casino games cards
casino games cards
Two United States senators urged FIFA on Monday not to pick Saudi Arabia as the 2034 World Cup host next month in a decision seen as inevitable since last year despite the kingdom’s record on human rights. Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Dick Durbin of Illinois have told FIFA president Gianni Infantino in a letter “we urge you to seek out a host country with a record of upholding human rights.” Saudi Arabia has been the only candidate for 2034 since FIFA unexpectedly opened a fast-track nomination process in October last year. The contest seemed designed by FIFA for the Saudi bid to win, despite needing to build most of the 15 stadiums needed that risks repeating labor rights issues seen in Qatar over a decade of intense scrutiny before the 2022 World Cup. On Dec. 11, at an online meeting, more than 200 FIFA member federations are expected to jointly endorse by acclamation the Saudi bid plus the only candidate for the 2030 edition. That is a co-hosting plan by Spain, Portugal and Morocco with single games going to Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. “Approving Saudi Arabia’s bid this December endangers workers, athletes, tourists, and members of the press, and it runs counter to FIFA’s own human rights policies,” Wyden and Durbin wrote in a letter seen by The Associated Press. “The kingdom continues to torture dissidents, engage in extrajudicial killings, discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community, oppress women and religious minorities, exploit and abuse foreign workers, and restrict almost all political rights and civil liberties,” the letter claimed. Those concerns were aired by United Nations members at the Human Rights Council in January when Saudi Arabia’s track record was examined. At that session in Geneva, Saudi government officials pointed to dozens of reforms in favor of women and a wider modernizing of its society under the Vision 2030 program pushed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. FIFA’s Infantino has worked to build close ties to the crown prince over several years. The soccer body’s World Cup sponsor deal in April with Saudi state oil firm Aramco signaled a deeper financial relationship ahead of the 2026 edition being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico. FIFA bid rules for World Cup candidates require an assessment of human rights risks for the tournament, but the analysis by law firm Clifford Chance published in July was criticized by NGOs and activists for lacking independence. That report committed Saudi Arabia to working with the UN-backed International Labor Organization but not global rights experts who have limited access to enter the country to work. “More concerningly,” the senators wrote, “the Saudis have failed to address how they will uphold labor protections, press freedoms, non-discrimination and inclusion standards. “We strongly urge FIFA to take all steps necessary to thoroughly re-evaluate Saudi Arabia’s ill-equipped World Cup bid ahead of December and select a rights-respecting host country."
The brand will receive $100,000 in combined capital and support services from the private equity firm CHICAGO , Nov. 25, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- InvestBev, the leading private equity firm specializing in the adult beverage industry, has named Origami Sake as the winner of its "Fall 2024 Pitch Day" competition. By receiving these top honors, Origami Sake will receive a $100,000 investment* in capital and services from the "InvestBev Accelerator" program, a division of the well known, InvestBev Group. "Pitch Day" serves as the culmination of the three-month-long "InvestBev Accelerator" where founders of brands and distributors from all over the country compete for the chance to receive a $100,000* investment as well as education, networking, mentoring, and additional resources from experienced alcohol industry leaders to help them succeed in the highly competitive adult beverage industry. Judges pick the winner based on the brand's understanding of their target consumer and market, growth plan, future success and early traction. This year's winning brand, Origami Sake, is leading the revolution in American craft sake by using 100% United States Rice and the pristine water of Hot Springs Arkansas to deliver the freshest sake to American consumers. Matt Bell , CEO and President of Origami Sake, is a certified "Level 1 Sake Professional" who leads the growth and marketing strategy for the company. Before founding Origami Sake, Bell co-launched and led three highly successful companies: As an Arkansas native, Bell and the founders of Origami Sake are proud to be brewing a 100% USA -made product, and they are determined to lead the rediscovery of sake in America. "We were incredibly impressed by the talented entrepreneurs this season, and we're excited to announce Matt Bell of Origami Sake as the Pitch Day winner," said Brian Rosen , General Partner of InvestBev. "The company's blend of innovation, expertise, and strong sense of place will help them lead a cultural and craft beverage revolution, and we're thrilled to support their journey." "InvestBev Accelerator" is an invitation-only program for the most promising beverage brands. The program was created to give promising beverage brands the tools to succeed in the highly competitive adult beverage space. The accelerator hosts three-month cohorts that focus on four key areas: product strategy and development, marketing and growth, business fundamentals, and leadership development. "Winning InvestBev's Pitch Day is a pivotal moment for our brand," said Bell. "It not only validates our vision but also gives us the momentum we need to transform the sake industry." Additional brands selected to participate in the fall cohort included: Abre Ojos Tequila: Crafted from 100% blue Weber agave, harvested at peak maturity and roasted in a traditional brick oven, this small-batch production ensures a premium, handcrafted tequila known for its exceptional taste, aroma, and smoothness. Big Sky Stillhouse: An immersive distillery experience crafted to capture the essence of Montana's treasured terroir in every sip of their whiskey and gin collections. Broken Barrier Tequila: This is a UK-based and revolutionizing flavored tequila with a 100% agave blanco infused with Blood Orange, Vanilla, Ceylon Tea, and Orange Blossom that blends quality, innovation, and social impact. Interblend: This new category of wines—obtained by blending wines between countries—appeals to new consumers who crave a world without borders by seeking brands with social responsibility, transparency, and sustainability. Libation Labs (Cuvée): This value-back app that rewards points to consumers for tracking their alcohol consumption is notable for fostering engagement in the alcohol tourism, travel, and hospitality space. Native Spirits (Celtic Honour): Redefining American bourbon through a unique, Scotch-inspired blending process, this brand sources the finest small-batch bourbons from independent distilleries across Appalachia. Oceano Wines: Produces ultra-premium, single-vintage wines from California's coastal regions. Pilt Persuasion: A ready-to-drink brand that redefines the art of adult beverages by offering a unique journey into bold flavors that are crafted to elevate the senses and invigorate the spirit. Southampton Spirits: Represents the "Hamptons in a Can," by delivering a ready-to-drink take on the classic Southside cocktail with the refreshing blend of vodka, citrus, and mint. The Urban Wine Co.: The first urban winery in the Charlotte, NC regional area that was inspired by the desire to bring approachable, affordable, and locally made wine options to the Carolinas. UNBRIDLED Whiskey: A premium whiskey that pays tribute to resilience, heritage, and the indomitable spirit of those who defy constraints. VIGIE Limoncello: An artisanal limoncello made to sip, mix, and spritz that's crafted from a cherished family recipe while using real, organic lemons with a lower ABV and less sugar. InvestBev is currently accepting applications for its winter cohort, which begins in February 2024 in Chicago, IL. For more information or to apply, visit https://www.investbev.com/accelerator *All investment is contingent on the successful submission and passing of the InvestBev due diligence process that occurs post-cohort. About InvestBev Founded in 2015 by Brian Rosen , InvestBev Group is a premier private equity firm in the adult beverage industry, known for its short return windows and non-correlated investment strategy. Helmed by 3rd generation industry veteran Brian Rosen , InvestBev Group has raised nearly $200 million across four funds, a $100 million credit platform, and a low-cost insurance provider to distilleries. InvestBev is dedicated to supporting emerging brands and segments within the alcohol sector. Learn more: Learn more, visit investbev.com . Press Contact: Hailey Lipiec 845-548-1211 SOURCE InvestBevSANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) — San Francisco quarterback Brock Purdy took part in some light throwing on Monday after missing his first career game because of an injury and the 49ers are hoping he can return this week. Purdy hurt his throwing shoulder during a loss to Seattle on Nov. 17. Purdy underwent two MRIs last week that showed no structural damage. But Purdy he felt discomfort after making a few throws at practice on Thursday and was shut down for the game at Green Bay on Sunday that San Francisco lost 38-10 . Coach Kyle Shanahan said Monday that Purdy made it through the session without pain and will rest on Tuesday and hopefully be able to return to practice on Wednesday as the Niners prepare to play at Buffalo this coming week. “We rested it throughout the weekend hoping that would help,” Shanahan said. “He threw lighter today to see if that rest helps and the rest did help him. So we’ll see again, going through the same things we did last week. We’re going to let him rest all the way up to Wednesday. We’ll see how it feels on Wednesday and then we’ll take the exact same course throughout the week. Hopefully it responds better this week than it did last week with the rest.” Brandon Allen went 17 for 29 for 199 yards with a touchdown, an interception and a lost fumble in his first start since the 2021 season. Allen would play once again if Purdy is unable to go on Sunday at Buffalo. Purdy wasn't the only star player missing for the 49ers on Sunday with defensive end Nick Bosa missing the game with injuries to his left hip and oblique and left tackle Trent Williams out with an ankle injury. “Just waiting to see how they respond,” Shanahan said. “They didn’t respond great last week. That’s why they weren’t able to go. Nick and Trent are both in the same boat. ... We’ll evaluate as this week progresses and hopefully it turns a better corner than it did last week.” In other injury news, linebacker Dre Greenlaw will return to practice this week for the first time since tearing his Achilles tendon in the Super Bowl last season. Greenlaw will likely need at least a couple of weeks of practice before being able to return to play. Offensive lineman Jon Feliciano will be shut down for the rest of the season after his knee injury didn't fully heal. Feliciano's three-week practice window ended Monday and the Niners decided to keep him on injured reserve instead of activating him. Left guard Aaron Banks, defensive tackle Jordan Elliott and receiver Jacob Cowing all remain in concussion protocol to start this week and their status is unknown. Right guard Dominick Puni (shoulder) and cornerback Deommodore Lenoir (knee) underwent MRIs on Monday and the team is waiting for results. Cornerback Renardo Green (neck) and linebacker Demetrius Flannigan-Fowles (knee) are day to day. Defensive tackle Kevin Givens is expected to return to practice this week after missing the past four games with a groin injury. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nflFinland beats US 4-3 in OT in world junior hockey; Canada rebounds from loss to top Germany 3-0
BIMCO’s long-awaited FuelEU clause has now been published. This is a helpful and welcome starting point for Owners and Charterers to agree how calculations and costs will be dealt with under their charterparties. However, as it does not cover everything in detail Owners and Charterers should be mindful of certain issues when incorporating this clause wholesale into their charterparties. This article takes a closer at these issues, and where parties may wish to consider adding to or amending the standard wording. Sub-clause (c) is intended to enable Charterers to supply biofuels or other alternative fuels to the vessel to comply with FuelEU requirements. Parties should remember that any agreement to supply biofuels, or any other compliance technologies, may require corresponding amendments to speed and performance warranties, bunker specifications and potentially provisions for on-board fuel trials, tank cleaning / preparation as well as agreement on the time and cost for these. A good starting place for agreement to burn alternative fuels is class and engine manufacturers’ comments whose approvals are likely to be required from Owners’ H&M insurers. Reporting of Compliance Balance on delivery Sub-clause (a) requires Owners to inform Charterers upon delivery of the Vessel’s compliance balance for the previous two reporting periods. ‘Reporting period’ is defined in the clause as from 1 January to 31 December. This transparency is necessary to allow Charterers to understand how any penalties may be calculated in future years. Under the FuelEU regulation, a negative compliance balance in consecutive years will increase the size of the penalty payable by the vessel – 10% for the first year, 20% for the following year and so on. So a Charterer needs clear information on what previous balances have been to know what their exposure may be. If a Charterer takes over a Vessel which had a negative compliance balance in the previous year under the previous charter, and then proceeds to register a negative compliance again, the Vessel will be left with a 10% extra (‘multiplier’) which arises partly because of a previous charterers’ performance. Ideally therefore a Charterer taking over such a ship will seek to negotiate terms so that the effect of a multiplier is not for their account. The default provision under sub-clause (d) is that Owners will notify Charterers of the aggregated compliance balance within the first 15 days after each relevant voyage. Where this compliance balance is in the negative (i.e. the vessel is operating above the GHG limit and thereby incurring a penalty), Owners’ calculation must be ‘independently validated’ in order to be presented to Charterers. The explanatory notes provide that this validation can be done by any service provider, but there could be disputes over whether Owners’ choice of validator will always be considered “independent”. Given this clause requires Owners’ calculations to be verified in order to trigger any payment, Owners should ensure that this is workable. Parties may wish to include provision for how the cost of any validation will be apportioned between the parties (is the cost one that arises from Charterers’ trading decisions, or simply an Owners’ running cost?). In situations where the vessel is sub-chartered, Charterers may wish to agree that any liabilities calculated by Owners, especially when verified, are fixed and binding in order not to leave Charterers in a difficult position with their sub-charterers. Under sub-clause (d) a surcharge becomes due from Charterers when the vessel operates in the EU above the FuelEU GHG emission limits. The surcharge reflects the cost of the penalty that the vessel becomes liable for as a result of this. The parties are free to agree when payment for any surcharge is payable by Charterers to Owners. Under sub-clause (f), this can be paid on a monthly or per voyage basis or upon redelivery, but no later than 7th June of the following year, by which time Owners will have had their final Fuel EU liability calculated and verified. Payment terms and deadlines can be negotiated , but Owners should be aware that leaving payment to be calculated with a final hire statement will potentially expose Owners to a significant and unsecured sum. A Charterer may argue that they should not have to put Owners in funds to cover penalties unless/until they are actually confirmed and paid, but there are no other areas where Owners offer time-charterers significant credit in this way. In this regard, sub-clause (g) provides rules for possible reimbursement of a surcharge from Owners to Charterers with an aim to deal with this concern. At the very least, a Charterer should always seek to ensure that any payment arranged under a sub-charter will match that which has been agreed with Owners. Where the parties opt for a monthly or per voyage payment, the BIMCO clause gives Owners the right to suspend service under the charterparty where the surcharge has not been paid. This is similar to the suspension of performance provision under the BIMCO EU-ETS clause which some Charterers were reluctant to include in their contracts. If a Charterer can agree at least to defer payment until payment of final hire, this will remove the threat of any suspension of performance. Under sub-clause (i), Charterers have the right to instruct the Owners to bank or pool any Compliance Balance under the BIMCO clause but only where a charter covers a complete reporting period – meaning that it runs from 1 January to 31 December. So a charterparty entered into from February 2025 – November 2026 will not, without amendment, entitle Charterers to bank or pool any credit. This is presumably to reflect the fact that Owners (and disponent owners) need to be careful not to grant Charterers conflicting rights about who decides about pooling and banking because in each calendar year, only one party can have the right to make such choices. If Charterers qualify for banking / pooling, Owners have to follow Charterers’ instructions to do so. If Owners wish to reserve the right to decline pooling (in the event of a sanctions risk, for example) Owners would need to expressly reserve the right to do so in any clause. Whilst not set out, it is presumably implied that Charterers will provide Owners with all the necessary information allowing for banking / pooling; albeit it is made clear that all banking / pooling costs and liabilities will be at Charterers’ cost. It is still unclear how pooling agreements will work in practice, and it is not clear under the BIMCO clause if or how Owners will reimburse Charterers in the event that Owners receive payment for pooling a positive compliance balance, or if recoveries would go to the charterer directly. This is another issue which may need some additional wording or agreement. BIMCO’s explanatory notes provide that Charterers should obtain any benefits from the pool, but express provision for this in the clause is seemingly absent. If the parties expect the vessel to generate significant FuelEU compliance surplus then we recommend that careful thought is given to how it will be handled (and likely pooled) as the BIMCO clause contains very little detail on this, and the Charterers would likely want more certainty over what their rights are going to be. If Owners wish to enter vessels into a pool as part of their own separate pooling strategy, Owners will need to amend the provision in the BIMCO clause that gives Charterers the right to make the decisions on pooling. Such amendment would need to deal with who bears the cost of pooling for compliance purposes and if / how Charterers repay it, and what happens to funds generated from pooling compliance balances. Borrowing is only permissible where the charter period encompasses at least two consecutive reporting periods (sub-clause (l)). That is, the charter must for example run from 1 January 2025 – 31 December 2026 in order for Charterers to be able to request that Owners borrow in 2026 for the preceding year’s negative compliance. Charterers are not entitled to borrow in the final year of a charter, which should give Owners some time in the final year to take action to deal with any borrowed deficit. Owners may want to include restrictions on the value of what can be borrowed, so that if a deficit goes above a certain limit there are no rights to borrow, even if borrowing is currently limited under the regulation to 2%. Positive compliance balance If a charterparty runs for several years and the vessel generates positive compliance balances in the early years then it is easy to understand that the Charterers would want to receive the full benefit of them, whether by banking the credit for use in future years, or by pooling the credit to realize their value. However, what should happen to credits that are accrued in partial years, e.g. in the first six months of a year when the vessel is re-delivered by the Charterer in June 2027? If that Charterer is given the right to direct what happens to credits accrued during the first six months, then it will prevent the subsequent charterer from being able to say what happens to credits earned under the last six months of the year. The same concern would arise for a charterparty that runs for only a few months, but where a FuelEU credit may be generated. BIMCO’s solution to this is contained in sub-clause (m), but it will only apply if the parties agree on a value to be entered. Under this sub-clause, the Owners will pay the Charterers for the credit at a pre-agreed price, up to a fixed cap. The difficulty for Owners with this arrangement is that they are likely to have to finance the cost of the refund before its actual value is known, and before any funds are realized. Correspondingly, Charterers may not like to receive less than the full value of the credit they have earned. One, more complex, alternative, would be for the full actual value of the credit to be passed to Charterers when it is realized. The BIMCO clause provides a starting point for how the various mechanisms of the FuelEU regulation could work under a charterparty. Given that the industry is still familiarizing itself with how things will work in practice, the BIMCO clause is helpful for negotiations but it is not a panacea for all parties. There will still need to be some careful thought on how this clause should be amended in order to fit different parties’ needs and their plans for how to use vessels operating in the EU. Source: Gard,
PHOENIX — With the stroke of a pen at 10:12 a.m. on Monday, Arizona now has a right to abortion in the state constitution. But the formal canvass of the vote on Proposition 139 by Gov. Katie Hobbs does not make the controversy or even the legal fights go away. Nor does it mean that women right now have the right to terminate a pregnancy after 15 weeks. In fact, this may be just the first step in what could be a months-long court battle. Attorney General Kris Mayes said she believes that the new constitutional amendment automatically overrides that 15-week state law. She said that should be obvious given that the initiative spelled out all abortions are legal without restrictions until fetal viability, generally considered between 22 and 24 weeks. And it also allows abortions beyond that point if a treating health care professional determines it is "necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.'' Still, Mayes acknowledged that some doctors may not be willing to perform the procedure just yet, what with the risks of criminal and civil violations under the old law, but would rather wait for a court to issue a ruling. That's the case with Planned Parenthood Arizona where an official said it will not begin providing post 15-week abortions just yet but are "quickly staffing up and updating internal care protocols to position themselves to be able to provide care after 15 weeks as quickly as possible once legal clarity is established.'' And even Dr. Paul Isaacson, a Phoenix obstetrician and gynecologist who has been a major booster of the initiative, said he has no intention of terminating such pregnancies — at least not until a court actually rules that the 15-week law is no longer enforceable. Such a lawsuit is expected, perhaps as early as next week, from either the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona or the Center for Reproductive Rights, both of which have been at the center of the state's abortion battles. All that, however, is just the beginning. There are a host of other laws on the books, ranging from waiting periods and clinic licensing to whether it's legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy because of a fetal genetic defect. And then there's the yet-to-be-answered question of whether that fundamental right of abortion extends to minors. There's also the fact that Proposition 139 does not clearly preclude any regulation at all. It allows the enactment and enforcement of abortion laws that are "justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.'' Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer speaks Monday about the process of certifying Arizona election results during the formal canvass. She is joined (from left) by Attorney General Kris Mayes, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Gov. Katie Hobbs. The signing of voter-approved Proposition 139 could be the first step in months of court litigation over adding the right to an abortion to Arizona's state constitution. Mayes said hashing all that out could take time. "We're looking at a fair amount of litigation over the next two years,'' she told Capitol Media Services. For example, one is in the category of "informed consent." It creates a 24-hour waiting period between when a women seeks the procedure and when it can be performed. During that time, the doctor is supposed to provide information about the nature of the procedure, immediate and long-term medical risks, the probable gestational age of the fetus and alternatives to the procedure "that a reasonable person would consider material to the decision of whether or not to undergo the abortion.'' Women also need to be informed that medical assistance may be available for prenatal, childbirth and neonatal care. And they are to be told that the father is financially liable for support, even if he has offered to pay for the procedure. A separate statute requires performance of an ultrasound and record sounds of any heartbeat — and then offer the woman a chance to see or hear them. Mayes said she does not believe any of those fit within the "compelling state interest'' exception. "That's a very, very narrow exception,'' she said. "That could be for things like ensuring licensure of medical professionals so that women who are seeking an abortion can get an abortion from a licensed care provider.'' On that front, at least, Mayes is in agreement with Cathi Herrod, president of the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy. "We don't let just anyone perform different types of medically invasive surgery,'' Herrod said. But she sees the exception as broader than the attorney general. "Public health and safety should require that any medical facility be licensed, including abortion clinics,'' she said. Herrod pointed out that law was put in place following the 1998 death of Lou Ann Herron after a botched abortion. Ditto, Herrod said, of requirements for doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. That's just the beginning of what is going to have to be sorted out by the courts. Consider that current law says a minor cannot get an abortion without either parental consent or permission of a judge. Yet Proposition 139 extends that "fundamental right to abortion'' to all, regardless of age. Herrod said she believes the requirement for parental or court consent are defensible, even with the new constitutional measure, saying such measures "serve the public interest in providing for women's health and safety.'' Mayes, however, said she has no clear answer, saying that "probably will be litigated.'' There are other, more complex laws. One makes it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion, knowing that the reason it is being sought is the race or sex of the fetus. That law was contested in court. But the lawsuit was thrown out when challengers could not show a judge that there actually was any person at the time who was denied an abortion because of the statute. So, it remains on the books. That, in turn, became the template for a 2021 law that outlaws performing an abortion if the doctor knows the patient wants the procedure because the fetus has a genetic abnormality. In fact, that law is still being litigated by doctors, including Isaacson, who contend the law overly vague. They say it it puts them at risk of facing not just criminal charges but civil fines and possible loss of their license to practice medicine if they simply counsel patients who come to them seeking care and possibly an abortion. What's also vague, the doctors say, is putting doctors in a position of figuring out whether a genetic defect is only one reason a woman might want an abortion — which would be legal under the law — or the sole reason, which the law makes a criminal offense. Herrod also contends that nothing in Proposition 139 overturns existing laws that forbid individuals from obtaining abortion pills by mail. That became an issue in the wake of the 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. With some states returning to outright bans or restrictions, the federal Food and Drug Administration enacted rules allowing the interstate transfer of abortion pills. Arizona responded with its own state ban, one that Mayes considers null and void with the enactment of Prop 139. But the attorney general pointed out that even if the Arizona law is struck down, there's another risk on the horizon. There have been calls by some for Congress to enforce the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that makes it a crime to mail not just indecent materials across state lines but also anything "intended for producing an abortion.'' That, said the attorney general, would make it impossible for doctors to perform medication abortions as the drug is not manufactured here. Mayes said she will fight any such move, saying it interferes with states' rights. The bottom line for any challenges to existing laws could come down to what a court decides fits within that "compelling state interest'' exception to the fundamental right of abortion. Prop 139 itself seeks to provide some guidance, with a two-part test. First, it has to be enacted "for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of an individual seeking abortion care.'' And all that has to be "consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine.'' Gail Deady, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that is a very narrow exemption. "These regulations must respect a patient's right to make their own decisions about their health and can only be enacted if they make the procedure safer for the person seeking an abortion, using the least restrictive approach possible,'' she said. "Importantly, this rule does not allow the state to impose restrictions aimed at advancing other interests, like political or ideological goals, that have nothing to do with protecting the health of the patient,'' Deady said. Howard Fischer is a veteran journalist who has been reporting since 1970 and covering state politics and the Legislature since 1982. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, Bluesky , and Threads at @azcapmedia or email azcapmedia@gmail.com . Subscribe to stay connected to Tucson. A subscription helps you access more of the local stories that keep you connected to the community. Get Government & Politics updates in your inbox! Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith moved to abandon two criminal cases against Donald Trump on Monday, acknowledging that Trump’s return to the White House will preclude attempts to federally prosecute him for retaining classified documents or trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The decision was inevitable, since longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. Yet it was still a momentous finale to an unprecedented chapter in political and law enforcement history, as federal officials attempted to hold accountable a former president while he was simultaneously running for another term. Trump emerges indisputably victorious, having successfully delayed the investigations through legal maneuvers and then winning re-election despite indictments that described his actions as a threat to the country's constitutional foundations. “I persevered, against all odds, and WON," Trump exulted in a post on Truth Social, his social media website. He also said that “these cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.” The outcome makes it clear that, when it comes to a president and criminal accusations, nothing supersedes the voters' own verdict. In court filings, Smith's team emphasized that the move to end their prosecutions was not a reflection of the merit of the cases but a recognition of the legal shield that surrounds any commander in chief. “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” prosecutors said in one of their filings. They wrote that Trump’s return to the White House “sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests: on the one hand, the Constitution’s requirement that the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities . . . and on the other hand, the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.” In this situation, “the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” they concluded. Smith’s team said it was leaving intact charges against two co-defendants in the classified documents case — Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira — because “no principle of temporary immunity applies to them.” Steven Cheung, Trump's incoming White House communications director, said Americans “want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.” Trump has long described the investigations as politically motivated, and he has vowed to fire Smith as soon as he takes office in January. Now he will start his second term free from criminal scrutiny by the government that he will lead. The election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing Trump as he tried to reclaim the White House. He was indicted for plotting to overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in 2020, an effort that climaxed with his supporters' violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But the case quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House. The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial. The case was just beginning to pick up steam again in the trial court in the weeks leading up to this year’s election. Smith’s team in October filed a lengthy brief laying out new evidence they planned to use against him at trial, accusing him of “resorting to crimes” in an increasingly desperate effort to overturn the will of voters after he lost to Biden. In asking for the election case to be dismissed, prosecutors requested that Chutkan do it “without prejudice,” raising the possibility that they could try to bring charges against Trump again after he leaves office. But such a move may be barred by the statute of limitations, and Trump may also try to pardon himself while in office. The separate case involving classified documents had been widely seen as legally clear cut, especially because the conduct in question occurred after Trump left the White House and lost the powers of the presidency. The indictment included dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified records from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and obstructing federal efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. The case quickly became snarled by delays, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon slow to issue rulings — which favored Trump’s strategy of pushing off deadlines in all his criminal cases — while also entertaining defense motions and arguments that experts said other judges would have dispensed with without hearings. In May, she indefinitely canceled the trial date amid a series of unresolved legal issues before dismissing the case outright two months later. Smith’s team appealed the decision, but now has given up that effort. Trump faced two other state prosecutions while running for president. One them, a New York case involving hush money payments, resulted in a conviction on felony charges of falsifying business records. It was the first time a former president had been found guilty of a crime. The sentencing in that case is on hold as Trump's lawyers try to have the conviction dismissed before he takes office, arguing that letting the verdict stand will interfere with his presidential transition and duties. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office is fighting the dismissal but has indicated that it would be open to delaying sentencing until Trump leaves office. Bragg, a Democrat, has said the solution needs to balance the obligations of the presidency with “the sanctity of the jury verdict." Trump was also indicted in Georgia along with 18 others accused of participating in a sprawling scheme to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election there. Any trial appears unlikely there while Trump holds office. The prosecution already was on hold after an appeals court agreed to review whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. Four defendants have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. Associated Press writers Colleen Long, Michael Sisak and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.
HALIFAX — The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is investigating an incident involving a plane at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport, which one passenger described as a rough landing that sparked flames. Nikki Valentine, a Halifax woman who was on the PAL Airlines flight, said passengers felt a “massive rumble” upon landing Saturday night. “The cabin tilted, we saw sparks and then flames and then smoke started getting sucked into the cabin,” she told The Canadian Press in a direct message over social media. Airport spokesperson Tiffany Chase said Saturday an Air Canada Express flight operated by PAL Airlines, arriving from St. John’s, N.L., experienced an incident upon landing at approximately 9:30 p.m. Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said late Saturday that the plane experienced a “suspected landing gear issue” after arrival and was unable to reach the terminal. Fitzpatrick said the crew and 73 passengers were off-loaded by bus and nobody on board was injured. A Nova Scotia RCMP spokesperson said on Saturday that some minor injuries were reported, but clarified Sunday that in fact no one was injured. Valentine said she is “especially thankful the pilot was able to get ahold of the situation very fast.” The incident temporarily halted flight activity at the airport. As of Sunday afternoon, Valentine and other passengers were still without the bags they were instructed to leave on the plane. Valentine said she contacted Air Canada, who told her that it could be up to three more days before their bags are returned as the investigation into the incident continues. “A lot of people have things like house keys or wallets they needed and couldn’t get,” she said. “It’s all proper procedure, and I’d rather the inconvenience (of missing bags) than if anything bad had happened, of course, but it’s still tough.” This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 29, 2024. Lyndsay Armstrong, The Canadian PressHAMDEN, Conn. (AP) — Amarri Tice scored 20 points and Paul Otieno added six in the overtime as Quinnipiac defeated Hofstra 75-69 on Sunday. Tice added 11 rebounds and three blocks for the Bobcats (6-7). Otieno scored 17 points and added 14 rebounds. Jaden Zimmerman shot 4 of 8 from the field, including 1 for 4 from 3-point range, and went 1 for 5 from the free-throw line to finish with 10 points. Jean Aranguren led the Pride (8-5) in scoring, finishing with 23 points, eight rebounds, six assists and three steals. Cruz Davis added 14 points and two steals for Hofstra. Michael Graham had eight points, 13 rebounds and three blocks. Quinnipiac entered halftime up 36-32. Tice paced the team in scoring in the first half with 10 points. Quinnipiac was outscored by four points in the second half and the teams finished regulation tied 63-63 after two free throws by Aranguren with 38 seconds remaining. Otieno shot 2 of 3 from the field on the way to their six points in the overtime. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .
The Ukrainian Defense Forces hit a radar station of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system of Russian troops on the territory of the aggressor country. The strike took place on the night of November 24 in the Kursk region of the Russian Federation. This was officially announced by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Earlier, a video from near Kursk, where the "cotton" was seen at night, was posted online. According to the military, units of the missile forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in cooperation with other components of the Defense Forces, launched a group strike on the positions of the enemy's anti-aircraft missile division in the Kursk region. It is subordinated to the 1490th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment of the 6th Army of the Russian Federation. A successful hit on a S-400 radar station was recorded there. It is emphasized that this unit of the Russian Armed Forces conducted combat operations in the "ground-to-ground" mode, that is, hit ground-based fixed targets. "Such attacks by Russian invaders mostly target civilian objects and civilians in the frontline regions of Ukraine," the General Staff explained. They added that the occupiers' military activities continue, so there will be more "cotton" to come. As a reminder, residents of the Kursk region of the Russian Federation began complaining about explosions on the evening of November 23, claiming an alleged attack by ATACMS missiles and UAVs. Russian authorities claimed that their air defense system "shot down 34" drones over a number of regions. The S-400 Triumph is a Russian long- and medium-range air defense missile system adopted by the Russian Armed Forces in 2007. The radar station is part of the SAM and operates in the X-band (8-12 GHz), with a maximum range of air targets detection of up to 300 km. The antenna array is made using AFAR technology, which provides high resolution and the ability for the enemy to quickly scan the airspace. The station is integrated into the overall control and monitoring system, so it can work together with other radar stations in the complex. Since the beginning of the full-scale war, the Defense Forces have already hit more than one radar for Russian S-300/400 air defense systems. As reported by OBOZ.UA, The Wall Street Journal published a map of Russian military facilities that could be potential targets for Ukrainian strikes with ATACMS missiles. Among them are airports, ammunition depots, and Russian army headquarters. Only verified information is available on our Telegram channel OBOZ.UA and Viber . Do not fall for fakes!HARRISBURG — A federal waiver sought by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services was granted that if implemented, would authorize continuous enrollment in Medicaid for all eligible children from birth until age 6. An estimated 340,000 children would enter continuous enrollment in the first year and rise to about 450,000 by Sept. 30, 2027, when the waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expires, according to the commonwealth’s application and approval letter. Additionally, the waiver would allow 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for an estimated 27,700 offenders released from correctional facilities in the waiver’s final year — those under age 64 and diagnosed with specific chronic medical conditions, mental illness or substance use disorder. Advocates worried the rate of Pennsylvania children lacking health insurance would worsen in 2023, particularly due to the post-pandemic unwinding of automatic renewal of coverage under public plans. The potential cost and how much is borne by the commonwealth is unclear. Estimates in Pennsylvania’s application are spread across five years, from 2025 through 2029, rather than the federally approved period. The total for the coverage for children in the five-year proposal exceeds an estimated $1.85 billion, while the reentry expenditure is estimated at $183.5 million. Implementation is also uncertain. DHS will pursue the waiver benefits as part of the annual budget process, one certain to meet intense scrutiny from Republicans in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. And, the White House will turn over to the administration of President-elect Donald Trump which would likely change how the waivers are handled, according to Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Scott Martin, R-Berks/Lancaster. “Those are key questions we must answer as we move forward into a period of deep uncertainty for our state budget with a structural deficit that we have to tackle sooner rather than later,” Martin said. Gov. Josh Shapiro’s budget proposal this year included five-year projections that show a structural deficit with spending outpacing revenues. Pennsylvania’s fiscal reserves, estimated at nearly $14 billion before the commonwealth’s latest budget was adopted this summer, would evaporate by fiscal 2029, according to the projections. An updated analysis by the Independent Fiscal Office predicts that without adjustments in spending or improvements in revenue, the reserve accounts would run dry by fiscal 2028. Those reserves are down to more than $10 billion after the current budget was balanced. “Both Secretary (Uri) Monson and Secretary (Valerie) Arkoosh promised not to move forward with making these changes without legislative approval, and we expect that agreement still stands. I look forward to getting more clarity and having further discussions with both the Trump Administration and the Shapiro Administration before any decisions are made in terms of new commitments of state taxpayer dollars,” Martin said. Monson is the commonwealth’s budget secretary while Arkoosh leads DHS. Pennsylvania is the eighth state approved by CMS for a waiver for multi-year continuous eligibility for children and the 12th approved for a reentry waiver, according to the nonprofit health policy organization KFF, formerly known as The Kaiser Family Foundation. CMS approved DHS’s request as an amendment to an existing waiver concerning foster children rather than a wholly new waiver known as a Section 1115 demonstration. “While it’s still too early to determine an estimated cost, social determinants of health can be more influential on a person’s overall health, well-being, and quality of life than clinical care. DHS hopes to use this program to make health care more accessible, improve the quality of care and services, and test new strategies in health care to help people live healthier lives,” according to a statement from DHS. “We are pleased to have this opportunity to demonstrate that investments in these kinds of strategies have measurable health outcomes (like avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations) that can ultimately bring costs down over the long term,” the statement reads. The commonwealth’s application, submitted in January, also sought Medicaid to fund new assistance for housing and nutrition for targeted populations within the state’s program. Neither was included as part of CMS’s approval, however, the approval letter states that those elements are subject to continued discussion. DHS sought the waiver toward improving children’s school readiness and growth into adolescence and into adulthood. The department cites the benefits of early health screenings, interventions and preventative care to address physical, behavioral and developmental health. Continuous coverage would apply from birth or entry into Medicaid, for those eligible, and end on the last day of the month in which they turn 6 years old. As for reentry, DHS looks to help people exiting incarceration who have certain risks such as a substance use disorder or serious mental illness, eliminating likely gaps in coverage and care after they’re released. The goal is to prevent relapse, overdose and recidivism. According to the department, nearly 2 of 3 formerly incarcerated persons recidivate at an annual societal cost to Pennsylvania of about $3.1 billion. Fatal overdose rates increase 12-fold or higher, DHS said. The department cited an analysis in Philadelphia which found that people leaving incarceration were 37 times more likely to die of an overdose within two weeks of release compared to a non-incarcerated population.
- Previous:
- Next: casino games gcash
