Trump FBI raid documents about Mar-a-Lago search unsealed

FBI agents found four dozen empty document folders marked "CLASSIFIED" during their raid last month of former President Donald Trump's residence at his Mar-a-Lago club, a newly unsealed court file revealed Friday. Agents found 43 of those empty folders marked classified in Trump's office, according to the Department of Justice's inventory of the seized items, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The remaining five empty folders with that marking were found in containers in a storage room. The FBI also found another 42 empty folders marked "Return to Staff Secretary/Miliary [sic] Aide," during the Aug. 8 raid, which was authorized to search for government documents removed from the White House when Trump left office in Jan. 2021, the filing said.

Documents seized by FBI from Mar-a-Lago Source: Department of Justice

Twenty-eight of those empty folders were found in Trump's office, while another 14 were in a storage room elsewhere, the document shows. And FBI agents found more than 10,000 government documents and photographs without classification markings, the filing shows. Among those were hundreds of photos and news articles, along with gifts, clothing, and books. The bombshell revelations raise the prospect that the DOJ has not yet recovered the documents that would have been in the empty folders. The DOJ is investigating possible crimes related to the removal of those and other government documents from the White House when Trump left office in Jan. 2021. By law, such records must be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

It was signed by Miami U.S. Attorney Juan Gonzalez, and Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section of the national security division of the Justice Department. "The seized materials will continue to be used to further the government's investigation, and the investigative team will continue to use and evaluate the seized materials as it takes further investigative steps, such as through additional interviews and grand jury practice," that notice says. "It is important to note, 'review' of the seized materials is not a single investigative step but an ongoing process in this active criminal investigation," the document says. Trump's spokesman in a series of tweets about the inventory of the seized items again criticized the raid. "The new 'detailed' inventory list only further proves that this unprecedented and unnecessary raid of President Trump's home was not some surgical, confined search and retrieval that the Biden administration claims, it was a SMASH AND GRAB," wrote the spokesman, Taylor Budowich. "These document disputes should be resolved under the Presidential Records Act, which requires cooperation and negotiation by NARA [National Archives and Records Administration], not an armed FBI raid," Budowich added.

Trump in a lawsuit filed in late August asked Cannon to appoint an independent watchdog, known as a special master, to review the items seized in the search before the DOJ is allowed to continue using the documents in the investigation. Trump's lawyers have said a special master could check to see if some documents would be prohibited from being used in the probe because they are protected by either attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. The DOJ has opposed the appointment of a special master, saying that it would delay the investigation, and that Trump does not own the documents. Cannon, during a court hearing in Florida on that dispute Thursday, said she will issue a ruling on the special master request in "due course."

Cannon, a Trump appointee, previously shared her "preliminary intent" to grant Trump's request for a special master. The judge suggested in Thursday's hearing that she is still considering that appointment, news outlets reported.

#Trump #FBI #raid #documents #MaraLago #search #unsealed https://www.globalcourant.com/trump-fbi-raid-documents-about-mar-a-lago-search-unsealed/?feed_id=19577&_unique_id=6312e08c77a91

Judge plans to appoint a 'special master' to review documents in Trump's records case

An aerial view of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home after Trump said that FBI agents raided it, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. August 15, 2022. Marco Bello | Reuters

A federal judge in Florida told the Justice Department on Saturday to provide her with more specific information about the classified records removed from former President Donald Trump's Florida estate and said it was her "preliminary intent" to appoint a special master in the case. The two-page order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signals that she's inclined to grant a request from Trump's lawyers, who this week asked for the appointment of an independent special master to review the records taken from Mar-a-Lago and identify any that may be protected by executive privilege. The judge scheduled a Thursday hearing to discuss the matter further. A special master is often a former judge. Cannon also directed the Justice Department to file under seal with her more detailed descriptions of the material taken from Trump's property. The former president's lawyers have complained that investigators did not disclose enough information to them about what specific documents were removed when agents executed a search warrant on Aug. 8 to look for classified documents.

The special master appointment, if it happens, is unlikely to significantly affect the direction of the Justice Department investigation, though it's possible an outside review of the documents could slow the probe down.

#Judge #plans #appoint #special #master #review #documents #Trumps #records #case https://www.globalcourant.com/judge-plans-to-appoint-a-special-master-to-review-documents-in-trumps-records-case/?feed_id=16812&_unique_id=630ae06801fa0

Exile, Fines or Jail: Censorship Laws Take Heavy Toll on Anti-War Russians

At a March council meeting in the Russian city of Voronezh, local deputy Nina Belyaeva condemned her country’s invasion of Ukraine and described the Russian military’s actions as a war crime. Within weeks, she was accused of “spreading false information” about the army — a violation of wartime censorship laws that can lead to a long jail sentence.  Belyaeva, 33, avoided arrest and fled to neighboring Latvia. Since then, she has not only been arrested in absentia by the Russian authorities, but was last month added to a terrorism list for criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin. “When you understand the scale of the bombings, you cannot remain silent,” the deputy from Russia’s Communist Party told The Moscow Times in a phone interview. “I heard aircraft noise [in Voronezh] and I knew that the civilian airport was closed — I knew that any flying aircraft was a military one.” Over six months since the start of Russia’s invasion in February, thousands of people have been charged under laws punishing criticism of the war. But there appears to be little logic behind prosecutions and it is not just opposition figures and politicians on the receiving end — journalists, artists, musicians, school teachers, archaeologists, DJs, doctors and single mothers have also been targeted.

Voronezh deputy Nina Belyaeva. Nina Belyaeva / instagram

In total, Russia has opened more than 3,800 administrative cases for “discrediting” the Russian army since censorship laws were passed in March, according to the OVD-Info protest monitoring group. More seriously, there are dozens of active criminal cases for repeatedly “discrediting” the Armed Forces and at least 90 criminal cases have been opened for “spreading false information,” OVD-Info said. The punishment for those found guilty of "discrediting” the Russian Armed Forces is a fine of up to 1 million rubles ($16,467), with repeat offenders liable for prison sentence of up to five years; while those convicted of “spreading false information” can be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. Like Belyaeva, many Russians have left the country due to the threat of long jail terms. Facing up to three years in prison for “spreading false information” about the Russian army, Siberian regional assembly deputy Helga Pirogova fled to neighboring Georgia last month. Pirogova, 33, was charged over a since-deleted tweet criticizing the mother of a dead Russian soldier who praised the authorities over arrangements for her son’s funeral. In a recent interview, Pirogova said a criminal case was the only thing that “could squeeze her out” of the country. 

Novosibirsk deputy Helga Pirogova. Helga Pirogova / instagram

“I didn’t want to leave Russia. I still don’t want to and, to say the least, I can’t make peace with it. I have no desire to,” she told media outlet Meduza.  But activists and those involved in politics are not the only ones to have been targeted under the new laws. Sometimes, those charged have not even made anti-war statements.  Alexei Argunov, a philosophy and history teacher from the Siberian city of Barnaul, was fined 30,000 rubles ($484) last month for “discrediting” the Armed Forces after reacting to a post on Russian social network Odnoklassniki with an emoji. Argunov put emojis under three war-related posts, ironically adding a sad smile under news about a local official who was fined for stating his opposition to the Russian invasion. “It’s dangerous to express your opinion. People are not safe,“ Argunov told The Moscow Times in a phone interview.  In other examples, teacher Irina Gen, 45, received a five-year suspended sentence earlier this month for “spreading false information”; a DJ in Russian-annexed Crimea was jailed for ten days for "discrediting" the army after playing a Ukrainian song in a karaoke bar; archaeologist Yevgeny Kruglov, 46, was arrested after being accused of "spreading fale information" on social media; and Dmitry Chistyakov, a former spokesperson for Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry, faces a fine of up to 50,000 rubles ($826) for “discrediting” the Armed Forces. Russian Orthodox theologian Andrei Kuraev was fined 30,000 rubles ($484) this week under the same law. While these censorship laws have been used many times, there is still much uncertainty surrounding the exact definition of “discrediting” the Armed Forces and “spreading false information.”

Irina Gen, a teacher from Penza. Photo from the personal archive of Irina Gen

Russia’s Justice Ministry apparently has compiled a special guide stating that “a negative opinion” is viewed as “discrediting,” while “a statement of fact” is considered to be “spreading false information,” the Kommersant newspaper reported earlier this month.   Either way, the laws appear to have been designed to be vague enough that almost anyone can be targeted.  “We can definitely say that the laws are military censorship,” said Alexandra Baeva, the head of the legal department at OVD-Info. “Spreading any information that contradicts Russian official statements [about the situation in Ukraine] is punishable.”  The first person to be sentenced to a long jail term under the wartime censorship laws was Moscow municipal deputy Alexei Gorinov, who was given seven years in prison last month.  Gorinov’s crime was to question whether it was appropriate to hold an art competition for kids in his constituency while — as he put it — "children are dying" in Ukraine. He denied his guilt and held up a placard in court that read: “Do you still need this war?” Opposition leaders Ilya Yashin, 39, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, 40, who were arrested for allegedly "spreading false information" about the Russian army, are currently in jail awaiting trial. The former mayor of Yekaterinburg and another prominent Kremlin critic, Yevgeny Roizman, was detained Wednesday on criminal charges for repeatedly "discrediting” the Russian Armed Forces.

Moscow municipal deputy Alexei Gorinov in court with a placard that read "Do you still need this war?" Anatoly Zhdanov / Kommersant

Along with politicians, journalists are also one of the largest groups to have been targeted, with at least 14 criminal cases for “spreading fakes” about the Russian Armed Forces opened against reporters, according to lawyer Stanislav Seleznyov, a senior partner at the Net Freedoms Project.  Russia’s Interior Ministry placed investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov on the federal wanted list after he was accused of “spreading false information” in March. Journalists Alexander Nevzorov and Michael Nacke and Conflict Intelligence Team founder Ruslan Leviyev have all been accused under the same law. In total, over 200 people are currently facing criminal prosecutions for voicing opposition to the war in Ukraine, according to the tally kept by OVD-Info. These criminal and administrative prosecutions have gone a long way toward silencing criticism of Russia's actions in Ukraine, according to Seleznyov.  “Every news report about yet another criminal case or fine for discrediting the army and spreading false information cools public discussion,” he said. Yet despite the unprecedented crackdown, Russians continue to oppose the war. “It was unbearable for me to understand that people [in Ukraine] were being killed and maimed and I couldn’t do anything,” Belyaeva said from Latvia.

“At least I could speak out.”

#Exile #Fines #Jail #Censorship #Laws #Heavy #Toll #AntiWar #Russians https://www.globalcourant.com/exile-fines-or-jail-censorship-laws-take-heavy-toll-on-anti-war-russians/?feed_id=15755&_unique_id=6307b9b171b2a

Judge orders Trump to give details about Mar-a-Lago warrant lawsuit

An aerial view of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home after Trump said that FBI agents raided it, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. August 15, 2022. Marco Bello | Reuters

A federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump ordered him Tuesday to answer several key questions about his new lawsuit related to the FBI raid on his Florida home, including why her court should be the one hearing the case and to more precisely explain what he wants her to do. Judge Aileen Cannon also ordered Trump to tell her how his suit affects another pending case involving the same search warrant before a federal magistrate judge in the same court, and whether the Department of Justice has been served with his lawsuit yet. Cannon also wants to know if Trump is seeking any injunctions related to material seized in the raid until the lawsuit is resolved. Cannon's order came a day after Trump filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asking her to appoint a so-called special master to review documents seized Aug. 8 in the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago resort residence in Palm Beach.

The judge, whom Trump appointed to that court in 2020, gave him and his lawyers until Friday to answer her questions. Trump wants to block the DOJ from examining the seized documents until a special master looks at them. The step is typically taken when there is a chance that some evidence should be withheld from prosecutors because of various legal privileges. The DOJ is conducting a criminal investigation related to the documents being removed from the White House when Trump left office in January 2021. By law, presidential records are required to be turned over to the National Archives. A warrant authorizing the FBI's search-and-seizure operation at Mar-a-Lago shows that the DOJ is probing potential violations of laws related to espionage and obstruction of justice. Multiple sets of documents marked top secret were seized in the raid. Trump claims the raid was illegal and motivated by a desire to harm his chances of regaining the White House if he decides to run again.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Cannon in her order Tuesday wrote: "The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief." "To facilitate appropriate resolution, on or before August 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the Motion further elaborating on the following: (1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both; (2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction;" Cannon wrote. The judge also told Trump's team to detail "the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion; (4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and (5) the status of Plaintiff's efforts to perfect service on Defendant." Reinhart signed the warrant authorizing the raid. He is considering requests by media outlets to unseal an affidavit that the DOJ filed, which laid out the need for the search and events leading up to it. Earlier Tuesday, the National Archives posted online a letter that said classified material was found in boxes that Trump turned over to that agency in January.

The material, which spans 700 pages, includes ones related to top secret, sensitive compartmented information and special access programs, the National Archives letter said.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/judge-orders-trump-to-give-details-about-mar-a-lago-warrant-lawsuit/?feed_id=14894&_unique_id=6305516cb866f

Affidavit used in search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago to be partially unsealed, judge says

A federal judge said that parts of the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's resort home Mar-a-Lago can be unsealed, NBC News reported Thursday.

The decision from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart came after the Department of Justice asked him not to unseal the highly sensitive document, which details the government's view that it had probable cause to believe the search of Mar-a-Lago would turn up evidence of illegality.

The government's investigation into the records seized from Trump's Palm Beach, Florida, residence is still in its "early stages," argued Jay Bratt, head of a DOJ counterintelligence team, NBC reported.

The affidavit contains "substantial grand jury" information in a case with "national security overtones," Bratt reportedly said in the hearing.

Reinhart disagreed, saying he believed "there are portions of it that can be unsealed."

An aerial view of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home after Trump said that FBI agents raided it, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. August 15, 2022.

Marco Bello | Reuters

In a written order later Thursday, Reinhart wrote, "As I ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed."

The judge gave the government a week to file proposed redactions to the affidavit.

The prosecutors had previously urged the court to reject calls from media outlets and other entities to disclose the affidavit, which supported the search warrant used by FBI agents in the Aug. 8 raid on Mar-a-Lago.

Trump has publicly called for the affidavit to be released without redactions, though his lawyers have not yet filed a motion asking the judge to do so.

The former president "has made his view clear that the American people should be permitted to see the unredacted affidavit related to the raid and break-in of his home," his spokesman Taylor Budowich said on Twitter after the hearing. His tweets praised Reinhart for rejecting "the DOJ's cynical attempt to hide the whole affidavit from Americans," but insisted that "no redactions should be necessary."

The search warrant itself had been publicly released with the DOJ's approval last week. That document and attachments indicated that the agents were looking for materials related to three criminal statutes, one of which was part of the Espionage Act.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who said he personally approved the warrant, supported its disclosure in light of the "substantial public interest in this matter."

But the affidavit "presents a very different set of considerations," federal prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday.

The still-sealed document contains "critically important and detailed investigative facts" about witnesses and other "highly sensitive information" related to the ongoing criminal probe, which "implicates national security," the prosecutors wrote.

If disclosed, the affidavit would be "highly likely to compromise future investigative steps," said the filing, which was signed by Bratt, the head of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the DOJ's National Security Division.

The current criminal investigation stems from a probe of government records that were transferred to Mar-a-Lago instead of the National Archives after Trump left office in 2021.

FBI agents sought all records and other evidence "illegally possessed" in violation of three criminal statutes, according to the search warrant and property receipt released last week. The agents seized 20 boxes of items and other materials, including multiple sets of documents marked top secret and classified, the property receipt showed.

None of the three statutes — Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 793, 1519 and 2071 — hinge on whether the documents in question were classified.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/affidavit-used-in-search-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-to-be-partially-unsealed-judge-says/?feed_id=12778&_unique_id=62fed845b483d

Justice Department asks to unseal Trump raid search warrant

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to unseal a search warrant that was used by FBI agents to raid the Florida home of former President Donald Trump three days earlier.

That request came after days of pressure by Republican lawmakers and other allies of Trump on the Justice Department to explain why it authorized what is believed to be the first-ever search of a former president's residence in connection with a criminal investigation.

The Justice Department is seeking to unseal just the warrant and an inventory of items seized by the FBI during the search of Trump's home at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach.

But the department is not asking the judge to unseal the affidavit of probable cause, which would detail how authorities believe a crime was likely committed and why there would be evidence of that crime in the location targeted in the search.

However, the warrant itself is likely to list the criminal statutes related to the search.

Later Thursday, a group of media companies, including NBC News, The Washington Post and CNN, filed a motion in to unseal all court records related to warrant, including "all probable cause affidavits filed in support of the search warrant." NBC News is a division of NBCUniversal, the parent company of CNBC.

"The Media Intervenors are news organizations and are entitled, as members of the public, to view judicial records," the filing said. "The tremendous public interest in these records in particular outweighs any purported interest in keeping them secret."

Read the Justice Department's motion to unseal the warrant here.

The Justice Department is investigating Trump for the removal of documents from the White House, and possible violations of classified information laws because of the nature of some of those documents.

"The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president's public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter," Garland said at a surprise press conference.

The department's motion was lodged in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located. It was signed by Jay Bratt, chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the National Security Division of the Justice Department.

Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally at the I-80 Speedway on May 01, 2022 in Greenwood, Nebraska.

Scott Olson | Getty Images

Garland at the press conference said, "I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter."

"The department does not take such a decision lightly," he said. "Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken."

Garland also condemned what he called "recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors" in connection with the search and related investigation.

"I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked," he said.

Trump's lawyer and his spokeswoman did not immediately respond when asked to comment on Garland's announcement, and if Trump will oppose the motion to unseal.

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart later Thursday ordered the Justice Department to speak with Trump's lawyers and learn whether they will oppose the motion. Reinhart directed the Justice Department to inform him by 3 p.m. Friday of Trump's answer.

Trump in a post on his social media site after the press conference wrote that before the raid his attorneys and representatives "were cooperating fully" with the Justice Department, and "very good relationships had been established."

"The government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it," Trump wrote.

"They asked us to put an additional lock on a certain area — DONE! Everything was fine, better than that of most previous Presidents, and then, out of nowhere and with no warning, Mar-a-Lago was raided at 6:30 in the morning, by VERY large numbers of agents and even 'safecrackers.' They got way ahead of themselves. Crazy."

Trump and his allies have claimed the Justice Department and Garland, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, searched Trump's residence to hurt the former president politically.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks about the FBI's search warrant served at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida during a statement at the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, U.S., August 11, 2022.

Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

FBI agents seized about a dozen boxes from Mar-a-Lago, according to Trump's lawyer.

That lawyer said agents left a copy of the search warrant, which indicated they are investigating possible violations of laws related to the Presidential Records Act and the handling of classified material.

A senior White House official told NBC News that they were unaware of what Garland would say before he took the podium at the Justice Department.

"We have had no notice that he was giving remarks and no briefing on the content of them," the official said.

The Justice Department, and Garland, have a longstanding policy about not commenting on criminal investigations before charges are filed.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/justice-department-asks-to-unseal-trump-raid-search-warrant/?feed_id=9761&_unique_id=62f5b994388ed

U.S. Senate Democrats' bill will make mark on climate, health-care costs

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) holds his weekly news conference after the Democratic caucus party luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, August 2, 2022.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

The $430 billion climate change, health-care and tax bill passed by the U.S. Senate on Saturday delivers a major win for Democrats, and will help reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change while also cutting costs for the elderly.

Democrats hope the bill, which they pushed through the Senate over united Republican opposition, will boost their chances in the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when Republicans are favored to recapture the majority in at least one chamber of Congress.

The package, called the Inflation Reduction Act, is a dramatically scaled-back version of a prior bill backed by Democratic President Joe Biden that was blocked by maverick Senate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema as too expensive.

"It's what the American people want," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters. "We're prioritizing the middle class, working families, those struggling to get to the middle class, instead of what Republicans do: prioritize those at the very top."

The Senate's partisan 51-50 vote, with the tiebreaking vote coming from Vice President Kamala Harris, sends the legislation on to the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which is expected to pass it on Friday, after which Biden could sign it into law.

Republicans blasted the bill as a spending "wish list" that they argued would hurt an economy weighed down by inflation, saying it would kill jobs, raise energy costs and undermine growth at a time when the economy is facing a potential recession.

"Senate Democrats are misreading the American people's outrage as a mandate for yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree," top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell said on Saturday. "Democrats want to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes and hundreds of billions of dollars in reckless spending -- and for what?"

About half of Americans -- some 49% -- support the bill, including 69% of Democrats and 34% of Republicans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Aug. 3 and 4. The most popular element of the bill is giving Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices, which 71% of respondents support, including 68% of Republicans.

Economists, who say the legislation could help the Federal Reserve combat inflation, do not expect a sizeable impact on the economy in the coming months.

Climate focus

With $370 billion in climate-focused spending, it would become the most consequential climate change bill ever passed by Congress.

The bill offers businesses and families billions in incentives to encourage purchases of electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances, as well as to spur new investments in wind and solar power that would double the amount of new, clean electricity-generating capacity coming online in the United States by 2024, according to modeling by the Repeat Project at Princeton University.

That would help put the U.S. on course to meet its pledge to slash its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 below 2005 levels, made at last year's Glasgow climate summit.

While environmental groups largely embraced the bill, they noted that compromises secured by Manchin, who represents coal-producing West Virginia, would prolong U.S. use of fossil fuels.

Those provisions include rules that would only allow the federal government to authorize new wind and solar energy developments on federal land when it is also auctioning rights to drill for oil and natural gas.

Drug costs

The legislation would lower drug costs for the government, employers and patients, said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Medicare program at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"Perhaps the biggest effect would be for people with prescription drug coverage through Medicare," she said.

A key change is the provision allowing the federal Medicare health plan for older and disabled Americans to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry says price negotiation would stifle innovation. Negotiated prices for 10 of the costliest drugs for Medicare would apply starting in 2026, with that number rising until it caps at 20 a year in 2029.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare would save $101.8 billion over 10 years by negotiating drug prices.

The provision also introduces a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for the elderly through the Medicare program.

Tax provisions

The bill also imposes a new excise tax on stock buybacks, a late change after Sinema raised objections over another provision that would have imposed new levies on carried interest, currently a tax loophole for hedge fund and private equity financiers. The provision was dropped.

The excise tax is expected to raise an additional $70 billion in tax revenue per year, lawmakers said. That is more than the carried interest provision had been forecast to raise.

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released prior to that last change estimated the measure would reduce the federal deficit by a net $101.5 billion over the next decade.

That was about one-third of the $300 billion in deficit reduction predicted by Senate Democrats, but excluded a projected $204 billion revenue gain from increased Internal Revenue Service enforcement.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/u-s-senate-democrats-bill-will-make-mark-on-climate-health-care-costs/?feed_id=7661&_unique_id=62ef4c0a91fc8

Zelenskyy slams Amnesty over 'laws of war' report

Fast News

Ukraine cedes some territory in the east in the face of an enormous Russian offensive – now in its 163rd day – and NATO says Moscow must not be allowed to win.

Amnesty International accuses Ukraine of endangering civilians by basing troops in residential areas, angering Kiev. (AFP)

Friday, August 5, 2022

Zelenskyy accuses Amnesty of excusing Russian 'terrorist state'

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has condemned Amnesty International for excusing Russian acts of "terror" after the rights group said Kiev's forces were endangering civilians by establishing bases in residential areas.

Amnesty had tried to "amnesty the terrorist state and shift the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim", Zelensky said in his daily address.

"There is no condition, even hypothetically, under which any Russian strike on Ukraine becomes justified. Aggression against our state is unprovoked, invasive and terrorist," he added.

For live updates from Thursday (August 4), click here

Source: TRTWorld and agencies

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/zelenskyy-slams-amnesty-over-laws-of-war-report/?feed_id=6812&_unique_id=62ec9a3abeefa

Atlanta's Midtown Music festival canceled, reportedly over Georgia's gun laws

Though the organizers did not cite a reason for calling off the festival, various media reports citing industry and festival sources said the cancellation was due to a recent interpretation of Georgia's gun law, which permits firearms in public spaces, including parks.

Weapons and explosives of any kind are prohibited at the festival, according to its website. Gun rights advocates had mounted a pressure campaign against that position, calling into question the festival's ability to restrict firearms since Georgia allows guns to be carried in parks.

Sources with knowledge of the cancellation decision by operator Live Nation who spoke to Rolling Stone cited Georgia gun laws as the reason.

Georgia gun advocate Phil Evans told CNN he emailed festival organizers in May, apprising them of Georgia gun laws and a Georgia Supreme Court case dealing with guns in which he was a party. Evans said he also asked the City of Atlanta to deny a permit to Live Nation for Music Midtown, given the festival's ban on firearms.

In the email dated May 13, Evans asked the city to deny the permit for "as they have publicly stated an intent to violate settled state law."

"The City of Atlanta should respect state law and uphold it when dealing with entities that make use of tax-payer owned properties that wish to make money from such usage, or even otherwise," the email said.

The event slated for September 17 and 18 in Piedmont Park was canceled "due to circumstances beyond our control," said the organizer's tweet.

The music festival was set to feature a "diverse lineup of over 30 artists across 4 stages," including My Chemical Romance, Future, Jack White and Fall Out Boy among others, according to the festival website.

"We were looking forward to reuniting in September and hope we can all get back to enjoying the festival together again soon," the organizers said.

Last year's festival attracted some 50,000 people and featured performances by Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, and Maroon 5, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Atlanta City Council President Doug Shipman said it was a "sad day" after the cancellation was announced.

"Public policy has real impacts and in this case- economic and social implications on a great tradition," Shipman tweeted.

Ticket refunds will be processed automatically within the next 24 hours, organizers said.

https://www.globalcourant.com/atlantas-midtown-music-festival-canceled-reportedly-over-georgias-gun-laws/?feed_id=5468&_unique_id=62e8bdfca7542

Truss pledges to ditch all EU laws by 2023 amid UK leadership race

Liz Truss said she would not follow the “outdated EU law and frameworks” and will seize opportunities that the UK may have in the future.

British Foreign Secretary and Conservative leadership candidate Liz Truss leaves her house in London, Britain, July 20, 2022. (Reuters)

Liz Truss, the leading candidate to succeed Boris Johnson as British prime minister, promised to scrap all remaining European Union laws that still apply in Britain by 2023 if she wins the Conservative Party leadership contest.

Foreign Secretary Truss is up against former finance minister Rishi Sunak in a race to court the 200,000 members of the Conservative Party who over the course of the summer will vote to choose the country's new prime minister.

Britain's relationship with Europe remains of great concern to the Conservative Party membership, generally characterised as more eurosceptic than the wider population.

Hoping to tap into that, Truss, who campaigned for 'remain' in the 2016 referendum but is now seen as the heir to Johnson's pro-Brexit position, promised to purge all remaining EU laws from the statute books.

To avoid uncertainty and confusion as Britain untangled itself from the EU after 40 years of membership, the government automatically carried over thousands of EU laws and regulations into British law so that they would still apply after Brexit.

"EU regulations hinder our businesses and this has to change," Truss said in a statement. The statement said she was setting out her credentials as the "Brexit delivery" prime minister.

"In Downing Street, I will seize the chance to diverge from outdated EU law and frameworks and capitalise on the opportunities we have ahead of us."

Sunak: UK faces national emergency on 'five fronts'

Separately, Rishi Sunak, in the running to become the next prime minister, would put the government on a crisis footing from "day one" of taking office, he said in an interview with The Times on Friday.

Over the next week, Sunak intends to argue that Britain is facing a national emergency on five fronts including the economy, the National Health Service and migration, the newspaper reported.

Inflation is the "number one challenge we face," Sunak told the newspaper, adding that under Truss' plans, interest rates in the country could rise significantly.

Sunak has said he plans to cut taxes but only once inflation - now running at almost 10 percent — is brought under control. He accused his rivals of making "fairy tale" promises about tax cuts.

The government has already set out its intention to replace or repeal existing EU laws but had not set a timeframe.

Truss's deadline of 2023 is earlier than a similar pledge made by Sunak, who campaigned for Brexit in 2016 but has been vilified by some corners of the Conservative Party for raising taxes to their highest level in decades.

Sunak said EU law would be scrapped or reformed by the next election, which is expected in 2024. Truss leads Sunak by 62 percent to 38 percent among Conservative Party members, according to a YouGov poll on Thursday.

Source: Reuters

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/truss-pledges-to-ditch-all-eu-laws-by-2023-amid-uk-leadership-race/?feed_id=482&_unique_id=62db35d4344ab

Steven Bannon jurors reach verdict in Trump aide contempt trial

Former U.S. President Donald Trump's White House chief strategist Steve Bannon arrives following his trial on contempt of Congress charges for his refusal to cooperate with the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., July 22, 2022. 

Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

A federal court jury reached a verdict Friday in the trial of Steve Bannon, the former top Trump White House aide who is charged with criminal contempt of Congress.

The verdict is expected to be announced shortly in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Bannon is accused of willfully failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the House select committee that is investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

He faces a minimum criminal sentence of 30 days in jail if convicted of two counts of contempt.

Prosecutor Molly Gaston told jurors in her closing arguments that Bannon "chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law."

"When it really comes down to it, he did not want to recognize Congress' authority or play by the government's rules," Gaston said. "Our government only works if people show up. It only works if people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they do not."

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Bannon's lawyers did not present a defense during the trial, which began Monday with jury selection.

His attorneys were hamstrung by pretrial rulings by the judge in the case, who severely limited the evidence they could present at trial.

During his own closing arguments Friday, Bannon's lawyer Evan Corcoran tried to suggest that Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is chair of the Jan. 6 committee, did not sign a subpoena for Bannon, NBC reported. Corcoran dropped that line of argument after the prosecution objected.

Corcoran also asked jurors to set aside memories of Jan. 6 in their deliberations.

"None of us will soon forget January 6, 2021," Corcoran said. "It's part of our collective memory. But there's no evidence in this case that Steve Bannon was involved at all. For purposes of this case we have to put out of our thoughts January 6."

Jurors began their deliberations at just before 11:40 a.m. ET, after the closing arguments concluded.

This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/steven-bannon-jurors-reach-verdict-in-trump-aide-contempt-trial/?feed_id=300&_unique_id=62daefcd8aedd