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 42)

California wildfire aftermath: PG&E nears $13.5B deal with victims, report says

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is near closing on a $13.5 billion payout to victims affected by California wildfires that were caused by its power lines, according to a Bloomberg report.

The utility giant would pay half in cash and the other half in stock for the newly organized company, people familiar with the matter said.

Reaching a settlement with the individual victims of the wildfires sparked by its equipment would be a major step toward resolving the company’s bankruptcy filed in January after facing $30 billion in liability from hundreds of lawsuits from fires in 2017 and 2018.

The company proposed paying victims a maximum of $8.4 billion in September. In a statement to Fox News, PG&E said it was “committed to satisfying all wildfire claims in full” as required by law and laid out in its bankruptcy plan.

PG&E CORP.FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY FOLLOWING WILDFIRE CLAIMS 

It said that PG&E has already reached settlements with two of the three major groups of wildfire victims in its bankruptcy proceedings, which include a $1 billion settlement with cities, counties and public entities and an $11 billion agreement with insurance companies that have already paid claims for 2017 and 2018 wildfires.

Westlake Legal Group 15_AP19330426583083 California wildfire aftermath: PG&E nears $13.5B deal with victims, report says Morgan Phillips fox-news/us/us-regions/west/california fox-news/us/disasters/fires fox news fnc/us fnc fce956c3-e2ba-51c8-9162-7f0cb5084003 article

A helicopter drops water on the Cave Fire burning along Highway 154 in Los Padres National Forest, Calif., above Santa Barbara. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

The company did not comment on the new developments in the Bloomberg report, as mediation discussions are confidential, it said.

PG&E has spent months trying to negotiate a restructuring plan to emerge from bankruptcy by the middle of next year.

CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE THREAT, BLACKOUTS HAVE LONGTIME RESIDENTS READY TO MOVE ‘TOMORROW’

The compensation of individual wildfire victims has proved the most formidable of negotiations for the company. After the company initially offered a mere $8.4 billion, California Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened a state takeover if the utility could not reach a deal with creditors and wildfire victims soon.

PG&E has invoked outrage across the state for imposing blackouts on millions of Californians during high winds to keep its power lines from igniting more wildfires. In October alone, PG&E imposed mass blackouts four times.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Additionally, equipment from PG&E sparked two fires in the northern part of the state, which was not a part of the blackout. The fires started in an area where the power was left on because it was not seen as a high fire risk.

Westlake Legal Group ContentBroker_contentid-a8836b4751db4662bc783fee2aae85a4 California wildfire aftermath: PG&E nears $13.5B deal with victims, report says Morgan Phillips fox-news/us/us-regions/west/california fox-news/us/disasters/fires fox news fnc/us fnc fce956c3-e2ba-51c8-9162-7f0cb5084003 article   Westlake Legal Group ContentBroker_contentid-a8836b4751db4662bc783fee2aae85a4 California wildfire aftermath: PG&E nears $13.5B deal with victims, report says Morgan Phillips fox-news/us/us-regions/west/california fox-news/us/disasters/fires fox news fnc/us fnc fce956c3-e2ba-51c8-9162-7f0cb5084003 article

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

Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6113014289001_6113016627001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats fox-news/person/jerrold-nadler fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 527cbaab-9575-57a8-a9c7-aaba14ad9a0a

It is tempting to describe Wednesday’s impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as a farce. But it was worse than that. It made a travesty of fairness.

With Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, there was no real chance that President Trump would be treated equitably. After all, Nadler’s confederate and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had already obliterated any semblance of due process in impeachment hearings before his committee.

The Schiff hearings were a lollapalooza of hearsay, opinion and grotesque speculation. So there was no reason to believe that Nadler’s Judiciary Committee hearing would be anything less than a theater of the absurd.

LEGAL SCHOLARS CLASH IN HEARING OVER WHETHER TRUMP COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE

Sure enough, Nadler assembled a team of three liberal law professors who were already on record as antagonistic to President Trump. During their daylong testimony, the hostility was palpable.

There was little effort to disguise the relentless Democratic agenda to remove Trump from office by hell or high water. Obsessions are like that. They know no bounds and defy all sensibility.                       

More from Opinion

Republicans were afforded just one witness. Fortunately, his sagacity and eloquence offered a persuasive counterbalance. For one day at least, numerical superiority did not prevail.

Here is a summary of what unfolded, looking at the testimony of the four law professors who testified.

Harvard University Law Professor Noah Feldman

Feldman had already prejudged Trump’s guilt on an impeachable offense when he penned a column two months ago declaring that Trump had committed an unconstitutional “quid pro quo” in asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into the conduct of former Vice President Joe Biden.

This, of course, conveniently ignored the fact that no evidence of a quid pro quo exists anywhere in the record of the Trump-Zelensky phone call of July 25.

In his opening statement, Feldman stated with absolute certainty that he knew President Trump was acting for “personal gain” – as if he had magically divined Trump’s intent.

Yet, Feldman gave no consideration to the president’s stated explanation that Trump wanted to know whether a U.S. public office holder, then-Vice President Biden, might have committed a corrupt act. Does this mean that it’s corrupt for a president to ask about corruption, regardless of the context or circumstances? The professor didn’t say.

Feldman’s bias and enmity should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his Twitter rants against the president, as the White House was quick to point out.

Barely two months into office, Trump publicly questioned whether intelligence agencies might have wiretapped him. The president’s tweet to that effect constituted “the risk of impeachment,” according to the good professor. Truly, you have to laugh at such a ludicrous claim.

Feldman seems to see the impeachment boogeyman behind just about everything Trump does. He penned a pulpy piece of comedy a few months later contending that Trump should be removed from office for exercising his constitutionally authorized power to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona for a contempt of court conviction.

Feldman condemned the pardon as “an abuse of power” and “an impeachable offense.”

Apparently, it was OK for President Bill Clinton to pardon his brother, but it’s an impeachable act when Trump pardoned a sheriff in Arizona … because, you know, he’s a Republican. No serious person gave the argument credence, not even Democrats in Congress.

Stanford University Law Professor Pamela Karlan

Karlan vented her visceral anger from the outset of the Judiciary Committee hearing by claiming she was insulted at a Republican member’s suggestion that the learned professors hadn’t sufficiently digested all the evidence – especially Schiff’s 300-page report released the night before that was approved only by Democrats and rejected by Republicans.

But after scolding Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., Karlan’s officious manner persisted. She seemed to seethe at the mere mention of Trump, resurrecting a statement he made in jest during the 2016 campaign as if it was a death penalty crime.

Karlan asserted – without evidence– that Trump had “demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election.”  But how could she know that? She presumed a motive and ascribed it to the president.

Nowhere in the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call is there a demand for anything. Zelensky has repeatedly stated that no demand was ever made of him. There is no mention of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

There was little effort to disguise the relentless Democratic agenda to remove Trump from office by hell or high water

To the contrary, Trump’s interest seemed to center on Biden’s potential wrongdoing as vice president when Biden demanded the firing of a prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian natural gas company that was paying his son Hunter an exorbitant amount of money every month to serve on its board.

Karlan lost all credibility when she took a boorish stab at President Trump’s teenage son and said:  “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility … so, while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.” The remark set a new low for gratuitous cheap shots.

The Stanford professor is a decided partisan who took aim at Trump before he ever assumed the presidency. In remarks published by the San Francisco Chronicle she compared the president-elect to his predecessors: “I can’t think of one who had such an across-the-board combination of ignorance, indifference and defiance.”

As I noted in an earlier column, Karlan signed an open letter predicting that Trump would fail to take his “constitutional oath seriously” and urged him to reverse his positions on social issues.

Within months of Trump being sworn in, Karlan told the web publication Salon: “If we had a series of presidents like Trump, we wouldn’t have a United States of America.”  Karlan wears her disdain of Trump on her sleeve. It showed during Wednesday’s hearing.

University of North Carolina Law Professor Michael Gerhardt

Gerhardt won the “exaggeration of the day” award when he declared: “If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.”

Gerhardt accused Trump of assaulting the Constitution and compared him to a monarch, resurrecting the almost forgotten Mueller Report as evidence. In Gerhardt’s judgment, Trump is former President Richard Nixon in disguise. Only worse.

Gerhardt careened from one point to another as he stumbled through a statement that he seemed not to have read beforehand. He denounced Trump’s exercise of a legally recognized executive privilege as “obstruction,” ignoring that past presidents – including Barack Obama – had done the same in response to congressional subpoenas.

The testimony of Gerhardt was predictable, if not dull. He had already authored a column last month condemning Trump for “trashing the Constitution.” In an interview, he accused the president of having “dismissed the rule of law as irrelevant in his life.” Enough said.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley

Turley was the only witness Republicans were permitted to call. Despite the stacked deck, he came across as the most earnest and objective witness among the four professors.

Turley began by making it clear that he is not a partisan.

“I am not a supporter of President Trump,” Turley said. “I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama.”

Turley added that “one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects dangerous as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.”

Turley warned that Congress would further divide and alienate the nation by pursuing impeachment without merit.

“If you rush this impeachment through, you will leave half of the American public behind and certainly that is not what the framers wanted,” the professor said.

Turley cautioned that an expedited impeachment without clear and convincing evidence, especially on the question of obstruction, would be an abuse of power by Congress. “You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing,” he said. 

The professor called the current effort to impeach Trump “slipshod” and driven by rage instead of reason.

“Impeachment must be based on proof, not presumptions,” Turley observed. “I don’t see proof of a quid pro quo.” He argued that there is “a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger” driving Democrats. He criticized them for rushing the process based on “wafer thin evidence”.

President Trump’s action asking Ukraine to investigate Biden “does not make this a plausible case for bribery,” Turley said.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

The professor distilled the contentious issue to its essence: “If President Trump honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt.”

In both his written statement and his oral testimony, Turley took apart all of the allegations leveled against Trump: bribery, extortion, obstruction and campaign finance violations. He explained why they did not apply to the known facts.

Turley then offered his own impassioned analysis of how we got here.

“We are living in the very period described by Alexander Hamilton –a period of agitated passions,” Turley said. “I get it. You’re mad. The president is mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad, and Luna is a goldendoodle and they don’t get mad. So we’re all mad. Where has that taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? That’s why it is wrong.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It’s wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president,” Turley continued. “To impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

This was the clearest explanation yet for how the current impeachment hysteria has raged out of control. Sadly, it will make no difference. Democrats are determined beyond reason to impeach President Trump.

Neither logic nor the law seem to matter.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6113014289001_6113016627001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats fox-news/person/jerrold-nadler fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 527cbaab-9575-57a8-a9c7-aaba14ad9a0a   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6113014289001_6113016627001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats fox-news/person/jerrold-nadler fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 527cbaab-9575-57a8-a9c7-aaba14ad9a0a

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

How Google’s Founders Slowly Stepped Away From Their Company

Westlake Legal Group 04larrysergey8-facebookJumbo How Google’s Founders Slowly Stepped Away From Their Company YouTube.com Thrun, Sebastian Search Engines Pichai, Sundar Page, Larry Google Inc Driverless and Semiautonomous Vehicles Computers and the Internet Brin, Sergey Appointments and Executive Changes Android (Operating System) Alphabet Inc

SAN FRANCISCO — About a month after Donald J. Trump was elected president in 2016, Larry Page, the Google co-founder, was summoned along with other prominent tech executives to a meeting at Trump Tower.

It was a rare public appearance for Mr. Page. He sported a tan suit and shifted in his seat as he introduced himself and noted (incorrectly) that his company was probably the youngest in the room. “Really glad to be here,” said Mr. Page, who did not look glad to be there.

By the time he was again summoned in 2018 — this time to testify to Congress on tech’s various problems — Mr. Page had all but abandoned the roles typically associated with leading one of the world’s richest and most powerful companies. He didn’t show, and senators placed an empty chair and his placard alongside the other speakers.

On Tuesday, Mr. Page and Sergey Brin, his Google co-founder, said they were stepping down from day-to-day executive roles at Alphabet, Google’s parent company. While the move seemed sudden, it was the culmination of a yearslong separation between two of Silicon Valley’s most prominent founders and the company they began 21 years ago.

For some time, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin have drawn down their daily involvement in the company, ceding managerial tasks to deputies so they could focus on a variety of projects, including self-driving cars, robotics and life-extension technology. They left the often messy business of running Google itself to Sundar Pichai, a trusted deputy who became Google’s chief executive in 2015.

Tuesday was the capstone of that split. The founders named Mr. Pichai as the chief of both Google and Alphabet, while they will remain on Alphabet’s board of directors. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin still hold 51 percent of Alphabet’s voting shares, giving them effective control over the company — and Mr. Pichai, if they wish.

In a letter announcing the change, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin compared their 21 years at Google to raising a child, saying now was the “time to assume the role of proud parents.”

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin helped unleash the modern internet and Silicon Valley as cultural and business phenomena. Over the past two decades, they oversaw a company that was central to one of the most consequential periods in the history of business.

Now, as society and government begin to reckon with the fallout of changes wrought by the internet, the two men are walking away, most likely to pursue other projects, funded by the billions of dollars they made at Google and driven by a belief that technology can solve the planet’s problems.

Google faces legal and regulatory challenges on several continents. It is fighting with its own employees. And it is trying to reverse sinking public opinion of its brand. But Mr. Pichai, not the founders, will be tasked with leading Google through the most difficult period in its history.

“It’s an impossible job now,” said Shane Greenstein, a professor at Harvard Business School who has studied Google and its founders. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin are cerebral, technical thinkers, and the issues facing the company “are not merely technical problems or scientific problems,” he said. The problems “are very much corporate lawyerly types of policy issues, for which historically they have not been enthusiastic.”

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin met as graduate students at Stanford University, and in 1996, they came up with a better way of ranking internet search results. It was, at the time, a school project. After they developed their internet search engine, they tried to sell it, but couldn’t find any takers. So they started a company.

That singular innovation gave rise to a company and product that functions as an effective tax on the internet. Billions of people navigate the web through Google’s search box, and it charges a toll in the form of tracked and targeted advertising.

Google has grown to be dominant in several markets. Its search engine handles nine out of 10 internet searches and the company’s Android software powers roughly three-quarters of the world’s smartphones. And for a generation of young people, YouTube, which Google acquired in 2006, has all but supplanted television.

But to some observers, the more powerful Google became, the less interested its founders appeared to be in running it.

“They’re accidental entrepreneurs,” Mr. Greenstein said. “Given their origins, it’s not surprising. They probably still harbor a desire to be a professor with a lab.”

After Mr. Page and Mr. Brin formally founded Google in September 1998, they turned out to be skilled businessmen. Still, investors worried they were not ready to run what many rightly believed could become one of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies.

By 2001, Google’s board pushed the founders to bring on an experienced executive to lead the company. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin picked Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of the software company Novell, as Google’s new C.E.O., in part because the three had bonded at Burning Man, the arts festival in the Nevada desert.

Eric Schmidt was brought in to be Google’s chief executive before its 2004 public offering.Credit…Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

While the founders were initially wary of having a boss, they quickly warmed to Mr. Schmidt. One of the benefits of no longer being C.E.O., colleagues told Mr. Page, was that he would no longer have to perform tasks like talking to advertisers and investors, according to “In the Plex,” a book about Google’s beginnings by Steve Levy.

Instead, the founders sought out new efforts, such as mapping the world, digitizing books, developing artificial intelligence and creating new smartphone software to rival Apple’s iPhone.

In 2005, Mr. Page attended the Darpa Grand Challenge, a race for self-driving cars in the California desert. There he met Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford professor and leading developer of autonomous vehicles, which were then in their infancy.

“I was flabbergasted that a founder of a search engine company would attend a robot race,” Mr. Thrun said in an interview on Tuesday. “It wasn’t long before Larry pushed me to start the Chauffeur team.”

Chauffeur was Google’s secret self-driving car project, which Mr. Thrun began in 2009 under close coordination with Mr. Page and Mr. Brin. Today, a number of big tech companies are experimenting in transportation, but when news of the project broke in 2010, it was unprecedented for an internet company to be building a car.

“I didn’t think of Google as a transportation company,” Mr. Thrun said. “But Larry thought of Google as a company that pushed innovation in any area.”

Mr. Thrun led Chauffeur under Google X, the so-called moonshot lab where engineers were encouraged to build science-fiction projects they thought might never work. Many of their projects did fail, like space elevators, jet packs and teleportation, but others are still in development, like delivery drones, energy-producing kites and internet-beaming balloons.

Like most of the futuristic projects at Google, the lab was the brainchild of the founders. Mr. Brin particularly wanted something to work on because he was getting bored in management, said Michael Jones, the co-founder of Google Earth who spent 11 years at the company.

“He was always frustrated in what to do; you can’t engineer from the top,” Mr. Jones said. “He wanted to go build things.”

Mr. Brin moved his desk to Google X and began experimenting with computer-embedded glasses, delivery drones and barges in San Francisco Bay that could possibly house data centers.

In 2011, Mr. Page retook the C.E.O. job atop Google, getting something of a hero’s welcome. Yet the pattern — wanting to be in charge, but not wanting to deal with the day-to-day job — would quickly repeat itself.

He seemed no more interested in the menial aspects of the job. He was frustrated by having to deal with things like executive infighting and turf wars that are an unavoidable part of corporate life, according to three former executives who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Even then, well before the recent employee uprisings, he had grown disillusioned with what he saw as entitled behavior from Google engineers, said two other executives who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. He also started to experience health problems, most notably paralysis of his vocal cords. Executives who met with Mr. Page, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he sometimes used an electronic speaker to amplify his strained voice.

“Larry is like a professor who’s a business star. I don’t think he has any appreciation or love or desire to run a company actually,” said Mr. Jones, the former Google executive. “The thing he cares about is pushing toward innovation.”

In 2013, when stock analysts asked Mr. Page about how much money the company was spending on far-off research projects that might never generate revenue, he chided them for short-term thinking and said they should be asking him to spend more. It was the last earnings call for Mr. Page.

“I know you would all love to have me on, but you’re also depending on me to ruthlessly prioritize my time for the benefit of the business,” he told analysts.

Mr. Page did have time for side projects. For years, Mr. Page and Mr. Thrun had been discussing a new kind of vehicle: electric personal aircraft. But rather than try to build one at Google, they pursued a project independently, funded by Mr. Page’s personal wealth.

“We felt flying was too far out for Google and for their shareholders,” Mr. Thrun said.

Mr. Thrun now runs Kitty Hawk, which makes three kinds of electric aircraft. Mr. Page is the primary funder, and he has been visiting a few times a month, Mr. Thrun said. (Mr. Page has had three flying-car start-ups.)

Mr. Page has also invested in an asteroid-mining company. Mr. Brin bankrolled space-travel and synthetic-beef companies. Both helped fund Tesla. And Mr. Brin is building an airship in a hangar near Google’s headquarters.

Some Google employees say the founders have been ceding the spotlight to other executives for years. At a Fortune conference in 2015, in one of Mr. Page’s last public interviews, he was asked about Google’s interest in China, a country the company had mostly exited years earlier.

“I’ve also delegated this question to Sundar,” Mr. Page responded. “I help him think about it. But I don’t have to answer this question now.” He smiled, and the crowd laughed.

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

Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Obama in Trump impeachment hearing

Westlake Legal Group Xo9-OXwViiWmVPUZ1d2fXpaeZ0APDUmW2IntrUGnMM4 Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Obama in Trump impeachment hearing r/politics

Maybe. Maybe we do nothing about this, allow for the monarchification of our republic, and in a few decades it won’t be legal to make documentaries like that. I’m sick of people (most people, not you personally) treating this like it’s a sporting event. There are real consequences on the line that will impact every single American for generations to come. Me, you, my kids, your kids… everybody except the powerful. We are all watching from the sidelines giving color commentary on our future with zero preparedness to rush the field and own it.

We know how this is going to end in the Senate. He is going to get away with all of it and he is going to continue the same patterns of behavior. There will be no documentaries about how he almost got away with it but for the kind of heroic reporting and investigating and patriotism displayed during Watergate. If we’re lucky, our kids will instead see documentaries about how extremist democrats tried to oust a beloved leader and failed.

What the fuck are we doing here?

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

Trump Administration Moves to Upgrade Diplomatic Ties With Sudan

Westlake Legal Group merlin_165417735_df938721-c5f3-4081-9a75-dffe3cb47c3e-facebookJumbo Trump Administration Moves to Upgrade Diplomatic Ties With Sudan United States International Relations Terrorism Sudan State Department South Sudan Pompeo, Mike Hamdok, Abdalla Hale, David Maclain Embargoes and Sanctions Diplomatic Service, Embassies and Consulates

WASHINGTON — The United States said on Wednesday that it would begin exchanging ambassadors with Sudan after a 23-year gap, a sign the countries intend to strengthen diplomatic ties.

The announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the Trump administration’s vote of confidence in a new Sudanese civilian-led government installed in August after a sweeping revolution ended military rule.

Mr. Pompeo said the move could help transform Sudan’s political and economic systems, bolstering changes demanded by protesters who filled the streets of the country’s major cities over the summer and withstood harsh crackdowns — including killings — by security forces.

Since taking office this summer, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok “has demonstrated a commitment to peace negotiations with armed opposition groups, established a commission of inquiry to investigate violence against protesters and committed to holding democratic elections,” Mr. Pompeo said in a written statement.

Mr. Hamdok, an experienced administrator and British-trained economist, is visiting Washington this week, where he is, among other things, asking the administration to drop Sudan from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The potential removal of Sudan from the list would continue to be a consideration, a State Department official said, and the move to install ambassadors suggests the department may comply, which would leave only three countries on the list. The others, Iran, Syria and North Korea, have no diplomatic ties with the United States. The terrorism designation means that restrictions remain on foreign aid and military sales.

Mr. Pompeo was in Lisbon on Wednesday to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, so David Hale, the third-ranking State Department official, spoke with Mr. Hamdok instead. Among the topics of discussion were a political road map for South Sudan, which broke away from Sudan in 2011, and efforts to establish “peace between the government and Sudan’s armed opposition groups,” the State Department said in a summary of the meeting.

In 2017, the United States lifted a number of sanctions against Sudan, including general restrictions on trade. Penalties related to the conflict in Darfur are the only financial sanctions that remain, said the State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to override the department’s official statements about the visit.

Mr. Hamdok also met with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill. The committee said in a statement afterward that in discussing the terrorism designation, lawmakers “raised lingering concerns about the need for financial transparency within the security sector and about remaining elements of the old regime who may still support international terrorism.”

Before being delisted, lawmakers said, Sudan “must reach a settlement with the families of the victims” of several attacks carried out by Al Qaeda operating in the country. Those include the American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the bombing of the destroyer Cole in 2000.

In an interview on Tuesday with NPR, Mr. Hamdok said Sudan’s designation hampered its potential for economic growth and ability to pay off debt. He pointed to a shortage of commodities and double-digit inflation.

“So I think we would like to see decent companies from all over the world, but particularly from the U.S., to come and invest in our country, that will create jobs,” he said. “And all this can only happen if we are delisted from this list.”

Mr. Hamdok also defended the makeup of the governing transitional coalition, which includes military and paramilitary leaders, established in a power-sharing agreement in August. Mr. Hamdok said an independent investigative committee was looking into human rights atrocities committed recently against protesters.

The revolution toppled Sudan’s ruler of 30 years, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, leading to his imprisonment. Mr. Bashir is awaiting trial on corruption charges. The transitional government is grappling with questions of justice and the punishment of former officials who took part in atrocities over the decades.

In the interview, Mr. Hamdok said that his government was committed to eliminating “dehumanizing” laws, stressing that it recently repealed so-called morality laws that imposed restrictions on women’s clothing and freedom of movement.

“The sky is the limit,” he said, “for our ambition in observing the human rights of our people.”

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

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley says her struggles losing baby weight were ‘very humbling’

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is opening up about something millions of women go through on a daily basis.

The supermodel and fiancée to action star Jason Statham, 52, got real about the struggles she experienced in bouncing back to her pre-baby weight after welcoming her first child with Statham in 2017.

“Listen, I enjoyed myself. I let the reins go,” Huntington-Whiteley, 32, said of her pregnancy to fellow supermodel and mom-to-be Ashley Graham on Graham’s “Pretty Big Deal” podcast.

EX VICTORIA’S SECRET ANGEL ROSIE HUNTINGTON-WHITELEY REVEALS WHY SHE QUIT WORKING WITH THE BRAND 

“It’s a new experience, so you’re kind of like, ‘Well, let’s see how this goes.’ And six months in I was like, ‘What? This is crazy!'” she told Graham.

During her pregnancy, the former Victoria’s Secret Angel said she gained 55 pounds and admitted that she initially found it difficult to accept that her body was changing so drastically, but got over the insecurity and “basically walked around naked for the last month at home.”

“By the end I just felt really empowered in my body, but it took a minute to get there,” she said.

ROSIE HUNTINGTON-WHITELEY GOES BRALESS FOR ITALIAN VACATION PHOTO

However, after giving birth to the couple’s baby boy, Jack, Huntington-Whitely said the weight she gained during the pregnancy didn’t fall off the way she had hoped.

“I would look in the mirror and I was like, ‘I have 35 to 40 pounds to lose.’” Huntington-Whiteley said. “And I go to the gym, go to the gym, go to the gym. It’s not falling off, it’s not coming off, and it was very humbling for me, because having had a certain body type for most of my life … I will say working out in the gym and looking back at myself and feeling like sh-t, I was like, ‘Now I understand how hard it is for some people to get to the gym.'”

Westlake Legal Group rosie-huntington-whiteley-ap Rosie Huntington-Whiteley says her struggles losing baby weight were ‘very humbling’ Julius Young fox-news/entertainment/events/babies fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article a3b068df-f7b6-58a4-976b-d14d6d5eb661

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley  (AP)

The model recalled feeling guilty for previously telling people all that was needed in order to achieve her lean physique was work out three times a week.

“I cannot tell people how to feel about their bodies, because everybody has a different experience,” Huntington-Whiteley said.

ROSIE HUNTINGTON-WHITELEY DEBUTS LINGERIE LINE

Seven months after giving birth, she remembered paparazzi images floating online that drew criticism about her body and said she was “taken aback” at the negative comments.

“It was just shocking to see someone write, ‘Another Body Ruined After a Baby.’ I was like, ‘What the f–k? ‘Sure, I haven’t bounced back, it’s seven months later, but like…’ I was quiet for a couple days but you get on. It makes you stronger,” she said.

“Everybody’s body is different, everyone is on their own journey, and I really want every mother to really focus on herself but also the time with her child and it’ll come, it’ll happen, and everybody gets back to a place where they feel good again, if not better,” Huntington-Whiteley added, admitting it took her a year to get back to her pre-baby weight.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Because I feel better, and I feel a different respect for my body than I did before,” she said.

Westlake Legal Group rosie-huntington-whiteley-hunt Rosie Huntington-Whiteley says her struggles losing baby weight were ‘very humbling’ Julius Young fox-news/entertainment/events/babies fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article a3b068df-f7b6-58a4-976b-d14d6d5eb661   Westlake Legal Group rosie-huntington-whiteley-hunt Rosie Huntington-Whiteley says her struggles losing baby weight were ‘very humbling’ Julius Young fox-news/entertainment/events/babies fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article a3b068df-f7b6-58a4-976b-d14d6d5eb661

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

Italian vinegar makers lose court battle over ‘balsamic’ term

The European Union‘s top court ruled Wednesday that Italian vinegar makers from Italy‘s Modena province can’t stop German competitors from using “balsamic” and other terms to advertise or describe their products.

The protection of the name Aceto Balsamico di Modena does not extend to the use of “non-geographical individual terms,” the European Union (EU) Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled.

The term has been protected as a “geographical indication” since 2009 but does not mean exclusive use of the word, the court said, according to the BBC.

DENNY’S WAITRESS WHO WALKED 14 MILES FOR WORK COMMUTE IS GIFTED CAR BY DINING COUPLE

Westlake Legal Group Balsamic-Vinegar-iStock-1 Italian vinegar makers lose court battle over 'balsamic' term Louis Casiano fox-news/world/world-regions/italy fox-news/world/world-regions/germany fox news fnc/food-drink fnc article 421d9a77-c033-5d74-84b2-e842f382e9de

A European Union court ruled Wednesday that Italian vinegar makers can’t stop competitors from using the “balsamic” term.  (iStock)

“The term ‘aceto’ [vinegar] is a common term and the term ‘balsamico’ [balsamic] is an adjective that is commonly used to refer to a vinegar with a bittersweet [flavor],” the court said.

The EU uses geographical indications to protect food and drinks whose quality, reputation and other characteristics relate to a specific geographical origin, according to the BBC. Modena, in northern Italy, is famous for its balsamic vinegar, which is made from several grape varieties.

Mariangela Grosoli, president of the consortium for the protection of Aceto Balsamico di Modena, called the decision “unjust” in a statement to Bloomberg.

“The reality is that many European countries have partly wanted to take possession of the worldwide success achieved by the balsamic vinegar of Modena — this is the only vinegar to be bittersweet and to use the word balsamic,” he said.

Other Italian vinegar producers called the ruling confusing and disappointing.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

The case reached the court after Germany’s Federal Court of Justice sought guidance in a dispute between Italian producers and a German firm that sells vinegar-based products labeled “Aceto” or “Aceto Balsamico.”

Wednesday’s ruling means the terms are now allowed.

Westlake Legal Group Balsamic-Vinegar-iStock-1 Italian vinegar makers lose court battle over 'balsamic' term Louis Casiano fox-news/world/world-regions/italy fox-news/world/world-regions/germany fox news fnc/food-drink fnc article 421d9a77-c033-5d74-84b2-e842f382e9de   Westlake Legal Group Balsamic-Vinegar-iStock-1 Italian vinegar makers lose court battle over 'balsamic' term Louis Casiano fox-news/world/world-regions/italy fox-news/world/world-regions/germany fox news fnc/food-drink fnc article 421d9a77-c033-5d74-84b2-e842f382e9de

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

Key Moments from the First Impeachment Hearing in the Judiciary Committee

Here’s what you need to know:

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_165421116_48a4c371-3d52-456b-a2d8-424bdda35a80-articleLarge Key Moments from the First Impeachment Hearing in the Judiciary Committee Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

Noah Feldman, left, Pamela S. Karlan, and Michael Gerhardt were sworn in to testify before Congress on Wednesday.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Three constitutional scholars invited by Democrats to testify at the first impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee said that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political gain clearly met the historical definition of impeachable offenses.

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, argued that attempts by Mr. Trump to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine as leverage for political favors constitute impeachable conduct, as was the act of soliciting foreign assistance on a phone call with Ukraine’s leader.

“President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency,” Mr. Feldman said. “Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.”

Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, argued that Mr. Trump had “committed several impeachable offenses” by taking actions regarding Ukraine that were worse than Richard Nixon’s misconduct during Watergate.

“If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election,” Mr. Gerhardt said.

Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, told lawmakers that the president’s attempt to “strong arm a foreign leader” would not be considered politics as usual by historical standards.

“It is, instead, a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power,” she said. “PIf we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify by the committee’s Republicans, offered the lone dissent, arguing in his opening statement that Mr. Trump should not be impeached.

In a 53-page written statement submitted to the committee, Mr. Turley made it clear that he is not a supporter of the president. But he argued that the Democratic impeachment case is dangerously “slipshod” and premature.

“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” he said.

Offering an exhaustive and colorful account of the history of impeachment, Mr. Turley agreed with the other panelists that “a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.”

But for that to be the case, he said, the evidence has to be stronger. and argued the current case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.”

Westlake Legal Group 00impeachment-archetypes-videopromo-image-articleLarge-v2 Key Moments from the First Impeachment Hearing in the Judiciary Committee Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

The Impeachment Inquiry’s Main Players

Here are the lawmakers to watch as the process unfolds.

Several Republicans accused the three scholars invited by Democrats as having arrived at the hearing with an anti-Trump bias.

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida noted that Mr. Gerhardt contributed four times to former President Barack Obama, and that Ms. Karlan donated to the campaign of Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.

Representative Tom McClintock, Republican of California, tried without success to get the witnesses to raise their hands if they voted for Mr. Trump.

“I have the right to a secret ballot,” Ms. Karlan objected.

Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona, asserted that Mr. Gerhardt, Ms. Karlan and Mr. Feldman arrived with their minds made up about whether the president should be impeached and removed from office.

“What I’m suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here,” Mr. Biggs said. “You’re not fact witnesses. You’re supposed to be talking about what the law is. But you came in with a preconceived notion and bias.

The witnesses did not always sit and take it. After Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel’s top Republican, accused the scholars of failing to have any knowledge of the facts of the impeachment case, Ms. Karlan took him to task.

“Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts,” she told him. “So I’m insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don’t care about those facts.”

Melania Trump, the first lady, lashed out at Ms. Karlan, who was invited by Democrats to testify at Wednesday’s hearing, for mentioning her 13-year-old son while making a point in the hearing.

Discussing the distinction between kings and presidents, Ms. Karlan said that, “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”

Mrs. Trump took to Twitter to chide Ms. Karlan for the comment, echoing a chorus of outrage from Mr. Trump’s allies about it.

“Only in the minds of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old child into the impeachment nonsense,” Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary for Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, said in a statement.

Representative Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, read the tweet aloud during the hearing and Ms. Karlan later apologized, saying, “it was wrong of me to do that.” But she added that she wished the president would also apologize for the things that he has done.

Viewers of Wednesday’s impeachment hearing could be excused for thinking that there were two completely separate panels — one when Democrats were asking the questions and another when Republicans were talking.

In fact, there was just one panel of four witnesses, sitting next to each other. But it was often hard to tell that the fourth witness — Mr. Turley — was there when Democrats had the microphone, because they all but ignored him.

That was particularly stark during the 45 minutes of questioning led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, the panel’s chairman, and the committee’s lawyer. At one point, the lawyer said he had a question for the entire panel, only to ignore Mr. Turley’s presence.

But Republicans did the same thing when it was their turn, directing almost all of their questions to Mr. Turley and letting the three scholars invited by the Democrats to simply sit silently while the cameras focused on Mr. Turley.

The witnesses disagreed about one of the major legal issues facing the House: whether,Mr. Trump’s actions amounted to solicitation of a bribe — one of the specific offenses listed in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment.

Ms. Karlan, a witness invited by Democrats, put it bluntly: “If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President Biden and his son for political reasons, that is to aid his re-election, then, yes, you have bribery here.”

But Mr. Turley, the Republican-invited witness, said it was not clear. Citing the case of a French king who gave money and “other benefits, including apparently a French mistress,” to an English king in exchange for signing a secret treaty, Mr. Turley suggested that the example was too different from the accusation against Mr. Trump.

He also noted that the Supreme Court in 2016 unanimously threw out the public corruption conviction of Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginiasaying a federal bribery statute had to be interpreted narrowly.

But Mr. Feldman said that the meaning of the word “bribery” for impeachment purposes was broader than any federal statute.

“Bribery had a clear meaning,” to the framers, Mr. Feldman said. “If the House believes that the president solicited something of value in the form of investigations or an announcement of investigations, and that he did so corruptly for personal gain, then that would constitute bribery under the meaning of the Constitution and it would not be lawless. It would bribery under the law.”
— Charlie Savage

If Democratic and Republican lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee were hoping that Wednesday’s hearing would provide sound bites they can use to support their position on impeaching President Trump, they were not disappointed.

The three law professors invited to testify by the Democrats on the committee delivered a series of powerful one-liners.

Mr. Gerhardt said seeking election interference from a foreign leader would be “a horrifying abuse of power.” He said Mr. Trump’s refusal to obey congressional subpoenas is “direct assault on the legitimacy of this inquiry.”

Mr. Feldman declared that “if we cannot impeach a president who uses his power for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy.” And Ms. Karlan offered the following, pithy line that Democrats will no doubt seize upon: “President Trump must be held to account.”

But Mr. Turley, who was invited to testify by Republicans, offered one-liners that Mr. Trump and his allies can use as well. He declared the evidence against the president to be “wafer-thin” and he colorfully compared the Democratic case for impeachment to be lacking.

“This isn’t improvisational jazz — close enough is not good enough,” Mr. Turley told the lawmakers. If that wasn’t clear enough, Mr. Turley said the case for impeachment “is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous.”

Senators used their weekly closed-door luncheons on Wednesday to discuss how they would handle a trial of Mr. Trump should the House impeach him.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, gave a presentation outlining the mechanics of a trial, according to a senior aide who discussed the private lunch on condition of anonymity. Mr. Schumer played video clips from the 1999 trial of Bill Clinton. (Only seven of the 47 Democrats were in the Senate back then.)

Republicans, for their part, had lunch with Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, and Tony Sayegh and Pam Bondi, who have been temporarily hired by the White House to help orchestrate Mr. Trump’s impeachment strategy.

Mr. Cipollone told senators that the president was eager to present a case for his defense in the Senate, should the House vote to impeach him.

“But he said over a number of times, we don’t think there is any reason the House should send this to the Senate,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri.

Eric Ueland, the White House director of legislative affairs, raised the prospect of bringing witnesses to the chamber as part of a Senate trial, saying it would be critical for Mr. Trump to be allowed to mount a defense “given the fatally flawed process in the House.”

In a nod to the uncertainties of a possible trial, the Senate on Wednesday released its 2020 legislative calendar with no month of January included, leaving the timing of any impeachment proceeding there entirely up in the air.
Emily Cochrane and Catie Edmondson

Within the first hour of the House Judiciary Committee, the panel lived up to its reputation for partisan rancor. Republicans interrupted the proceedings to present Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the committee’s chairman, with a letter demanding a day of minority hearings.

They also forced votes on motions to call Mr. Schiff to testify before the panel and to suspend and postpone the hearing.

Democrats knocked each down along party lines, but the proceeding stood in stark contrast with those of the relatively staid and orderly proceedings of Intelligence Committee that carried the impeachment inquiry for the last two months.

In between the Republican parliamentary maneuvers, Mr. Nadler made no effort to cover up the unruly circumstances, but he put the blame on Mr. Trump.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump,” Mr. Nadler said. “I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task that we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the Constitution, and the facts before us are clear.”

When his turn to speak arrived, Mr. Collins offered a hard-edged rebuke of the Democrats.

“This may be a new time, a new place and we may be all scrubbed up and looking pretty for impeachment,” Mr. Collins said. “This is not an impeachment. This just a simple railroad job and today’s is a waste of time.”
Nicholas Fandos

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

Michelle Obama may have rejected first version of her husband’s official portrait

Who is the boss? Former first lady Michelle Obama or former President Barack Obama?

The artist who painted the 44th president for the National Portrait Gallery may have an answer.

Kehinde Wiley hesitated at first when asked by The Associated Press this week at Art Basel Miami, but he eventually revealed: “I got a call and [Obama] said, ‘The first version that you made, I love it, but Michelle doesn’t.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER

Westlake Legal Group Kehinde-Wiley-AP Michelle Obama may have rejected first version of her husband’s official portrait Frank Miles fox-news/person/michelle-obama fox-news/person/barack-obama fox news fnc/politics fnc fa5501b9-ae29-5074-8bfa-cd2e975450fb article

Kehinde Wiley arrived at Creative Minds Talks during Art Basel on Monday in Miami Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)

“I swear I wasn’t going to talk about this,” he added.

Turns out the former first lady thought the piece was missing some of Wiley’s signature style, he said.

Westlake Legal Group Barack-Michelle-Obama-AP Michelle Obama may have rejected first version of her husband’s official portrait Frank Miles fox-news/person/michelle-obama fox-news/person/barack-obama fox news fnc/politics fnc fa5501b9-ae29-5074-8bfa-cd2e975450fb article

Former first lady Michelle Obama may have rejected the first version of the official portrait of former President Barack Obama. (AP)

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOR MORE FOX LIFESTYLE NEWS

“There’s something really great about stepping outside of yourself and creating history and creating legacy,” the artist added.

The finished work of art featured a 7-foot portrait of the former president sitting in a field of flowers, including chrysanthemums, the official flower of Chicago; jasmine, a nod to Obama’s childhood in Hawaii; and African blue lilies to symbolize Obama’s late father who was from Kenya.

Before Obama, Wiley had been known for giving voice to the voiceless: taking people who historically have come from a perceived place of nonexistence and putting them squarely in the forefront of his works.

He said he had to prepare himself when he was commissioned to depict the most powerful man in the world.

Westlake Legal Group Obama-Portrait-Kehinde-Wiley-Smithsonian Michelle Obama may have rejected first version of her husband’s official portrait Frank Miles fox-news/person/michelle-obama fox-news/person/barack-obama fox news fnc/politics fnc fa5501b9-ae29-5074-8bfa-cd2e975450fb article

The finished work of art featured a 7-foot portrait of former President Barack Obama sitting in a field of flowers. (Smithsonian)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I’m in the Oval Office, my hands are shaking,” he told The Associated Press, recalling how he and Obama went through various poses and paged through art history books discussing the importance of letting the president’s personality shine through.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group Obama-Portrait-Kehinde-Wiley-Smithsonian Michelle Obama may have rejected first version of her husband’s official portrait Frank Miles fox-news/person/michelle-obama fox-news/person/barack-obama fox news fnc/politics fnc fa5501b9-ae29-5074-8bfa-cd2e975450fb article   Westlake Legal Group Obama-Portrait-Kehinde-Wiley-Smithsonian Michelle Obama may have rejected first version of her husband’s official portrait Frank Miles fox-news/person/michelle-obama fox-news/person/barack-obama fox news fnc/politics fnc fa5501b9-ae29-5074-8bfa-cd2e975450fb article

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

Body-positivity blogger exposes the reality behind the ‘perfect’ Instagram photo

Westlake Legal Group Perfect-Body-istock Body-positivity blogger exposes the reality behind the 'perfect' Instagram photo Gerren Keith Gaynor fox-news/style-and-beauty fox-news/health/healthy-living/mind-and-body fox news fnc/lifestyle fnc e6e0dddc-ee7c-5ab0-9a10-fdfbc2f61786 article

A body-positivity blogger from Finland is debunking the myth of the “perfect” Instagram photo.

Sara Puhto, 23, is poking fun at social media’s impossibly flawless standard in a series of Instagram photos, which she started doing as early as 2018.

In a side-by-side image, Puhto demonstrates what’s considered the “perfect” Instagram snap versus how she looks in real life.

On the left, she poses perfectly with a subtle, modelesque angle to accentuate her curves — stomach sucked in, buttocks poked out. On the right, however, Puhto stands upright with her head to the sky as she smiles and allows her tummy to stick out naturally.

BODY-POSITIVE BLOGGER SAYS GAINING WEIGHT ‘SAVED MY LIFE’

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER

“In photos I constantly suck in my tummy or try and hide it and stick out my booty as much as possible. But why?” she captioned the photo.

“We’re constantly flooded with photos of ‘perfection’ on social media and see advertisements about ways to change your body to fit a certain idealized body trend.”

Rather than striving for perfection, she encouraged her 319,000 followers to learn to accept the skin they’re in.

“We constantly work on changing our bodies, but why don’t we focus more on changing the way we look at our bodies,” Puhto wrote. “Don’t focus on negativity, focus on accepting and loving what you dislike about yourself. You have this body and it allows you to live life.”

“We should all allow ourselves to experience life to the fullest without the fear of judgment about our bodies, by ourselves or by others,” she added.

Puhto’s followers praised her for exposing social media’s dangerous beauty standards and having the courage to show her real self.

“You’re beautiful and amazing. You should be proud of the message you are sending and actively changing unhealthy ideals,” one Instagram user commented.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Your posts have helped me out so much,” another person said. “I always beat myself up for being bloated,”

Yet another follower added, “You’re the reason I love my own body.”

Westlake Legal Group Perfect-Body-istock Body-positivity blogger exposes the reality behind the 'perfect' Instagram photo Gerren Keith Gaynor fox-news/style-and-beauty fox-news/health/healthy-living/mind-and-body fox news fnc/lifestyle fnc e6e0dddc-ee7c-5ab0-9a10-fdfbc2f61786 article   Westlake Legal Group Perfect-Body-istock Body-positivity blogger exposes the reality behind the 'perfect' Instagram photo Gerren Keith Gaynor fox-news/style-and-beauty fox-news/health/healthy-living/mind-and-body fox news fnc/lifestyle fnc e6e0dddc-ee7c-5ab0-9a10-fdfbc2f61786 article

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