Brad Pitt aurait-il trouvé une manière originale de se venger d’Angelina Jolie? Selon un magazine américain, la star s’apprêterait à engager Jennifer Aniston dans un rôle initialement prévu pour son ex-femme. Démêlons le vrai du faux.

Ce n’est aujourd’hui un secret pour personne, le divorce entre Brad Pitt et Angelina Jolie ne s’est pas déroulé dans le calme. A des années lumières du conscious uncoupling prôné par Gwyneth Paltrow et Chris Martin, la séparation de Brad et Angie après plus de dix années de vie commune a provoqué de forts remous. A tel point d’ailleurs que certains médias américains assurent que le père de famille cherche désormais à se venger de son ex-femme. Selon le tabloïd In Touch Weekly, il viendrait justement de trouver une solution imparable: engager Jennifer Aniston dans un film dont le rôle principal était initialement prévu pour Angelina Jolie.

Il est important de rappeler qu’outre le fait d’être un acteur renommé, Brad Pitt a également créé sa propre boîte de production, Plan B Entertainment. C’était en 2001, avec le soutien de sa compagne de l’époque, Jennifer Aniston. Or il se trouve que cette boîte de production s’apprête aujourd’hui à financer un long métrage intitulé Ad Astra dont le premier rôle sera confié à Brad Pitt. Voilà où le magazine In Touch Weekly entre en jeu. Selon lui, le rôle principal féminin du film était initialement prévu pour Angelina Jolie. Brad Pitt aurait alors décidé de lui retirer pour ensuite l’offrir à son ex-compagne Jennifer Aniston, se vengeant ainsi de la façon dont Angelina aurait mis un terme à leur relation.

Légèrement tirée par les cheveux, cette rumeur aurait était en mesure de piéger une partie du web. Elle a finalement été tuée dans l’œuf par le média en ligne Gossip Cop, juge auto-proclamé, à même de déterminer si une rumeur est vraie ou fausse. Selon le site internet, pas d’inquiétude à avoir: Brad Pitt ne se vengera pas de la sorte contre Angelina Jolie et cela pour plusieurs raisons. D’une part, un proche de Jennifer Aniston confirme que l’actrice ne compte en aucun cas jouer dans ce long métrage. Ensuite, l’entourage d’Angelina Jolie confirme qu’elle n’a jamais été attachée au projet. Et finalement, le porte-parole de Brad Pitt décrit les affirmations du tabloïd comme étant « complètement fausses ». La preuve que les rumeurs les plus folles ne cessent actuellement de voir le jour au sujet de l’ancien couple le plus en vue d’Hollywood. Vivement que Brad Pitt et Angelina Jolie retrouvent chacun un nouveau partenaire afin que toute cette bulle spéculative puisse enfin éclater.

Crédits photos : Photo by Stewart Cook/BEI/REX/Shutterstock

Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey

Les fans de The Voice auront le plaisir de découvrir une performance live de Katy Perry, lors de la demi-finale du télé-crochet, samedi soir sur TF1. La star américaine vient faire la promotion de son nouvel album, Witness.

C’est la surprise de la semaine, Katy Perry sera l’invitée de la demi-finale de The Voice, samedi 3 juin sur TF1. Elle se produira donc sur scène, aux côtés des huit candidats du télé-crochet. Un show qui promet d’être grandiose, lorsqu’on connaît les qualités de bête de scène de la star américaine. Elle fait actuellement la promotion de son nouvel album, Witness, dont les deux premiers extraits Swish Swishet Bon Appetit, sont déjà disponibles.

Katy Perry a également séduit les télé-crochets outre Atlantique puisqu’elle devrait rejoindre le jury du prestigieux Americain Idol à la rentrée, sur la chaine ABC. Elle siègera probablement aux côtés de Jennifer Lopez. Avec ce contrat, la chanteuse a touché le gros lot puisque son cachet s’élève à pas moins de… 25 millions de dollars ! Soit cinq millions dollars de plus que ce que la production lui avait proposé lors de sa première offre, en 2012. Une négociatrice hors-pair, cette Katy.

Price hikes on hundreds of prescription drugs to start the year are leading to intensifying calls for action from lawmakers and advocates, putting new pressure on Washington.

Drug companies kicked off the year by raising prices on a wide range of treatments by an average of about 5 percent, according to the consulting firm 3 Axis Advisors. 

“Enough is enough,” Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiFacebook to issue rules banning deepfakes: report Rand Paul: Trump ‘got bad advice’ on killing of Soleimani Bolton shakes up impeachment debate MORE (D-Calif.) tweeted, pointing to the hikes and calling on the Senate to pass her signature legislation to lower drug prices “now.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyKey Trump adviser predicts USMCA will pass Senate as early as Friday Grassley tells ‘whoever keeps watch on’ Trump to read up on Roaring ’20s Five fights awaiting Congress in 2020 MORE (R-Iowa) also pointed to the increases to call for action on drug prices. 

Drug price hikes at the start of a new year are common, but the latest round followed a year in which lawmakers and the administration spoke optimistically about reining in higher prices. Congress, however, ultimately ended 2019 without any major legislation being enacted, to the frustration of advocates.

The latest move highlighted the power of the pharmaceutical industry. Pfizer, for example, which has been criticized harshly in the past by President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump offers Australian PM assistance in fighting widespread fires Trump administration officials begin drafting potential Iraq sanctions after Trump threat: report Pence to focus on US Iran policy in speech MORE, raised prices on about 27 percent of its drugs by an average of 5.6 percent.

Companies note that the list prices of drugs are often well above what consumers pay at the pharmacy counter. But pharmaceutical companies, who are already under fire from both Congress and the administration, can expect more scrutiny, with the hikes certain to fuel the debate over costs in the 2020 election.

The drug hikes will be fodder for both parties, who have hammered pharmaceutical companies and those across the aisle.

Democrats have accused Trump of failing to follow through on his promises to address the issue, in particular attacking him for backing off a 2016 campaign pledge to support allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices.  

ADVERTISEMENT

In Congress, despite the bipartisan talk of lowering the cost of prescription medications, the prospects for anything actually being signed into law this year with an election ahead are decidedly murky, highlighting the deep divisions on the issue.

Republicans are fiercely opposed to Pelosi’s bill to allow the government to negotiate prices, calling it “socialist.” And even Grassley’s somewhat more modest proposal has drawn opposition from many Republican senators, who worry that a provision limiting Medicare drug price increases to the rate of inflation is a “price control.”

Pelosi and Grassley are pushing for a drug pricing package to pass attached to extensions for a range of expiring health programs, like funding for community health centers, ahead of a May 22 deadline. But it is unclear what a package that leadership in both parties can agree to would look like. 

Pelosi is still publicly pushing for the Senate to agree to her bill to allow the government to negotiate lower prices, hoping that Trump will return to his 2016 position once he is back on the campaign trail again, but it appears unlikely that bill can make it through the GOP Senate. 

It is unclear what kind of more-modest measure she would accept or Republicans might agree to. 

Advocates hope election year pressure spurs action, though. 

“This is an issue that the American people are paying attention to,” said David Mitchell, founder of the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs Now. “They’re going to have a chance to speak their mind in early November, and they are going to be looking to see who did something to actually lower their drug prices.”

Click Here: Japan Rugby Shop

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellBolton shakes up impeachment debate McConnell has the votes to block Democrats’ witness demands in Trump impeachment trial Murkowski: Decision on impeachment witnesses should wait until after start of trial MORE’s (R-Ky.) resistance to major drug pricing action so far has others pessimistic. 

“Mitch McConnell has made it extraordinarily clear that there is a zero percent chance that  something happens this year,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive group Social Security Works. 

Grassley himself last month accused McConnell, the leader of his party in the Senate, of blocking progress on his drug pricing bill. 

For his part, McConnell told Politico in September that the Senate is “looking at doing something on drug pricing” but has not elaborated on what that could entail.

Democratic presidential contenders, meanwhile, are hammering Trump for backing off his 2016 pledge to support negotiating lower prices. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“After a lifetime of lying and cheating to enrich himself and his billionaire friends, Mr. Trump—shock of all shocks—has abandoned his campaign promise to have Medicare negotiate drug prices,” Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersSanders unloads on Biden as battle for Iowa intensifies Hill.TV’s Krystal Ball warns Democrats from going with ‘safe choice’ Why Trump should fear Sanders much more than Warren in 2020 MORE (I-Vt.) tweeted in November after the White House announced its opposition to Pelosi’s drug pricing bill. 

Polls show the issue is one that resonates with the public.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in October found an overwhelming 88 percent of the public supports giving Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices, including 85 percent of Republicans.  

“This is the issue that the American people are united on,” Lawson said. “Everyone hates pharma and high drug prices.”

Speaking of Democratic presidential candidates, he added, “I think they are going to run hard on it, and I think that is very smart.”

Georgia’s newest senator, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R), will join the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and fill a spot left open with the retirement of Sen. Johnny IsaksonJohnny IsaksonOvernight Health Care: New drug price hikes set stage for 2020 fight | Conservative group to spend M attacking Pelosi drug plan | Study finds Medicaid expansion improved health in Southern states New Georgia senator takes spot on health committee Loeffler sworn in to Georgia seat MORE (R-Ga.).

Loeffler, a former business executive, was sworn in Tuesday to succeed Isakson.

“I welcome Senator Kelly Loeffler to the Senate and look forward to working with her to lower what Americans pay out of their own pockets for health care and to make a college education worth students’ time and money,” said Health Committee Chairman Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderCongress must address surprise medical billing in 2020 — and change its approach New Georgia senator takes spot on health committee Ten senators to watch on Trump impeachment trial MORE (R-Tenn.), who is retiring from Congress at the end of this term.

ADVERTISEMENT

One of Alexander’s goals during his final year in Congress is passing legislation to end the “surprise bills” some patients get from providers after receiving medical care.

Loeffler, who does not have any experience in politics and previously served as CEO of Bitcoin company Bakkt, has not said much publicly about her positions on health care. But conservatives opposed her appointment to the Senate seat because they don’t think she been tough enough on the issue of abortion.

Loeffler is co-owner of the Atlanta Dream, a WNBA team that donated some of its ticket sales to a handful of nonprofit groups that included Planned Parenthood.

In December, she said the “abortion-on-demand agenda is immoral” and said she would vote for legislation banning abortion at 20 weeks.

Loeffler was appointed to the Senate seat by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) after Isakson retired due to health reasons. She would need to win a special election in November to finish out Isakson’s term.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is launching an advertising campaign portraying oil and gas energy as a way to combat climate change, despite many environmental groups arguing that the industry hurts such efforts.

In a seven-figure ad buy, API will call for “common ground” on the energy debate in 2020 and beyond, according to a spokesperson. The campaign touts oil and gas energy as a way to reduce climate change by lowering carbon levels.

“The innovators in America’s natural gas and oil companies have teamed up with the country’s brightest minds and reduced carbon emissions levels to the lowest in a generation,” one ad says.

ADVERTISEMENT

During an event in Washington on Tuesday, API President and CEO Mike Sommers similarly stressed the industry’s commitment to fighting climate change while expressing opposition to a fracking ban endorsed by some Democratic presidential candidates. 

“The size and scope of the climate challenge requires a tremendous response and it requires innovation from everyone, including our members,” he said. 

Mitch Jones, the policy director at the environmental group Food & Water Watch, slammed the API campaign as “laughable.”

“This is just more of the oil and gas industry’s attempt to greenwash their dirty, climate-change-forcing industry,” Jones told The Hill.

“The science says very clearly we have to stop extracting fossil fuels and we have to stop burning fossil fuels and that includes not only coal, but also oil and fracked natural gas,” he added.

He also stressed the need to shift to an economy based on green jobs, saying, “What we’re talking about is transitioning from a dirty energy sector to a clean energy sector.”

Sommers, meanwhile, touted his support for carbon capture legislation and API’s environmental partnerships aimed at reducing methane emissions.

He argued, however, that a ban on fracking would threaten millions of jobs and potentially invite a recession for the U.S. economy.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that there is no statistically significant link between the use of baby powder and ovarian cancer.

The study, which comes as baby powder manufacturer Johnson & Johnson faces millions of dollars in punitive damages from court cases over its talcum-based products, found that there was “not a statistically significant association between use of powder in the genital area and incident ovarian cancer.”

“This represents the best data we have on the topic,” the study’s lead author told NBC News.

ADVERTISEMENT

Baby powder manufacturers have faced mounting criticism over health concerns associated with their products, including worries about ovarian cancers as well as accusations that Johnson & Johnson in particular knew that its talcum-based powder contained asbestos for years, contributing to cases of mesothelioma.

A jury in New York ordered the company to pay $300 million in damages over that scandal last year, though Johnson & Johnson has vowed to appeal the verdict. Other lawsuits against the company in New Jersey and California have also been successful. Another in South Carolina failed, with a jury finding that the powder did not contain significant amounts of asbestos.

“This trial suffered significant legal and evidentiary errors which Johnson & Johnson believes will warrant a reversal on appeal. Decades of tests by independent experts and academic institutions repeatedly confirm that Johnson’s Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer,” the company told The Hill last year.

“Of all the verdicts against Johnson & Johnson that have been through the appellate process, every one has been overturned,” the company added.

Click Here: WORLD CUP Rugby Shop

A government website was reportedly altered on Saturday to depict an image of President TrumpDonald John TrumpGolden Globes host Ricky Gervais to celebs: Don’t get political Trump says he’ll sanction Iraq if US troops forced to leave Trump doubles down on threat to Iran cultural sites MORE bleeding from his mouth while getting punched in the face by a person wearing an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps symbol.

According to CBS News, the image appeared briefly on the homepage for the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) shortly before the page was made inaccessible. The page also reportedly featured a message at the time that read, “Hacked by Iran Cyber Security Group Hackers. This is only small part of Iran’s cyber ability! We’re always ready.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The FDLP provides users with free access to federal government information and is operated by the Government Publishing Office, according to CNN. 

The Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) told The Hill on Sunday afternoon that its office is monitoring the situation with the FDLP.

“We are aware the website of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) was defaced with pro-Iranian, anti-US messaging. At this time, there is no confirmation that this was the action of Iranian state-sponsored actors. The website was taken off line and is no longer accessible,” the CISA spokesperson said.

The spokesperson also pointed to a recent bulletin released by the National Terrorism Advisory System urging organizations to increase monitoring amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

“As described in the recent NTAS bulletin, in these times of increased threats, all organizations should increase monitoring, back up your systems, implement multi factor authentication, and have an incident response plan at the ready,” the spokesperson said. 

The apparent hack arrives several days after Trump directed a U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani.

Click Here: paco rabanne perfume

House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi digs in on impeachment rules fight Pelosi urges end to ‘needless provocations’ after Iran missile attack ‘It’s a spiral now’: Democrats say they’re not surprised by Iran attack MORE (D-Calif.) is leaning into her plans to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, amplifying her position Tuesday that she won’t deliver them until she knows what a trial in the upper chamber will look like.

Pelosi, writing in a letter to her Democratic colleagues, called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellPelosi digs in on impeachment rules fight McConnell takes round one in impeachment battle Overnight Defense: Iran takes credit for rocket attack on US base | Trump briefed | Trump puts talk of Iraq withdrawal on hold | Progressives push to block funding for Iran war | Trump backs off threat to hit Iranian cultural sites MORE (R-Ky.) to promptly unveil the resolution that will lay out the guidelines for the trial centered on President TrumpDonald John TrumpIranian diplomat after strike: ‘We do not seek escalation or war’ Graham: Iran missile attack ‘an act of war’ ‘All is well’ Trump tweets after Iran hits Iraq bases housing US troops MORE‘s contacts with Ukraine and whether they warrant his removal from office.

The Democratic leader dug in on her plans to withhold the articles after McConnell announced at a press conference earlier in the day that Republicans “have the votes” to pass a resolution to start the impeachment trial without requiring additional witnesses and key documents.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is important that he immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers and transmit the articles to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in her letter.

The Democratic leader also continued to hammer McConnell for his earlier remarks that he would be in “total coordination” with the White House on strategy for the impeachment trial.

“Sadly, Leader McConnell has made clear that his loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution. Leader McConnell has insisted that the approach under consideration is identical to those of the Clinton trial and that ‘fair is fair.’ This is simply not true,” Pelosi wrote. “This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive Senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony. Under the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed.”

Pelosi’s letter comes after she briefed Democratic members in a meeting earlier in the day that she will not hand over the two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of justice – and spoke with lawmakers about her plan to keep up the fight.

During the meeting with Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee in the Capitol basement, Pelosi also sought to invalidate McConnell’s argument that the Senate is merely following the same procedures that governed President Clinton’s impeachment in the late 1990s.

ADVERTISEMENT

McConnell cited the Clinton impeachment proceedings earlier in the day Tuesday, saying, “We’ll be glad to show [the resolution] to you when we unveil it.”

Rep. Mike ThompsonCharles (Mike) Michael ThompsonPelosi digs in on impeachment rules fight House votes to temporarily repeal Trump SALT deduction cap On The Money: Pelosi, Trump tout deal on new NAFTA | McConnell says no trade vote until impeachment trial wraps up | Lawmakers push spending deadline to Thursday MORE (D-Calif.) said Pelosi “just talked about the differences between what McConnell wants to do and what was done during the Clinton impeachment, and how he’s taken liberties with the facts.”

“It was just the process that they’re proposing and how that was different from what happened in the Clinton administration,” he said.

Thompson said the caucus is united behind Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles from the Senate as Democrats seek a commitment from Senate GOP leaders for a fair trial — particularly after John BoltonJohn BoltonPelosi digs in on impeachment rules fight McConnell takes round one in impeachment battle Trump says Bolton testimony up to Senate, claims former adviser knows ‘nothing’ MORE, Trump’s former national security advisor, offered to testify.

“Especially now when you’ve got key individuals who were asked to testify in the House, and the president precluded them from testifying, and now they’re saying they will testify in the Senate.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Rep. Dan KildeeDaniel (Dan) Timothy KildeePelosi digs in on impeachment rules fight Pelosi faces decision on articles of impeachment Trump shocks, earns GOP rebukes with Dingell remarks MORE (D-Mich.) delivered a similar message, saying Democrats will support the transfer of articles “only if it’s a real trial.”

“And for it to be a real trial they’re going to have to consider evidence — evidence to come in the form of testimony,” he said.

“The entire context was so dramatically different,” echoed “The Ken Starr investigation; all the work that was done leading up to impeachment. Clinton was so dramatically different that there’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison.”

Democrats have been pressing McConnell to allow them to call witnesses, and Pelosi has delayed passing the two articles as leverage in her demands for what she says is a fair trial.

Their back and forth is the start of a renewed battle since Congress has returned to Capitol Hill after a break over the holidays.

Pelosi got a win for her political gamble towards the end of the recess when Bolton said he would agree to testify if the GOP-controlled Senate decided to subpoena him for testimony.

Bolton’s announcement sparked a new push among Democrats for McConnell to bend on his stance about witnesses. But the GOP leader’s announcement Tuesday suggests it didn’t make a dent.

McConnell has said that he wants to follow the Clinton impeachment process by having a first vote on a resolution setting the guidelines of the trial and then a separate vote over whether to call witnesses — something he and other Republicans have opposed.

Democrats, on the other hand, want to secure witness testimony before the trial begins.

Click Here: paco rabanne perfume

Thousands of people marched in Baghdad Saturday to mourn Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s late top general, and several Tehran-backed militia fighters who were killed in a U.S. airstrike this week.

The procession – organized by Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of Iranian-supported paramilitary groups – began in Baghdad’s heavily-fortified Green Zone and continued to the Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf, according to Reuters.

Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a militia leader, and other Iraqi fighters will be buried in Najaf, while Soleimani will be buried in his hometown of Kerman in southeast Iran.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a sign of the gravity of the repercussions of Soleimani’s death, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi attended the procession. 

The U.S. strike against Soleimani and Muhandis this week sent shockwaves through the region, raising the prospects for retaliation from Iran and an extended conflict between Washington and Tehran that may not be confined to the borders of Iraq or even the confines of the Middle East.

The Trump administration defended the strike against Soleimani, who directed Iran’s proxies across the world, including many in Iraq who fought U.S. troops, saying he had American blood on his hands and was planning another imminent attack.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded to the U.S. attack by vowing “harsh retaliation.”

The U.S. Embassy in Iraq urged Americans to leave the country following the killing, and Britain warned its citizens to avoid all travel to Iraq and avoid all-but-essential travel to Iran.

The Trump administration is planning to deport Mexican asylum-seekers to Guatemala, BuzzFeed News reported on Monday.

Officials received guidance indicating Mexican asylum-seekers were to be included in a controversial program that began sending asylum-seekers to Guatemala in late November, according to the news outlet. 

Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli said in December that Mexicans would be included in the program.

ADVERTISEMENT

While the program was originally planned for just the El Paso, Texas, area, it was extended to the Rio Grande Valley. Forty-three asylum-seekers from El Salvador and Honduras have been deported to Guatemala as of late December, BuzzFeed noted, adding that the plan was initially supposed to only apply to adults but was expanded to include families on Dec. 10.

The administration has reportedly taken several steps to dissuade people from migrating to the U.S. and limit the number of asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. But advocates and asylum officers have told BuzzFeed that sending the asylum-seekers to Guatemala is not legal and could put them in jeopardy.

Migrants go through interviews with asylum officers, in which they have no access to legal counsel, that will determine if they can be deported to Guatemala, according to BuzzFeed. The asylum-seekers need to outright say they are afraid of persecution or torture in Guatemala and prove that is “more likely than not” to happen in order to avoid being deported, the news outlet added.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told The Hill in a statement that under the Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement, “certain Mexicans seeking humanitarian protections in the United States may now be eligible to be transferred to Guatemala and given the opportunity to seek protection there.”

Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. was planning to send asylum-seekers to Honduras, regardless of whether they were from there, to prevent them from making claims to stay in the U.S. 

A DHS spokesperson told The Hill at the time that the U.S. “does not forcibly remove asylum-seekers to Guatemala to seek asylum.”

“Rather, when they are screened for eligibility, the vast majority of individuals opt to return to their home country instead,” the spokesperson said.

Updated at 5:21 p.m.