Pelosi: Forget the wall, let's fund ports of entry instead

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday refused to budge on President Trump's demand for a border wall, but she did say she supports more funding for official ports of entry to stop drugs from entering the U.S. “I’m not for a wall,” Pelosi told reporters who asked her whether she is willing to seek a compromise. She spoke near the end of the fourth week of the partial government shutdown that began after Democrats refused to fund Trump's border wall, and Trump said he wouldn't sign any spending bills for the government without wall money. It's not immediately clear that Pelosi's call for funding to "build the infrastructure at the ports of entry" would persuade Trump, who has said the U.S. now needs to focus on open stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border. Pelosi said at least a half-billion dollars should be dedicated to expanding security at ports of entry with people and technology that can scan vehicles entering the United States for drugs and guns. Only a small fraction get scrutiny currently, and most of the illegal drugs and some asylum seekers enter the U.S. through these formal points of entry. Pelosi also called for more roads and personnel to facilitate trade and immigration and to boost border security “and to do so in a way that honors our values.” Democrats have been negotiating with the president, she said, and have offered these border security provisions as a counteroffer to Trump's wall. “This has to be evidence-based,” Pelosi said of the effort to shore up border security. “Not notion-mongered.” Trump is seeking up to $5 billion for a border wall in targeted areas along the border where U.S. border officials said it would help them reduce the flow of illegal immigrants.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-forget-the-wall-lets-fund-ports-of-entry-instead

House Democratic Leaders Squash Attempt By Fellow Party Members To Punish Steve King More Severely: Report

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives discreetly quieted two members of their party on Wednesday who were attempting to force a vote censuring Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King for comments regarding white supremacy. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, along with other top Democrats, convinced Democratic Reps. Bobby Rush of Illinois and Tim Ryan of Ohio not to force the House to vote on a motion to censure King, according to Politico.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, along with other top Democrats, convinced Democratic Reps. Bobby Rush of Illinois and Tim Ryan of Ohio not to force the House to vote on a motion to censure King, according to Politico. The Iowa congressman defended the statement, claiming that his comment was misrepresented and “like the Founding Fathers I am an advocate for Western Civilization’s values,” rather than white supremacy. Regardless, King was stripped of his committee assignments after GOP leadership convened Monday and concluded his statements regarding white supremacy were too offensive. “Obviously, it’s not what I want,” Ryan told Politico about abandoning a censure vote. “The next time something like this happens, we’ll bring it out of committee, and I think we move to expel him at that point.” Democratic House leaders had reportedly been cautioning their rank-and-file party members that any further attempt to censure King could end up harming Democrats in the future.

“Steny [Hoyer] showed some concern about it going back and forth — not that I think there is any moral equivalency at all with recent comments that people on our side have made,” Ryan told Politico. Ryan’s comments were specifically referring to Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan; hours after the freshman Democrat was sworn into Congress, she was recorded telling a crowd of left-wing supporters that she is going to “impeach the motherf****r,” referring to President Donald Trump. Democrats reportedly worry that filing a motion to censure King would ultimately result in the same being done to Tlaib.

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/house-democrat-king-censure/

Top Obama White House Lawyer Made False Statements To DOJ About Manafort-Related Work

The Justice Department is alleging that the former Obama White House general counsel made ‘false and misleading’ statements regarding consulting work done for Ukraine. Greg Craig was lead partner for the law firm Skadden Arps on its Ukraine work, which was done in partnership with Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman. Skadden Arps agreed Thursday to settle with the Justice Department by registering as a foreign agent of Ukraine and paying a $4.6 million fine.

Craig’s fate remains uncertain.

The former general counsel for President Obama made “false and misleading statements” to the Justice Department regarding work he did for the Ukrainian government that has come under scrutiny in the special counsel’s probe. Greg Craig’s alleged false statements were revealed in a settlement announced Thursday by the Justice Department. The agency announced it was settling with Craig’s former firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which worked with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on behalf of Ukraine beginning in 2012. Skadden Arps agreed to register retroactively with the Justice Department as a foreign agent of Ukraine and to pay a $4.6 million fine, the same amount that the firm was paid for its consulting work.

Craig, who left Skadden Arps in April 2018, is not identified by name in the Justice Department announcement, but he has previously been identified as the lead Skadden Arps partner who worked on its Ukraine account. Other clues from the Justice Department settlement point to Craig as the lead partner referenced in case. As part of the settlement, Skadden Arps acknowledged that it acted on behalf of the Ukrainian government “by contributing to a public relations campaign directed at select members of the U.S. news media in 2012.” Craig and others at Skadden Arps helped promote a report that raised questions about Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minster who was seen as a foe to Viktor Yanukovych, who served as prime minister through 2014.

The Justice Department says that it contacted Skadden Arps in 2012 and 2013 about registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) after the law firm released a report that defended Tymoshenko’s imprisonment. But the firm ended up not registering under FARA based on false assurances provided by Skadden Arps’ partner. “A partner then at Skadden made false and misleading statements to the FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] Unit, which led it to conclude in 2013 that the firm was not obligated to register under FARA,” the Justice Department said. “The facts, when uncovered, showed that Skadden was indeed required to register in 2012, and, under the Agreement, it will do so retroactively.”

The Skadden Arps media outreach centered mostly on a report about Tymoshenko that was finalized in December 2012. According to the Justice Department, the Skadden Arps lead partner, seemingly Craig, contacted a major national newspaper on Dec. 12, 2012 to provide a preview of the report as well as a quotation. The news outlet appears to be The New York Times, which quoted Craig in an article laying out Skadden Arps’ report regarding Tymoshenko. The Skadden Arps report determined that some of Tymoshenko’s legal rights were violated during her trial in Ukraine. But it ultimately sided against Tymoshenko and with Yanukovych’s administration.

Craig, who contacted the newspaper, is quoted in the article, saying that “We leave to others the question of whether this prosecution was politically motivated.” “Our assignment was to look at the evidence in the record and determine whether the trial was fair.”

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/obama-lawyer-ukraine-justice-department/

>>4796392

Interesting little snippet right here:

IPO and investor lawsuit

In March 2010, Kalin said that the company is profitable and "plans to go public, though not until at least next year."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy#IPO_and_investor_lawsuit Financial statements required to be filed by Etsy in order to go public show that due to reinvestment of annually increasing gross profits in marketing, product development, and management, the company has not reported a net profit as of 2015.

In December 2010, Etsy said it had seven million registered users, and that it would continue to focus on a personal community feel as it grows larger, as that is part of what distinguishes it from eBay.

On March 3, 2015, Etsy announced that it had filed for a $100 million USD IPO. As of 2015, Etsy generated transactions worth US$1.93 billion on its platform, which has 54 million members. Etsy went public on April 16, 2015. The company's valuation was $1.8 billion and raised $237 million in IPO proceeds. Less than a month later, Etsy stock dropped more than 8%. The stock closed at $30 on its first day of trading on April 16 and dropped down to $20.32 as of May 11.

Shortly after the IPO in 2015, a group of investors filed a class action lawsuit against Etsy claiming fraud. The suit claimed that Etsy's CEO and officers failed to disclose numerous problems with the site which could affect the stock price, among them that "more than 5 percent of all merchandise for sale on Etsy’s website may be either counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement” and that “brands are increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy for trademark or copyright infringement, jeopardizing listing fees and commissions." The suit also claimed that Etsy management knew of the rampant trademark and copyright infringement but did little to stop it, and in fact worked to hide this information from potential investors.

In September 2016, Etsy announced the acquisition of artificial intelligence startup, Blackbird Technologies. Etsy Inc. after experience a first-quarter loss in May 2017, replaced its chief executive and cut 8% of its workforce. Board member Josh Silverman was appointed CEO over Chad Dickerson.

In May 2017, the company's board replaced Dickerson as CEO with Josh Silverman, citing pressure from shareholders and poor profits.