AP-NORC Poll: Many Aren’t Exonerating Trump in Russia Probe

Many Americans aren’t ready to clear President Donald Trump in the Russia investigation, with a new poll showing slightly more want Congress to keep investigating than to set aside its probes after a special counsel’s report left open the question of whether he broke the law.

About 6 in 10 continue to believe the president obstructed justice.


The poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research also finds greater GOP confidence in the investigation after Attorney General William Barr in late March released his letter saying special counsel Robert Mueller found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but didn’t make a judgment on the obstruction question.


At the same time, the poll indicates that Americans are mostly unhappy with the amount of information that has been released so far. They’ll get more Thursday, when Barr is expected to release a redacted version of the nearly 400-page report.


Trump has repeatedly claimed “total exoneration,” after Barr asserted in his memo that there was insufficient evidence for an obstruction prosecution.


“It’s a total phony,” Trump said of all allegations to Minneapolis TV station KSTP this week. “Any aspect of that report, I hope it does come out because there was no collusion, whatsoever, no collusion. There was no obstruction, because that was ruled by the attorney general.”


Overall, 39 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, roughly unchanged from mid-March, before Mueller completed his two-year investigation.


But many Americans still have questions.


“It’s kind of hard to believe what the president says as far as exoneration,” said James Brown, 77, of Philadelphia, who doesn’t affiliate with either party but says his political views lean conservative. “And in my mind the attorney general is a Trump person, so he’s not going to do anything against Trump.”


The poll shows 35 percent of Americans think that Trump did something illegal related to Russia — largely unchanged since the earlier poll. An additional 34 percent think he’s done something unethical.


Brown says he remains extremely concerned about possible inappropriate contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, citing Trump’s past interest in building a Trump Tower in Moscow, and believes the president committed crimes of obstruction to cover up financial interests. “He’s not going to jeopardize his pocketbook for anything,” he said.


Still, the poll suggests Barr’s summary helped allay some lingering doubts within the GOP. Among Republicans, more now say Trump did nothing wrong at all (65 percent vs. 55 percent a month ago) and fewer say he did something unethical (27 percent, down from 37 percent).


Glen Sebring, 56, of Chico, California, says he thinks the nation should put the Russia investigations to rest after reading Barr’s four-page summary of the Mueller report. The moderate Republican credits Trump with helping to “double the money” he’s now earning due to an improving economy and says Congress should spend more time on issues such as lowering health care costs.


“It’s like beating a dead horse,” Sebring said. “We’ve got a lot more important things to worry about.”


Even as Trump blasts the Mueller probe as a Democratic witch hunt, poll respondents expressed more confidence that the investigation was impartial. The growing confidence since March was driven by Republicans: Three-quarters now say they are at least moderately confident in the probe, and 38 percent are very or extremely confident, up from 46 percent and 18 percent, respectively, in March. Among Democrats, about 70 percent are at least moderately confident, down slightly from a month ago, and 45 percent are very or extremely confident.


Still, majorities of Americans say they believe the Justice Department has shared too few details so far with both the public (61 percent) and Congress (55 percent). About a third think the department has shared too little with the White House, which has argued that portions of the report should be kept confidential if they involve private conversations of the president subject to executive privilege.


Democrats have been calling for Mueller himself to testify before Congress and have expressed concern that Barr will order unnecessary censoring of the report to protect Trump. The House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, is poised to try to compel Barr to turn over an unredacted copy as well as the report’s underlying investigative files.


The poll shows that even with the Mueller probe complete, 53 percent say Congress should continue to investigate Trump’s ties with Russia, while 45 percent say Congress should not. A similar percentage, 53 percent, say Congress should take steps to impeach Trump if he is found to have obstructed justice, even if he did not have inappropriate contacts with Russia.


“We don’t even know what we found yet in the probe. Until we do, Congress should definitely continue to push this issue,” said Tina Perales, a 35-year-old small business owner in Norton, Ohio, who describes herself as Republican. “That little letter Barr sent out summarizing the report I think was completely BS. This Mueller thing is hundreds of pages, and he just sums it up like this? These things just don’t add up.”


Deep partisan divisions remain.


Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to believe Trump had done something improper and to support continued investigations that could lead to his removal from office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has downplayed the likelihood of impeachment proceedings but isn’t closing the door entirely if there are significant findings of Trump misconduct.


On investigations, 84 percent of Democrats believe lawmakers shouldn’t let up in scrutinizing Trump’s ties to Russia, but the same share of Republicans disagrees. Similarly, 83 percent of Democrats say Congress should take steps to impeach Trump if he is found to have obstructed justice, even if he did not have inappropriate contacts with Russia, while 82 percent of Republicans say Congress should not.


The AP-NORC poll of 1,108 adults was conducted April 11-14 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods, and later interviewed online or by phone.





Суд взяв під варту Крючкова, підозрюваного у розкраданні грошей обленерго – із заставою в 7 мільйонів замість 346

Солом’янський суд міста Києва взяв під варту бізнесмена Дмитра Крючкова, який звітував соратнику президента Ігорю Кононенку про афери в енергетиці і якого 15 квітня екстрадували з Німеччини до України, з альтернативою застави у розмірі 7,11 мільйонів гривень – замість 346 мільйонів гривень, про які клопотали детективи і прокурори.

Раніше у програмі «Схеми: корупція в деталях» (спільний проект Радіо Свобода та телеканалу «UA:Перший») були оприлюднені записи його телефонних розмов із першим заступником фракції «Блоку Петра Порошенка» у ВР Кононенком і братами-бізнесменами Суркісами, на яких обговорюється схема з виведення сотень мільйонів гривень з українських обленерго – на прохання журналістів перед публікацією вони були верифіковані американськими спеціалістами, які співпрацюють з урядом США.Захисник Крючкова не погодився із розміром запропонованої обвинуваченням застави, заявивши, що обґрунтовані ризики є безпідставними.

Суддя Максим Вишняк частково відмовив у клопотанні детектива НАБУ, погодженого з прокурором САП. Вони просили для Крючкова тримання під вартою до 30 травня, але із альтернативою застави у 346 мільйонів гривень, що відповідає сумі завданих збитків.

Натомість суддя знизив розмір застави до 7,11 мільйонів гривень – як тільки ця сума буде внесена, Крючков буде звільнений. Прокурор САП вже заявив, що це рішення буде оскаржене.

При цьому, під час засідання захист Крючкова просив суд повністю відмовити прокурорам у призначенні запобіжного засобу у вигляді тримання під вартою з правом внесення 346 млн грн застави – оскільки вважали, що обґрунтовані ризики, які згадувало обвинувачення, є безпідставними.

На початку засідання в приміщення суду зайшли невідомі люди з плакатами і пропорами, їх вивела поліція і зараз вони перебувають поблизу будівлі суду.

Правоохоронці підозрюють Дмитра Крючкова в розкраданні коштів «Запоріжжяобленерго», понад 60 відсотків акцій якого належать державі. ​За словами детективів, НАБУ також вивчає причетність до схеми Ігоря Кононенка та братів Суркісів, останніх раніше вже викликали на допит після виходу журналістського розслідування. У записах, оприлюднених журналістами, співрозмовники, у тому числі, обговорюють і цю оборудку.

У 2016 році Крючков був оголошений у розшук, у квітні 2018-го – затриманий у Німеччині за запитом українських правоохоронців, а 15 квітня 2019-го – його екстрадували з Німеччини в Україну.

Дмитро Крючков – колишній народний депутат. Із 2006-го півтора року був у фракції «Блоку Юлії Тимошенко» – працював у комітеті з питань паливно-енергетичного комплексу. У 2014-му – став керівником приватної компанії «Енергомережа». І вже за рік вона взяла під контроль роботу кількох обленерго.

Раніше «Схеми» розповіли, що Дмитро Крючков разом із соратником президента Ігорем Кононенко, бізнесменами Григорієм та Ігорем Суркісами, а також іншими високопосадовцями ймовірно причетний до схем з виведення сотень мільйонів гривень з декількох українських обленерго. Організація однієї з наймасштабніших афер у сфері енергетики останніх років обговорюється на записах телефонних розмов бізнесмена Дмитра Крючкова, які отримала редакція.

Для верифікації телефонних розмов, «Схеми» передали зразки американським спеціалістам із Національного центру медіа-експертиз – освітньо-наукового центру Університету Колорадо в Денвері (США, створеного за підтримки Міністерства юстиції Сполучених Штатів Америки). Експертиза всіх надісланих голосів дала позитивний результат. Отримані високі показники вірогідності подібності голосів за шкалою, передбаченою цією методологією.

«Схеми» звернулись до всіх фігурантів телефонних розмов, частина із них вирішила відмовчатись, частина спростувала свої зв’язки із Дмитром Крючковим. Зокрема, брати Суркіси не відповіли на запит «Схем».

На запит редакції Дмитро Крючков передав свої письмові відповіді, у яких розповів, що Кононенко виконував ту частину домовленостей, яка була зоною відповідальності сторони Порошенко – Кононенко. «Фінансові відносини, звісно, були. Вони, згідно з домовленостями, отримали від 50% до 75% доходів від бізнесу, який був предметом домовленостей», – зазначив він у листі.

Журналісти також декілька разів приїжджали у офіс народного депутата Ігоря Кононенка, оскільки він не відповідав на дзвінки з проханням про коментар та повідомлення з вичерпним список запитань. Перед ефіром він надіслав в редакцію лист, пообіцявши інтерв’ю лише після виходу розслідування. Утім, згодом заявив, що готує позов проти Радіо Свобода до закордонного суду – і скасував обіцяне інтерв’ю.

«Схеми» неодноразово просили президента Порошенка дати оцінку причетності його соратника Кононенка до діяльності компанії ПАТ «Енергомережа» та її очільника Дмитра Крючкова, нині розшукуваного НАБУ за виведення сотнів мільйонів гривень із «Запоріжжяобленерго» – утім, він до цього часу цього не зробив. Натомість, нещодавно він заявив, що не знав про причетність Кононенка до корупційної афери в енергетиці.

У свою чергу, редакція на запит Національного антикорупційного бюро передала детективам записи розмов Дмитра Крючкова з Ігорем Кононенком та братами Суркісами – і вони вже долучені до матеріалів офіційного розслідування.

Trump Vetoes Measure to End US Involvement in Yemen War

President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed a bill passed by Congress to end U.S. military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

In a break with the president, Congress voted for the first time earlier this month to invoke the War Powers Resolution to try to stop U.S. involvement in a foreign conflict.

The veto — the second in Trump’s presidency — was expected. Congress lacks the votes to override him.

“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump wrote in explaining his veto.

Congress has grown uneasy with Trump’s close relationship with Saudi Arabia as he tries to further isolate Iran, a regional rival.

Many lawmakers also criticized the president for not condemning Saudi Arabia for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi who lived in the United States and had written critically about the kingdom. Khashoggi went into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October and never came out. Intelligence agencies said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was complicit in the killing.

The U.S. provides billions of dollars of arms to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen. Members of Congress have expressed concern about the thousands of civilians killed in coalition airstrikes since the conflict began in 2014. The fighting in the Arab world’s poorest country also has left millions suffering from food and medical care shortages and has pushed the country to the brink of famine.

House approval of the resolution came earlier this month on a 247-175 vote. The Senate vote last month was 54-46.

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, voted to end U.S. military assistance to the war, saying the humanitarian crisis in Yemen triggered “demands moral leadership.”

The top Republican on the committee, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, acknowledged the dire situation in Yemen for civilians, but spoke out in opposition to the bill. McCaul said it was an abuse of the War Powers Resolution and predicted it could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries.

Trump issued his first veto last month on legislation related to immigration. Trump had declared a national emergency so he could use more money to construct a border wall. Congress voted to block the emergency declaration and Trump vetoed that measure.

What You Won’t See in the Mueller Report

The special counsel’s Trump-Russia report will be out on Thursday for all to see. But not all of it.


The Democrats’ demands for a full, unredacted version of Robert Mueller’s report are likely to prompt a political and legal battle that could last for months, if not much longer.


The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, has said he is prepared to issue subpoenas “very quickly” for the full report on Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign if it is released with blacked-out sections. And that would set the legal fight in motion.


Attorney General William Barr has said he is redacting four types of information from the report, which the Justice Department says will be released Thursday. Congressional Democrats cite precedent from previous investigations in saying they want to see it all. But some Republicans defending Barr are also citing precedent, saying it is appropriate to keep at least some of the information from Congress and the public.


A look at what types of material Barr is redacting, and why Democrats say it should be released:


Grand Jury Information


Barr has staked out his position on releasing secret grand jury information, saying last week that he would not go to court to request its release. He said Democrats are “free to go to court” themselves, and Nadler has said he is ready to do so.


Grand jury information, including witness interviews, is normally off limits but can be obtained in court. Some records were eventually released in the Whitewater investigation into former President Bill Clinton and an investigation into President Richard Nixon before he resigned.


Both of those cases were under somewhat different circumstances, including that the House Judiciary Committee had initiated impeachment proceedings. Federal court rules state that a court may order disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”


But Democrats have said they are not interested in impeachment, for now, and are likely to argue in court that they don’t need to be in an official impeachment proceeding to receive the materials.


Classified Information


Congress frequently receives classified documents and briefings, and Democrats say there is no reason the Mueller report should be any different.


Many Republicans agree, including the top Republican on the intelligence committee, California Rep. Devin Nunes, who wrote a rare joint letter in March with House intelligence committee Chairman Adam Schiff asking for “all materials, regardless of form or classification.” In the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press, Schiff and Nunes also asked for a private briefing from Mueller and his team.


Democrat Schiff has argued that some of that information should be released to the public, as well, citing Mueller indictments that have already revealed granular detail about the Russian effort to influence the 2016 election.


“All of that information at one point was classified, but the decision must have been made the public interest outweighs that. And I think a similar analysis should be undertaken here,” Schiff said on CNN this month.


Ongoing Investigations


Barr said he will redact information related to investigations connected to the Mueller probe that are still underway. Those include cases handed off or referred to federal prosecutors in Washington, New York and Virginia.


Democrats have noted that the Justice Department has released such information before, including some related to Mueller’s own investigation while it was in progress. Republicans who were in the House majority last year, obtained documents related to the beginnings of the Russia investigation, arguing that officials were biased against then-candidate Trump.


Republicans argued at the time that it was necessary to obtain that information to maintain the integrity of the investigation.

Derogatory Information


The Justice Department regularly redacts information about people who were interviewed or scrutinized in investigations but not charged. Barr has said he will black out information from the report “that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”


Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., at a hearing last week if that meant he would redact information to protect the interests of Trump, Barr said it did not. “No, I’m talking about people in private life, not public officeholders,” Barr said.


That means that in addition to Trump, members of his family who work at the White House, such as his daughter Ivanka, could potentially be named if they were somehow entangled in Mueller’s investigation. But any information regarding his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., who run his businesses, could be more likely to be redacted.


The Justice Department did release information about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices more than two years ago, even though Clinton wasn’t charged. But that was after then-FBI Director James Comey made the much-questioned decision to publicly discuss that investigation. Barr signaled in his confirmation hearing in January that he would do things differently.


“If you’re not going to indict someone, then you don’t stand up there and unload negative information about the person,” Barr said. “That’s not the way the Department of Justice does business.”

Omar Raises $830,000 for Re-Election Despite Trump Backlash

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, who’s engaged in an intensifying feud with President Donald Trump, has raised nearly $830,000 in the first quarter for her re-election campaign, according to campaign finance reports filed this week.


The Minnesota Democrat — a Somali American and one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress — drew many out-of-state contributions and had just over $600,000 cash on hand as of March 31.


Omar won election in November to a reliably liberal Minneapolis-area seat. Her remarks in recent months on Israel and the power of Jewish influence in Washington have drawn intense criticism and accusations of anti-Semitism, and prompted speculation that she might face a primary challenge. But no challenger has emerged, and progressives across the country have rallied to her side.


Trump told KSTP-TV during a visit to Minnesota on Monday that he has no regrets about tweeting a video Friday that attacked her for remarks she made last month that supposedly offered a flippant description of the Sept. 11 attacks and the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people.


“Look, she’s been very disrespectful to this country,” Trump said. “She’s been very disrespectful, frankly, to Israel…. She’s got a way about her that’s very, very bad, I think, for our country. I think she’s extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country.”


Neither Trump’s tweet nor the video included Omar’s full quote or the context. She told the Council on American-Islamic Relations on March 23 that many Muslims saw their civil liberties eroded after the Sept. 11 attacks and were tired of being treated as second-class citizens.


“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” she said. While CAIR was founded in 1994, according to its website, its membership skyrocketed after the attacks.


Omar said Sunday that it’s more than a rhetorical squabble and that lives, including hers, are at stake. She spoke after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has taken steps to ensure Omar’s safety. Pelosi also urged Trump to take down the video, but it was still in his Twitter feed Tuesday.

Мінекології закликає не приносити на цвинтар пластикові квіти та вінки

Міністерство екології та природних ресурсів України закликає не приносити на цвинтарі пластикові квіти та вінки.

«Така практика набуває масштабності у всіх регіонах України напередодні Великодня. Нагадуємо, що у наслідок спалення цих виробів з пластику відбувається великий викид канцерогенів в атмосферу», – пояснили у відомстві.

У міністерстві додають, що час розкладу пластику та паперу, просоченого парафіном, дуже тривалий.

Trump Slams Democrats, ‘Dirty Cops’ Ahead of Mueller Report Release

The U.S. Justice Department will release on Thursday a redacted version of the nearly 400-page report of special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election aimed at helping Donald Trump win the presidency.

In a steady drumbeat against the Mueller investigation, Trump claimed again Tuesday that he has already been exonerated of wrongdoing linked to the election, even as he and the American public await details of the prosecutor’s 22-month investigation.

“No Collusion – No Obstruction!” Trump said on Twitter.

On Monday, the U.S. leader contended that “these crimes were committed” by his 2016 opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and “Dirty Cops,” his derogatory term for former top U.S. law enforcement officials, “and others! INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS!”

Mueller investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe. Sparring over the report in advance of its release is rampant.

Attorney General William Barr released a four-page summary of Mueller’s findings three weeks ago, saying the prosecutor had concluded that Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia to help him win but had reached no conclusion whether Trump obstructed justice. But with Mueller not reaching a decision on the obstruction issue, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided no obstruction charges against Trump were warranted.

Trump tweeted that Mueller’s report “was written by 18 Angry Democrats who also happen to be Trump Haters (and Clinton Supporters), should have focused on the people who SPIED on my 2016 Campaign, and others who fabricated the whole Russia Hoax … Since there was no Collusion, why was there an Investigation in the first place! Answer – Dirty Cops, Dems and Crooked Hillary!”

Barr, a Trump appointee as the country’s top law enforcement official, said last week he believes that top American intelligence agencies spied on the Trump campaign. He later amended his remarks, saying that while he is “not saying that improper surveillance occurred,” he is “concerned about it and looking into it.”

Barr said he would examine the details of how the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation began.

As for the Mueller report, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told the U.S. cable news program Fox News Sunday, “I don’t think it is going to be damaging to the president.”

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that is probing the election, told CNN on Sunday that Barr should release the full report and underlying investigatory evidence to his panel, but Barr has balked.

“To deny the Judiciary Committee and the Congress the knowledge of what’s in parts of the Mueller report is not proper,” Nadler said.

No one other than Barr and key officials in the Justice Department, Mueller and his team of prosecutors appear to know what the report says about the extent of Trump campaign links with Russia during his 2016 campaign or whether he took any actions as the U.S. leader aimed at inhibiting the investigation.

Nadler said that even though Barr concluded no obstruction charges should be brought against Trump, his decision should not go without review. Nadler noted that Barr, before he became the country’s top law enforcement official, wrote that Trump could not obstruct justice because the president “is the boss of the Justice Department and could order it around to institute an investigation, to eliminate an investigation or could not be questioned about that.”

“In other words, [Barr] thinks as a matter of law a president can’t obstruct justice, which is a very wild theory to which most people do not agree,” Nadler said. “The fact of the matter is we should see and judge for ourselves and Congress should judge whether the president obstructed justice or not, and the public ultimately.”

Nadler said it “may be that Mueller decided not to prosecute obstruction of justice for various reasons that there wasn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt on some things. But there still may have been proof of some very bad deeds and very bad motives. And we need to see them and the public needs to see them.”

Opposition Democrats like Nadler have launched new investigations of Trump, a Republican, but the president is objecting.

On Twitter, Trump said last Saturday, “Why should Radical Left Democrats in Congress have a right to retry and examine the $35,000,000 (two years in the making) No Collusion Mueller Report….”

Barr has said he will release as much of the Mueller report as possible, while excluding material Mueller included from secret grand jury testimony and confidential U.S. intelligence sources, information about ongoing investigations and material that might prove damaging to peripheral figures in the investigation who have not been charged with criminal offenses. The extent of his redactions is not known.

Most US Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Still Relying on Large Campaign Donations

As U.S. Democrats emphasize building their 2020 presidential campaigns on grass-roots support, fewer than half amassed at least 50 percent of their early financial support from small-dollar donations, a Reuters analysis found.

Candidates seeking the White House filed their first-quarter fundraising totals Monday, revealing that many are still relying on checks exceeding $200. Of the 15 Democrats who launched campaigns before April 1, only six of 15 amassed half their hauls from small-dollar donations.

And many candidates are still leaning on donors in their home states for larger checks. Nine Democratic candidates received the bulk of their contributions of $200 or more from their home states, the Reuters analysis found.

Early fundraising prowess can signal the strength of a candidate’s campaign. Raising small checks from more donors can act as a test of popular support. Building a broad donor base that stretches beyond a candidate’s home state is evidence of gaining traction.

Many Democrats have touted their support among so-called “small dollar” donors, those who give less than $200. But only six — U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Congressman Beto O’Rourke, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang, a former tech executive — are relying chiefly on those small-dollar donors.

The analysis includes fundraising reports covering the first three months of 2019 by the candidates who launched their campaigns prior to April 1. The field of candidates has since swelled, with 18 Democrats vying to win the party’s nomination to challenge President Donald Trump in November 2020.

Sanders, of Vermont, benefited the most from small-dollar donors in the first quarter, with about 84 percent of his $18 million haul coming from individuals who contributed less than $200.

Sanders also had the most geographic diversity in his donations, with California donors accounting for 27 percent of his donations of $200 or more. Less than 2 percent of his donations came from his home state.

Small-dollar donations can help catapult a candidate into the spotlight. Buttigieg until recently did not have a national profile, but raised $7 million during the first quarter of 2019 — of which 64 percent came from small donations.

In a move to show they are serious about eliminating big money from politics, most Democratic presidential candidates have sworn off donations from corporate political fundraising committees. Some have nixed taking checks from registered lobbyists.

The Democratic National Committee announced earlier this year that small-dollar, grass-roots support will be one of the metrics it uses to determine who qualifies to participate in a series of nationally televised primary debates that will begin in June.

Warren — the only candidate to also swear off attending big ticket fundraisers — reported that about 70 percent of the $6 million she raised in the first quarter was from small-dollar donors. Massachusetts donors accounted for 25 percent of contributions over $200.

O’Rourke reported that 59 percent of his $9.4 million was from donations of $200 or less. More than $2.1 million came from Texans who wrote checks of $200 or more.

On the other end of the spectrum, John Hickenlooper, the former governor of Colorado, raised only 10 percent of his donations in $200 or smaller contributions. There was also little geographic variation among his contributors, with more than 60 percent of donations over $200 coming from his home state.

U.S. Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York each raised about 16 percent of their cash from small-dollar donors.

Справа на 7 мільярдів: Конституційний суд може позбавити НАБУ права розривати в суді незаконні угоди

Конституційний суд України 17 квітня може ухвалити рішення, яке позбавить Національне Антикорупційне бюро права через суд визнавати недійсними угоди за корупційним провадженнями. У такому разі держава може втратити 7 мільярдів гривень – на таку суму обраховуються вже розірвані з ініціативи детективів через суди угоди, порахували в ЦПК. Відповідне провадження КС відкрив у жовтні 2018-го за скаргою акціонерного товариства «Запорізький завод феросплавів» – підприємства, що входить до умовної групи «Приват» Ігоря Коломойського та Геннадія Боголюбова.

Розгляд скарги «Запорізького заводу феросплавів» запланований на 10-ту ранку 17 квітня під час закритої частини пленарного засідання Другого сенату Конституційного суду.

​Завод Коломойського оскаржує повноваження НАБУ звертатися до суду з цивільними позовами щодо визнання недійсними угод фігурантів корупційних розслідувань. За чотири роки роботи НАБУ подало 42 позови, за якими недійсними були визнані 92 угоди.

Як пише ГО «Центр протидії корупції», за таким принципом у суді за позовом НАБУ було визнано недійсним договір між «Запоріжжяобленерго» та «Енергомережа» на суму понад 112 мільйонів гривень.

Раніше «Схеми» у фільмі-розслідуванні розповіли, що ще в 2015 році «Запоріжжяобленерго» погодилось, що великі місцеві промислові підприємства платитимуть за вже поставлену електроенергію – приватній компанії Дмитра Крючкова «Енергомережа». А ця фірма, в свою чергу, потім мусить віддати гроші постачальнику. На ці нехитрі тристоронні договори пішли такі заводи олігархів: «Запорізький титано-магнієвий комбінат», «Дніпроспецсталь» і «Запорізький завод феросплавів». От тільки гроші за електроенергію «Запоріжжяобленерго» від Крючкова так і не дочекалось. Таким чином тільки у 2015 році напівдержавне підприємство недоотримало півмільярда гривень.

​У 2016 році Крючков був оголошений у розшук, а у квітні 2018-го – затриманий у Німеччині за запитом українських правоохоронців.

Його підозрюють у розкраданні коштів «Запоріжжяобленерго», понад 60 відсотків акцій якого належать державі. ​За словами детективів, НАБУ також вивчає причетність до схеми Ігоря Кононенка та братів Суркісів, останніх раніше вже викликали на допит після виходу журналістського розслідування. У записах, оприлюднених журналістами, співрозмовники, у тому числі, обговорюють і цю оборудку. 15 квітня Крючкова екстрадували в Україну.

Наприкінці лютого Конституційний суд уже визнав неконституційною статтю про незаконне збагачення – за конституційним поданням 59 народних депутатів України.

27 березня Спеціалізована антикорупційна прокуратура повідомила, що закрила 65 кримінальних проваджень через скасування статті про незаконне збагачення.



Amnesty Intrnational: у Києві ніхто не покараний за напад на табір ромів у квітні 2018 року

Українська влада не з’ясувала особи всіх злочинців і не притягла їх до відповідальності через рік після нападу на табір ромів, який стався 21 квітня 2018 року на Лисій горі в Києві, заявила 16 квітня міжнародна правозахисна організація Amnesty International.

«Після нападу злочинці відкрито говорили про свої дії і хвалилися ними в інтернеті. Один із них, член групи, яка виступає за дискримінацію і насильство, у Facebook публічно взяв на себе відповідальність за дії. Він був заарештований у липні 2018 року, але був звільнений у листопаді 2018 року після рішення суду, який вказав на процесуальні порушення з боку поліції. Прокуратура оскаржила це рішення, але відповідні судові засідання були відкладені шість разів», – ідеться в повідомленні.

«Ми чули сильні заяви із засудженням нападу від найвищих посадових осіб, і вони зобов’язалися гарантувати справедливість жертвам, але де ми перебуваємо рік по тому? Те, що зробили українські органи влади впродовж останніх 12 місяців, далеке від ефективного розслідування, і вони мало що зробили, щоб допомогти жертвам цього нахабного злочину на ґрунті ненависті», – сказала директор Amnesty International в Україні Оксана Покальчук.


«Напади на ромів стають все більш жорстокими в Україні, це призвело торік до щонайменше двох смертей. Навіть у тих випадках, коли злочинці були встановлені та затримані, вироків немає», – додала правозахисниця.

Поліція Києва повідомила 25 квітня 2018 року, що відкрила два кримінальні провадження через розгін ромського табору – за статтями «порушення рівноправності громадян залежно від їх расової, національної належності або ставлення до релігії» та «хуліганство».

24 квітня керівник київської поліції Андрій Крищенко в інтерв’ю 112.ua заявив, що на Лисій горі спалили сміття на суботнику, а не табір ромів. Він зазначив, що поліція не отримувала жодної скарги від ромів на побої чи насильство.

21 квітня Сергій Мазур, що називає себе координатором «С14», повідомив про демонтаж стихійного поселення ромів на Лисій горі і «безпечне спалення» наметів його мешканців. Окрім того, він анонсував «нові рейди».

Жителі ромського табору в Києві заявили про ультиматум від людей у формі.

Напад на ромський табір засудила Українська Гельсінська спілка з прав людини та правозахисна організація Amnesty International.

    $.99* .COM Domain! You be you with us!     Web Hosting $3.95