scott
Page: 6
Golf – Masters – Augusta National Golf Club – Augusta, Georgia, U.S. – April 12, 2019 – During second round play. Justin Rose of England watches his tee shot on the 4th hole. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
April 13, 2019
By Andrew Both
AUGUSTA, Ga. (Reuters) – World number one Justin Rose bogeyed the final two holes to miss the cut by one shot at the Masters on Friday, the first time he has made an early exit in 14 visits to Augusta National.
Rose suffered a cruel lip-out with a seven-foot putt at the 17th hole and then went from bad to worse, hardly touching the hole with a four-footer at the last.
He shot rounds of 75 and 73.
The Englishman’s performance was a surprise since he had arrived at the tournament in fine fettle, seemingly poised to make another tilt at the Green Jacket two years after losing a playoff to Sergio Garcia.
Garcia also bowed out early, along with other former winners Englishman Danny Willett (2016) and South African Charl Schwartzel (2011).
Rose, Garcia and Willett, at four-over-par 148, missed by one stroke, while Schwartzel was two shots over the line.
A total of 65 players made the cut, including defending champion Patrick Reed, who sits on one-under-par.
The nine players who made the cut on the number at three over had reason to thank Adam Scott. The Australian got to eight under until three-putting the 16th hole. Had he finished on eight under everyone at three over would have been eliminated.
Instead, Scott finished at seven over to join a halfway tie for the lead with Jason Day, Francesco Molinari, Brooks Koepka and Louis Oosthuizen.
(Editing by Peter Rutherford)
Source: OANN
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
“You guys have it all wrong,” Nancy Pelosi told reporters at the end of her press conference Thursday morning, mostly unprompted, on the second day of the House Democratic retreat at a northern Virginia resort.
FILE PHOTO: NFL Football – Super Bowl LIII – New England Patriots v Los Angeles Rams – Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. – February 3, 2019. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft celebrates with the Vince Lombardi Trophy after winning Super Bowl LIII. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo
April 12, 2019
(Reuters) – A lawyer for New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft on Friday asked a Florida judge not to make public a video that led to the billionaire being charged in a prostitution sting at a massage parlor, calling the evidence “basically pornography.”
Media companies including ABC and ESPN clashed with Kraft’s defenders, saying the judge would violate Florida’s public records laws by suppressing the video of Kraft receiving sexual services at the Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida.
The owner of one of the National Football League’s most successful franchises and winner of this year’s Super Bowl was one of hundreds of people charged in February after an investigation unveiled widespread trafficking of young women at Florida day spas and massage parlors.
The 77-year-old billionaire businessman has pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor charges of soliciting sex and requested a jury trial in March.
William Burck, Kraft’s attorney, argued in Palm Beach County Court that surveillance footage from the spa should not be released to the media because it would violate Kraft’s privacy rights, compromise his right to a fair trial, and interfere in an active criminal investigation.
“It’s basically pornography,” Burck told Judge Leonard Hanser. “There’s no interest in actually seeing the video unless you have a prurient interest in seeing the video.”
Kraft’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress the video in March, further suggesting that police did not have a valid search warrant to collect the video as evidence.
Dana McElroy, an attorney representing the media outlets, argued that sealing the video would violate the state’s public records law.
Kraft apologized for his actions in a written statement issued last month.
(Reporting by Gabriella Borter in New York; Editing by Scott Malone and Bill Berkrot)
Source: OANN
X
Story Stream
recent articles
Bill Priestap, left, with Michael Horowitz, DoJ inspector general.
By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations
April 12, 2019
Attorney General William Barr shocked official Washington Wednesday by saying what previously couldn’t be said: That the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 involved “spying.”
The recent release of transcripts of testimony by key players in the Trump-Russia probe suggests that the spying, which Barr vowed to investigate, is not the only significant possible violation of investigative rules and ethics committed by agents, lawyers, managers, and officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice.
A catalogue of those abuses can be found in testimony Edward William Priestap provided to Congress in a closed-door interview last summer. From the end of 2015 to the end of 2018 Bill Priestap was assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, which meant he oversaw the FBI’s global counterintelligence efforts.
In that role, he managed both of the bureau’s most politically sensitive investigations: the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information and the probe into whether Donald Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. His testimony provides rare insight into the attitudes and thoughts of officials who launched the Russia probe and the probe of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the release of whose final report is imminent.
More important, his testimony contains extensive indications of wrongdoing, including that the FBI and DoJ targeted Trump and did so with information it made no effort to verify. It paints a portrait of the Obama-era bureau as one that was unconcerned with political interference in investigations and was willing to enlist the help of close foreign allies to bring down its target. And, perhaps presaging a defense to Barr’s claim that American officials had spied on the Trump campaign, it showcases the euphemisms that can be used to disguise “spying.”
Filling In the Blanks
Priestap’s testimony took place on June 5, 2018, in Room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The questioning, by congressmen and House committee staff, focused on whether the FBI had applied the same rigor to the Clinton investigation that it had to the Trump probe.
The transcript the public can read today contains not only those questions and Priestap’s responses, but also the tell-tale redactions of anxious bureaucrats. One thing that is very clear is that the Sharpie brigades at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice really, really didn’t want anyone to know where Bill Priestap was a week into May 2016.
Rep. Jim Jordan: Where in the world was Bill Priestap?
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Not long into the questioning that Tuesday morning last summer, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked, “Do you ever travel oversees?”
“Yes,” said Priestap.
“How often?”
“As little as possible.”
The seeming comedy routine notwithstanding, Jordan later asked how many times in his 2½ years running the counter-intelligence shop Priestap had traveled abroad.
“I want to say three times,” he said.
“And can you tell me where you went?” Jordan asked.
“The ones I’m remembering are the [REDACTED].”
Jordan drilled in: “All three times to [REDACTED]?
Priestap said the trips he remembered “off the top of my head were all [REDACTED].”
Jordan asked whether Priestap remembered when he went to this place. Priestap said “No.”
Jordan was back at it in later rounds of questioning, asking whether Priestap had traveled to a given location at a given time in 2016. Over and again, censors from the FBI and DoJ have redacted the location and the time.
What could this exotic destination be? How is the timing of Priestap’s trip there a matter of national security? What secrets were the redactors trying to protect?
Peter Strzok: “Bill” was in London.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
It turns out the Sharpie people weren’t nearly as thorough as they presumably thought. Newly released transcripts of congressional testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page – the paramours who worked on both the Clinton and Trump investigations – provide one answer. It’s right there on the page detailing text messages between the two on May 4, 2016. At around 9:31 that Wednesday evening, Strzok writes to say he is worried about getting a memo into shape that is expected that night or the next morning. He feels pressured even though “I don’t know that Bill will read it before he gets back from London next week.” Go to a text from the next Monday morning, May 9, and Strzok is wondering who will be receiving the daily report on the Clinton investigation, what “with Bill out.”
So there we have it. Bill Priestap was in London on or around May 9. Which strongly suggests that all three of the international trips taken by him during his tenure as FBI counterintelligence chief were to London.
Still, there is a reason the censors had out their Sharpies. It has to do with another question Jordan asked Priestap: “Okay. So what were you doing in [REDACTED] in the [REDACTED] of 2016?”
“So,” Priestap replied, “I went to meet with a foreign partner, foreign government partner.” In other words, almost certainly British intelligence. Not exposing our British partners has been the Justice Department’s justification for locking up secrets about the beginnings of the Trump investigation. The redactions try and fail to hide that Priestap met repeatedly with his British counterparts in 2016.
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was also in London. So was the FBI, around the same time.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File
Students of the Russia-collusion saga will recall that some of the earliest and most significant events cited as leading to the FBI’s investigation of Team Trump took place in a certain REDACTED country during a REDACTED season in 2016. It was over breakfast on April 26 in London that the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, told young Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Five days later, on May 1, Papadopoulos had drinks with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in a London bar where he shared this piece of gossip/intel. And, of course, London is home to the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Christopher Steele.
According to the official story laid out in the New York Times, Australian officials did not pass on this new information for two months. And while Steele was retained by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the spring to dig up dirt on Trump for the Clinton campaign, the official story is that he did not start working with U.S. officials until the summer.
And so it is more than passingly curious that Priestap kept going to London when these significant events were occurring. Jordan asked Priestap about his second trip there: “What did it have to do with?”
Priestap demurred: “I’m not at liberty to discuss that today.”
After some dodging and weaving, Jordan came back to the question, but this time with an uncomfortable specificity: “Was your second trip then concerning the Trump-Russia investigation?” he asked.
“Sir, again, I’m just not at liberty to go into the purpose of my second trip.”
Priestap could have answered “no” without perjuring himself, he could have quickly put this matter to bed. His “I’m not at liberty” answers strongly suggest that the Trump-Russia investigation was exactly what his second trip to London was about.
Spying, Redefined
Attorney General Barr’s statement that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign makes another part of Priestap’s testimony – about why an FBI asset in London named Stefan Halper reached out to Papadopoulos and to another Trump foreign policy adviser, Carter Page — even more significant.
Stefan Halper: also in London.
Voanews.com/Wikimedia
Weeks before Priestap’s testimony was taken last summer, the efforts of Halper, an American scholar who works in Britain, had been exposed. Republicans had been spluttering with outrage that the FBI would deploy a spy against an American presidential campaign. Democrats had been countering that while the bureau used informants, only the ignorant and uninitiated would call them spies.
Democratic staff counsel Valerie Shen tried to use her questioning of Priestap to put the spying issue to bed. “Does the FBI use spies?” she asked the assistant director for counterintelligence (who would be in a position to know).
“What do you mean?” Priestap responded. “I guess, what is your definition of a spy?”
“Good question,” said Shen. “What is your definition of a spy?”
Before Priestap answered, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, intervened. “Just one second,” he said. Then Ettinger – who was one of President Bill Clinton’s attorneys during the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandal – conferred with his client.
Back on the record, Priestap presented what smacks of pre-approved testimony: “I’ve not heard of nor have I referred to FBI personnel or the people we engage with as – meaning who are working in assistance to us – as spies. We do evidence and intelligence collection in furtherance of our investigations.”
Shen was happy with the answer, and so she asked Priestap to confirm it: “So in your experience the FBI doesn’t use the term ‘spy’ in any of its investigative techniques?” Priestap assured her the word is never spoken by law-enforcement professionals – except, he said (wandering dangerously off-script), when referring to “foreign spies.”
“But in terms of one of its own techniques,” Shen said, determined to get Priestap back on track, “the FBI does not refer to one of its own techniques as spying?”
“That is correct, yes.”
“With that definition in mind, would the FBI internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens?”
“No.”
So there we have it with all the decisive logic of a Socratic dialogue: The FBI could not possibly have spied on the Trump campaign because bureau lingo includes neither the noun “spy” nor the verb “to spy.” Whatever informants may have been employed, whatever tools of surveillance may have been utilized, the FBI did not spy on the Trump campaign – didn’t spy by definition, as the bureau doesn’t use the term (except, of course, to describe the very same activities when undertaken by foreigners).
What’s telling about this line of questioning is that it inadvertently confirms Republican suspicions — and Attorney General Barr’s assertion. If House Democrats believed there had been no spying on the Trump campaign, they could have asked Priestap whether the FBI ever spies on Americans, given the common meaning of the verb “to spy.” They could have flat-out asked whether the FBI had spied on Trump World. Instead, Democratic counsel asked whether, given the FBI’s definition of spying, the bureau would “internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens.” It would seem that Democrats were every bit as convinced as Republicans that the FBI spied on Trump’s people.
Interpreting ‘Political Interference’
Later in the day, Democratic lawyer Shen seemed to be engaged in more damage control when she asked Priestap whether “political interference in the Department of Justice or FBI investigation [is] ever proper?”
Surprisingly, Priestap said it was: “In my opinion, I can imagine situations where it would be proper.” He explained that the political appointees in an administration might determine “that the national security interests of the country outweigh the law enforcement/prosecutive interest of the FBI and Department of Justice.”
Shen then appeared to push him to clean up his answer, suggesting that what Priestap was describing wasn’t “a political determination” but “a policy interpretation balancing national security and law enforcement.”
“Yeah. I guess,” Priestap said. “And maybe I misunderstood your question.” Then what does he do but repeat his belief that political appointees — and “by political, I could imagine, for example, the National Security Council” — might act on the notion that national security outweighs other considerations.”
“Right. Yeah. Right,” Shen said. “Let me rephrase.” She explained she wasn’t asking about decisions political officials make, but rather, decisions officials make for political reasons. Then came the rephrased question: “Is interference in a Department of Justice or FBI investigation ever proper when motivated by purely political considerations?” [Emphasis added]
“Not in my opinion,” responded Priestap.
What Shen was laboring to establish was that the only sort of investigative behavior that could be called political interference was when someone at DoJ or FBI acted out of “purely political considerations.” That’s a standard that leaves plenty of room for politics.
Targeting Trump?
But does it leave room enough for the “dossier”? The political abuse foremost in Republican minds was, and remains, that collection of howlers and hearsay allegedly compiled by Christopher Steele, who was sold to the public as a high-minded former British spy instead of a man being paid by the Clinton campaign to dirty up Trump. Steele’s efforts were lapped up by the FBI and DoJ even though the lawmen knew Steele was peddling political work-product — opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Carter Page: Was he the real quarry, or was Donald Trump?
Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP
In particular, Republicans have charged that Steele’s dossier was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without full disclosure of its partisan origins, thus perpetrating a fraud on the FISA court. The accusation was formalized in May 2018, when Republicans demanded the appointment of a second special counsel because, they claimed, “the FBI and DOJ used politically biased, unverified sources to obtain warrants issued by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA Court) that aided in the surveillance of U.S. citizens, including Carter Page.”
Shen, the House Oversight Committee minority counsel, brushed that accusation aside with what appeared to be an unambiguous and definitive question: “Mr. Priestap,” she asked, “are you aware of any instances of the FBI and DOJ ever using politically biased, unverified sources in order to obtain a FISA warrant?”
Priestap gave the most unambiguous and definitive of answers: “No.” One might be tempted to think that was an endorsement of the dossier, a confirmation that the FISA warrant applications were largely based on information that was neither politically biased nor unverified. But that would be taking the question and the answer on face value, when something rather less straightforward was going on.
Shen followed with another broad, all-encompassing question about the propriety of the FBI and DoJ’s behavior: “Are you aware,” she asked Priestap, “of any instances where the FBI or DOJ did not present what constituted credible and sufficient evidence to justify a FISA warrant?”
Priestap’s response is a textbook case of circular logic: “If it’s not justified, the court doesn’t approve it. So, like, if we’re not meeting the standard required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the requests are turned down.”
“So, in other words,” said the Democratic counsel, “by definition, if you presented information and a FISA court approved it, that would constitute credible sufficient information?”
“In my opinion,” said Priestap, “yes.”
Sit back and savor that exchange for a moment. One of the most senior officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation – an organization that regularly refers for prosecution people who don’t tell the full truth – champions this peculiar standard of credibility: If you can snooker a FISA court judge, the information used to traduce the court is rendered by definition “credible sufficient information.” What is the condition of the FBI if its leaders think whatever you can get past a judge is good enough?
This strange concept of legal alchemy aside, the question remains whether the dossier was used merely as a vehicle to get information on Carter Page, or whether the real quarry was Donald Trump himself. As before, Shen was unintentionally helpful at winkling inadvertent truths out of her cooperative witness. It started with the softest of softballs: “Are you aware of any FBI investigations motivated by political bias?”
“I am not.”
“Are you aware of any Justice Department investigations motivated by political bias?”
“No.”
“Are you aware of any actions ever taken to damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
“No.”
And there Shen might have left it, having elicited basic denials that the FBI and Justice had abused their power. But then she pushed her luck, asking a question that wasn’t worded quite carefully enough: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Priestap must have pulled quite the face because Shen immediately declared, “I’ll rephrase.” Here’s how she tried it the second time: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Before Priestap can answer, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, interjected: “I think you need to rephrase your question.”
At which point Shen’s Democratic colleague Janet Kim jumped in to help: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI for the purpose of politically undercutting him?”
At last, Priestap was able to say, “No.”
That long road to “no” strong suggests that the highest levels of Justice and the FBI personally targeted Trump and took action against him. The only caveat is that Priestap believes none of that targeted action was done to undercut Trump politically. That may be so (however much the savvy observer may think otherwise). But it doesn’t blunt the main takeaway — that the bureau and DoJ targeted Trump.
In Summary…
So what did we learn from Bill Priestap’s compendious and revealing testimony?
- We learned that the FBI and Justice targeted and took action against Trump.
- We learned that the FBI, according to Priestap, is incapable of securing a FISA warrant with information that isn’t credible, although the judge’s approval of the warrant means by definition that the information is credible.
- We learned that the FBI believes political interference in an investigation can be proper as long as the bureau isn’t acting purely politically.
- We learned that the FBI did send at least one asset to do to the Trump campaign an activity that even the bureau would call “spying” — if it were done by foreign operatives.
- We learned that the origins of the Trump-Russia tale will never be fully understood until the part played by British intelligence is made clear.
That’s an awful lot to take away from one largely neglected transcript. But it suggests just how much remains unknown about the Trump-Russia investigation while providing a glimpse at the people that want to keep it that way.
Related Articles
Apr 11, 2019; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Cardinals right fielder Jose Martinez (38) celebrates with teammates after scoring on a throwing error during the sixth inning against the Los Angeles Dodgers at Busch Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Scott Kane-USA TODAY Sports
April 12, 2019
Jose Martinez had four hits and Matt Wieters drove in three runs as the St. Louis Cardinals completed a four-game sweep of the visiting Los Angeles Dodgers with an 11-7 victory Thursday afternoon.
It was the Cardinals’ first four-game sweep of the Dodgers in St. Louis since July 15-18, 2010.
Harrison Bader was hit by a pitch with the bases loaded twice in the game as the Cardinals reached their season high in runs scored without hitting a home run. It was just the fourth time since 1974 that a batter was hit by a pitch with the bases loaded twice in a game.
Enrique Hernandez hit a home run for the Dodgers, as did former Cardinal David Freese and starting pitcher Walker Buehler, but Los Angeles twice gave up three-run leads. It was a far better day at the plate than on the mound for Buehler, who yielded five runs on five hits over four innings.
Red Sox 7, Blue Jays 6
Rafael Devers singled with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning to lead host Boston to a much-needed win over Toronto.
Mitch Moreland, who homered earlier in the game to erase the last bit of a 5-0 deficit, tied it again in the ninth with a one-out double to drive in Mookie Betts. Xander Bogaerts walked, and Devers chipped his single past the infield as the Red Sox picked up their first home win.
Freddy Galvis had given the Blue Jays a 6-5 lead in the top of the eighth with a solo home run, his fourth hit of the game. Toronto fell for the eighth time in its past 10 games. Ken Giles (0-1) took the loss, snapping his run of 34 consecutive saves without a blown opportunity.
Mets 6, Braves 3
Amed Rosario gave New York a lead it would never relinquish with a three-run homer in the second inning, and he finished with a career-high four RBIs as the Mets won at Atlanta in the opener of a four-game series.
Rosario added an RBI single in the sixth. The 23-year-old shortstop has reached base safely in 11 of team team’s first 12 games this season. Hot-hitting rookie Pete Alonso launched a long two-run homer in the seventh for the Mets. Alonso has six homers and 17 RBIs in his first 12 big league games.
The Braves saw their three-game winning streak snapped despite getting two-run homers from Ronald Acuna Jr. and Johan Camargo. Acuna finished with three hits while Tyler Flowers had two. Ozzie Albies, who signed a seven-year contract extension earlier Thursday, went 0-for-5.
Cubs 2, Pirates 0
Jose Quintana struck out 11 batters in seven scoreless innings, and Chicago Cubs held on over visiting Pittsburgh.
Quintana (1-1) notched his 13th career start with double-digit strikeouts. He scattered four hits and walked one as Chicago earned its first series victory of the season. Daniel Descalso and Victor Caratini each drove in a run for the Cubs.
Pittsburgh failed to cross the plate for the second time in three games. Adam Frazier led the Pirates with two hits.
Indians 4, Tigers 0
Leonys Martin went 3-for-4 with a home run, two RBIs and two runs against his former team to lead visiting Cleveland to a shutout of Detroit in the rubber match of a three-game series.
Martin, who was traded from the Tigers to the Indians last year before surviving a life-threatening infection, finished the series with two home runs, five hits and three walks to help the Indians take two of the three games.
Indians starter Shane Bieber (1-0) struck out six, walked one and allowed just three hits in seven innings. It was the third time this season that the Tigers were shut out. Spencer Turnbull (0-2) took the loss, allowing three runs and eight hits in four innings.
A’s 8, Orioles 5
Khris Davis homered twice for the second consecutive day, and Oakland banged out five homers for a second straight game in beating host Baltimore.
Davis, who now has an major-league-leading nine homers this season, became the first Oakland player to have back-to-back multi-homer games since Josh Reddick on Aug. 9-10, 2013. The A’s won three games and went deep 14 times in the four-game set to snap out of an early-season slump.
Baltimore’s Chris Davis flied out in his first at-bat to extend his streak to 58 consecutive hitless plate appearances, breaking the major league record held by Cleveland’s Tony Bernazard since 1984. Davis finished 0-for-3 with a walk, extending his slump to 53 hitless at-bats.
Mariners 7, Royals 6 (10 innings)
Daniel Vogelbach homered in the top of the 10th inning to lift Seattle to a victory at Kansas City.
The Royals led 6-4 and were within one out of snapping their nine-game losing streak, but Mitch Haniger tripled off the wall in center to tie the game. Kansas City not only lost its 10th straight, but it lost center fielder Billy Hamilton to injury after he collided with the wall on Haniger’s triple and left the field on a cart.
The Royals’ losing streak goes on, but Whit Merrifield’s franchise-record hitting streak was snapped at 31 games after an 0-for-6 day. Brandon Brennan (1-0) pitched the ninth for his first career win for Seattle. Connor Sadzeck picked up his first career save. Glenn Sparkman (0-1) took the loss for Kansas City.
Reds 5, Marlins 0
Eugenio Suarez went 3-for-4 with a homer and two RBIs to lead host Cincinnati over Miami.
Yasiel Puig, in his first game back from a two-game suspension, also drove in two runs. Puig, who had been suspended by Major League Baseball for his role in an altercation with the Pittsburgh Pirates, helped the Reds complete a three-game sweep over the Marlins.
Cincinnati held Miami to just one run in the three games. Reds starting pitcher Sonny Gray pitched four scoreless innings but got a no-decision after he was forced to leave the game due to a left calf contusion. Marlins rookie Pablo Lopez (1-2) gave up four runs in 4 2/3 innings.
Giants 1, Rockies 0
Jeff Samardzija pitched seven shutout innings, and Kevin Pillar produced the only run with a leadoff home run in the seventh, sending San Francisco past visiting Colorado.
Samardzija (1-0) outdueled Jon Gray (0-3), who took a four-hit shutout in the seventh before serving up Pillar’s third home run since joining the Giants in a trade last week.
Tony Watson worked a 1-2-3 eighth inning for the Giants before closer Will Smith recorded his fourth save with a perfect ninth. The win was the Giants’ second in their past three games. They have lost all four series they’ve played so far this season.
Padres 7, Diamondbacks 6
Pedro Avila worked into the sixth inning in his major league debut, Manuel Margot hit a tiebreaking home run in the eighth, and San Diego beat Arizona in Phoenix.
Avila, a 22-year-old Venezuelan who had made one career start above the high Class-A level, allowed one run and four hits in 5 1/3 innings. He struck out five and walked two.
Margot jumped on a 96 mph fastball from Archie Bradley (0-1) with two outs in the eighth inning for his first home run of the season, a deep shot to center field to break a 6-6 tie. Craig Stammen (1-0) got the final out of the seventh for the win, and Trey Wingenter earned his first career save.
–Field Level Media
Source: OANN
Jason Day of Australia hits off the 12th tee during first round play of the 2019 Masters golf tournament at Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia, U.S., April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Segar
April 12, 2019
By Andrew Both
AUGUSTA, Ga. (Reuters) – Jason Day tweaked his notoriously bad back picking up his daughter before the first round of the Masters on Thursday, but battled his way to a two-under-par 70 at Augusta National.
Former world number one Day has endured back issues for much of his career, and only a month ago pulled out after less than seven holes at the Arnold Palmer Invitational with what he described as a disc tear.
But he was not about to make an early departure from the Masters too, instead lying on his back on the course to receive treatment from his trainer before continuing.
Walking gingerly, he swung within himself and was rewarded with a performance that left him within striking distance of the leaders, four shots behind Bryson DeChambeau and Brooks Koepka at Augusta National.
Day declined to speak to the media afterwards, but fellow Australian Adam Scott did.
“He seems to have a bad back all the time and plays great,” said 2013 Masters champion Scott.
(Reporting by Andrew Both; Editing by Greg Stutchbury)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO: One hundred dollar notes are seen in this photo illustration at a bank in Seoul January 9, 2013. REUTERS/Lee Jae-Won
April 12, 2019
By Shinichi Saoshiro
TOKYO (Reuters) – The dollar held firm on Friday after strong U.S. labor and inflation data soothed concerns about the world’s largest economy, while falling oil prices weighed on commodity-linked currencies such as the Canadian and Australian dollars.
The dollar index against a basket of six major currencies was steady at 97.166 after climbing 0.25 percent the previous day.
The index was headed for a weekly loss of 0.25 percent, having stumbled at the start of the week as Treasury yields fell in the wake of a mixed March U.S. non-farm jobs report.
Data released on Thursday showed first-time filings for U.S. jobless benefits dropped to a 49-1/2-year low last week, pointing to sustained labor market strength. Overall producer prices increased 0.6% in March, the largest rise since October.
The dollar was little changed at 111.72 yen after gaining 0.6 percent overnight on the robust U.S. data and the subsequent rise in U.S. Treasury yields.
The greenback’s advance, however, stalled ahead of the 112.00 yen threshold.
“Many market players had taken a bearish view on the dollar after the U.S. CPI numbers released earlier in the week, but they were forced to abruptly cover short positions as Thursday’s data proved to be strong,” said Takuya Kanda, general manager at Gaitame.Com Research Institute.
“The rise thus lacked conviction and it remains to be seen if the dollar can sustain its bounce. The prospect of a rate cut by the Fed may have diminished in light of the data, but economic views are not yet strong enough to support rate hike expectations,” Kanda said.
The dollar had sagged on Wednesday after a mixed report on domestic consumer prices reinforced the notion that underlying U.S. inflation remains tame.
The pound was steady at $1.3053 after dipping 0.25 percent the previous day against the broadly firmer dollar.
Volatility for sterling plunged after a midweek deal at an emergency European Union summit to postpone Britain’s exit from the bloc to Oct. 31 meant it would not crash out this week without a treaty to smooth its passage. [GBP/]
The Canadian dollar was more or less steady at C$1.3385 per dollar after shedding 0.5 percent the previous day as crude oil prices retreated from five-month highs.
The Australian dollar dipped 0.1 percent to $0.7117 to extend losses from a day earlier, when it sank 0.7 percent.
A decline in copper prices and political uncertainty were also seen weighing on the Aussie.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday announced a general election to be held on May 18.
The New Zealand dollar, also sensitive to shifts in commodity prices, slipped to $0.6714, its lowest since Jan. 22.
The euro nudged up 0.1 percent to $1.1262 after losing 0.2 percent on Thursday. The single currency has risen about 0.4 percent this week.
(Reporting by Shinichi Saoshiro; Editing by Shri Navaratnam)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO – Central American migrants, who are waiting for their court hearing for asylum seekers that returned to Mexico to await their legal proceedings under a new policy established by the U.S. government, queue for food at a fire station used as a temporary shelter, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, April 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez
April 11, 2019
By Jose Gallego Espina and Lizbeth Diaz
SAN DIEGO/TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) – At least 60 Central American asylum seekers who were waiting in Mexico for their cases to be heard have been allowed to stay in the United States since Monday’s court ruling to halt a Trump administration policy of sending them back across the border.
The admissions occurred even though the U.S. District Court ruling does not come into effect until Friday, and despite the fact the ruling does not clearly apply to the hundreds of people returned to Mexico.
The number and outcomes of the cases were confirmed by a migrant attorney and a Reuters reporter who have attended court proceedings in San Diego this week.
The administration has indicated it will appeal the ruling, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether there has been a policy change.
But the stance of the DHS in the cases in a San Diego court shows the U.S. government is already allowing some migrants coming in from Mexico to stay in the United States as their individual cases come up.
A source at Mexico’s National Immigration Institute said on Thursday that around 1,400 people have been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols policy (MPP) since January, most of them to the border town of Tijuana, where many said they feared dangerous conditions.
The policy was stepped up in the days before the ruling, Mexican government statistics show.
No-one appears to have been sent back under the policy since Tuesday, the day after the ruling, said the Mexican immigration source, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
The court ruling clearly applied to the 11 plaintiffs in the civil liberties lawsuit as well as future asylum applicants, but the status of those already in Mexico was left unclear.
Not one of 20 asylum seekers who crossed the border from Tijuana on Wednesday for court hearings in San Diego was returned to Mexico, however. At one hearing, a Guatemalan man asked specifically whether he would have to go back to Tijuana.
“Definitely, he will not be returned to Mexico,” said Pamela Ataii, the DHS lawyer.
Another migrant told Judge Scott Simpson that he was scared to go back, to which Simpson responded: “You are lucky, because I don’t think that’s going to happen.”
Luis Gonzalez, supervising immigration attorney with the Jewish Family Service of San Diego, who attended court on Tuesday, said he knew of 13 people who had hearings that day who had been released and one who was detained in the United States.
“Our understanding so far is that families under the MPP program are now being released into the United States after coming to court,” Gonzalez said.
El Salvadoran Gabriela Orellana, 26, and her two children were among those allowed to pursue their cases in the United States.
“I am here, thank God, in a shelter in San Diego,” she said in a telephone interview on Thursday.
President Donald Trump’s administration has argued that asylum seekers who are released into U.S. territory often do not show up at their hearings, a contention at odds with federal statistics which show that the majority do appear.
Carmen Rivera, who said she was fleeing gangs in El Salvador, had given up hope of receiving U.S. asylum after she was sent back to Mexico. She told Reuters she decided weeks ago not to attend her court hearing in San Diego.
After the ruling this week, however, she changed her mind.
“I´m excited to know that we have this opportunity, because to return to Mexico, to Tijuana, is very dangerous,” she said from a shelter close to the border fence in Mexico, where many migrants were camped out in tents.
“Thank God, things changed.”
(Additional reporting by Andrew Hay, writing by Kristina Cooke; Editing by Julie Marquis and Sonya Hepinstall)
Source: OANN
Adam Scott of Australia hits off the second tee during first round play of the 2019 Masters golf tournament at Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia, U.S., April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
April 11, 2019
By Amy Tennery
AUGUSTA, Ga. (Reuters) – Adam Scott grabbed a share of the clubhouse lead at the Masters on Thursday, finishing three under-par in his best first-round performance in five years at the tournament.
“I’m kind of a slow starter, certainly the last 10 years, I don’t jump out of the gates, it seems,” said Scott. “So I don’t know if this is jumping out of the gates, but it certainly is great.”
Scott recovered from a bogey on the 12th hole with three birdies in the final four holes of his round.
“That’s kind of what you have to do, get some momentum going, even though, over the last two holes, I feel like teeing off from this position tomorrow afternoon is a hell of a lot better than even par,” said Scott.
Despite the warm, sunny weather, Augusta National dealt competitors softer conditions due to the ample rain in the days leading up to the tournament.
Scott, who won the Masters in 2013, has achieved only one top-10 finish at Augusta since donning the Green Jacket.
“I know where and when my game is coming into really good shape and I can see it coming back and I think I got some good confirmation today with some solid ball striking,” said Scott.
(Reporting By Amy Tennery; Editing by Toby Davis)
Source: OANN
Tiger Woods of the U.S. walks on the 16th green during first round play of the 2019 Masters golf tournament at Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia, U.S., April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
April 11, 2019
By Andrew Both
AUGUSTA, Ga. (Reuters) – Tiger Woods missed a couple of short putts early in the first round before charging up the leaderboard at the Masters on Thursday, at times reminding everyone of his former glories.
Fourteen years since his last Masters triumph, 14 times major winner Woods birdied the 13th and 14th holes to tie for the lead at Augusta National.
Yet a couple of poor drives down the stretch, along with a judgment error, left the four-times Masters champion to card a slightly disappointing two-under-par 70.
He was one stroke off the clubhouse lead, held by Australian Adam Scott, Spaniard Jon Rahm and South African Justin Harding.
“Played well today, hit a lot of good shots,” Woods said.
“If I missed, I missed in the correct spot. I had simpler up-and-downs because of that.
“I missed a few (putts) for sure, misread a couple and hit a bad one at six. Other than that it was a good solid day.”
After a two-putt birdie at the par-five 13th, Woods picked up another shot at the 14th with a typically Tigeresque effort.
He threaded his 150-yard approach shot through the Augusta pines and then sank a sharply-breaking 25-foot putt, giving an understated little fist pump as the patrons roared their approval.
When he drove down the middle at the par-five 15th, leaving less than 200 yards to the pin, it seemed likely Woods would take the outright lead.
Yet one poorly-judged shot pricked his balloon.
“Get down, down, down,” he barked at his ball while it was in the air, before adding “oh my god” when he saw it overshoot the green.
The ball landed on a downslope and bounded 40 yards beyond the hole, leaving a devilishly difficult pitch shot.
The 43-year-old struck a heavy wedge shot which never had a chance of making it up the slope, prompting a wry smile.
He hit the next one close and saved par.
Later, Woods carved his drive into the trees at the par-four 17th, and though he found a nice gap for his second shot, he came up short of the green and bogeyed the hole.
Earlier, Woods missed a five-foot putt at the fifth and an even shorter one at the next. He also missed a great birdie chance at the par-five eighth.
(Reporting by Andrew Both; Editing by Toby Davis)
Source: OANN
MAGA One Radio