Police numbering is seen on an explosion site in Kathmandu
Police numbering is seen on an explosion site in Kathmandu, Nepal May 26, 2019. REUTERS/Navesh Chitrakar

May 26, 2019

By Gopal Sharma

KATHMANDU (Reuters) – Three people were killed and six others injured on Sunday in two separate explosions in the Nepali capital, Kathmandu, and police said they suspected a Maoist splinter group may have been responsible.

Police official Shyam Lal Gyawali said: “We have three fatalities in two incidents of explosions but the nature of (the) blasts is under investigation.”

One person was killed in an explosion inside a house in the Ghattekulo residential area in the heart of the city.

“I heard a big noise and rushed to the spot to find the walls of a house had developed cracks due to the impact of the blast,” 17-year-old student Govinda Bhandari told Reuters at the site of the first blast.

The second blast took place near a hairdresser’s in the Sukedhara area on the outskirts of the city. Two people were killed in this blast, police said.

All six injured have been rushed to hospitals.

A Reuters photographer at the site of the second blast said it had shattered the door and window panes of the shop and the area had been sealed off by the army.

Gyawali, the police official, said they suspect the blasts may have been the work of a splinter group of former Maoist rebels who are opposed to the government for arresting its supporters.

“A pamphlet from the group has been found at the site of the first blast,” Gyawali said.

The house was used to make improvised or crude explosive devices by activists from the group, he said, adding one of the injured people was a supporter.

Nepal emerged from a decade-long Maoist civil war in 2006 and the main group of the former rebels has joined the party that runs the government now.

The breakaway group of former rebels carried out a similar blast in Kathmandu in February in which one person was killed and two others were injured.

An army spokesman said a bomb disposal team had been rushed to nearby Lalitpur area after reports of a suspicious pressure cooker fitted with tape was seen near a bus park.

No one has claimed responsibility for Sunday’s blasts.

(Reporting by Gopal Sharma; Editing by Martin Howell and Keith Weir)

Source: OANN


Story Stream

recent articles

By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations
May 25, 2019

Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated, the long knives are out and the president’s antagonists are watching their backs. They have moved from accusing President Trump of treason to pushing revisionist narratives that try to shift the blame for the debunked probe onto others.

President Trump with Attorney General William Barr: Newly empowered.

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

This effort is expected to accelerate following Trump’s decision Thursday to empower Attorney General William Barr to declassify CIA, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence documents as necessary to access “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review” of the Russia probe.

In other words, he’s gaining the authority needed to investigate the investigators.

CIA sources immediately objected in the New York Times that assets’ lives would be at risk, stunting Langley’s ability to recruit. Perhaps. But the argument is a bit shopworn, raising the question whether intelligence managers are looking to protect their agents and sources, or aiming to protect themselves.

There are a growing number of indicators that the leading players in the 2016 election drama are turning on one another, making a mad dash for the lifeboats to escape being dragged under with the political Titanic that is Christopher Steele and his dossier. These are many of the same people who had been eager to exploit the dossier, that collection of memos paid for by the Clinton campaign and supposedly sourced from Russia. Once treated like the Rosetta stone of collusion, the Steele documents now seem even to Trump antagonists more like the Howard Hughes diaries.

Back when fingers weren’t pointing: FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in 2014.

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

A “former CIA official” has told Fox News that two of Trump’s most high profile accusers – former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Director of the CIA John Brennan – didn’t want anything to do with Steele’s opus. It was former FBI Director James Comey, the source said, who was pushing to use the dossier in the official Intelligence Community Assessment, issued in the final days of the Obama administration. Having failed at that, thanks to Clapper and Brennan’s diligence (or so the story goes), Comey went rogue and confronted President-elect Trump with the salacious highlights produced by Steele.

Even the peripheral players are doing their best to shift blame. Former FBI General Counsel James Baker – who is under criminal investigation for leaks –  recently went on the Skullduggery podcast to assert that  he and other bureau officials were “quite worried” that  Comey’s meeting with Trump would look like a page out of J. Edgar Hoover’s playbook – invoking  the legendary FBI director who stockpiled damaging information to blackmail politicians. Would Comey be wrong to interpret Baker’s comments as an offer to testify against his former boss in exchange for a deal on the leaks investigation?

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Case of testimony over “matter.”

AP Photo/Cliff Owen

Comey has no shortage  of adversaries, partly because old rivals he thought he had dispatched — such as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch —  are back in the mix, and he is possibly sensing his vulnerability. It was in June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Comey tossed Lynch under the proverbial bus. Now it’s clear she’s showing she can climb out from under the motor coach and dust herself off.

In September of 2015, Lynch and Comey were preparing to testify on Capitol Hill and expected to be asked about the Hillary Clinton email probe — code-named the Midyear Exam — which at that point had not been officially acknowledged. “I wanted to know if she [Lynch] would authorize us to confirm we had an investigation,” Comey told lawmakers. “And she said yes, but don’t call it that; call it a ‘matter.’ And I said why would I do that? And [Lynch] said just call it a ‘matter.’” Comey says he reluctantly went along with Lynch’s demand, even though it gave him “a queasy feeling.” He worried “that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.”

Lynch pushed back against the notion she had twisted Comey’s arm. In April 2018 she told NBC’s Lester Holt that she didn’t remember the meeting the way Comey described it, and that the FBI director had raised no objections.

Comey and Lynch: Seeing things differently.

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

But now that the questions about officials’ behavior regarding the 2016 candidates has become a fraught topic, those officials are taking stronger stands to defend themselves. Comey continues to leave little wiggle room in his portrayal of the conversation with Lynch. In a December 2018 closed-door congressional interview, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) asked him to confirm “the fact that the attorney general had asked you to refer to this investigation as a matter, correct?”

“That is correct.” Comey said.

Not so, says Lynch. On Dec. 19, 2018, she appeared before a closed-door session of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. She was being questioned by Republican staff attorney Zach Somers. He asked “whether you ever instructed Director Comey to call the Midyear Exam investigation a matter?” She said his testimony was the first she had any indication “that he had that impression of our conversation.”

That answer was a little ambiguous, so Somers asked Lynch directly: “So you do not believe you ever instructed him to call it a matter?”

“I did not,” said Lynch. “I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will.” Under penalty of lying to Congress, the former AG declared, “I didn’t direct anyone to use specific phraseology.”

Before leaping to the conclusion that Lynch is calling Comey a liar, we need to keep reading the transcript of Lynch’s testimony, which ends up being far less definitive than it first appears. As is so often the case with lawyers’ lawlerly responses, the assertion turns on specific words. Lynch said she didn’t “instruct” or “direct” anyone to use any “specific” language. Instead, she testified, she had told Comey that she personally referred to the Hillary affair as a “matter” or “issue” and “that was the suggestion that I made to him.”

Could it be this is the shape of investigations — sorry, matters — to come? The spectacle of former power players parsing verbs at one another? It may seem a sound defensive strategy now, but it will grow harder to craft phraseology subtle enough to slip out of trouble. Legalistic sparring becomes increasingly difficult as the number of those being put under oath proliferates, and as the number of investigations mount. The game theory concept known as the “Prisoner’s dilemma” is confounding enough when there are two players having to figure out whether to trust one another or sell each other out. Make it multi-person, game theorists point out, and the difficulty for the players grows exponentially.

Making the game even more difficult is how much of the play is being done under cover. When so much of the frenzied blame-shifting is right out in the open, who knows how much whet work with the long knives is going on in the shadows? “If Brennan and Comey and Clapper are doing this publicly,” one Senate staffer says, private-sector dossier-peddlers “[Sidney] Blumenthal, [Cody] Shearer and [Glenn] Simpson are doing it privately.”

There’s no overstating institutional animosities and how likely they are to affect efforts to find out the full story of what happened in the 2016 election. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the State Department and various intelligence agencies are supposed to cooperate, working together to amplify their efforts through coordination. Instead, they often end up at odds, competing for the praise and resources that come with successes and laying off on others the blame that attends mistakes and failures.

“The FBI and DoJ are ruthless to each other, petty to one another,” one congressional staffer marvels.

Peter Strzok: “DoJ are putzes, man,” he texted. “God I hate them.” 

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

FBI investigator Peter Strzok provides a vivid example of the attitudes at play. In texts to his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, he makes declarations such as “I hate DoJ.” Half an hour later he sends another text that includes “And I hate DoJ.” Elsewhere in the texts, the people of “main justice” are called “political dicks” In the same spirit Strzok declares “DoJ are putzes, man.” Later he tells Page, “Don’t trust DoJ” and declares, “God I hate them.” Page describes DoJ as the “no brigade.” She writes, “I just feel like throttling DOJ.”

Connoisseurs of the knife fights between Justice and the bureau keep an eye out not only for what gets reported in the press, but where it gets reported. “The Department of Justice has good relations with, and tends to leak to, the Washington Post,” says a longtime Capitol Hill staffer. “The FBI leaks to the New York Times.”

He points to the competing narratives about then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s supposed offer to wear a wire and record conversations with the president. The story broke in the New York Times last September and portrayed then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe as the level-headed professional pushing back against Rosenstein’s fevered fantasies, which included not only the suggestion of secretly recording Trump, but the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment to have him removed from office. “The extreme suggestions show Mr. Rosenstein’s state of mind in the disorienting days that followed Mr. Comey’s dismissal,” the Times wrote. “Mr. Rosenstein appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional, according to people who spoke with him at the time.” In other words, if there were dubious decisions being made by federal law enforcement officials, it wasn’t just Rosenstein’s fault, according to the Times; it was because the deputy AG was losing his marbles.

Conflicting accounts: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, left, and FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, right, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

The Times story was followed shortly thereafter by a Washington Post take on the same events, a version significantly more friendly to Rosenstein. According to “attendees at the meeting,” it was McCabe who was pushing boundaries, advocating an “investigation into the president,” the Post wrote. In this account, “Rosenstein responded [to McCabe] with what one person described as a sarcastic comment along the line of: ‘What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?’” The Post story attributed to a “Justice Department official who met frequently with both McCabe and Rosenstein” that “in the months that followed, Rosenstein never broached either subject — the 25th Amendment or a possible wiretap involving the president.”  

You don’t have to be a champion contestant on that peculiar Washington game show — “Guess the Source!” — to have a sense of which side of the street was providing what information to which newspaper.

Given the Times’s sources in and around the FBI, there is particular significance when the Times writes a revisionist history of the bureau’s activities involving the 2016 election. At the end of 2017 the paper had done its best to write the dossier out of the creation myth of the Russia investigation. The Times had maintained, in an April 20, 2017 article, that it was Carter Page’s ill-advised commencement speech in Moscow in the summer of 2016 that had sparked the FBI’s concerns the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia. This line came from the dossier, which had alleged that Page had secret meetings with billionaire oligarchs during his Moscow stay. But after the dossier started to be exposed as the partisan document it was, a new reason emerged to justify the launching of a counterintelligence probe into team Trump — that George Papadopoulos had supposedly mentioned, over drinks with an Australian diplomat, that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz: With him on the case, leakers are “getting ahead of the story.”

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

That alternate origin story remained largely unchanged until early this month, when the Times rewrote its narrative, clearly with the help of FBI sources. The new narrative included the revelation that the bureau had sent a “government investigator” to London under the false name “Azra Turk.” Her undercover mission was to flirt with Papadopoulos and pump him for information about Trump and the Russians. The Times helpfully (from the FBI’s point of view) portrayed this as evidence of the “level of alarm” investigators had about Trump and Russia. 

The article was a classic example of a fundamental Washington PR technique, that of “getting ahead of the story.” Knowing the Azra Turk business is being looked over by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, sources in, or formerly of, the bureau went to friendly reporters and fed them information that could put the events in the least unflattering light possible. Note, however, that the bureau players — who normally wring their hands about the national security damage done by the release of unredacted information — aren’t above leaking details of covert ops if that’s what it takes to soften a blow.

As things unravel further, they’re likely to get nastier. In part that’s because the FBI doesn’t just hate the Department of Justice. If the Page-Strzok texts are any indication, the bureau doesn’t much like the State Department either. “DOJ is a wild pain in the ass,” Strzok texts Page. “Not as bad as State, but still.” Faced with sending some documents about the Hillary email investigation to Foggy Bottom, Page texts, “I’m not giving State an advance warning. F them.” Strzok responds, “And yes, totally. F State. No heads up.”

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page: “We both hate everyone and everything.”

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

They not only sneered at their colleagues across the street (Justice and the FBI are housed on opposite sides of Pennsylvania Avenue), their feelings toward their bureau co-workers ranged from diffidence to detestation.

Consider the infamous text from Strzok to Page: “Just went to a southern Virginia Wal-Mart,” Strzok wrote. “I could SMELL the Trump support.”

Lost in the noisy outrage over the Trumpy odors insult has been Page’s reply: “Yep, out to lunch with Sally” Moyer, Page texted. “We both hate everyone and everything.”

“Do you hate everyone and everything?” Republican staff attorney Arthur Baker asked Moyer — a unit chief in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. The question came in an October 2018 closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

“Some days,” Moyer deadpanned.

The questioner was nonplussed: “But you don’t hate everyone and everything all the time?”

“Not all the time, no.”

Sally Moyer: A little gallows humor.

Moyer may have been indulging in a little gallows humor, but aggravation with the job and co-workers at the FBI — hate for everyone and everything all the time — seems to be commonplace in the bureau. Page calls various colleagues everything from “an ASTOUNDING douche” to “a petulant baby.”

Given the paramount heights to which both Strzok and Page had risen within the FBI, it’s unlikely they were outliers among the bureau’s management class. Their casual contempt for co-workers and for the departments of Justice and State can’t be attitudes far out of step with those of their seventh-floor colleagues. Sticking it to State and Justice and even (perhaps especially) the fellow down the hall: If that was the culture of the FBI’s leadership when the investigators were riding high and enjoying the power that came from collaborating with State and Justice in the pursuit of a president, just imagine how they are likely to behave toward one another now that they have become the pursued rather than the pursuers.

Even in the best of times, departments and agencies such as Justice, State and the FBI find themselves in back-stabbing bureaucratic battles of all against all. Imagine how those Hobbesian bureaucrats, whether current or former, are likely to behave when the outcomes being fought over have profoundly personal ramifications. One recalls the moment in “It’s a Wonderful Life” when the upstanding George Bailey is sinking in frantic desperation: “Do you realize what this means?!” he shouts at doddering Uncle Billy, who’s lost the bank deposit. “It means bankruptcy and scandal and prison. That’s what it means.” With shocking savagery, Bailey throws the old man down in his chair and declares, “One of us is going to jail, and it’s not going to be me!”  

Related Articles

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang answers questions about a major bus accident in North Korea, during a news conference in Beijing
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang answers questions about a major bus accident in North Korea, during a news conference in Beijing, China April 23, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee

May 24, 2019

By Michael Martina and Ben Blanchard

BEIJING (Reuters) – China on Friday accused U.S. officials of lying to the public about their trade war, as rising tensions between the world’s two largest economies kept financial markets in a state of unease.

Talks to end the trade dispute collapsed earlier this month, with the two sides in a stalemate over U.S. demands that China change its policies to address a number of key U.S. grievances, including theft of intellectual property and subsidies for state enterprises.

Washington has slapped higher tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate, and effectively banned U.S. firms from doing business with Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, the world’s largest telecom network gear maker.

“Domestically in the United States there are more and more doubts about the trade war the U.S. side has provoked with China, the market turmoil caused by the technology war and blocked industrial cooperation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said.

U.S. officials “fabricate lies to try to mislead the American people, and now they are trying to incite ideological opposition,” he said, when asked about U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent criticism of Huawei.

In an interview with CNBC on Thursday, Pompeo said Huawei was connected to the Chinese government, dismissing Huawei chief executive Ren Zhengfei’s assertions that his company would never share user secrets.

“The company is deeply tied not only to China but to the Chinese Communist Party. And that connectivity, the existence of those connections puts American information that crosses those networks at risk,” Pompeo said.

Huawei has repeatedly denied it is controlled by the Chinese government, military or intelligence services.

Pompeo said he believed more American companies would cut ties with the tech giant, while the United States has been rallying its allies to persuade them not to use Huawei for their 5G networks.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that U.S. complaints against Huawei might be resolved within the framework of a U.S.-China trade deal, while at the same time calling the Chinese company “very dangerous.”

Lu said he did not know what Trump was talking about.

“Frankly, I’m actually not sure what the specific meaning of the U.S. leader, the U.S. side, saying this is,” he said.

World equity markets rebounded on Friday from heavy selling in the previous day’s session. The U.S. dollar was trading lower against a basket of currencies and prices of safe-haven U.S. government debt fell. [MKTS/GLOB]


With no further talks between Washington and Beijing scheduled, investors are nervously eyeing the prospect of an escalation in the tit-for-tat tariffs the two countries have slapped on each other’s products.

The seeds of the current impasse were sowed when Chinese officials sought major changes to the draft text of a deal that the Trump administration says had been largely agreed.

Trump, who has embraced protectionism as part of an “America First” agenda, has threatened to slap tariffs of up to 25% on an additional list of Chinese imports worth about $300 billion.

Meanwhile, China’s move to impose higher tariffs on a revised $60 billion list of U.S. goods is set to go into effect on June 1.

Financial markets fear the trade war could badly damage global supply lines and prompt a further slowdown of the world economy. Economists say the tariffs will curb growth in the United States and China, two of the more solid economies.

China can maintain healthy, sustainable economic growth even as it suffers some impact from the trade friction, a senior official from China’s state planner told state television on Friday.

“China’s healthy, steady and sustainable growth can be maintained in the medium- and long-term,” said Ning Jizhe, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission.

The Trump administration says it is monitoring any possible impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers. It also announced this week a new aid package of about $15 billion to help U.S. farmers, exceeding the up to $12 billion that was rolled out last year.

American farmers, a key Trump constituency, have been among the hardest hit in the trade war. Soybeans are the most valuable U.S. farm export, and shipments to China dropped to a 16-year low in 2018.

(Reporting by Michael Martina and Ben Blanchard; Writing by Paul Simao; Editing by Rosalba O’Brien)

Source: OANN

Formula One F1 - Monaco Grand Prix
FILE PHOTO: Formula One F1 – Monaco Grand Prix – Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo, Monaco – May 22, 2019 Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc during a press conference ahead of the Monaco Grand Prix REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes

May 24, 2019

By Alan Baldwin

MONACO (Reuters) – Charles Leclerc must have passed the harbourside bust of Louis Chiron countless times as a boy with barely a sideways glance, but Monaco’s grand prix ace of yesteryear is a point of reference now.

On Sunday the Ferrari driver could become the first Monegasque to stand on the podium at his home race since Chiron finished third in the inaugural 1950 world championship for Maserati.

The other two on the podium that day were future champions Juan Manuel Fangio, winner for Alfa Romeo, and Ferrari’s Alberto Ascari.

Chiron, who died in 1979, also drove a Bugatti to victory in 1931 in only the third Monaco Grand Prix to be held. He started a race for the last time in 1955 aged 55 and failed to qualify in 1958.

Leclerc, at 21, has time on his side to create his own legend but he has started out impressively in what is a dream come true for the local hero who grew up with the roar of Formula One cars reverberating around the streets.

“My first memory of the Grand Prix, I was probably about four, something like this,” Leclerc reminded reporters this week.

“I always kept this image in my head: I was at a friend’s apartment, out of turn one, playing with the small (toy) cars, watching the Grand Prix at the same time. I think Michael (Schumacher) was at Ferrari.

“(I was) obviously watching the red cars more than the others and yeah, just enjoying and dreaming of being there one day.”

Leclerc finished third in Bahrain in March, after securing pole position and setting the fastest lap before being slowed by an engine problem while leading.

He is fifth after five races, seven points behind four-times world champion team mate Sebastian Vettel.

His record at home has been mixed, with a crash last year on his debut for Sauber (now Alfa Romeo) and a retirement while leading the 2017 Formula Two race — a race he still ranks as the cruelest of his career.

While Chiron belongs to the distant past, Leclerc’s boyhood hero was the late Brazilian triple champion Ayrton Senna — who won in Monaco a record six times including five in a row between 1989 and 1993.

As a boy, Leclerc traveled to school on those same streets where he now stares out from posters advertising the race. The principality is still very much home rather than just a place for millionaires to live.

“To be honest, I think there are drivers more famous than me living in Monaco,” he said when asked how fame had affected his life.

“It’s great to have a weekend at home. It’s a city that I’ve been growing up in and it’s a huge honor for me to be driving in these streets.

“It’s actually pretty weird because these are the same streets I’ve taken on the bus going to school when I was five or six years old. To take them in a Formula One car feels special.”

Even more so would be to stand on the podium, like Chiron all those years ago, on the 90th anniversary of the most glamorous race of all.

(Reporting by Alan Baldwin, editing by Pritha Sarkar)

Source: OANN

A bus passes a BT logo outside of offices in the City of London
FILE PHOTO: A bus passes a BT logo outside of offices in the City of London, Britain, January 24, 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville

May 24, 2019

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain’s biggest telecoms group BT will be forced to give rivals greater access to its core network Openreach to encourage a faster roll-out of high-speed fiber cables, under plans set out by regulator Ofcom on Friday.

Currently rival companies to BT can access the former monopoly’s telegraph poles and underground ducts to lay their own fiber networks to reach residential and small-business customers.

Under the new plan, BT will have to extend this approach to rivals serving large businesses as well, improving the business case for other telecom firms to focus on fiber.

(Reporting by Kate Holton; editing by Jason Neely)

Source: OANN

FILE PHOTO: Cyclist Lance Armstrong of the US speaks to journalists as he leaves his bus before taking part in Geoff Thomas's 'One Day Ahead' charity event during a stage of the 102nd Tour de France cycling race from Muret to Rodez
FILE PHOTO: Cyclist Lance Armstrong of the U.S. speaks to journalists as he leaves his bus before taking part in Geoff Thomas’s ‘One Day Ahead’ charity event during a stage of the 102nd Tour de France cycling race from Muret to Rodez, France, July 16, 2015. REUTERS/Fred Lancelot

May 23, 2019

(Reuters) – Former cycling champion Lance Armstrong has said he “wouldn’t change a thing” about the doping that led to him being stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles, according to details of an interview that will air next week on NBCSN.

The network, owned by NBC Sports Group, said on Thursday it would broadcast a 30-minute interview next Wednesday called “Lance Armstrong: Next Stage” in which the 47-year-old American discusses his career and the decisions he made.

“We did what we had to do to win. It wasn’t legal, but I wouldn’t change a thing: whether it’s losing a bunch of money, going from hero to zero,” said Armstrong, who overcame cancer to win the first of his seven consecutive Tour de France titles 20 years ago, said in an excerpt of the interview provided by NBC Sports.

Armstrong was stripped of his Tour de France titles and banned from the sport for life in 2012 after the International Cycling Union ratified the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s sanctions.

The American later admitted to cheating in a January 2013 televised interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Armstrong, once a hero to millions, suffered a spectacular fall from grace that costs him millions of dollars in lawsuits and endorsements.

“I wouldn’t change a thing. I wouldn’t change the way I acted. I mean I would, but this is a longer answer,” he said.

“Primarily, I wouldn’t change the lessons that I’ve learned. I don’t learn all the lessons if I don’t act that way. I don’t get investigated and sanctioned if I don’t act the way I acted.

“If I just doped and didn’t say a thing, none of that would have happened. None of it. I was begging for, I was asking for them to come after me. It was an easy target.”

(Reporting by Frank Pingue in Toronto; editing by Ken Ferris)

Source: OANN

Cell phone video shows a shirtless man being physically detained by citizens after he threw rocks at cars and MetroBuses in Los Angeles, California on Tuesday.

The man, identified as 32-year-old Emmanuel Moncada, was left bloody by bus riders acting in self-defense when he attempted to enter the bus after he smashed rocks into multiple cars.

One person and 16 vehicles were struck according to police, but a bystander says around 40 cars were damaged.

This ABC 7 video shows a clip not seen in the previous footage where the man throws a rock through the window of a minivan.

KTLA interviewed a victim of the attack named Douglas Abraham who said, “He was waving me in like I was the next victim to get hit with a rock, and so I was thinking, ‘Should I run him over, or should I just brace for the rock impact?’”

Los Angeles Police Department Officer Norma Eisenman said a bus driver ordered passengers to evacuate when Moncada boarded the vehicle, but when he tried to take the wheel, citizens stepped in and dragged him out.

The group of concerned locals kicked and punched Moncada as he tried to flee and refused to get on the ground.

In this footage from KTLA, Abraham is seen placing zip ties around the suspect’s wrists to restrain him until police arrived.

“Everybody did a great, great job trying to get this guy down. I applaud them, they’re really the heroes,” he said.

Moncada is charged with attempted carjacking and assault with a deadly weapon.

His bail has been set at $100,000.

While the community teamwork was great to see, the situation could have been stopped by one person with a gun if California’s laws were not so over-the-top.

Source: InfoWars

FILE PHOTO: New bollard-style U.S.-Mexico border fencing is seen in Santa Teresa
FILE PHOTO: New bollard-style U.S.-Mexico border fencing is seen in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, U.S., March 5, 2019. Picture taken March 5, 2019. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson – RC1FD8531B60/File Photo

May 23, 2019

By Andrew Hay

TAOS, N.M. (Reuters) – Two more New Mexico counties have declared their opposition to taking in migrants in a growing revolt against federal authorities dropping off a surge in Central American families in the state’s rural, southern communities.

The record influx of asylum seekers has overwhelmed border detention facilities and shelters, forcing U.S. immigration authorities to bus migrants to nearby cities and even fly them to California.

Las Cruces, New Mexico, has received over 6,000 migrants since April 12. Deming, population 14,183, gets 300 to 500 a day, according to City Administrator Aaron Sera.

Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has dismissed President Donald Trump’s claims of a border security crisis and advocated a humanitarian response. She is in Washington seeking federal funds to reimburse cities that give support.

But some New Mexico counties say they want nothing to do with sheltering migrants, with officials saying the governor’s approach may worsen the border crisis.

Sierra County, population 11,116, was one of two Republican-controlled New Mexico counties to pass resolutions on Tuesday evening opposing the relocation of migrants to their communities.

Sierra County also called on Trump to close the border to immigration to end the crisis.

“We have to take care of our veterans, our seniors, our residents, first and foremost,” said County Manager Bruce Swingle. “We’re a very impoverished county.”

Sierra County has a median annual household income of $29,690 and a 21 percent poverty rate, according to Data USA.


To the east, Lincoln County passed a resolution that it was not prepared to spend taxpayer dollars on housing “illegal immigrants,” said Commissioner Tom Stewart.

“We have a tight budget and need to focus on a new hospital that we are building,” Stewart said. “As long as we continue to extend citizen benefits to unregistered aliens the flows will continue.”

The moves followed a similar May 2 resolution by neighboring Otero County.

County Commission Chairman Couy Griffin said sheltering migrants sent the wrong message to other Central Americans thinking of leaving their homes and would deepen the border crisis.

“If you begin to feed pigeons in the parking lot, pretty soon you have every pigeon in town,” Griffin said.

Lujan Grisham spokesman Tripp Stelnicki said there was no evidence humanitarian aid encouraged people to leave their homes.

“They are moving because they have no other choice and its frankly un-American to suggest we close our doors to people in need,” he said.

The border situation is taking a tragic toll on the migrants themselves. On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees unaccompanied child migrants, said a 10-year-old girl from El Salvador died in its custody in September, bringing to six the number of children who have died in U.S. custody, or shortly after release, in the last eight months.

(Reporting By Andrew Hay; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

Source: OANN

FILE PHOTO: The Huawei logo is seen at a bus stop in Mexico City
FILE PHOTO: The Huawei logo is seen at a bus stop in Mexico City, Mexico February 22, 2019. Picture taken February 22, 2019. REUTERS/Daniel Becerril/File Photo

May 22, 2019

(Reuters) – A Silicon Valley chip startup has accused a top executive of China’s Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, Deputy Chairman Eric Xu, of participating in a conspiracy to steal its trade secrets, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing court documents.

The allegations were made in a lawsuit set for trial on June 3 in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, in which CNEX Labs Inc claimed that Huawei engaged in a multiyear conspiracy to steal company’s solid-state drive computer storage technology, including with the help of a Chinese university, the WSJ reported.

Both, Huawei and CNEX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

California-based CNEX is developing technology to enhance the performance of solid-state drives in data centers and has been in a dispute with Huawei since 2017.

It had accused Huawei of enlisting a Chinese university professor working on a research project to improperly access the startup’s technology.

(Reporting by Akanksha Rana in Bengaluru; Editing by Anil D’Silva)

Source: OANN

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy forced his fellow lawmakers to protect Chinese companies from being kept out of federal contracts for transportation projects because a company that would have been impacted is in his district.

According to The Washington Post, the California Republican has received campaign donations from Stella Li, the president of that company, BYD Motors.

McCarthy’s office said he opposed language in a spending bill earlier this year because it affected a company with a footprint in his 23rd congressional district. BYD Motors makes electric buses that are used by governments at the local level.

The bill would have prevented Chinese companies, which have come under the microscope out of fears the communist country’s government is trying to establish too large a foothold in the U.S., from winning transportation contacts. After McCarthy intervened, language was added into the bill that made bus manufacturers immune from the law.

The Trump administration has come down hard on China regarding trade and preventing companies such as Huawei, which makes telecommunications equipment, from putting its products into the U.S. market. 

Source: NewsMax America

Current track