gilibet

(CNN) — Donald Trump’s transition team is quietly strategizing how to assuage the anti-abortion wing of the Republican Party amid concerns that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s past comments supporting abortion access could complicate his confirmation as the president-elect’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Republican senators and anti-abortion leaders have already sounded the alarm about Kennedy, who was running as a Democrat as recently as last year, and his past support for abortion access until fetal viability, which Trump’s team sees as a key vulnerability. Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, a new member of Senate GOP leadership, recently told Fox News: “It’ll come up in the hearing 100%. There’s no question that this will be an issue. I will raise it if no one else does.” Trump’s team has already begun giving assurances to anti-abortion leaders that they plan to stack other top health care positions with anti-abortion advocates to help alleviate those concerns, two people with direct knowledge of the conversations said. “I made clear to them that this needs to be tended to,” one anti-abortion leader, who spoke with the transition team over their concerns, told CNN. “We have some serious policy and personnel concerns that have been propriety to our community for 30 years. The expectation they’ve given me is they will have an assistant HHS secretary who more aligns with us.” Few in Trump’s orbit were surprised by his decision to name Kennedy to the top health care role since he had repeatedly vowed on the campaign trail to give the former independent presidential candidate, who endorsed him in August, power over health policy. But questions over Kennedy’s ability to win over Senate Republicans vital to his confirmation arose with the transition team both before and after he was offered the position, two sources briefed on the matter told CNN. Even before Trump selected him, the team had discussed staffing HHS with deputies who are more conservative on reproductive rights to signal that the agency would not deviate from Trump’s position, sources briefed on the discussions said. Once those staffing decisions are made, Kennedy is expected to meet with anti-abortion rights senators on the Hill. Abortion opponents say they have two priorities they want Kennedy to address: installing anti-abortion advocates in top roles and restoring the anti-abortion policies enacted in Trump’s first term. “There’s no question that we need a pro-life HHS secretary, and of course, we have concerns about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I believe that no matter who is HHS secretary, baseline policies set by President Trump during his first term will be re-established,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told CNN. Some of the policies anti-abortion advocates, like SBA Pro-Life America, have said they want in a second Trump term are for HHS to revive restrictions on federal funding going to family planning organizations that provide information about abortion. One Republican senator, who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, said Republican senators concerned about Kennedy’s position on abortion will expect him to commit to reintroducing the restrictions on federal funding when he meets with them privately ahead of his confirmation hearings. “My general sense is that those of us who are more on the pro-life side of the spectrum here certainly don’t want the federal government promoting abortions,” the Republican senator said. “I think it’s pretty simple, and I think that would be the expectation.” Anti-abortion groups are also calling for the Trump administration to bring back an expansive approach to enforcing so-called “conscience protections,” which allow doctors and even hospitals to opt out of performing the procedure, and pushing for a reversal of several Biden-era policies, including guidance instructing hospitals to perform abortion in medical emergencies, even in states that ban the procedure, as well as a policy that allows for abortion pills to be obtained without an in-person doctor’s visit. Trump, amid pressure from anti-abortion groups and allies, said in April he believes abortion policy should be left to the states to legislate and later vowed to veto a federal abortion ban as president should such a bill reach his desk. In a statement to CNN, Trump transition spokesperson Katie Miller said Kennedy “has every intention of supporting President Trump’s agenda to the fullest extent.” “This is President Trump’s administration that Robert F. Kennedy has been asked to serve in and he will carry out the policies Americans overwhelmingly voted for in President Trump’s historic victory,” Miller said. A spokesperson for Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment. But Kennedy himself is aware of the concerns about him, two people familiar with the discussions said, and plans to personally assure senators that he supports Trump’s view that abortion should be left to states. During the 2024 campaign, Kennedy adopted several different positions, drawing criticism at various points from both abortion rights organizations and anti-abortion groups. In August 2023, while still running in the Democratic primary, Kennedy said he would sign a law banning abortion after three months of pregnancy if he were elected, though his campaign walked back his statement at the time. During a podcast interview in May, when he was running as an independent, Kennedy said he opposed any government limits on abortion at the state or federal level but walked back his comment after blowback from anti-abortion advocates, including from inside his own campaign. In the final months of his campaign, before he suspended his bid and endorsed Trump, Kennedy advocated for abortion to be legal until fetal viability and endorsed the framework implemented under Roe v. Wade. But he often downplayed the importance of abortion access as a salient political issue for voters, minimizing it as one of several “culture war issues” that are less important than “existential issues” like the national debt, inflation, attacks on freedom of speech and the increase in diagnoses of chronic diseases. In recent conversations with Trump’s transition team, Kennedy has indicated that he has little interest in shaping abortion policy, even as his role as secretary would give him broad authority over abortion access, including access to abortion medication. Instead, he has said he plans to focus more of his efforts on his promises to curb obesity and upend the nation’s food industry, sources familiar with the talks said. There is also a general belief within Trump’s orbit that, despite being controversial, Kennedy may secure at least a couple of Senate Democratic votes. However, that sentiment is not strong enough to prevent the transition from working to reassure concerned Republicans. Kennedy’s wavering on the issue led Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence — who staunchly opposes abortion rights and declined to endorse Trump this year — to call on GOP senators to reject his nomination. “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as secretary of Health and Human Services,” Pence said in a statement following Trump’s selection of Kennedy for the HHS role, calling the pick “deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who had lobbied Trump during his 2024 campaign to support a 15-week national abortion ban with exceptions, recently told The Dispatch of Kennedy: “I want to see what he has to say about abortion. ... That will matter a lot to me.” Some GOP senators, including those who sit on the chamber’s Pro-Life Caucus, said they are confident Kennedy will honor Trump’s position. “Being a Cabinet secretary is not an exercise in individuality, you know? These people serve the principal, the principal is the president,” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told CNN. “So, I assume that he will support the president’s policies, whatever his personal position is. You don’t get hired because of your personal positions.” Hawley added: “I don’t want to presume I know the answers, but I’d be really surprised if he didn’t say ‘I’ll support the president’s policies on this and faithfully execute those.’” Fellow Missouri Republican, Sen. Eric Schmitt, acknowledged he has concerns about Kennedy’s views on abortion but defended him nevertheless, arguing he was picked by Trump to shake things up and “challenge a lot of things that so-called scientists don’t seem to want to challenge anymore.” “So am I going to agree with him on everything? I am ardently pro life. Of course not. But again, I think the president deserves the opportunity to put people in place who are going to implement change within, within these agencies that got way too big, way too powerful and they’re not accountable to anyone,” Schmitt told reporters in the Capitol. CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Ted Barrett contributed to this report. The-CNN-Wire TM & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.gilibet 。

Martha Barrantes Highlights Key Accounting Strategies to Drive Profitability in Small and Medium-Sized BusinessesIt's been a hot minute since "point shaving" - the act of intentionally not scoring in an effort to manipulate the point spreads of basketball games - was a public problem in college basketball. But now it appears that one ex-player is the subject of a serious investigation into the crime. According to ESPN insiders Pete Thamel and David Purdum, federal authorities are investigating former Temple and Virginia Tech guard Hysier Miller over allegations that he bet on his own games and manipulated the outcome of said games while he was a member of the Owls. Miller averaged 15.9 points, 3.6 rebounds and 4.0 assists per game while playing 36 games for Temple. The team went 16-20 and missed the postseason. He has since been dismissed from the Hokies basketball program following the investigation and an ensuing NCAA inquiry. "Federal authorities are investigating whether former Temple men's basketball player Hysier Miller bet on his own games and manipulated the outcome of Owls games he played in, according to sources with direct knowledge of the situation," the outlet reported. "Miller, Temple's leading scorer last season, transferred to Virginia Tech during the offseason but was dismissed by the Hokies on Oct. 23 because of the federal investigation and an NCAA inquiry into Temple games, sources said. A regular-season Temple game drew attention for unusual betting activity in March." Aric Becker/ISI Photos/Getty Images An attorney for Miller has already released this statement: "Hysier Miller has overcome more adversity in his 22 years than most people face in their lifetime. He will meet and overcome whatever obstacles lay ahead," Jason P. Bologna of the law firm Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney said in a statement. The NCAA has not commented. The FBI would not confirm nor deny the existence of the investigation. Virginia Tech has stated that Miller's dismissal stems from actions that occurred prior to his enrollment. ESPN says that authorities were first alerted back in March when the line of a game between Temple and UAB mysteriously started moving rapidly without any breaking news directly influencing the slew of spread bets. The line moved from UAB -2 to UAB -8 in the course of a single day, causing one New Jersey sports book to close the betting and report the unusual betting activity. UAB went on to win the game, 100-72 with Miller scoring eight points. Related: Report: Former College Basketball Player Investigated For Point Shaving

Donald Trump has promised revenge and retribution against special counsel Jack Smith after the appointed prosecutor was brought into the Justice Department to investigate suspected crimes from the ex-president. According to Rolling Stone , a source said that those working under Smith's team "preemptively reviewed their private and professional communications, to make sure they hadn’t written anything that could be subpoenaed, publicly revealed, and used against them to paint a narrative of alleged misconduct or supposed anti-Trump bias." The source further said that "some federal investigators, including more junior staff, have talked to attorneys and legal groups about possible ways a rejuvenated Trump Justice Department could try to make their lives hell, what precautionary measures they should take, and even how to avoid going bankrupt if the revenge probes come in full force." Also Read: Democratic leadership missing in action as Trump tightens his grip Rolling Stone revealed that one investigator is looking for ways to protect their spouse's assets out of fear that Trump's DOJ will issue criminal charges. "They want to make sure they are protected if worse comes to worst," a source said. Rolling Stone recalled its May 2023 report revealing that Trump demanded that all of his lawyers and advisers know the members of the DOJ staff and senior FBI officials who had been involved in investigating Trump. The far-right group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request of the DOJ and FBI demanding information on the personnel involved "so that he and his inner circle would have a ready-made roster of targets if he won." Legal and political analysts are waiting for Smith's report, hoping it will be posted online soon. Smith will file a report with Attorney General Merrick Garland , and Garland will decide whether to make the report public. Read the full report here.

The SNP seems to be rediscovering its political confidence after the bleakest period the party's had since winning power at Holyrood. In the last couple of years its independence strategy has hit a brick wall, the party has tied itself in knots over gender reform, and it has fallen in and out of love with the Scottish Greens. There have been three first ministers during that period and one of those remains under police investigation as the Branchform inquiry into SNP finances drags on. The party's worries have not gone away. Far from it. It still has huge challenges to overcome, not least significant underperformance in key public services like the NHS. Even its selection process for the Holyrood election could be a source of bitter infighting. Yet at the end of the week in which First Minister John Swinney's government delivered its draft Scottish Budget, his team seems more optimistic than at any time for at least two years. That may seem odd given the SNP completely lost control of the narrative in Scottish politics and was comprehensively defeated by Labour at the general election in July. There has been an understandable tendency to write the party off. For a while it has felt that Labour was on course to defeat the SNP at the next Holyrood election and to regain devolved power after 19 years in opposition. The most recent opinion polling raises questions about that analysis. Labour's "change" mantra at the general election seemed to tap into a public appetite for exactly that and it remains perfectly possible they could win. The point is that a change of government at Holyrood is not inevitable. The SNP will put up a fight and it remains a political force to be reckoned with. The budget setting process is a good demonstration of how wily they can be. At the end of October, the UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves helped put Labour on the front foot in Scotland by announcing a substantial uplift in funding for the SNP government this year and next. As I said at the time , this opened up political space for Labour to turn the focus on the delivery of better public services in Scotland (under SNP administration since 2007). With the publication of the draft Scottish Budget this week, the SNP has managed to seize back some of the political initiative. It has happily banked the £1.5bn extra spending from the UK Treasury this year and the £3.4bn extra next year. Much of this is gobbled up paying growing NHS, social welfare and public sector wage bills. However, the SNP has managed to direct some of that cash to policy priorities that pile political pressure on Labour. The Scottish government has promised to partly reverse cuts to winter fuel payments for older people not in receipt of pension credit. These cuts were initiated by the UK government and are being matched by the Scottish government this winter before a new payment is brought in next year. It has also promised to end the two-child cap on access to benefits in Scotland, something that Scottish Labour has previously expressed a desire to achieve. It is clear this policy was a very late addition to the budget statement. It has not yet been fully costed. The Scottish Fiscal Commission's rough estimate is £150m in the first year and it has described the policy as a "fiscal risk". Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar initially dismissed the SNP's idea as a "policy without a penny" because the first tranche of payments are not in the budget for 2025/26. SNP ministers are proposing to make the change from spring 2026, just before the Holyrood election. However, they insist there is £3m in their budget plans to make the necessary preparations. They have also formally requested assistance from the UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to access the data required to establish who would be eligible for extra cash. They may also need the UK government to tweak the law so that anything extra paid out in Scotland is not simply clawed back by another part of the system. The DWP has said it will "engage constructively with the Scottish government where necessary" - which may or may not be an expression of willingness to assist. On Thursday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said ending the two child cap was not a "silver bullet" for tackling child poverty and that the policy could not be afforded across the UK. On Friday, he held private talks with John Swinney in Edinburgh, after which Mr Swinney said the PM had agreed to work with him on the two-child cap. Having reset the relationship with the devolved governments since taking power at Westminster, Labour's commitment to partnership politics is now being tested by the SNP. At Holyrood, Scottish Labour also has a Budget dilemma. It is perfectly entitled to criticise the SNP's approach to taxation and public spending. The question is: Can Labour afford not to back a Scottish Budget that includes winter fuel cash for pensioners and a pathway to ending the two-child cap? The SNP is not counting on their votes but if it does not get them, it will never tire of reminding voters of what Labour chose not to support. In that sense, this is a politically savvy budget from John Swinney's administration. It also includes policy suggestions from the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Alba party, which are more likely allies. There is no expectation of Conservative support. They are firmly opposed to the SNP's approach to taxation, which requires higher earners to pay more than they would in England to raise extra funds for public spending. All parties know there needs to be a budget deal before key votes in February. Otherwise there could be chaos in disbursing public money to pay bills and deliver promised wage increases to public servants. It's not clear any party would want to risk being held responsible for that - or the possibility of an early Holyrood election.CeeDee Lamb injury update: Dallas Cowboys announce star WR is out for the season