We Provide You With The Latest News

Welcome to our website, where we cover the latest news. If you are looking for a site that covers news, then you’ve come to the right place. Here’s why you should visit our website to receive your news.

The Latest News
We cover the latest news, which means we update our website regularly so you know what’s going on. Many websites don’t publish the latest news or they do it in away that isn’t effective or efficient, but we do it in an effective way and an efficient way. What this means for you is our news articles are published promptly, are of high quality and they can be viewed on your favorite mobile devices. When the latest news breaks, you want to be the first to know about it, and by visiting out website, you will be one of the first to know.

Breaking News
There’s a difference between the latest news and breaking news. The main difference is breaking news happens from out of nowhere or it’s a developing story, but it is news that is happening very fast. We cover breaking news and we try to get it on our website as fast as we can. If you want to stay on top of breaking news and be informed as it happens, then visit our website frequently.

News You Should Know About
You can rest assure we cover the news you care about and should know about. By visiting our website often, you will learn about stuff that may affect you or potentially affect you in the future. We provide our readers with news they care about, and we are confident we publish stories you too will care about.

We encourage you to visit our website as often as possible. News is a fast paced industry and you want to get it quickly. By visiting our website often, you can rest assure you will receive the latest news.

Categories: Uncategorized

California high speed rail likely to face more environmental challenges after high court ruling

The Cedar Viaduct of California’s high-speed rail project is under construction in Fresno. (Gary Reyes / TNS)

California’s high-speed train project is likely to continue to be buffeted by environmental challenges as a result of a decision by the state’s top court.

In a 6-1 ruling last week written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the California Supreme Court decided that federal rail law does not usurp California’s tough environmental regulation for state-owned rail projects.

The decision has broad significance, lawyers in the case said.

It clears the way for opponents of the $64-billion bullet train to file more lawsuits as construction proceeds and also allows Californians to challenge other rail uses, such as the movement of crude oil from fracking.

A federal court could later decide the matter differently, ruling that U.S. law trumps state regulation.

But lawyers in the field said they expect a similar case pending in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to be dismissed and expressed doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would review last week’s ruling.

The high-speed rail line is supposed to run between San Francisco and Anaheim.

So far there have been about a half a dozen lawsuits challenging environment impact reports for two rail segments in the Central Valley. Three of the suits are still pending.

More lawsuits are expected when the rail authority finalizes plans for construction in the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California.

The Central Valley litigation already has been unexpectedly contentious, involving farmers who lost large portions of their fields.

But legal experts expect an even bigger firestorm of lawsuits when environmental impact reports are released for the Silicon Valley and parts of Los Angeles, possibly next year. The reports will reveal where the lines will be built.

“There are likely to be a lot of people bent out of shape in those areas,” said Stuart Flashman, who has represented several groups and individuals fighting high-speed rail. “There are already threats of lawsuits involving the Angeles National Forest. It means the High-Speed Rail Authority is nowhere near out of the woods.”

Rail authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said the agency is reviewing what the Supreme Court ruling would mean for the project.

The matter of whether the bullet train project must abide by the California Environmental Quality Act has lingered for years.

In 2014, the state asked the federal Surface Transportation Board, which regulates railroads, to exempt the project from any legal injunctions that could stop construction.

The board went even further, saying that the project was exempt from state law. The decision triggered a federal lawsuit by rail opponents, the case now pending in the 9th Circuit.

The rail authority in the meantime has followed both federal and state environmental laws.

The California Supreme Court ruling came in lawsuits filed by two environmental advocacy groups — Friends of the Eel River and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics — against the North Coast Railroad Authority and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co., a private company that contracts with the authority.

Mitch Stogner, executive director of the North Coast Railroad Authority, said the group has not decided whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

He also said he did not know whether the High-Speed Rail Authority, which lacks standing to appeal the decision, would be inclined to help finance a fight to the high court. The High-Speed Rail Authority weighed in as a friend of the court.

State lawmakers created the North Coast Railroad Authority in 1989 to provide freight service on a 314-mile line of decayed tracks in Napa, Sonoma and Humboldt counties.

The railroad now hauls livestock feed, building materials, wood products and liquefied petroleum gas, Stogner said, on just 62 miles of the line, from Lombard to Windsor in Sonoma County.

Amy Bricker, who represented the river group in the case, said it was concerned that restarting rail operations in the Eel River canyon would pollute the wild and scenic waterway and encourage gravel mining.

But Stogner said there have been no plans to run freight through the canyon because the tracks there would be too costly to repair.

“It is a red herring,” he said

Golden Gate University Law School professor Helen Kang, who runs an environmental law clinic that represented the anti-toxics group, said the ruling means that ”you have to be able to comply with federal and state law at the same time.”

“If there is no conflict, there is no preemption,” she said.

In general, federal laws take precedence over, or preempt, state laws — a doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In a dissent to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Justice Carol Corrigan said the majority had created a novel legal theory to get around the fact that states may not impose regulations that interrupt rail service.

The decision “will displace the longstanding supremacy of federal regulation in the area of railroad operations by allowing third party plaintiffs to thwart or delay public railroad projects,” Corrigan wrote.

UC Davis Law Professor Richard Frank said the California Supreme Court almost always decides that state laws are not preempted by federal ones, while federal courts are more likely to say the opposite.

He called last week’s ruling “very obtuse” and “turgid” and said it probably will not end the legal fight over whether federal rail regulations supersede state laws because the decision provided “little guidance to policy makers and practitioners.”

The court said that federal law trumps state law only for privately owned railroads, not those owned by California, Frank noted.

“It is going to generate more time consuming litigation,” Frank said.

Source Article

Categories: Uncategorized

It’d Be Pretty Easy For Trump To Pardon His Family Members. He Could Even Tweet It.

WASHINGTON ― There’s a normal process for your average federal convict seeking a presidential pardon. There are petitions to prepare, letters to solicit, character affidavits to notarize, background checks to be conducted and federal prosecutors to be consulted. The whole process, controlled by the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, can take years, and there’s a very slim chance the president will ultimately grant a pardon.

However, if your dad is the president and you’re hoping to head off a potential indictment, you could just ask him to send a tweet.

President Donald Trump has, via Twitter, floated the possibility that he’ll use pardons as a means of shutting down indictments that may grow out of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian interference with the 2016 election. If Trump is learning more about the process, as media reports indicate, he may be surprised by how easy it would be for him to pardon his family members or former campaign aides.

Trump pardoning his own family members before they’ve even been indicted would be virtually unprecedented in the modern era. Former officials in the Office of the Pardon Attorney who spoke with HuffPost this week pointed to President Gerald Ford’s pardon of former President Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal as the most relevant pre-indictment presidential pardon in recent U.S. history.

“Nixon is the most high-profile one, where no charges had even been brought, and I think that would be the most logical analogue,” said Margaret Love, who served as U.S. pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997.

But constitutionally, experts say, it’s all aboveboard. The consequences of those pardons would be political, not legal. Normally it would be “political suicide to pardon a family member,” in the words of Ohio State University law professor Peter Shane. But the normal rules of politics don’t seem to apply to President Trump.

“You just have to stand up against the political storm that would result,” Love said.

Other presidents have pardoned their family members and aides. President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger for selling cocaine to an undercover officer, while President George W. Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, sparing him a stint in federal prison. But neither Clinton’s pardon nor Bush’s clemency grant came before an indictment. Roger Clinton had already served a year in prison in the 1980s, and Libby’s commutation came after he was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

While there have been some pre-indictment pardons, those have typically affected entire groups of people, like when President Ronald Reagan granted amnesty for undocumented immigrants or when President Jimmy Carter pardoned hundreds of thousands of draft dodgers.

While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 22, 2017

The pardon clause of the Constitution gives the president very wide authority. While the president can seek advice on pardons from any source he wants, the Office of the Pardon Attorney has handled most such cases since 1893.

The Office of the Pardon Attorney plays a crucial role in typical cases. One of the major benefits for presidents is that OPA vets all of the pardon applications for the White House, reducing the risk that a pardon could backfire.

“In the normal case, the White House won’t touch a case unless it’s gone through that administrative process at DOJ,” says Samuel Morison, a former lawyer in the Office of the Pardon Attorney. “It protects them from being embarrassed if it goes through DOJ, and it also gives them some political cover. If there’s criticism, they can say, well, DOJ told us to do it.”

Love said that the process at DOJ has served presidents well dating back to the 19th century.

“It’s always thought that it’s protective of the president,” she said. “The only time the president has gotten into trouble is when he avoids the process.”

If Trump does decide to preemptively pardon his son Donald Trump Jr., or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, it’s highly unlikely their cases would be vetted by the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The cases would more likely be handled entirely by the White House Counsel.

“If anybody like that who is closely related to Trump wants a pardon, I doubt very much they’re going to bother filing a pardon application with the Office of the Pardon Attorney,” Morison said. “I don’t represent any of those people in a pardon matter, but if I did, I would tell them, ‘Why would you do that? Just go straight to the White House.’”

OPA doesn’t even accept applications from individuals who haven’t been convicted of a crime, Morison said.

There’d be very little required of Trump if he decided to grant any pardons. The White House could issue a fairly short statement, and the form wouldn’t really matter, Love said. Trump could do it in a tweet if he wanted, as USA Today wrote in January. (The biggest restriction might be Twitter’s character limit: The key portion of Ford’s letter pardoning Nixon ran to 442 characters. If Trump were to write something similar, he’d need to split it into a few tweets.)

“The president can do this pretty much in any form he wants, as long as it’s a public announcement,” Love said. The pardon doesn’t even need to be a written document, she added: “Stick your head out the window, yell it out in the street.” It just needs to be a matter of record that the pardon was issued.

Of course, the really remarkable thing is not that the words “Twitter” and “presidential pardon” are being mentioned in the same sentence. It’s the fact that Trump would consider issuing a preemptive pardon for a member of his family at all.

“We truly are in uncharted waters here,” Love said.

Source Article

Categories: Uncategorized

Why Trump probably won’t be able to replace Jeff Sessions

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions seem to be in a bad relationship lately, right?

Oh yes. Mr. Trump has been quite public with his criticisms over the past few weeks. He has been upset with Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and the subsequent naming of a special counsel to take over the CIA probe. At the same time, the Republican-controlled Senate has made it quite clear that they want Sessions to stay, with Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley saying there’s no way they’ll confirm a replacement.

Everybody in D.C. Shld b warned that the agenda for the judiciary Comm is set for rest of 2017. Judges first subcabinet 2nd / AG no way

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) July 27, 2017
Why is the Senate so against Sessions’ removal?

A couple of reasons. The first is that Sessions was popular with his colleagues in the Senate before he left for the Trump administration. He’s well-liked, even among those who disagree with him.

The second and more important reason is that firing Sessions would likely be a prelude to the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Because Sessions recused himself from the investigation, it means he can’t fire Mueller, but a new attorney general could. The conventional wisdom in Washington supposes that this is the real reason Mr. Trump seems so anxious to get Sessions out of the way.

If Mr. Trump replaces Sessions with someone who fires Mueller, it could provoke a constitutional crisis, which the Senate appears anxious to avoid. So, for the moment at least, it looks like they’re more than willing to stand up to Mr. Trump.

So what happens the president just fires Sessions?

He’d need to get a new attorney general, one Grassley says the Senate won’t confirm. That means that the man who appointed Mueller in the first place, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, would become acting attorney general. This doesn’t really solve any of Mr. Trump’s problems, however, as it is essentially impossible to imagine Rosenstein ever fires Mueller.

Is there any way the president could appoint someone else?

Here’s where it gets a little tricky. Presidents typically can and do make recess appointment when Congress is not in session. This is a way for the executive branch to fill vacancies, such as those created by firings, without consulting with the legislature.

The Senate will be in recess in August, which in theory means that Mr. Trump could fire Sessions and appoint someone new while all the senators are out of town. This recess appointment would last only until the new congressional term begins in January, at which point the new attorney general to be confirmed. But that’s long enough for the Sessions replacement to fire Mueller.

The thing is, though, Congress knows a way to block such appointments.

And how do they do that?

By holding what are called pro forma sessions during the recess. Basically, it works like this: The senators all still leave town, but every three days or so someone shows up to say that Congress is still in session. So even though Congress isn’t really doing anything, it is legally not in recess, meaning the president can’t make a recess appointment.

Pro forma sessions are the reason there have been no recess appointments since 2012. They don’t need to be announced much in advance, as all the Senate leadership needs to do is schedule the sessions.

A pro forma session usually lasts only a matter of minutes – they just gavel in and gavel out, once they figure out who’s in Washington to do the honors. They typically happen every three days of the recess because the Constitution states that neither house of Congress can go on break for more than three days without the consent of the other.

Is that what they’ll do this time?

Presumably, yes, as the Senate has stayed in pro forma session in the most recent recesses, such as Memorial Day and the 4th of July. That means that Mr. Trump won’t get to make his recess appointment, and that he’s stuck with Sessions for the foreseeable future. It also means that recess appointments are well on their way to becoming relics.

Source Article

Categories: Uncategorized

John Kelly takes command as Trump slams back at accusations of ‘White House chaos’

Retired general John Kelly took command Monday of President Trump’s White House staff, in a shakeup that could serve to restore discipline and focus to a White House that’s been gripped by internal power struggles that have been played out in the press.

Kelly’s reputation as a straight shooter has many in the Oval Office and in the Republican Party optimistic as he takes the reins as chief of staff. They see Kelly as the ideal candidate to dial back the drama that’s plagued White House in recent weeks.

Kelly was sworn in Monday morning.

“He’s going to have to reduce the drama, reduce both the sniping within and reduce the leaks, and bring some discipline to the relationships,” Republican strategist Karl Rove, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Trump, though, on Monday downplayed the palace intrigue and said his White House is not in "chaos."

“Highest Stock Market EVER, best economic numbers in years, unemployment lowest in 17 years, wages rising, border secure, S.C.: No WH chaos!” he tweeted.

Kelly’s appointment as chief of staff was announced Friday. The Homeland Security secretary and retired Marine Corps general takes over for Reince Priebus, whose management style was seen as a far cry from Kelly’s. The move could serve to dampen an escalating set of nasty internal battles among the president’s closest advisers.

The infighting at the White House has frequently been leaked, creating another distraction for a team struggling to notch any significant legislative achievement.

The tensions escalated further more than a week ago, when White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer resigned after six months on the job, in protest over the hiring of Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci as the new communications director.

Scaramucci made headlines almost immediately after a conversation he had with a reporter from the New Yorker was printed in full. In that conversation, Scaramucci went on an expletive-laced rant about Priebus and Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, both of whom purportedly opposed his hiring.

In his call, Scaamucci vowed to get Priebus canned and threatened to fire the White House communication staff one by one.

Source Article

Categories: Uncategorized