House Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces the crucial task of ensuring the passage of a debt limit deal in the House, leaving no room for error and the added pressure of a potential threat to his speakership. McCarthy achieved a significant victory as the bill cleared a noteworthy hurdle on Tuesday evening. The influential House Rules Committee voted 7-6 to advance the debt ceiling bill to the floor.

On Wednesday, the bill will undergo debates and a final passage vote in the House before proceeding to the Senate. The anticipation surrounding the Rulers Committee vote stemmed from the fact that some of the bill’s most vocal conservative critics are panel members. Lawmakers are under immense pressure to swiftly pass the bill through both chambers of Congress and have it signed into law within a highly constrained timeframe.

The clock is ticking, and lawmakers are racing against time to avert this potentially dire situation. The urgency stems from the imminent threat of a catastrophic default, with June 5 as the deadline. According to the Treasury Department, failure to act before this date would result in the inability to fully and punctually fulfill the country’s financial obligations.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was pivotal in securing a debt limit deal. However, he now needs to work on ensuring its successful passage in the House, with minimal margin for error and a potential threat to his speakership.#KevinMcCARTHY #McCarthy #DebtCeilingAgreement #kevin pic.twitter.com/dPHORPosrH

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 31, 2023

The Pathway to Enacting the Debt Ceiling Deal

In a race against the clock, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has emphasized that Congress must act before June 5 to prevent the United States from defaulting on its financial obligations. The road to achieving this crucial goal involves many measures that must be taken within the given timeframe. Encouragingly, three are indications of growing support for the bill in the House, as many members from two sides of the U.S. political spectrum, including many moderates, seem poised to unite to avert a default.

McCarthy, assuring his colleagues of his ability to secure their support for the bill, candidly addressed GOP members during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday night, stating, “If you think I failed you, I’m sorry. But if you think you’re wrong.” Republicans are confident in their progress, with sources reporting that they anticipate garnering 150 or more GOP votes, surpassing a majority within the Republican conference.

Overcoming a Crucial Obstacle

As part of his bid for the speakership, McCarthy made a significant concession by appointing three conservative hardliners – GOP Representative Chip Roy of Texas, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Representative Thomas Massie – to the Rules Committee. Norman and Roy have emerged as prominent critics of the bipartisan debt limit bill. Typically, this panel consists of close allies of the leadership, making McCarthy’s move a notable departure.

The vote on the rule became a focal point, with increasing pressure on Massie due to uncertainty surrounding his stance. The outcome was crucial since a lack of support from Massie could have hindered the bill’s progression to the House floor. However, Massie expressed his intention to back the rule when the committee convened to discuss the bill.

Back in January, during an interview with CNN, Thomas Massie expressed his reservations about voting against rules that could impede the progress of bills. He emphasized his reluctance to utilize the Rules Committee to achieve specific legislative outcomes, especially if they needed substantial support from the caucus. Massie made it clear that he did not intend to hold legislation or individuals hostage through his position on the committee.

Another significant concession that Kevin McCarthy made to secure the speakership, which now looms over the efforts to push the debt limit deal, is the provision that any member of the House can initiate a motion to vacate, aiming to remove the speaker from their position. In an interview with Glenn Beck, Chip Roy posed the most substantial threat to McCarthy’s leadership, stating that if the deal could not be defeated through rules or on the floor, there would be a need to reevaluate the entire leadership arrangement.

Debt Limit Agreement Extends Beyond Next Election, Suspending Borrowing Cap until 2025

In the upcoming week, members of the U.S. Congress will cast their votes on a proposed deal aimed at suspending the nation’s borrowing limit until January 2025, effectively allowing the national debt to surpass the established ceiling. Under the bill’s terms, non-defense spending, which encompasses crucial areas such as public education and transportation, would be capped for 2024 before experiencing a 1% increase in 2025. Republican Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio expressed his confidence in House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s leadership, stating that he believes McCarthy is performing well in his role.

Similarly, Representative Patrick McHenry voiced his support for the deal and dismissed concerns about McCarthy potentially losing his speakership. McHenry emphasized the conservative nature of the outcome, acknowledging that while he had desired more, the current package presented a better alternative than initially anticipated. When asked if the speaker’s position was now in jeopardy, McHenry firmly responded with a “No.”

Bill Targets $1.5 Trillion Reduction in Budget Deficits

According to the analysis released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday evening, the proposed bill aims to reduce budget deficits by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Under the current deal reached in collaboration with the White House, discretionary spending would decrease by $1.3 trillion over the decade. In comparison, the debt limit legislation previously passed by House Republicans in late April was projected by the CBO to cut deficits by $4.8 trillion.

Additionally, mandatory spending would be reduced by $10 billion, while revenues would decrease by $2 billion. However, McCarthy may face a potential complication highlighted in the CBO’s score. The provisions regarding work requirements in the package are predicted to result in an average monthly increase of 78,000 people enrolled in the food stamps program and an accompanying spending increase of $2.1 billion over the ten years.

The proposed legislation includes raising the upper age limit for adults subject to the existing work requirement from 50 to 55 years old. However, exemptions would be granted for veterans, individuals experiencing homelessness, and former foster youth, regardless of age. These modifications to the work requirement provisions within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program are anticipated to reduce spending by $5 million over the decade.

As part of the current package, there is a provision to revoke $1.4 billion in funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Surprisingly, the CBO projected this measure to hurt the deficit, increasing it by $900 million over ten years. This outcome is because the CBO anticipates a revenue decrease of $2.3 billion during the same timeframe due to reduced enforcement actions and a subsequent decline in revenue collections resulting from the funding cut.

Read Also: Biden and McCarthy Apply Pressure to Persuade Holdouts from Both Parties to Approve Debt Ceiling Agreement

The post Key Hurdle Cleared for Debt Limit Deal Ahead of Final House Vote appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Party leaders in Washington are engaged in a pressing effort on Monday to persuade Democrats and Republicans to support a bipartisan bill that aims to prevent the occurrence of a historic national default. After lengthy negotiations, both sides are claiming success. The chances of the bill’s approval have improved since a consensus was reached between President Joe Biden and Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Many moderate Democrats have aligned themselves with the agreement, while Republicans remain confident they can secure the backing of the majority of their House members in a crucial vote scheduled for Wednesday.

Both political parties target centrist individuals, hoping they will accept specific provisions they may not fully agree with to suspend the federal borrowing limit until January 1, 2025, thereby avoiding a default situation. The proposed bill includes provisions such as capping non-defense spending, implementing temporary work requirements for particular recipients of food stamps, and reclaiming some funds allocated for Coronavirus relief. The unveiling of the bill’s text on Sunday evening carried significant weight for both Presidential Biden and House Speaker McCarthy, as the success of this legislation could shape their political futures and require them to present it as a triumph for their respective influential parties.

Urgent efforts are underway on Monday by party leaders in Washington to rally support from both Democrats and Republicans for compromise legislation aimed at preventing the unprecedented occurrence of a national default.#Washington #Democrats #Republicans #USdebtlimit #Biden pic.twitter.com/19Lcj7CCNk

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 30, 2023

Biden Expresses Cautious Optimism on Debt Ceiling Deal

During a press interaction outside the White House on Monday, President Biden adopted a cautiously optimistic tone while discussing the prospects of the debt ceiling deal passing through Congress before the June 5 deadline. Biden refrained from labeling the deal as a certainty despite sounding defensive when addressing reporters. Emphasizing his hesitancy to express confidence in Congress, he stated that although he felt good about the progress, he preferred only to assume the outcome once the voting process began.

Biden acknowledged having conversations with various members of Congress, including Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and expressed the notion that the deal was on the right track. However, he dismissed the idea of openly praising the deal before the vote, highlighting that such statements might not aid its passage. In jest, Biden remarked that the media’s tendency to expect him to openly endorse the deal before the vote showed a need for more effective bargaining skills.

In a private call with House Democrats on Sunday, Biden’s representatives defended their negotiations with Republican House Speaker McCarthy. When CNN‘s Jeremy Diamond questioned his message for House Democrats who might have reservations about the compromise, President Biden replied, “Talk to me.” Pressed further about what he would tell them, Biden did not disclose his response.

Multiple sources revealed that during the call, the briefers provided a detailed account of what they had successfully prevented from being included in the bill. They emphasized that they had thwarted Republican attempts to impose more stringent work requirements, repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, and undermine Biden’s landmark 2021 infrastructure law.

Extensive Outreach by White House Officials to Rally Democratic Support

White House senior staff and Cabinet officials made over 60 individual calls to House Democratic lawmakers from Saturday evening through Sunday, according to a White House official. The outreach efforts encompassed House Democratic leadership, ranking members of various committees and appropriations subcommittees, as well as chairs of influential caucuses such as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and ideological caucuses.

Additionally, the official mentioned that calls to senators have commenced and are intensifying today. Following these informative sessions, several Democrats conveyed their willingness to back the plan, primarily driven by the absence of any alternative options to avert default, as shared by lawmakers with CNN. “After receiving an evening briefing, one Senate Democrat shared with CNN, ‘It’s not a victory, but it’s far better than the potential consequences of a default.’

Multiple sources indicate that members from influential centrist groups, namely the New Democrat Coalition and Problem Solvers Caucus, are expected to largely back the plan. This support from approximately 100 Democrats could help offset the backlash from hard-right members who were angered by McCarthy’s negotiations. Chair Annie Kuster of the New Democrat Coalition endorsed the debt deal, urging her moderate caucus of 99 members to vote in favor.”

In a statement, Representative Kuster highlighted President Biden’s accomplishment of securing a bipartisan agreement despite a divided government. She emphasized that the agreement would safeguard the nation from default until 2025, preventing an economic collapse and preserving crucial programs that millions of Americans depend on.

However, the members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus have already strongly criticized the plan and vowed to obstruct its passage. House Speaker McCarthy has reassured Republican colleagues that Democrats did not gain significant concessions in the negotiations.

Talks between Biden & McCarthy Restart as US Debt Limit Deadline Looms

The post Biden and McCarthy Apply Pressure to Persuade Holdouts from Both Parties to Approve Debt Ceiling Agreement appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has secured his re-election, per unofficial data released by the state-run Anadolu Agency. The election was closely contested in a run-off, as Erdogan fell short of the necessary majority in the initial round held on May 14. With 97 percent of the ballot boxes now opened, Erdogan reportedly garnered 52.1 percent of the votes in the second round on Sunday, surpassing his opponent Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who obtained 47.86 percent.

The confirmation of results by the official Supreme Election Council is still pending. However, if the current trends hold, the outcome of the vote secures. Erdogan’s position in history as he extends his rule for another five years, marking 20 years in power. This surpasses the 15-year presidency of Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey. With Erdogan’s apparent victory, enthusiastic crowds gathered outside the presidential palace in Ankara, eagerly anticipating his celebratory address.

Preceding this, Erdogan appeared outside his Istanbul residence in Uskudar, where he delighted the gathered crowd by signing before expressing his gratitude. Erdogan stated, “With the support of our people. We have successfully concluded the second round of presidential elections. We are determined to continue deserving your trust, just as we have for the past twenty-one years.” He further emphasized that the true winners of the May 14 and May 28 voting rounds were all 85 million citizens of Turkey.

Following his latest electoral triumph on Sunday, President Tayyip Erdogan claimed success in Turkey’s presidential election, solidifying his position and extending his increasingly authoritarian rule into a third decade.#Erdogan #TayyipErdoğan #ErdoganVictory #ERDOGANKAZANACAK pic.twitter.com/pzZm74ZkZR

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 29, 2023

Post-election Remarks by Erdogan and Kilicdaroglu

In response to the election outcome, President Erdogan asserted that the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) would hold their candidate, Kilicdaroglu, accountable for his lackluster performance. Erdogan pointed out that the number of CHP seats in parliament had decreased compared to the 2017 polls. Following the confirmation of Erdogan’s presidency, Kilicdaroglu expressed his determination to continue what he called a “struggle for democracy” in his initial remarks.

Commenting on the election, the leader of the CHP expressed his concerns, stating, “All the resources of the state were deployed to favor a single political party and placed under the control of one individual.” He expressed his gratitude towards the leaders of the Nation Alliance, their affiliated organizations, the voters, and the citizens who actively safeguard the integrity of the electoral process and bravely resisted what they perceived as immoral and unlawful pressures.

Intense Campaigning

A bitter and highly contentious campaign unfolded during the two-month election period, leaving a lasting impression. Erdogan consistently labeled his opponent as having the support of “terrorists,” citing the backing received from the prominent pro-Kurdish party. In response, Kilicdaroglu concluded the campaign by accusing Erdogan of being a “coward” Nationalistic sentiment dominated the discourse, with the opposition party, in particular, vowing to compel Syrian and other refugee populations to leave. The run-off vote on Sunday marked the first instance since the introduction of direct presidential elections in 2014, where the electoral process extended to a second stage.

Despite the call for a second election within two weeks following the initial May 14 vote, the voter turnout remained consistently high at around 85 percent. However, the interpretation of results varied depending on the news platform citizens followed while observing the opening of ballot boxes on television. The state-run Anadolu news agency and the opposition-linked Anka agency presented different figures.

Approximately two hours after the polls closed, with only a quarter of the ballots counted according to the election authority, Anadolu reported Erdogan leading with 53.7 percent, whereas Anka indicated Kilicdaroglu ahead with 50.1 percent. As the evening progressed, the disparity between the two accounts gradually diminished, and both sources began to indicate Erdogan leading in the election.

Historic Elections Amidst Challenges

CNN reported that the elections, held on May 14 and featuring both a parliamentary poll and a leadership race, were widely regarded as the most significant in recent Turkish history. Notably, these elections coincided with the centenary year of the republic’s establishment. The choice presented to voters carried profound implications, framed a continuation of Erdogan’s two-decade-long rule or a potential shift back to a parliamentary system under new leadership. With over 64 million eligible Turkish voters at home and abroad, the elections took place amidst pressing issues.

These included a cost-of-living crisis, marked by a peak inflation rate of 85 percent in October, and the devastating earthquakes in February that claimed the lives of over 50,000 individuals in the country’s southeastern region. After assuming power as the prime minister in 2003, Erdogan presented a vision of continued progress, vowing to build upon the achievements of his Justice and Development Party government. Bolstered by the parliamentary election victory, where the AK Party and its allies secured 323 seats out of 600, Erdogan emphasized the stability of controlling the legislature and the government.

In the lead-up to the presidential run-off, the increasingly nationalist rhetoric aimed to appeal to voters who had previously supported Sinan Ogan, who garnered over five percent of the vote in the initial election on May 14. While Ogan eventually threw his support behind Erdogan, other nationalists rallied behind Kilicdaroglu.

Following an intense two-month campaign, voters now have ten months to prepare for the upcoming local elections in March. In the first round of voting, Erdogan secured 49.5 percent of the votes, while Kilicdaroglu obtained 44.9 percent. Erdogan aims to regain control of key cities, such as Istanbul and Ankara, which were captured by the opposition in 2019.

Read Also: Erdogan Putin Discusses Black Sea Grain Deal – Zelensky

The post Erdogan Declares Win in Turkish Presidential Election Run-off appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has issued a cautionary statement, alleging that Russia plans to carry out a Simulated large-scale incident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear station. This facility is presently under the control of Russian forces, and the purported objective behind the planned simulation is to impede Ukraine’s anticipated counter-offensive aimed at reclaiming its captured territories from Moscow.

Situated in an area of southern Ukraine currently occupied by Russia, the Zaporizhzhia plant is Europe’s largest nuclear power station. Unfortunately, this region has been subject to recurrent shelling, with both sides pointing fingers at each other and laying blame for these hazardous attacks.

Concerns have heightened as Ukraine braces for an anticipated counter-offensive, with mounting worries of a potential nuclear catastrophe amidst escalating military operations near Zaporizhzhia. On Friday, the intelligence directorate of Ukraine’s defense ministry issued a stark warning, stating that Russian forces are actively preparing a substantial provocation, simulating an accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility within the coming hours. These developments have added to the already tense situation surrounding the facility, raising the alarm and necessitating heightened vigilance.

Ukraine accused Russia is plotting to fabricate a substantial mishap at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. Under Russian control, this calculated move aims to obstruct Ukraine’s anticipated counter-offensive to reclaim the territories seized by Moscow.#Zaporizhzhia #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/3YVAADQtHu

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 27, 2023

Ukraine Intelligence Warns of Impending Attack on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant

The intelligence service has voiced these concerns, shedding light on the potential tactical exploitation of a temporary ceasefire. In a statement released by the intelligence directorate, it has been revealed that plans are underway to target the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) territory. The directorate further emphasized that a deliberate announcement regarding releasing radioactive substances would be made following the attack. Such reports of leakage would trigger a global incident, compelling international authorities to initiate an investigation. All hostilities would be halted during this investigative period, allowing Russia to regroup its forces and strengthen its preparations to counter Ukraine’s expected offensive.

According to the intelligence directorate, the intention behind the attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) is clear: to shift blame onto Ukraine and prompt the international community into launching an investigation, thereby necessitating a temporary cessation of hostilities. Experts have warned that swift evacuations would be imperative if reports indicate a radiation leak at the facility. However, the complex nature of evacuations within a war zone presents significant challenges. Additionally, it is worth noting that the psychological fear of radiation contamination could prove more perilous to individuals than the actual radiation itself, as outlined by experts.

Russians are preparing massive provocation and imitation of the accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in the nearest hours.
They are planning to attack the territory of the ZNPP. After that, they will announce the leakage of the radioactive substances. pic.twitter.com/Vk6hRDD26v

— Defence intelligence of Ukraine (@DI_Ukraine) May 26, 2023

Russian Forces Strengthen Defenses at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant as Counter-offensive Looms

Recent witnesses have reported the augmentation of defensive positions by Russian military forces in and around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, indicating preparations ahead of Ukraine’s highly anticipated counter-offensive. Ukraine’s intelligence directorate revealed that Russia, in anticipation of the planned radioactive incident, deliberately disrupted the scheduled rotation of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stationed at the plant. The concerning information regarding the planned incident at Zaporizhzhia was further echoed in a tweet by Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukrainian representative to the United Nations, who emphasized that these events could unfold within hours.

Moscow is preparing a large-scale provocation to create a center of radiation danger, according to @DI_Ukraine In the coming hours, the russians are preparing a large-scale provocation to simulate an accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.https://t.co/KuxZEGRB2i

— Sergiy Kyslytsya (@SergiyKyslytsya) May 26, 2023

Absence of Evidence for Directorate’s Claims; Accusations of Attacks Continue

Despite the claims made by the directorate, no concrete evidence was provided to substantiate their assertions. The IAEA, headquartered in Vienna, has not reported any disruption to its timetable or mentioned any incidents at the nuclear power plant. The ongoing blame game between Kyiv and Moscow persists, with both sides accusing each other of targeting the plant. In a recent development, Russia alleged that Ukraine was planning a nuclear incident within its territory to implicate Moscow falsely. Moreover, Moscow has repeatedly accused Kyiv of plotting “false-flag” operations involving unconventional weapons, including the use of biological or radioactive materials. The situation remains fraught with mutual accusations, but conclusive evidence supporting these claims is yet to be presented.

IAEA Director General to Address UN Security Council on Zaporizhzhia Security

The Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, has announced plans to brief the UN Security Council regarding the security situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in the upcoming week. Grossi, who conducted his most recent visit to the facility in March, has intensified his efforts to establish an agreement with Ukraine and Russia to safeguard the plant during the ongoing conflict. In a recent statement, Grossi urged all parties involved: “It is straightforward: don’t shoot at the plant and don’t use the plant as a military base.” His upcoming briefing at the UN Security Council highlights the importance of preserving the integrity and security of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant amidst the escalating tensions in the region.

“It is critical for all parties involved to come to a unanimity on a set of principles that ensure the protection of the plant throughout the conflict,” he emphasized. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which used to supply approximately 20 percent of Ukraine’s electricity, remarkably continued its operations in the early stages of Russia’s invasion, despite facing frequent shelling. However, power production came to a complete halt in September. While none of Ukraine’s six Soviet-era reactors have generated electricity since then, the Zaporizhzhia facility remains connected to the national power grid to fulfill its own requirements, particularly for the vital purpose of cooling the plant’s nuclear reactors.

Read Also: G7 Considers Sanctions on Russia Over Ukraine War

The post Ukraine Alleges Russia’s Plotting a ‘Massive’ Incident at a Nuclear Facility appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

The release of a plan by the White House to combat the rise of anti-Semitism comes amidst an ongoing debate about the definition of anti-Jewish hatred. On Thursday, President Joe Biden presented the strategy and urged people to resist and counter anti-Semitism actively. Biden emphasized that hate, including the alarming increase in anti-Semitism, has been given too much attention and must be confronted. He stated that it is morally wrong and unacceptable and that it is the responsibility of everyone to put an end to it.

The plan outlines several key actions, including enhancing education on anti-Semitism, bolstering the safety and security of Jewish communities, combating the normalization of anti-Semitic discrimination perpetuated by celebrities and politicians, and fostering cross-community solidarity to combat bigotry. The plan also referenced the FBI statistics, which revealed that 63 percent of reported religiously motivated hate crimes were driven by anti-Semitism, despite Jewish Americans comprising only 2.4 percent of the population.

To tackle the escalating issue of anti-Semitism, the White House has released a strategic plan, considering the ongoing dispute surrounding its definition, particularly about Israel. Biden delivered the plan on Thursday, rallying people against anti-Semitism.#Antisemitismus pic.twitter.com/1crlEPF4PU

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 26, 2023

Biden Administration Avoids Sole Adoption of IHRA Definition in Anti-Semitism Plan

In its Anti-Semitism plan, the Biden government choose not to exclusively adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism, thereby sidestepping the demand put forth by certain pro-Israel groups. The debate over the definition of anti-Semitism had already been a contentious issue for the White House before the plan’s release.

Pro-Israel Jewish organizations had advocated for the IHRA definition, which places significant emphasis on Israel. Within the IHRA definition, there are 11 examples of anti-Semitism, with six of them specifically addressing Israel, including the notion of “applying double standards” to Israeli government policies.

The IHRA document, while stating that criticism of Israel, similar to criticism of any other country, is not inherently anti-Semitic, has faced criticism from Palestinian rights advocates who argue that it has been used to suppress legitimate discussions on Israeli human rights abuses. One particular example in the IHRA definition denounces that establishing the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Critics contend that defenders of Israel have exploited this provision to silence conversations about the mass displacement of Palestinians during the country’s formation in 1948. Consequently, progressive groups, including some U.S. Jewish organizations, urged the Biden administration not to adopt the IHRA definition in its anti-Semitism plan.

White House’s Approach

In response, the White House carefully navigated the issue by expressing acceptance of the IHRA document while acknowledging the existence of alternative definitions of anti-Semitism. Additionally, it referenced the Nexus Document, created by a former task force at the University of Southern California. It asserted that even harsh criticism of Israeli policies and actions doesn’t automatically equate to anti-Semitism.

The strategy statement of the Biden administration acknowledged the existence of multiple definitions of anti-Semitism, recognizing them as valuable tools to enhance awareness and comprehension of this form of hatred. Among these definitions, the statement highlighted the non-legally binding “working definition” of anti-Semitism adopted by the 31-member states of the IHRA, which the United States has embraced. Furthermore, the administration appreciated the Nexus Document and acknowledged other similar initiatives.

Today, my Administration is releasing a national strategy to fight antisemitism.

Together, we’ll raise awareness of antisemitism and Jewish American Heritage, improve safety, reverse the normalization of hate, counter discrimination, and build solidarity and collective action.

— President Biden (@POTUS) May 25, 2023

The plan’s language appeased both sides of the debate, receiving positive feedback from various organizations. Americans for Peace Now, a progressive US Jewish organization, commended the plan and expressed gratitude towards Biden for not succumbing to demands for codifying the IHRA definition. They appreciated that false accusations of anti-Semitism wouldn’t be used to attack critics of Israeli policies.

Conversely, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a staunchly pro-Israel group, welcomed the plan’s adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. J Street, a Jewish-American liberal group advocating for pro-Israel and pro-peace policies, also praised the agenda for its comprehensiveness, inclusivity, and focus on dismantling divisions and promoting unity. They emphasized the strategy’s avoidance of exclusively endorsing a sweeping definition of anti-Semitism as the sole standard for domestic law and policy enforcement, recognizing the potential harm such an approach could cause.

Palestine Legal Criticizes IHRA Definition as Unconstitutional and Propaganda

Supporters of Palestinian rights have long contended that pro-Israel advocates often weaponize accusations of anti-Semitism to shield Israel from criticism. Palestine Legal, an advocacy group representing Palestinian Americans, stated that even the staunchly pro-Israel Biden administration refrained from adopting the IHRA definition due to its perceived unconstitutionality and incorrectness. In a series of tweets, Palestine Legal described IHRA as a propaganda tool, asserting that Israel-focused groups sought to present it as a legal framework.

Prominent human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have accused Israel of implementing apartheid policies against Palestinians. The plan unveiled Thursday mentioned Israel, emphasizing that targeting Jews based on their beliefs or identity and singling out Israel due to anti-Jewish hatred constitutes anti-Semitism, which the plan deems unacceptable.

The document further indicated that the United States would support Israel at international organizations as part of its anti-Semitism countermeasures. In the past, the US has exercised its veto powers multiple times at the United Nations Security Council to block resolutions condemning Israeli abuses and violations of international law.

Like previous administrations, the Biden administration has also opposed the Palestinian pursuit of accountability for potential Israeli war crimes at the International Criminal Court. The plan stated that the US Government would persist in combating anti-Semitism globally and in international forums, which includes efforts to counter attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel.

Abed Ayoub, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee executive director, a US-based advocacy group, commended the initiatives to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry. He appreciated the White House’s decision not to officially adopt the IHRA definition, stating that it has been utilized to target and silence their community.

Read Also: UN Calls on ICJ to Give Opinion on Israel’s Illegal Occupation

The post US Unveils Strategy to Tackle Anti-Semitism Definition Debate appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis officially commenced his United States presidential campaign amidst a turbulent and glitch-ridden broadcast on Twitter, following months of eager anticipation. After a delay of over twenty minutes due to technical issues, DeSantis emphasized the need for courageous leadership and a determination to emerge victorious.

After a 25-minute delay due to technical glitches, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took to Twitter’s audio platform on Wednesday to make a significant announcement: his entry into the Republican presidential primary.#RonDeSantis #RonDeSantis2024 #DeSantis2024 #DeSantis #Twitter pic.twitter.com/nEW9c7YRQR

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 25, 2023

With the promise that his inauguration would take place on January 201th, 2025, at noon on the west side of the U.S. Capitol, he expressed his ambition to become the 47th president. The initial Twitter broadcast, overseen by Twitter CEO Elon Musk and conservative entrepreneur David Sacks, encountered numerous early setbacks, prompting remarks about the frequent crashes. The hists attributed these challenges to the overwhelming volume of online participants, leading to strain on the servers.

I’m running for president to lead our Great American Comeback. pic.twitter.com/YmkWkLaVDg

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) May 24, 2023

Republican Presidential Field Expands

DeSantis’s tumultuous announcement on Wednesday sets the stage for a likely clash with former President Donald Trump, widely regarded as the leading candidate within the GOP Party. Other notable contenders from the Republican side include Senator Tim Scott, former United Nations envoy Nikki Haley, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. It is also highly likely that former Vice President Mike Pence, who served under Trump, will enter the presidential race.

In response to DeSantis’s faltering Twitter broadcast, the Trump and Haley campaign teams took to social media to showcase their smoother campaign launches. Trump Jr., the former president’s elder son, expressed his opinion on Twitter. He compared DeSantis and former Florida Jeb Bush, whose 2016 campaign was unsuccessful, stating, “DeSantis is making JEB!” He also labeled the broadcast a “#DeSanter.”

The Republican presidential primary victor will confront the Democratic nominee in the upcoming 2024 election, where the current President, Joe Biden, will likely be the party’s nominee. On Wednesday, Biden seemingly criticized the governor’s technical mishaps by tweeting a call-to-action to donate to his campaign, accompanied by the remark, “This link functions properly.”

We’re so proud of @TeamHaley and our incredible campaign launch.

Here’s a throwback to February 15th when @NikkiHaley jumped into the arena. pic.twitter.com/zIq2eIv4dl

— Ken Farnaso (@KLF) May 24, 2023

Formerly Endorsed by Trump, Governor Emerges as Rival

DeSantis, once locked by Trump during his initial run for governor in 2018, has since gained national recognition among conservative circles for his advocacy of right-wing policies within Florida. Recent public opinion polls indicate a substantial lead for Trump over DeSantis in a hypothetical primary face-off. However, with the former president grappling with legal issues, including criminal charges in New York, the Florida governor aims to narrow the gap in the forthcoming months.

Trump frequently criticizes DeSantis and highlights his poll number on his Truth Social account. Yet, thus far, the Florida governor has primarily disregarded the former president’s criticism. The initial Republican primaries are scheduled for early 2024 in Iowa.

Aged 44, Ron DeSantis, a former congressman and U.S. Navy veteran, is expected to position himself as an alternative to Trump throughout his presidential campaign. He aims to showcase his ability to extend the successful implementation of a right-wing agenda in Florida to the national stage. Following last year’s U.S. midterm elections, where the Republican Party underperformed, many conservative commentators blamed Trump.

However, during the same election, DeSantis secured a comfortable re-election victory in Florida. Recently, DeSantis asserted that he would be a superior nominee compared to Trump, highlighting his potential to serve for eight years and solidify the conservative majority in the Supreme Court. In contrast, the former president could only serve four years due to term limits. DeSantis mentioned the possibility of nominating replacements for Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservative justices on the Supreme Court, over the following two presidential terms.

Controversy Surrounds Florida’s Policy “Blueprint”

DeSantis’s right-wing policies, which include efforts to restrict discussions on racism and sexuality in schools, have drawn criticism from Democrats who denounce them as bigoted and perilous. Actively presenting his platform in Florida as a model for the entire nation, as depicted in his bio “The Courage to Be Free,” DeSantis has faced backlash.

Democratic Florida State House Representative Anna Eskamani voiced her concerns in a statement on Wednesday, declaring, “Governor Ron DeSantis is an extremist who espouses freedom while eroding our freedoms as Floridians. Whether it’s the six-week abortion ban, targeting the LGBTQ+ community, infringing on academic freedom, undermining labor unions, or weakening gun laws and consumer protections, DeSantis disregards the needs of ordinary people, and Americans should reject his candidacy for president.”

Unveiling the Presidential Campaign on Twitter

The initial half-hour witnessed prolonged periods of silence, intermittently punctuated by the ambient sounds of typing and clicking. Sacks and Musk aimed to present Wednesday’s broadcast as an unprecedented “historic Twitter Spaces event” and a groundbreaking moment in social media history. However, their introduction was interrupted mere seconds into their speech as the audio abruptly cut off mid-sentence.

He touched upon issues concerning border security, crime rates, and the struggles faced by the middle class. DeSantis further asserted, “Our president lacks vitality, faltering when confronted with our nation’s challenges and succumbing to the whims of the woke movement. But I firmly believe that it doesn’t have to be this way. The decline of America is not an inevitable fate; it is a conscious choice.”

As part of his presidential agenda, DeSantis made a firm commitment to declare a “national emergency” at the US-Mexico border on his first day in office, vowing to continue the construction of the border wall—a contentious project closely associated with his rival, Trump. Additionally, he pledged to bring government bureaucracy under control, which he characterized as “unrestrained” and susceptible to the whims of unelected officials.

DeSantis asserted, “Get ready for action when I take charge because the current state of affairs is unacceptable.” He emphasized that government agencies should not automatically receive the same level of funding every year, urging a reevaluation of their budgets. Among the agencies in DeSantis’s focus was the Federal Reserve, the country’s central banking system, as he argued against its role as a significant economic planner for the nation, stating, “They should not hold that power.”

Read Also: DeSantis Announced Lawsuit against Federal Government over Immigration Policy

The post DeSantis Officially Seeks 2024 US Presidency appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will join Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, on a virtual stage Wednesday night to officially begin his campaign for the Republican presidential primary, according to a spokesperson for the governor, as reported by CNN. By choosing Twitter Spaces, the site’s audio platform, for this announcement and engaging in a conversation with Musk, who possesses his own dedicated fanbase, DeSantis aims to secure the support of influential figures on the right wing.

This move is part of a larger strategy to surpass former President Donald Trump and secure the 2024 GOP nomination. Although DeSantis is widely regarded as Trump’s most formidable primary opponent, his standing has weakened in recent polls and among concerned donors due to uncertain performances leading up to his campaign launch. By opting for Twitter to make this announcement, the 44-year-old Republican seeks to distinguish himself from the rest of the growing field, as most candidates have chosen more traditional settings to declare their candidacy.

DeSantis Challenges Trump’s Twitter Legacy

Launching his presidential candidacy on Twitter challenges the former president. Trump, who had been banned from the platform in 2021 before Musk’s takeover, had extensively used Twitter to criticize opponents, express grievances, and energize his MAGA movement. Although Musk reinstated Trump’s account after assuming control of Twitter, the former president had subsequently shifted to Truth Social. DeSantis aims to capture Musk’s attention and influence in Trump’s absence.

The announcement event, initially reported by NBC News, is scheduled for 06:00 p.m. ET and will be moderated by David Sacks, a technology entrepreneur and ally of Musk. CNN has reached out to Musk for a statement. Confirming the event publicly during a Wall Street Journal function, Musk said he would interview Ron DeSantis, emphasizing that it would be the first time such an event occurred on social media, featuring real-time questions and unscripted answers. Musk clarified that he had no plans to endorse any candidate “at this time.” Sacks, a significant political donor, and supporter of DeSantis, contributed over $70,000 to the governor’s political committee in 2021.

DeSantis Faces Criticism and Unconventional Strategy

As previously reported by CNN, DeSantis’s campaign team is devising an aggressive and unconventional strategy for his presidential bid. In response to DeSantis’ choice of Twitter for his campaign announcement, Trump’s super PAC criticized it as “one of the most disconnected campaign launches in modern history.” MAGA Inc., in a statement released on Tuesday, ridiculed the niche Twitter campaign launch and also aimed DeSantis’ after-party venue at the exclusive Four Seasons resort in Miami, labeling it as unrelatable.

Their plan involves a relentless and unpredictable outreach across the political landscape, aiming to engage thousands of primary voters swiftly, create contrasts with his older rivals (Trump and President Joe Biden), and generate attention. According to sources familiar with the planning, DeSantis is expected to submit the necessary paperwork to declare his candidacy to the Federal Election Commission this week. A formal announcement is scheduled for the following week in Dunedin, his hometown in Florida.

A Formidable Rival Emerges: DeSantis Faces a Tough Match

Through a series of strategic moves in the past year, DeSantis has inadvertently created a challenging situation for himself, referred to as the “Mousetrap.” During a recent visit to South Carolina, a crucial primary state, he openly criticized Disney, boldly stating, “They may have held influence over Florida before I came into the picture, but they no longer hold that power.”

The conflict between the governor and Disney stems from the company’s opposition to legislation signed by DeSantis last spring, which placed restrictions on teaching sexual orientation and gender identity to young students, commonly known as the “Don’t Say, Gay Bill.” This measure is part of DeSantis’s deliberate focus on cultural issues and his campaign against what he perceives as “woke” diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

This strategy aims to appeal to conservative voters who feel traditional American values are undermined by an increasingly diverse and inclusive society. However, the governor’s clash with Disney—a massive corporation that resonates with millions of mainstream Americans and has actively pursued greater inclusivity in recent years—may indicate potential difficulties in garnering support for such policies among more moderate voters during a general election.

In his recently published autobiography, DeSantis claimed that Disney had been influenced by “leftist activists” to adopt a position that alienated parents and children in Florida, asserting that it had strayed from its core business. He justified his subsequent efforts to maintain control over a special tax district that had granted Disney considerable autonomy, arguing that the company was no longer acting in the state’s best interests.

Rival Reactions Intensify as DeSantis Faces Political Fallout

The ongoing dispute between DeSantis and Disney holds significant political implications, evident by the swift responses from some of his potential rivals in the GOP primary. Statements from Trump’s camp celebrated his past predictions of DeSantis being “absolutely destroyed by Disney” and emphasized Trump’s self-proclaimed infallibility. This situation allows Trump to portray DeSantis as weak and politically inexperienced while also criticizing the governor’s notable economic and political accomplishments in Florida, which DeSantis is highlighting as the foundation of his campaign.

Trump, known for his reputation as a skilled dealmaker, can leverage this persona to resonate with GOP primary voters and further undermine DeSantis’s business record. The Trump campaign released a statement asserting that DeSantis’s “failed war on Disney” has had little positive impact on his struggling campaign and is now negatively affecting Florida’s economy. Another potential GOP primary candidate, former Vice President Mike Pence, also used the Disney controversy to criticize DeSantis, suggesting that the governor should have accepted the legislative victory regarding teaching gender issues in schools rather than escalating the conflict.

Read Also: Joe Biden Initiates 2024 Fundraising Marathon

The post DeSantis to Announce 2024 Presidential Bid in Twitter Event with Elon Musk appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Democratic President Joe Biden and Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy met face-to-face to address the pressing issue of raising the United States debt ceiling. The debt ceiling limits the government’s borrowing capacity to fulfill its financial obligations. However, resolving the impending debt crisis remains challenging as the government races toward the possibility of depleting its funds as early as June.

Despite the difficulties, McCarthy expressed optimism upon leaving the White House on Monday, stating that the tone of the discussions was the most positive they had had so far. He deemed the meeting productive. Patrick McHenry, a Republican representative from North Carolina and a negotiation team member, echoed this positive assessment.

During the press conference, McHenry acknowledged the challenging nature of previous meetings but expressed satisfaction with the productivity of the recent one. He mentioned that the meeting provided the negotiation team with additional crucial details required to formulate a comprehensive package that could secure approval from Congress.

Engaging in a sit-down meeting, President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy deliberated on the crucial matter of increasing the US debt ceiling, which restricts the federal government’s borrowing capacity to fulfill its financial obligations.#Biden #McCarthy #DebtCeiling pic.twitter.com/TP2DAxPEx2

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 23, 2023

McCarthy shared McHenry’s optimism, believing that reaching an agreement to raise the U.S. debt ceiling before the June deadline is attainable. However, he refrained from disclosing specific compromises or concessions either side might be willing to make. Emphasizing that no agreements have been reached yet, McCarthy hinted at ongoing discussions and indicated that negotiators would continue working tirelessly throughout the night to explore potential solutions.

Clash Over Spending and Taxation Heightens Impasse

In recent years, the United States has grappled with the perennial issue of the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling, which has become a focal point of political deadlock. Republicans advocate for reducing government expenditure by cutting back on social welfare programs, a proposal that many Democrats strongly oppose. Conversely, the Biden administration has consistently advocated for an unconditional increase in the debt ceiling, emphasizing the need for a “clean” solution.

Additionally, President Biden has urged affluent individuals and large corporations to contribute their fair share in taxes, aiming to enhance government revenue and address the national debt. However, these differing priorities have only heightened the impasse and intensified the political standoff.

Impending Default Looms as Treasury Secretary Urges Swift Action

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s third consecutive letter to Congress, issued on Monday, amplifies the urgency for prompt action. Yellen stressed that the United States government would likely default on its payments as early as June 1, a deadline that looms within a week and a half. Furthermore, she cautioned that the ongoing political impasse has already yielded tangible repercussions.

Yellen highlighted the significant increase in the Treasury’s borrowing costs for securities maturing in early June due to the deadlock. The Secretary emphasized that a failure to raise the debt limit would inflict severe hardship on American families, jeopardize the nation’s global leadership, and raise concerns about its ability to safeguard national security interests.

Economists have issued predictions indicating that a potential default by the U.S. government on its loans could have far-reaching consequences, including the risk of triggering a recession and causing a downgrade in the country’s credit rating. Such a scenario would lead to increased interest rates and place greater strain on the overall economy. Additionally, it would impact various segments of the population and businesses that depend on government funds. Veterans, Social Security recipients, and other people and enterprises could experience halted or delayed payments, further exacerbating their financial challenges.

Negotiation Hiccups and Altered Travel Plans

Prior to Monday’s meeting at the White House, intensive negotiations took place between representatives from President Biden’s and Speaker McCarthy’s teams to iron out crucial details. These discussions followed a tumultuous weekend of talks. On Friday, negotiations between White House advisers and congressional Republicans encountered a stalemate when McCarthy abruptly terminated the discussions.

He attributed the “pause” to frustrations with the lack of progress and communication with the White House. However, talks briefly resumed later that evening. Meanwhile, President Biden attended Japan’s Group of Seven (G-7) summit as part of a broader Pacific region trip, including planned visits to allied countries. Yet, amid criticism regarding his absence during critical debt negotiations, Biden’s team curtailed the trip, canceling the scheduled visits to Australia and Papua New Guinea.

As President Biden returned from Japan to Washington, DC, on Sunday, he engaged in a telephone conversation with McCarthy, reigniting the negotiations on the debt ceiling. Upon landing in the US, Biden informed reporters that the conversation had gone well and stated, “We’ll talk tomorrow.” Both sides expressed optimism following the discussion.

McCarthy echoed this positive sentiment, describing the call as “very productive” and expressing confidence in finding common ground. Building on the momentum from the phone call, negotiators convened for over two hours at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday night and continued their discussions for nearly three hours on Monday. These sessions were a foundation for the subsequent meeting between the two leaders.

Republicans Stand Firm on Existing Bill

In the aftermath of the White House meeting on Monday, McCarthy reasserted his opposition to a “clean” increase in the debt ceiling, emphasizing that he would only support raising the borrowing limit if government spending was constrained. He also dismissed the notion of reducing defense funding to control expenditures and rejected authorizing a short-term extension for the debt ceiling.

Republicans have proposed limiting spending for the upcoming fiscal year to 2022 levels, while the White House aims to maintain government expenditures at 2023. McCarthy expressed concerns that a short-term extension would undermine the perception of Congress fulfilling its responsibilities, stating, “I don’t think a short-term extension benefits anybody. If it’s a short-term extension, I think the country looks like we somehow failed and can’t do the job we’re supposed to do.”

One point of contention in the ongoing negotiations relates to the duration of a proposed spending cap. Republicans are advocating for a six-year cap, down from the current 10-year period. On the other hand, Democrats are seeking to limit spending to a two-year agreement, allowing government expenditures to adjust in line with inflation. Republican negotiators, including McHenry, continue to promote a bill passed by the House of Representatives in April.

This bill proposes raising the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion but comes with conditions that target key elements of President Biden’s domestic agenda. The bill aims to impose stricter work requirements for recipients of safety-net programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Additionally, it seeks to reverse a funding increase for the Internal Revenue Service, which is projected to generate more federal revenue.

Read Also: White House Settling the Debt Ceiling Crisis Through a Deal

The post Talks between Biden & McCarthy restart as US debt limit deadline looms appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

On Saturday, mercenaries belonging to the Wagner Group, a Russian private military contractor, declared a triumph in the eastern Ukrainian town of Bakhmut following an arduous eight-month battle. The pro-Moscow faction, for the most part, expressed great joy in successfully displacing the resilient Ukrainian defenders. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refuted the claims on Sunday, a Russian businessman and Wagner Chief Yevgeny Prigozhin claimed the contrary in a voice message to his extensive following of 420000 users on the messaging app Telegram.

In a voice message to his large following on Telegram, Prigozhin boldly asserted that the village of Bakhmut in Ukraine no longer harbors any Ukrainian soldiers. He claimed that refusing to take prisoners had resulted in numerous casualties among the Ukrainian military, with many corpses left behind. According to Prigozhin, Bakhmut had been fully captured within its legal bounders, down to the last centimeter.

Following an intense and protracted conflict lasting eight months, mercenaries affiliated with the Russian private military contractor known as the Wagner Group declared victory in the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut.#Bakhmut #Ukraine #Russia #WagnerGroup #UkraineRussiaWar pic.twitter.com/OJDf943twg

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 22, 2023

He accused Zelensky of being deceitful or uninformed about the ground reality, suggesting a lack of awareness among military leaders. A Telegram channel known as the Wagner Orchestra, self-identifying as “supporters” of the mercenary group, released a video showing Alexander “Ratibor” Kuznetsov, a bearded commander, hoisting the Russian and Wagner flags above the devastated city. In the footage, Kuznetsov can be heard using derogatory language targeting Ukrainians, instructing them to “go f*** themselves!”

Triumph Bakhmut Fuels Wagner Group’s Fan Base

A separate video was shared on the Wagner Orchestra channel showcasing a group of jubilant Wagner fighters firing their weapons into the sky, with a Wagner flag proudly fluttering in the background. Meanwhile, an article from the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti attributes any civilian casualties during the “liberation of Artemovsk” to Ukrainian forces. The article notes that prior to the conflict, the city had a population of over seventy thousand, but most residents had fled. According to the accounts of refugees, Ukrainian soldiers allegedly deliberately targeted civilians.

The article claims that despite Ukrainian propaganda, the capture of Fortress Bakhmut had indeed occurred, enabling Russian forces to advance toward the nearby town of Chasiv Yar. Andrey Medvedev, a former journalist and Moscow politician, expressed on Telegram that this victory is a significant step towards the ultimate triumph. He acknowledged the arduous and lengthy path still ahead, filled with setbacks and moments of doubt. But he emphasized the importance of remembering Bakhmut as a symbol of glory for the Russian soldier.

Strategic Concerns Amidst Bakhmut’s Capture

Igor Girkin, also known as Strelkov, a former Russian soldier and intelligence officer who led the initial uprising of east Ukrainian separatists in 2014-15, presents a contrasting view to Moscow’s claims of victory. With nearly 800,000 subscribers on Telegram, Strelkov paints a grim picture, stating that the capture of Bakhmut lacks tactical significance and is instead part of the Kremlin’s strategy to “freeze the conflict through a compromise agreement.”

As a staunch Russian nationalist, Strelkov expresses concerns that Moscow is not treating the conquest of Ukraine with sufficient seriousness. He asserts that the overall operation resulted in a strategic failure, with the enemy still present in most key areas of the Donbas region. He believes Russia aims to wear down the enemy until Kyiv and its Western allies consent to the retention of Crimea and Donbas.

Despite the claimed victory, Strelkov considers Bakhmut an unnecessary Pyrrhic triumph that consumed excessive resources, leaving the Russian side vulnerable to a potential Ukrainian counteroffensive. Strelkov highlights the depletion of weapon stockpiles, ammunition, and human resources, which are crucial for future offensive operations. According to him, Bakhmut received heightened attention in recent months to achieve some semblance of propaganda success and provide a momentary respite.

Putin Acclaims Russian Troops & Wagner Group for Seizing Bakhmut

According to a statement from the Kremlin quoted by the state news agency TASS, Vladimir Putin extended his congratulations to the assault units of Wagner and all service members from Russian armed forces who offered vital support and flank coverage during the operation to liberate the city. The Russian president also mentioned that individuals who displayed exceptional valor and commitment would receive commendations and awards.

Uncertainty Surrounds the Liberation of Bakhmut

Following a week of significant advances by Ukrainian forces on the northern and southern flanks of Bakhmut, conflicting claims have emerged regarding the city’s liberation. While Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin asserted earlier that Bakhmut had been captured, Ukrainian authorities denied the claim initially. Still, they had not responded immediately to the defense ministry’s statement.

Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Maliar posted on Telegram, describing the situation in Bakhmut as critical, with heavy fighting and Ukrainian troops maintaining defense in the city’s “Airplane area.” She mentioned that Ukrainian forces currently control specific industrial and infrastructure facilities nearby. However, independent verification of these claims by Al Jazeera was not possible.

Strategic Maneuvering and Symbolic Significance in Bakhmut

Whether Ukrainian forces have fully withdrawn from Bakhmut, they have been gradually retreating to concentrated positions on the city’s western periphery. Simultaneously, Ukrainian troops have gained significant territory to the north and south, pushing back Russian forces. Russia has acknowledged some territorial losses around Bakhmut but refuted Prigozhin’s assertions that the flanks defended by regular troops have collapsed.

According to Kyiv, its objective in Bakhmut has been to divert Russian forces from other fronts and engage them in the city. The aim is to inflict significant casualties on the Russians, weakening Moscow’s defensive positions in preparation for a major upcoming counteroffensive. On the other hand, Moscow has consistently asserted that capturing Bakhmut is crucial for advancing deeper into the Donbas region, which it claims to have annexed from Ukraine.

Despite launching an extensive offensive that failed to gain significant territory elsewhere, Bakhmut has remained the primary target. Yevgeny Prigozhin, while acknowledging the limited strategic importance of Bakhmut, recognizes its immense symbolic significance due to the staggering losses incurred in what has been Europe’s most devastating ground battle since World War II.

Read Also: G7 Considers Sanctions on Russia Over Ukraine War

The post Russians Rejoice as Bakhmut Fortress Reportedly Captured appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Russia’s isolation from sanctions is believed to be at its peak since the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, during which the country faced a blockade imposed by the World War I allies. As the Group of Seven (G-7) summit unfolds in Hiroshima, Japan, the consortium of affluent democrats is anticipated to intensify their measures to compel Moscow to cease its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.

While the current sanctions on Russia are among the most stringent ever imposed on a major economy, the G-7 still possesses significant leeway to escalate the pressure. However, divisions concerning crucial areas such as energy and the mixed effectiveness of sanctions, in general, pose a potential obstacle to the success of endeavors to bring Moscow under control.

As the G7 summit looms in Japan, a US official disclosed that the United States & other prominent economies will unveil new sanctions & export controls targeting Russia. These measures are designed to demonstrate the continued support of world powers for Ukraine.#Ukriane #Russia pic.twitter.com/GZgLZeQ7aP

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 19, 2023

Lukasz Rachel, a member of Stanford University’s International Working Group on Russian Sanctions member, highlighted ample room for the G-7 to impose additional restrictions and strengthen the current ones. According to Rachel, key areas that warrant attention include:

• Oil and Energy
• Expanding non-energy trade sanctions
• Closing loopholes in these areas
• Implementing technology-related sanctions

The G-7, comprising the United States, France, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany, is expected to prioritize reinforcing the enforcement of existing sanctions, specifically targeting the prevention of sanctions evasion involving third-party nations.

G-7 and E.U. Take Action to Strengthen Sanctions against Russia

During the G-7 summit, finance ministers and central bank governors issued a joint statement on Saturday, vowing to counter any attempts to evade and undermine their existing sanction measures. The European Union, although a non-enumerated member, is contemplating imposing penalties on companies that aid Russia in circumventing sanctions. This move would bring the E.U. closer to alignment with the U.S. sanctions regime.

In a T.V. interview with the Financial Times, Josep Borrell, the E.U.’s foreign policy chief, emphasized the need for the bloc to crack down on importing Indian petroleum products that rely on Russian oil. Additionally, the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden is actively pushing for stricter controls on high-tech exports by reversing the presumption and adopting a more restrictive approach, authorizing only explicitly permitted items.

Resilience amid Sanctions

Russia’s economy has defied predictions of collapse, showing greater resilience than anticipated despite the sanctions imposed by Western nations. In 2022, the country’s economy contracted by a modest 2.1 percent, defying expectations of a severe decline. While trade between Russia and G-7 countries has experienced a significant decline, China, India, and Turkey have stepped in to fill the gap by increasing their imports of Russian coal, oil, and gas.

Notably, specific research indicates the involvement of Western shipping companies in violating sanctions on Russian energy exports. The latest study by the Kyiv School of Economics revealed that during the first quarter of 2023, approximately 96 percent of oil shipments from the Russian port of Kozmino were sold above the $60 oil price cap the Group of Seven set in the previous year.

Agathe Demarais, the global forecasting director of the Economist Intelligence Unit, emphasized that the summit’s focus would primarily be on implementation, implementation, and implementation in the realm of sanctions. Demarais highlighted recent media reports drawing attention to sanctions evasion by third countries, including Turkey, Serbia, Kazakhstan, and the UAE.

Rather than reducing the oil price cap, the G-7 aims to strengthen this measure’s effective enforcement. However, Demarais, also the author of the book “Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests,” expressed uncertainty about the G7’s ability to close these loopholes effectively, given the extent of the problem and the Kremlin’s resourcefulness in evading sanctions.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Sanctions

The G-7 faces the challenge of evaluating the limited effectiveness of sanctions in bringing about change in Russia and other isolated nations like North Korea and Cuba. In a state-of-the-nation address commemorating the first anniversary of the Ukraine war in February, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed a long-term approach, envisioning gradual successes.

Kristy Ironside, a historian specializing in the Soviet Union and modern Russia at McGill University in Canada, expressed a generally pessimistic view based on historical evidence regarding the efficacy of sanctions. Ironside highlighted that sanctions are often viewed skeptically as they are perceived as a means to take action when natural alternatives, such as military intervention, are undesirable.

“Sanctions are most effective when there is significant existing economic integration or desired economic cooperation, but such conditions have been limited since 2014,” Ironside stated. She highlighted that Russia has been making its economy resilient to sanctions, including developing domestic food chains and diversifying its currency reserves into yuan.

Ironside added that the application of sanctions and the prospect of further sanctions have failed to deter Putin from continuing the war in Ukraine, leading her to believe that they will not have a significant impact. However, Rachel, a member of the Russian sanctions group at Stanford University, argued that sanctions have already affected Russia’s military campaign, and the G-7 should intensify efforts to support Ukraine and weaken the Russian state.

Rachel acknowledged the difficulty of precisely assessing the impact of sanctions. Still, he emphasized that the direction of their impact is evident: the war has proven disastrous for Russia and the Kremlin, and with increased Western support, it will eventually lead to a devastating defeat.

Read Also: Ukraine Tells China Envoy: Protect Territory, No Concessions to Russia

The post G7 Considers Sanctions on Russia Over Ukraine War appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

During a meeting in Kyiv, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba conveyed to China’s special representative for Eurasian affairs, Li Hui, that Ukraine would not entertain any peace proposals that would result in territorial loss or a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict with Russia. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry stated that Kuleba discussed various approaches with Li to halt Russian aggression.

According to the statement, Foreign Minister Kuleba emphasized that achieving a “just peace” in Ukraine hinged upon upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Kuleba asserted that Ukraine categorically rejects any suggestions that could lead to relinquishing its territories or temporarily suspending hostilities. The response from Li Hui to Kuleba’s remarks should have been disclosed. Li’s visit to Kyiv, which spanned Tuesday and Wednesday, aimed to advance Beijing-led negotiations for resolving the conflict.

The Ukrainian foreign ministry reported that during a meeting with a prominent Chinese envoy, Ukraine’s foreign minister clarified that Ukraine would reject any suggestions to end the war with Russia if they entailed territorial losses or conflict suspension.#Ukraine #China #war pic.twitter.com/FuyxtMUlfn

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 18, 2023

Li holds the highest diplomatic position among Chinese officials to visit Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022. This visit occurred three weeks after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Additionally, the Kyiv Independent media organization reported the appointment of a new Ukrainian ambassador to China on the same day. Prior to the Chinese envoy’s arrival, officials in Kyiv had cautioned against unnecessary mediation efforts.

Ukraine Stands Firm Against Compromises, Chinese Envoy Seeks Political Solutions

Ukraine’s anonymous senior official firmly stated that reaching a compromise that would sacrifice Ukraine’s interests is an impractical approach to ending the war, as reported by the French news agency “Agence France-Presse.” The Chinese government stated that the envoy’s visit was to engage in dialogue with all relevant parties regarding the political resolution of the Ukrainian crisis.

Chinese President Xi, who positioned China as a neutral mediator and visited Moscow in March, has faced criticism for refraining from condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent 15-month-long war. The Chinese envoy, Li, is now scheduled to travel to Moscow, as announced by Chinese authorities, followed by visits to Poland, Germany, and France. These visits aim to explore potential political solutions to the ongoing conflict.

It is noteworthy that China extended political support to Moscow throughout the conflict. Recently, officials in Beijing decided to instruct foreign embassies to remove what they deemed “propaganda” displayed at their diplomatic missions. This move is a possible reference to expressions of support for Ukraine.

The European Union spokesperson revealed that on May 8, the Protocol Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry circulated a note to all diplomatic missions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to Chinese laws and regulations and refraining from utilizing embassy walls for politically motivated propaganda to prevent disputes between nations. However, the note fails to provide specific details regarding what actions would be classified as “politicized propaganda.” According to the EU spokesperson, it does not provide further clarification on the matter.

Support for Ukraine Amid Limited Prospects for Negotiated Peace

Diplomats based in Beijing have reported that Ukrainian flags and placards exhibited by embassies such in Canada, France, Germany, and others are among the few visible public displays apart from tourism advertisements. Countries lending support to Ukraine perceives limited possibilities for a negotiated peace, primarily due to Russia’s steadfast pursuit of its war objectives.

The Kremlin’s demand for Kyiv to recognize Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and Ukrainian regions, including Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhia, further diminishes the likelihood of successful negotiations. The majority of nations have condemned these actions as illegal. Ukraine firmly rejects these demands and has categorically stated that it will not negotiate with Russia until its troops completely withdraw from all occupied territories.

President Zelensky’s comprehensive 10-point peace plan also advocates for establishing an international tribunal to hold Russia accountable for its acts of aggression and invasion. During his recent visit to Italy, Zelensky expressed skepticism about certain countries attempting to mediate between Ukraine and Russia to end the war, emphasizing the necessity of a “just peace” based on Ukraine’s own proposed framework.

Zelensky highlighted that Russia initiated the war, resulting in loss of life and significant challenges across multiple fronts, including nuclear, environmental, food, and energy concerns. Ukraine, directly affected by the conflict, possesses a unique understanding of the situation and its complexities.

Ukraine’s Law-Based Peace Plan Gains Support, African Leaders Mission Proposed

“We have put forth a plan grounded in law, upholds the principles of the UN Charter and international law, and respects the values and well-being of the people,” stated President Zelensky, as per a transcript available on the official website of the President of Ukraine. Several countries from Africa, Brazil, and the Vatican have supported peace negotiations.

On Tuesday, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that Putin and Zelensky had mutually agreed to host an “African leaders peace mission” in Moscow and Kyiv, respectively. The proposed discussions would involve a delegation of leaders from six African countries, who would convene to explore potential avenues for a peace plan. However, Ramaphosa did not provide specific details regarding the timeframe or parameters for these potential peace talks.

Read Also: Ukraine reports that Russia’s Wagner group has not withdrawn from Bakhmut

The post Ukraine Tells China Envoy: Protect Territory, No Concessions to Russia appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Special counsel John Durham has finally released a much-anticipated report that strongly criticizes the FBI’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign. According to the report, the FBI relied on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” fueling the ongoing partisan debate surrounding potential politicization within the FBI and the Justice Department.

Former President Donald Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, appointed Durham in 2019 to reexamine the efforts made by government agents in uncovering possible connections between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian interference in the election. The appointment of Durham, essentially an investigator tasked with reinvestigating the initial investigators, received substantial criticism from present and former law enforcement officials.

The conclusive report from special counsel John Durham was unveiled on Monday, presenting a critical examination of the FBI’s choice to initiate a comprehensive probe into potential ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.#DurhamReport #Durham #Trump pic.twitter.com/bGzGcxZmUB

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 17, 2023

Nearly four years after the commencement of Durham’s assignment, the report’s release is likely to be met with criticism from Democrats who may view it as the conclusion of a partisan endeavor. On the other hand, GOP will need to grapple with the implications of an extensively publicized investigation that has incurred over $6.5 million for taxpayers yet failed to result in any criminal convictions.

Despite Trump’s prior anticipation that Durham would uncover the “crime of the century,” he claimed victory on Monday through a social media post, suggesting that the report revealed a scam perpetrated on the American public, akin to the ongoing deception orchestrated by those who oppose the pursuit of greatness for America.

Durham Report Highlights Contrasting Treatment of Trump and Clinton Campaigns by the FBI

The recently released Durham report sheds new light on the FBI’s handling of the Trump and Clinton campaigns investigations. While some of the FBI’s actions had previously been addressed in a 2019 report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which didn’t uncover evidence of intentional misconduct, the Durham report takes a more critical stance.

The report highlights that although the FBI alerted Clinton’s team about potential foreign influence, no similar defensive briefing was provided to the Trump campaign before initiating the investigation. This differential treatment of the two campaigns forms a central aspect of the report’s findings. It argues that the FBI displayed a sense of urgency in probing the Trump campaign under the codename “Crossfire Hurricane” while proceeding cautiously with allegations about then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

According to Durham’s report, the FBI’s handling of the case was deemed “seriously deficient,” leading to significant damage to the agency’s reputation. The report states that this failure could have been avoided if FBI personnel had not embraced “seriously flawed information” and had instead adhered to their principles of objectivity and integrity.

Durham points to instances of confirmation bias within the FBI, such as proceeding with the investigation despite a lack of corroborating information from the Intelligence Community, disregarding exonerating evidence related to key suspects, and failing to substantiate any significant allegations from the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele regarding Trump. These examples underscore the report’s criticism of the FBI’s case handling.

Durham’s Special Counsel Appointment and Mixed Results of the Police

The appointment of Durham as a special counsel by Barr was highly unusual, as he was essentially tasked with investigating the work conducted by the prior special counsel, Rebert S. Mueller III. However, Durham’s probe yielded limited success in court proceedings. Two individuals who faced charges were ultimately found not guilty, while a former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to tampering with an email to assist a colleague in preparing a court application for surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser.

Following the second acquittal, calls emerged from Democrats and certain legal professionals urging the DOJ to close Durham’s office, deeming it a waste of taxpayer funds and time. The report, released on Monday, revealed that Durham and his team conducted an extensive investigation, including over 480 interviews, examination of more than one million documents, execution of seven search warrants, and insurance of over 190 subpoenas with the assistance of a grand jury.

The report concluded with a concise recommendation for the FBI to establish a dedicated role within the organization – a position held by an FBI agent or lawyer – to oversee politically sensitive investigations. This individual would be responsible for meticulously scrutinizing every aspect of such investigations, ensuring that officials have adhered to the regulations governing applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), which handles matters concerning national security.

Following the inspector general’s critical report in 2019, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray introduced numerous changes within the agency. Given the intense political debates surrounding the FBI since the 2016 election, these reforms were implemented to address concerns and enhance operational integrity.

Durham Report Sent to Attorney General and Congress, No Classified Information Included

Special Counsel Durham suis report to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday. The senior FBI officials in charge of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation departed from the agency several years ago. However, they have consistently maintained that the bureau was responsible for investigating the allegations concerning the Trump campaign.

Subsequently, Garland shared the report with key Senate and House judiciary committee members on Monday afternoon, as confirmed by a Justice Department official. Notably, the report does not contain classified information, and Garland assured lawmakers that he released the report without any additional edits, redactions, or modifications. While a classified appendix spanning 29 pages was not provided to Congress, Garland expressed his willingness to arrange for members to have access to it for review.

In response to the report, the FBI issued a statement acknowledging the scrutiny of the conduct investigated by Durham during the years 2016 and 2017. The FBI emphasized that the current leadership has already implemented numerous corrective measures, which have been in effect for a significant period.

The statement further noted that had these reforms been in place in 2016, the identified missteps highlighted in the report could have been prevented. The FBI underscores the significance of maintaining the agency’s commitment to conducting its work with the utmost diligence, objectivity, and professionalism, in line with the expectations and rightful demands of the American people.

Read Also: GOP Jim Jordan Sued by District Attorney Prosecuting Trump

The post FBI’s 2016 Trump Campaign Probe Receives Strong Criticism in Durham Report appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

During his speech at a historically Black university’s graduation ceremony on Saturday, President Biden declared that white supremacy poses the gravest terrorist threat to the United States. In doing so, he brought to the forefront an issue that has already become a significant part of his campaign for a second term. Reflecting on his decision to run for the presidency after witnessing white supremacists marching in Charlottesville in 2017, Biden warned that the country is still engaged in a “battle” against nefarious forces that seek to turn back time to more divisive periods.

During his address to Howard University graduates, President Biden acknowledged that progress toward justice is often met with fierce opposition from the most deep-rooted and malicious sources. Biden commented after citing former President Donald Trump’s ambiguous response to the 2017 Charlottesville rally without explicitly calling him or any other Republican rivals out by name.

The message Biden conveyed was clear. It comes at a time when many prominent Republicans – including those currently competing for the GOP presidential nomination – argue that America’s focus on racial inequality has gone too far. In his speech, Biden emphasized that hatred never truly disappears and that it is crucial to maintain the fight for social justice.

Biden Addresses Criticism of Diversity Initiatives and Critical Race Theory

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and others have criticized the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion embraced by many institutions and attacked critical race theory, which examines how race is embedded in society. They argue that such initiatives portray America negatively and unfairly label all White people as racist. During his speech on Saturday, President Biden seemed to directly confront this sentiment by acknowledging that American history is not a fairy tale.

He explained that the nation has been in a constant battle for over 240 years, oscillating between the American ideal of equality for all and the harsh reality of racism that has long divided society. Biden emphasized that the battle is ongoing and that the country must strive toward a more just and equitable future.

Former President Donald Trump, currently leading the Republican presidential field, made several racially charged comments during his time in the White House, including telling four congresswomen of color in 2019 to return to “the broken and crime-infested places from which they came.” While President Biden has consistently spoken out against racism in American society, his remarks on Saturday held particular significance due to the speech’s venue. With his reelection campaign potentially facing some tough challenges, the 80-year-old president sought to appeal to young voters of color, who played a crucial role in his 2020 victory but have since shown a slight decrease in their support, as indicated by public opinion polls.

Biden Emphasizes Accomplishments and Defends Black Americans against Republicans

President Biden has been actively reaching out to Black voters recently, highlighting his accomplishments and promises to the community that helped propel him into office. In his reelection announcement video, he prominently featured Vice President Harris and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to hold those positions, as examples of his commitment to diversity and representation.

During his Saturday at Howard University speech, Biden reiterated his accomplishments and cast himself as a defender of Black Americans against Republican politicians. His highly political commencement address highlighted the contrasting views of the two parties on the current state of America. Republicans have accused the country of becoming overly politically correct, while Biden argues that the nation has made significant progress but still faces persistent racism. Biden emphasized the need for continued vigilance and effort to achieve true equality and justice.

During his commencement address at Howard University, President Biden criticized opponents who he claims have taken steps to ban books about Black history, rolled back his administration’s efforts towards student debt relief, and failed to address the increasing political violence. He pledged to continue combating white supremacy, which he has previously singled out as the most significant terrorist threat to the United States.

After highlighting his commitment to combating white supremacy, Biden received applause from the audience, primarily Black students and their families. He clarified that he is not making these statements because he is at a historically Black college and university (HBCU) but because he believes it essential for all Americans to recognize and address the issue.

Republican Backlash to Biden’s Remarks on Racism

The comments made by President Joe Biden about racism and white supremacy drew criticism from Republicans, who argue that such statements only exacerbate racial divisions. The Republican National Committee (RNC) took to Twitter to post a video titled “Joe Biden’s Racism Problem,” which included several instances of the President making gaffes while discussing race over the years.

A researcher for the RNC, Jake Schneider, tweeted that “nobody stokes more division than Joe Biden.” The issue of race has become a contentious topic in the presidential race. If he is reelected, Trump recently suggested that he consider pardoning the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump referred to the predominantly white insurrectionists as “great people” while labeling the Black police officer who fatally shot one of the rioters a “thug.”

As he positions himself for a potential presidential run, DeSantis has actively opposed diversity initiatives in Florida and even refused to offer an Advanced Placement course on African American history. Republicans have shown discomfort with being linked to the label of “white supremacy,” often dismissing the concerns over extremists and portraying Democratic criticisms as politically motivated attacks on Republicans who support Trump.

Read Also: Joe Biden Initiates 2024 Fundraising Marathon

The post Biden Warns Howard Graduates that White Supremacy is the Top Terror Threat in the US appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

On Friday, Elon Musk, Tesla SpaceX, announced that he had selected Linda Yaccarino, a seasoned media executive, as the new CEO of Twitter, fulfilling a promise he made to step back from the role. In a tweet, Musk expressed his excitement about the appointment and indicated that Yaccarino would primarily oversee business operations while he focused on product design and new technology. The CEO’s appointment news came on the same day that Yaccarino announced her departure from NBCUniversal, where she had served as the Chairman of Global Advertising and Partnerships.

I am excited to welcome Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO of Twitter!@LindaYacc will focus primarily on business operations, while I focus on product design & new technology.

Looking forward to working with Linda to transform this platform into X, the everything app. https://t.co/TiSJtTWuky

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 12, 2023

Yaccarino expressed her gratitude towards Comcast NBCUniversal on Friday as she announced her departure. She described her team as incredible and highlighted their transformative work within the industry. Taking on the CEO role of Twitter, Yaccarino will inherit a range of challenges that have accumulated during Musk’s tenure, such as advertiser departures, service disruptions, regulatory scrutiny, and increased competition.

As previously announced, Musk will serve as the executive chairman and CTO and remains the platform’s owner. Although he will step back from the CEO role, Musk is expected to maintain substantial control over the company’s future direction. On the other hand, Musk’s controversial policies and statements have estranged some longtime Twitter users.

In a move to revive Twitter’s fortunes, Elon Musk has announced that Linda Yaccarino, the former head of advertising at NBCUniversal, will be taking on the CEO role at the social media company.#TwitterCEO #Twitter #Elon_Musk #LindaYacarino #Yaccarino #TwitterCEOYaccarino #Musk pic.twitter.com/LI6wMBT9jc

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 13, 2023

Yaccarino – A Seasoned Media Executive

Although Elon Musk has been critical of mainstream media and advertising in the past, Linda Yaccarino’s background represents both worlds. With over 11 years at NBCUniversal, she has returned to the company where she began her career as a college intern. Before that, she was COO of Advertising Sales, Marketing, Executive Vice President, and Acquisitions at Turner Broadcasting, including CNN.

At NBCUniversal, Yaccarino leads a global team of 2,000 employees, as noted on her company profile. This team is larger than the current number of Twitter employees, which Musk stated in a recent BBC interview has been reduced to 1500 following several rounds of layoffs during his tenure. Yaccarino’s leadership of NBCUniversal’s ad sales team has been highly successful., generating $100 billion in ad sales since her appointment in 2011, according to her profile.

Yaccarino’s most notable achievement at NBCUniversal has been her creation of unified ad sales teams, which replaced the previous approach of having 15 different sales teams approach the same advertisers. She has also spearheaded strategic partnerships with numerous new media companies like Twitter, Apple News, Buzzfeed, Snapchat, and YouTube. In a recent industry conference, Yaccarino and Musk presented a joint session called “Twitter 2.0: From Conversations to Partnerships.”

NBCUniversal’s loss of Yaccarino comes at an inopportune time for the company. Ad revenues have declined across the media industry, resulting in cost-cutting measures and layoffs at many companies. Although NBCUniversal has also undergone some job cuts, they have not been as extensive as some competitors. As part of their efforts to secure advertising commitments for the latter part of the year, media companies, including NBC, are scheduled to deliver “upfront” presentations to advertisers next week. NBC’s session is slated for Monday morning.

Women in Leadership Roles at Musk’s Companies

It’s not unprecedented for a woman to lead one of Elon Musk’s companies. Gwynne Shotwell, for example, serves as president and COO of SpaceX. Although Musk holds the CEO title, some credited Shotwell as a key factor in SpaceX becoming the world’s most successful commercial rocket company. Meanwhile, Robyn Denholm serves as chairman of Tesla, a role she assumed after the SEC required Musk to step down when he tweeted that he had secured funding to bring the firm private, a claim he had not yet substantiated. While Denholm has maintained a low profile at Tesla and did not speak at a recent investor day, 15 other Tesla executives, including Musk, did present.

Linda Yaccarino’s Appointment Could Address Twitter’s Advertiser Exodus

The appointment of Yaccarino as the new CEO could be seen as Musk acknowledging the boundaries of his efforts to make Twitter less dependent on advertising. Twitter has faced an exodus since Musk purchased the company in October, with many advertisers leaving the platform. Before Musk’s purchase, ad sales represented over 90% of the company’s revenue. However, since then, 625 of the top 1,000 Twitter advertisers have reportedly pulled their ad dollars, including major brands such as Unilever, Jeep, Coca-Cola, Merck, and Wells Fargo.

In recent months, many advertisers have been concerned with Twitter’s direction under Musk’s leadership. Staff cuts, the apparent rise of hate speech, and controversial policy decisions like inviting previously banned users back to the platform have all contributed to a growing exodus of advertisers. According to Pathmatics by Sensor Tower data, the monthly revenue from those top 1,000 advertisers plummeted by over 60% from October through January 25, from around $127 million to just over $48 million.

He has previously suggested that the key to improving ad sales is to focus on the relevance of ads to users. While Musk has attempted to increase revenue through a subscription model and charging for verified accounts, these efforts have failed. General Motors, for example, has paused its advertising on Twitter while it evaluates the platform to succeed” As a result, Musk will likely need to prioritize rebuilding Twitter’s relationships with advertisers and strengthening its core advertising business.

Impact of CEO Search on Tesla’s Shares

The announcement of the search for a new CEO for Twitter came just before Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Since Musk’s initial interest in buying Twitter, Tesla’s share price has taken a hit. Investors have expressed concern that his preoccupation with the social media platform has diverted his attention from Tesla’s business operations. Tesla’s stock closed Thursday at 55% below where it was 13 months ago when Musk first revealed his purchase of a 9% stake in Twitter. Although Tesla’s stock initially rose by 3% in early trading on Friday, it lost most of that gain shortly after the market opened.

Analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush believes that Elon Musk leaving his position as CEO of Twitter earlier than expected is good news for both Tesla and SpaceX, as it means Musk can devote more time to his other ventures. Twitter users could also welcome this development, as Musk promised to find a new CEO to run the social media platform after most participants in a Twitter poll voted that he should give up the job. In December, he jokingly said he would name a replacement “as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job!”

Read Also: Elon Musk Lifts Ban on Trump’s Twitter Account

The post Musk Chooses NBCU’s Yaccarino as Twitter’s New CEO appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

The highly controversial U.S. policy of eliminating asylum seekers at the Mexican border has officially ended as the Biden administration prepares for an expected increase in arrivals. The Title 42 public health order, utilized to deny entry to over 2.8 million asylum seekers since March 2020, formally expired on Thursday at 11:59 pm. With the expiration of this order, the U.S. government can no longer use public health as a reason to expel migrants seeking asylum.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump introduced Title 42 at the Mexican border, citing the need to control the spread of COVID-19. This decision has been welcomed by human rights groups who had criticized the policy, arguing that it violated international law and put vulnerable individuals at risk. However, some officials have expressed concern that ending Title 42 could lead to a surge of migrants at the border and exacerbate the ongoing immigration crisis.

Following widespread criticism, the U.S. has officially terminated its polarizing policy of turning away most asylum seekers at the border with Mexico. The Biden administration is now preparing for a possible increase in arrivals.#mexicoborder #Title42EndsThursday #Title42ends pic.twitter.com/3sFVLfJQr1

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 12, 2023

Opposition Against the Border Policy

The Title 42 policy has ended now, coinciding with the conclusion of the federal COVID-19 public health emergency on May 11. The current U.S. administration, led by President Joe Biden, has deployed more troops and resources to the US-Mexico border in anticipation of a possible influx of migrants seeking asylum. Despite some concerns about a potential surge, the decision to end the controversial policy has been widely applauded by human rights organizations, who have condemned it as a violation of international law and a threat to the safety of vulnerable individuals.

The U.S. government recently announced a new regulation that will make the majority of refugees and asylum seekers arriving at the southern border with Mexico ineligible to seek asylum in the United States. The rule, which will go into effect after the expiration of Title 42, has sparked concerns among those seeking asylum. However, critics claimed that the policy was a tactic to restrict immigration. As a result, many individuals have hurried to cross the border in the days leading up to the end of Title 42, fearing that gaining entry into the U.S. will be significantly more challenging once the new policy takes effect.

Asylum Seekers Risk Crossing River to Reach U.S. Border

Human rights groups have criticized the Biden administration for the regulation, which they claim violates international laws regarding the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. On Wednesday, numerous individuals arrived in the Mexican border town of Matamoros, opposite Brownsville, Texas. In addition, these individuals stripped off their clothes and carried plastic bags filled with clothes as they descended a steep bank and entered the river. One man was even seen carrying a baby in an open suitcase on his head.

Upon reaching the U.S. side, they changed into dry clothes and navigated through concertina wire. In an attempt to be allowed to stay legally and pursue their immigration cases in the immigration courts, many of them surrendered to authorities. However, given the backlog of cases in the immigration courts, the process of pursuing their cases could take years.

Human Rights Groups Criticism of the U.S. Government

Human rights groups have criticized the U.S. government for the long delays in the immigration court system, which they claim can prolong the suffering of vulnerable asylum seekers. On Wednesday, hundreds of people were spotted crossing the border wall in San Ysidro, California, opposite Tijuana, Mexico, waiting for U.S. authorities to process their cases. Among those present were families with young children and individuals from Colombia, Brazil, Afghanistan, and Turkey.

Despite the humanitarian aid provided, the long wait for processing by U.S. authorities can be arduous for these vulnerable individuals, and they may face many difficulties in seeking asylum. To help individuals keep warm in the freezing temperatures at night, members of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker charity, distributed silver reflective blankets. To keep themselves warm, some of the asylum seekers started campfires.

Angelica, an Indigenous woman from Colombia, hopes to claim asylum in the U.S. According to Al Jazeera, she spent two nights sleeping on the ground, hoping to secure asylum. She flew from Colombia to Mexico and climbed over the border wall in Tijuana. She stated that she was seeking asylum due to the threats she received from criminals in Colombia but was uncertain what would happen next at the border. For fear of reprisals, she did not want her last name to be used.

U.S. Defends Border Policies

Rights groups have advocated for the abolition of Title 42, but they also criticized the Biden administration for relying on policies that would prevent people fleeing desperate situations from seeking refuge. Most people seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border are escaping political instability, widespread violence, and socioeconomic problems in their home nations in South and Central America and nations like China, Turkey, and Russia.

According to Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo, reporting from the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, the U.S. policy shift is unlikely to deter individuals from attempting to flee Haiti, given the country’s widespread gang violence and hunger. Moreover, Al Jazeera reporter Teresa Bo, who is in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, reported on the increasing desperation among people seeking to leave the country amid widespread gang violence and hunger.

The population in Haiti is desperate to feel safe again. It is willing to take any possible measures to secure their safety. Bo further added that many people are unaware of Title 42 and are just trying to leave the country to feel safe. She also added that when they visited a government office on Wednesday, hundreds of people were waiting for their passports, which indicated their willingness to leave Haiti.

The Biden government has come under criticism for its policies, with some accusing it of failing to live up to its commitment to creating a more humane immigration system. However, the White House has defended its approach, stating that it is focused on “enforcement, deterrence, and diplomacy.” On Tuesday, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized that the administration has a multi-agency plan to humanely manage the situation at the border.

Read Also: House Republicans Propose Tighter Asylum Rules

The post Title 42 Officially Ends, Bringing Clarity to Confusion at the US-Mexico Border appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Congressman George Santos, who represents the 3rd district of New York, has recently pleaded not guilty to 13 federal charges. The charges include allegations of fraud related to Covid-19 unemployment benefits, misuse of campaign funds, and providing false information about his finances on House disclosure reports. After his court appearance, Santos was released on a $500,000 bond, as confirmed by the US Attorney’s Office in New York. In addition, he has been ordered to surrender his passport and will require permission to travel outside of Washington, DC, New York City, and Long Island.

On Wednesday, Republican politician George Santos faced seven charges of wire fraud, two counts of making materially untrue statements to the House of Representatives, and a single theft of public funds, three counts of money laundering. Following his arraignment, Santos held a press conference stating that he had been compliant throughout the investigation but referred to the indictment as a “witch hunt” and pledged to fight the charges against him.

The future of Congressman George Santos remains uncertain after he was charged with the above charges. Santos, who has faced previous calls for resignation due to his history of lies and fabrications, announced that he has no intention of stepping down from his seat and will still run for reelection in the upcoming year.

House Speaker Takes a Cautious Approach to Rep. Santos’ Future

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has stated that he will wait to call for Congressman George Santos’ resignation following his recent indictment on fraud charges. Speaking to CNN, McCarthy expressed concern over the allegations against Santos but stated that he would wait to see how the trial proceeds before making any decisions. However, he later indicated that he would not support Santos’ reelection bid due to the ongoing legal issues.

McCarthy confirmed that he would call for Congressman George Santos’ resignation if the Ethics Committee determined he broke the law. Santos is facing federal charges of soliciting campaign funds under pretense and misusing them for personal expenses. The indictment accuses Santos of carrying out a fraudulent political contribution solicitation scheme by setting up a company and misleading supporters to contribute funds to it under the pretense that the money would benefit his political campaign.

According to a statement by US Attorney Breon Peace, the allegations in the indictment portray Santos as using repeated dishonesty and deception to reach Congress and enrich himself. The statement further states that the Congressman solicited political contributions to benefit himself, falsely applied for pandemic-related unemployment benefits that should have gone to deserving New Yorkers, and lied to the House of Representatives.

The Indictment Alleges Fraudulent Covid-19 Unemployment Benefits Application by Santos

Congressman George Santos, who represents a district encompassing parts of Queens and Long Island, has been the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and multiple jurisdictions. According to a law enforcement source, he was arrested in Melville and taken to the Central Islip courthouse. While he has admitted to making false statements about his education and finances, he denies the more serious allegations against him and has not confessed to any crimes.

According to the indictment, Santos falsely claimed to be unemployed when he applied for a pandemic-related unemployment insurance program. Despite being employed at an investment firm and earning $120,000 annually, prosecutors allege that he received regular deposits except for one period in July and August 2020. The indictment claims that he worked at the firm between February 2020 and mid-April 2021.

However, because of his alleged repeated false assertions about the unemployment program, Santos received $24,744 in benefits. Although he has admitted to making some misleading claims, the Congressman has not admitted to any crimes and continues to deny the serious allegations. According to a law enforcement source, the Congressman was taken into custody in Melville and transported to the courthouse in Central Islip. He has been investigated in multiple jurisdictions and by the House Ethics Committee.

Santos Accused of Making False Statements on House Disclosure Reports

According to the indictment, Santos is accused of making false statements on multiple financial disclosure reports to the House of Representatives during his two congressional campaigns. Financial disclosures are required for all candidates running for Congress, and they must provide a complete picture of the candidate’s finances, including assets and income. Santos allegedly submitted two financial disclosures to the House during his first congressional race in 2020, which contained false statements.

Specifically, Santos reported that he had earned $55,000 in salary, commission, and bonuses from a company referred to as “Company #2” in the indictment. In addition, Santos falsely reported in his 2020 financial disclosure that he earned $55,000 in salary, commission, and bonuses from “Company #2.” However, prosecutors allege that he only received $27,555 from the company. Santos also neglected to disclose his salary from an unnamed investment firm. This pattern of behavior continued when Santos filed his 2022 financial disclosure, which he submitted for the election he won, according to the indictment.

The form indicated that he had earned $750,000 in salary from the Devolder Organization LLC, with unearned income that included dividends valued between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 in 2021 and 2022. Santos also declared that he did not have compensation exceeding $5,000 from a single source with an ownership interest. In addition, he claimed ownership of a checking account with deposits totaling between $100,001 and $250,000 and a savings account with deposits valued between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000.

The post Congressman George Santos Denies Fraud Charges in Court appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

A federal jury in Manhattan has found Donald Trump responsible for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store’s dressing room in 1996, awarding her $5 million in damages for both battery and defamation. According to Carroll, Trump raped her in the Bergdorf Goodman store, defaming her by denying the allegations and insinuating that she fabricated the story to sell her book.

Trump has denied all accusations. Although the verdict does not carry any jail time, it is significant because it confirms Trump’s responsibility for the abuse. The jury deemed the evidence sufficient to hold him accountable for the battery. However, the jury did not find that Carroll proved Trump had raped her. Last November, Carroll filed a lawsuit under the “New York State Adult Survivors Act,” which allows sexual assault victims to file lawsuits even if the statute of limitations has expired.

Trump did not appear at the trial, as he was not legally required to do so, and he also had the right not to testify in his own defense. Carroll called the verdict a triumph for herself and other abuse victims, stating, “Today, the world finally knows the truth.” Carroll also expressed that this victory is hers and for every woman who has ever suffered because their abuse allegations were not believed. She sued to clear her name and regain control of her life.

Trump Plans to Appeal Verdict in Carroll’s Lawsuit for Sexual Abuse and Defamation

Following the announcement of the verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, her lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, released a statement declaring that no one, not even a former President, is above the law. Meanwhile, Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social to denounce the verdict and announce his intention to appeal.

He called the ruling a disgrace and a “political witch hunt” while reiterating that he did not know who Carroll was. Trump’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, stated that the former president is prepared to proceed with the appeal, asserting that he cannot receive a fair trial in New York City based on the current jury pool.

Mixed Verdict in Carroll’s Lawsuit Against Trump as GOP Field Takes Shape

Following the verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, his attorney, Joe Tacopina, expressed confusion over the outcome, emphasizing that the jury had not found the former president liable for rape. Despite this, Carroll’s victory in the lawsuit could have implications for Trump’s political career as he eyes another run for the presidency in 2024.

Tacopina insisted that releasing the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in 2016 should not have been allowed as evidence and expressed confidence in his client’s appeal. However, as Trump faces mounting legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions, his ability to maintain his support base within the GOP may be tested in the coming months. So far, potential Republican rivals like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have avoided commenting on Trump’s legal troubles, including Carroll’s allegations of sexual abuse and a Manhattan probe into hush-money payments.

Jurors in Trump Sexual Assault Case Urged not to Reveal Identity

Following the verdict of the defamation case against former President Donald Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll, Judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed the jury and advised them that they could choose to identify themselves publicly but suggested they remain silent. The judge cautioned them, saying, “My advice is not to identify yourselves. Neither at present nor in the future. If you elect to speak to others and identify yourselves, I direct you not to identify anyone else who sat on this jury.”

After the jury in the sexual assault case against former President Trump delivered their verdict, Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them not to identify themselves or others publicly. Although they are now free to do so, he recommended they remain silent for some time. The judge emphasized that if they choose to speak about the case, they should not reveal the identities of their fellow jurors.

As the verdict was read, plaintiff E. Jean Carroll held onto the hand of Crowley and appeared relieved, exchanging smiles with him as the clerk read through each of the counts in her favor. Following the jury’s dismissal, Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina shook hands with Carroll and her legal team. Carroll and her lead attorney Kaplan embraced before exiting the courtroom.

Jean Carroll Testifies in Court Against Trump

Last week, during her testimony in court, E. Jean Carroll recounted in harrowing detail the events that took place in 1996. “I am here because the former president raped me, and when I announced it, he denied my claims,” Carroll stated. “He lied and destroyed my reputation, and I am here to try to get my life back,” Carroll admitted that she is a registered Democrat and holds strong negative opinions about Trump but insisted that her political views are irrelevant to her pursuit of justice in this case.

“I am not seeking revenge for political reasons,” Carroll declared. “I am seeking justice for personal reasons because he repeatedly called me a liar, which has ruined my reputation. As a journalist, the most important thing I have is the trust of my readers.” During the trial, Carroll’s attorney Michael Ferrara questioned why she didn’t speak out about her accusations when Trump first ran for president. In response, Carroll revealed that she had noticed an unsettling pattern where the more women who came forward to accuse Trump, the higher his approval ratings climbed.

During cross-examination, Trump’s defense lawyer, Tacopina, repeatedly asked Jean Carroll why she did not scream during the alleged attack, which lasted approximately three minutes. Carroll responded that she was too panicked to scream and that not all women scream during such incidents.

She added that women who don’t come forward with their experiences are often questioned about why they didn’t scream, which is why some women remain silent. In his closing argument, Tacopina acknowledged that Trump is a divisive figure but emphasized that jurors should focus solely on the evidence presented in court when reaching a verdict.

Read Also: Trump Faces Massive 34-Count Criminal Indictment

The post E. Jean Carroll Awarded $5 Million in a Civil Lawsuit Against Trump For Sexual Abuse appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Amidst a wave of mass shootings in Texas, a bill to increase the minimum age for purchasing a semiautomatic rifle from 18 to 21 has passed a Texas House committee in a surprise vote. The bill would prohibit people under 21 from purchasing semiautomatic rifles that have a detachable magazine and a caliber greater than .22. However, police officers and members of the military would be exempted from this age restriction. The bill was introduced by Democratic Rep. Tracy King, who represents Uvalde, the site of a mass shooting almost a year ago, killing 21 people. Below are some key facts about the new gun control bill.

A Texas House committee approved a bill to increase the minimum age for purchasing a semiautomatic rifle from 18 to 21, following pressure from the families of the Uvalde school shooting victims & a recent mass shooting near Dallas that killed eight people.#TexasMassacre #Texas pic.twitter.com/SWlT2Bmj1L

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 9, 2023

• The Republican-led committee advanced the bill to the state House with an 8-5 vote, indicating a surprising shift towards tightening gun laws in a state that has previously relaxed its gun restrictions
• The passing of the bill, though unlikely to become law in the GOP-dominated legislature, is seen as a positive step by gun control advocates
• The vote came in response to the mounting pressure from families of the victims of last year’s Uvalde school shooting and just two days after a gun violence incident that killed eight people near Dallas
• Texas has been a victim of numerous mass shootings in recent months, with 50 incidents recorded in 2022 alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
• The full Texas House must vote on the bill by Thursday to progress through the legislature

Protesters’ Demand Gun Control Measures

On Monday, protesters gathered at the Texas Capitol chanting “Raise the age,” while Democratic state senators held a press conference calling for the bill’s vote. According to multiple Texas news outlets, the surprise vote came on the last day for House bills to be voted out of the committee. The bill’s passing signifies an unexpected move towards gun control measures in a state with increased gun violence.

The bill was initially presumed dead after an overnight hearing in which committee members debated it in April. However, with mounting pressure from recent shootings, including the mass shooting on May 7th in Allen, Texas, that killed eight people at a shopping mall, the bill was passed. The Robb Elementary school shooting in Uvalde, which occurred almost a year ago, prompted families of the victims to advocate for the bill’s passage throughout the session.

Calls for Gun Reform

The shooting in Allen, Texas, has led to numerous calls for gun reform, including from President Joe Biden. He called on Congress to send him a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, saying, “Republican Members of Congress cannot continue to meet this epidemic with a shrug.” The passing of this bill is seen as a significant move towards addressing gun violence in Texas.

The move is a significant step toward gun control measures in Texas. Despite the bill’s uncertain fate in the GOP-dominated legislature, its passing signifies a change in attitudes towards gun laws in a state that has previously loosened its gun restrictions. With mounting pressure from families of the victims and recent shootings, there is hope that more gun control measures will be implemented in Texas to address the issue of gun violence.

What is the Texas Gun Control Bill?

The gun control bill to advance in the Texas House requires background checks for all firearm sales in the state. The House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee approved the bill on April 6th, 2021, and sent it to the Calendars Committee for scheduling.

Under the bill, all private gun sales in Texas would matter to a background check, closing what some have called the “gun show loophole.” The bill would also require gun sellers to keep records of all firearm transactions, which could help law enforcement agencies track guns used in crimes.

Texas History of Gun Violence

The push for gun control in Texas comes after a series of mass shootings that have rocked the state. In August 2019, a gunman killed twenty-two people and injured twenty-four others at a Walmart in El Paso. In November of the same year, a shooter killed two people and injured many others at a White Settlement church near Fort Worth. And in April 2021, eight people were killed in a gun shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis, including four from Houston.

Many Texans are calling for stricter gun laws in the state. According to a 2021 poll conducted by the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune in March 2021, 49% of Texans believe that gun laws in the state should be stricter, 23% believe they should be less strict, and 26% believe they should be left as they are.

Texas has a long history of gun ownership and is known for its pro-gun culture. The state has some of the most permissive gun laws in the U.S., including a law that allows citizens to carry firearms openly in public places without a permit. However, some Texans are now questioning whether the state’s lax gun laws have contributed to the recent surge in gun violence.

Opposition Against Gun Control Bill

Opponents of gun control argue that stricter gun laws would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. They also point out that many mass shooters illegally obtain guns or have untreated mental health issues. They argue that addressing these root causes of gun violence would be more effective than passing gun control laws.

Despite the controversy surrounding the issue, the fact remains that gun violence is a serious problem in Texas and throughout the United States. While there is no single solution to the mounting problem, many believe that a combination of measures, including stricter gun laws, better mental health care, and increased enforcement of existing gun laws, could help reduce gun violence and make communities safer.

Read Also: US House Approved ‘Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act’ After Buffalo Mass Shooting

The post Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Raise Minimum Age for Semiautomatic Rifle Purchase appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

Donald Trump, the former US president and a potential Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election, has declined the final opportunity to give testimony in a civil trial. The trial involves allegations made by an advice columnist, who claims that Trump raped her in a luxury department store’s dressing room in 1996. US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan had set a deadline of 05:00 pm local time (21:00 GMT) on Sunday for Trump to submit a request to testify. However, no such request was filed.

It was no surprise that Trump declined to testify in the New York City trial, which has been ongoing for two weeks. Throughout the trial, the writer E Jean Carroll has testified for several days, reiterating allegations she first made public in a memoir published in 2019. The jury has also viewed extensive excerpts from a videotaped deposition by Trump in October, during which he strongly denied ever raping Carroll or even knowing her. Carroll is seeking millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

In a significant development in a civil trial, Trump has chosen not to testify in response to allegations made by a well-known advice columnist. The plaintiff claimed the former president raped her in a high-end department store’s dressing room in 1996.#Trump2024 #trumpisguilty pic.twitter.com/jaGmTNWxJB

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 8, 2023

Trump’s Legal Team Rests Case Without Calling Witnesses or Seeking Testimony

As Trump refused to testify in the trial, closing arguments were scheduled for Monday, with the jury expected to begin deliberations on Tuesday. Following the plaintiffs resting their case on Thursday, Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina chose not to call any witnesses and immediately rested the defense case. He did not ask for an extension of time to allow Trump to reconsider testifying. Tacopina refused to comment to the Associated Press news agency after the deadline expired on Sunday.

Last Thursday, Judge Kaplan allowed Trump additional time to reconsider and make a request to testify, although he did not guarantee that he would grant such a bid to reopen the defense case. This was after Kaplan became aware of reports that Trump had told journalists during a visit to his golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland, that he would “probably attend” the trial. Trump also criticized Kaplan, whom he referred to as an “extremely hostile” and “rough judge” appointed by Bill Clinton, stating that the judge “doesn’t like me very much.”

During her testimony on the witness stand, 79-year-old E Jean Carroll claimed that 76-year-old Donald Trump raped her in 1996 when they met at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance, a department store in midtown Manhattan. According to Carroll, the encounter started as a playful and flirtatious outing, with Trump convincing her to help him to choose a gift for another woman. However, she alleged that they eventually ended up in the store’s lingerie section, which was deserted then. There, they playfully urged each other to try on a see-through bodysuit.

Conflicting Accounts of Alleged Rape at Bergdorf Goodman

According to Carroll’s testimony, she and Trump continued to laugh and joke around as they entered a dressing room. Still, things turned dark when Trump suddenly became violent, slamming her against a wall and forcibly removing her tights before raping her. Carroll said she kneed Trump in the groin and fled the store after the assault. However, in his deposition, Trump denied the accusations, calling them a “false, disgusting lie” fabricated by a nut job trying to increase sales of her book. He also reiterated previous statements that Carroll was not his type, stating unequivocally, “She’s not my type, and that’s 100 percent true.”

In addition to denying E Jean Carroll’s allegations of rape, Trump has faced criticism for his controversial comments about sexual assault. In a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video, Trump bragged that as a celebrity, he could grab ladies by the genitals without their consent. When confronted about the comments during his presidential campaign, Trump dismissed them as “locker room talk.” Carroll filed a lawsuit against Trump in November, shortly after New York state enacted a law allowing victims of sexual assault to sue even if the attacks occurred years earlier.

In a letter to the judge on Sunday, Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer representing Carroll, expressed her concerns over Trump’s social media posts on April 26, in which he called the allegations against him a “made-up SCAM.” Kaplan also pointed out that Trump had made disparaging remarks about the trial while in Ireland just three days ago. The judge, unrelated to Kaplan, had previously criticized Trump’s comments on Truth Social as “highly inappropriate” and warned that he might be trying to influence the jury.

Read Also: GOP Jim Jordan Sued by District Attorney Prosecuting Trump

The post Trump Refuses to Give Testimony in New York Rape & Defamation Trial appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.

The Ukrainian military has rejected statements by the leader of the Wagner mercenary force in Russia, who claimed that his fighters would withdraw from the conflict in Bakhmut. It was reported on Friday that the Wagner group is strengthening its presence in Bakhmut, likely in an attempt to capture the city before Russia celebrated the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II on May 9th. According to the military, the mercenaries continue to hold their positions and even receive reinforcements.

According to Hanna Maliar, Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister, the Wagner fighters are being withdrawn from the entire offensive line, where they were deployed and relocated to the Bakhmut direction. Maliar made this revelation during an appearance on Ukrainian television. In a video statement, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner group, claimed that his men were running low on ammunition due to neglect by Russia’s defense ministry. Prigozhin said he would withdraw his fighters from Bakhmut and expected the Russian army to replace them by May 10th.

On Sunday, the Wagner mercenary group of Russia announced that they had abandoned their previous plans to retreat from Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine. They claimed that Moscow had promised to provide them with additional weapons.#Bakhmut #Bakhmut_2023 #WagnerGroup #Russia #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/gsjpzjN2G1

— News Live (@NewsLiveFree) May 8, 2023

In a video statement, Yevgeny Prigozhin stated that his fighters in Bakhmut would not be subjected to unjustified losses due to a lack of ammunition. The written statement detailed that despite knowing that Wagner’s objective was to capture the city by May 9th, when Moscow celebrates Victory Day, supplies had been held back by “bureaucrats.” Prigozhin addressed his withdrawal announcement to the head of the Russian general staff, the defense ministry, and President Vladimir Putin, who he called the supreme commander.

Wagner Group’s Withdrawal from Bakhmut Disputed by Ukraine

The battle for Bakhmut is considered a crucial point for Russia to gain access to other cities in Ukraine’s Donbas region. The conflict has been marked by intense urban warfare, leading to the loss of thousands of lives on both sides. Despite Yevgeny Prigozhin’s claims of withdrawal, Andriy Chernyak, Ukraine’s military intelligence representative, stated that they have not seen any indications of Wagner forces leaving Bakhmut. Chernyak made this statement in an interview with RBK-Ukraine news agency. Moreover, Ukraine’s military contradicted Prigozhin’s allegations that Russian forces stationed in Bakhmut lacked ammunition.

The Ukrainian army spokesperson, Serhii Cherevatyi, announced that 520 artillery rounds were fired in the Bakhmut area daily. Cherevatyi dismissed Prigozhin’s explanation of a lack of ammunition as an excuse for the significant loss of life among his forces, reportedly more than 100 per day. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov refrained from commenting on Prigozhin’s withdrawal threat, stating it was a military matter.

Earlier the same day, Yevgeny Prigozhin was photographed standing among corpses he claimed were his Wagner fighters. He was seen shouting insults directed at Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov. Prigozhin held Shoigu and Gerasimov accountable for the “tens of thousands of Wagner dead and injured” and demanded they take responsibility.

Illusion and Deception

Military experts have pointed out that Yevgeny Prigozhin’s eruptions should be taken with some salt, given his track record of using smoke and mirrors to deceive. Kimberly Marten, an expert in Russian security affairs at Barnard College and Columbia University, said that Prigozhin and his mercenaries are integral to Russian military intelligence, so their statements cannot be trusted. Marten added that no military commander would reveal their plans to the enemy, especially not five or six days in advance.

Military experts caution that Yevgeny Prigozhin’s statements should be taken with a little salt as they are often veiled in deception. “This is all deception, and we are only speculating,” said Kimberly Marten, a Russian security expert at Barnard College and Columbia University. Meanwhile, Yohann Michel, an International Institute for Strategic Studies analyst, opined that Prigozhin’s announcement was an attempt to shift blame for the Wagner force’s inability to capture Bakhmut, indicating that their goal remained unattainable. Michel also questioned whether Prigozhin had the autonomy to withdraw his troops without Putin’s approval, adding that “if Putin wants him to be involved in combat, he will find a way to ensure that he does.”

Read Also: Pentagon Leak Forces Ukraine to Alter Military Plans

The post Ukraine reports that Russia’s Wagner group has not withdrawn from Bakhmut appeared first on NewsLive.com - LiveNewsNow.