Tag Archives : Build House

Musk suggests deal could go through if Twitter provides info on confirming users

Tesla CEO Elon Musk suggested early Saturday that his acquisition deal with Twitter could still go through if the social media platform provided information about how it confirms that sampled accounts are real.

“If Twitter simply provides their method of sampling 100 accounts and how they’re confirmed to be real, the deal should proceed on original terms,” Musk tweeted. “However, if it turns out that their SEC filings are materially false, then it should not.”

The tweet from Musk is the latest in the drama between the SpaceX CEO and the social media platform following legal action over his bid to buy Twitter.

Earlier this year, Musk reached a deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion, but less than three months later, he terminated the deal. His legal team argued at the time there was inadequate information provided about bots on Twitter’s site. The team also alleged that the social media company had fired several employees in violation of their agreement and that its statements regarding bots were not accurate.

The social media platform sued Musk to force him to complete the acquisition.

“Having mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play, and having proposed and then signed a seller-friendly merger agreement, Musk apparently believes that he— unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law — is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away,” the lawsuit against Musk said.

But Musk filed a countersuit earlier this month, with his lawyers alleging that he was not consulted on big decisions at the social media company and that the billionaire had entered into the agreement without knowing about the platform’s “misrepresentations or omissions,” which impacted his perception of the site’s value, according to The Associated Press.

Twitter hit back against the countersuit, saying that the argument was “imagined in an effort to escape a merger agreement that Musk no longer found attractive once the stock market—and along with it, his massive personal wealth—declined in value.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Bill Gates promotes climate measures in Democrats' economic package

Microsoft founder Bill Gates touted climate measures included in a major reconciliation package Democrats are seeking to pass, saying on Friday that the U.S. “can’t afford to miss” the opportunity to tackle climate change and bolster American energy security.

He wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times that the sweeping climate, tax reform and health package, referred to as The Inflation Reduction Act, “may be the single most important piece of climate legislation in American history. It represents our best chance to build an energy future that is cleaner, cheaper and more secure.”

He referred to some of the incentives included in the bill, such as strengthened tax credits to businesses making solar panels and wind turbines, among other electricity sources that would be emissions-free, over the next decade.

According to the Times, the legislation would offer such companies tax credits for over ten years, compared with tax credits previously provided by Congress that lasted just one or two years.

“These incentives would also provide the private sector with the confidence to invest for the long term. This legislation would begin to transform the parts of our economy that are hardest to decarbonize, like manufacturing, which we must do to reach net-zero emissions,” Gates wrote.

“As many Americans face summer blackouts, power shortages and high electricity bills, these measures would help build a modern, reliable power grid so all can have access to affordable, abundant and clean energy.”

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced they had reached a deal on a tax reform, climate and health package, considered a major feat after Democrats were unable to overcome an impasse on passing a social spending bill last year. 

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), a critical vote on the legislation, which will require the backing of all 50 Senate Democrats to pass through budget reconciliation without GOP support, signaled she approved the package on Thursday after reaching a separate deal with Schumer.

Gates credited both Schumer and Manchin for reaching a deal on the package, while also warning that “although it appears the legislation will pass, success is not guaranteed, so it’s critical to keep pushing for it.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Tucker Carlson is correct — again

Thirteen months ago in this space, I speculated that with Donald Trump out of the White House, a number of left-leaning media outlets and progressive organizations would be desperate to replace the clickbait, fundraising gold that the Trump presidency presented with the next best thing, or things.

At the time, I surmised that the left would nominate Tucker Carlson from Fox News and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to fill the “conservatives are evil; let’s monetize the anger of our base” void left by Trump’s departure from the Oval Office. Over a year later, if anything, I underestimated how much the Democrats, their allies in the media, and left-leaning organizations would both attack and raise money from this.

But, as they do that, here are two questions for them: First, what if one or both of those men raises an issue or warns of an impending crisis that would negatively impact the base of the Democratic Party? And second, what if one of them — Tucker Carlson, in this case — takes the Republican Party to the woodshed for being derelict in its duty to the nation?

Earlier this week, Carlson did just that by calling out Republicans in Congress for allowing the U.S. military to be politicized and dangerously weakened. Of course, he did so in the context that Republicans basically were twiddling their thumbs while the Democrats dumbed-down our military and allowed its leadership to impose woke policies — but he still did it. 

Over several decades, the narrative coming from Washington has been that Republicans care about the military and the Democrats care about the disenfranchised. In reality, we might say that both parties care only about themselves, but that’s a debate for another time. In this case, any American who happens to side with the Democrats might want to hear Carlson out.

Why? Because, as we have seen with Russia’s war in Ukraine and the ever-escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, nuclear tripwires are being exposed. Miscalculations can be made, and war remains a tragic byproduct of humanity. And yet, in the face of those very real threats, the identity politics that a growing number of generals and admirals are pushing, likely on the marching orders of the Biden White House, seem to be taking hold in our military.

As Carlson pointed out: “[President] Biden has, since the day he took office, politicized and weakened the United States military systematically to the point we are not going to win a war against China. … Gen. Mark Milley out there telling Congress that soldiers need to learn about white rage because otherwise they’ll be unprepared for combat. Attacking people on the basis of their skin color, right? Firing Navy SEALs because they won’t get the vaccine — the healthiest people in the world and they’re fired because they won’t get the vaccine. And then just to make totally clear what the point is — and the point, of course, is humiliation and degradation, the destruction of centuries-old military traditions… . No one should be surprised that people don’t really want to join a military like that, a woke military.”

With regard to the recruitment crisis in our military, Carlson is also, alarmingly, quite correct.  The pool of young men and women from whom the military can pull members is shrinking rapidly because of disqualifiers such as obesity, drug use, and criminal records.

Worse than that, as Carlson and others have noted, a growing number of young people who are qualified to serve have been turned off the military for any number of reasons, including by far-left teachers and professors who denounce our armed forces (and our nation).

Like him or hate him, Carlson is right when he says that our military is becoming politicized and is toxic to much of America’s youth. Now, if you are left-of-center, you may be cheering these identity-politics changes.

But step back for a second and put that politicized shoe on the other foot. Imagine if Trump were still president and forced right-wing, Christian dogma upon the military, making anyone who did not comply with his edicts leave the service. Many from the left would have long since taken to the streets in protest, were that the case.

Politicized militaries always have been a dangerous idea that can lead to tragic consequences for millions of people. Liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat — if you are a U.S. citizen it would be wise to accept that there are tyrants and rogue states who mean to do harm to our nation. Some of them literally want to wipe us off the face of the earth.

So, commonsense cries out for a pragmatic national policy and a strong, in shape, non-politicized, preeminent military to protect all Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, their skin color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Hating on Tucker Carlson may have evolved into a cottage industry for some on the left, but he could not be more correct with his warning that our military is becoming politicized. It would behoove every demographic in America to focus on that failing, immediately.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Source: TEST FEED1

Justice subpoenas of Trump counsel mark turning point 

The Justice Department’s grand jury subpoenas to former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and others in former President Trump’s inner circle mark a turning point in the federal law enforcement investigation of the former president.  

The grand jury probe has considerably more power than the House Jan. 6 select committee to pierce any executive privilege claims that the former president might raise — an issue that has come up with Cipollone. 

When Cipollone agreed to provide testimony to the Jan. 6 panel, he declined to answer certain questions concerning his conversations with Trump, citing attorney-client and executive privileges. 

Experts say those assertions of privilege would be unlikely to hold up in court if Trump or Cipollone were to try to use them to withhold information from a grand jury. 

“The grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice is a much more powerful tool than a congressional subpoena,” said Neil Eggleston, who served as White House counsel for the Obama administration and represented former President Clinton in a dispute over another White House lawyer’s grand jury testimony. 

“In my view, would be inconceivable that the Department of Justice would not win,” Eggleston added. 

Cipollone’s insights into Jan. 6 are likely of great interest to prosecutors following his emergence as a key figure in the congressional investigation. 

The select committee has presented evidence that the former top White House lawyer expressed concerns about Trump’s conduct in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. 

Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide in the Trump White House, testified in June that Cipollone issued stark warnings in the days before Jan. 6 when it became clear that Trump wanted to lead his supporters in a march to the Capitol to protest Congress’s certification of his election loss to President Biden. 

“Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy,” Cipollone told Hutchinson, according to her testimony. “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.” 

While select committee lawmakers had little recourse when Cipollone and others declined to answer questions about their conversations with Trump, legal experts say federal prosecutors have more tools at their disposal and any assertion of executive privilege in a grand jury context would face an uphill battle in the courts. 

ABC News reported on Tuesday that a federal grand jury had subpoenaed Cipollone, making him the highest-ranking Trump White House official to be targeted in the DOJ’s escalating Jan. 6 investigation. 

The select committee has been fighting to enforce their investigative demands through the courts in more than a dozen civil lawsuits over the past year. While the panel has had some success, the cases can drag on for months. 

In instances where a target of a congressional subpoena refuses to comply, the House also has the option of issuing a criminal contempt referral to the Justice Department for prosecution, which is what lawmakers did with four of Trump’s close allies. 

But prosecutors ended up charging only two of them – Steve Bannon and former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro – with criminal contempt of Congress, and neither of them appear to be any closer to cooperating with the committee. A jury convicted Bannon last month on two counts of the misdemeanor contempt charge, each of which carries a possible sentence of between 30 days and one year in jail. 

The Justice Department declined to bring charges against two other Trump aides who were held in contempt, social media guru Dan Scavino and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. 

Meadows filed a civil lawsuit against the committee late last year, challenging its subpoena and claiming to be protected by testimonial immunity for White House advisers. The case has been tied up in court for eight months and it’s unclear when it might be resolved. 

While the Supreme Court has said former presidents have some authority to assert executive privilege, some legal scholars say such an assertion would stand little chance of shielding information sought in a criminal investigation. 

Jonathan David Shaub, a law professor at the University of Kentucky and a former attorney with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said he believes any assertions of privilege from Trump or Cipollone before the grand jury would be “frivolous” and federal prosecutors would be able to move quickly to force compliance. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) “has a much more effective and quick enforcement mechanism to go to the district court and have these claims of privilege adjudicated and almost for sure rejected,” Shaub said. 

“My guess is given how tenuous his claims of privilege are that we’re not going to hear much else, that he’s going to enter into negotiation and ultimately get the best he can from DOJ and then comply, because he doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on,” he added. 

When courts evaluate privilege assertions against subpoenas, the major question judges seek to answer is whether the need for the information is compelling enough to outweigh the need for executive branch confidentiality. 

In 1974, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Watergate special prosecutor when then-President Nixon tried to quash a grand jury subpoena for White House tape recordings. 

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in the decision, “The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” 

In a more recent case, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s bid to block the select committee from obtaining troves of documents from his time in the White House. In an 8-1 ruling in January, the justices declined to review a lower court’s decision that the select committee’s need for the documents would outweigh any assertion of privilege even if Trump had still been in office at the time. 

Eggleston said he believes the courts would rule the same way if a dispute over privilege were to arise out of the grand jury investigation. 

“I think that’s probably the way the courts are going to think about this as well,” he said. “Because if you just apply a standard balancing test under U.S. v. Nixon, I think it is overwhelming that the Department of Justice will have shown compelling need for this testimony and President Trump’s interest in confidentiality at this stage, particularly after the January 6 hearings, is virtually zero.”

Source: TEST FEED1

America's mayors are tackling health equity, but they need Washington’s support

I firmly believe that your zip code should not determine your health outcomes. Growing up, my family didn’t have private health insurance — we relied on the public healthcare system, as many other families in the Acres Homes neighborhood in Houston, Texas, did. My father died of cancer when I was 13, never having any treatment besides painkillers. We didn’t even know he had leukemia until after he passed. He went to the emergency room, picked up his prescription, and carried on.

As the Mayor of Houston, these lessons from my childhood impact how I view healthcare policy.

In my party, there’s a dispute about whether nationalized healthcare or a market-based approach to universal care is the solution. But we can’t put community access to healthcare on hold while we debate. Lives are hanging in the balance. Value-based care models from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services focus on preventative care, help keep patients out of emergency care, and incentivize coordinated care and better outcomes — approaches that I’ve seen work in Houston.

Houston’s Complete Communities initiative was established in 2017 during my first term to ensure everyone has access to quality services and amenities, including healthcare. The mission of Complete Communities is to build and maintain uplifted neighborhoods, focusing on 10 that are historically under-resourced, including the area where I grew up. I’m proud that this initiative is community-based and resident-driven. Neighborhoods work together to create action plans to address economic, environmental and equity challenges that are then approved by our City Council and implemented by the Mayor’s Office of Complete Communities. 

I’ve worked alongside residents and local leaders to address our city’s greatest challenges. In Houston, we know that healthcare doesn’t just mean taking care of people when they’re sick — it means giving them resources to live safer, healthier lives. Unique programs like CAPABLE (Community Aging in Place — Advancing Better Living for Elders) — a home-based program developed by the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing that combines nursing care, occupational therapy, and handyman services — have helped seniors and Medicare recipients across the city gain greater independence and reduce the impact of health disparities.

Of course, individual and community health and wellness are affected by social and economic stressors, such as homelessness and food insecurity. We’ve provided more than 25,000 Houstonians with safe, permanent housing since 2012. In January, we announced $100 million in funding for programs to reduce homelessness and $65 million in COVID-related funding. This is proof that federal resources make a real difference — and why Democrats in the Biden administration and Congress must recommit to innovative, value-based healthcare models that help cities like Houston. 

Our most vulnerable residents need to be able to access long-term, personalized primary care to address chronic medical conditions, mental health and physical disabilities. I’ve seen many Houstonians who have turned to emergency rooms and ambulances to receive medical care — just like my father did — because they don’t know where else to turn. Once they have a relationship with a primary care provider, we need to ensure that the care they receive is comprehensive and affordable. If it’s not affordable, it’s not accessible.

America’s mayors are enthusiastic partners in the quest for healthier communities and greater equity. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the African American Mayor’s Association both passed resolutions in support of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health (ACO REACH) model — the first program to require a health equity plan to reduce disparities and to collect patient demographic data tied to social determinants of health.

It’s impossible to understand an individual’s needs without understanding their circumstances, and this data will help us discern what resources are most vital. However, for the model to even have the chance to succeed, it needs widespread federal support. I am telling lawmakers: No more debating. The time is now to support a program that can improve health outcomes for all Americans.

Local leaders can and should be champions of public-private partnerships that build stronger, healthier cities. But we can’t do it alone, and we need the support of leaders in Washington to provide accessible healthcare to all.

Sylvester Turner has been the mayor of Houston, Texas, since 2016.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House calls Indiana abortion ban post-Roe ‘devastating’

The White House on Saturday slammed an abortion ban in Indiana signed into law on Friday.

In a press release, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the legislation “devasting” and argued it “put personal health care decisions in the hands of politicians rather than women and their doctors.”

“Yesterday’s vote, which institutes a near-total abortion ban in Indiana, should be a signal to Americans across the country to make their voices heard. Congress should also act immediately to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe – the only way to secure a woman’s right to choose nationally,” the statement read.

“It’s another radical step by Republican legislators to take away women’s reproductive rights and freedom, and put personal health care decisions in the hands of politicians rather than women and their doctors,” she noted.

Indiana became the first state after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade to pass restrictions to abortion, offering limited exceptions to the medical procedure in the state, according to The Associated Press.

Abortions will only be allowed in the state in cases before 10 weeks of post-fertilization, in cases of rape or incest and to save the patient’s life, among others. The abortion ban becomes effective Sept. 15.

The ban came more than a month after the high court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, quickly leading to a patchwork of states introducing their own bans and restrictions on the medical procedure.

Earlier this week, Kansas became the first state to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s decision, rejecting a state constitution amendment proposal that would have given the state legislature more authority to regulate access to abortions.

Source: TEST FEED1

More sharks are being spotted off the East Coast, is climate change to blame? 

Source: TEST FEED1

Major pharmaceutical company looks to expand out of Indiana following abortion ban

Indiana-based pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly announced in a statement obtained by The Hill on Saturday that it would look to expand employment growth outside the state following the passage of a near-total ban on abortion.

The legislation, signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), would bar the procedure after 10 weeks post-fertilization except in cases of rape or incest, if the pregnancy jeopardizes the safety of the mother, or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality, according to The Associated Press.

The legislation also prohibits facilities other than hospitals, such as abortion clinics, from performing the procedure.

In the statement Eli Lilly said that the issue of abortion is sensitive and there is “no clear consensus among the citizens on Indiana.”

“Despite this lack of agreement, Indiana has opted to quickly adopt one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the United States. We are concerned that this law will hinder Lilly’s – and Indiana’s – ability to attract diverse scientific, engineering and business talent from around the world,” the company added.

Eli Lilly had previously expanded its employees’ health care coverage to pay for travel to access out-of-state abortion care. But the company said that might not be enough “for some current and potential employees.”

“As a global company headquartered in Indianapolis for more than 145 years, we work hard to retain and attract thousands of people who are important drivers of our state’s economy. Given this new law, we will be forced to plan for more employment growth outside our home state,” the company concluded.

Indiana was the first state to enact new legislation restricting abortions following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, in which the high court found that abortion was a constitutional right.

Kansas voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot provision that would have given the state legislature the authority to ban abortion, a decision that was viewed as a possible bellwether of the national mood after the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

Source: TEST FEED1

Barr: Trump ‘obviously bent on revenge more than anything else'

Former Attorney General William Barr said that he did not see former President Trump as the right candidate for the Republican Party in 2024, claiming he is “obviously bent on revenge more than anything else.”

“I think the future is bright for the Republican Party. I view 2024 as setting up another 1980, when [former President] Reagan won two terms and then [former President George H.W.] Bush won a third term. And that’s what I think you really need to make America great again, you know, decisive victory and the reaction to the excesses of the progressive Democrats,” Barr said during an interview on Friday with CBS News’s Catherine Herridge.

“And I think we could do that again and really achieve a decisive victory with the right candidate, but I don’t think Trump is that candidate. The day he’s elected, he’ll be a 78-year-old lame duck who is obviously bent on revenge more than anything else.”

Trump has not officially announced that he will be running in 2024, though he has teased the possibility and is expected to make an announcement on a potential bid.

Barr drew the ire of the former president after he said in an interview with NBC News that Trump became enraged when he said there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Trump called Barr “ineffective” and “weak” for failing to address his claims of fraud.

“Former Attorney General Bill Barr wouldn’t know voter fraud if it was staring him in the face – and it was,” Trump said in a statement in March. “The fact is, he was weak, ineffective, and totally scared of being impeached, which the Democrats were constantly threatening to do. They ‘broke’ him.”

Trump has claimed, without evidence, that widespread fraud occurred during the 2020 election cycle and he has continued to push these allegations.

During a deposition with the House Jan. 6 committee, Barr called Trump’s claim about election fraud “bullshit.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Maher on economic bill: 'Good to see' Democrats be 'bipartisan with themselves'

HBO host Bill Maher quipped it is “good to see” that Senate Democrats could be “bipartisan with themselves” after centrist Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) signaled on Friday she would support a reconciliation deal on tax reform, climate and health.

During his monologue on Friday, Maher opined that President Biden had achieved several major accomplishments over the week while having COVID-19, including a likely consensus from all 50 Senate Democrats over their reconciliation package.

“And he got his big climate bill today … Krysten Sinema from Arizona, you familiar with her?” Maher asked. “All right. Well, she joined up….Good to see the Democrats can be bipartisan with themselves.”

Maher noted that Democrats gave up a tax provision in their bill targeting what has been considered a preferential tax rate for private equity and hedge fund managers to help win Sinema over. 

“She was holding this up for something called the carried interest loophole … very important to her and they gave it up,” Maher said. “It’s, you know, something only hedge fund managers care about … She looked around Scottsdale and said, ‘It’s about time someone stood up for the wealthy.’”

The “Real Time With Bill Maher” host noted other successes Biden saw this week included an astounding July jobs report on Friday that found the U.S. added 528,000 jobs and unemployment was down to 3.5 percent, back to pre-pandemic levels.

Maher also noted that gas prices had decreased, among other things.

Last week, centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said they had reached a deal on climate, tax reform and health care, after talks on Biden’s original Build Back Better plan appeared stalled.

The deal was a welcome surprise to Democrats after Manchin poured cold water on the prospects of a bill following a report that inflation rose 9 percent annually. 

Following the news, all eyes were on Sinema, who has previously been a thorn in her Democratic colleagues’ side to get their priorities passed.

Sinema announced Thursday evening that she had reached an agreement with Schumer to remove the carried interest tax loophole to support the package, dubbed the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

Instead, senators added an excise tax on stock buybacks, which will bring in $74 billion in revenue.

Sinema’s agreement paves the way for her vote to proceed on Saturday in the process of budget reconciliation.

Source: TEST FEED1