List of All Articles with Tag 'world'

Shots from Pfizer Inc. and GSK Plc that prevent respiratory syncytial virus received backing from a panel of

Singapore’s financial regulator imposed penalties amounting to a total of S$3.8 million ($2.8 million) on four financial institutions

One of Fox News’s star journalists found himself battling his own viewers after an appearance by former President Donald Trump on his show that many independent observers said was damaging for the ex-president’s credibility. Bret Baier won compliments from his colleagues in the media this week for the no-ground-given interview with the ex-president, which aired in two parts over Tuesday and Wednesday. But the reaction from the twice-indicted ex-president’s fanbase was less enthusiastic. One commenter, a blue-check Trump supporter, wrote a tweet attacking both the interview and Baier’s upcoming gig moderating the first Republican primary debate, set to be held on 23 August. They attacked Baier as a “Murdoch mouthpiece” and suggested that Mr Trump should skip the Fox debate. A second commenter then seemingly admitted that Mr Trump had said something incriminating during their discussion, while questioning whether the journalist had coordinated with the Department of Justice. “Bret and Martha [MacCallum], two anti-Trumpers, will be moderating the first GOP debate. Why the hell would Trump show up to that? Especially after this interview that was actually a debate between Trump & Murdoch mouthpiece. Remember Murdoch’s are all in for DeSanctimonious!” wrote the first critic, Alex Bruesewitz. The second tweeter added: “The big question is did @BretBaier have any contact with the DOJ to try and entrap @realDonaldTrump into incriminating himself. Who wrote his questions. The DOJ will be using his interview against him.” Baier flatly rejected that conspiracy in a short statement: “I’ll answer that. No. I wrote my own questions. And frankly I didn’t know that I would get much on the indictment questions assuming he might say he couldn’t talk about it. Thanks for watching.” He would later go on to approvingly retweet another viewer who took a mocking shot at a third critic of the Trump interivew. The comments are a sign of the increasingly tight spot that Baier and others on Fox’s news side find themselves in. Their network faces a ratings slide following the ouster of star opinion host Tucker Carlson, and increasing disfavour from the channel’s largely pro-Trump audience over any journalism that conflicts with the former president’s conspiracy theories. Baier struck a nerve with the former president in the segment of the interview which aired on Tuesday, as he rejected Mr Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen and pressed him to admit that all of his efforts to prove otherwise had failed. But that wasn’t the only moment when the two men clashed during the discussion. Baier would also question Mr Trump about his new push to expand use of the death penalty to those convicted of selling narcotics, a plan that would likely have little if any chance of success of being passed into law. The Fox journalist noted that a woman Mr Trump took public credit and admiration for having her sentence commuted would have instead been executed under his plan, forcing the ex-president to back off his hardline stance and qualify that degrees of severity would ideally be considered under this imaginary system. Read More Trump claimed the Durham report would uncover the ‘crime of the century.’ Here’s what it really found Capitol rioter filmed shocking police officer with stun gun shouts ‘Trump won!’ as he is sentenced Ousted incumbents, key matchups set: Takeaways from Virginia's primary election Trump drops below 50 per cent among GOP voters in new CNN poll following second indictment Television veteran Geraldo Rivera says he's quitting Fox News' political combat show 'The Five' John Eastman’s expert witness in disbarment hearing is barred for not being an expert

Democrats booed and heckled Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Wednesday as the GOP voted to censure California representative Adam Schiff for his efforts to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. On cameras of the House floor, Democrats could be seen rallying near the lectern and chanting, “Shame!” as the Speaker announced the result of the vote, which he said was punishment for “misleading the American public.” On Wednesday, the House voted 213-to-209 largely on party lines to censure Mr Schiff. In a speech from the floor, the California Democrat remained defiant, saying he was being punished for pursuing the truth by a party that’s attached itself to conspiratorial thinking about the election. “You who are the authors of the big lie about the last election must condemn the truth tellers and I stand proudly before you,” Mr Schiff said. “No matter how many false justifications or slanders you level against me, you but indict yourselves,” he added. “As Liz Cheney said, there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone. But your dishonor will remain.” New York Democrat Dan Goldman agreed, calling the censure vote a “phony ploy to punish Adam Schiff for speaking truth to power” in a floor speech of his own. This is a breaking news story and will be updated with new information. Read More The Body in the Woods | An Independent TV Original Documentary The harrowing discovery at centre of The Independent’s new documentary

Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly tore into her fellow conservative Lauren Boebert on the House floor on Wednesday, calling the Colorado rep a “little b****” and accusing her of copying articles of impeachment against Joe Biden. C-SPAN cameras captured the two MAGA Republicans having what appeared to be a heated conversation on Wednesday after Ms Boebert lay the groundwork to force a procedural vote on her impeachment articles in the coming days. Multiple people witnessed or were apprised of the exchange, including an anonymous GOP lawmaker, and reported its alleged contents to The Daily Beast. The argument reportedly began when Rep Boebert approached Rep Greene and was upset about “statements you made about me publicly.” The Georgia representative then allegedly called her counterpart a “little b****” and accused her of piggypacking on the idea to impeach Joe Biden, though Ms Boebert reportedly denied ever reading Ms Greene’s impachment resolution. “I’ve donated to you, I’ve defended you. But you’ve been nothing but a little b**** to me,” Ms Greene reportedly said. “And you copied my articles of impeachment after I asked you to cosponsor them.” “OK, Marjorie, we’re through,” Ms Boebert allegedly responded, to which Ms Greene reportedly said, “We were never together.” The Colorado Republican didn’t deny the heated exchange when contacted by The Daily Beast. “Marjorie is not my enemy. I came here to protect our children and their posterity. Joe Biden and the Democrats are destroying our country,” she told the outlet. “My priorities are to correct their bad policies and save America.” The Independent has contacted Ms Greene’s office for comment. On the same day as the alleged argument, Ms Greene appeared to publicly criticise Ms Boebert’s impeachment plan. “I’m different than what Lauren Boebert did,” Ms Greene said, CBS News reports. “She just went and did it. I just addressed the conference about impeachment and said that it is the right thing to do.” Ms Boebert has attempted to impeach Joe Biden multiple times. “I am bringing my articles of impeachment against Joe Biden to the House Floor in a privileged motion, meaning that every Member of Congress must vote on holding Joe Biden accountable,” she tweeted on Tuesday evening. The far-right Colorado rep has said she wants to impeach Mr Biden because of his “dereliction of duty” at the southern border. Read More AOC implores Greene and Boebert to not waste time with Biden impeachment: ‘We should actually be working’ Exclusive: Marjorie Taylor Greene names her price for McCarthy – impeach Joe Biden Boebert’s latest attempt to impeach Biden had Republicans ‘rolling eyes’, says Democrat AOC implores Greene and Boebert to not waste time with Biden impeachment Marjorie Taylor Greene names her price for McCarthy: Impeach Joe Biden Boebert’s latest attempt to impeach Biden had Republicans ‘rolling eyes’

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by journalists and open government advocates who sought to require her office to respond to public record requests, and a state panel agreed Wednesday to pay more than $100,000 in attorney fees. Reynolds settled the lawsuit about two months after the Iowa Supreme Court refused to dismiss the case filed by two media organizations and a nonprofit advocacy group. The court unanimously rejected the governor's argument that her office wasn't required to respond in a timely manner to record requests and that she could bypass the state's open records law by simply ignoring the requests. The organizations filed the lawsuit in 2021, claiming the governor had violated Iowa’s open records law by ignoring government record requests. The reporters had emailed the governor’s office with eight different open-record requests between April 2020 and April 2021 and renewed each request at least once. In each case, they received no response until filing a lawsuit in December 2021. In a statement, the governor's office acknowledged the settlement but said problems stemmed from demands during the COVID-19 pandemic. “The COVID-19 response put unprecedented demands on the governor’s team to meet the immediate needs of Iowans," Kollin Crompton, the governor's deputy communications director, said in a statement. "As a result, responses to requests were unintentionally delayed, which is not acceptable. Our office has assessed our internal processes and we continue to reevaluate the process to improve timeliness.” Earlier Wednesday, the State Appeal Board approved $135,000 to cover legal fees for the organizations, though the one Democrat on the three-member board objected. Auditor Rob Sand said state law intends that those who violate the open records law should pay fees related to the violation and a fine. The settlement, he noted, pays the fees with public money and doesn't include a fine. “These insiders have no shame," Sand said in a statement. “They abuse your rights, and then want to use your money to pay for having abused you.” The organization are the liberal-leaning Bleeding Heartland blog, Iowa Capital Dispatch and Iowa Freedom of Information Council, which focuses on open government issues. The ACLU of Iowa, which represented the organizations, said the settlement will be official later this month when the court accepts the agreement. The ACLU said the agreement also required a year of judicial oversight over the governor's office's compliance with the state open records law as well as court fees. The governor also settled separate lawsuits filed by an attorney who sued after not receiving records about COVID-19 testing contracts. The State Appeal Board approved about $40,000 to settle that case. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide

Top executives at lenders that collapse risk having their bonuses clawed back under legislation that’s gaining bipartisan support

The US Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon.com Inc. Wednesday, alleging the e-commerce giant duped consumers into signing up

A US Senate panel investigating the merger of PGA Tour and Saudi-backed LIV Golf asked officials from the

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said policymakers expect interest rates will need to move higher to reduce US

The LSU Tigers baseball team has star pitcher Paul Skenes and... a bunch of alcoholic fans, apparently. They're in college -- can you blame them?The LSU Tigers are on track to make a finals appearance in the College World Series this year, and their fans couldn't be happier. They witne...

Britain will back fast-tracking Ukraine’s Nato membership as momentum builds among Western allies to significantly change their stance over Kyiv’s attempts to join the alliance. Volodymyr Zelensky’s government may have a quick route to accession, as has been granted recently to Sweden and Finland, rather than continuing with the slower Membership Action Plan (MAP) that has preconditions for entry. Russia is adamantly opposed to Ukraine joining Nato, and even after Vladimir Putin’s invasion there has been reticence among member states over the speed of Kyiv’s accession. But as the war enters its 16th month, the position of Western allies appears to be changing. Britain’s foreign secretary James Cleverly told the Ukraine Recovery Conference in London on Wednesday: “We have seen Ukraine evolve, and evolve quickly. “Many of the requirements of the Membership Action Plan are actually being delivered. The reform of their armed forces are happening whilst engaged in conflict and I think the UK’s position is that it would be very supportive if we moved on from the Membership Action Plan. “We recognise that the offer to both Sweden and Finland did not require MAP. The Ukrainians have demonstrated their commitment to military reform required for Nato membership through their actions on the battlefield, and I think all Nato allies recognise that.” Also speaking at the conference, the French foreign minister, Catherine Colonna, commented: “Perhaps we don’t require the MAP mechanism, something which was planned in 2008. We are now a long way from 2008; time has passed, the situation is quite different.” The United States has been cautious about Ukraine’s Nato membership, with Joe Biden saying recently that his administration would not “make it easy” for Kyiv to join. “They have got to meet the same standards [as other entrants], that is our position,” he said. “I think it will happen, can happen, but it won’t be automatic.” However, senior White House officials indicated the president is “open to” waiving the MAP requirement for Ukraine, and Washington is facing mounting pressure from European allies to give firmer backing to Zelensky on the issue. Krisjanis Karins, the Latvian prime minister, said: “The only chance for peace in Europe is when Ukraine will be in Nato.” Failure to do so, she said, means “Russia will come back.” Nato membership for Ukraine is seen as a deterrent to Moscow from continuous attacks and attempts in the future to carry out regime change in Kyiv. A member can invoke Article 5, under which an attack on one member by an outside power is regarded as an attack on all Nato states. However, it is precisely this prospect of Nato getting directly into war with Moscow that is cited in support of making Ukraine wait until the current conflict has ended. Ukraine will be the key topic at next month’s Nato summit in Vilnius, one of the most important in its recent history. It remains unlikely that Ukraine will be offered immediate membership. The options being considered include guarantees that Western military support will continue, and that the Nato-Ukraine Commission, launched in 1997, will be upgraded to Nato-Ukraine Council, with a higher level of engagement. It will be a symbolic as well as practical move; in 2002, a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became a partner in the Nato-Russia Council but that ended with the annexation of Crimea by Moscow in 2014. Meanwhile, Britain has set out a package of support for Ukraine including $3 billion in guarantees for World Bank loans and $ 305 million in bilateral assistance. The US said it will send an additional $ 1.3 billion in financial assistance to overhaul Ukraine’s energy grid and modernise other critical infrastructure. Read More Ukraine-Russia war – live: Putin claims nuclear-capable Satan 2 missiles ready for combat in ‘near future’ Zelensky: ‘Eyes of the world’ are on West’s support for Ukraine Japan's Kishida says he will attend NATO leaders' summit, stresses need for dialogue with China The Body in the Woods | An Independent TV Original Documentary The harrowing discovery at centre of The Independent’s new documentary