INTERNATIONAL WEATHERA HISTORY & MAP OF GUATEMALACOLLEGES/UNIVERSITIESINTERNATIONAL NEWSINTERNATIONAL SPORTS
Guatemala Local News
Guatemala Views & Opinions
Guatemala Local Weather Click for 10-day forecast
| Yahoo News: Top Stories || ESPN: Sports News |
|Warren Turns Her Ire to Trump, Stumps on Her Electability ||How a seemingly quiet Saturday got weird in a hurry |
(Bloomberg) -- Fresh off a debate performance that may have bolstered her standing in the 2020 Democratic race, Senator Elizabeth Warren returned to Massachusetts focused on strengthening her electability against President Donald Trump.Speaking at the Massachusetts Democratic Convention on Saturday, Warren said the Trump administration is “one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s modern history” and called on Democrats to unite toward a common goal: beat Trump in 2020.Warren, a native of Oklahoma who’s represents her adopted home state of Massachusetts, where she taught at Harvard Law School, in the U.S. Senate, has largely avoided directly attacking Trump or her Democratic competitors on the campaign trail.The focus on electability went to answer a persistent question in the minds of Democratic officials and voters about the progressive senator’s candidacy: can she win a general election against Trump in a race that will no doubt be nasty.Warren, 70, highlighted her electability argument by laying out policy proposals that she said will fix the problems that got Trump elected in the first place.‘Dark Moment’“This dark moment requires more than being ‘not Trump,’ because a country that elects someone like Donald Trump is a country that’s already in serious trouble,” Warren said. “We need to talk honestly about what’s broken in America, but even more than that -- we must show American that we have plans to make big, structural changes to fix what’s broken.”Warren’s support has been inching upward as she made one detailed policy proposal after another all year. She’s slowly gaining ground on front-runner Joe Biden and even boosted her polling against Trump. With over four months until the Iowa caucuses, Warren’s second hurdle is to convince voters that she’ll be a unifying candidate for the nation, said Debra Kozikowski, vice-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.“If there’s a problem, she has a plan, a path to get there and puts a price tag on it,” said Kozikowski, who hasn’t publicly endorsed a candidate. “That kind of attention to detail from a presidential candidate can bridge a lot of philosophical differences.”Biden scored a point in Thursday’s Democratic debate in Houston, however, by challenging Warren on how she would pay for one of her central plans, government-run health care often known as Medicare for All. She avoided giving a direct answer, beyond saying that a family’s health-care costs would drop.No Small IdeasBiden, too, has made beating Trump central to his campaign message, pitching himself as the one who can appeal to working class and blue collar voters to win back key states that Trump won in 2016, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Warren, now in second place in most polls along with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has called for structural change in government.“I’m here with a message for Democrats: the time for small ideas is over,” Warren said Saturday. “When I lead the Democratic Party, we will not be a party that nibbles around the edges. Our Democratic Party will be the party of big, structural change.”Her promises seem to be resonating. Among registered voters Warren polled at 51% against Trump’s 44% in a hypothetical general election match-up, according to a Sept. 5 ABC News/Washington Post poll, after coming in tied with Trump at 48% in a similar poll in July.Even as she aligns herself with her competitors when it comes to the urgency of winning back the White House, Warren often says that beating Trump is the floor, not the ceiling, for 2020. Despite concerns about whether her progressive proposals would help or hurt her in a general election match-up, Warren says her policies aren’t ideological.“This is not about being Democrat or Republican or independent. These issues are bigger than that,” Warren told reporters in Springfield, Massachusetts. “So I see it as: I know what’s broken, I know how to fix it.”Warren’s campaign approach has some voters and pundits wondering whether she would tack to more moderate proposals if wins the nomination, as candidates on both sides of the aisle typically do for the general election.“I don’t think she has to do anything in terms of thinking about the ideological divide that might exist in the Democratic Party because it’s going to be so obvious to America who is on their side,” said Massachusetts Representative Lori Trahan, who’s endorsed Warren. “Right now, the boldness of her policies is exactly what’s getting her attention,” Trahan said, adding that “the details are going to be determined by a bunch of factors that we don’t even know yet.”To contact the reporter on this story: Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou in Springfield at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Wendy Benjaminson at email@example.com, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
| It wasn't always pretty on a weekend in which there were zero matchups of ranked teams, but at least it was entertaining. |
|Will Venezuela Become a Russian Missile Base? ||College football Power Rankings for Week 3 |
And how would Trump respond to that?
| Jalen Hurts had another monster game in Oklahoma's win over UCLA. See where the Sooners landed in our latest Top 25. |
|Court revives suit alleging Fox News inflicted 'emotional torture' on Seth Rich family ||Fury survives cuts, grinds out win over Wallin |
A federal appeals court on Friday revived a lawsuit against Fox News brought by the parents of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, concluding there are plausible claims that the network was party to a “campaign of emotional torture.”
| Tyson Fury weathered two bad cuts over his right eye and survived a spirited effort from Otto Wallin to win a hard-fought unanimous decision and retain his lineal heavyweight crown Saturday night. |
|Exclusive: New documents reveal impact of US sanctions on Iran ||Gaethje stops Cerrone in 1st, calls for title shot |
Internal documents show the crippling effects of sanctions designed to get Iran to make concessions with its nuclear program; State Department correspondent Rich Edson reports.
| Justin Gaethje believes he has earned a shot at the UFC lightweight title next after rolling to a TKO victory over Donald Cerrone late in the first round Saturday night in Vancouver, B.C. |
|Why It’s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against Indictment ||Sources: NFL starts review as Shepard concussed |
In coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about “hints of the case’s weakness” that could possibly have caused grand jurors to “balk,” the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich -- a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing “rumors from reporters” about the filing of a “no true bill” -- i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.While conceding that he “do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,” Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe’s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling -- the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.I’ll add more detail presently. To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.Now, let’s back up.As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. That inquest centered on McCabe’s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information -- specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents. It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed. Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies. Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu’s decision to the Justice Department -- specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general. According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu’s office.It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department’s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent. It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided. Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills. Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case. The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former. Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment. The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle -- probable cause -- has been met. Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved. The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures. And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict. Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn’t mean to lie (multiple times). When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury’s investigation. It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration -- conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe’s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury’s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject -- such as an IG report -- is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury’s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury’s investigation is broader in scope than we’ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz’s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges. Note that in the email to McCabe’s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her. For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she’ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe’s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she’ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn’t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe’s case bungled their way into a no true bill. If I had to bet, I think it’s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment. If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.
| After a breach in the NFL concussion protocol involving Giants receiver Sterling Shepard, the NFL and NFLPA are both trying to figure out how and why, sources told ESPN. |
Guatemala Local News
Guatemala Views and Opinions
Why U.S. Engagement Policy Is The Correct One
Invariably, when one thinks of the efficacy of a nationâ€™s military, the mindâ€™s eye is drawn to the ability of that country to deliver a \"warhead onto the forehead\" of their enemies. Indeed, owing to the Pentagonâ€™s slick packaging of the First Gulf War, modern conflict, in the American mind, became synonymous with high-tech toys, grainy videos of successful missile shots, and a quick resolution of hostilities.
Living Wages Are A Global Problem
The recent protests for an increased minimum wage are part of a larger global protest. The purpose is the same for low wage earners all over the world; increase wages to match the cost of living, and allow workers to form unions if desired and needed. The global protest has gained media attention all over the world, but critics claim that is the only accomplishment the movement will have.
Ukraine: Not What It Seems
After tense days of fighting this week, people in Ukraine are mourning the dead and celebrating the removal of President Victor Yanukovych from power. The final struggle that began on February 18, was the bloodiest endured by the protesters of Euromaidan. By February 22 the fighting was over.
In a Five to Four Decision, Voting Just Got Harder
In a five to four decision along party lines, the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Shelby County v. Holder case. The ruling, believed by many sets the nation back decades in Civil Rights, while others see it as the fault of Congress dropping the ball on updating the act when it should have years ago.
Coup Or Civil War In Egypt
The day after new protests erupted in Egypt the military in a show of support presented an ultimatum to Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood-led government. Morsi was to step down from power and meet all of the demands of the Egyptian people, or face being removed by the military on Wednesday. As the ultimatum deadline draws closer in Egypt, Morsi refuses to leave, insisting that parliamentary elections are needed before he should be removed, and that he doesn't have permission from the United States to remove himself from power. Most recently he stated he will pay with his life to preserve the sanctity of the ballot box.