Tag: Room

‘Once They Put Spying on the Table, There’s No Wiggle Room.’

[ad_1]

While Americans like Griner occasionally run afoul of Russian authorities, it’s been decades since an American journalist has been arrested in Russia and held on spying charges. That doesn’t happen by accident, Nagorski told me in an interview. Russia is sending a message, both to other journalists and to the West.
Nagorski is a former Newsweek correspondent and editor who had his own run-in with the authorities in Moscow. In 1982, after living and working in the then-Soviet Union for a little more than a year, Nagorski was expelled on trumped-up charges. It was clear that the Kremlin didn’t like his work, but also, that they wanted to express their irritation with the U.S. government at a time of high tension.
Nagorski told me that there are some similarities between then and now, including that U.S.-Russian relations have been worsening, particularly since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year. During such times of tension, journalists often become targets of harassment, or pawns in high-stakes standoffs between the West and authoritarian regimes.
“Journalism is always at the heart of these confrontations, as they were during the Soviet regime in the past or the Russian regime today,” Nagorski told me. “Truthful reporting is absolutely anathema to the Kremlin.”
Another reason journalists get charged with espionage? There are a lot of similarities between what a journalist does and what a spy does. Go to new places. Meet new people. Ask a lot of questions. Observe and take notes on what you see.
“I’m sure they know that Gershkovich is not a spy,” Nagorski told me. Instead, he said, the real goal is to intimidate other journalists, both Russian and foreign: “The less real reporting there is out of Russia, the freer the Putin regime feels to operate the way it does inside Russia.”
The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Maura Reynolds: Evan Gershkovich is a journalist. What is the relevance of the fact that the Russian government has arrested and charged an American journalist with espionage?

Andrew Nagorski: Whenever a western journalist is targeted in Russia, it’s immediately more than just picking up an American citizen, or British citizen, or whoever it is, because at a minimum it’s sending a message not just to his or her publication, but to all of the western journalists trying to cover Russia, just how dangerous the situation is. And when you throw in a spy charge immediately, you’re immediately making this a major event. You’re putting this journalist in a terrible position. He’s at their mercy right now. It’s one of these things where you know it’s not going to be resolved very quickly.
Reynolds: American WNBA star Brittney Griner was released from a Russian jail just a couple of months ago. How is this case similar?
Nagorski: It has occurred to me that since they were so quick with the spying charges, that they could have somebody in mind who’s in American detention, someone might have been spying for the Russians and they might want to use Gershkovich as a pawn in an exchange. That happens, and it’s happened in the past. But it seems less likely in this case. With Brittney Griner, they found an excuse in saying she had illegal substances. Whatever the case, she was a target of convenience, a high-profile target of convenience. When these high-profile cases happen, where it’s a celebrity as Brittney Griner was, or a journalist, the Kremlin can choose to escalate, to use the incident in a time of tensions in U.S.-Russian relations.
And we certainly had these tensions growing for a long time. They’ve gone up and down over the years, but now it’s particularly at a high peak.
When it’s a journalist, it’s almost always meant as intimidation for reporting. They hate the fact that there is actual reporting still going on in Russia about the war in Ukraine, about the signs of discontent in Russia itself, about the price that the Russians are paying, and anything that goes against the official propaganda. In each [detention] case it’s a personal ordeal. But this one is a much broader political event.
Journalism is always at the heart of these confrontations, as they were during the Soviet regime in the past or the Russian regime today. Truthful reporting is absolutely an anathema to the Kremlin.
Reynolds: You were expelled for the journalism that you conducted in the Soviet Union. What happened in your case and how is it similar or different to what’s happening to Gershkovich?
Nagorski: Any journalist going to Moscow in those days knew that they might be targeted. I went in knowing that if I touched on certain stories, this could spark some anger or reprisals. But in my case, and in most journalist cases in those days, you felt that the worst that might happen is you get expelled.
The Kremlin sent very clear signals that they were unhappy with my reporting. They interrogated some of my Russian sources, and when they did they said, “We’ll deal with Nagorski soon,” knowing that [threat] would come back to me. They slashed my tires on one occasion. And in those days when things like that happened, you knew it was directed from the top.
In my case, I ignored those signals and kept reporting, for instance, in Tajikistan and Central Asia on young Muslims who were opposed to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. I got lots of signals that they were upset with that. I ignored those signals for more than my first year in Moscow, and by month 14, they expelled me.
I was called into the Foreign Ministry and expelled. I asked for the reason. They said “impermissible methods of journalistic activities.” And I said, “What does that mean?” And then they reeled off a series of really nonsensical charges. They accused me of impersonating a Russian journalist in Vologda, a northern Russian city. I speak Russian, but I’m very clearly a foreigner and have the accent and mistakes to show for it. They claimed that in Tajikistan, I had tried to incite young Muslims to oppose the draft. The evidence for that was that when some young Muslims asked me, “Is it true that in America you’ve abolished the draft?” I said, “yes.” So that was “incitement.” So these charges were so silly. They were mere pretext. They were aiming this at me because they didn’t like my reporting at Newsweek and at the same time [this was] telling other reporters: “Watch yourselves. This can happen to you, too.”
When I was called into the Foreign Ministry I braced myself, thinking, “What if they threw out espionage as a charge?” Because they could always do that, and that’s much harder to fight as a journalist. How do you say I wasn’t spying? You were asking questions. You were looking around. I remember once in Dushanbe, in Tajikistan, I was walking down the street and I looked up and there was a truck with an SS-20 missile just going down the street. If they had stopped me, they could have said, “Oh, yes, he’s doing military intelligence.”
As a journalist, how you handle this harassment and how quickly it escalates is very important. Sometimes in the past, when the Soviets were unhappy with a correspondent, the U.S. side tried to negotiate something before the expulsion became official. But as soon as I [was] leaving the Foreign Ministry, [the Soviet news service] TASS immediately put out the news bulletin saying I was being expelled, so there was no going back. With these kinds of cases, if they want to leave wiggle room, there is wiggle room. Once they put spying on the table, there’s no wiggle room.
Reynolds: So you see the fact that Gershkovich was immediately charged with espionage as a sign that the Kremlin is escalating this very rapidly?
Nagorski: Yes. And again, it can be escalating rapidly if they have an exchange in mind. But I have no idea whether that’s the case. It may be that by escalating the charge to espionage right away, that makes all the remaining correspondents much more vulnerable. I have great admiration for the correspondents who are still working in Russia under these conditions and trying to report honestly, because there is no way to ensure your own safety in this situation.
Reynolds: I believe the last American correspondent to be charged with espionage was Nicholas Daniloff in 1986. You knew him. Tell me about his case.
Nagorski: Nick Daniloff was a reporter for U.S. News and World Report in the early 1980s. We actually arrived in Moscow about the same time, I think, in 1981. And we talked fairly often. When I was expelled, Nick came over and asked me, did his name come up when they were grilling me? He had Russian heritage, I believe his grandfather had been in Russia, had actually been on the White Russian [anti-communist] side in the civil war. So he knew he was vulnerable.
Daniloff was an easy target in the sense that he spoke Russian well, moved about really well. In his case, it was clear that they targeted him. It was not a great time for U.S.-Russian relations, but it wasn’t the worst time. But the FBI had picked up a KGB agent in New York who the Russians really wanted to get back. That agent was accused of spying and pretty clearly was a spy. So they said, “Let’s pick Nick Daniloff, because he speaks Russian, moves about, he’s been here a while. We can level espionage on him.” And again, how is Nick supposed to defend himself, aside from saying, “I’m not a spy?”
One of the worst things about a spying case is that people who are outsiders, casual readers may think “Oh, well, maybe there’s something there.” Even if there’s really nothing there, as long as you put the charge out there, it’s a very nasty thing to deal with.
Reynolds: The Russian and the Soviet governments have a process that they call accrediting journalists. It’s not something that we do in the United States, but in order to live and work as a foreign correspondent in Moscow, Daniloff and now Evan Gershkovich were accredited by the Russian Foreign Ministry. In other words, they were in Russia with permission to operate as journalists. Why does the Russian government have this system and still then harass or arrest a journalist for doing their job?
Nagorski: They’ve always had that system. I had my Russian press card from the Foreign Ministry press department. We all had to go through that system to get a visa to get into Russia. As a journalist, you had to apply through that system. So they knew that Nick Daniloff was not a spy. I’m sure they know that Gershkovich is not a spy.
They want control and they want to monitor things. And then they want to be able to use any one of the journalists as an example, as a pawn. It sends a signal that the less real reporting there is out of Russia, the freer the Putin regime feels to operate the way it does inside Russia. The worst clampdown of course is on the Russian press, but a number of foreign journalists are still there, still working and producing pretty good stories.
The foreign ministry spokesman immediately said, “We’re not cracking down on journalists. Legitimate journalists can continue to do their work.” But immediately the implication is that Gershkovich was not a legitimate journalist, or not working legitimately. You can throw that out against anybody any time.
They want to have it both ways. They want to say, “We’re allowing journalists to work,” but then picking and choosing when to use the tools, the bluntest tools when they want to.
Reynolds: I believe Gershkovich’s parents were Soviet emigres and he grew up speaking Russian. How do Russian and Soviet authorities look at journalists who are native Russian speakers and have a Russian background?
Nagorski: Russian authorities, particularly during the Cold War, but even now, always preferred western journalists who did not speak Russian. They were much more easily controlled. In the Cold War days, you had translators that had to be government approved, which of course meant they were effectively working for the KGB directly or indirectly. On the other hand, a journalist who’s fluent in Russian can hear things, pick up on things that a non-Russian speaker or a poor Russian speaker won’t pick up on. So as far as the Russian government was concerned, whether it was then or now, the less Russian or the more limited someone was in terms of their Russian speaking ability, the better for them.
Reynolds: You’re an astute observer of Russian and Soviet history. I think nabbing foreigners, trading them for spies — to a lot of people that sounds like we’re back in a Cold War. Do you see this as a resumption of a Cold War-style of relations between Russia and the United States, or is something else going on?
Nagorski: There was a period in the nineties, late eighties, where it seemed like things were changing. For journalists it certainly was changing. I was expelled in 1982. I was not allowed back in until 1989. There was a tit-for-tat process when I was expelled where the State Department expelled the senior Izvestia correspondent in Washington. And then in 1989, he wanted to go back to the States on a visit and they negotiated to let me back in.
But there was in that period of transition in Russia after the coup, the failed putsch and so forth in 1991. There were journalists who had much more leeway. You could wander around, you could interview almost everybody. Russians felt much freer to talk on the record about all sorts of things that they never talked on the record before. And so there was some hope there.
In the Putin era, when there have been more and more assassinations of public figures including journalists, Russian journalists in particular, it begs credibility, it stretches every idea of rational thought, to think that this arrest is not ordered from the top. This is not some isolated FSB intelligence operation in Ekaterinburg. It was decided that they were going to get an American correspondent and that they were going to get this American correspondent.
Reynolds: The Russian government has been passing new laws restricting the operation of journalists, both foreign and domestic, inside Russia. What does that say about Putin’s regime? What is the relationship between journalism, whether conducted by foreigners or Russians, and an authoritarian regime like the one that Putin has built?
Nagorski: Putin and his regime are incredibly insecure. Even during that period before the invasion of Ukraine, when there were these polls showing that he has this huge support, I always distrusted those polls. First of all, if you’re being asked as a Russian by anybody, even if you’re told it’s going to be anonymous, “Do you support this regime or do you not?” Well, you think — “Am I stupid or am I not? I will tell them I support it.” At the same time, like in any kind of Orwellian regime, they want to maintain the pretense that they are democratic, that they have hope that there is freedom of speech. Everything has an opposite meaning. If they simply wanted to say, “We’re dictators and we’re not making any pretense,” they could say, “All of the Western journalists get out of Russia right now.” They could do it tomorrow.
They want the pretense and they want to benefit from it. But they don’t want them reporting the truth in any broader sense of the term. They don’t want them digging into the corruption of the regime, the disillusionment of the regime, the fact that people are tremendously tired of Putin. Even people who count themselves as supporters and are totally brainwashed by the nonstop propaganda, there’s a part of them that is always aware that this regime does not have the confidence to actually allow people to think for themselves, to get opposing ideas and to hear opposing ideas. And every totalitarian regime in history has known that.
[ad_2]
#Put #Spying #Table #Wiggle #Room
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 31, 2023
Juror in Oath Keepers trial reveals secrets from the deliberation room

[ad_1]

“His defense attorney tried to get him to fall apart by yelling at him and not letting him wear his headset,” Ellen recalled. “He was torturing his client to get us to feel sympathy.”
What was worse, the juror recalled, was that the judge ultimately instructed the jury not to consider Isaacs’ autism as a defense against his potential crimes, which meant the entire spectacle had been “a waste of time.”
The result of the jury’s six-day deliberations was a conviction of four defendants — including Isaacs — on all of the charges they faced. A fifth defendant, Bennie Parker, was convicted of one felony count and a misdemeanor but acquitted of other charges, and a sixth, Michael Greene, was convicted of a single misdemeanor charge and acquitted of several others.
Jurors rarely provide public commentary about their service, especially not to the detailed degree that Ellen did in her C-SPAN interview. She revealed that she worked with Lamb for more than 30 years and agreed to sit with him after he contacted her following the trial. The result was an eye-opening look at the jury’s lengthy deliberations: the fault-lines, the close calls and the persuasion efforts that resulted in guilty verdicts on most of the counts.
Isaacs’ attorney, Charles Greene, acknowledged that most of the jury recoiled at his posture toward his autistic client. It was all by design, he said, because he viewed acquittal as possible only if the jury could see Isaacs’ profound struggle.
“The strategy was: The jury’s going to hate me, but usually when you kick a puppy, the jury hates the person who kicks the puppy but they have sympathy for the puppy,” Greene told POLITICO.
He said that he had prepped for the testimony for days, running it by Isaacs’ family to ensure it wouldn’t cause a medical episode, but said he didn’t warn Isaacs because he needed his client’s response to be genuine.
“We had to wing it … He couldn’t be prepared for it. He couldn’t know what was coming,” Greene said. “I was crying. I didn’t like doing it. The days leading up to it, just thinking about it, it was traumatic for me too. I had to do it in a way that came across as heartless.”

Ellen indicated that she and another juror who happened to be a lawyer helped spearhead a lot of the deliberations. Some jurors, she said, did not seem to have followed every twist and turn of the trial. Others, she said, seemed to have preconceived notions against convicting anyone regardless of the facts — which the jury had to overcome to arrive at its verdict. And when she completed her service, after a five-week trial and lengthy deliberations, Ellen came away with a conclusion: If she were ever on trial, she would waive her right to a jury and instead let the judge decide her fate.
“I would never want my fate in the hands of people who are mostly completely ill-equipped to understand what’s going on,” she said.
Ellen described the extraordinary volume of evidence jurors had to sift through as they considered the 34 counts against the six defendants — part of prosecutors’ video evidence trove that is unparalleled in American history. She said she grew exasperated at times with some jurors’ insistence that they had to rely only on direct evidence to reach a conviction, rather than circumstantial evidence that can point to someone’s guilt. But despite these frustrations, she ultimately compared the experience to “12 Angry Men” and a “made-for-TV movie” in which jurors understood the gravity of their charge and the significance of the case they had just witnessed.
Ellen indicated that of the four defendants who took the stand “three did harm to themselves by testifying.” One of them, she said, was Bennie Parker, whose testimony she said helped convince the jury that there was a plan to storm the Capitol even before the group arrived at the building. That testimony, she said, damaged other defendants, including Parker’s wife Sandra, who was convicted on several counts for which Parker — who didn’t enter the building — was acquitted.
Another defendant, Connie Meggs — whose husband Kelly Meggs was convicted of seditious conspiracy in November for his Jan. 6 actions — made implausible claims on the stand that led the jury to doubt her testimony, Ellen said.
Ellen saved her harshest remarks for some of the defense lawyers in the case, who she said at times acted in ways that perplexed and even upset the jury. For example, the lawyer for one defendant, Laura Steele, didn’t put on a case for his client but noticeably laughed repeatedly throughout the trial, Ellen said.
“I was horrified,” she said.
As she went through each of the counts the jury considered, Ellen said the decision on convicting four defendants of “obstruction of an official proceeding” — a felony that carries a 20-year maximum sentence — was relatively “easy.”
“Did they obstruct Congress? Yes. Next,” she said.
What was more in dispute was how to handle the two defendants who never entered the Capitol: Parker and Michael Greene. Some jurors appeared convinced that only those who went inside the building could be convicted of the charge, and Ellen said she disagreed, citing the testimony of police officers who insisted Congress couldn’t return until the entire Capitol grounds were cleared of rioters.
Ultimately, Parker and Greene were both acquitted of the charge, though Parker was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct Congress — a result of what Ellen said was his own testimony about his thought process outside the Capitol.
“The jury was so divided on this,” she said, noting that some had considered whether Parker should only be convicted of a misdemeanor trespassing charge. She noted that jurors were shown a long gun that Parker had stashed at a house in Virginia before traveling to Washington.
Ellen insisted that the jury was focused entirely on the facts and law and did not enter the case with preconceived notions about the defendants. At times, she said, they grappled with the “heartbreaking” story of the Parkers, an older couple who were members of an Ohio-based militia before deciding to come to Washington with Jessica Watkins, a local Oath Keepers leader.
“They said they wanted to fight. But I don’t think they meant that literally at first,” Ellen said, adding, “There was a lot of sympathy. We feel like they stumbled into something.”
It was Bennie Parker’s interview with a foreign journalist “that I think just sealed his fate,” she added, noting that he told the interviewer what the mob was doing was likely illegal but “there’s so many of us, what could they possibly do to us.” And Parker added, “We are prepared to bring arms,” she recalled.
Ellen said some of the jurors have kept in touch since the trial and have continued to text about developments now that they’re able to read news about the case and understand the perception of their verdict.
She said she was shocked that she was allowed to join the jury, given her long history at C-SPAN.
She remembered thinking, “How could they allow a person from the media, who their staff was in the middle of the insurrection and various television equipment was being destroyed from other networks that could’ve been ours. I don’t even know if it was or wasn’t.”
Ellen said she volunteered during jury selection that she worked for C-SPAN, finding it odd that she was never asked to identify an employer until the later rounds of questioning. Though three defense witnesses jumped up to question her, they ultimately agreed she could be an impartial juror.
“Did you want to be on the jury?” Lamb asked.
“Yes,” Ellen replied.
“When did you make that decision?” Lamb said.
“When I get the summons,” she added. “I’ve always wanted to be on a jury my whole life.”
[ad_2]
#Juror #Oath #Keepers #trial #reveals #secrets #deliberation #room
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 29, 2023
Homesake Wall Light Hangings, Antique Home Decor Wall Lamp, Mandir Decorations Items, Balcony Decoration Items Outdoor, Lanterns for Home Decor, Home Decor Items for Living Room, Diwali Decoration Items for Home Decor (Pack of 1)

Price: [price_with_discount]
(as of [price_update_date] – Details)

[ad_1]
Shop wide range of collection of Light fixtures from the house of Homesake on Amazon.
VINTAGE LOOK: Oil rubbed Copper wall light body and retro lamp design make place full of vintage feel, fitting nicely in many decors, especially for the bedroom, restaurant, café, living room, kitchen, country house, and study; It is not only lighting but also a beautiful decoration for space
GLASS LAMP SHADE : Highly transparent glass shade makes the light of the bulb transmit completely, meeting your need of brightness. High temperature resistant and strong heat dissipation of the glass will be safe although used for a long time
BULB REQUIREMENTS: Compatible with incandescent bulb, LED, flame bulb, with medium base E27 This lamp does not contain a dimmer. If you want to achieve dimming, (Bulb Not Included)

[ad_2]
#Homesake #Wall #Light #Hangings #Antique #Home #Decor #Wall #Lamp #Mandir #Decorations #Items #Balcony #Decoration #Items #Outdoor #Lanterns #Home #Decor #Home #Decor #Items #Living #Room #Diwali #Decoration #Items #Home #Decor #Pack

March 26, 2023
USHA Quartz Room Heater with Overheating Protection (3002, Ivory, 800 Watts)

Price: [price_with_discount]
(as of [price_update_date] – Details)

[ad_1]
From the manufacturer

Room Size: Upto 150 sq ft; Ideal for a small room only, i.e., up to 120 sq. ft. Touch Sensor: No. :Tip-over Switch : Yes
Safety tip over switch cuts off the heater in case it tilts or falls; Powder coated finish to prevent corrosion
Designed for low power consumption; There are two heating positions to suit your comfort
Front grill for safety
Country of Origin: India

[ad_2]
#USHA #Quartz #Room #Heater #Overheating #Protection #Ivory #Watts

March 20, 2023
Mannat trespassing: Accused hid in SRK’s makeup room for 8 hrs, says Mumbai police

[ad_1]
Mumbai: Two men arrested last week for trespassing inside Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s bungalow here last week hid inside the actor’s makeup room for nearly eight hours, before being caught, police said.
The duo identified as Pathan Sahil Salim Khan and Ram Saraf Kushwaha who claimed to have from Bharuch in Gujarat to meet the ‘Pathaan’ star were caught by security guards and handed over to police. A case of trespassing and relevant offences has been registered against them under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the investigation is ongoing.
The accused had concealed themselves inside the makeup room located in the third floor of Mannat, the actor’s bungalow, and the actor was shocked when he saw them.
“Both the accused sneaked into Khan’s Bungalow to meet him and kept waiting for the actor in his make-up room for about eight hours. They had entered at around 3 am and were caught at 10:30 am the next day,” said police.
Colleen D’Souza, the manager of Khan’s bungalow, told police in her statement that the security guard called her at 11 am on February 2 to inform her that two people had manage to enter the bungalow.
According to the FIR, the trespassers were discovered by Satish a staff from the housekeeping.
“Satish took both of them from the make up room to the lobby and. Shah Rukh Khan was shocked to see strangers there. Mannat’s guards handed over both of them to Bandra Police,” the FIR stated.
According to Mumbai Police, the trespassers entered Mannat’s premises by scaling its outer wall.

During the police enquiry, the men, aged between 20 and 22, claimed that they had arrived from Gujarat and wanted to meet the ‘Pathaan’ star.
Meanwhile SRK is now preparing for his upcoming films ‘Jawan’ and ‘Dunki’.
[ad_2]
#Mannat #trespassing #Accused #hid #SRKs #makeup #room #hrs #Mumbai #police
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 8, 2023
Kittu Kitchen mat | Floor mat | Door mat| Anti-Slip, Soft,Washable, Printed, Designer, for Floor, Kitchen, Room 16″X24″ & 17″X47″ inches, Blue Border

Price: [price_with_discount]
(as of [price_update_date] – Details)

[ad_1]
[ad_2]
#Kittu #Kitchen #mat #Floor #mat #Door #mat #AntiSlip #SoftWashable #Printed #Designer #Floor #Kitchen #Room #16X24 #17X47 #inches #Blue #Border

March 4, 2023
“There is room in the background”: why would Tatiana Astengo no longer be Queen Pachas?

[ad_1]
Fans ask for Reina Pachas to return, but Tatiana Astengo seems to have no plans to return to “AFHS”.
Tatiana Astengo He gained great popularity with “Al fondo hay sitio”. However, her character in the América Televisión series, Queen Pachas, seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth and the writers of the program have made no effort to remember her -or her fictional family-. Even so, is there a chance to see the actress back in “AFHS”? Everything points to no. At least not for now. The reason is very simple and, in fact, it explains why the artist stays away from Peruvian TV.
Tatiana Astengo was last seen as Reina Pachas in season 8 of the series. Photo: America TV
“AFHS”: why wouldn’t Tatiana Astengo be Queen Pachas again?
In case you don’t know, Astengo currently resides in Spain and it could be said that he followed in the footsteps of his colleague Nataniel Sánchez. The popular Queen Pachas He spoke with La República at the end of 2022 and explained that his stay in Europe is related to his film script studies.
In that dialogue with this medium, the journalist Paola Ugaz asked her if she really wanted to work as a writer of scripts. The actress responded as follows: “That is my intention. I understand that everyone has their talents. I have many ideas, topics that interest me much more than before. Of course, if you don’t get those scripts, you have no choice but to do them and that’s what I’m working on, that’s why I was studying script”.
For now, the interpreter is still in Spain continuing her training, as she recently let you know in an Instagram story. In addition, she remains very active as a spectator of artistic productions, such as the play “Contradicciones”, directed by Israel Solá, which she went to enjoy a few days ago in Madrid.
Tatiana Astengo continues her studies in Spain. Photo: Instagram capture
SEE “At the bottom there is room 10”, chapter 165, FREE ONLINE
Chapter 165 of “Al fondo hay sitio 10” will premiere this February 27 on América TV. The episode can be seen starting at 8:40 p.m. and will show a big surprise that ‘Charito’ has prepared for the rest of the Gonzales. Likewise, Francesca will appoint Mike Miller as the new business advisor for her restaurant.Of course, the news will not sit well with Diego Montalbán.

#room #background #Tatiana #Astengo #longer #Queen #Pachas
[ad_2]
#room #background #Tatiana #Astengo #longer #Queen #Pachas
( With inputs from : pledgetimes.com )

February 28, 2023
Quieter Senate gives Fetterman recovery room

[ad_1]
“We have gone through periods of time since I’ve been in the Senate where members have been [gone] for lengthy periods of time for good reasons, health reasons. I wouldn’t wish that kind of pressure on anybody. Let him get well, let his family feel he’s getting the best care. Those are the highest priorities,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I wish that his critics would show a little bit of humanity.”
Fetterman’s win in November gave his party the cushion it needs for him to take time to recover, both from his depression and from last year’s stroke that preceded it, without disrupting Senate business. It’s a far cry from last year’s 50-50 Senate, where one extended absence could have derailed things.
With Fetterman out, Democrats still have a 50-49 majority that allows unilateral confirmation of nominees — without a vice presidential tie-breaker. The chamber has no immediate plans to consider legislation that would require 60 votes to break a filibuster.
Fetterman’s absence does mean Democrats can’t afford absences on tough confirmation votes that all Republicans oppose, and that the GOP can more easily approve rollbacks of Biden administration regulations if it has full attendance. But right now, his treatment’s only expected to cause a weeks-long delay that wouldn’t hobble nominees who lack GOP support.
And the bipartisan history of senators taking extended leaves for recovery is clearly helping generate goodwill in the chamber, despite off-Hill criticism from some conservatives.
GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said in an interview that he “hates what’s going on” with Fetterman and described the progressive as a “good” friend despite the difference in their ideologies.
“He’s still got to work and he’s still got to get to votes. But I hope he gets back sooner than later,” said Tuberville, who has not spoken recently to Fetterman. “I’d rather have him here than not.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Fetterman is “trying to take care of his health. And I find no fault with that.”

Several senators, including Durbin and Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), said they’d sent Fetterman notes since he checked into the hospital earlier this month. Most senators indicated they had not spoken directly with Fetterman, according to more than a dozen interviews on Monday — suggesting a broad hands-off approach.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who also suffered from a stroke last year, said his staff had reached out to Fetterman’s team in case it needed assistance.
“Everyone is being very accommodating and wants what is best for John’s health. We are getting zero pressure for him to come back before the timeline we’ve laid out for John’s recovery,” said Adam Jentleson, Fetterman’s chief of staff.
Fetterman just won a six-year term in a seat that’s a cornerstone of Democrats’ majority, meaning there’s no push within the party for him to step down and trigger a special election. And for Fetterman, being in the Senate fulfills one of his life goals: He’s run twice to join the upper chamber, including a 2016 campaign that fell far short in the Democratic primary.
Last year, however, Fetterman romped in the primary and defeated Republican Mehmet Oz by 5 percentage points — even as his health challenges dominated the general-election campaign after his May stroke. Some Republicans argued then that he wasn’t fit for office due to his post-stroke condition and debate performance.
“I think he’s gone through some challenges, and that the stroke had some impacts on his hearing, I think it’s going to come back,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “But I absolutely could see how you can get down in the dumps over that.”
Since taking office, Fetterman has often required a screen with transcription to conduct conversations. Until his recent health setback, he was voting on the Senate floor and also attended and asked questions at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing. His speech was halting and labored as he sometimes mixed up words during the hearing, a remnant of his auditory processing problems following the stroke. Once a famously accessible politician, Fetterman also doesn’t engage with reporters in the halls of the Capitol.
Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the top Republican on the Agriculture Committee, said that the panel has “made every effort to accommodate him and will continue to do so.”
“He was working hard to try and keep up and get things done,” said Boozman, who had major heart surgery in 2014. “It just seemed like a difficult situation.”
Despite pro-Fetterman sentiment in their ranks, some in the GOP still see thorny political dynamics behind his decision to keep running after suffering a stroke.
“What I would worry about is whether there were people basically taking advantage of him and encouraging him to run for the Senate when he wasn’t physically able to do it, but he wasn’t well. I don’t know the whole story, but it looks to me like that could have been one part of the explanation,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Earlier this month, Fetterman spent several nights in the hospital for what his office described as lightheadedness. Testing during that episode showed no evidence of any new stroke or seizure, his office said later. Then later in the month, before last week’s recess, Fetterman checked himself into the hospital for depression.
Luján, who suffered a stroke last year and offered Fetterman repeated encouragement during the campaign, said that Fetterman’s public acknowledgement of his mental health is a significant step: “How many other folks have maybe done the same thing and not shared about admitting themselves? For John, he shared with the American people, ‘if you’re not feeling well, go in.’”
“Mental health issues continue to carry stigma in this country,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “He helped change how Americans look at that issue. But it hasn’t changed everyone’s mind. So he gets the extra hard look over his illness when other senators get a pass for theirs.”
Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Quieter #Senate #Fetterman #recovery #room
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 28, 2023
UM Creaciones Amber widebottom Glass Vase Perfect for Wedding & Home Decorative for Home Decor Living Room Office Set of 1

Price: [price_with_discount]
(as of [price_update_date] – Details)

[ad_1]
Versatile and elegant for a casual or formal setting. Super cute for decorating desks, bookshelves, tables, window sills, countertops, and more. Works brilliantly as a small indoor low-laying centerpiece. Our vases are more sturdy and durable and free of sharp corners, bubbles, and wrinkles. With a thickened and classic design, our simple style vases are deserved your lifelong use. you can easily create beautiful and elegant arrangements with just a few flowers. We have seen various uses of our glass bubble bowl. they can also be an excellent fit for wedding centerpieces and home terrariums. The most simple and common decorations are always the most attractive.
The mouth of the vase is cut smoothly. So it will not hurt your hands and the flower pole.
Simple and classy, the collection of glass vases offers the charm of a small flower vase for your short flowers with a quality of handmade glass.
SIMPLE ELEGANT DESIGN: Use this assortment of vases to create an elegant grouping down the center of your table. Looks gorgeous as a single flower vase with roses.
Made of glass with elegant design | Great for parties or as a wedding, housewarming, or host gift

[ad_2]
#Creaciones #Amber #widebottom #Glass #Vase #Perfect #Wedding #Home #Decorative #Home #Decor #Living #Room #Office #Set

February 26, 2023
Trump’s visit to Ohio derailment gives Biden’s team some breathing room

[ad_1]

Other Trump critics were more blunt in dismissing the motives behind his visit.
“It’s clear that it’s a political stunt,” said former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican and former member of Congress who led DOT during President Barack Obama’s first term. “If he wants to visit, he’s a citizen. But clearly his regulations and the elimination of them, and no emphasis on safety, is going to be pointed out.”
Buttigieg took his own veiled shot at Trump — though not by name — when answering a POLITICO reporter’s question about the tension between Trump’s rail safety record and his criticisms of the Biden administration.
“There is a chance for everybody who has a public voice on this issue to demonstrate whether they are interested in helping the people of East Palestine or using the people of East Palestine,” Buttigieg said. “A lot of the folks who seem to find political opportunity there are among those who have sided with the rail industry again and again and again as they have fought safety regulations on railroads and [hazardous materials] tooth and nail.”
Buttigieg said he was trying to be careful not to violate the Hatch Act, which restricts federal employees’ political speech, by speaking about a presidential candidate from his position as Cabinet secretary.
Ahead of Wednesday’s appearance, the Democratic National Committee sent reporters a list of Trump’s deregulation efforts, with the subject line: “REMINDER: Trump Slashed Transportation Safety and Environmental Rules, Funding.”
A spokesperson for Trump defended his record and said that he was not to blame for the tragedy in East Palestine.
Trump, who launched his latest presidential bid in November, said on his social media network Truth Social that he was venturing to Ohio to visit “great people who need help, NOW!”

On Wednesday Trump appeared in East Palestine, bringing with him Trump-branded water and cleaning supplies. Speaking in front of an East Palestine Fire Department truck, Trump took shots at the Biden administration’s response, including the EPA, Buttigieg and even Biden himself.
While handing out red MAGA hats, Trump told reporters, “Buttigieg should’ve been here already.” He also had a message for Biden: “Get over here.”
Buttigieg plans to travel to East Palestine Thursday, after taking intense heat from Republicans for not going sooner. The Biden administration has said that high-ranking officials, aside from EPA chief Michael Regan, did not visit East Palestine in the derailment’s immediate aftermath to comply with the evacuation order in place and to avoid impeding investigation and emergency response efforts.
Trump also called on Norfolk Southern to “fulfill its responsibilities and obligations” to the village. The EPA formally put the rail company on the hook Tuesday for covering all costs of the clean up, which the railroad had already pledged to do.
“If our ‘leaders’ are too afraid to actually lead real leaders will step up and fill the void,” his son Donald Trump Jr. wrote on Twitter last week.
Among other criticisms, lawmakers of both parties have questioned DOT’s oversight of the railroad industry’s labor and safety practices in light of the fiery Ohio crash, which unleashed plumes of toxic smoke and left lingering worries about air and water contamination. They have also faulted the Biden administration for not sending any senior leaders to the derailment site until EPA Administrator Michael Regan traveled there last week.
Buttigieg has not yet gone there but said he plans to, and the heads of DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration and its hazardous materials agency are expected to be in East Palestine on Wednesday. Biden administration officials have said that top leaders held off from visiting the site to comply with evacuation orders and to avoid creating a distraction. Still, lower-level investigators and employees from agencies such as the FRA and EPA swarmed to East Palestine within hours after the 150-car Norfolk Southern train went off the track with a cargo that included flammable chemicals such as vinyl chloride.
Because the disaster was a chemical spill, White House officials said, Regan was the lead agency official tasked with responding. Regan’s agency has faced skepticism from residents about its assurances that East Palestine’s air is safe to breathe, despite a lingering odor that has left residents in the village complaining about rashes and headaches.
Buttigieg told reporters Monday that he plans to go to the site “when the time is right.”
“I am very interested in getting to know the residents of East Palestine and hearing from them about how they’ve been impacted and communicating with them about the steps that we were taking,” he said.
Even some less partisan observers have questioned why the Biden administration didn’t send a high-profile official sooner to show its support for people in East Palestine.
“There’s a tremendous value when a catastrophe occurs of a high-ranking official taking charge,” William Reilly, who led EPA during the George H.W. Bush administration, told POLITICO’s E&E News for a story Tuesday. He said the purpose of those visits can include “communicating to the locally impacted people and to the country. The communication part is enormously important. And that did not happen here.”
Local and state political leaders said they welcome high-level attention — to a point. They include East Palestine Mayor Trent Conaway, a registered Republican who on Monday had called President Joe Biden’s decision to visit Ukraine before coming to his Ohio village “the biggest slap in the face.”
At a news conference Tuesday, Conaway said Trump is welcome to visit but that he does not want the village to become “political pawns.”
“We don’t want to be a soundbite or a news bite,” Conaway said. “We just want to go back to living our lives the way they were.”
A spokesperson for Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, Daniel Tierney, declined to comment when asked whether Trump is welcome in East Palestine.
One senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak freely because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Biden’s appointees are “supporting people in East Palestine” while Trump and other Republicans “see the people there as political props.”
“Trump’s visit validates that this is all about politics for him and Republicans who have been quick to criticize and bizarrely blame Secretary Pete yet are the same people who have done Norfolk Southern’s bidding on rolling back major safety requirements,” said the official. “Trump more than anyone.”
Watering down rail regs
As president, Trump made rescinding regulations a major priority for his agencies, even signing an order requiring them to revoke two rules for every one they enact. At the same time, he said he wanted to “ensure that America has among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet.”
His administration’s most high-profile action on rail safety was its withdrawal of a 2015 rule mandating more advanced brakes on some trains carrying especially hazardous materials.
That withdrawal, however, stemmed from intervention by Congress, which required regulators to put the rule through a more stringent cost-benefit analysis after the Obama administration had issued the regulation. The rule ultimately failed that analysis.
Even if that rule had taken effect, it would not have applied to the train that derailed in East Palestine, the chair of the National Transportation Safety Board — the lead agency investigating the crash — wrote on Twitter last week. Still, environmental groups pressed Buttigieg last week to restore the Obama-era brake rule, writing that “[i]t should not take a tragedy like the recent hazardous train derailment in Ohio … to turn attention to this issue again.”
Trump’s DOT also took several rulemaking actions sought by railroad companies that could weaken safety, including its withdrawal of a rule requiring that a crew of at least two people be present on freight trains. The Obama administration had proposed that rule in response to a fiery oil-train derailment that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in 2013.
The Trump administration argued that “a train crew staffing rule would unnecessarily impede the future of rail innovation and automation.”
Railroad companies say no factual justification exists for mandating crews of more than one person. Such a requirement, they argue, would make U.S. railroads less competitive and could even undermine climate efforts if it makes shippers turn to trucking, which emits more pollution than trains do.
The Norfolk Southern train that derailed in Ohio had three crew members aboard. After the derailment, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) asked in a letter to Buttigieg whether that was too few people to control such a long train.
The Trump administration also dropped a ban on shipping liquefied natural gas by rail tank car, saying the expansion of U.S. natural gas production necessitated the rollback. The ban had been a response to concerns about possible explosions.
In addition, Trump’s Federal Railroad Administration stopped conducting regular rail safety audits of railroads — which the Biden administration later reinstituted — and allowed railroads to replace some human safety inspections with automation.
Under Trump, “railroads could apply for relief from federal regulations, and FRA would grant them,” said Gregory Hynes, the national legislative director of the country’s largest rail union, SMART Transportation Division.
“It’s really shocking what they’ve been able to get away with,” he said.
On chemicals, a rollback of ‘almost everything’
Advocates of tougher regulations on toxic chemicals expressed just as much frustration.
Under Trump, “there was a rollback of, you know, almost everything,” said Sonya Lunder, the Sierra Club’s senior toxics adviser.
Trump’s EPA repealed regulations intended to prevent chemical accidents at industrial facilities and rolled back requirements for companies to regularly assess whether safer technologies or practices have become available. It also withdrew requirements that companies have third-party audits to determine the root causes of accidents.
The Biden administration last year proposed reinstating all those requirements.
Public health advocates also criticized the Trump administration’s implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, a longstanding law that Congress gave a bipartisan overhaul in 2016.
Advocates say the law was designed to require EPA to look at the overall health dangers of chemicals, but the Trump administration took steps to look at risks in only a piecemeal fashion. For instance, it declined to factor in chemicals Americans breathe from the air or drink in their water, limiting analyses to only direct exposure from products or uses. The Biden administration has reversed that policy and reconsidered some chemicals’ risks, with potential restrictions or bans on the way.
A federal court in 2019 faulted the Trump-era EPA for avoiding studying certain health risks of some chemicals like asbestos.
Trump’s political appointees also overruled career scientists on a health assessment for a type of PFAS, or so-called “forever chemicals,” that contaminates almost a million Americans’ drinking water and tried to bury internal reports that warned of unsafe chemicals in the air and water.
In addition, Trump proposed shuttering the Chemical Safety Board, a tiny agency that investigates accidents at industrial facilities but has no regulatory or enforcement power.
These rollbacks were carried out by several political appointees with industry ties. Those included Nancy Beck, a former expert for the trade group American Chemistry Council, who became the top political appointee in EPA’s chemical office and limited the agency’s study of hazardous chemicals. Trump later tried to appoint Beck to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but her nomination stalled in the Senate.
Kayla Guo contributed to this report.

[ad_2]
#Trumps #visit #Ohio #derailment #Bidens #team #breathing #room
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 22, 2023