Mexico is protesting an added provision to the recently signed trade agreement between itself, the U.S. and Canada that would station U.S. officials in Mexico to track the enforcement of its labor laws and ensure compliance with the new deal.

The version of the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans aim to avoid war with White House over impeachment strategy New York Times editorial board calls for Trump’s impeachment Trump rips Michigan Rep. Dingell after Fox News appearance: ‘Really pathetic!’ MORE sent to Congress Friday to be ratified included the provision, but the version of the deal that Mexico agreed to and signed did not, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Under the provision, the U.S. could station up to five attachés in Mexico, something that Jesús Seade, Mexico’s head trade negotiator isn’t pleased about.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Of course we don’t agree,” Seade said during a press conference.

According to the Journal, enforcement mechanisms such as the provision were critical in securing Democratic support for USMCA, which replaces NAFTA.

Seade also wrote to U.S. Trade Rep. Robert LighthizerRobert (Bob) Emmet LighthizerGOP senator warns quick vote on new NAFTA would be ‘huge mistake’ Pelosi casts doubt on USMCA deal in 2019 Pelosi sounds hopeful on new NAFTA deal despite tensions with White House MORE, saying that the U.S. is attempting to do more than it needs to in enforcing provisions that were agreed upon by all parties.

He also said that he plans to travel to Washington Sunday to talk with Lighthizer and other U.S. lawmakers. Nonetheless, Seade made it clear that U.S. officials would not be allowed to conduct inspections under Mexican law.

Lighthizer’s office did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.

California Gov. Gavin NewsomGavin Christopher NewsomPG&E fails to get governor’s approval on restructuring proposal Sanders revokes congressional endorsement for Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur Sanders endorses Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur for Katie Hill’s former House seat MORE (D) rejected Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) proposed restructuring plan as it seeks to navigate a historic bankruptcy.

Newsom wrote in a letter to PG&E Chief Executive Officer Bill JohnsonWilliam (Bill) Leslie JohnsonPG&E fails to get governor’s approval on restructuring proposal PG&E announces .5B settlement for Northern California wildfires California prepares for biggest blackout yet MORE that the utility behemoth’s restructuring plan fell “woefully short” of California’s requirements. He said that any reorganization of the company would need a better financing plan, a completely new board and the option for Sacramento to take the reins should it fail safety metrics.

“The resolution of this bankruptcy must yield a radically restructured and transformed utility that is responsible and accountable,” he wrote, adding that the proposal does not position the company to “provide safe, reliable and affordable service.”

Newsom’s support is vital to PG&E’s future – earlier this year the firm declared bankruptcy after being saddled with tens of millions of dollars in liabilities after settling claims for its role in starting several deadly wildfires. PG&E hammered out a restructuring plan, but still needs Newsom to approve it.

ADVERTISEMENT

The governor wrote that PG&E’s bankruptcy marks “more than two decades of mismanagement, misconduct, and failed efforts to improve its safety culture.”

“It is against this backdrop that compliance with” state law must be measured, he added.

According to a state law that created a $21 billion insurance pool to help firms deal with liabilities from future wildfires, PG&E needs to exit Chapter 11 by June 30 to access any of the funds.

PG&E maintained to The San Francisco Chronicle that its plan “is the best course forward for all stakeholders. We’ve welcomed feedback from all stakeholders … and will continue to work diligently in the coming days to resolve any issues that may arise.”

Newsom previously warned the company that the state of California could take it over if it does not pull itself out of bankruptcy by mid-2020.

The Air Force has tested a prototype of a non-nuclear ballistic missile that was previously banned by an arms control treaty from which President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate gears up for battle over witnesses in impeachment trial Vulnerable Democrats tout legislative wins, not impeachment Trump appears to set personal record for tweets in a day MORE withdrew earlier this year, the Pentagon said Thursday.

“On Thursday, Dec. 12, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time, the U.S. Air Force, in partnership with the Strategic Capabilities Office, conducted a flight test of a prototype conventionally-configured ground-launched ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Robert Carver said in a statement.

Click Here: Malaysia Rugby Shop

The missile was launched from a “static” stand and landed in the ocean “after more than 500 kilometers of flight,” Carver said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Data collected and lessons learned from this test will inform the Department of Defense’s development of future intermediate-range capabilities,” he added.

Such a missile was prohibited under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned the United States and Russia from having nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Trump withdrew from the 1987 treaty, which was credited with helping end the Cold War, in August over alleged Russian violations.

U.S. officials dating back the Obama administration accused Russia of violating the treaty by deploying a banned missile.

Though Trump’s critics generally agree Russia was violating the INF Treaty, they fear the U.S. withdrawal will lead to a Cold War–style arms race.

Thursday’s test was the second since Trump’s withdrawal of a missile that would have been banned by the treaty. In mid-August, the Pentagon conducted a flight test of a nonnuclear cruise missile that was fired from a mobile launcher and flew more than 500 kilometers.

After the August test, Russia accused the United States of “escalating military tensions.”

White House hopeful Michael BloombergMichael Rubens BloombergBooker leads other 2020 Dems in petition urging DNC to change debate qualifications Bloomberg unveils plan to combat climate change, cut emissions by 50 percent in 10 years Krystal Ball rips Warren’s ‘passive-aggressive’ swipes at rivals MORE on Friday unveiled his plan to combat climate change, setting a series of deadlines he would meet to curb emissions. 

The former New York City mayor’s plan would get the country toward a 100 percent “clean-energy economy-wide future” by 2050, slash emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and ensure 80 percent clean electricity by the end of his second term in office.

“The president refuses to lead on climate change, so the rest of us must,” said Bloomberg. “I’ve been all in on this fight for more than a decade – and having helped close more than half the nation’s dirty coal plants, having cut New York City’s carbon footprint by 14 percent, having led a coalition of cities, states, and businesses committed to the Paris Agreement, I know that we can win.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We’ve proven that you can transition to clean energy and strengthen the economy at the same time,” he continued. “As president, I’ll accelerate our transition to a 100% clean energy economy.”

Bloomberg would accomplish his plan by working to phase out emissions in the electricity sector, replacing all coal plants with clean energy no later than 2030 and setting firm dates to retire specific sites. He would also end all subsidies for fossil fuels and put in place a moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases on federal lands. 

With all the closures and adjustments at plants, Bloomberg maintained that he would deliver promised benefits to coal field workers and provide them job transition support. 

Click Here: Malaysia Rugby Shop

The plan also calls for ramping up the deployment of clean energy projects by improving the permitting process for offshore wind projects, extending and expanding solar and wind tax credits, and quadrupling the federal investment in research and development for clean energy and a clean grid to at least $25 billion a year.

Bloomberg has long been an advocate for action to curb climate change. He helped establish the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, which has shuttered 299 coal-fired plants since 2011, and helped create America’s Pledge, a coalition of mayors, governors, business leaders, and others committed to keeping the U.S. on track to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord after President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans aim to avoid war with White House over impeachment strategy New York Times editorial board calls for Trump’s impeachment Trump rips Michigan Rep. Dingell after Fox News appearance: ‘Really pathetic!’ MORE announced his withdrawal from the deal. 

Climate change has emerged as a focal point of the Democratic 2020 primary, with candidates debating how quickly the country needs to completely phase out fossil fuels.

Democrats looking for a health care fight in 2020 have found a key marker with the House drug pricing bill. 

The House on Thursday passed the legislation on a largely party-line vote of 230-192. The measure, which would allow the government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, has already been declared “dead on arrival” in the Republican-controlled Senate. 

The White House said the bill would impose “price controls” and indicated President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans aim to avoid war with White House over impeachment strategy New York Times editorial board calls for Trump’s impeachment Trump rips Michigan Rep. Dingell after Fox News appearance: ‘Really pathetic!’ MORE would issue a veto if it gets to his desk. 

ADVERTISEMENT

But lowering drug prices polls consistently as one of the top issues for voters, and Democrats and progressive groups plan to spotlight Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiUSMCA is nice but no model Anti-impeachment Democrat poised to switch parties Grassley urges White House to help farmers in year-end tax talks MORE’s (D-Calif.) sweeping bill as the central piece to their health messaging in 2020.

Democrats took control of the House in 2018 by campaigning heavily on health care, and members want to repeat that success as they seek to keep control of the House and win the Senate in 2020.

“House Democrats campaigned on the pledge to bring down the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs and level the playing field for American patients who are paying far more for their medicines than patients are charged in other countries. I’m very proud we delivered on that pledge,” House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerDemocrats get the health care fight they want with prescription drug bill Media organization fights Trump administration over Ukraine documents FOIA On The Money: Trump, China announce ‘Phase One’ trade deal | Supreme Court takes up fight over Trump financial records | House panel schedules hearing, vote on new NAFTA deal MORE (D-Md.) said in a statement.

Vulnerable Democrats in swing districts can point to the legislation as keeping a long-held promise to let Medicare negotiate drug prices. Members can show they are focused on kitchen table issues despite the chaos over impeachment. 

The bill also gives moderate Democrats in Congress a chance to tout a health care issue that’s separate from the “Medicare for All” debate consuming the Democratic presidential primary.

“If a Democrat wins the White House and the party takes control of the Senate, a bill to allow the government to negotiate drug prices seems much more likely to pass than Medicare for All or even a public option,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health care policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.  

ADVERTISEMENT

Pelosi spent months in talks with Trump to try to get him to support the bill. During the 2016 campaign, Trump famously broke with his party and said he supported letting the government negotiate drug prices.

“When it comes time to negotiate the cost of drugs, we are going to negotiate like crazy,” Trump said in New Hampshire in early 2016. 

The White House distanced itself from Pelosi’s bill and eventually came out against the legislation. Democrats think highlighting Trump’s lack of follow-through on negotiating drug prices for Medicare will be a strong line of attack.

Pelosi said her legislation “delivers on President Trump’s promise to the American people.” 

“It’s exactly what President Trump promised on the campaign trail,” said Rep. Andy LevinAndrew (Andy) LevinDemocrats get the health care fight they want with prescription drug bill House passes sweeping Pelosi bill to lower drug prices Democrats work to bring labor on board trade deal MORE (D-Mich.).

No Democrats voted against the bill, after some last-minute modifications from Pelosi helped pave the way for progressive support. 

“It wasn’t an easy process for Democrats. It takes a long time to get the agreement of everyone in the caucus, get a [Congressional Budget Office] score. But it was a big step, and it shows what Democrats would do if they regained power, and that’s important,” said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Democratic groups are backing up their members with some much-needed monetary support.

The House Democratic leadership PAC launched $2.5 million in ads backing vulnerable House Democrats and touting their votes on the drug bill. It’s the biggest purchase of the 2020 election cycle and is aimed at helping 16 Democrats in districts that are under a constant barrage of GOP attacks. 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also launched a five-figure digital campaign targeting vulnerable Republicans in swing districts. 

“Washington Republicans just voted to stand with big drug manufacturers and special interests over everyday people in communities across the country,” DCCC Chairwoman Cheri BustosCheryl (Cheri) Lea BustosDemocrats get the health care fight they want with prescription drug bill The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Pelosi accuses Trump of ‘bribery’ in Ukraine dealings DCCC adds senior staffers after summer departures MORE (D-Ill.) said in a statement. 

The Democratic money is important, as Republicans groups are spending heavily to promote an alternative solution. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Immediately following Thursday’s vote, the conservative American Action Network (AAN) announced a $4 million ad campaign attacking the bill.

“Nancy Pelosi’s prescription drug bill is heartless, cruel, and Americans will pay for it with their lives. Her plan as passed today will set back the search for new cures and treatments to even the most debilitating and life-threatening diseases for generations,” AAN President Dan Conston said in a statement.

House Republicans, led by Rep. Greg WaldenGregory (Greg) Paul WaldenDemocrats get the health care fight they want with prescription drug bill Overnight Health Care — Presented by That’s Medicaid — Turf war derails push on surprise medical bills | Bill would tax e-cigarettes to pay for anti-vaping campaign | .5M ad blitz backs vulnerable Dems on drug prices Turf war derails bipartisan push on surprise medical bills MORE (R-Ore.), introduced a competing but smaller proposal that also received a vote Thursday.

They argued Democrats hurt themselves by passing a partisan bill that won’t make it into law.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyGrassley urges White House to help farmers in year-end tax talks The Hill’s Morning Report — Sponsored by AdvaMed — House panel delays impeachment vote until Friday The Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by AdvaMed – House panel expected to approve impeachment articles Thursday MORE (R-Iowa) on Saturday expressed concerns about “rumors” regarding discussions between Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiUSMCA is nice but no model Anti-impeachment Democrat poised to switch parties Grassley urges White House to help farmers in year-end tax talks MORE (D-Calif.) and the White House on tax policy, worrying that a potential agreement could be harmful to farmers.
“Rumors going around abt negotiations going on between Pelosi Mnuchin and White House on tax policy that detrimental to farmers that this Chr of Finance has not had input The President loves farmers and I remind Mnuchin of that,” Grassley said in a Tweet directed to President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans aim to avoid war with White House over impeachment strategy New York Times editorial board calls for Trump’s impeachment Trump rips Michigan Rep. Dingell after Fox News appearance: ‘Really pathetic!’ MORE.
Democrats and Republicans have been negotiating over a potential year-end tax package that could be included in government-funding legislation. Industry groups are hoping that most of their priorities can be included in a package, including the extension of expired and expiring clean energy tax breaks known as “extenders,” a bipartisan retirement bill that passed the House earlier this year and the repeal or delay of ObamaCare taxes. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: Samon Rugby ShopBut Democrats and Republicans have some differing priorities, and it’s unclear if they will reach an agreement and how expansive an agreement would be.
Grassley spokesman Michael Zona said he can’t speak to ongoing negotiations, but indicated that extending the biodiesel tax credit is important for the Iowa senator. The tax credit expired at the end of 2017.
“Chairman Grassley has been leading bicameral negotiations on tax extenders and is working to make sure they are included in the year-end appropriations package. Biodiesel plants across Iowa are hurting and two have already closed because Congress has failed to provide certainty in the tax code,” Zona said. “Farmers, biodiesel producers and rural communities across the Midwest are depending on Congress to act responsibly. Dropping tax extenders like biodiesel would be a major setback and may push more plants that employ thousands of Americans toward bankruptcy.” 
A senior Democratic aide close to the tax talks said that discussions have restarted at the insistence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and that Republicans have been an obstacle.
“This should be easy to get done, but Republicans previously refused to even consider including a renewable energy tax credits package, despite the Senate Finance Chairman publicly claiming to also want biodiesel and wind,” the Democratic aide said.

Happy Wednesday and welcome to Overnight Defense. I’m Rebecca Kheel, and here’s your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. CLICK HERE to subscribe to the newsletter.

 

THE TOPLINE: The annual defense policy bill is close to the finish line after the House easily passed the bill Wednesday.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 377-48, with many “no” votes coming from progressive Democrats upset after several of their priorities were taken out of the legislation.

But with the compromise bill picking up Republican support that was absent when the House passed its original version in July, the chamber easily sent the bill to the Senate.

House passage of the NDAA comes two days after the compromise bill was unveiled, the result of months of negotiation between the Democratic-led House and the Republican-led Senate and White House.

Trump on board: President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by AdvaMed – House panel expected to approve impeachment articles Thursday Democrats worried by Jeremy Corbyn’s UK rise amid anti-Semitism Warren, Buttigieg duke it out in sprint to 2020 MORE has said he will sign the compromise bill.

“Wow! All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA: Pay Raise for our Troops, Rebuilding our Military, Paid Parental Leave, Border Security, and Space Force! Congress – don’t delay this anymore! I will sign this historic defense legislation immediately!” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning.

Smith vs. progressives: Progressives balked at the final bill over what was excluded.

“There are many things you can call the bill, but it’s Orwellian to call it progressive,” Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons House passes defense bill to establish Space Force, paid family leave for federal workers Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ MORE (D-Calif.) said Wednesday.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons House passes defense bill to establish Space Force, paid family leave for federal workers Pentagon leaders: Trump clemencies won’t affect military order and discipline MORE (D-Wash.) has defended the bill “as the most progressive defense bill in the history of the country, with Donald Trump as president and Jim InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeLankford to be named next Senate Ethics chairman Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’ Gabbard calls for congressional inquiry over Afghanistan war report MORE as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

“Throughout the negotiations I failed in one way: I was unable to turn President Trump, [Senate Majority] Leader [Mitch] McConnell [R-Ky.] and Chairman Inhofe into Democrats and convince them to suddenly accept all of the provisions they despise,” Smith added in a lengthy statement ahead of Wednesday’s vote. “Nonetheless, we have accomplished more with this bill than anyone ever thought possible given the realities of a Trump White House and a Republican-controlled Senate, and we should be proud of that.”

“President Trump, Leader McConnell and Chairman Inhofe would have killed the bill over these provisions,” Smith continued. “If we kill the bill, we would have gotten nothing. Not a single Democratic priority.”

 

TURKEY SANCTIONS ADVANCE: A Senate panel on Wednesday advanced a sanctions bill targeting Turkey over its offensive in Syria and its purchase of a Russian missile defense system.

In an 18-4 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced the bill despite objections from the Trump administration and Ankara.

“We find ourselves at an inflection point with Turkey,” committee ranking member Sen. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezDemocrats worried by Jeremy Corbyn’s UK rise amid anti-Semitism Lankford to be named next Senate Ethics chairman Foreign Relations Democrat calls on Iran to release other American prisoners MORE (D-N.J.) said. “Turkey’s actions over the past year are truly beyond the pale.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim RischJames (Jim) Elroy RischOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Legislation to protect electric grid from cyberattacks added to massive defense bill Lankford to be named next Senate Ethics chairman MORE (R-Idaho) argued Wednesday that Turkey “thumbed their nose at us” with its purchase of the S-400 air defense system and that “if we just look the other way on this … we will be viewed as weak.”

Turkey has claimed — and Trump has echoed — that it turned to the S-400 because the U.S. wouldn’t sell it the Patriot missile defense system.

The U.S. has offered to sell Turkey the Patriot since the Obama administration, but would not share sensitive technology Turkey wants to be able to build its own weapons.

Risch called the idea that the U.S. wouldn’t sell Turkey the Patriot an “absolute lie.”

Floor vote?: Speaking to reporters after the committee vote, Risch said he was in discussions with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDemocrats seek leverage for trial Democrats spend big to put Senate in play House Democrats to vote on flavored e-cigarettes ban next year MORE (R-Ky.) to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, but cautioned that the chamber is expected to be busy soon with impeachment proceedings.

Click Here: Samon Rugby Shop

McConnell has previously expressed concern about passing a Turkey sanctions bill because the country is a NATO ally.

Opposition: Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Rand Paul: ‘We need to re-examine’ US-Saudi relationship after Florida shooting Senate panel advances Turkey sanctions bill despite Trump objections MORE (R-Ky.) relayed the Trump administration’s objections to the sanctions bill, saying the administration penned letters raising concerns. Among the issues raised was that the sanctions would take away “flexibility” in negotiating with Turkey, said Paul, who voted against the bill.

The other “no” votes Wednesday came from Sens. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Lies, damned lies and impeachable lies Conservatives rip FBI over IG report: ‘scathing indictment’ MORE (R-Texas), Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonDemocrats seek leverage for trial Overnight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Senate panel advances Turkey sanctions bill despite Trump objections MORE (R-Wis.) and Tom UdallThomas (Tom) Stewart UdallOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Senate panel advances Turkey sanctions bill despite Trump objections Overnight Defense: Bombshell report reveals officials misled public over progress in Afghanistan | Amazon accuses Trump of ‘improper pressure’ in Pentagon contract decision | House Judiciary holds final impeachment hearing MORE (D-N.M.).

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Udall said he voted against the bill because Congress relies too much on sanctions.

“As Congress keeps considering more and more sanctions, foreign policy experts are telling us to slow down and take stock of the effectiveness of these efforts, and I believe we need a comprehensive reevaluation of this strategy,” Udall said. “In this case we are rushing to consider a bill to impose sanctions on a long-time NATO ally without thorough analysis of how we got to this point, what these sanctions are intended to accomplish, and whether they are likely to succeed.”

“If Congress is so concerned with U.S.-Turkish relations that we are resorting to sanctions, then we must also require that the president divest of his multi-million dollar per year licensing deal for Trump Towers in Istanbul,” he added, saying he will push an amendment to require Trump to divest from Turkey if the bill comes to the floor.

 

TOP GENERAL ASSURES GOOD MILITARY ORDER AFTER TRUMP CLEMENCIES: The U.S. military’s top general on Wednesday insisted the military would be able to maintain discipline among its forces following Trump’s decision to intervene in three war crimes cases.

“We do maintain and we will maintain good order and discipline. We will not turn into a gang of raping, burning and pillaging throughout … That is not going to happen as a result of this or anything else,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said before the House Armed Services Committee.

Milley’s comments came after Rep. Seth MoultonSeth MoultonOvernight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Pentagon leaders: Trump clemencies won’t affect military order and discipline Deval Patrick beefs up campaign staff MORE (D-Mass.) pressed him to respond to criticisms he’s heard from within the military over Trump last month granting clemency to Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, pardoning Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and waiving charges against Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn.

Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperHillicon Valley: Pentagon pushes back on Amazon lawsuit | Lawmakers dismiss Chinese threat to US tech companies | YouTube unveils new anti-harassment policy | Agencies get annual IT grades Overnight Defense: House passes compromise defense bill | Turkey sanctions advance in Senate over Trump objections | Top general says military won’t be ‘raping, burning and pillaging’ after Trump pardons Pentagon dismisses Amazon questions over Esper’s recusal in ‘war cloud’ case MORE, who spoke alongside Milley, declined to answer when asked if Gallagher should be labeled as a “war criminal.”

“I’d have to review the crime he was charged with,” Esper said.

The back and forth: Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq, recounted a text message from a Marine sergeant major, who told him Trump involving himself in the cases is “appalling, basically setting a precedent that the rule of law in a combat zone doesn’t apply and encourages folks to start burning villages and pillaging like Genghis Khan. … The man has greatly marginalized the positions of the service leaders.”

“Is this sergeant major of the Marines wrong?” Moulton asked.

“I think that the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the means by which we maintain good order and discipline are a critical element in order to maintain that capability and some level of humanity in combat zones,” Milley replied.

“I understand where the sergeant major’s coming from and I know the advice that was given, which I’m not going to share here, but the president of the United States is part of the process and he has the legal authorities to do what he did, and he weighed the conditions and the situation as he saw fit,” Milley added.

Moulton retorted that “this is a sergeant major of the Marines who’s got a Purple Heart and a Navy Cross, and we’re defending the actions of a draft dodger in our president.”

“I am not defending anyone’s actions,” Milley replied.

 

ON TAP FOR TOMORROW

The Senate Armed Services Committee will have a closed-door briefing on national security issues in the Middle East at 10 a.m. https://bit.ly/2t1SzR0

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will have a “Member Day” hearing at 10 a.m. at the Rayburn House Office Building, room 2172. https://bit.ly/2RTkQ71

 

ICYMI

— The Hill: Bombshell Afghanistan report bolsters calls for end to ‘forever wars’

— The Hill: Second federal judge blocks Trump from using military funds for border wall

— The Hill: Congressional investigation finds Coast Guard leadership fell short on handling bullying

— The Hill: Army investing in rare earths production: report

— The Hill: Pentagon dismisses Amazon questions over Esper’s recusal in ‘war cloud’ case

— The Hill: Trump administration hits Iranian shipping network, airline with new sanctions

— The New York Times: Taliban attack U.S. base in Afghanistan as negotiators talk peace

— The Washington Post: In response to Afghanistan Papers, former president Karzai blames U.S. funding for fueling corruption

The Portuguese coach will not replace a fellow countryman at Goodison Park as he confirmed he intends to stay in China

Everton’s reported plans to hire Vitor Pereira as the successor to Marco Silva have been scuppered after the Shanghai SIPG coach confirmed his intention to remain in China.

The Toffees sacked Silva following their 5-2 Merseyside derby defeat to Liverpool at the start of the month, leaving them in the Premier League relegation zone.

Club favourite Duncan Ferguson took charge at the weekend as Everton beat Chelsea 3-1 and the Scot was well received by supporters, though he distanced himself from suggestions he should lead the team full-time.

Pereira had been considered one of the top candidates to replace Silva, with reports in England claiming the club were prepared to offer the 51-year-old a three-year contract. Marcelino, Unai Emery and David Moyes have also been linked with the job.

But Pereira appears to have ended Everton’s chances of bringing him to England as he says he would rather stay true to his commitment in China.

“It’s always a great honour [to be linked to such jobs],” the Portuguese told Sky Sports News.

“It’s [Everton] a club I have so much respect for, but at this point I am still coach of SIPG and it’s a club close to my heart and in a country that’s growing a lot in football.

“It means that in this moment I’m not in a position to make any other commitments. I need time to think and plan my future by looking at the options I have.”

But ex-Porto and Fenerbahce boss Pereira did not rule out accepting a Premier League job in future.

“It’s a league I love and for sure I’d like to consider an opportunity in the future, for sure,” he added.

Pereira took charge of the Chinese club in December 2017 when he succeeded Andre Villas-Boas, whom he assisted and then replaced at Porto.

He reportedly earns €23 million (£19m/$26m) a year at Shanghai and the club are said to be ready to offer him a pay rise to persuade him to remain for at least another season.

Shanghai SIPG have won 55 of the 88 games they have played during his tenure, winning the Chinese Super League and Super Cup along the way.

La célèbre animatrice de France Télévision, Sophie Davant, ne résiste pas aux charmes de Pimprenelle… Ce petit chiot de la race des épagneuls lui a volé la vedette sur le plateau de C’est au programme.

On sait a quel point Sophie Davant est une femme douce et sensible.Charmante et charmée, elle n’hésite pas quotidiennement à partager avec son fidèle public ses coups de coeur (et même ses coups de gueule, mais là n’est pas le sujet…).

C’est en direct et sur son plateau, et en présence de ses chroniqueurs, que la célèbre animatrice présente son tout nouveau coup de coeur. Qu’elle qualifie de “tentation”. Le public comprend immédiatement que Sophie Davant fait référence à la jolie boule de poil qui se love dans ses bras. Il s’agit d’un chiot, de la race des Epagneuls phalène.

Sensible à la cause animale, l’animatrice a décidé de mettre en avant l’initiative des éleveurs de cette race de chiens. Le phalène est l’ancêtre de l’Epagneul Papillon et l’une des deux variétés de l’Epagneul Nain Continental. En effet il nait seulement 50 chiots par an de cette race et les éleveurs portent une grande attention aux choix des futurs maitres.

C’est peut-être aussi en hommage à Djette, sa petite chienne récemment disparue, que Sophie Davant éprouve une telle émotion en tenant à bout de bras cette peluche vivante. La cause animale, le plus grand bonheur de Sophie !

Crédits photos : Capture d’image France 2

Kate Middleton était rayonnante dans son look casual chic, lors de sa venue au siège des Scouts à Gilwell Park, à Londres, jeudi 28 mars. Pour l’occasion, elle portait des bottines plates, alors que sa belle-soeur, avec qui elle a eu de nombreux différends, ne lâche pas ses talons aiguilles même à huit mois de grossesse.

L’une ne se sépare jamais de ses talons aiguilles. A huit mois de grossesse, Meghan Markle portent encore des talons hauts lors de ses apparitions publiques (en cause, la volonté d’effacer la différence de taille avec son époux sur les photos), bien que celles-ci devraient se raréfier. Si elle a accompagné le prince Harry le 19 mars pour rendre hommage aux victimes de l’attentat de Christchurch, la future maman a débuté son congé maternité, en attendant l’arrivée du bébé royal. L’autre se permet quelques fantaisies.

Kate Middleton est apparu jeudi 28 mars en bottines plates, de See by Chloé. Il faut dire tout de même que le programme de la journée de la duchesse de Cambridge s’y prêtait. Elle s’est rendue au siège des Scouts à Gilwell Park, à Londres. Et pour se familiariser avec les programmes destinés aux jeunes enfants de quatre à six ans, elle s’est adonnée à plusieurs activités de plein air avec les enfants comme la fabrication de voiliers ou la construction d’une tanière dans la forêt.

L’épouse du prince William s’est même laissé aller à un trait d’humour sur cette habitude que les femmes de la famille royale ont pris. Alors qu’elle plantait un arbre pour le 100e anniversaire du parc, Kate Middleton a plaisanté : “Normalement, je dois le faire en talons hauts, c’est beaucoup plus facile”. Un clin d’oeil à Meghan Markle ? En tout cas, ce n’est pas la première fois que Kate Middleton apparait avec des chaussures plus casual. En janvier elle avait porté les mêmes bottines alors qu’elle visitait le jardin communautaire d’Islington, à Londres.

Crédits photos : AGENCE / BESTIMAGE