mr. Johnson’s deal into a much weaker motion, and Saturday would not be the day that lawmakers will fully endorse or reject the Brexit deal.
Mr. Johnson would be forced by law to send a letter to the European Union on Saturday to request an extension of the Brexit deadline, currently Oct. 31.
Then, before Brexit could happen, lawmakers would get to not only vote on Mr. Johnson’s deal, but also to debate, amend and vote on actual legislation putting that deal into law.
Read the Draft Withdrawal Agreement
The European Commission released a copy of the draft withdrawal agreement shortly after the deal was announced.
64 pages, 0.92 MB
On a high-wire day in British politics, analysts were examining how the government would respond if lawmakers passed the Letwin amendment.
A Downing Street official told British news outlets that the government would simply send lawmakers home, arguing that the amendment would “render the entire day, that they demanded, meaningless.”
Analysts said it was not clear that the government could simply bottle the entire vote, even if it were amended to delay the moment of decision. But the government’s response would still be an indication of the tactics to come.
British news outlets reported that the government could put forward the legislation accompanying Mr. Johnson’s deal as soon as Monday or Tuesday and push for a quick vote then.
But lawmakers who back delaying the vote argue that they have not had nearly enough time to scrutinize a plan that will shape Britain’s place in the world for a generation.
They say that working through the Brexit legislation itself, however messy and protracted the process, is the only way to guarantee that pro-Brexit lawmakers, by accident or design, do not let Britain crash out of the European Union without a deal.
Huge crowds march in London demand a ‘final say.’
Tens of thousands of protesters were streaming along the streets of London on Saturday in a march to demand another referendum on Brexit — a show of defiance as British lawmakers prepared to vote on a deal outlining the nation’s exit from the European Union.
Organizers of the People’s Vote March said they hoped to draw more than one million people, which would make it one of the largest demonstrations on record in Britain.
“We are now reaching a crucial moment in the Brexit crisis,” the organizers said in a statement. “The government has adopted the slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’ to try and browbeat an exhausted public into accepting whatever botched Brexit Boris Johnson presents to them, but we know this slogan is a lie.”
Outside Westminster on Saturday, Milou de Castellane, 52, who works as a nanny in London, said she had voted to remain in the European Union and would like to have a second referendum or to remain in Europe.
On the coming parliamentary vote on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s deal, she said: “I hope that the deal will not pass, but I have a sinking feeling that it might. But it cannot just be a rabbit-out-of-a hat scenario. We have to know what is in the deal.”
Derek Lancaster, 70, a retired environment agency worker from Preston, in northwestern England, said: “I have a feeling that Boris Johnson’s deal will get voted down, but I think he’s aiming for that. He has done his job and got a deal, even if it does not get approved.”
Mr. Lancaster, a Conservative voter, said: “I am quite happy with no deal. It will be a bit hard for a few months and there will be a few adjustments in business and politics and the way the country is run, but we have got to accept the result of the referendum.”
Three 16-year-olds who attend school together in Oxford had descended on Parliament Square on Saturday. They were 13 when the 2016 Brexit referendum took place and still cannot vote in elections in Britain for another two years.
“We came here today because we want to let our voices be heard; we have not been able to do it any other way,” said Anoushka Nairac, a student at Magdalen College School in Oxford. She added that “we have been living with the consequences” of the referendum.
“My father is an immigrant who set up his own company and provided jobs for citizens,” she said. “It makes me annoyed; people are not looking at the facts.”
She added: “The deal is appalling. They have taken Theresa May’s deal and wrapped it in new packaging. The deal is uncaring about E.U. citizens and the Northern Ireland border. The deal is heartless.”
Michelle and Mike Megan, both 60, have been coming from Newbury to protest outside Westminster for a few days each week since January.
Ms. Megan said: “As a leave voter, we are here to counteract the people’s vote to remain in the E.U. Remainers are asking for a people’s vote, but the people already voted in 2016. We were told it was a once-in-a-generation referendum.”
Ms. Megan added: “So far, Boris Johnson has done a good job. I would never have called myself a Boris fan, but he is now our only hope of getting Brexit done. He has his faults, but so do great leaders in the past.”
Reporting was contributed by Stephen Castle, Mark Landler, Ben Mueller, Marc Santora, Anna Schaverien, Claire Moses, Alan Yuhas and Megan Specia.
Nine of the ten highest-rent cities in the U.S. are in California. USA TODAY
SAN FRANCISCO — Social media influencer Sarah Tripp and her husband, Robbie Tripp, moved to San Francisco in 2016 brimming with optimism.
“We thought, here’s a city full of opportunities and connections where you go to work hard and succeed,” says Tripp, 27, founder of the lifestyle blog Sassy Red Lipstick.
But after a year-long hunt for suitable housing in San Francisco only turned up “places for $1 million that looked like rundown shacks and needed a remodel,” the couple packed up and moved to Phoenix.
They went from paying San Francisco rents of $2,500 for a one-bedroom, one-bath apartment that was far from shopping and other amenities, to purchasing a newly constructed 3,000-square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bathroom home where they’ll raise their newly arrived baby boy.
“It was cool to be living near all those high-tech start-ups,” Tripp says of her Bay Area years. “But you quickly saw that if you weren’t part of that, you’d be pushed out. It’s just sad.”
For the better part of two decades, the Bay Area has been a magnet for newcomers lured by a modern-day technology Gold Rush. But increasingly only those who have struck it rich can afford to stay.
Once a bohemian mecca that welcomed the Beat Poets and ’60s hippies, San Francisco now lays claim to the most expensive housing in the West, with a median home price of $1.4 million. There’s also $5-a-gallon gas, private schools priced like universities and chic restaurants that cost nearly double the national average.
Earlier this year, the San Francisco Bay Area was second only to New York — and ahead of Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Chicago — when it came to people leaving major U.S. cities. More than 28,190 departed in the second quarter of 2019, almost double 2017’s rate, according to real estate brokerage Redfin.
The most popular in-state option for San Franciscans fleeing high costs is Sacramento, where the median home price is $350,000. Out of state, Seattle, at a $580,000 median, offers the biggest draw, Redfin data shows.
Yet another popular destination is even farther afield: Austin, a capital city with no state taxes and a booming tech scene that is home to Apple’s latest HQ. The most recent quarter ending July 30 saw Austin receive 5,403 newcomers, the majority of which came from San Francisco, Redfin says.
California overall also is losing residents. In 2018, 38,000 more people left the Golden State than entered, the second year in a row for this negative trend, according to the U.S. Census. A recent Edelman Trust Barometer survey found 53% of residents and 63% of millennials were considering leaving because of the high cost of living.
“The great tragedy is this place was a middle-class paradise, and now you’ve got the flight of the middle class with all their aspirations, leaving the poor, the rich and a transient population,” says Joel Kotkin, presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California.
In the Bay Area, median household income is around $100,000, a tidy sum in most cities. But after federal and state taxes, residents have to cover rents that range from $3,600 a month in San Francisco to $4,600 in Silicon Valley, according to rental site Rent Cafe. That economic reality has left many of the city’s low-income residents living in their cars or on the streets.
“I don’t recognize my city, to be honest,” says Shannon Way, executive director of HomeownershipSF, a non-profit umbrella group that helps residents secure housing. “When you only have people at the extremes, it tears at the very fiber of what it means to live in a community.”
Way says her organization does what it can to steer locals toward the city’s few below market rate housing options, as well as a city down payment assistance loan program. “We focus on those who really want to stay,” she says. “But it’s getting harder and harder to survive here.”
That desire to leave also hits the wealthiest of San Francisco residents, some of whom are perched in Pacific Heights mansions that fetch as much as $39 million.
Over the past year, a wave of initial public offerings have involved San Francisco-based tech companies such as Lyft and Airbnb (and, coming soon, Uber). Some of those newly minted millionaires aren’t keen to lose “a lot of their windfalls to state taxes, so they start looking elsewhere,” says Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. Typical tax-free landing spots include Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and Incline Village, Nevada.
California’s biggest challenge
Business and political leaders — from Salesforce billionaire Marc Benioff to Gov. Gavin Newsom — have sounded the alarm over the growing housing crisis.
Last year, Benioff lobbied to pass a controversial San Francisco corporate tax to fund homelessness initiatives. And Newsom, who in his State of the State address early this year called housing “our most overwhelming challenge,” has committed $1.75 billion to fund new building projects.
During a statewide tour in October, Newsom signed various housing bills, including one that puts an annual cap on rent increases at 5% plus inflation, and another that aims to block predatory evictions.
“We’re living in the wealthiest as well as the poorest state in America,” Newsom said as he signed the bills at a ceremony in Oakland. “Cost of living. It is the issue that defines more issues than any other issue in this state.”
San Jose natives Halie and Jim Casey assumed that by getting into the housing market they could keep costs under control. They had purchased a small house well suited to the two of them and were happy. But then Halie got pregnant.
“We quickly saw we couldn’t afford anything bigger,” she says.
Their appreciating asset served as a ticket out. The couple had purchased their home for $700,000, and two years later it was worth $1,000,000, thanks in part to Google buying up land in San Jose.
Jim, 40, decided to become a stay at home dad for a spell, while Halie, 32, arranged to transfer in May 2018 with her employer, Apple, to the company’s new Austin offices.
“We got a great house with a nice yard, have great schools, and all for less money which allowed us to pay off our debts,” she says. “There’s also a flexible, family-friendly nature to life here that doesn’t exist in the intense, pressurized world of Bay Area tech.”
Housing threatens booming economy
For some experts, families opting to leave the state foreshadows larger problems. They worry a lack of affordable housing could jeopardize a state growth rate — one fueled in large part by Bay Area tech giants — that typically outpaces the national average. That could mean fewer jobs for those who stay.
“The Bay Area’s strength is also its greatest weakness,” says Jordan Levine, deputy chief economist of the California Association of Realtors. “The area has a strong economy and some of the most innovative companies in the nation, but it’s also a poster child for housing supply issues that haven’t kept up with growth.”
Chapman University’s Kotkin says he’s alarmed by the growing number of California companies moving to states where cheap housing and sometimes no state taxes make it easier to pay middle-managers a living wage. These include automakers (Mitsubishi leaving L.A. for Tennessee), defense contractors (Parsons leaving Pasadena for Washington, D.C.), and technology enterprises (Apple building in Austin).
“In the end, you want a middle class in your state,” says Kotkin. “Because a society without one is unstable.”
Solutions will have to come from public officials and citizens alike, says Dowell Myers, professor of policy, planning and demography at the University of Southern California’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.
“I’m not despondent, but it requires many people to see how their interests are negatively impacted,” he says. “If you own a house, you benefit as your value goes up in a housing shortage. But your children and grandchildren will be impacted, they may not be able to live and work here. So that’ll be the way things will change.”
The alternative is bleak, says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
“We’re headed to a future where the middle class won’t be able to raise families here, where restaurants increasingly will close because they can’t hire workers, where teachers and police officers can’t live anywhere near where they work,” he says. “We need a much greater sense of urgency.”
Wiener, who has been criticized by housing activists who claim his various housing bills haven’t been accommodating enough to low-income residents, says “it’s easy to just blame someone else when we need to look in the mirror.”
He notes that tech companies such as Facebook and Google have put forth plans to build housing near their headquarters, only to be stopped by local zoning laws.
“Tech companies didn’t cause our housing problems or create bad housing laws,” says Wiener. “This whole thing won’t be easy politically or financially, and it won’t happen fast.”
West Seattle = New California
But time is of the essence. Many young, educated, upwardly mobile workers in San Francisco say they can’t afford to wait around for government officials and business leader to come up with solutions.
Deborah Neisuler, 42, never really thought she would leave her beloved Francisco.
In 2006, she and her husband Justin, 44 — he’s in banking, she’s a curriculum developer — bought a small house south of town that had easy access to local freeways leading to Silicon Valley.
As the years passed, two children arrived, and suddenly the house started to feel cramped. What’s more, the prospect of private school tuition loomed given the city’s lottery system doesn’t guarantee a first-choice public school.
That’s when a real estate agent friend offered to quietly test the waters for a sale, given their house had gone up in value 66%. Although “no one had heard of our neighborhood when we bought there, it was close to the freeway and offered a good commute to Silicon Valley,” says Deborah Neisuler.
The house sold quickly. Since both worked largely from home, their options were wide open. The couple didn’t want to move back East, where they are both from, and Bay Area suburbs did not appeal. “We are city people,” she says.
Instead, lured by a body of water and a sense of community, the family chose West Seattle. The area has become so popular with newcomers from down south “people call it New California, because it seems people from there are taking over,” Neisuler says with a laugh. “And I’m like, ‘Yup, that’s us.’”
Although over the past few years she has longed for San Francisco’s hip urban culture and sometimes struggles with Seattle’s dark winters, Neisuler is thrilled with the change.
“I do really miss San Francisco, it holds a special place in my heart and we were there 13 years,” says Neisuler. “But I know it’s not the best place for my family.”
Follow USA TODAY national correspondent Marco della Cava: @marcodellcava
Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/19/california-housing-crisis-residents-flee-san-francisco-because-costs/3985196002/
Appearing on “Fox & Friends: Weekend,” Homan told host Griff Jenkins that while some sanctuary jurisdictions will hand ICE “the most violent of the criminals,” some jurisdictions “won’t work with us at all.”
Federal officials said Tuesday that New York Authorities released a Guyanese convicted child abuser into the community, defying an ICE request that he be held for deportation. The offender went on to be arrested for yet another case of abuse in July.
Deportation officers tracked the perpetrator down on October 9 in Queens, NY.
New York is one of the country’s most prominent sanctuary cities. The city won a court case last year to preserve its sanctuary policy, with a judge ruling that the Department of Justice couldn’t withhold federal funds in order for the city to surrender its policy.
In a statement, NYPD Spokesman Alfred J. Baker said that “The NYPD does not engage in civil immigration enforcement.”
But, Homan says that’s a “false narrative.”
“They don’t want to be immigration officers. They don’t want to be involved in the immigration enforcement process. But, we’re not asking them to,” he told Jenkins.
“What we’re saying is we know when we notify you that we have probable cause — you have detained someone that’s in the country illegally — notify us before you release them.
“You don’t have to hold them one minute past when you would normally hold them in your charges. But before he walks out the door: call us and we’ll be there. There’s no liability there. There’s no legal question there.”
“That’s not enforcing immigration law. That’s cops working with cops to protect the community.”
He concluded: “That’s the false narrative being pushed by the politicians, and that’s what upsets me every time we talk about these cases. It’s a false narrative. The American people deserve the truth and they need to hear the truth.”
Fox News reached out to Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s office for comment, but they declined to do so.
The presidential campaign of Sen.Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) secured the endorsements of three additional New York lawmakers ahead of hiscomeback rally in Queenson Saturday: state Sens. Michael Gianaris and Jessica Ramos of Queens, and state Sen. Luis Sepúlveda of the Bronx.
“Bernie is the best candidate to fight back against the deep-pocketed corporate interests that weaken our democracy and exploit our economy,” Ramos, whounseated a Queens Democrataligned with state Republicans in September 2018, said in a statement announcing her endorsement. “In Senator Sanders we have a leader who will protect all members of our society, especially those seeking human rights and better working conditions free from unethical practices.”
Gianaris, who as deputy state Senate majority leader is one of the most powerful Democrats in New York, echoed Ramos’ sentiments. “Bernie Sanders is the best choice to reduce this growing chasm between the ultra-rich and working people,” he said in a statement.
The trio joins a group of five New York lawmakers who had already endorsed Sanders’ bid: New York City Councilman Rafael Espinal, state Assemblymen Ron Kim and Phil Steck, and state Sens. Julia Salazar and James Sanders. (James Sanders is not related to the Vermont senator.)
Although New Yorkers cast ballots in the Democratic presidential primary in April, well after the crucial early states, some presidential contenders have already sought endorsements from the state’s robust bench of young, progressive lawmakers. Sanders still has fewer endorsements from New York state and New York City elected officials than Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who announced that she had secured the backing of 14 lawmakers at a mid-September rally in Manhattan.
He will be joined onstage at the rally by Ocasio-Cortez, who is expected to formally announce her endorsement there. Sanders courted Ocasio-Cortez in conversations over the course of a month, culminating in a visit she paid to Burlington, Vermont, at the end of September. She met with Sanders and his wife, as well as a group of aides, over two meals, where they developed a rapport, according to someone familiar with Ocasio-Cortez’s thinking.
Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement of Sanders is not altogether surprising. Ocasio-Cortez got her start in politics volunteering for Sanders’ 2016 bid; the pair are both self-described democratic socialists and have collaborated on, among other things, legislationlimiting interest rateson credit card debt.
But prior to announcing her endorsement of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez had spoken positively about Warren, too. And Warren had apparently made efforts to develop a relationship with her.
Ocasio-Cortez was drawn to Sanders’ vision of a rejuvenated democracy where ordinary Americans take a more active role in the political process, according to the person with knowledge of her thinking.
“They’re ideologically aligned, but they’re mission-aligned as well,” the person said. “They get along really well. They brighten each other up.”
Saturday’s rally will give Ocasio-Cortez an opportunity to show if her star power is a major draw for aspiring national leaders.
“If he gets enough of the young, left-wing demo out, the age issue disappears, the health issue is softened and Bernie gets new life. It makes him young again,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran New York City Democratic strategist. “If he doesn’t get a big crowd, then those two issues remain in place.”
Michael Ceraso, a Democratic campaign consultant who worked on Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, expressed doubt that Ocasio-Cortez’s blessing would help him broaden his appeal “in the areas where he has deficits,” such as older voters.
But it is likely to help him maximize turnout among the young voters Sanders is relying on to carve a path to the Democratic nomination, according to Ceraso.
Ocasio-Cortez “resonates with those young voters who are looking for a reason to vote,” he said.
REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Every year, Hollywood stars go all out for Halloween, and when they do, there are undoubtedly some who pay tribute to their own favorite icons. Sometimes it’s funny, sometimes it’s cute, but it’s always awesome.
Here’s your definitive list to some of the best celebs as… other celebs.
Ellen DeGeneres as Sia
Every year, Ellen DeGeneres dresses in an outrageous costume as one of the year’s biggest stars.
LONDON — As lawmakers huddled inside the House of Commons on Saturday to debate Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, huge crowds of protesters gathered outside the Palace of Westminster to demand that voters be given the final say on Brexit.
Organizers said they hoped to draw more than a million protesters, which would make it one of the largest demonstrations in British history, and by noon tens of thousands of people were already filling the streets.
Many of the protesters were demanding a second referendum on any Brexit deal that lawmakers approve.
“We are now reaching a crucial moment in the Brexit crisis,” the organizers of the demonstration, called the People’s Vote March, said in a statement. “The government has adopted the slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’ to try and browbeat an exhausted public into accepting whatever botched Brexit Boris Johnson presents to them, but we know this slogan is a lie.”
Carrying banners and waving the blue and gold-starred flag of the European Union alongside the red, white and blue of the Union Jack, they marched from the center of London, through Trafalgar Square and past the many monuments to past days of imperial power.
Even as the protesters were assembling on the streets, Mr. Johnson was making the case to Parliament that it was time for lawmakers to pass “a deal that can heal the rift in British politics” and “unite the warring instincts in our soul.”
It was the first time the House of Commons had been called into session on a Saturday in nearly four decades, when lawmakers gathered to discuss the war in the Falkland Islands.
In a referendum three years ago, British voters narrowly supported leaving the European Union, which it had joined in 1973.
Those three years have been marked by division, frustration, confusion, sadness and despair.
And growing public anger.
Out on the streets, Milou de Castellane, 52, who works as a child minder in London, said she had voted to remain in the European Union and would like the ultimate choice to be left to the people.
“There is no tangible evidence that there is any benefit to us leaving the European Union,” she said. “But there is plenty of evidence to the detriment of us leaving. We will suffer in the economy and our strength in the world community if we leave.”
She acknowledged that many had “Brexit fatigue” and that protesters might just be shouting into the wind, but she said it was still important to make her voice heard.
“I hope that the deal will not pass,” she said. “But I have a sinking feeling that it might.”
Even before Saturday, the anger over Brexit had led to some of the largest protests in British history.
The first People’s Vote March, which drew hundreds of thousands people, was held a year ago on the eve of a vote on an agreement put forth by Theresa May, who was then prime minister.
But after her resignation, Mr. Johnson, a champion of Brexit, won the Conservative Party’s backing to take up residence at 10 Downing Street and set about pushing for a swift exit, deal or no deal.
He has steadfastly opposed the idea of another vote, saying that the people have already had their say.
Those who took to the streets on Saturday called that argument flawed.
They say that voters were misled before the referendum and that they should be given a chance to vote on a specific Brexit deal — with the benefit of being informed by years of debate and discussion — rather than the abstract notion of a withdrawal.
The protesters were joined by the former prime ministers Tony Blair, of the Labour Party, and John Major, a Conservative, who united to make a short film that was to be screened at the rally warning about the dangers Brexit posed to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.
Organizers opposing Brexit have sought to build support outside London and have staged rallies around Britain, including in Glasgow and Edinburgh in Scotland; in Belfast, Northern Ireland; and in Cheltenham, in southern England.
On Saturday, more than 170 buses had been arranged to bring protesters from around the country into London.
In Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn, Britain’s left-wing opposition leader, cited those gathered outside in his rebuke of Mr. Johnson’s deal.
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.
The prosecutors, led by John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, have interviewed about two dozen former and current F.B.I. officials, the people said. Two former senior F.B.I. agents are assisting with the review, the people said.
The number of interviews shows that Mr. Durham’s review is further along than previously known. It has served as a political flash point since Attorney General William P. Barr revealed in the spring that he planned to scrutinize the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which Mr. Trump and his allies have attacked without evidence as a plot by law enforcement and intelligence officials to prevent him from winning the 2016 election.
Closely overseen by Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham and his investigators have sought help from governments in countries that figure into right-wing attacks and unfounded conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation, stirring criticism that they are trying to deliver Mr. Trump a political victory rather than conducting an independent review.
And on Thursday, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, tied Mr. Durham’s investigation to the Ukraine scandal, infuriating people inside the Justice Department. But Mr. Mulvaney’s comments also put the spotlight on the fact that Ukraine is one country that Mr. Durham has sought help from. His team has interviewed private Ukrainian citizens, a Justice Department spokeswoman has said without explaining why.
A spokesman for Mr. Durham declined to comment. Mr. Barr has said that he viewed some investigative steps as “spying” on the Trump campaign and that there was a “failure among a group of leaders” in the intelligence community. He has said he began the Durham review in part to prevent future missteps.
Mr. Durham has yet to interview all the F.B.I. officials who played key roles in opening the Russian investigation in the summer of 2016, the people familiar with the review said. He has not spoken with Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence official who opened the inquiry; the former director James B. Comey or his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe; or James A. Baker, then the bureau’s general counsel.
Those omissions suggest Mr. Durham may be waiting until he has gathered all the facts before he asks to question the main decision makers in the Russia inquiry.
Though criticism has been set off by the revelations that Mr. Durham is examining politically tinged accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the origins of the Russia investigation, he would naturally have to run down all leads to conduct a thorough review.
The president granted Mr. Barr sweeping powers for the review, though he did not open it as a criminal investigation. That means he gave Mr. Durham the power only to read materials the government had already gathered and to request voluntary interviews from witnesses, not to subpoena witnesses or documents. It is not clear whether the status of the review has changed.
Mr. Durham’s investigators appeared focused at one point on Mr. Strzok, said one former official who was interviewed. Mr. Strzok opened the Russia inquiry in late July 2016 after receiving information from the Australian government that the Russians had offered damaging information on Hillary Clinton to a Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Durham’s team has asked about the events surrounding the Australian tip, some of the people familiar with the review said.
Mr. Durham’s team, including Nora R. Dannehy, a veteran prosecutor, has questioned witnesses about why Mr. Strzok both drafted and signed the paperwork opening the investigation, suggesting that was unusual for one person to take both steps. Mr. Strzok began the inquiry after consulting with F.B.I. leadership, former officials familiar with the episode said.
Mr. Durham has also questioned why Mr. Strzok opened the case on a weekend, again suggesting that the step might have been out of the ordinary. Former officials said that Mr. McCabe had directed Mr. Strzok to travel immediately to London to interview the two Australian diplomats who had learned about the Russians’ offer to help the Trump campaign and that he was trying to ensure he took the necessary administrative steps first.
It is not clear how many people Mr. Durham’s team has interviewed outside of the F.B.I. His investigators have questioned officials in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence but apparently have yet to interview C.I.A. personnel, people familiar with the review said. Mr. Durham would probably want to speak with Gina Haspel, the agency’s director, who ran its London station when the Australians passed along the explosive information about Russia’s offer of political dirt.
Many of the questions from Mr. Durham’s team overlapped with ones that the Justice Department inspector general, Michael C. Horowitz, has posed in his own look into aspects of the Russia inquiry, according to the people.
Mr. Horowitz’s report, which is most likely to be made public in the coming weeks, is expected to criticize law enforcement officials’ actions in the Russia investigation. Mr. Horowitz’s findings could provide insights into why Mr. Barr thought that the Russia investigation needed to be examined.
Mr. Durham’s questions seem focused on elements of the conservative attacks on the origins of the Russia inquiry. It is not clear whether he has asked about other parts of the sprawling probe, which has grown to include more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence and interviews of about 500 witnesses.
In his review, Mr. Durham has asked witnesses about the role of Christopher Steele, a former intelligence official from Britain who was hired to research Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia by a firm that was in turn financed by Democrats. Law enforcement officials used some of the information Mr. Steele compiled into a now-infamous dossier to obtain a secret wiretap on a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, whom they suspected was an agent of Russia.
The president and his supporters have vilified Mr. Steele, saying that investigators should have kept his information out of the application for the wiretap because they viewed him as having a bias against Mr. Trump. The Steele information served as one piece of the lengthy application.
They have accused the F.B.I. and Justice Department of failing to disclose that Democrats were funding Mr. Steele’s research, but the wiretap application contains a page-length explanation alerting the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele’s research was “likely looking for information” to discredit Mr. Trump.
Mr. Durham’s investigators asked why F.B.I. officials would use unsubstantiated or incorrect information in their application for a court order allowing the wiretap and seemed skeptical about why agents relied on Mr. Steele’s dossier.
The inspector general has also raised concerns that the F.B.I. inflated Mr. Steele’s value as an informant in order to obtain the wiretap on Mr. Page. Mr. Durham’s investigators have done the same, according to the people familiar with his review.
Mr. Horowitz has asked witnesses about an assessment of Mr. Steele that MI6, the British spy agency, provided to the F.B.I. after bureau officials received his dossier on Mr. Trump in September 2016. MI6 officials said Mr. Steele, a Russia expert, was honest and persistent but sometimes showed questionable judgment in pursuing targets that others viewed as a waste of time, two people familiar with the assessment said.
One former official said that in his interview with Mr. Durham’s team, he pushed back on the notion that law enforcement and intelligence officials had plotted to thwart Mr. Trump’s candidacy, laying out facts that prove otherwise.
For example, the former official compared the F.B.I.’s handling of its two investigations related to Mr. Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. Agents overtly investigated Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server but kept secret their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. If the F.B.I. had been trying to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy and hurt Mr. Trump’s, they could have buried the email investigation or taken more overt steps in the Russia inquiry.
Instead, the former official noted, the opposite happened.
The former official said he was reassured by the presence of John C. Eckenrode, one of the former senior F.B.I. agents assisting Mr. Durham. Like Mr. Durham, who investigated C.I.A. torture of detainees overseas, Mr. Eckenrode is also familiar with high-stakes political inquiries.
He is probably best known for working with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the former United States attorney who in 2003 was appointed to investigate the leak of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, to a journalist.
“Jack is as straight a shooter as you can get in the F.B.I.,” Asha Rangappa, a former F.B.I. agent, said of Mr. Eckenrode, a friend. “It’s the first reassuring thing I’ve heard about this review.”
Mr. Eckenrode and Mr. Durham appear to know each other from Mr. Eckenrode’s time as agent in New Haven, Conn., where Mr. Durham has spent most of his career as a prosecutor. Mr. Eckenrode also worked in Boston and eventually ran the F.B.I.’s office in Philadelphia before retiring in 2006.
Adam Goldman reported from Washington, and William K. Rashbaum from New York.
Researchers have uncovered a 1,500-year-old stucco mask of Maya ruler K’inich Janaab ‘Pakal. What differentiates this mask from others is it’s seemingly made in the king’s likeness.
An eagle-eyed archaeologist has used a freely available online map to locate 27 Maya ceremonial sites in Mexico.
Takeshi Inomata, a professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona, made the discovery using a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) map he found online last year, according to the New York Times. LiDAR technology harnesses a laser to measure distances to the Earth’s surface and can prove extremely valuable to study what is hidden in areas with thick vegetation.
The 2011 map, which covers 4,400 square miles of the Mexican states of Tabasco and Chiapas, was published by Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography, the Times reported.
Inomata told Fox News that the discovery followed his research at the site of Ceibal in Guatemala, where a ceremonial complex dating back to 1000 to 900 B.C. was found. “We then went to this area (Tabasco) thinking that there may be similar ceremonial complexes of this period,” he explained, via email. “It was great to see that there [are] more sites of this type than we expected. It is also remarkable that they had very standardized rectangular formations.”
LiDAR image of the El Saraguato site. (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía)
Although visible on LiDAR maps, many sites, such as one dubbed “La Carmelita” are difficult to find in ground-based surveys, according to the Times.
The discovery of the 27 lost Maya ritual sites sheds new light on the ancient culture. “This is the period when people were just starting to use ceramics and adopting a sedentary way of life,” he explained. “The presence of these formal ceremonial complex in this early period indicates that certain rituals and religious ideas spread over a wide area as people accepted new ways of life.” INCREDIBLE MAYA DISCOVERY: ANCIENT KING’S MASK UNCOVERED IN MEXICO
The Mexican Institute of Anthropology and History also participated in the project.
View of the La Carmelita site from the west. (Takeshi Inomata)
There have been a number of fascinating Maya discoveries across central America in recent years.
Experts recently discovered a unique ancient tool that was used by Maya salt workers more than 1,000 years ago. Fashioned from the mineral jadeite, the chisel-style implement was found at the site of Ek Way Nal, a Maya salt works in southern Belize that is now submerged in a saltwater lagoon.
Last year an ancient mask depicting a 7th-century Maya king was discovered in southern Mexico.
View of La Carmelita from the south. (Takeshi Inomata)
Also in 2018, archaeologists harnessed sophisticated technology to reveal lost cities and thousands of ancient structures deep in the Guatemalan jungle, confirming that the Maya civilization was much larger than previously thought.
LiveScience reports that hundreds of Maya artifacts that may have been used in ritual animal sacrifices have also been discovered at the bottom of a Guatemalan lake.
From its heart in what is now Guatemala, the Maya empire reached the peak of its power in the sixth century A.D., according to History.com, although most of the civilization’s cities were abandoned around 900 A.D.