FILE PHOTO: Jet Airways aircrafts are seen parked at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi, India, April 13, 2019. REUTERS/Anushree Fadnavis
April 16, 2019
(Reuters) – The management of India’s Jet Airways has proposed to suspend all operations of the debt-laden airline at its board meeting, ET Now reported on Tuesday quoting sources.
Former Chairman Naresh Goyal has withdrawn from making a bid for a stake in the company, the television channel reported.
Jet Airways shares were down as much as 18.53 percent, their worst session since August 2015.
On Monday, the airline in a letter to its employees said it planned to extend its suspension of international flights until Thursday as it had not received any interim funding from lenders.
Jet has been grounding planes in recent weeks as lessors move to de-register and take back their aircraft, even as the company’s lenders sought expressions of interest in the carrier from potential investors.
Local media have reported that as many as six parties have submitted expressions of interest, though it is still far from clear if an acceptable bid will materialize.
Jet Airways did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
(Reporting by Chandini Monnappa in Bengaluru; Editing by Rashmi Aich)
Concerns have been raised about potential associations between fluoride and health risks such as cancer, bone fractures, musculoskeletal effects, reproductive and developmental effects, neurotoxicity and neurobehavioral effects, and effects on other organ systems.
Specific health risks to children from fluoride have been recognized and include bone cancer (osteosarcoma), IQ loss, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and many other adverse outcomes. Exposure to excess fluoride in children is also known to result in dental fluorosis, which has been identified as a first sign of fluoride toxicity.
Dental fluorosis can range from very mild to severe and is a condition in which the teeth enamel becomes irreversibly damaged and the teeth become permanently discolored, displaying a white or brown mottling pattern and forming brittle teeth that break and stain easily. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released in 2010, 41% of children aged 12-15 exhibit fluorosis to some degree.
However, a new analysis of the most recently available government data found that 65% of American children now have some degree of dental fluorosis. This data and more information are included in a March 2019 report published in the Journal of Dental Research – Clinical & Transactional Research.
Additionally, in extreme cases, fluoride toxicity from dental products can be fatal. For example, in 1974 a three-year old Brooklyn boy died due to a fluoride overdose from dental gel. A reporter for the New York Times wrote of the incident: “According to a Nassau County toxicologist, Dr. Jesse Bidanset, William ingested 45 cubic centimeters of 2 percent stannous fluoride solution, triple an amount sufficient to have been fatal.”
Background on Fluoride in Toothpaste and Required Labeling
Fluoride was not widely used for any dental purposes prior to the mid-1940’s. In 1945, it was first used for artificial water fluoridation in spite of warnings about its potential hazards. Meanwhile, fluoridated toothpastes were introduced and their increase in the market occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By the 1980s, the majority of commercially available toothpastes in industrialized countries contained fluoride. Other fluoridated dental products were likewise promoted for commercial use in recent decades.
Fluoride added to toothpaste can be in the form of sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium monofluorophosphate (Na2FPO3), stannous fluoride (tin fluoride, SnF2), or a variety of amines. Toothpaste used at home generally contains between 850 to 1,500 ppm fluoride, while prophy paste used in the office during a dental cleaning generally contains 4,000 to 20,000 ppm fluoride. Brushing with fluoridated toothpaste has been reported to raise fluoride concentration in saliva by 100 to 1,000 times, with effects lasting one to two hours.
The U.S. FDA requires specific wording for the labeling of “anticaries drug products” sold over-the-counter, such as toothpaste and mouthwash, including strict warnings for children. The labeling is designated by the form of the product, as well as by the fluoride concentration. Warnings also are divided by age groups (i.e. two years and older, under six, 12 years and older, etc.). Some warnings apply to all products, (with suggestions for bold copy and fill in the blanks) such as the following:
For all fluoride dentifrice (gel, paste, and powder) products. “Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. [highlighted in bold type] If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.”
For all fluoride rinse and preventive treatment gel products. “Keep out of reach of children. [highlighted in bold type] If more than used for “(select appropriate word: “brushing” or “rinsing”) ” is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.”
Dangers to Children from Toothpaste
A research article published in 2014 raised significant concerns about this labeling. The authors established that over 90% of the products they evaluated listed the FDA warning for use only by children over the age of two on the back of the tube of toothpaste and in small font.
Similar circumstances were reported about warnings from the American Dental Association (ADA). The researchers documented that all of the toothpastes with approval or acceptance by the ADA placed the ADA warning (that children should use a pea-sized amount of toothpaste and be supervised by an adult to minimize swallowing) on the back of the tube in small font.
Marketing strategies were further identified as promoting toothpaste as if it were a food product, with the researchers acknowledging this tactic could dangerously result in children swallowing the product. More specifically, the researchers stated:
“Aggressive marketing strategies targeting children were identified: every toothpaste in this sample displayed at least 1 children’s animated character, 50% had at least 1 picture of a food item, 92.3% stated they were flavored and 26.9% depicted a full swirl of toothpaste, directly contradicting dentist recommendations for young children…Misleading marketing strategies are regularly used in selling children’s toothpaste as if it is a food product, while warnings regarding overconsumption among youth are minimized.”
Indeed, research suggests that toothpaste significantly contributes to daily fluoride intake in children, partly due to swallowing toothpaste. Some research has even suggested that, due to swallowing, toothpaste can account for greater amounts of fluoride intake in children than water. In light of the significant fluoride exposures in children from toothpaste and other sources, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago explained that their findings raised “questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply.”
Mouth rinses (and mouthwash) can also contribute to overall fluoride exposures. Fluoridated dental floss is yet another product that contributes to overall fluoride exposures. Fluoride gels and foams can also be used at the dentist office and sometimes even at home. Many consumers use these products in combination on a regular basis, and thus, these multiple routes of fluoride exposure are even more relevant when estimating overall intakes.
In addition to these over-the-counter dental products, some of the materials used at the dental office can result in even higher fluoride exposure levels. Dental “restorative” materials, which are used to fill cavities, are used on children, and consideration of the fluoride levels in these materials is crucial. Many of the options for filling materials contain fluoride, including all glass ionomer cements, all resin-modified glass ionomer cements, all giomers, all polyacid-modified composites (compomers), certain types of composites, and certain types of dental mercury amalgams. Fluoride-containing glass ionomer cements, resin-modified glass ionomer cements, and polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) cements are also used in orthodontic band cements.
Silver diamine fluoride is now another fluoride dentifrice. This is a relatively new dental procedure that was FDA approved in 2014 for treating tooth sensitivity, but not dental caries. Concerns have been raised about risks of silver diamine fluoride, which can permanently stain teeth black.
Reduce Fluoride Exposures for Your Children
Since fluoride is being added to all of these products, as well as the majority of American community water supplies and other consumer items, parents are tasked with the responsibility of overseeing their children’s fluoride intakes. Given the current levels of exposure, parents should reduce and work toward eliminating avoidable sources of fluoride, including water fluoridation, fluoride-containing dental materials, and other fluoridated products, as means to promote their children’s health and safety.
The viewpoints expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Infowars.
Nigel Farage has only just launched his new ‘Brexit’ Party, but it’s already becoming a force in UK politics, attracting some Tory defectors, including the sister of European Research Group leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, one of the leading Brexiteers.
The Brexit party is fortunate to have such a high calibre candidate but I am sorry that Annunziata has left the Conservative party.https://t.co/ngzjaVHXEB
During an interview before the event, Farage introduced the new party as a ‘mirror’ of UKIP on policies, but without what he described as the Islamophobic, far-right faction.
Farage, who has been credited as one of the godfathers of Brexit, left UKIP, the party that he helped create and build into a force on the right of British politics, claiming that the party had been taken over by racists and Islamophobes and that its brand was now ‘tarnished.’
Paul Joseph Watson explains the betrayal of Britain by the Prime Minister.
He promised the Brexit Party would be “deeply intolerant of all intolerance” and would represent a cross-section of society.
“In terms of policy, there’s no difference (to UKIP), but in terms of personnel there is a vast difference.”
“UKIP did struggle to get enough good people into it but unfortunately what it’s chosen to do is allow the far right to join it and take it over and I’m afraid the brand is now tarnished.”
With Parliament on recess until April 23, Farage apparently timed the party launch so as to grab maximum media coverage. When it came his turn to speak at the launch, Farage again called for a “Democratic revolution” to ensure that the outcome of the Brexit referendum is honored, and once again “start to put the fear of god into our MPs.” He also declared that the Brexit Party wouldn’t be taking donations from Aaron Banks, a millionaire mining mogul who helped to bankroll UKIP and was recently the target of an extensive investigative report published by the New Yorker that delved into suspicions that Banks helped launder foreign money – specifically, from Russia – into the Brexit campaign.
“The brand is now tarnished” – Nigel Farage attacks his old party, UKIP, for allowing the far right to join – saying his new Brexit Party will put “competence back into British politics”https://t.co/38cIQbBDC3@BBCr4todaypic.twitter.com/fpPaf0JqoJ
The Brexit party already has 70 candidates to stand in the European elections, which are expected to begin on May 23.
In response to UKIP leader Gerard Batten rebutted Farage’s claims about the Brexit Party being a mirror image of UKIP, arguing that UKIP has “a manifesto and policies” while the Brexit Party is just a “vehicle” for Farage. But if the party wins at least a few seats in the EU Parliament, it would likely join with the growing populist coalition being organized by Italy’s Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, helping to establish a powerful eurosceptic bloc in the legislature.
A masked criminal shot bleach at Michael Knowles while he delivered a speech called “Men Are Not Women”. Paul Jospeh Watson joins Alex to expose the increasing insanity on the left.
Feb 22, 2019; Peoria, AZ, USA; San Diego Padres third baseman Manny Machado (13) answers questions from the media during an introductory press conference at the Peoria Sports Complex. Mandatory Credit: Jayne Kamin-Oncea-USA TODAY Sports
February 22, 2019
Manny Machado was unveiled at an introductory press conference on Friday and expressed how thrilled he is to be a member of the San Diego Padres.
Machado received a 10-year, $300 million deal to sign with the Padres but it was more than the big pile of cash that swayed his decision.
“I liked the game plan, from ownership to front office to the coaching staff to the players,” Machado said during a press conference in Peoria, Ariz. “The whole ‘shabam’ was so perfect.”
One of the revelations from Machado is that he is perfectly fine playing third base for the Padres.
Machado was vocal last season about how he intended to play shortstop. But while doing his homework, he understood that San Diego that has one of the top prospects in the majors on the fast track in shortstop Fernando Tatis Jr.
“That was definitely a big part of our conversation, face to face,” Padres general manager A.J. Preller said. “The biggest thing he kept coming back to was wanting to win. He said, ‘If your best club is someone else at shortstop … I’m open to playing third base.'”
Machado recalled the tutelage he got from former Baltimore Orioles shortstop J.J. Hardy when he was on the verge of reaching the majors in 2012.
“I’m just coming here, playing third base, trying to help him out like J.J. Hardy helped me out when I got called up,” Machado said. “He was a big influence. I got my (first) Gold Glove because of J.J. having that influence. Hopefully I can do the same for (Tatís).”
Machado was a four-time All-Star with Baltimore and won two Gold Glove Awards. He has topped 30 homers in each of the past four seasons and matched his career high of 37 last season when he split time between the Orioles and Los Angeles Dodgers.
The 26-year-old Machado already has 175 career homers and feels the best is about to come.
“This is just the beginning,” Machado said. “Obviously, I have put up consistent numbers as everyone knows, but at the end of the day it’s about winning games. I know the production is going to be up there. I’m going to bring it every day.
“But at this point in my career, it’s about the numbers and helping your team win, but helping others out around you makes everyone else better … makes the team better … makes the whole organization better.”
Machado’s mood dipped when a reporter asked about the “Johnny Hustle” controversy from last year’s postseason, as well as a situation where he nearly stepped on the foot of Milwaukee first baseman Jesus Aguilar.
Machado’s lack of hustle was called out by a wide range of people from industry experts to fans on social media.
“Things are going to happen,” Machado said. “You kind of just leave that in the past. You address it at the moment and move forward from there.”
Britain's Attorney General Geoffrey Cox is seen outside Downing Street in London, Britain, March 12, 2019. REUTERS/Simon Dawson
March 12, 2019
LONDON (Reuters) – The British government’s top lawyer said on Tuesday that the revised Brexit deal reached by Prime Minister Theresa May and the EU did not change the legal risk of Britain being trapped indefinitely in a so-called backstop arrangement.
Following is the conclusion of Cox’s text which is available in full at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/legal-opinion-on-joint-instrument-and-unilateral-declaration-concerning-the-withdrawal-agreement
Conclusion
15. In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the Protocol would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement.
16. I also advised that in the specific case that situation was due to the EU’s want of good faith and best endeavours, because of the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct that would be required to establish a breach by the EU of those obligations, it would be highly unlikely that the United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for such a breach under the Withdrawal Agreement.
17. I now consider that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained within the Protocol’s provisions at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.
18. It may be thought that if both parties deploy a sincere desire to reach agreement and the necessary diligence, flexibility and goodwill implied by the amplified duties set out in the Joint Instrument, it is highly unlikely that a satisfactory subsequent agreement to replace the Protocol will not be concluded. But as I have previously advised, that is a political judgment, which, given the mutual incentives of the parties and the available options and competing risks, I remain strongly of the view it is right to make.
19. However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if, through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.
House Democrats cut Republican North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson out of new workforce legislation he had been working on with them, eliminating yet another opportunity for bipartisan collaboration.
House Democrats express no interest in anything but pushing ahead with Democratic legislation and after 25 years of being mostly in the House minority, Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Doyle thinks it is high time.
“I don’t have thin skin about this, but when they were in charge, they had the rules,” Doyle told Politico.
“Now we’re in charge, and maybe some of them don’t understand that yet.”
Mr. Reagan, the YouTube personality that exposed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s casting call response that led to her running for office in New York, joins Alex Jones to drop another bombshell and release to true identity of the openly socialist representative’s secret handler behind the political scenes.
Hudson expressed frustration with Democratic Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush for altering a bill the two had co-authored to introduce new workforce training programs. Rush has effectively removed Hudson from planning this bill.
“He reintroduced it, and he’s added all this money to it, and didn’t consult me,” Hudson told Politico.
“We didn’t mean to exclude you from the process. We’d love to work with you.” Hudson was told when he questioned why he had been excluded. But Hudson is still waiting to hear when exactly Rush would like to work with him again.
Republicans like Hudson fume over the lack of collaboration in areas that would enable Republicans and Democrats to easily compromise. Other Republicans have also expressed frustration at the short periods of time they are given to look over bills, claiming that this indicates Democrats have no real interest in collaboration.
“Bipartisanship is asking for my input, not just for my vote,” said Republican Texas Rep. Michael Burgess.
“Giving a member less than 24 hours to sign onto a piece of legislation they have never seen is discourteous, especially when we have said at each hearing thus far this Congress that we are willing to work in a bipartisan way.”
Jim Jefferies was caught on hidden camera heavily editing Jewish-Australian military veteran Avi Yemini while discussing the terror attack in New Zealand.
BURLINGTON, N.C. – Police say a North Carolina mother exchanged gunfire with a burglar in her kitchen, forcing him to retreat through a window.
In a news release, the Burlington Police Department says the 31-year-old woman and her 10-year-old son were sleeping early Wednesday morning in their home when she awoke to the sound of someone breaking in.
Police say she confronted the burglar with a pistol and he opened fire. The woman wasn't injured and returned fire, causing the suspect to leave through the window he'd used to break in. Police arrived shortly thereafter, around 3:55 a.m.
It wasn't clear if the suspect was injured. No arrests had been made as of mid-morning.
The woman won't face any charges. Her son was also uninjured.
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)
FILE PHOTO: New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft attends a conference at the Cannes Lions Festival in Cannes, France, June 23, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard
April 26, 2019
(Reuters) – New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s lawyers on Friday are set to ask a Florida judge to toss out hidden-camera videos that prosecutors say show the 77-year-old billionaire receiving sexual favors for money inside a Florida massage parlor.
The owner of the reigning Super Bowl champions plans wants the video to not be used as evidence against him as he contests two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution at the Orchids of Asia Spa in Jupiter, Florida, along with some two dozen other men.
His legal team is fresh off a win on Tuesday, when they successfully persuaded Palm Beach County Judge Leonard Hanser to block prosecutors from releasing the hidden-camera footage to media outlets, which had requested copies under the state’s robust open records law.
Kraft, who has owned the franchise since 1994, pleaded not guilty, but has issued a public apology for his actions.
His attorneys have argued in court papers that the surreptitious videotaping of customers, including Kraft, inside a massage parlor was governmental overreach and the result of an illegally obtained search warrant.
The warrant, Kraft’s lawyers claim, was secured under false pretenses because police officers cited human trafficking as a potential crime in their application. Prosecutors have since acknowledged that the investigation yielded no evidence of trafficking.
Palm Beach County prosecutors in a court filing on Wednesday said Kraft’s motion should be rejected because he could not have had any expectation of privacy while visiting a commercial establishment to engage in criminal activity.
That prompted an indignant response from Kraft’s attorneys, who said the prosecution’s position on privacy was “unhinged.”
“It should go without saying that Mr. Kraft and everyone else in the United States have a reasonable expectation that the government will not secretly spy on them while they undress behind closed doors,” they wrote.
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.