FILE - In this Nov. 30, 2018, file photo, workers inspect an off-ramp that collapsed during a morning earthquake in Anchorage, Alaska. Seismologists announced Friday, March 8, 2019, the magnitude of Alaska's powerful Nov. 30 earthquake has been revised to 7.1 from the earlier magnitude 7.0. Alaska Earthquake Center officials say in a release that the change comes after quake data was reviewed by multiple agency and academic groups. (AP Photo/Mike Dinneen, File)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Seismologists announced Friday the magnitude of Alaska's powerful Nov. 30 earthquake has been revised to 7.1 from the earlier magnitude 7.0
Alaska Earthquake Center officials say in a release the change comes after quake data was reviewed by multiple agency and academic groups.
U.S. Geological Survey spokesman Paul Laustsen says the change was made under the auspices of the Advanced National Seismic System.
The earthquake buckled roads, and some homes and buildings sustained heavy damage. There have been thousands of aftershocks since.
Earthquake Center officials say deriving different magnitude estimates is not uncommon as new techniques or more analyses are applied.
They say Alaska's massive 1964 earthquake was eventually assigned a magnitude 9.2, but it was considered for many years to be a magnitude of 8.4 to 8.5.
An attorney in the $250-million lawsuit filed by a Covington Catholic High School student and his family against The Washington Post told Fox News the colossal damages being sought are “appropriate in this circumstance” – and hinted liberal comedian Bill Maher could soon be served.
The comments from Todd McMurtry last week on "America’s Newsroom" come as law experts are calling the suit – filed on behalf of 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann "by and through his parents" Ted and Julie Sandmann – everything from a “significant case” to one bound to be thrown out.
“Other commentators have sought to say that our damages are too high, but when you think about that those damages never go away and live on the Internet forever, I think they are appropriate in this circumstance,” McMurtry said.
Sandmann was at the center of a January firestorm when a viral video emerged showing a confrontation between Covington high schoolers wearing "Make America Great Again" hats and Native American activist Nathan Phillips at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Footage that later emerged and showed a more complete record of the encounter revealed the standoff didn't unfold as many had initially assumed.
Earlier this month, Sandmann's attorneys sent preservation letters to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities and politicians – including The New York Times, CNN, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and actors Alyssa Milano and Jim Carrey -- the first step in possible libel and defamation lawsuits.
The Washington Post lawsuit is the first of its kind. It was filed on behalf of Sandmann by attorneys Lin Wood and McMurtry, with the latter saying more “will continue to roll out over the next 30 to 60 days.” But the novel litigation also has many observers raising questions about the team's chance for success.
SANDMANN PLACED INTO NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT
One of the key issues threatening the suit's survival is whether or not Sandmann is a private figure, as his attorneys claim, or a limited-purpose public figure. That type of public figure was described by the Supreme Court in a 1974 ruling as someone who “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved” and therefore “invite attention and comment.”
The designation is important because, if Sandmann is ruled to be the latter, his attorneys will have to clear a higher bar and prove The Washington Post acted with actual malice against him when it published a “series of false and defamatory print and online articles” about the Covington incident, as opposed to simply proving the newspaper's negligence.
“First, Nick Sandmann is a private individual so we only have to prove negligence,” McMurtry said. “However, if a ruling were to be different and they were to consider him an involuntary public figure and we had to prove malice, we would be able to do that because the Washington Post is a weaponized news outlet that used its power and strength to destroy Nick Sandmann’s reputation."
He added: “And they did that without adequate and appropriate levels of journalistic integrity and reporting and that in itself is malicious. So, I feel comfortable with either standard.”
The lawsuit, filed in a Kentucky district court this week, accuses the newspaper of fanning the flames of the controversy, claiming it “effectively provided a worldwide megaphone to Phillips and other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the President."
Legendary lawyer Alan Dershowitz, currently a Felix Frankfurter professor of law, emeritus, at Harvard Law School, told The Hill on Wednesday he agrees Sandmann is a private individual.
“This kid is not a public figure,” he told the website. “He didn’t choose to run for office, he’s a kid in school who is applying for colleges and his reputation has been diminished in the eyes of some, and I think you have to distinguish between a high school kid and somebody who is the President of the United States, or a governor of a state or a justice of the Supreme Court.
Dershowitz added he believes Sandmann’s attorneys “have a significant case” and that he is “interested to see what the Post says and how it justifies reporting that turned out to be less than accurate.”
But if it came down to having to prove actual malice, then Sandmann’s legal team faces a tougher road, experts say.
“They got a big, big hurdle to overcome and that is the standard of proving actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth,” Frederick M. Lawrence, a distinguished lecturer at Georgetown Law and secretary and CEO of The Phi Beta Kappa Society, told Fox News.
“My hunch on this… even if [The Washington Post] got it wrong, they did not recklessly get it wrong and, as a result, they will prevail,” Lawrence added.
He compared discussion about the Covington lawsuit to the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, in which, the Bill of Rights Institute says, the Supreme Court “held that the First Amendment protects newspapers even when they print false statements, as long as the newspapers did not act with ‘actual malice.’"
“The whole reason we have this heightened standard is this is not supposed to be a ‘tie goes to the runner’ proposition,” Lawrence told Fox News.
STATEMENTS OF OPINION VS. FACTS
Many celebrities wasted little time taking to the Internet to tear into the Covington students as the viral video circulated in January. A particular target was Sandmann, whom Maher on his HBO show labeled a “smirk-face kid.”
“I don’t blame the kid, the smirk-face kid. I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid,” he said.
Others soon joined in on the criticism, with "Will and Grace" actress Debra Messing sharing an image of Sandmann with the caption “mocking, condescending, disrespecting, A—HOLE” and comedian Kathy Griffin urging her followers to “name these kids” and “shame them."
Only some of the celebs – such as film producer Jack Morrissey, who initially posted a gory cartoon with the caption “#MAGAkids go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper” – issued apologies and deleted their messages.
McMurtry told Fox News that “certainly CNN and Bill Maher did things that we consider to have crossed the line."
“We think that the statements they made are defamatory, they’re not humorous and so certainly Bill Maher is somebody we are looking at very carefully and HBO for allowing him to make those defamatory statements,” he said.
However, if Sandmann’s attorneys pursue lawsuits against these organizations and other institutions similar to The Washington Post, what judges deem as fact and what they decide is opinion could end up making or breaking the case.
“Opinions are not statements of falsity,” Lawrence told Fox News. “If I say ‘my neighbor is a creep’ it may not be nice… but it’s an opinion.”
Ben Zipursky, a professor at Fordham Law School, also says defendants would likely raise questions as to whether the statements are defamatory at all, and that The Washington Post lawsuit might wade into the opinion vs. fact debate, too.
“Those are the kinds of issues that the Washington Post lawyers are going to want to push on early because they provide an opportunity to get rid of the case entirely,” he told Fox News.
The newspaper, in its only comment so far on the lawsuit, said earlier last week it is “reviewing a copy of [it], and we plan to mount a vigorous defense.”
Ultimately, Wood says: “things have got to change and there has got to be accountability.”
Fox News' Lucia I. Suarez Sang contributed to this report.
The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is troublesome for journalists and Americans, 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard said Thursday on CNN.
Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London early Thursday after Ecuador revoked his diplomatic asylum.
"I think what's happening here is, unfortunately, it is some form of retaliation coming from the government saying, 'Hey, this is what happens when you release information that we don't want you to release,'" Rep. Gabbard, D-Hawaii told "The Lead."
"And I think that's why this is such a dangerous and slippery slope, not only for journalists, not only for those in the media, but also for every American that our government can and has the power to kind of lay down the hammer to say, 'Be careful, be quiet, and fall in line, otherwise we have the means to come after you.'"
Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also expressed concern about Assange's arrest.
"To my knowledge, the specific charges that were raised for his extradition were even ones that the Obama administration entertained but turned down because it was kind of beyond the pale in terms of an attack on journalism and journalists," Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said, according to Fox News. "So, I'm concerned by that specific aspect, very much so in this situation."
FILE PHOTO: Irving Picard speaks as Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (L) looks on during a news conference in New York, December 17, 2010. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
February 25, 2019
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A U.S. federal appeals court said the trustee liquidating Bernard Madoff’s firm may pursue dozens of lawsuits to recoup funds from defendants including Koch Industries Inc, long controlled by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, and major banks.
Monday’s decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned November 2016 dismissals by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein in Manhattan.
It gives the trustee Irving Picard a chance to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the $13.36 billion he has recouped for former customers of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.
The trustee has estimated that the customers lost $17.5 billion in Madoff’s fraud, which was uncovered in December 2008.
Picard had sued Koch, HSBC Holdings Plc, UBS AG and others in 88 lawsuits to recoup funds traceable to the imprisoned swindler, but which had been sent outside the United States.
The lawsuits targeted foreign entities that had received Madoff-linked money from other foreign transferees, including “feeder funds” that sent client money to Madoff.
Writing for a three-judge panel on Monday, Circuit Judge Richard Wesley said the later transfers qualified as domestic because the money originally came from Madoff’s firm.
He said comity, or the need to let other countries enforce their own laws, and the presumption that U.S. bankruptcy law did not reach foreign activity should not block the lawsuits.
“Congress wanted these claims resolved in the United States, rather than through piecemeal proceedings around the world,” Wesley wrote.
The defendants had accused Picard of pursuing a “radical expansion of the reach of U.S. law.” Their lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
David Sheehan, a lawyer for Picard, said the decision protects victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and recognizes the “compelling” U.S. interest in letting domestic bankruptcy estates recover fraudulently transferred property.
Sheehan and Picard are partners at the law firm Baker & Hostetler.
Picard had sued Koch to recoup $21.53 million allegedly sent by Madoff to Fairfield Sentry, a British Virgin Islands-based feeder fund, and then to a Koch entity in Great Britain.
The trustee did not allege wrongdoing by Koch, a privately held industrial conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas.
Charles and David Koch are each worth $51.9 billion, and tied as the world’s 10th-richest people, Forbes magazine said. David Koch stepped down from Koch Industries last year because of health issues.
Madoff, 80, is serving a 150-year prison term in a medium-security North Carolina prison.
The case is In re: Picard, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-2992.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Tom Brown and Jonathan Oatis)
Pastor Charles Fels, left, who is also an attorney, speaks on behalf of death row inmate Don Johnson Wednesday, April 3, 2019, in Nashville, Tenn. Supporters of Johnson are appealing to Gov. Bill Lee's strong Christian faith in requesting clemency for Johnson, who they say was redeemed by Jesus. At left is Kelley Henry, an assistant federal public defender, and at right is Pastor Furman Fordham. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Supporters of a Tennessee death row inmate appealed to Gov. Bill Lee's Christian faith Wednesday, requesting clemency for a prisoner they say was redeemed by Jesus.
Don Johnson's clemency petition includes a plea from Cynthia Vaughn, the daughter of the woman Johnson was convicted of killing. Vaughn is also Johnson's stepdaughter.
The petition quotes from Vaughn's own letter to the governor in which she describes visiting Johnson in prison in 2012 after not seeing him since she was a little girl.
Vaughn said she vented three decades of anger and pain on Johnson, telling him how it felt not to have her mother around when she graduated from high school, got married and had a baby.
"The next thing that came out of my mouth changed my life forever," she wrote. "I looked at him, told him I couldn't keep hating him because it was doing nothing but killing me instead of him, and then I said, 'I forgive you.'"
In the petition, Vaughn asks to meet with Lee and share her story in person.
The petition also emphasizes Johnson's conversion from "a liar, a cheat, a con man and a murderer" to a Seventh Day Adventist Church elder who ministers to other prisoners.
Johnson, 68, was convicted of murdering his wife Connie Johnson in 1984 by suffocating her in a Memphis camping center that he managed. He initially blamed the murder on a work-release inmate who confessed to helping dispose of the body and was granted immunity for testifying against Johnson, according to court documents.
At a news conference Wednesday announcing the clemency campaign, Pastor Furman Fordham, explained that Johnson's journey to becoming ordained as an elder at the Riverside Seventh Day Adventist Church while serving time on death row began when a now-deceased church member started a Bible study with Johnson 30 years ago.
When Fordham came to Nashville in 2006 to lead Riverside, he met Johnson in prison and was amazed to see an inmate leading a religious service.
He later met an ex-prisoner who had studied the Bible with Johnson.
"It said to me that Don's ministry was moving full circle," Fordham said.
The petition makes no claim of innocence, instead saying Johnson was "justly convicted of the murder of his wife."
It details the abuse Johnson suffered as a child at the hands of his own stepfather and later in juvenile detention centers, but it says Johnson "does not place blame for his failure of character on anyone but himself."
The petition includes excerpts from other letters sent to the governor by people who came to know Johnson through their prison ministry, volunteer work, mentoring and correspondence.
"These friends and supporters are adamant that Don's faith is strong, and his reformation is real," it reads. Many of the excerpts mention Johnson's ministry to other prisoners. He also has a ministry outside of prison through a radio and internet show that plays recordings he has made on Sunday mornings on WNAH-1360 AM, according to the petition.
Tennessee executed three inmates in 2018 after a nine-year hiatus, during which legal challenges to the state's lethal injection protocols put all executions on hold. Johnson's execution, scheduled May 16, is one of four planned in 2019.
Lee, who took office in January, made his Christian faith a central component of his campaign. Previously asked about the four pending executions, Lee said they would be difficult decisions.
"The death penalty is the law in Tennessee, and I believe that it's an appropriate law in the most egregious of cases," he said. "But I think we have to look at each case individually, and we'll do so when it's the right time."
Kelley Henry, an assistant federal public defender, also attended the news conference Wednesday. She said the clemency petition is Johnson's last chance to avoid execution because he doesn't want to pursue any further legal challenges.
She said Johnson told her Wednesday he that he accepts God's will, "but he doesn't feel his work on earth is done yet."
In 2010, another Tennessee death row inmate with a similar story of redemption and forgiveness had her sentence commuted by then-Gov. Phil Bredesen. Gaile Owens was convicted of hiring a hit man to murder her husband. She later reconciled with their son Stephen Owens, who publicly pleaded with the governor for mercy.
Decision to Boycott Nike Cost Store Owner His Business
A Colorado businessman’s decision to stop selling Nike products at his mall store after the company made quarterback Colin Kaepernick the face of a prominent ad campaign helped sink his business.
Stephen Martin’s Prime Time Sports in Colorado Springs is closing, a victim, in part, of the culture wars surrounding the Kaepernick take-the-knee debate, The Washington Postreported.
“Being a sports store without Nike is like being a gas station without gas,” Martin told the Post.
According to the Post, Martin had been a vocal critic of the player protests during the national anthem but the Nike ad campaign made him angry — and he vowed to never order from the retailer again.
But making the proclamation hurt his bottom line: Prime Time Sports had $320,000 of Nike products in stock at the time of the Kaepernick ad, the Post reported.
Martin was also the victim of the same pressures suffered by other mall retailers, the Post reported. He has five years left on a 10-year lease at the mall, and already owes more than $60,000 in back rent, the Post reported.
“I’m in a scary place,” Martin told the Post. “I’m hoping that they’ll work with me. And I’ve been open with them. I’m 64 years old headed into retirement. I can’t pay 350 grand, but I can pay something. I'm worth something.”
His business slide began three years ago, when Martin canceled an autograph signing with Broncos linebacker Brandon Marshall after Marshall joined the ranks of protesting players. The calls came pouring in: “You racist! You bigot!” he told the Post.
And then came the Nike ad, and Martin’s anti-Nike proclamation, and a customer boycott — and the end of Prime Time Sports.
“Nike ran that ad to increase business, and I’m just collateral damage,” he said. “And it could be that there are more people that are in opposition to me than I realize.”
White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway destroyed the fake news media at a press conference following Thursday’s release of the Mueller report.
“This is the success of the Democrats in the first 100 days,” Conway began the presser, holding up a blank piece of paper.
Elsewhere in the interview, Conway referred to the FBI Special Counsel’s probe as a “political proctology exam” from which the president emerged with a “clean bill of health,” and told the media it was “time to move on” from the investigation.
“That should make people very good about democracy,” Conway said, referring to the report. “And it should make people feel really great that a campaign I managed to its successful end did not collude with any Russians.”
“We’re accepting apologies today, too,” Conway offered, “for anybody who feels the grace in offering them.”
Speaking to the narrative pushed by the media that the Trump campaign had relied on Russia in order to beat Democrat challenger Hillary Clinton, Conway noted:
“When I needed to find negative information about Hillary Clinton and how to beat her, I looked no further than Hillary Clinton.”
She later elaborated on Twitter: “We had Wisconsin. We didn’t need WikiLeaks. Don’t lose sight of what an awful day this is for awful candidate with awful excuses for running awful campaign.”
We had Wisconsin
We didn’t need WikiLeaks
Don’t lose sight of what an awful day this is for awful candidate with awful excuses for running awful campaign. https://t.co/RyWLaf3HBG
Police secure the area where the body of a woman was discovered near the village of Orounta, Cyprus, April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Stefanos Kouratzis
April 26, 2019
NICOSIA (Reuters) – Cypriot police searched on Friday for more victims of a suspected serial killer, in a case which has shocked the Mediterranean island and exposed the authorities to charges of “criminal indifference” because the dead women were foreigners.
The main opposition party, the left-wing AKEL, called for the resignation of Cyprus’s justice minister and police chief.
Police were combing three different locations west of the capital Nicosia for victims of the suspected killer, a 35-year-old army officer who has been in detention for a week.
The bodies of three women, including two thought to be from the Philippines, have been recovered. Police sources said the suspect had indicated the location of the third body, found on Thursday, and had said the person was “either Indian or Nepali”.
Police said they were searching for a further four people, including two children, based on the suspect’s testimony.
“These women came here to earn a living, to help their families. They lived away from their families. And the earth swallowed them, nobody was interested,” AKEL lawmaker Irene Charalambides told Reuters.
“This killer will be judged by the court but the other big question is the criminal indifference shown by the others when the reports first surfaced. I believe, as does my party, that the justice minister and the police chief should resign. They are irrevocably exposed.”
Police have said they will investigate any perceived shortcomings in their handling of the case.
One person who did attempt to alert the authorities over the disappearances, a 70-year-old Cypriot citizen, said his motives were questioned by police.
The bodies of the two Filipino women reported missing in May and August 2018 were found in an abandoned mine shaft this month. Police discovered the body of the third woman at an army firing range about 14 km (9 miles) from the mine shaft.
Police are now searching for the six-year-old daughter of the first victim found, a Romanian mother who disappeared with her eight-year-old child in 2016, and a woman from the Phillipines who vanished in Dec. 2017.
The suspect has not been publicly named, in line with Cypriot legal practice.
A public vigil for the missing was planned later on Friday.
(Reporting By Michele Kambas; Editing by Gareth Jones)
FILE PHOTO: An employee looks up at goods at the Miniclipper Logistics warehouse in Leighton Buzzard, Britain December 3, 2018. REUTERS/Simon Dawson
April 26, 2019
LONDON, April 26 – British factories stockpiled raw materials and goods ahead of Brexit at the fastest pace since records began in the 1950s, and they were increasingly downbeat about their prospects, a survey showed on Friday.
The Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) quarterly survey of the manufacturing industry showed expectations for export orders in the next three months fell to their lowest level since mid-2009, when Britain was reeling from the global financial crisis.
The record pace of stockpiling recorded by the CBI was mirrored by the closely-watched IHS Markit/CIPS purchasing managers’ index published earlier this month.
(Reporting by Andy Bruce, editing by David Milliken)
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks at the opening ceremony for the second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, China April 26, 2019. REUTERS/Florence Lo
April 26, 2019
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – Fewer than half of Malaysians approve of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an opinion poll showed on Friday, as concerns over rising costs and racial matters plague his administration nearly a year after taking office.
The survey, conducted in March by independent pollster Merdeka Center, showed that only 46 percent of voters surveyed were satisfied with Mahathir, a sharp drop from the 71 percent approval rating he received in August 2018.
Mahathir’s Pakatan Harapan coalition won a stunning election victory in May 2018, ending the previous government’s more than 60-year rule.
But his administration has since been criticized for failing to deliver on promised reforms and protecting the rights of majority ethnic Malay Muslims.
Of 1,204 survey respondents, 46 percent felt that the “country was headed in the wrong direction”, up from 24 percent in August 2018, the Merdeka Center said in a statement. Just 39 percent said they approved of the ruling government.
High living costs remained the top most concern among Malaysians, with just 40 percent satisfied with the government’s management of the economy, the survey showed.
It also showed mixed responses to Pakatan Harapan’s proposed reforms.
Some 69 percent opposed plans to abolish the death penalty, while respondents were sharply divided over proposals to lower the minimum voting age to 18, or to implement a sugar tax.
“In our opinion, the results appear to indicate a public that favors the status quo, and thus requires a robust and coordinated advocacy efforts in order to garner their acceptance of new measures,” Merdeka Center said.
The survey also found 23 percent of Malaysians were concerned over ethnic and religious matters.
Some groups representing Malays have expressed fear that affirmative-action policies favoring them in business, education and housing could be taken away and criticized the appointments of non-Muslims to key government posts.
Last November, the government reversed its pledge to ratify a UN convention against racial discrimination, after a backlash from Malay groups.
Earlier this month, Pakatan Harapan suffered its third successive loss in local elections since taking power, which has been seen as a further sign of waning public support.
Despite the decline, most Malaysians – 67 percent – agreed that Mahathir’s government should be given more time to fulfill its election promises, Merdeka Center said.
This included a majority of Malay voters who were largely more critical of the new administration, it added.
(Reporting by Rozanna Latiff; Editing by Nick Macfie)
The German share price index DAX graph is pictured at the stock exchange in Frankfurt, Germany, April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Staff
April 26, 2019
By Medha Singh and Agamoni Ghosh
(Reuters) – European shares slipped on Friday after losses in heavyweight banks and Glencore outweighed gains in healthcare and auto stocks, while investors remained on the sidelines ahead of U.S. economic data for the first quarter.
The pan-European STOXX 600 index was down 0.1 percent by 0935 GMT, eyeing a modest loss at the end of a holiday-shortened week. Banks-heavy Italian and Spanish indices were laggards.
The banking index fell for a fourth day, at the end of a heavy earnings week for lenders.
Britain’s Royal Bank of Scotland tumbled after posting lower first quarter profit, hurt by intensifying competition and Brexit uncertainty, while its investment bank also registered poor returns.
Weakness in investment banking also dented Deutsche Bank’s quarterly trading revenue and sent its shares lower a day after the German bank abandoned merger talks with smaller rival Commerzbank.
“The current interest rate environment makes it challenging for banks to make proper earnings because of their intermediary function,” said Teeuwe Mevissen, senior market economist eurozone, at Rabobank.
Since the start of April, all country indexes were on pace to rise between 1.8 percent and 3.4 percent, their fourth month of gains, while Germany was strongly outperforming with 6 percent growth.
“For now the current sentiment is very cautious as markets wait for the first estimates of the U.S. GDP growth which could see a surprise,” Mevissen said.
U.S. economic data for the first-quarter is due at 1230 GMT. Growth worries outside the United States resurfaced this week after South Korea’s economy unexpectedly contracted at the start of the year and weak German business sentiment data for April also disappointed.
Among the biggest drags on the benchmark index in Europe were the basic resources sector and the oil and gas sector, weighed down by Britain’s Glencore and France’s Total, respectively.
Glencore dropped after reports that U.S authorities were investigating whether the company and its subsidiaries violated certain provisions of the commodity exchange act.
Energy major Total said its net profit for the first three months of the year fell compared with a year ago due to volatile oil prices and debt costs.
Chip stocks in the region including Siltronic, Ams and STMicroelectronics lost more than 1 percent after Intel Corp reduced its full-year revenue forecast, adding to concerns that an industry-wide slowdown could persist until the end of 2019.
Meanwhile, healthcare, which is also seen as a defensive sector, was a bright spot. It was helped by French drugmaker Sanofi after it returned to growth with higher profits and revenues for the first-quarter.
Luxembourg-based satellite operator SES led media stocks higher after it maintained its full-year outlook on the back of the company’s Networks division.
Automakers in the region rose 0.4 percent, led by Valeo’s 6 percent jump as the French parts maker said its performance would improve in the second half of the year.
Continental AG advanced after it backed its outlook for the year despite reporting a fall in first-quarter earnings.
Renault rose more than 3 percent as it clung to full-year targets and pursues merger talks with its Japanese partner Nissan.
(Reporting by Medha Singh and Agamoni Ghosh in Bengaluru; Editing by Gareth Jones and Elaine Hardcastle)
U.S. President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to his audience as he hosts Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
April 26, 2019
By Jan Wolfe and Richard Cowan
(Reuters) – The “i word” – impeachment – is swirling around the U.S. Congress since the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted Russia report, which painted a picture of lies, threats and confusion in Donald Trump’s White House.
Some Democrats say trying to remove Trump from office would be a waste of time because his fellow Republicans still have majority control of the Senate. Other Democrats argue they have a moral obligation at least to try to impeach, even though Mueller did not charge Trump with conspiring with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election or with obstruction of justice.
Whether or not the Democrats decide to go down this risky path, here is how the impeachment process works.
WHAT ARE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT?
The U.S. Constitution says the president can be removed from office by Congress for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Exactly what that means is unclear.
Before he became president in 1974, replacing Republican Richard Nixon who resigned over the Watergate scandal, Gerald Ford said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a forthcoming book on the history of impeachment, said Congress could look beyond criminal laws in defining “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings.
HOW DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY OUT?
The term impeachment is often interpreted as simply removing a president from office, but that is not strictly accurate.
Impeachment technically refers to the 435-member House of Representatives approving formal charges against a president.
The House effectively acts as accuser – voting on whether to bring specific charges. An impeachment resolution, known as “articles of impeachment,” is like an indictment in a criminal case. A simple majority vote is needed in the House to impeach.
The Senate then conducts a trial. House members act as the prosecutors, with senators as the jurors. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides over the trial. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president from office.
No president has ever been removed from office as a direct result of an impeachment and conviction by Congress.
Nixon quit in 1974 rather than face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 were impeached by the House, but both stayed in office after the Senate acquitted them.
Obstruction of justice was one charge against Clinton, who faced allegations of lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Obstruction was also included in the articles of impeachment against Nixon.
CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN?
No.
Trump said on Twitter on Wednesday that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But America’s founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary, Bowman said.
“They quite plainly decided this is a political process and it is ultimately a political judgment,” Bowman said.
“So when Trump suggests there is any judicial remedy for impeachment, he is just wrong.”
PROOF OF WRONGDOING?
In a typical criminal court case, jurors are told to convict only if there is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” a fairly stringent standard.
Impeachment proceedings are different. The House and Senate “can decide on whatever burden of proof they want,” Bowman said. “There is no agreement on what the burden should be.”
PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?
Right now, there are 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans and three vacancies in the House. As a result, the Democratic majority could vote to impeach Trump without any Republican votes.
In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.
The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would requires 67 votes. So that means for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.
WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?
A Senate conviction removing Trump from office would elevate Vice President Mike Pence to the presidency to fill out Trump’s term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Richard Cowan; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)
Click below to consent to the use of the cookie technology provided by vi (video intelligence AG) to personalize content and advertising. For more info please access vi's website.