The House Freedom Caucus took an official position Tuesday not to back President TrumpDonald John Trump5 things to know about Boris Johnson Conservatives erupt in outrage against budget deal Trump says Omar will help him win Minnesota MORE‘s spending deal and agreement to lift the debt ceiling, citing concerns with its impact on the national debt.

“Our country is undeniably headed down a path of fiscal insolvency and rapidly approaching $23 trillion in debt. This is completely unsustainable, and we owe taxpayers and future generations better. We should be working together on a bipartisan basis to cut spending and balance our budget—or, at bare minimum, holding to the existing spending caps to prevent a significant problem from becoming even worse,” the group said in a statement.

“All sides should go back to the drawing board and work around the clock, canceling recess if necessary, on a responsible budget agreement that serves American taxpayers better—not a $323 billion spending frenzy with no serious offsets.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The conservative group’s decision to oppose the measure comes one day after Trump tweeted his support for the deal struck between congressional leaders.

The president doubled down on his support on Tuesday evening, encouraging members to back the legislation.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyThe Hill’s Morning Report — Trump applauds two-year budget deal with 0 billion spending hike On The Money: Trump, Congress reach two-year budget, debt limit deal | What we know | Deal gets pushback from conservatives | Equifax to pay up to 0M in data breach settlement | Warren warns another ‘crash’ is coming Overnight Defense: Iran’s spy claim adds to tensions with US | Trump, lawmakers get two-year budget deal | Trump claims he could win Afghan war in a week MORE (R-Calif.) told reporters while he would have liked to have seen certain provisions and spending offsets make it into the deal, he feels Republicans score some wins and is confident they will have the votes for it to pass the lower chamber.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

“It makes me want to work harder to win the majority back again. But the protections that we’ve been able to get in the bill here, the build within the military. Look, I would have wanted a lot more offsets but the Speaker would not provide that. At the end of the day, the president said this is the best deal going forward,” McCarthy said Tuesday evening.

“But it’s the importance of why we have to get the majority back to take care of this debt, to get rid of this debt. … You know I haven’t met with everybody yet, but I think we’ll have the votes.”

The legislation is still expected to pass without Freedom Caucus support. 

K Street’s boom is going strong after the second quarter of 2019, which saw lobbying firms show strong earnings as they worked on President TrumpDonald John TrumpChelsea Clinton announces birth of third child Ukrainian officials and Giuliani are sharing back-channel campaign information: report Trump attacks ‘the Squad’ as ‘racist group of troublemakers’ MORE‘s trade agenda, a bipartisan push for drug pricing reforms and other issues.

And a new firm is in the highest-grossing spot, according to the latest Lobbying Disclosure Act reports.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck closed its gap on longtime leader Akin Gump and reported $10.07 million in revenue for the second quarter of 2019.

That number is up from the $9.17 million the firm made in the first quarter and represents an approximate 41 percent increase over the second quarter of 2018.

“We have assembled the strongest bipartisan team of public policy advocates in the country,” Marc Lampkin, Brownstein’s government relations department chairman said in a statement. “Our team has unparalleled understanding of the complex policy landscape in Washington and the ability to assist our clients to thread the needle across the House, Senate and Executive Branch.” 

So far in 2019, Brownstein has made $19.24 million. At the end of 2018, it reported $31.6 million.

Akin Gump, formerly the highest-grossing lobbying shop, reported $10.06 million in revenue in the second quarter of 2019, up from $9.64 million in the first quarter. 

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

“We are very pleased with this quarter’s results — our best in four years and among our strongest quarters ever — which reflect robust activity on Capitol Hill and continued strong client demand,” Hunter Bates, co-head of Akin Gump’s public law and policy practice, said in a statement.

So far in 2019, Akin Gump has made $19.7 million, beating Brownstein in overall revenue. And they are topping 2018’s pace. In the first half of last year, Akin Gump made just over $19.06 million.

“We’re looking forward to a busy third quarter, with issues like trade, including the USMCA [U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement] and China trade deal, appropriations, drug pricing and health care, and tax extenders all on the docket,” Bates said. 

The White House is pushing for the House to approve Trump’s renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement, but Democrats say they have concerns about worker protections. There is also momentum in both the House and Senate for legislation to lower drug prices, an issue where the Trump administration has also taken action.

BGR Group, which is mostly made up of Republican lobbyists, had $7.24 million in revenue, up from $6.87 in the first quarter. 

Smaller K Street firms are also continuing to see increases in clients and revenue.

Ballard Partners, a Trump-connected firm, reported $4.7 million revenue in the second quarter of 2019, up from $4.2 million in the first quarter.

K&L Gates made $4.42 million in the second quarter, a slight decrease from $4.56 million in the first quarter. 

Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas is close behind at $4.1 million in the second quarter, but that figure is up from the $3.97 million they had last quarter.

Heather Podesta’s firm, Invariant, is close behind at $3.8 million, which is an 11-percent increase over the last quarter and a 21-percent increase over the second quarter of 2018.  

Forbes Tate Partners reported $3.69 million in the second quarter, up from $3.49 million in the first quarter. The firm’s revenue so far in 2019 comes in at $7.14 million. 

CGCN reported just under $2.4 million for the second quarter of 2019, which is an increase from the $2.36 reported in the first quarter. 

Updated at 5:40 p.m.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday announced it is launching an investigation into whether the country’s largest tech companies have stifled competition or harmed consumers, marking the department’s widest-ranging inquiry into potential tech antitrust violations yet.

The DOJ’s antitrust division is leading the probe, surveying “whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers,” the DOJ said in a statement. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The inquiry emerges as Silicon Valley is facing intensifying scrutiny from Washington, including looming record penalties from federal regulators and a separate antitrust investigation by bipartisan House lawmakers. 

Facebook, Google and Amazon — some of the largest and most powerful tech companies in the world — could all be implicated in the DOJ’s probe. 

The department will “consider the widespread concerns that consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and some retail services online,” according to the statement.

Google dominates global search services, Facebook owns three of the top social media platforms, and Amazon is a leading player in online retail. 

“Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands,” Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, who helms the antitrust division, said in a statement. “The Department’s antitrust review will explore these important issues.”

Delrahim, who will head the investigation, lobbied on Google’s behalf in 2007 when it was facing antitrust scrutiny over its acquisition of DoubleClick, a top online advertising company that has boosted the company’s dominance in digital ads. Delrahim reported a $100,000 paycheck from Google that year.

He also lobbied on behalf of Apple in 2006 and 2007 on patent reform. 

Delrahim’s former lobbying credentials have prompted some Democratic lawmakers, including 2020 contender Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenPoll: Biden leads 2020 Democratic field by 15 points, followed by Sanders and Warren Warren introduces bill to cancel student loan debt for millions Democrats, advocacy groups urge Pompeo to abolish new ‘unalienable rights’ commission MORE (D-Mass.), to call for him to recuse himself from any tech probes.

Reports over the past several months have indicated the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) divvied up oversight of the country’s largest tech giants in preparation for potential investigations into the companies’ enormous market power.

Amazon declined to comment on the DOJ antitrust probe.

A Google spokesperson pointed The Hill to recent testimony by Adam Cohen, Google’s director of economic policy. 

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, Cohen argued that Google has helped create competition. “In the face of intense competition, we are proud of our record of continued innovation,” Cohen told lawmakers. “We have created new competition in many sectors, and new competitive pressures often lead to concerns from rivals.” 

Google dominates online search, holding about 92 percent of the world’s search engine market share, according to some estimates.  

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

According to the DOJ, if investigators identify “violations of law … the Department will proceed appropriately to seek redress.”

A growing chorus of critics, including some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, have started to question whether the country’s antitrust laws need to be updated to align with the changing online landscape.

Updated at 5:35 p.m.

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan said Tuesday that the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan between the U.S.-backed government and Taliban forces could have continued for another two decades were it not for President TrumpDonald John Trump5 things to know about Boris Johnson Conservatives erupt in outrage against budget deal Trump says Omar will help him win Minnesota MORE.

During remarks at the U.S. Institute of Peace following a visit at the White House, Khan remarked “thank God for President Trump,” and said that were it not for the policies of the Trump administration, the U.S. could have facilitated another 19 years of war in Afghanistan.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Nineteen years of conflict. Thank God for President Trump, I mean, this could have gone on for another 19 years,” Khan said.

“We believe that we should not ever interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan,” Khan added, stating that Pakistan would “facilitate the peace process.”

“Fortunately now, the United States is on the same page too,” he said.

His remarks come following his meeting with Trump on Monday, during which the president told reporters that a concerted U.S. effort to destroy the Taliban would be quick but very deadly.

“We’re like policemen. We’re not fighting a war. If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win it in a week. I just don’t want to kill 10 million people. Does that make sense to you? I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” Trump said.

Trump also indicated this week that Khan’s predecessors had not respected U.S. administrations in the past, while adding that he didn’t “blame” them.

“I don’t think Pakistan respected the United States, I don’t think Pakistan respected its presidents,” the president said Monday. “And I don’t blame them because they were dealing with the wrong presidents.”

Click Here: Cheap kid backpacks

House Democrats announced plans Tuesday to craft a new climate proposal to rival the Green New Deal by achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“All of this demands leadership at the federal level,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneHillicon Valley: Equifax to pay up to 0M over data breach | Settlement invites criticism from lawmakers | Microsoft settles bribery case | Election security to take back seat at Mueller testimony Equifax breach settlement sparks criticism Equifax to pay up to 0 million to feds, states in 2017 data breach settlement MORE (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, at a press conference. “This is an ambitious goal, I don’t want to suggest that it isn’t, and there are a lot of different ways of dealing with it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats say they will develop a plan by the end of the year to reach that goal and will hold a number of hearings and meetings with business leaders and environmentalists.

The competing plan highlights the rift with the party’s more progressive wing, which has rallied around the Green New Deal and its goal of a carbon-free economy by 2030.

Pallone and other Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee said their plan would be more concrete than the Green New Deal.

“We can do any kind of whimsical thing but we have to do this in a way that includes conversations with stakeholders, their buy-in and their involvement in a consensus bill,” said Rep. Paul TonkoPaul David TonkoWatchdog probing more ethics investigations into EPA’s former air chief: report Here are the 95 Democrats who voted to support impeachment Overnight Energy: EPA expands use of pesticide it considers ‘highly toxic’ to bees | House passes defense bill with measure targeting ‘forever chemicals’ | Five things to watch as Barry barrels through the Gulf MORE (D-N.Y.), who helped the committee settle on the 2050 timeline and will lead many of the hearings that will inform an eventual bill.

The lawmakers characterized 2050 as a point of no return, after which the country will be unable to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Progressives contend the country needs to reduce emissions by 2030 in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezClimate protesters glue themselves to Capitol doors, confront lawmakers Overnight Energy: House Democrats offer rival to Green New Deal | Zinke clients include industries he regulated | Oil companies dealt blow in Rhode Island climate lawsuit Gingrich: Trump more interested in fighting Democrats than on ‘any particular bill’ MORE (D-N.Y.), who sponsored the Green New Deal, has criticized plans from other Democrats that did not strive to meet the earlier timeline.

“Personally, I think we need to have more aggressive timelines than that to be honest,” she told The Hill in April of presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke’s climate plan, which strives for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“I think that the science and the IPCC [report] shows exactly what we need, and our legislation needs to be in line with that,” she added, referring to the climate assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Pallone acknowledged the challenge of getting the party’s more progressive wing on board but said getting the majority of Democrats on board would be key.

“We want a united front. I think it’s fair for me to say right now that does not exist,” he told reporters.

Energy and Commerce members were tight-lipped about what might be included in the proposal, saying it will be crafted through months of conversations.

Tonko said Democrats need to craft a ready-to-go bill, should a Democrat defeat President TrumpDonald John Trump5 things to know about Boris Johnson Conservatives erupt in outrage against budget deal Trump says Omar will help him win Minnesota MORE next year, and stressed the importance of going through a process to develop legislation.

“The importance here of that is to make certain that all concerns are taken to mind and heart and that we come up with the best consensus,” he said. “Without that you don’t have the support to get it through the House, perhaps, and certainly not through the Senate.”

Some environmental groups were critical of the announcement.

“Pallone and Democratic leaders are right that this is a crisis. But by setting a goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 here in the United States, they’re not acting like it,” the Sunrise Movement, a youth climate group and one of the backers of the Green New Deal, said in a statement. “To set a low goal that is misaligned with what science demands out of the gate is irresponsible, and bargaining against our future.”

Click Here: Cheap kid backpacks

Updated at 4:45 p.m.

Equifax will pay $575 million in fines for the massive 2017 data breach that exposed sensitive information for 147 million people.

The sum is part of a settlement announced Monday morning with 50 U.S. attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The settlement requires Equifax to pay $300 million to a compensation fund for victims of the breach and could end up paying an additional $125 million if the fund runs out — meaning the company could end up paying as much as $700 million.

ADVERTISEMENT

Equifax will also pay $175 million to a coalition of 50 states and territories, as well as $100 million to the CFPB.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

“Equifax failed in its fundamental responsibility to safeguard consumers’ sensitive financial information,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) said in a statement. “Equifax knew that there were serious flaws in their system, but still they did not take appropriate steps to fix it. They left their system vulnerable to the biggest data breach in history and the financial futures of millions of Americans were put at risk—and it was entirely preventable.”

Attorneys general from 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico were involved in the settlement.

The fines come nearly two years after Equifax first announced the breach in September 2017. Since then, the company has been dragged before Congress numerous times to explain its handling of the incident, which compromised Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth and home addresses.

The agreement outlined in the FTC’s complaint with a federal court in Georgia faults Equifax for failing to “provide reasonable security for the massive quantities of sensitive personal information stored within Defendant’s computer network.”

The settlement will require Equifax to implement a stronger cybersecurity program and submit to annual assessments of its protections. And starting in 2020 it will also have to provide consumers with six free credit reports a year for the next seven years.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneEquifax to pay up to 0 million to feds, states in 2017 data breach settlement Here are the 95 Democrats who voted to support impeachment Overnight Energy: USDA expected to lose two-thirds of research staff in move west | EPA hails Trump’s work on reducing air pollution | Agency eyes reducing inspections of nuclear reactors MORE (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement that that settlement didn’t go far enough after Equifax put roughly half the nation’s adults at risk. 

“This settlement does not come close to making consumers whole and, once again, shows the limitations on the FTC’s ability to seek strong penalties and effective redress for consumers,” he said in a statement. “It also shows that we need a comprehensive data privacy and security law to ensure companies are designing their systems to protect consumer privacy from the start, minimizing the personal information they keep, and are held appropriately accountable if they fail.”

FTC Chairman Joseph Simons acknowledged the limitations that his agency faces and used a press conference on Monday to call on Congress to give the commission more authority to be tougher in privacy cases.

“We don’t have a general privacy legislation like the GDPR in Europe. Our authority is actually pretty limited in privacy,” Simons told reporters after the conference.

“We can’t go out and tell companies, ‘You can’t collect this, you can’t use it this way, you can’t use it that way,’” he said.

Simons said that the agency didn’t push Equifax to pay more than $300 million to the consumer fund out of concerns that a larger sum would hurt the credit reporting bureau’s ability to invest more in cybersecurity and compete in the marketplace.

Consumers affected by the breach will soon be able to file claims to apply for monetary relief from the fund. Payouts to consumers will be capped at $20,000 per person.

Equifax CEO Mark Begor, who was not leading the company at the time of the breach, touted the company’s progress in investing in cybersecurity measures since the incident.

“This comprehensive settlement is a positive step for U.S. consumers and Equifax as we move forward from the 2017 cybersecurity incident and focus on our transformation investments in technology and security as a leading data, analytics, and technology company,” Equifax CEO Mark Begor said in a statement. “The consumer fund of up to $425 million that we are announcing today reinforces our commitment to putting consumers first and safeguarding their data — and reflects the seriousness with which we take this matter.”

Updated at 12:17 p.m.

A federal judge ruled against multiple oil and gas companies Monday, deciding that Rhode Island’s novel climate liability case can be tried in the state.

The ruling will allow Rhode Island prosecutors to continue to bring charges against 21 oil and gas producers including Chevron, Shell and BP as the state tries to get the companies to help pay for damages caused by climate change.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his ruling, Judge William Smith of the U.S. District Court For the District of Rhode Island remanded the case to state court.

“This is, needless to say, an important suit for both sides. The question presently before the Court is where in our federal system it will be decided,” the judge wrote.

“Because there is no federal jurisdiction under the various statutes and doctrines adverted to by Defendants, the Court grants the state’s motion to remand.”

In his ruling Monday, the judge made clear his understanding of the links with climate change in the prosecution’s case, saying, “Climate change is expensive, and the State wants help paying for it.”

The judge also noted that the companies “have extracted, advertised, and sold a substantial percentage of the fossil fuels burned globally since the 1960s.”

“This activity has released an immense amount of greenhouse gas into the Earth’s atmosphere, changing its climate and leading to all kinds of displacement, death (extinctions, even), and destruction,” the opinion also read. “What is more, Defendants understood the consequences of their activity decades ago, when transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy would have saved a world of trouble.”

Rhode Island first filed its lawsuit against fossil fuel companies in July 2018, becoming the first U.S. state to try to place at fault the fossil fuel industry for anticipated climate change-driven damages expected in the state.

Two other similar suits brought by California and the city of Baltimore have also since been sent back to state court for prosecution, despite oil and gas companies’ attempts to fight in federal court.

Environmental groups championed the ruling Monday.

“Big oil and gas producers are desperate to stay out of state courts where tobacco lost and and opioid manufacturers are on the ropes. But now a third federal district court has ruled that state courts are where climate liability cases belong,” said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

“This is more bad news for Exxon and a welcome sign for taxpayers and local governments seeking just compensation for climate damages oil and gas companies knowingly caused.”

The Senate voted on Tuesday to confirm Mark Esper to be President TrumpDonald John Trump5 things to know about Boris Johnson Conservatives erupt in outrage against budget deal Trump says Omar will help him win Minnesota MORE‘s next Pentagon chief, capping off a rollercoaster six months since former Defense Secretary James MattisJames Norman MattisThe Hill’s Morning Report — Trump applauds two-year budget deal with 0 billion spending hike The Hill’s Morning Report — Mueller Time: Dems, GOP ready questions for high-stakes testimony This week: Mueller dominates chaotic week on Capitol Hill MORE‘s resignation.

The confirmation of Esper makes him the first Senate-approved Defense secretary since late December.

The vote comes as the Trump administration juggles multiple foreign policy challenges, including growing tensions with Iran, talk of new sanctions against Turkey and lingering congressional pushback over the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGrassley, Wyden reach deal to lower drug prices The Hill’s Morning Report — Trump applauds two-year budget deal with 0 billion spending hike Harris, Nadler introduce bill to decriminalize marijuana MORE (R-Ky.) praised Esper ahead of the vote, noting that a second Senate-confirmed Defense secretary is “beyond urgent.”

“The nominee is beyond qualified. His record of public service is beyond impressive. His commitment to serving our service members is beyond obvious and the need for a Senate-confirmed secretary of Defense is beyond urgent,” he added.

The vote marks the end of a months-long effort to find a replacement for Mattis, who resigned amid deep military and foreign policy strategy disagreements with Trump. It also caps off the longest period the Pentagon has gone with an acting secretary.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

Trump had been expected to nominate then-acting Defense Secretary Patrick ShanahanPatrick Michael ShanahanThe Hill’s Morning Report — Trump applauds two-year budget deal with 0 billion spending hike This week: Mueller dominates chaotic week on Capitol Hill Overnight Defense: US shoots down Iranian drone | Pentagon sending 500 more troops to Saudi Arabia | Trump mulls Turkey sanctions | Trump seeks review of Pentagon cloud-computing contract MORE, who ultimately withdrew himself from consideration amid multiple reports describing past domestic violence incidents involving his family.

Instead, Trump quickly put forward Esper; senators have ushered him through his confirmation process at a breakneck speed.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination by a voice vote on Thursday, waiving the panel’s rule that there has to be seven days between a confirmation hearing and the committee vote.

Esper’s ascension comes amid a shakeup of top military and Pentagon officials. The Pentagon announced last week that its Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy David Trachtenberg, its No. 2 policy official, is retiring.

A number of leadership positions don’t have permanent Senate-confirmed appointments including the deputy Defense secretary, Army secretary and Air Force secretary.

Esper was confirmed as Army secretary by the Senate 89-6 in the fall of 2017. A former infantry officer, Esper previously served as a top executive at the defense contractor Raytheon before joining the Trump administration.

His nomination appeared to be on a glide path after a largely noncontroversial confirmation hearing last week.

Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineOvernight Health Care — Presented by PCMA — Health care moves to center stage of Democratic primary fight | Sanders, Biden trade sharps jabs on Medicare for All | Senate to vote on 9/11 bill next week | Buttigieg pushes for cheaper insulin Health care moves to center stage in Democratic primary fight Dems open to killing filibuster in next Congress MORE (D-Va.) gave him a glowing review as he introduced him at the confirmation hearing.

“Most of us were very discouraged by the resignation of Secretary Mattis, and what we’ve hoped for is a successor who could show the same level of candor and principle and a willingness to remain independent even in the most challenging circumstances,” Kaine said.

“I believe that Dr. Esper has those traits and would encourage all of my colleagues to support this nomination,” he said.

Esper did run into pushback from Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenPoll: Biden leads 2020 Democratic field by 15 points, followed by Sanders and Warren Warren introduces bill to cancel student loan debt for millions Democrats, advocacy groups urge Pompeo to abolish new ‘unalienable rights’ commission MORE (D-Mass.), a member of the committee who is running for president, over ethics concerns related to his earlier employment at Raytheon.

Warren wanted to know if Esper would commit to forgoing employment with a defense contractor, or payments of any kind from a defense firm, for at least four years after his government service.

“No senator, I will not,” Esper replied.

The Trump administration’s new rule limiting asylum protections for most Central American migrants at the southern border faced its first legal test on Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C., less than a week after the policy went into effect.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, heard arguments on whether he should issue a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the rule, which says asylum cannot be granted to migrants who travel through another country before reaching the U.S. The rule was announced July 15 and went into effect on Tuesday.

Kelly was thorough in his line of questioning and the hearing lasted for well over three hours. The courtroom was full at the start of the proceedings, but less than a third of the seats were taken as the judge brought the hearing to a close.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mitchell Reisch, an attorney representing Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) and the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, argued that the rule would cause irreparable harm to the groups, as it would make it harder for them to help asylum-seekers and reduce the number of migrants they would be able to assist.

He also claimed the organizations are quickly shuffling resources to address the new rule, characterizing it as an “across-the-board reshaping” of operations.

But Justice Department lawyer Scott Stewart dismissed much of the groups’ claims as speculative.

He pointed to the groups’ filing their lawsuit the day the rule went into effect, as well as the fact they weren’t representing any migrants impacted by the rule to argue they have not suffered irreparable harm and did not require the restraining order.

Stewart argued that by limiting the number of migrants who can claim asylum the rule actually benefits the organizations. He said that they will be able to “represent more people who are truly deserving” of receiving asylum.

Reisch pushed back, saying that the groups want to make sure that as many people as possible who deserve asylum receive it, and that the new rule will prevent that from happening.

It’s unclear how Kelly will rule, but he may have to weigh another judge’s decisions in whatever order he issues: The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights are also asking a federal judge in the Northern District of California for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee, has scheduled a hearing for early next month in federal court in San Francisco. He has asked the groups why he should issue a temporary restraining order and not rule on whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case.

Stewart suggested that Kelly could issue a ruling that was not applicable nationwide but only impacted areas where the immigration groups in the D.C. court operated. But Reisch said such a ruling would be unfair, as it would randomly impact some asylum-seekers and not others.

Kelly said at the conclusion of Monday’s hearing that he will issue a ruling “as quickly as I can,” signaling that a decision will be handed down in the coming days.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

Microsoft on Monday agreed to pay more than $25 million to settle a case alleging the software giant violated a federal anti-bribery law, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The company will pay the fees, including an $8.75 million criminal fine imposed on its Microsoft Hungary unit and over $16 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to settle the charges.

ADVERTISEMENT

Microsoft Hungary, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft, admitted that it participated in a scheme between 2013 and 2015 to inflate margins on software sales and ultimately use the savings for “corrupt purposes,” according to the DOJ.

“According to Microsoft Hungary’s admissions, beginning by at least 2013 and continuing until at least 2015, a senior executive and other employees of Microsoft Hungary participated in a scheme to inflate margins in the Microsoft sales channel in connection with the sale of Microsoft software licenses to Hungarian government agencies,” the DOJ statement reads.

“In furtherance of that scheme, Microsoft Hungary executives and employees falsely represented to Microsoft that steep discounts were necessary to conclude deals with resellers who bid for the opportunity to sell Microsoft licenses to government customers,” it adds. “In actuality, the savings were not passed on to the government customers, but instead were used for corrupt purposes and were falsely recorded as ‘discounts.’ “

The savings were stored on Microsoft servers in the U.S., violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that prohibits U.S. companies from paying bribes to foreign officials to sweeten business deals.

Microsoft entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the DOJ over the case, and agreed to a cease-and-desist order with the SEC on related charges.

Microsoft President Brad Smith in an email to employees said the company “does not tolerate employees and partners who willfully break policies that go to fundamental issues of business integrity.”

Smith noted that all of the employees involved are “no longer with the company” and Microsoft terminated relationships with four resellers as a result of their investigation into the Hungary conduct.

Federal regulators have also investigated Microsoft’s dealings in Italy, China and Romania for potential violations of foreign corruption laws.

“We recognize that no business process can offer a perfect guarantee of eliminating all global instances of a human frailty that is as old as humanity itself,” Smith wrote. “That’s why we need strong laws and effective enforcement by agencies such as the DOJ and the SEC in the United States and around the world.”

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles