Under the protection of the Republicans, the House of Representatives voted to accuse Attorney General Merrick Garland of refusing to hand over the recording of Biden's interview in the case of Presid... View MoreUnder the protection of the Republicans, the House of Representatives voted to accuse Attorney General Merrick Garland of refusing to hand over the recording of Biden's interview in the case of President Biden's confidential documents, and his behavior has constituted contempt of Congress. Garland criticized the Republicans for indulging in political struggles and ignoring the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution.
The House of Representatives voted 216 to 207 on the 12th to find Garland in contempt of Congress. Although many moderate Republican members had reservations during the process, they still voted according to the position of the party group. Only Dave Joyce from Ohio voted against it.
Garland issued a statement that night, criticizing the Republicans for abusing serious congressional power and "ignoring the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution, the need for the Department of Justice to protect investigations, and the fact that the department has provided a lot of information to the committee", which is deeply disappointing. Garland emphasized that he would always support the Department of Justice and its employees, and also take defending the democratic system as his mission.
After Robert Hur, a special prosecutor at the Department of Justice, investigated Biden's confidential documents, he described Biden's memory decline in his report. The House of Representatives then asked the Department of Justice for recordings of Biden's interviews, but Garland only handed over written records, laying the groundwork for the struggle. After this vote, Garland became the third attorney general in the country's history to be charged with contempt of Congress, but because he himself is in charge of the Department of Justice, the probability of being sued by officials under his jurisdiction is very small, so the symbolic significance of the vote is greater than the actual effect. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson still described the result as satisfactory, emphasizing that the House must fulfill its duties.
The White House and the Democratic Party criticized that Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a Republican, refused to cooperate with the investigation of the Capitol riots, but this time he took the lead in targeting Garland, reflecting that the action was purely for political purposes.
Last week, the Biden administration issued the most stringent asylum ban during its tenure, authorizing the federal government to "block the border" when necessary. On the 12th, immigration rights gro... View MoreLast week, the Biden administration issued the most stringent asylum ban during its tenure, authorizing the federal government to "block the border" when necessary. On the 12th, immigration rights groups filed the first lawsuit against the executive order. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which participated in the court, accused the executive order of being inconsistent with the law requiring the government to allow foreign refugees to apply for asylum.
Biden encountered challenges just one week after signing an executive order to launch a new border policy. The ACLU and other immigration organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal court in Washington, D.C., and issued a statement criticizing the new measures for setting up a "blocking" mechanism to prevent illegal immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States, which violated current federal law.
Lee Gelernt, an ACLU representative lawyer, said that the asylum regulations clearly state that foreign citizens must be able to seek asylum regardless of where they enter the country. Former President Trump used similar means to prevent immigrants from entering the country, but the measures at the time were rejected by the court. It can be seen that Biden's policy this time also lacks reasoning, and "there is no doubt" that administrative measures alone cannot achieve the goal. Gelernt also questioned that many restrictions in the executive order were too strict. For example, if entrants want to apply for an exemption, they must find a lawyer to assist within 4 hours.
The institutions that jointly filed the lawsuit include the National Immigrant Justice Center and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.
The number of illegal immigrants at the southern border continues to be high, which puts Biden under pressure before the election. Therefore, he issued an executive order earlier this month. Once the number of people crossing the border exceeds 2,500 per day, border law enforcement agencies can immediately "block the border" and no longer accept asylum applications. Illegal immigrants who are intercepted can be quickly deported within a few days or even hours. Since the number of people entering the country every day has reached about 4,000, the ban has taken effect immediately on June 5.
The closure order also has a lifting condition. If the number of illegal immigrants is less than 1,500 for 7 consecutive days and the situation remains for two weeks, the government will accept asylum applications again, but this level has not been seen for many years. The last time was during the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020.
The Biden administration insists that this measure has multiple exemptions, which is different from the immigration ban during the Trump era. Specifically, minors who enter alone, victims of human trafficking, and people who make appointments through the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) mobile app are not included in the fast deportation.
In addition to immigration organizations, some Democratic lawmakers also questioned the new measures. Senator Alex Padilla said that the executive order cannot solve the crisis on the southern border. It will only cause people who could legally apply for asylum to be unable to enter safely and be harmed again, just like the ban during the Trump era.
Berkshire Hathaway, the investment flagship of "stock god" Buffett, has increased its holdings in Occidental Petroleum (OXY) again! According to the SEC documents, Berkshire Hathaway increased its hol... View MoreBerkshire Hathaway, the investment flagship of "stock god" Buffett, has increased its holdings in Occidental Petroleum (OXY) again! According to the SEC documents, Berkshire Hathaway increased its holdings by 2.5655 million shares at an average price of $59.752 per share from Wednesday to Friday last week (5th to 7th), worth about $153 million.
Occidental Petroleum's stock price closed at $59.48 last Friday, down 1%. So far, Berkshire Hathaway holds about 250.6 million shares of Occidental Petroleum.
The US Federal Reserve will hold a Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on Wednesday (12th) to announce the results of the interest rate meeting. As US inflation fell in April and the ISM manu... View MoreThe US Federal Reserve will hold a Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on Wednesday (12th) to announce the results of the interest rate meeting. As US inflation fell in April and the ISM manufacturing PMI data in May contracted for two consecutive months, the market's opinion on the start of interest rate cuts this year has not changed.
However, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, which originally expected a rate cut in July, revised their forecasts after the non-agricultural employment data released last week was much higher than expected. The former expected the rate cut to be postponed until September, and the latter even said that the rate cut would not start until November.
Andrew Hollenhorst, chief US economist at Citigroup, said that the US economy and labor market seemed to be slowing down, but the employment data in May was unexpectedly strong. The Fed may tend to wait and see and cut interest rates only when inflation slows down; Citigroup reduced its expectation of rate cuts this year from 4 to 3, and expected rate cuts in September, November and December. JPMorgan believes that the real turn for the weak labor market may not appear until another 3 months, and has reduced its forecast of rate cuts this year from 3 to 1.
The market is currently paying close attention to this week's FOMC meeting. The latest economic forecast and dot plot will be released a few hours after the May US CPI data is released on the same day. Since the beginning of this year, the decline in US inflation has slowed down, and Wall Street banks have revised their expectations for interest rate cuts many times. At present, at least 6 major banks expect the US to cut interest rates in September, and at least 4 predict that the rate cut will not happen until December.
After Trump's hush money case suspected that the jury verdict was leaked in advance, Trump's supporters asked the court to declare the verdict invalid, and his legal team may follow up.
Trump's suppo... View MoreAfter Trump's hush money case suspected that the jury verdict was leaked in advance, Trump's supporters asked the court to declare the verdict invalid, and his legal team may follow up.
Trump's supporters left messages on social media. Among them, Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who had handled other cases for Trump and was sued in the Georgia election dispute, said that "a juror may... violate confidentiality regulations" in the hush money case. Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who represents Georgia, also said that if the matter is true, it reflects that "Trump never had a chance to prove his innocence." It is speculated that Trump's lawyers may request an investigation, including hoping that the presiding judge Juan Merchan will question the jurors to determine whether each person has been influenced by the outside world or violated the ban on discussing the case with the outside world.
Merchan wrote to the prosecution and defense on the 7th, saying that someone had left a message on the Facebook page of the New York State Court, and the netizen who posted the message said that his relative was a juror, foreshadowing that "Trump was convicted, thank you for your hard work." Since the post appeared on May 29, and the court did not officially announce the verdict until the 30th, the incident made people wonder whether the verdict was leaked in advance. Merchan said that it is still necessary to investigate whether the netizens involved were just playing a prank or really leaked the result in advance.
Neama Rahmani, president of the West Coast Trial Lawyers Association, commented that in similar cases, the defense can request a retrial, but because of the high costs involved, lawyers must prove that the lawsuit "has improper external influence and bias, and the situation affects the result." Sporadic comments on social media alone are not enough to draw such a conclusion. The court must prove that the jurors discussed the case with others.
Bradley Moss, a legal expert and lawyer who has always criticized Trump, said that the account that left the message on Facebook this time was obviously a fake account. The pro-Trump camp may have used this to confuse the public and then took the opportunity to spread conspiracy theories. The series of actions is not surprising. The jury found Trump guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records, and the court tentatively scheduled July 11 for sentencing.
Just as the prices of drugs such as insulin in the United States have fallen, and surveys show that American voters generally believe that President Biden deserves the credit, former President Trump s... View MoreJust as the prices of drugs such as insulin in the United States have fallen, and surveys show that American voters generally believe that President Biden deserves the credit, former President Trump said that the credit actually belongs to him. When he was in office, he first proposed the plan, and Biden just sat back and enjoyed the fruits of his labor.
On the 8th, Trump posted on his "Truth Social" that it was "I and the Trump administration" who fought for millions of people to lower the price of insulin. Biden had nothing to do with it. The other party "is trying to attribute what others have done to himself." Analysis describes that Trump and Biden will hold their first presidential debate on the 27th of this month. Since the issue of medical and drug prices affects people's livelihood, it is not ruled out that Trump hopes to dominate public opinion this time and create favorable conditions for the debate.
According to data, Trump signed an executive order in his last year in office to set the upper limit of insulin prices at $35. After taking office, Biden suspended the implementation of many policies of the previous administration, and then issued a series of measures to control drug prices in the 2022 "Inflation Reduction Act" and capped the price of insulin in the "Medicare" plan at no more than 35 yuan per month. Biden even promised to expand this policy to all those in need when he delivered his State of the Union address in March this year.
On other health care issues, Trump has been trying to repeal the Obama-era Affordable Care Act (ACA) while in office, but has not announced a replacement plan. He also made this promise in this year's election, but never mentioned the details of the policy.
The latest poll by the private organization Kaiser Family Foundation shows that Biden's support on health care issues is 11 percentage points ahead of Trump, and he also maintains an advantage on other health-related issues.
page=2&profile_user_id=91136&year=&month=
Load More
