60 jilibet
60 jilibet
60 jilibet
Rand Paul's Annual Festivus List Highlights Over ONE TRILLION (With a T) in Government WasteLady Chargers trample Knightstown for 4th straight win
Dec. 4 (UPI) -- President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Paul Atkins to replace current SEC Chairman Gary Gensler after he leaves the position on Jan. 20. "Paul is a proven leader for common-sense regulations," Trump said Wednesday in a post on Truth Social . "He believes in the promise of robust, innovative capital markets that are responsive to the needs of investor and that provide capital to make our economy the best in the world."
Victorian Liberal leader John Pesutto defamed exiled party member Moira Deeming in a series of media appearances following her involvement with a controversial rally, a court has ruled. Ms Deeming, who remains a sitting MP, was ousted from the Liberal Party, after promoting and speaking at a rally in March last year. Organised by British activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, the ‘Let Women Speak’ rally was gatecrashed by white supremacist groups who performed a Nazi salute outside Parliament House. On Thursday, the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled Mr Pesutto’s commentary in the wake of the controversy had defamed Ms Deeming in five publications, and awarded her $300,000 in damages. Justice David O’Callaghan ruled in the Federal Court on Thursday that across the publications, there were six defamatory imputations, including that Mrs Deeming was ‘unfit to belong to the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party because she knowingly associates with neo-Nazis”. “The imputation found to be conveyed is that Mrs Deeming participated in a rally and knowingly worked with Ms Keen and other organisers to help them promote their odious Nazi agenda and their white supremacist and ethno-fascist views. “I’ve also found that has caused and is likely to cause serious harm to her reputation”. While Justice O’Callaghan declined to award Mrs Deeming aggravated damages, he did rule that “the appropriate award of damages to Mrs Deeming for non-economic loss is $300,000.” Mrs Deeming sat smiling in the front row of the court as the ruling was read out, while Pesutto did not attend today’s ruling. Looking defeated after the ruling, a member of Mr Pesutto’s legal team was heard simply saying “Court of Appeal”. Mrs Deeming was expelled from the party in May 2023 after attending an anti-transgender ‘let women speak’ rally gatecrashed by a white supremacist group who performed Nazi salutes outside the state parliament. Now a crossbencher, Ms Deeming had argued in court she was defamed by the Liberal leader in media interviews, an expulsion motion, a press conference, and a media release which her lawyers had argued contained 20 imputations painting her as a neo-Nazi sympathiser. Lawyers for Mr Pesutto had disputed all of the imputations alleged by Ms Deeming, arguing that she alone was responsible for her reputational damage after failing to distance herself from the rally. In their closing submission, lawyers for Ms Deeming claimed Mr Pesutto “undertook a relentless and ongoing campaign to convince fellow parliamentarians, the media and the public, that Ms Deeming was associated with and shared platforms with Nazis.” “By these allegations, the further message that was conveyed about Mrs Deeming was that she herself was a Nazi sympathiser or a person who shared or agreed with views espoused by Nazis ... such that she could be fairly described as a Nazi herself.” Mr Pesutto’s lawyers relied on honest opinion and contextual truth defences, arguing also that he was protected by common law qualified privilege due to the fact his comments concerned “the discussion of government and political matters.” Justice O’Callaghan’s ruling found that none of these defences were adequate. Following the ruling, Mrs Deeming said she was very grateful to the court for its prompt ruling. “Now we’re just going to get back out there and continue to get safe space rights for women and safeguards rights for children.”, she said. In a statement posted to social media immediately after the decision, Ms Deeming said she was relieved and vindicated. “It has been an incredibly tough 22 months for me and my family but I can now start to move forward with the judgment today clearing my name,” she said in the X post. “The organisers and attendees of the 2023 Melbourne “Let Women Speak” Rally did nothing wrong and it is shameful that they were treated without fairness or respect by so many in public office. “I will continue to fight for the rights of parents, women and children - and I know I won’t be alone.” Ms Deeming pointed out “every single one of Mr Pesutto’s defences, failed”. “This judgment is a public acknowledgment that there was never any justification - legal, moral or political - for what the Opposition Leader did to me and to my family.” Ms Deeming thanked supporters “despite personal and political differences and regardless of the cost”, including friends, strangers, opponents, Liberal members and colleagues. “And finally, thank you to my family, especially my husband.” Originally published as Court finds John Pesutto defamed Moira Deeming after rally appearanceWhat does Sean Manaea's reunion with the Mets mean for the player, team and rest of this offseason?Châtillon, France, December 11 th , 2024 DBV Confirms Alignment with U.S. FDA on Accelerated Approval Pathway for the Viaskin® Peanut Patch in Toddlers 1 – 3 Years-Old DBV and FDA aligned on key study design elements for the COMFORT Toddlers study in 1 – 3 year-olds, including study size and wear time collection methodology and analysis COMFORT Toddlers study on-track to initiate in 2Q 2025 Viaskin Peanut patch BLA submission for the Toddlers indication anticipated for 2H 2026 FDA confirmed criteria for post-marketing confirmatory study in toddlers 1 – 3 years-old Company to host investor webcast today at 5:00pm ET DBV Technologies (Euronext: DBV – ISIN: FR0010417345 – Nasdaq Stock Market: DBVT), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, today announced the successful outcome of recent written and oral communication with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that provides a clear and well-defined regulatory pathway for the Viaskin Peanut patch program in toddlers 1 – 3-years-old. The FDA has formalized guidance on an Accelerated Approval for the Viaskin Peanut patch in toddlers 1 – 3-years-old. DBV and FDA have agreed on the key design elements for a post-marketing confirmatory study. “DBV is pleased to have received, what we believe to be, a clear and reasonable pathway towards an Accelerated Approval for the Viaskin Peanut patch in toddlers 1 – 3-years-old. This comes on the heels of our October 22 nd press release announcing details in support of our separate Viaskin Peanut programs in 4 – 7 year-olds and in 1 – 7 year-olds in Europe,” said Daniel Tassé, Chief Executive Officer, DBV Technologies. “We believe we have decreased the regulatory pathway risk of our programs. DBV can now fully focus on executing the remaining studies that will support two distinct BLAs across age groups and an MAA in Europe. We are grateful to the Agency for its attentive collaboration as we continue to work towards introducing this novel therapy to caregivers and patients as expeditiously as possible.” Accelerated Approval Pathway The FDA recently issued written communication confirming an Accelerated Approval pathway for the Viaskin Peanut patch in toddlers 1 – 3-years-old. As a reminder, current FDA guidance for Accelerated Approval includes three qualifying criteria: That the product candidate treats a serious condition That the product candidate generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies That the product candidate demonstrates an effect or an intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit As DBV previously announced , FDA confirmed via written communication that the Viaskin Peanut patch already met criteria one and two. FDA and DBV have been engaged in ongoing dialogue throughout Q4 of this year regarding the intermediate clinical endpoint necessary to meet the third criterion. In the recent written communication, the FDA confirmed the efficacy data from the Company’s Phase 3 EPITOPE study can serve as an intermediate clinical endpoint. The FDA has agreed that the endpoint is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and will therefore fulfill the requirement for Accelerated Approval. In preparation for commercialization, DBV made slight modifications to the Viaskin Peanut patch used in EPITOPE to increase the simplicity of application for the caregiver and provide product identification on each patch. No changes, including patch shape or size, were made to the device components that are in contact with the patient’s skin. Further, to increase the volume of patch production for future commercialization, changes needed to be made to the manufacturing process and location. Although the intended commercial Viaskin Peanut patch is currently being used (N=304) in the ongoing 3-year Open Label Extension to EPITOPE, the collective changes to the commercial Viaskin Peanut patch were viewed by the FDA as constituting a different product relative to the clinical patch used in the EPITOPE study. The Company intends to use the commercial Viaskin Peanut patch in both the COMFORT Toddlers study and the post-marketing confirmatory study. Post-Marketing Confirmatory Study In the recent written communication, FDA confirmed criteria for a post-marketing confirmatory study in toddlers 1 – 3-years-old. DBV and FDA agreed that the confirmatory study will assess the effectiveness of the intended commercial Viaskin Peanut patch and will need to be initiated at the time that the BLA is submitted. To date, the commercial patch has been used in 304 subjects with over 234,695 patient-days of therapy in the placebo crossover and the EPITOPE Open Label Extension, with no clinically relevant differences in efficacy or safety vs. the clinical patch used in the EPITOPE Phase 3 trial. The confirmatory study will include a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) and will use the same statistical criteria for success (i.e., lower bound of the 95% CI > 15%) as used in the EPITOPE Phase 3 efficacy study. Adhesion data for the post-marketing confirmatory study will be collected in a similar manner relative to the COMFORT Toddlers study. The Company expects these data will further support the importance of average daily wear time in the use of the Viaskin Peanut patch as it relates to efficacy and labeling. “When it comes to food allergy management, what works for one family, might not work for another. That is why having varied treatment options available is so incredibly important to our community,” said Sung Poblete, PhD, RN, CEO of FARE (Food Allergy Research & Education). “I’m pleased to learn that DBV’s constructive dialogue with the FDA has resulted in this Accelerated Approval guidance outlining remaining developmental steps for the Viaskin Peanut patch in toddlers with a peanut allergy. At FARE, we look forward to the possibility that one day, if approved, caregivers and families will have this exciting new treatment as an option to consider.” COMFORT Toddlers Supplemental Safety Study COMFORT Toddlers is a Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) study designed to generate additional safety (primary endpoint) and adhesion data of the Viaskin Peanut patch in peanut allergic toddlers 1 – 3-years old. DBV is pleased to announce that Dr. Julie Wang, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, the Icahn school of Medicine at Mount Sinai, will act as the Global Principal Investigator for the COMFORT Toddlers study. “I am thrilled to assume the role of Global Principal Investigator of the COMFORT Toddlers study,” stated Dr. Julie Wang, Professor of Pediatrics, Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Icahn school of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “Viaskin Peanut, if approved, would offer a much-needed alternative treatment option for patients and caregivers. I look forward to working with the DBV team to advance this important clinical trial.” The Company anticipates that COMFORT Toddlers will enroll approximately 480 subjects randomized 3:1 (active: placebo) at approximately 80 – 90 study centers across the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Europe. COMFORT Toddlers will be a six-month study followed by an optional 18-month open-label treatment phase, to provide 24 or 18 months of treatment with the Viaskin Peanut patch for participants randomized to the active or placebo groups, respectively. Thus, the COMFORT Toddlers study will increase the total subjects exposed to the Viaskin Peanut patch for at least six-months in a controlled study to 600, as required by FDA. In total, there will be approximately 240 subjects with the clinical patch in EPITOPE and 360 with the commercial patch in COMFORT Toddlers. As previously disclosed , DBV and FDA have aligned on a patch wear time collection methodology, analysis and study objective hierarchy in the COMFORT Toddlers study. The agreed-upon adhesion data collection methodology provides a practical approach for subjects, families, and investigators. The methodology is intended to generate sufficient data to support a BLA submission under the Accelerated Approval pathway (i.e., collecting patch adhesion data with a focus on daily wear time at relevant time points). We believe there are three positive outcomes coming out of the productive discussions with FDA: FDA agreed that adhesion would not be a co-objective of a safety study and would be an exploratory endpoint. Next, adhesion should be assessed in the overall totality of benefit to risk (i.e., in the context of efficacy and safety). The third success is that we have aligned on what DBV believes is a very feasible approach to collecting adhesion data. DBV has initiated study start-up activities and plans to screen the first subject in the second quarter of 2025. Biologic License Application Submission in 1 – 3 Year-Olds There will be two Phase 3 studies in 1 – 3-year-olds using the Viaskin Peanut patch. The data generated from the studies will be used to inform a BLA submission: Twelve months of DBPC efficacy and safety data from the previously completed Phase 3 EPITOPE study (published in the New England Journal of Medicine i n May 2023), and 36 months of open-label extension data. Six months of DBPC data generated in COMFORT Toddlers supplemental safety study. DBV anticipates that the BLA for the Viaskin Peanut patch in toddlers 1 – 3 years-old under the Accelerated Approval program will be submitted in 2H 2026. Investor Conference Call and Webcast DBV management will host an investor conference call and webcast today, Wednesday, December 11 th , at 5:00pm EST, to discuss these regulatory updates. This call is accessible via the below teleconferencing numbers and requesting the DBV Technologies call. United States: +1-877-346-6112 International: +1-848-280-6350 A live webcast of the call will be available on the Investors & Media section of the Company’s website: https://www.dbv-technologies.com/investor-relations/ . A replay of the presentation will also be available on DBV’s website after the event. About DBV Technologies DBV Technologies is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing treatment options for food allergies and other immunologic conditions with significant unmet medical need. DBV is currently focused on investigating the use of its proprietary Viaskin® patch technology to address food allergies, which are caused by a hypersensitive immune reaction and characterized by a range of symptoms varying in severity from mild to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Millions of people live with food allergies, including young children. Through epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPITTM), the Viaskin® patch is designed to introduce microgram amounts of a biologically active compound to the immune system through intact skin. EPIT is a new class of non-invasive treatment that seeks to modify an individual’s underlying allergy by re-educating the immune system to become desensitized to allergen by leveraging the skin’s immune tolerizing properties. DBV is committed to transforming the care of food allergic people. The Company’s food allergy programs include ongoing clinical trials of Viaskin Peanut in peanut allergic toddlers (1 through 3 years of age) and children (4 through 7 years of age). DBV Technologies is headquartered in Châtillon, France, with North American operations in Warren, NJ. The Company’s ordinary shares are traded on segment B of Euronext Paris (Ticker: DBV, ISIN code: FR0010417345) and the Company’s ADSs (each representing five ordinary shares) are traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market (Ticker: DBVT; CUSIP: 23306J309). For more information, please visit www.dbv-technologies.com and engage with us on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn . Forward Looking Statements This press release may contain forward-looking statements and estimates, including statements regarding the therapeutic potential of Viaskin® Peanut patch and EPITTM, designs of DBV’s anticipated clinical trials, DBV’s planned regulatory and clinical efforts including timing and results of communications with regulatory agencies, plans and expectations regarding initiation of the confirmatory study, plans and expectations with respect to COMFORT Toddlers and COMFORT Children, plans and expectations with respect to the submission of BLAs to FDA, anticipated support for the BLA submission, DBV’s expectations with respect to the Accelerated Approval pathway and any other actionable regulatory pathway, and the ability of any of DBV’s product candidates, if approved, to improve the lives of patients with food allergies. These forward-looking statements and estimates are not promises or guarantees and involve substantial risks and uncertainties. At this stage, DBV’s product candidates have not been authorized for sale in any country. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described or projected herein include uncertainties associated generally with research and development, clinical trials and related regulatory reviews and approvals, and DBV’s ability to successfully execute on its budget discipline measures. A further list and description of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements in this press release can be found in DBV’s regulatory filings with the French Autorité des Marchés Financiers (“AMF”), DBV’s filings and reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including in DBV’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the SEC on March 7, 2024, and future filings and reports made with the AMF and SEC by DBV. Existing and prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements and estimates, which speak only as of the date hereof. Other than as required by applicable law, DBV Technologies undertakes no obligation to update or revise the information contained in this Press Release. Viaskin is a registered trademark and EPIT is a trademark of DBV Technologies. Investor Contact Katie Matthews DBV Technologies katie.matthews@dbv-technologies.com Media Contact Angela Marcucci DBV Technologies angela.marcucci@dbv-technologies.com Attachment PDF VersionA Delaware judge has reaffirmed her ruling that Tesla must revoke Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package. Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick on Monday denied a request by attorneys for Musk and Tesla’s corporate directors to vacate her ruling earlier this year requiring the company to rescind the unprecedented pay package. McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million. The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package. McCormick concluded in January that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price. Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin. Defense attorneys then argued that the second vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order, directing Tesla to rescind the pay package. McCormick, who seemed skeptical of the defense arguments during an August hearing, said in Monday’s ruling that those arguments were fatally flawed. “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in a 103-page opinion. The judge noted, among other things, that a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction. “Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple material misstatements in the proxy statement,” she added. Meanwhile, McCormick found that the $5.6 billion fee request by the shareholder’s attorneys, which at one time approached $7 billion based on Tesla’s trading price, went too far. “In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” McCormick wrote. Attorneys for the Tesla shareholders argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk. While finding that the methodology used to calculate the fee request was sound, the judge noted that the Delaware Supreme Court has noted that fee award guidelines “must yield to the greater policy concern of preventing windfalls to counsel.” “The fee award here must yield in this way because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it,” McCormick wrote. A fee award of $345 million, she said, was “an appropriate sum to reward a total victory.” The fee award amounts to almost exactly half the record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from Enron's collapse .
Atkore ATKR has been analyzed by 6 analysts in the last three months, revealing a diverse range of perspectives from bullish to bearish. In the table below, you'll find a summary of their recent ratings, revealing the shifting sentiments over the past 30 days and comparing them to the previous months. Bullish Somewhat Bullish Indifferent Somewhat Bearish Bearish Total Ratings 2 1 3 0 0 Last 30D 0 0 1 0 0 1M Ago 1 0 2 0 0 2M Ago 0 0 0 0 0 3M Ago 1 1 0 0 0 Analysts have recently evaluated Atkore and provided 12-month price targets. The average target is $104.83, accompanied by a high estimate of $130.00 and a low estimate of $84.00. Highlighting a 15.23% decrease, the current average has fallen from the previous average price target of $123.67. Exploring Analyst Ratings: An In-Depth Overview The analysis of recent analyst actions sheds light on the perception of Atkore by financial experts. The following summary presents key analysts, their recent evaluations, and adjustments to ratings and price targets. Analyst Analyst Firm Action Taken Rating Current Price Target Prior Price Target Deane Dray RBC Capital Raises Sector Perform $102.00 $93.00 Deane Dray RBC Capital Lowers Sector Perform $93.00 $99.00 Chris Dankert Loop Capital Lowers Buy $115.00 $130.00 Alex Rygiel B. Riley Securities Lowers Neutral $84.00 $135.00 Chris Dankert Loop Capital Lowers Buy $130.00 $160.00 Jeffrey Hammond Keybanc Lowers Overweight $105.00 $125.00 Key Insights: Action Taken: In response to dynamic market conditions and company performance, analysts update their recommendations. Whether they 'Maintain', 'Raise', or 'Lower' their stance, it signifies their reaction to recent developments related to Atkore. This insight gives a snapshot of analysts' perspectives on the current state of the company. Rating: Analysts unravel qualitative evaluations for stocks, ranging from 'Outperform' to 'Underperform'. These ratings offer insights into expectations for the relative performance of Atkore compared to the broader market. Price Targets: Analysts navigate through adjustments in price targets, providing estimates for Atkore's future value. Comparing current and prior targets offers insights into analysts' evolving expectations. For valuable insights into Atkore's market performance, consider these analyst evaluations alongside crucial financial indicators. Stay well-informed and make prudent decisions using our Ratings Table. Stay up to date on Atkore analyst ratings. All You Need to Know About Atkore Atkore Inc is a diversified industrials company and a manufacturer of electrical, mechanical, and safety infrastructure solutions. Atkore has two business segments; Electrical and Safety and Infrastructure. Net sales are highest in the electrical business line. The key product categories in the electrical segment are PVC conduit, steel conduit, and PVC-coated conduit, which are staples for electrical distributors. The key product categories in the safety and infrastructure segment include in-line galvanized mechanical tubes, metal framing and related fittings, and security bollards. Also, the company provides ancillary services to customers in the form of slitting and cutting structural steel sheets. Geographically, the company derives its key revenue from the United States. Financial Milestones: Atkore's Journey Market Capitalization Analysis: Falling below industry benchmarks, the company's market capitalization reflects a reduced size compared to peers. This positioning may be influenced by factors such as growth expectations or operational capacity. Decline in Revenue: Over the 3 months period, Atkore faced challenges, resulting in a decline of approximately -9.38% in revenue growth as of 30 September, 2024. This signifies a reduction in the company's top-line earnings. In comparison to its industry peers, the company trails behind with a growth rate lower than the average among peers in the Industrials sector. Net Margin: The company's net margin is a standout performer, exceeding industry averages. With an impressive net margin of 9.17%, the company showcases strong profitability and effective cost control. Return on Equity (ROE): Atkore's financial strength is reflected in its exceptional ROE, which exceeds industry averages. With a remarkable ROE of 4.66%, the company showcases efficient use of equity capital and strong financial health. Return on Assets (ROA): The company's ROA is a standout performer, exceeding industry averages. With an impressive ROA of 2.42%, the company showcases effective utilization of assets. Debt Management: With a below-average debt-to-equity ratio of 0.62 , Atkore adopts a prudent financial strategy, indicating a balanced approach to debt management. How Are Analyst Ratings Determined? Analyst ratings serve as essential indicators of stock performance, provided by experts in banking and financial systems. These specialists diligently analyze company financial statements, participate in conference calls, and engage with insiders to generate quarterly ratings for individual stocks. Some analysts will also offer forecasts for metrics like growth estimates, earnings, and revenue to provide further guidance on stocks. Investors who use analyst ratings should note that this specialized advice comes from humans and may be subject to error. Breaking: Wall Street's Next Big Mover Benzinga's #1 analyst just identified a stock poised for explosive growth. This under-the-radar company could surge 200%+ as major market shifts unfold. Click here for urgent details . This article was generated by Benzinga's automated content engine and reviewed by an editor. © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Seyond Announces Plan to Go Public via De-SPAC Transaction on Hong Kong Stock Exchange
With President Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter on Sunday night, it joins a list of controversial presidential pardons issued throughout the nation’s history The president said the gun and tax charges that were brought against his son were politicized, while his son offered a statement of his own saying that he was addicted to drugs at the time and has since sobered up. The pardon not only covers the two cases but any potential criminal activity between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024. The pardon covered Nixon’s activity during the Watergate scandal. Ford said in a televised statement at the time that pardoning his predecessor was in the best interest of the country. On the same day, Clinton also pardoned commodities trader Marc Rich, who had fled the United States to Switzerland after he was indicted in 1983 on charges of evading millions of dollars in taxes. Rich was also accused of allegedly trading with Iran while the regime was holding American hostages in the late 1970s. At the time, the Brookings Institute noted, members of Clinton’s own Democratic Party were incensed by the Rich pardon. The move drew significant criticism at the time. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), a supporter of the Vietnam War and a one-time presidential candidate, said Carter’s move was the “most disgraceful thing that a president has ever done.” Among those who received pardons included then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and then-White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane. The moves drew significant backlash in the media and among Democratic lawmakers. Trump said that the pardons were necessary because Stone and the others faced biased prosecutions, according to a White House statement issued at the time. Stone had faced “prosecutorial misconduct by Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller’s team” and was “treated very unfairly,” Trump wrote at the time. “He was subjected to a pre-dawn raid of his home, which the media conveniently captured on camera. Mr. Stone also faced potential political bias at his jury trial.”Keir Starmer's talking shop! Fury as Labour government sets up 67 taxpayer-funded reviews, taskforces and consultations in their first 150 days - instead of actual policies By MARTIN BECKFORD, POLICY EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL Published: 22:24 GMT, 2 December 2024 | Updated: 23:03 GMT, 2 December 2024 e-mail View comments Labour has been ridiculed over the blizzard of ‘talking shops’ it has launched since winning the election. At least 67 reviews, consultations and taskforces have been set up by Whitehall departments in the first 150 days of the new Government – nearly one every other day. Even more have been promised, including in areas such as cutting the bloated benefits bill, that will not even begin until next year. It has prompted claims that ministers are putting off taking urgent action to fix public services and improve the economy. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg , who served as minister for government efficiency in the Cabinet Office, told the Mail: ‘To govern is to choose – to govern is not to review. ‘The purpose of opposition is to work out what to do in government, but they have got elected without a clue. It’s absolutely astonishing – they don’t seem to have any idea of how to govern.’ Sir Jacob warned that if ministers did not yet know what policies they wanted to implement, it would take two or three years for proposals to be worked out and legislation drafted. It will then lead to a ‘log-jam’ as ministers try to get their proposed laws included in the next King’s Speech. In the meantime, civil servants will present bills ‘they have had in a dusty drawer for years’. Sir Keir Starmer's government has come under fire for setting up 67 reviews and taskforces since coming to power The list of talking shops in full ‘It leads to very weak government and a political vacuum,’ he said. Downing Street last night rejected a suggestion that the ever-growing list of reviews risked hindering Sir Keir Starmer’s progress in delivering on the targets he will set out this week in his new Plan for Change. Analysis by Sky News at the weekend identified 61 different reviews set up by Labour. But further research by the Mail has found six more that have already been launched since the summer, plus at least four more due to begin next year. Ongoing reviews range from the major Strategic Defence Review to an investigation into whether the sugar tax should apply to milkshakes as well as soft drinks. The Home Office is considering everything from firefighters’ pensions to how ninja swords should be defined ahead of a proposed ban. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper also commissioned a ‘rapid analytical sprint on extremism’ and asked the migration advisory committee to look into why IT and engineering are so reliant on the recruitment of foreign workers. Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden – who was confronted by Sky News over the lengthy list of reviews on Sunday – is leading a review of ‘national resilience’ in response to the first report of the Covid inquiry. Last week the Department for Business and Trade committed to a ‘fast-track consultation’ of the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, which sets out electric car sales targets, and is also in the ‘early planning stage’ of a review of parental leave as part of Labour’s workers’ rights bonanza. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is already reviewing the water sector but will also launch a ‘consultation in the new year to review the current funding formula for flood and coastal defences’. Former cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said that Labour seemed to have 'no idea how to govern' Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden (pictured) is leading a review of ‘national resilience’ in response to the first report of the Covid inquiry Home Secretary Yvette Cooper commissioned ‘rapid analytical sprint on extremism’ and asked the migration advisory committee to look into why IT and engineering are so reliant on the recruitment of foreign workers. Meanwhile, the Department for Work and Pensions has committed to a review of Universal Credit which has not yet been launched. It published a White Paper on getting people back to work last week but put off reform to the benefits system until a Green Paper next year, along with a review of getting jobs for more disabled people. John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Taxpayers will be reeling from the number of reviews Labour have launched since entering government. Read More Paralysis by analysis! How Keir Starmer has called for over 60 reviews in 149 days since election ‘The Prime Minister promised change during the election, but this simply proves that it is business as usual in Whitehall, where talk trumps action. Instead of providing busy work for bureaucrats, the Government should concentrate on the priorities of the British people.’ A spokesman for Reform UK added: ‘We are a matter of months into this new parliamentary term and this failing Government appears to be doing more reviews than actual policy-making. ‘After freezing pensioners, hiking taxes and risking the future of British farming, Labour clearly have no positive ideas to save Britain.’ But asked if the blizzard of reviews risked hindering the delivery of Sir Keir Starmer’s new ‘milestones’, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: ‘No, the Government has been completely focused on delivery since it got elected. It has already made significant progress. ‘You’ll have seen the Budget, a set of very important and difficult decisions to fix the foundations of the economy, invest in public services, and deliver improvements for working people. 'We’ve seen progress against the First Steps; whether it’s the Budget providing the largest NHS funding settlement since 2010 to deliver the additional 40,000 extra elective appointments a week, setting up Great British energy in Aberdeen, establishing the new Border Security Command. ‘So the Government is focused on delivery, it’s focused on the specific, pragmatic solutions that will deliver real improvement to the lives of people across the country.’ Labour Jacob Rees-Mogg Keir Starmer Share or comment on this article: Keir Starmer's talking shop! Fury as Labour government sets up 67 taxpayer-funded reviews, taskforces and consultations in their first 150 days - instead of actual policies e-mail Add comment
Attorney General John Formella, who previously served as Gov. Chris Sununu’s legal counsel, should be disqualified from a high stakes criminal case brought against a sitting Supreme Court justice, defense attorneys argued Monday. They contend that Sununu will be a key witness in the case against Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, should it go to trial, and that Formella’s ties to Sununu present a conflict of interest. Sununu appointed Hantz Marconi to the state Supreme Court in 2017. She’s now accused of attempting to sway him into intervening in an ongoing investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi , the state ports director. During a hearing Monday, Richard Guerriero, Hantz Marconi’s lawyer, said that the attorney general cannot be impartial and fair, given his past work representing Sununu as his personal attorney and then serving as his attorney general. “His personal interests are directly tied to this very powerful and important witness,” Guerriero told the court. Guerriero argued that if the indictments aren’t dismissed, a special prosecutor should take over the case, to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest. State prosecutors told Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg that the case should proceed, arguing that Hantz Marconi’s claims that Formella cannot oversee the state Department of Justice and bring a legal case against her would set an unworkable precedent. “What the defense is asking for in this case is immunity,” said Joe Fincham, an assistant attorney general for the state. “That if you commit a crime in front of the governor, or any other high ranking client of the Attorney General, you are immune from prosecution in the state of New Hampshire.” The state also noted in legal filings that Sununu will leave office and return to being a private citizen starting in January, well before Hantz Marconi’s case would go to trial. Hantz Marconi was in the courtroom Monday, but did not address the court. She declined questions from reporters after the hearing. She waived her arraignment and entered a "not guilty" plea to the charges against her: two counts of improper influence, a felony, and five additional misdemeanors including criminal solicitation and obstructing government administration. Honigberg did not make an immediate ruling on her lawyer’s request to either dismiss the indictments or bar the Department of Justice from prosecuting the case. Hantz Marconi was indicted in October on allegations that she attempted to improperly influence an investigation into her husband when she met privately with Sununu and his personal attorney. The justice allegedly told Sununu during that June meeting that there was no merit to the allegations against her husband, Geno Marconi, and that her forced recusal from a majority of cases was harming the functioning of the state Supreme Court. A day after the indictments against Hantz Marconi were released, Geno Marconi was indicted by a Rockingham County grand jury for allegedly obtaining and disclosing confidential records involving Neil Levesque, who serves on the Pease Development Authority’s board of directors and is also the head of the Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. (The PDA board oversees the Division of Ports and Harbors, where Marconi has worked since 1995.) Marconi allegedly shared those records with a co-defendant, Bradley Cook, who served alongside Marconi on a port advisory committee. It isn’t clear what records Marconi allegedly obtained and shared or what he planned to do with those documents. Marconi entered a "not guilty" plea last week, with a trial possible next year. Cook also waived his arraignment last week. Lawyers for Hantz Marconi stressed repeatedly during Monday’s hearing that Sununu would be a “key witness” in her trial, as the governor and his legal counsel Rudy Ogden were the only people present during her June meeting with Sununu in the governor’s office. Before Sununu appointed him to lead the Department of Justice, Formella served as his legal counsel. It isn’t clear if Sununu himself alerted prosecutors about his meeting with Hantz Marconi, or if that information was shared by Ogden. It also isn’t known if the initial concerns about the meeting were made directly to Formella or someone else in his office. According to charging documents, Hantz Marconi is also accused of improperly contacting Steve Duprey, the chair of the Pease Development Authority, in April, shortly after her husband was placed on administrative leave with no explanation. (Duprey is a member of NHPR’s Board of Directors, but has no influence over the station’s coverage.) New Hampshire Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald could also be forced to testify should the case go to trial. Hantz Marconi has said she mentioned to MacDonald the idea of a meeting with Sununu, and that MacDonald told her he had no concerns about it. Lawyers for Hantz Marconi filed arguments alleging that Hantz Marconi’s meeting with Sununu was legal under her constitutionally protected free speech rights. Her alleged statements about the investigation hampering her work on the Supreme Court should also be protected under judicial immunity, they argued. Hantz Marconi was forced to recuse herself from all cases involving the Attorney General’s office beginning earlier this summer, after it became clear her husband was under investigation. In July, she was placed on administrative leave from the bench. Following the release of indictments in October, Hantz Marconi’s law license was temporarily suspended .TransMedics Appoints Gerardo Hernandez as Chief Financial Officer and Provides Updated 2024 Financial Outlook
None
