Upcoming shows
Real News

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Story Time

1:00 am 6:00 am



Maga First News

Upcoming Shows

Join The MAGA Network on Discord

0 0

Wastewater – private equity’s new black gold in U.S. shale

A wastewater injection well is seen at a facility operated by On Point Energy in Big Spring
A wastewater injection well is seen at a facility operated by On Point Energy in Big Spring, Texas U.S. February 12, 2019. Picture taken February 12, 2019. REUTERS/Nick Oxford

March 18, 2019

By Jennifer Hiller

BIG SPRING, Texas (Reuters) – Mike Christensen strides among rows of gleaming steel tanks, pointing to pipelines that arrive from miles around to this corner of former farmland near Midland, Texas, the heart of the largest oil patch in the United States.

His company is one of dozens opening sites like this one that handles, not the lucrative oil, but the shale industry’s dirty secret: wastewater.

While U.S. oil production has reached record levels on account of the shale revolution of the last decade, much of the supporting infrastructure has failed to keep up, including how to transport the large quantities of water used in the hydraulic fracturing process and the water that is produced from wells alongside oil and gas.

Once managed individually by energy producers, the job of supplying, collecting and disposing of water is a rising cost, and has spawned a $34 billion a year business in the U.S. that has lured investors including TPG Capital, Blackstone Energy Partners LP and Ares Management Corp to back these firms.

Oil production in the Permian basin that spans West Texas and southeastern New Mexico is expected to rise to rise 35 percent to 5.4 million barrels of per day (bpd) by 2023, requiring even more water supply and disposal, said analysts. In two New Mexico counties, firms produced 505 million barrels of oil from 2016-2018, and five times that in water, a Reuters analysis of state production data showed.

“You can’t bring production online until you have a solution for the water,” said James Lee of Riveron Consulting.

There are 5,500 Permian wells to be drilled, requiring 2.75 billion barrels, or 115 billion gallons to complete, a Morgan Stanley report estimated.

While much of the water in the Permian is transported for high fees by trucks, which also exacerbate traffic congestion around production sites, midstream companies build and use pipelines which energy producers pay to utilize.

Christensen’s company, On Point Oilfield Holdings, owns a water disposal network that this year will take up to 375,000 bpd of wastewater. Some of that water will be recycled, but millions of gallons will eventually be sunk deep underground in West Texas. “Water was always an afterthought for producers,” said Christensen, who stretches him arm and draws a 360-degree arc to show the locations of lines carrying oilfield bilge to the site. “Now it’s a business plan in itself.”

Raising cash at a time when the industry is under pressure to restrain spending and improve returns has also fueled the trend, prompting some producers to cash in on their water projects.

In December, Hess Corp got $225 million for some of its water handling assets from a joint venture with Global Infrastructure Partners, while Halcon Resources received $200 million in cash and up to another $125 million over five years from WaterBridge Resources LLC for its water infrastructure assets.

“When capital discipline is higher on the priority list, it’s very attractive to monetize” water management assets, said Benjamin Shattuck, an analyst at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

$14 BILLION WATER BILL AND RISING

The average frack job now consumes 13 million gallons (49 million liters), up 40 percent in two years, according to a Reuters analysis of Permian producers’ data reported to FracFocus.org.

That translates to water bills in the Permian Basin soaring 17 percent this year to $14 billion, according to consultancy IHS Markit, more than three times what North American producers spent last year on sand to frack their wells.

That lure is attracting investors who once viewed oil and gas as the prize.

TPG last week agreed to pay $930 million for a majority stake in Goodnight Midstream’s water pipeline network, which consists of more than 420 miles (670 km) in three U.S. shale basins.

Other private equity firms, including ARM Energy Holdings and Ares Management, have committed $4 billion to buy or start water management firms over the last four years, according researcher Global Water Intelligence. {nFWN1UM0IP]

Water management at this scale is in its infancy compared with the business of moving oil and gas by pipeline, but more private equity firms are looking for investments, said Jim Summers, chief executive of Houston-based water company H20 Midstream.

A FRACTION OF THE COST

Acquiring and disposing of water costs between 50 cents and $4 per barrel, depending on whether it moves by pipelines or more expensive trucks, and can be a steep cost for producers when oil dips as low as $40 a barrel in the Permian, as it did late last year.

The cost has inspired some companies to shift gears.

ARM Energy formed a company, Salt Creek Midstream, to gather oil and gas and was quickly pulled into offering water management, said CEO Zach Lee. By hiring Salt Creek, shale producer Lilis Energy expects its water disposal costs to fall to 48.5 cents per barrel from $2.

Not all producers, however, want to let go of their water management.

Diamondback Energy Inc is considering selling shares in a subsidiary that manages its water, oil and gas transport, but would retain control of the subsidiary.

“If I have to wait on somebody to get a pipeline built or a saltwater disposal system put in place, that is going to be a bad day. I need to be in control of that, not the other way around,” said Diamondback’s CEO Travis Stice.

Parsley Energy Inc spent $150 million to develop a water system that can handle up to 1 million bpd, which helped cut its wastewater costs by two-thirds, to 50 cents per barrel, CEO Matt Gallagher said.

“If you want to be a good shale operator you have to be excellent at water sourcing and management,” said Gallagher. Otherwise, “the whole operation could come to a screeching halt,” he said.

(GRAPHIC: U.S. finishes 2018 as world’s top crude oil producer as shale output scales new highs – https://tmsnrt.rs/2R69s7G)

(GRAPHIC: In top U.S. shale field, output per-well falls, even as overall production rises – https://tmsnrt.rs/2VFD6iI)

(GRAPHIC: Rising shale production turns the United States into energy exporter – https://tmsnrt.rs/2EUmNsT)

(Reporting by Jennifer Hiller; editing by Gary McWilliams and Marguerita Choy)

Source: OANN

0 0

NBA roundup: Bucks lock up No. 1 seed

NBA: Milwaukee Bucks at Philadelphia 76ers
Apr 4, 2019; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Milwaukee Bucks forward Giannis Antetokounmpo (34) dunks the ball against the Philadelphia 76ers during the fourth quarter at Wells Fargo Center. Mandatory Credit: Bill Streicher-USA TODAY Sports

April 5, 2019

Playoff intensity showed itself from the opening tip at Philadelphia on Thursday as Giannis Antetokounmpo scored 45 points and grabbed 13 rebounds in the Milwaukee Bucks’ 128-122 comeback victory over the 76ers that clinched the best record in the Eastern Conference.

Khris Middleton scored 22 points for the Bucks, who will enter the playoffs as the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference for the first time in franchise history. They were top seed in the Western Conference three times in their first six years of existence, the last in the 1973-74 season.

Joel Embiid recorded his second career triple-double with 34 points, 13 rebounds and 13 assists in his return from a three-game absence caused by a left knee soreness.

The mood between two of the top three teams in the East was set early. Less than three minutes into the game, an on-court incident between the Bucks’ Eric Bledsoe and the Sixers’ Joel Embiid ended with Bledsoe’s ejection because of two technical fouls.

Warriors 108, Lakers 90

DeMarcus Cousins scored eight of his game-high 21 points in the first seven minutes as Golden State blitzed host Los Angeles.

The win allowed the Warriors to reduce their magic number to two for clinching the top seed in the Western Conference playoffs.

Quinn Cook came off the bench to score 18 points for Golden State, and Kevin Durant scored 15 points. Reserve Johnathan Williams scored 17 to pace the Lakers.

Kings 117, Cavaliers 104

Buddy Hield scored a game-high 23 points to help Sacramento hold off visiting Cleveland.

Bogdan Bogdanovic added 18 points, and De’Aaron Fox recorded 16 points and 10 assists for the Kings. Marvin Bagley III registered 15 points and eight rebounds, and Nemanja Bjelica had 10 points.

Jordan Clarkson scored 22 points on 9-of-13 shooting for the Cavaliers, who lost their seventh straight game and fell to 6-34 on the road.

–Field Level Media

Source: OANN

0 0

READ: Trump’s answers to Mueller’s written questions

Below are President Trump's answers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's written questions, detailed in the redacted version of Mueller's report released Thursday.

___

I. JUNE 9, 2016 MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

a. When did you first learn that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton? Describe who you learned the information from and the substance of the discussion.

b. Attached to this document as Exhibit A is a series of emails from June 2016 between, among others, Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone. In addition to the emails reflected in Exhibit A, Donald Trump Jr. had other communications with Rob Goldstone and Emin Agalarov between June 3, 2016, and June 9, 2016.

i. Did Mr. Trump Jr. or anyone else tell you about or show you any of these communications? If yes, describe who discussed the communications with you, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

ii. When did you first see or learn about all or any part of the emails reflected in Exhibit A?

iii. When did you first learn that the proposed meeting involved or was described as being part of Russia and its government's support for your candidacy?

iv. Did you suggest to or direct anyone not to discuss or release publicly all or any portion of the emails reflected in Exhibit A? If yes, describe who you communicated with, when, the substance of the communication(s), and why you took that action.

c. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner attended a meeting at Trump Tower with several individuals, including a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya (the "June 9 meeting").

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted report that includes written answers from President Donald Trump as released on Thursday, April 18, 2019, is photographed in Washington. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted report that includes written answers from President Donald Trump as released on Thursday, April 18, 2019, is photographed in Washington. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)

i. Other than as set forth in your answers to I.a and I.b, what, if anything, were you told about the possibility of this meeting taking place, or the scheduling of such a meeting? Describe who you discussed this with, when, and what you were informed about the meeting.

ii. When did you learn that some of the individuals attending the June 9 meeting were Russian or had any affiliation with any part of the Russian government? Describe who you learned this information from and the substance of the discussion(s).

iii. What were you told about what was discussed at the June 9 meeting? Describe each conversation in which you were told about what was discussed at the meeting, who the conversation was with, when it occurred, and the substance of the statements they made about the meeting.

iv. Were you told that the June 9 meeting was about, in whole or in part, adoption and/or the Magnitsky Act? If yes, describe who you had that discussion with, when, and the substance of the discussion.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:

Response to Question l, Parts (a) through (c): I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

d. For the period June 6, 2016 through June 9, 2016, for what portion of each day were you in Trump Tower?

i. Did you speak or meet with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016? If yes, did any portion of any of those conversations or meetings include any reference to any aspect of the June 9 meeting? If yes, describe who you spoke with and the substance of the conversation.

Attorney General William Barr leaves his home in McLean, Va., on Wednesday morning, April 17, 2019. Special counsel Robert Mueller's redacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 election is expected to be released publicly on Thursday and has said he is redacting four types of information from the report. Congressional Democrats are demanding to see the whole document and its evidence. (AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz)

Attorney General William Barr leaves his home in McLean, Va., on Wednesday morning, April 17, 2019. Special counsel Robert Mueller's redacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 election is expected to be released publicly on Thursday and has said he is redacting four types of information from the report. Congressional Democrats are demanding to see the whole document and its evidence. (AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz)

TRUMP:

Response to Question I, Part (d): I have no independent recollection of what portion of these four days in June of 2016 I spent in Trump Tower. This was one of many busy months during a fast-paced campaign, as the primary season was ending and we were preparing for the general election campaign.

I am now aware that my Campaign's calendar indicates that I was in New York City from June 6-9, 2016. Calendars kept in my Trump Tower office reflect that I had various calls and meetings scheduled for each of these days. While those calls and meetings may or may not actually have taken place, they do indicate that I was in Trump Tower during a portion of each of these working days, and I have no reason to doubt that I was. When I was in New York City, I stayed at my Trump Tower apartment.

My Trump Organization desk calendar also reflects that I was outside Trump Tower during portions of these days. The June 7, 2016 calendar indicates I was scheduled to leave Trump Tower in the early evening for Westchester where I gave remarks after winning the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries held that day. The June 8, 2016 calendar indicates a scheduled departure in late afternoon to attend a ceremony at my son's school. The June 9, 2016 calendar indicates I was scheduled to attend midday meetings and a fundraising luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel. At this point, I do not remember on what dales these events occurred, but I do not currently have a reason to doubt that they took place as scheduled on my calendar.

Widely available media reports, including television footage, also shed light on my activities during these days. For example, I am aware that my June 7, 2016 victory remarks at the Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York, were recorded and published by the media. I remember winning those primaries and generally recall delivering remarks that evening.

At this point in time, I do not remember whether I spoke or met with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016. My desk calendar indicates I was scheduled to meet with Paul Manafort on the morning of June 9, but I do not recall if that meeting took place. It was more than two years ago, at a time when I had many calls and interactions daily.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

e. Did you communicate directly or indirectly with any member or representative of the Agalarov family after June 3, 2016? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the communication.

TRUMP:

Response to Question I, Part (e): I have no independent recollection of any communications I had with the Agalarov family or anyone I understood to be a representative of the Agalarov family after June 3, 2016 and before the end of the campaign. While preparing to respond to these questions, I have become aware of written communications with the Agalarovs during the campaign that were sent, received, and largely authored by my staff and which I understand have already been produced to you.

In general, the documents include congratulatory letters on my campaign victories, emails about a painting Emin and Aras Agalarov arranged to have delivered to Trump Tower as a birthday present, and emails regarding delivery of a book written by Aras Agalarov. The documents reflect that the deliveries were screened by the Secret Service.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller exits St. John's Episcopal Church after attending services, across from the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 24, 2019. Mueller closed his long and contentious Russia investigation with no new charges, ending the probe that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump's presidency. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller exits St. John's Episcopal Church after attending services, across from the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 24, 2019. Mueller closed his long and contentious Russia investigation with no new charges, ending the probe that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump's presidency. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

f. Did you learn of any communications between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rob Goldstone, or any Russian official or contact that took place after June 9, 2016 and concerned the June 9 meeting or efforts by Russia to assist the campaign? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and the substance of what you learned.

TRUMP:

Response to Question I, Part (f): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of communications between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Robert Goldstone, Natalia Veselnitskaya (whose name I was not familiar with), or anyone I understood to be a Russian official.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

g. On June 7, 2016, you gave a speech in which you said, in part, "I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons."

i. Why did you make that statement?

ii. What information did you plan to share with respect to the Clintons?

iii. What did you believe the source(s) of that information would be?

iv. Did you expect any of the information to have come from the June 9 meeting?

v. Did anyone help draft the speech that you were referring to? If so, who?

vi. Why did you ultimately not give the speech you referenced on June 7, 2016?

TRUMP:

Response to Question I, Part (g): In remarks I delivered the night I won the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries, I said, "I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons." In general, l expected to give a speech referencing the publicly available, negative information about the Clintons, including, for example, Mrs. Clinton's failed policies, the Clintons' use of the State Department to further their interests and the interests of the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton's improper use of a private server for State Department business, the destruction of 33,000 emails on that server, and Mrs. Clinton's temperamental unsuitability for the office of President.

In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that the Campaign documents already produced to you reflect the drafting, evolution, and sources of information for the speech I expected to give "probably" on the Monday following my June 7, 2016 comments. These documents generally show that the text of the speech was initially drafted by Campaign staff with input from various outside advisors and was based on publicly available material, including, in particular, information from the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer.

The Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack took place in the early morning hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016. In light of that tragedy, I gave a speech directed more specifically to national security and terrorism than to the Clintons. That speech was delivered at the Saint Anselm College Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire, and, as reported, opened with the following:

"This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in these times of Radical Islamic Terrorism, she would be. Even her former Secret Service Agent, who has seen her under pressure and in times of stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be president. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that speech soon. But today there is only one thing to discuss: the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders."

I continued to speak about Mrs. Clinton's failings throughout the campaign, using the information prepared for inclusion in the speech to which I referred on June 7, 2016.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

h. Did any person or entity inform you during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government supported your candidacy or opposed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton? If yes, describe the source(s) of the information, when you were informed, and the content of such discussion(s).

TRUMP:

Response to Question I, Part (h): I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government "supported" my candidacy or "opposed" the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. However, I was aware of some reports indicating that President Putin had made complimentary statements about me.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

i. Did any person or entity inform you during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader, other than Russia or Vladimir Putin, had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to your campaign, including by way of offering to provide negative information on Hillary Clinton? If yes, describe the source(s) of the information, when you were informed, and the content of such discussion(s).

TRUMP:

Response to Question I, Part (i): I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to my campaign.

FILE - In this May 23, 2018, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves the Federal District Court after a hearing in Washington. Manafort faces his second sentencing hearing in his many weeks, with a judge expected to tack on additional prison time beyond the roughly four-year punishment he has already received. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

FILE - In this May 23, 2018, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves the Federal District Court after a hearing in Washington. Manafort faces his second sentencing hearing in his many weeks, with a judge expected to tack on additional prison time beyond the roughly four-year punishment he has already received. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

___

II. RUSSIAN HACKING/RUSSIAN EFFORTS USING SOCIAL MEDIA/WIKILEAKS

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

a. On June 14, 2016, it was publicly reported that computer hackers had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that Russian intelligence was behind the unauthorized access, or hack. Prior to June 14, 2016, were you provided any information about any potential or actual hacking of the computer systems or email accounts of the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton, or individuals associated with the Clinton campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and the substance of the information.

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (a): I do not remember the date on which it was publicly reported that the DNC had been hacked, but my best recollection is that I learned of the hacking at or shortly after the time it became the subject of media reporting. I do not recall being provided any information during the campaign about the hacking of any of the named entities or individuals before it became the subject of media reporting.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

b. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 emails sent or received by Democratic party officials.

i. Prior to the July 22, 2016 release, were you aware from any source that WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks, or Russians had or potentially had possession of or planned to release emails or information that could help your campaign or hurt the Clinton campaign? If yes, describe who you discussed this issue with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

ii. After the release of emails by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, were you told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess additional information that could be released during the campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and what you were told.

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (b): I recall that in the months leading up to the election there was considerable media reporting about the possible hacking and release of campaign-related information and there was a lot of talk about this matter. At the time, I was generally aware of these media reports and may have discussed these issues with my campaign staff or others, but at this point in time — more than two years later — I have no recollection of any particular conversation, when it occurred, or who the participants were.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

c. Are you aware of any communications during the campaign, directly or indirectly, between Roger Stone, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates and (a) WikiLeaks, (b) Julian Assange, (c) other representatives of WikiLeaks, (d) Guccifer 2.0, (e) representatives of Guccifer 2.0, or (f) representatives of DCLeaks? If yes, describe who provided you with this information, when you learned of the communications, and what you know about those communications.

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (c): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of any communications between the individuals named in Question II (c) and anyone I understood to be a representative of WikiLeaks or any of the other individuals or entities referred to in the question.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

d. On July 27, 2016, you stated at a press conference: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

i. Why did you make that request of Russia, as opposed to any other country, entity, or individual?

ii. In advance of making that statement, what discussions, if any, did you have with anyone else about the substance of the statement?

iii. Were you told at any time before or after you made that statement that Russia was attempting to infiltrate or hack computer systems or email accounts of Hillary Clinton or her campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and what you were told.

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (d): I made the statement quoted in Question II (d) in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer. The context of the statement is evident in the full reading or viewing of the July 27, 2016 press conference, and I refer you to the publicly available transcript and video of that press conference. I do not recall having any discussion about the substance of the statement in advance of the press conference. I do not recall being told during the campaign of any efforts by Russia to infiltrate or hack the computer systems or email accounts of Hillary Clinton or her campaign prior to them becoming the subject of media reporting and I have no recollection of any particular conversation in that regard.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

e. On October 7, 2016, emails hacked from the account of John Podesta were released by WikiLeaks.

i. Where were you on October 7, 2016?

ii. Were you told at any time in advance of, or on the day of, the October 7 release that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta? If yes, describe who told you this, when, and what you were told.

iii. Are you aware of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, reaching out to WikiLeaks, either directly or through an intermediary, on or about October 7, 2016? If yes, identify the person and describe the substance of the conversations or contacts.

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (e): I was in Trump Tower in New York City on October 7, 2016. I have no recollection of being told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta before the release of Mr. Podesta's emails was reported by the media. Likewise, I have no recollection of being told that Roger Stone, anyone acting as an intermediary for Roger Stone, or anyone associated with my campaign had communicated with WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

f. Were you told of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, having any discussions, directly or indirectly, with WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, or DCLeaks regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails? If yes, describe who had such contacts, how you became aware of the contacts, when you became aware of the contacts, and the substance of the contacts.

Special counsel Robert Mueller drives away from his Washington home on Wednesday, April 17, 2019. Outstanding questions about the special counsel's Russia investigation have not stopped President Donald Trump and his allies from declaring victory. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

Special counsel Robert Mueller drives away from his Washington home on Wednesday, April 17, 2019. Outstanding questions about the special counsel's Russia investigation have not stopped President Donald Trump and his allies from declaring victory. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (f): I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

g. From June 1, 2016 through the end of the campaign, how frequently did you communicate with Roger Stone? Describe the nature of your communication(s) with Mr. Stone.

i. During that time period, what efforts did Mr. Stone tell you he was making to assist your campaign, and what requests, if any, did you make of Mr. Stone?

ii. Did Mr. Stone ever discuss WikiLeaks with you or, as far as you were aware, with anyone else associated with the campaign? If yes, describe what you were told, from whom, and when.

iii. Did Mr. Stone at any time inform you about contacts he had with WikiLeaks or any intermediary of WikiLeaks, or about forthcoming releases of information? If yes, describe what Stone told you and when.

TRUMP:

Response to Question ll, Part (g): I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016 and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

h. Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (h): I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

i. Were you aware of any efforts by foreign individuals or companies, including those in Russia, to assist your campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies? If yes, identify who you discussed such assistance with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).

TRUMP:

Response to Question II, Part (i): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of specific efforts by foreign individuals or companies to assist my campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies.

___

III. THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION MOSCOW PROJECT

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

a. In October 2015, a "Letter of Intent," a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, was signed for a proposed Trump Organization project in Moscow (the "Trump Moscow project").

i. When were you first informed of discussions about the Trump Moscow project? By whom? What were you told about the project?

ii. Did you sign the letter of intent?

b. In a statement provided to Congress, attached as Exhibit C, Michael Cohen stated: "To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Trump was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on three occasions, including signing a non-binding letter of intent in 2015." Describe all discussions you had with Mr. Cohen, or anyone else associated with the Trump Organization, about the Trump Moscow project, including who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

c. Did you learn of any communications between Michael Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government officials, including officials in the office of Dmitry Peskov, regarding the Trump Moscow project? If so, identify who provided this information to you, when, and the substance of what you learned.

d. Did you have any discussions between June 2015 and June 2016 regarding a potential trip to Russia by you and/or Michael Cohen for reasons related to the Trump Moscow project? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

e. Did you at any time direct or suggest that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, or were you informed at any time that the project had been abandoned? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and why that decision was made.

f. Did you have any discussions regarding what information would be provided publicly or in response to investigative inquiries about potential or actual investments or business deals the Trump Organization had in Russia, including the Trump Moscow project? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

g. Aside from the Trump Moscow project, did you or the Trump Organization have any other prospective or actual business interests, investments, or arrangements with Russia or any Russian interest or Russian individual during the campaign? If yes, describe the business interests, investments, or arrangements.

TRUMP:

Response to Question III, Parts (a) through (g): Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested to me the possibility of a Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, Mr. Cohen described this as a proposed project of a general type we have done in the past in a variety of locations. I signed the non-binding Letter of Intent attached to your questions as Exhibit B which required no equity or expenditure on our end and was consistent with our ongoing efforts to expand into significant markets around the world.

I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to "Mr. Peskov" at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you.

I vaguely remember press inquiries and media reporting during the campaign about whether the Trump Organization had business dealings in Russia. I may have spoken with campaign staff or Trump Organization employees regarding responses to requests for information, but I have no current recollection of any particular conversation, with whom I may have spoken, when, or the substance of any conversation. As I recall, neither I nor the Trump Organization had any projects or proposed projects in Russia during the campaign other than the Letter of Intent.

___

IV. CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND RUSSIA-RELATED ISSUES DURING THE CAMPAIGN

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

a. Prior to mid-August 2016, did you become aware that Paul Manafort had ties to the Ukrainian government? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and the substance of what you were told. Did Mr. Manafort's connections to the Ukrainian or Russian governments play any role in your decision to have him join your campaign? If yes, describe that role.

b. Were you aware that Paul Manafort offered briefings on the progress of your campaign to Oleg Deripaska? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, the substance of what you were told, what you understood the purpose was of sharing such information with Mr. Deripaska, and how you responded to learning this information.

c. Were you aware of whether Paul Manafort or anyone else associated with your campaign sent or directed others to send internal Trump campaign information to any person located in Ukraine or Russia or associated with the Ukrainian or Russian governments? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, the substance of the discussion(s), what you understood the purpose was of sharing the internal campaign information, and how you responded to learning this information.

d. Did Paul Manafort communicate to you, directly or indirectly, any posit ions Ukraine or Russia would want the U.S. to support? If yes, describe when he communicated those positions to you and the substance of those communications.

TRUMP:

Response to Question IV, Parts (a) through (d): Mr. Manafort was hired primarily because of his delegate work for prior presidential candidates, including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. I knew that Mr. Manafort had done international consulting work and, at some time before Mr. Manafort left the campaign, I learned that he was somehow involved with individuals concerning Ukraine, but I do not remember the specifics of what I knew at the time.

l had no knowledge of Mr. Manafort offering briefings on the progress of my campaign to an individual named Oleg Deripaska, nor do I remember being aware of Mr. Manafort or anyone else associated with my campaign sending or directing others to send internal Trump Campaign information to anyone I knew to be in Ukraine or Russia at the time or to anyone I understood to be a Ukrainian or Russian government employee or official. I do not remember Mr. Manafort communicating to me any particular positions Ukraine or Russia would want the United States to support.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

e. During the campaign, were you told about efforts by Russian officials to meet with you or senior members of your campaign? If yes, describe who you had conversations with on this topic, when, and what you were told.

TRUMP:

Response to Question IV, Part (e): I do not recall being told during the campaign of efforts by Russian officials to meet with me or with senior members of my campaign. In the process of preparing to respond to these questions, I became aware that on March 17, 2016, my assistant at the Trump Organization, Rhona Graff, received an email from a Sergei Prikhodko, who identified himself as Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Foundation Roscongress, inviting me to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to be held in June 2016. The documents show that Ms. Graff prepared for my signature a brief response declining the invitation. I understand these documents already have been produced to you.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

f. What role, if any, did you have in changing the Republican Party platform regarding arming Ukraine during the Republican National Convention? Prior to the convention, what information did you have about this platform provision? After the platform provision was changed, who told you about the change, when did they tell you, what were you told about why it was changed, and who was involved?

TRUMP:

Response to Question IV, Part (f): I have no recollection of the details of what, when, or from what source I first learned about the change to the platform amendment regarding arming Ukraine, but I generally recall learning of the issue as part of media reporting. I do not recall being involved in changing the language to the amendment.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

g. On July 27, 2016, in response to a question about whether you would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and lift sanctions on Russia, you said: "We'll be looking at that. Yeah, we'll be looking." Did you intend to communicate by that statement or at any other time during the campaign a willingness to lift sanctions and/or recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea if you were elected?

i. What consideration did you give to lifting sanctions and/or recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea if you were elected? Describe who you spoke with about this topic, when, the substance of the discussion(s).

TRUMP:

Response to Question IV, Part (g): My statement did not communicate any position.

___

V. CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND RUSSIA-RELATED ISSUES DURING THE TRANSITION

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

a. Were you asked to attend the World Chess Championship gala on November 10, 2016? If yes, who asked you to attend, when were you asked, and what were you told about why your presence was requested?

i. Did you attend any part of the event? If yes, describe any interactions you had with any Russians or representatives of the Russian government at the event.

TRUMP:

Response to Question V, Part (a): I do not remember having been asked to attend the World Chess Championship gala, and I did not attend the event. During the course of preparing to respond to these questions, I have become aware of documents indicating that in March of 2016, the president of the World Chess Federation invited the Trump Organization to host, at Trump Tower, the 2016 World Chess Championship Match to be held in New York in November 2016. I have also become aware that in November 2016 , there were press inquiries to my staff regarding whether I had plans to attend the tournament , which was not being held at Trump Tower. I understand these documents have already been provided to you.

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

b. Following the Obama Administration's imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 ("Russia sanctions"), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia's response to the Russia sanctions.

i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?

ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn's December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn's December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?

iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak's call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?

iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?

d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia's decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn's communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.

e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?

i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.

f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.

g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).

h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.

TRUMP:

(No answer provided.)

Source: Fox News Politics

0 0

Shell sells stake in Gulf of Mexico field for $965 million

FILE PHOTO: The logo of Royal Dutch Shell is seen at a petrol station in Sint-Pieters-Leeuw
FILE PHOTO: The logo of Royal Dutch Shell is seen at a petrol station in Sint-Pieters-Leeuw, Belgium January 30, 2019. REUTERS/Yves Herman/File Photo

April 11, 2019

(Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to sell its stake in the Caesar-Tonga field in the Gulf of Mexico for $965 million in cash to a subsidiary of Israel’s Delek Group.

Company unit Shell Offshore will sell its 22.45 percent non-operated interest in a deal likely to close by the end of the third-quarter of 2019, Shell said in a statement.

(Reporting by Tanishaa Nadkar in Bengaluru; editing by Patrick Graham)

Source: OANN

0 0

Ebola spread concentrated in Congo, not a wider emergency: WHO

Health workers carry a newly admitted confirmed Ebola patient into a treatment centre in Butembo in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
FILE PHOTO: Health workers carry a newly admitted confirmed Ebola patient into a treatment centre in Butembo in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, March 28, 2019. REUTERS/Baz Ratner

April 12, 2019

By Stephanie Nebehay and Kate Kelland

GENEVA/LONDON (Reuters) – An outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that has killed more than 700 people and is continuing to spread does not constitute an international emergency, the World Health Organization said on Friday.

Declaring the epidemic a “public health emergency of international concern” would have signaled that greater resources and international coordination are needed.

The WHO’s independent Emergency Committee, which analyzed the latest data, said the disease was entrenched in several epicenters in the northeast and was being transmitted in health care settings.

It had not spread across borders to Uganda, Rwanda or South Sudan, but neighboring countries should shore up their preparedness, the experts said.

“It was an almost unanimous vote that this would not constitute a PHEIC (public health emergency of international concern) because we are moderately optimistic that this outbreak can be brought into control – not immediately, but still within a foreseeable time,” panel chairman Professor Robert Steffen told a news conference.

Dozens of new cases reported this week have been mainly in the epicenters of Butembe, Katwe and Vuhovi, said Mike Ryan, head of the WHO’s health emergencies program.

“It’s quite a focused amplification of disease in a very specific geographic area,” Ryan said.

“But the disease there has risen because of lack of access to that community, we’ve fallen behind in starting vaccination rings,” he said, referring to attacks on health centers by armed groups in February that cut-off hotspot areas.

“Vaccine is proving to be a highly effective way of stopping this virus but if we can’t vaccinate people we cannot protect them,” he added, noting that nearly 100,000 people have been vaccinated.

Experts have declared four emergencies in the past decade: the H1N1 virus that caused an influenza pandemic (2009), a major Ebola outbreak in West Africa (2014), polio (2014) and Zika virus (2016).

Some experts expressed concern that the Emergency Committee was too narrowly interpreting WHO guidelines.

“This is a deeply concerning event, due to the pathogen itself, the total number of cases, the increase in cases just this week, and the difficulty of coordinating the response due to conflict – that needs to receive the appropriate level of attention,” health experts Rebecca Katz and Alexandra Phelan of Georgetown University in Washington D.C. said in a statement.

The Ebola outbreak – by far the biggest Congo has seen, and the world’s second largest in history – was declared by national authorities in August. It is concentrated in Congo’s North Kivu and Ituri provinces.

It has already infected at least 1,206 people, of whom 764 have died – giving a death rate of 63 percent.

They include 20 new cases reported by the health ministry on Thursday, another one-day record after 18 on Wednesday. Two workers at the Butembo airport tested positive, it said.

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay and Kate Kelland Additional reporting by Aaron Ross in Dakar; Editing by Hugh Lawson and Frances Kerry)

Source: OANN

0 0

California workers sue union for holding them 'against their will,' despite landmark ruling

Two University of California system employees claim they are effectively being held "against their will" and forced to pay monthly union dues, despite a landmark Supreme Court ruling last summer barring public-sector unions from requiring nonmembers to pay so-called agency fees without their consent.

The June 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME sent shockwaves through organized labor, holding not only that public unions violated the First Amendment by taking money out of unwilling workers' paychecks to fund collective bargaining, but also that employees must "clearly and affirmatively consent" before any fees or dues are collected.

WORKERS SAY UNIONS DEFYING JANUS RULING

The two workers outlined their claims in a federal lawsuit filed late Wednesday against the Teamsters and the University of California system. According to the complaint, exclusively obtained by Fox News, UC administrators are illegally withholding $41 per month from University of California, Santa Barbara finance manager Cara O’Callaghan, and $53 per month from University of California, Los Angeles administrative assistant Jenée Misraje.

On May 31, 2018, according to the complaint filed Wednesday, a union representative "came to O’Callaghan’s workplace and pressured workers to join the Union," without informing O’Callaghan of the impending Janus decision. O’Callaghan, the lawsuit says, "relied on this lack of information and signed an application joining the union and authorizing it to deduct union dues from her paycheck."

On July 25, 2018, "upon learning of the Janus decision of June 27, 2018," O’Callaghan resigned from the union by letter and also wrote to UCSB requesting that it stop deducting union dues from her paycheck.

In response, O'Callaghan said, the union informed UCSB that it should continue withholding money from her paycheck, and the university complied. The union said that, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, O'Callaghan could eventually opt out of the fees -- she would just need to wait until around March 31, 2022.

O'Callaghan and Misraje are represented by the Liberty Justice Center (LJC), which also represented Mark Janus before the Supreme Court last year.

In addition to demanding those wages back, the lawsuit seeks to invalidate a California law requiring that government employers rely on unions to determine which employees' wages should be subjected to union donations, and that all questions about such matters be directed to unions instead of employers.

Mark Janus sued because he didn’t want a certain fee deducted from his paycheck to go toward a union just because he worked for the state.

Mark Janus sued because he didn’t want a certain fee deducted from his paycheck to go toward a union just because he worked for the state. (Reuters/Leah Millis)

The lawsuit also charges that other California laws violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to represent themselves in negotiations -- citing the majority opinion in Janus, which stated, “Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned.”

O'Callaghan and Misraje join a slew of plaintiffs in several states who charge that unions are either flat-out ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling, or establishing a frustrating maze of procedural roadblocks to avoid complying with it.

EXPERTS: JANUS DECISION ENDED CASH COW FOR LIBERAL ACTIVISTS

Neither the Teamsters nor the University of California system replied to Fox News' request for comment.

"Prior to the Janus decision, employees were given an unconstitutional choice: pay the union as a member or pay the union as a nonmember," Kristen Williamson, LJC's communications director, told Fox News. "Now that their right to choose is restored, any permission to deduct dues given before June 27, 2018, should be null and void and workers should be allowed to resign immediately."

Added Williamson: "The University of California system and Teamsters Local 2010 seem intent on holding Cara and Jenée in the union against their will. They've both made multiple requests to resign since the Janus ruling yet continue to have dues deducted from their paychecks."

LJC has filed eight cases in five states -- California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico and Pennsylvania -- on behalf of workers seeking to opt out of union fees in the wake of the Janus decision. All are ongoing.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

According to the latest complaint, Misraje had a similar experience as O’Callaghan, and was eventually told that she could get out of the payroll deduction only by providing written notice within a narrow "time window" that coincided with the anniversary date of her signed agreement with the union.

Experts have said Janus could end up costing unions hundreds of millions of dollars in California alone. The nation's largest union, the 3-million-member National Education Association, announced plans to cut nearly $40 million from its budget after Janus, amid fears it would lose hundreds of thousands of members.

"We're seeing huge problems across the country," Diana Rickert, the vice president of the LJC, told Fox News months after the Supreme Court's decision. "There is almost no government in America that is fully complying with the Janus ruling."

Source: Fox News Politics

0 0

Venezuelan military deserters willing to return to fight Maduro

Venezuelan National Guards Rosales Jimenez and Kari Castro Marquez talk to each other during an interview with Reuters in Cucuta
Venezuelan National Guards Rosales Jimenez and Kari Castro Marquez talk to each other during an interview with Reuters in Cucuta, Colombia February 24, 2019. REUTERS/Marco Bello

February 25, 2019

By Nelson Bocanegra

CUCUTA, Colombia (Reuters) – Sergeant Javier Gonzalez knew he would be killed if caught deserting Venezuela’s military to flee to Colombia, but the thought of his nine-month-old son suffering the lack of milk and diapers in his economically devastated country steeled his resolve.

Gonzalez’s wife, Sergeant Kari Castro, escaped a day later on Sunday, crossing a riverbed near the Colombia city of Cucuta with their baby and two other family members.

The couple are two of at least 167 members of the Venezuelan armed forces who have deserted and turned themselves into Colombia’s migration agency over the last three days.

The desertions began Saturday, during a failed attempt by Venezuela’s opposition to drive a convoy of hundreds of tonnes of international humanitarian aid into the country, despite a refusal by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to accept the food and medicine.

Two trucks caught fire on a border bridge, after being halted at Venezuelan National Guard barricades. Violent clashes between protesters and the armed forces left almost 300 wounded and at least three protesters dead near the Brazilian border.

The support of the military is considered key for Maduro to retain his hold on the country, especially since last month, when opposition lawmaker Juan Guaido invoked the constitution to assume an interim presidency.

“I deserted for the life of my son. We’re working for a salary that doesn’t stretch to anything. We can’t live in misery. Enough, we’re tired,” said former national guardsman Gonzalez, 28, who earned about $13 a month in the ranks.

Shortages of basic goods and political unrest finally pushed the family to leave, said Castro, 38, who has spent half her life serving in the armed forces.

“It’s so difficult to go to another country when you’ve given your life to an institution,” she said.

Gonzalez said that since his desertion he has been in contact with former colleagues who are also willing to defect. Many in the armed forces are afraid of Maduro’s intelligence forces, he said, which has reportedly tortured and killed those who go against Maduro.

“They’re going to do it – I have lots of colleagues writing to me and they are motivated, they just need a little push,” he said during an interview in Cucuta.

The couple said they are willing to return to their home country to help Guaido wrest control from Maduro, who denies any crisis and says the aid convoys are a U.S.-backed ruse to oust him.

“It’s never too late to take the step – if our president Guaido is supporting us, we’ll support him,” said Gonzalez, who served in the national guard for eight years. “If we must form units here to plan the takeover of our country we’ll do it.”

Guaido, recognized by most Western nations as Venezuela’s legitimate leader, urged foreign powers to consider “all options” for ousting Maduro at a Monday meeting of the Lima Group regional bloc.

Colombian President Ivan Duque told the body the desertions showed there are cracks inside the Venezuelan armed forces and called for a “domino effect” of more defections.

(Reporting by Nelson Bocanegra; writing by Julia Symmes Cobb; Editing by Helen Murphy and Lisa Shumaker)

Source: OANN

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Story Time

1:00 am 6:00 am



FILE PHOTO: Small toy figures are seen in front of a displayed Huawei and 5G network logo in this illustration picture
FILE PHOTO: Small toy figures are seen in front of a displayed Huawei and 5G network logo in this illustration picture, March 30, 2019. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

April 26, 2019

By Charlotte Greenfield

WELLINGTON (Reuters) – China’s Huawei Technologies said Britain’s decision to allow the firm a restricted role in building parts of its next-generation telecoms network was the kind of solution it was hoping for in New Zealand, where it has been blocked from 5G plans.

Britain will ban Huawei from all core parts of 5G network but give it some access to non-core parts, sources have told Reuters, as it seeks a middle way in a bitter U.S.-China dispute stemming from American allegations that Huawei’s equipment could be used by Beijing for espionage.

Washington has also urged its allies to ban Huawei from building 5G networks, even as the Chinese company, the world’s top producer of telecoms equipment, has repeatedly said the spying concerns are unfounded.

In New Zealand, a member of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network that includes the United States, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in November turned down an initial request from local telecommunication firm Spark to include Huawei equipment in its 5G network, but later gave the operator options to mitigate national security concerns.

“The proposed solution in the UK to restrict Huawei from bidding for the core is exactly the type of solution we have been looking at in New Zealand,” Andrew Bowater, deputy CEO of Huawei’s New Zealand arm, said in an emailed statement.

Spark said it has noted the developments in Britain and would raise it with the GCSB.

The reports “suggest the UK is following other European jurisdictions in taking a considered and balanced approach to managing supplier-related security risks in 5G”, Andrew Pirie, Spark’s corporate relations lead, said in an email.

“Our discussions with the GCSB are ongoing and we expect that the UK developments will be a further item of discussion between us,” Pirie added.

New Zealand’s minister for intelligence services, Andrew Little, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

British culture minister Jeremy Wright said on Thursday that he would report to parliament the conclusions of a government review of the 5G supply chain once they had been taken.

He added that the disclosure of confidential discussions on the role of Huawei was “unacceptable” and that he could not rule out a criminal investigation into the leak.

The decisions by Britain and Germany to use Huawei gear in non-core parts of 5G network makes it harder to prove Huawei should be kept out of New Zealand telecommunication networks, said Syed Faraz Hasan, an expert in communication engineering and networks at New Zealand’s Massey University

He pointed out Huawei gear was already part of the non-core 4G networks that 5G infrastructure would be built on.

“Unless there is a convincing argument against the Huawei devices … it is difficult to keep them away,” Hasan said.

(Reporting by Charlotte Greenfield; Editing by Himani Sarkar)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
FILE PHOTO: The logo commodities trader Glencore is pictured in Baar
FILE PHOTO: The logo of commodities trader Glencore is pictured in front of the company’s headquarters in Baar, Switzerland, July 18, 2017. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

April 26, 2019

(Reuters) – Glencore shares plunged the most in nearly four months on Friday after news overnight that U.S. regulators were investigating whether the miner broke some rules through “corrupt practices”.

Shares of the FTSE 100 company fell as much as 4.2 percent in early deals, and were down 3.5 percent at 310.25 pence by 0728 GMT.

On Thursday, Glencore said the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is investigating whether the company and its units have violated some provisions of the Commodity ExchangeAct and/or CFTC Regulations.

(Reporting by Muvija M in Bengaluru)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Well, Joe Biden didn’t exactly clear the field.

I don’t think it matters much that Biden waited until yesterday to become the 20th Democrat vying for the nomination, even though it exposed him to weeks of attacks while he seemed to be dithering on the sidelines.

A much greater warning sign, in my view, is the largely negative tone surrounding his debut. He is, after all, a former vice president, highly praised by Barack Obama, who has consistently led in the early primary polls, and beating President Trump in head-to-head matchups. Yet much of the press is acting like he’s an old codger and it’s just a matter of time before he keels over politically.

This is all the more remarkable in light of the fact that the vast majority of journalists and pundits know and like Joe Biden and his gregarious personality.

The reason is that Biden, after a half-century in politics, lacks excitement, and the press is magnetically attracted to novel and unorthodox types like Beto and Mayor Pete. You don’t see Biden on the cover of Vanity Fair, and a grind-it-out win by a conventional warrior doesn’t set journalistic hearts racing.

JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCES 2020 PRESIDENTIAL BID: 3 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT

For many in the media, Biden isn’t liberal enough, at least not for the post-Obama era. He doesn’t promise free college and free health care and has a history of working with Republicans, such as John McCain (whose daughter Meghan loves him, and Biden will hit “The View” today.)

What’s more, Biden’s campaign style — speak at rallies, rack up union endorsements — seems hopelessly old-fashioned when we measure popularity by Instagram followers. News outlets are predicting he’ll have trouble getting in the online fundraising game, leaving him reliant on big donors, which used to be standard practice.

And then there’s the age thing. Biden would be the oldest president to be inaugurated, at 78, and he looked a step slow in encounters with reporters yesterday and a few weeks ago.

But what if the journalists are in something of a Twitter bubble, and the actual Democratic Party is much more moderate? We saw that with the spate of allegations by women of unwanted touching, which dominated news coverage until polls showed that most Dem voters weren’t concerned. In that wider world, the Scranton guy’s connection to white, working-class voters could help him against Trump in the industrial Midwest.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF OF THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

Biden denounced the president’s term as an “aberrant moment” in his launch video, saying four more years would damage the country’s character and “I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”

But first, he’d have to win the nomination in the face of an unenthusiastic press corps.

A New York Times news story said Biden would be “marshaling his experience and global stature in a bid to lead a party increasingly defined by a younger generation that might be skeptical of his age and ideological moderation.”

The Washington Post quoted Democratic strategists as saying that Biden faces an “uphill battle” and “isn’t necessarily the heir apparent to Obama, despite being his No. 2 in the White House for eight years. They argue voters will judge Biden by the span of his decades-long career and are worried the veteran pol hasn’t yet found a winning formula for his own candidacy.”

The liberal Slate said the ex-veep’s rivals view him as a “paper tiger”:

“Biden is something more like a 2016 Jeb Bush: a weak establishment favorite whose time might be past … Biden’s biggest challenge in the primary will be a compromised past spanning nearly 50 years.”

“Compromised” suggests a history of scandal, yet what Slate means is political baggage, such as his backing of a Clinton-era crime bill unpopular with black voters today. Yet I think the rank and file isn’t as concerned about a vote back in 1994, or even the Anita Hill hearings, as the chattering classes.

BIDEN’S SENATE RECORD, ADVOCACY OF 1994 CRIME BILL WILL BE USED AGAINST HIM, EX-SANDERS STAFFER SAYS

One of the few left-leaning pundits to suggest the press is underestimating Biden is data guru Nate Silver at 538:

“Media coverage could nonetheless be a problem for Biden. Within the mainstream media, the story of Biden winning the nomination will be seen as boring and anticlimactic. That tends not to lead to favorable coverage. Meanwhile, some left-aligned media outlets may prefer candidates who are some combination of more leftist, more wonkish, more reflective of the party’s diversity, and more adept on social media.

“If Biden is framed as being out of touch with today’s Democratic Party and that narrative is repeated across a variety of outlets, it could begin to resonate with voters who don’t buy it initially. If he’s seen as a gaffe-prone candidate, then minor missteps on the campaign trail could be blown up into big fumbles.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Look, it’s entirely possible that Biden could stumble, get lapped in fundraising and just be outclassed by younger and savvier rivals. He was hardly a great candidate in 1987 and in 2008.

But if the former vice president finds his footing and the field narrows, the press will be forced to change its tune, and we’ll see a spate of stories about how Joe Biden has “grown.”

Source: Fox News Politics

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
South Africa's 400m Olympic gold medallist and world record holder Wayde van Niekerk looks on as he attends South African Championships in Germiston
South Africa’s 400m Olympic gold medallist and world record holder Wayde van Niekerk looks on as he attends South African Championships in Germiston, South Africa, April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

April 26, 2019

GERMISTON, South Africa (Reuters) – Olympic 400 meters champion Wayde van Niekerk has backed South African compatriot Caster Semenya in her battle with the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), which now appears to have taken a new twist.

Semenya, a double 800 meters Olympic gold medalist, is waiting for the outcome of her appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to halt the introduction of new regulations by governing body IAAF that would require her to take medicine to limit her natural levels of testosterone.

The IAAF wants female athletes with differences of sexual development who run in events from 400 meters to a mile, to reduce their blood testosterone level to below five (5) nmol/L for a period of six months before they can compete, saying they have an unfair advantage.

“She’s fighting for something beyond just track and field, she’s fighting for woman in sports, in society and I respect her for that,” Van Niekerk told reporters.

“I will support her and with the hard work and talent that she’s been putting into the sport. With what she believes in and what she’s dreaming for, I’ve got a lot of respect for her.

“I really hope and pray that everything just goes from strength to strength for her.”

Semenya has sprung a surprise at the on-going South African Athletics Championships though, ditching the 800 meters and instead competing over 1,500 and 5,000-metres – the latter one would not require her to medically lower her testosterone level.

She stormed to victory in the 5,000-metres final in a modest time of 16:05.97, but looked to have lots left in the tank as she passed the finish line.

Semenya beat fellow Olympian and defending national 5,000m champion Dominique Scott in Thursday’s final but the latter admitted she is unsure whether the 800m specialist could be a serious Olympic contender over the longer distance.

“Honestly‚ I have no idea‚” Scott said. “Before today I probably would have said no. It’s hard to compare a 5,000 at altitude to a 5,000 at sea level.

“But I think she’s an amazing runner and I don’t think there’s any limit or ceiling on what she can do.”

Van Niekerk, the 400m world record holder, had to abort his comeback from a knee injury, that had sidelined him for 18 months, following a combination of cold weather and a wet track.

“We are trying to take the correct decisions now early in the year so as not to put myself in any harm,” he said.

“It was a bit chilly this entire week prepping and coming through here as well it was quite cold and it caused bit of tightness in my leg. We decided to not risk it.

“My recovery is going well and I would like to be back in competition this year, but will only do so if I can deliver a good performance.

“I am a competitor and respect my opponents, so I need to be at my best when I return.”

(Reporting by Nick Said, additional reporting by Siyabonga Sishi; editing by Sudipto Ganguly)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

The suspected leader of the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka died in the Shangri-La hotel, one of six hotels and churches targeted in the attacks that killed at least 250 people, authorities said.

Police said Mohamed Zahran, leader of the National Towheed Jamaat militant group, had been killed in one of the bombings. The group’s second in command was also arrested, police said.

Zahran amassed an online following for his hate-filled sermons. Some were delivered before a banner depicting the Twin Towers.

Sri Lankan authorities said Friday that Islamic cleric Mohammed Zahran died in the blast at the Shangri-La hotel during the Easter Sunday atatcks that killed at least 250 people. 

Sri Lankan authorities said Friday that Islamic cleric Mohammed Zahran died in the blast at the Shangri-La hotel during the Easter Sunday atatcks that killed at least 250 people.  (YouTube)

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Friday that the attackers responsible for the bombings were supported by the Islamic State group. Around 140 people in Sri Lanka had connections to ISIS, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena said.

“We will completely control this and create a free and peaceful environment for people to live,” he said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Investigators determined the attackers received military training from someone called “Army Mohideen.” They also received weapons training overseas and at some locations in Sri Lanka, according to authorities.

A copper factory operator arrested in connection with the bombings helped Mohideen make improvised explosive devices, police said. The bombings have led to increased security throughout the island nation as authorities warned of another attack.

Source: Fox News World

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
Current track

Title

Artist