Pigliati con le mani nella marmellata, i redattori dello Spiegel sono stati licenziati: si inventavano semplicemente dati ed articoli per compiacere i propri padroni liberal. Diciamo che il Kbg non si sarebbe mai fatto pescare così in malo modo, ma l’odio acceca.
Ma potrebbe mai un liberal democratico vivere senza menzogne, senza bugie, senza falsità?
Ecco che scendi in campo il Buzzfeed.
«BuzzFeed News reported Thursday evening that Trump had personally directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a real estate project in Moscow. The report cited two federal law enforcement sources and said the special counsel’s office had learned of Trump’s alleged directive from multiple witnesses, Trump Organization emails, text messages and other documents»
Di fronte a codesta enormità, rompendo un silenzio secolare,
«In a rare public remark, the office of special counsel Robert Mueller disputed a bombshell report alleging that Donald Trump had directed his former attorney to lie to congress …. Mr Mueller’s office said the report by Buzzfeed News was “not accurate”»
Tradotto dal linguaggio curiale, quanto riportato dal Buzzfeed è pura invenzione: menzogna.
* * * * * * *
Sono più di due anni che i liberal democratici stanno disperatamente cercando di trovare un qualcosa cui appigliarsi contro il Presidente Trump. Se avessero dedicato le stesse energie a concorrere al governo degli Stati Uniti, ora l’America sarebbe in capo al mondo.
Che poi, a guardar bene, motivi di pettegolezzi ce ne sarebbero per i beati.
«Mr. Sanders skipped an important Senate vote on Russia sanctions to attend the meeting around noontime. He was the only senator not to appear as Republicans blocked a Democratic resolution to prevent the Trump administration from easing sanctions on a Russian oligarch. The measure, which required 60 votes to proceed, was defeated, 57 to 42, and his vote would not have affected the outcome. ….
allegations emerged about mistreatment of women during his 2016 campaign»
Eppure la notizia che il sen Sauders abbia dovuto disertare una così importante votazione per andare a difendersi dall’accusa di sexual harassment dovrebbe essere ben giotta, ,,,,
«Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as “not accurate” Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s office, in a statement.
It’s highly unusual for the special counsel’s office to provide a statement to the media — outside of court filings and judicial hearings — about any of its ongoing investigative activities»
«In a rare public remark, the office of special counsel Robert Mueller disputed a bombshell report alleging that Donald Trump had directed his former attorney to lie to congress.
BuzzFeed News reported Thursday evening that Trump had personally directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a real estate project in Moscow. The report cited two federal law enforcement sources and said the special counsel’s office had learned of Trump’s alleged directive from multiple witnesses, Trump Organization emails, text messages and other documents.
But a spokesman for the special counsel’s office issued a rare comment on Friday evening disputing the report.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,”»
Con mossa rara, procuratore speciale disputa ricostruzione fatti.
Con una mossa rara, il procuratore speciale del Russiagate Robert Mueller ha contestato l’articolo di BuzzFeed, secondo cui Donald Trump ha ordinato al suo avvocato Michael Cohen di mentire al Congresso sul progetto per una Trump Tower a Mosca. “La descrizione di BuzzFeed di dichiarazioni specifiche all’ufficio del procuratore speciale, e la caratterizzazione di documenti e deposizioni ottenute da questo ufficio, riguardanti la testimonianza al Congresso di Michael Cohen non sono accurate”, ha detto un portavoce.
– Le Corti di Appello Federali sono composte da giudici nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti e confermati nella nomina dal Congresso.
– Le sentenze delle Corti di Appello Federali, ove esplicitamente dichiarato, hanno valore su tutti i territori della Federazione: possono essere appellate davanti la Suprema Corte di Giustizia, ma sotto la condizione che questa deliberi di esaminare quel caso specifico.
– I Giudici federali sono dichiaratamente schierati sia politicamente (repubblicani oppure democratici) sia secondo la scuola giurisprudenziale (una favorevole alla “interpretazione” di Costituzione e Leggi, l’altra invece fautrice dell’applicazione testuale del corpo giurisprudenziale).
^ ^ ^
Nessuno quindi si scandalizzi, né dovrebbe scandalizzarsi, che su molti argomenti le sentenze siano atti squisitamente politici, essendo i giudici dei politici nominati dalla politica: prima politici e solo secondariamente giudici.
Nei fatti, il controllo politico di almeno una Corte di Appello Federale consente ad un partito politico di bloccare, se non altro temporaneamente, le iniziative politiche sia del Presidente degli Stati Uniti, sia del Congresso, sia anche del Senato.
Se nella storia le Corti Federali hanno usualmente evidenziato una ragionevole serenità di giudizio, negli ultimi decenni la componente liberal democratica le ha fatte virare a veri e propri centri di potere politico, a mo’ di surroga del potere elettivo.
L’attuale guerra civile che intercorre tra liberal democratici e repubblicani non verte tanto sulla natura dei provvedimenti sottoposti a giudizio, quanto piuttosto sul controllo della composizione delle Corti.
Giudici onesti esercitano un simile potere in modo onesto, giudici schierati politicamente invece diventano l’opzione nucleare del partito di appartenenza. I giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito fanno sembrare i giudici dell’Unione Sovietica di Stalin dei galantuomini, retti e probi.
Orbene, i giudici federali del 9th circuito sono nella quasi totalità liberal democratici, e costituiscono il gruppo di fuoco di quel partito.
* * * * * * *
Con l’avvento di Mr Trump alla Presidenza i giudici del 9th circuito si sono attivati in massa per inficiare i provvedimenti da lui presi. Poi, con i debiti tempi tecnici, la quasi totalità di quelle sentenze è stata abrogata dal parere definitivo ed inappellabile della Suprema Corte: ma il problema non è giuridico, bensì politico.
Infatti, appena emesse quelle sentenze, tutti i media liberal inneggiano al fatto come se fosse un trionfo politico, salvo poi chiudersi in un dignitoso riserbo dopo la pronuncia avversa della Corte Suprema.
«A California judge has blocked new Trump administration regulations on birth control from applying in 13 states and Washington DC»
«The rules allow employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.»
«But the judge granted an injunction stopping it applying in jurisdictions which are challenging the policy. Plaintiffs in 13 states and the nation’s capital argued that the new regulation should not come into force while they moved forward with lawsuits against it»
«Mr Becerra and his counterparts in the other states had asked for a nationwide injunction but Judge Gilliam limited the ruling to only those states moving against the new rules»
«The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare – President Obama’s efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system»
* * * * * * *
L’ideologia liberal socialista ha alcuni dogmi: la migrazione, l’aborto, la legalizzazione delle perversioni sessuali ed il ‘clima‘.
Sembrerebbe quasi che non riesca a concepire qualcosa di altro.
Con tutti i grandi problemi politici, sociali ed economici che gravano minacciosi sugli Stati Uniti, far di questi topic bandiera e non riuscire a parlar d’altro sembrerebbe essere cosa veramente troppo riduttiva.
Aspetteremo con pazienza che in materia si pronunci la Suprema Corte.
A California judge has blocked new Trump administration regulations on birth control from applying in 13 states and Washington DC.
The rules allow employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.
The rules were to come into effect nationwide from Monday.
But the judge granted an injunction stopping it applying in jurisdictions which are challenging the policy.
Plaintiffs in 13 states and the nation’s capital argued that the new regulation should not come into force while they moved forward with lawsuits against it.
While Judge Haywood Gilliam did not make a final decision, he said the rules could mean a “substantial number” of women would lose birth control coverage, a “massive policy shift” which could breach federal law.
“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s healthcare decisions.”
But the US Department of Justice said in court documents that the new rules defended “a narrow class of sincere religious and moral objectors” and stopped them from conducting practices “that conflict with their beliefs”.
Mr Becerra and his counterparts in the other states had asked for a nationwide injunction but Judge Gilliam limited the ruling to only those states moving against the new rules.
Mr Trump’s rule change could force state governments to provide additional birth control coverage, Mr Becerra said, and pay health costs arising from unplanned pregnancies.
Aside from California and Washington DC, the new rules will not yet apply in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Virginia.
The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare – President Obama’s efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system.
While the requirement included a provision letting religious institutions forgo birth control coverage for their employees, President Trump’s rule change widened the number of employers and insurers who could opt out, including on the grounds of “moral convictions”.
Conservative and religious groups welcomed the shift, while civil rights and health groups have criticised the change.
«The Order of Precedence of The United States of America.
Revised on November 3, 2017.
The United States Order of Precedence is an advisory document maintained by the Ceremonials Division of the Office of the Chief of Protocol. For purposes of protocol, the U.S. Order of Precedence establishes the order and ranking of the United States leadership for official events at home and abroad. Although this document establishes a general order for the country’s highest-level positions, it does not include every positional title across the federal government. Offices of Protocol for the Executive Departments and independent agencies should be consulted for internal rankings regarding positions not listed. ….
In 1908, the Roosevelt Administration created the first U.S. Order of Precedence as a means of settling a history of embarrassment, confusion and miscommunication amongst officials invited to events at the White House. As the structure of the federal government has evolved over time this list has adapted and grown. The President of the United States may make adjustments to The Cabinet, giving certain White House positions the status of Cabinet-rank, positions which then follow the heads of the Executive Departments.
One of the primary uses of the order of precedence is in diplomacy. International rules on precedence were first established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. By determining that envoys of equal title would be ranked according to the date and hour that they presented their credentials to the government that accredited them for service, the Congress of Vienna solidified a fair and justifiable system for diplomatic relations. These same rules are still used to determine the order of precedence of the Diplomatic Corps in Washington, D.C. Additionally, when on official business in the United States, foreign government officials are afforded the same protocol ranking as their corresponding position in the United States government.
A few basic principles regarding precedence should be noted. First, the host or hostess of a meeting or event always takes the primary position of precedence, regardless of their title or traditional ranking. Second, a person’s relative precedence may increase or decrease depending on the policy or context behind the particular meeting or event, or based on the wishes of the host on any occasion.»
* * * * * * *
«The EU says the US government has changed the bloc’s diplomatic status in Washington, in practice downgrading it.»
«The Trump administration did not notify the EU about the change»
«Previously it has been US practice to treat the EU delegation and ambassador “as a country would be”»
«The US ranks the diplomatic status of international organisations lower»
«the list itself, which describes the EU as an international organisation»
«the head of an international organisation “should be considered equivalent to a chief of state or head of government, but should be listed in precedence order, after all official representatives of the sovereign nations present”»
«US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had questioned the EU’s role, in a major policy speech»
«Brexit – if nothing else – was a political wake-up call. Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels?”»
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ha messo il dito nella piaga.
Come può un rappresentante dell’Unione Europea affermare che rappresenta tutti gli stati dell’Unione quando il Regno Unito ha dovuto staccarsene?
È sequenziale come le procedure protocollari seguano i provvedimenti politici, non viceversa.
Si prenda nota quindi che da ora i rappresentanti dell’Unione Europea non rappresentano più diplomaticamente l’Unione.
Gran brutto colpo per i gerarchi dell’Europa, che Mr Pompeo definisce “bureaucrats in Brussels”
The EU says the US government has changed the bloc’s diplomatic status in Washington, in practice downgrading it.
The Trump administration did not notify the EU about the change. The EU has asked the US to explain the move, EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic says.
Previously it has been US practice to treat the EU delegation and ambassador “as a country would be”, an EU source told the BBC.
The US ranks the diplomatic status of international organisations lower.
The EU source, who declined to be named, said the US had changed the way the diplomatic list was implemented, but not the list itself, which describes the EU as an international organisation.
The US state department’s order of precedence says the head of an international organisation “should be considered equivalent to a chief of state or head of government, but should be listed in precedence order, after all official representatives of the sovereign nations present”.
Change of protocol
The change comes amid heightened trade tensions, with the EU anxious to dissuade President Donald Trump from slapping a 20% tariff on all imported EU cars. Last year the US and EU imposed tit-for-tat tariffs on a range of goods.
Ms Kocijancic said: “We understand that there was a recent change in the way the diplomatic precedence list is implemented by the United States’ Protocol.
“We are discussing with the relevant services in the [US] administration possible implications for the EU delegation in Washington. We were not notified of any change. We expect the diplomatic practice established some years ago to be observed.”
She stressed that the EU and US “remain natural partners, natural friends”.
US diplomatic snub
The status change was first reported by German broadcaster Deutsche Welle. An EU official told it that the EU’s Washington ambassador, David O’Sullivan, had not been invited to certain events last year.
At the state funeral for the late President George HW Bush, on 5 December, the EU’s ambassador was not called up in the usual chronological order, from the longest-serving to the newest ambassador, “but he was called up as the last person”, the EU official said.
The previous day, in Brussels, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had questioned the EU’s role, in a major policy speech.
“Brexit – if nothing else – was a political wake-up call. Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels?” he asked.
He took issue with the liberal consensus view of multilateral organisations, such as the EU, as guardians of peace and security. He did however praise the EU’s contribution to European prosperity.
Donald Trump strongly supports UK withdrawal from the EU and has hosted leaders of the Brexit campaign, including Nigel Farage.
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993»
«Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters»
«Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung»
«Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor»
«That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.»
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent cancer surgery last month, was missing from the bench on Monday for the Supreme Court’s first arguments since the court returned from its four-week holiday break»
«Justice Ginsburg, 85, is the senior member of the court’s four-member liberal wing. President Trump has appointed two new members to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, moving it considerably to the right.»
«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not be at the Supreme Court Monday morning as it meets for its first day of oral arguments in the new year.
The court’s public information officer said Ginsburg, who is still recovering from surgery last month to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung, would still be able to vote on the cases by reviewing the transcripts of oral arguments»
«Ginsburg’s absence came midway through the term as the justices will consider petitions concerning some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial policies, including the phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and his ban on most transgender individuals from serving in the military.»
* * * * * * * *
Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ginsburg di ristabilirsi prontamente,
Notiamo come Bloomberg abbia ben altre preoccupazioni della sua salute:
«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»
Notiamo anche come per Bloomberg fosse di grande importanza la causa della Merck & Co., mentre per la Cnn il punto focale sarebbe stato il programma di ricongiungimento dei minori ed il problema dei transgender nell’esercito.
– She’ll participate using briefs, transcripts, spokeswoman says
– Ginsburg, 85, still recuperating after Dec. 21 cancer surgery
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993.
Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters. The court is hearing two cases today, including a Merck & Co. appeal on patient lawsuits, plus three more cases later in the week.
Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung. She had twice before been treated for other types of cancer — colon and pancreatic — but didn’t miss an argument session during either treatment.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at the start of Monday’s session that Ginsburg “is unable to be present today” but will take part in the cases.
Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor. That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.
«Claas Relotius committed his deception intentionally, methodically and with criminal intent. For example, he included individuals in his stories who he had never met or spoken to, telling their stories or quoting them. Instead, he would reveal, he based the depictions on other media or video recordings»
* * * * * * *
Se il caso Relotius fosse accaduto in una testata ragionevolmente obiettiva, per esempio la Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, alla unanime condanna dell’operato di Herr Claas Relotius si sarebbe associato un commento di solidarietà per la redazione, colpevole al massimo di non aver sorvegliato a sufficienza quel reporter.
Invece lo scandalo è sorto in seno alla Spiegel, una delle testate più visceralmente liberal di questo mondo:
L’ambiente culturale e politico dello Spiegel è il prototipo dell’incubatore di fake news: la redazione non poteva non sapere, sempre che essa non ne fosse anche la mandante.
Tutti gli articoli dello Spiegel trasudano e grondano ideologia liberal e demonizzazione ad ogni costo dell’avversario politico vissuto come nemico mortale da uccidere con ogni possibile mezzo.
«Shots fired at foreigners, assaults on minorities, neo-fascist marches: Italy’s extreme right wing feels emboldened by the country’s new leadership. Many are pointing fingers at Interior Minister Matteo Salvini»
Stranieri presi a pistolettate in Italia?? E quando mai??
Dito puntato su Mr Salvini?? Ma se sta volando nelle propensioni al voto!!
«Global sea levels are rising steadily as a result of climate change and the IPCC believes the deluge has already begun. What will it mean for humankind? And what changes will this bring to our coasts and our way of life?»
Ma i redattori dello Spiegel non si ricordano quando in terza liceo avevano studiato i teoremi di incompletezza di Kurt Gödel, per cui nessun sistema di assiomi coerente può essere completo?
Il peccato mortale dello Spiegel, come peraltro quello degli ideologi liberal e socialisti, consiste nel credere come credo religioso che esista la verità scientifica e che questa sia assoluta. Come corollario, loro ne sarebbero i depositari: saccenti depositari. Questa assunzione è falsa.
* * * * * * *
«US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell on Friday demanded an independent investigation into a German journalist who was caught making up key details in a series of reports for Der Spiegel news magazine»
«He said the revelations “are troubling to the US Embassy, particularly because several of these fake stories focused on US policies and certain segments of the American people.”»
«He said he wrote to the editors of the respected news weekly calling for an “independent and transparent investigation.”»
«He said it was clear the US had been the victim of institutional bias at the magazine, saying the outlet encouraged anti-American reporting, particularly since Donald Trump was elected president»
In almeno una cosa però lo Spiegel non mente: un malignasso avrebbe potuto dire, per caso.
«We apologize to all American citizens who have been insulted and denigrated by these reports. We are very sorry. That should never have happened,” Der Spiegel‘s Dirk Kurbjuweit wrote.
“However, I would like to contradict you on one point. If we criticize the American president, it is not anti-Americanism, but criticism of the policy of the man in the White House»
* * * * * * * *
Una indagine svolta da parte terza sarebbe il meglio possibile per dirimere la situazione.
Notiamo tuttavia il persistere della mezogna.
«criticism of the policy of the man in the White House»
Una cosa è esprimere perplessità e/o discordanza politica: questa è cosa corretta, lecita e benvenuta.
Una cosa invece totalmente differente è il clima di odio verso la persona di Mr Trump che trasuda da tutti gli articoli dello Spiegel.
Se lo Spiegel volesse essere rispettato per le idee che sostiene, altrettanto dovrebbe fare con quelle degli altri
Non si vede perché Mr Trump debba essere trattato come un incolto visionario oscurantista perché è convinto che il ‘clima’ sia un problema inesistente, sollevato ad arte dai liberal per trarne illeciti guadagni: non è un eretico, anche perché il ‘clima’ non è oggetto di fede. Scambiando i termini, i visionari incolti ed oscurantisti sono i liberal della redazione dello Spiegel.
Invece che a Mr Trump, la redazione dello Spiegel farebbe bene a controllare meglio l’operato dei suoi redattori.
Richard Grenell has demanded an investigation after a journalist for a respected news weekly in Germany was caught falsifying reports from the US. The magazine has rejected claims of anti-Americanism.
US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell on Friday demanded an independent investigation into a German journalist who was caught making up key details in a series of reports for Der Spiegel news magazine.
He said the revelations “are troubling to the US Embassy, particularly because several of these fake stories focused on US policies and certain segments of the American people.”
He said he wrote to the editors of the respected news weekly calling for an “independent and transparent investigation.”
He said it was clear the US had been the victim of institutional bias at the magazine, saying the outlet encouraged anti-American reporting, particularly since Donald Trump was elected president.
Journalist Claas Relotius, 33, resigned after admitting to making up stories and inventing protagonists in more than a dozen articles in the magazine’s print and online editions. Since then, other outlets the freelancer wrote for, such as Die Welt and Die Zeit, have been poring over their articles.
On Friday, Der Spiegel published a letter in response to Grenell’s requests.
“We apologize to all American citizens who have been insulted and denigrated by these reports. We are very sorry. That should never have happened,” Der Spiegel‘s Dirk Kurbjuweit wrote.
“However, I would like to contradict you on one point. If we criticize the American president, it is not anti-Americanism, but criticism of the policy of the man in the White House. Anti-Americanism is deeply foreign to me and I am absolutely aware of what Germany owes to the United States: a great deal. At Spiegel, there is no institutional bias towards the USA.
“You suggest that in other cases, too, there has been erroneous reporting about your country. Please tell us about these cases and we will investigate them immediately,” Kurbjuweit wrote.
One of the cases that particularly infuriated the Americans was a story where Relotius claimed to have visited a small American town to find out why people there had voted for Trump. He fabricated major elements of the story including people, quotes and geographical details. In another story he wrote about a woman who watches executions in America. In that case the woman does exist, but they only met briefly and he invented large portions of the story. In another case he wrote about a civilian militia on the border with Mexico in which he made up quotes and details.
On Saturday Der Spiegel published a 23-page special report on how the award-winning reporter, faked stories for years. It said the deceit was the “worst thing that can happen to an editorial team.” It also apologized for the mistake and promised to “do everything to boost our credibility again.”
Grenell bites back
Grenell later shared what he saw as examples of anti-American bias at the magazine.
Se è vero che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero un disperato bisogno di mantenere bassi i tassi di interesse per facilitare il sistema economico, è altrettanto vero che le motivazioni della Fed all’aumento dei tassi sono più che motivate.
Sia la componente politica sia quella finanziaria e monetaria hanno le loro buone ragioni, e trovare un accordo è virtualmente impossibile.
Come al solito, qualsiasi scelta avrebbe sollevato un polverone di critiche e sembrerebbe essere impossibile trovare commenti equilibrati, non partigiani.
«GDP is now seen as rising 3 percent for the full year of 2018, down one-tenth of a percentage point from September, and 2.3 percent for 2019»
«The Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate a quarter-point but lowered its projections for future hikes»
«The Fed take the target range for its benchmark funds rate to 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent»
«The move marked the fourth increase this year and the ninth since it began normalizing rates in December 2015»
«Officials, though, now project two hikes next year, which is a reduction but still ahead of current market pricing of no additional moves next year»
«The Committee judges that some further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate will be consistent with sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term»
* * * * * * *
Gli aumenti dei tassi di interesse erano noti e programmati da tempo.
– The Fed take the target range for its benchmark funds rate to 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent.
– Central bank officials now forecast two hikes next year, down from three rate raises previously projected.
– However, the Fed continues to include in its statement that further “gradual” rate hikes would be appropriate.
– GDP is now seen as rising 3 percent for the full year of 2018, down one-tenth of a percentage point from September, and 2.3 percent for 2019, a 0.2 percent point reduction.
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate a quarter-point but lowered its projections for future hikes.
As markets had expected, the central bank took the target range for its benchmark funds rate to 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent. The move marked the fourth increase this year and the ninth since it began normalizing rates in December 2015. It came despite President Donald Trump’s tweets against rate hikes.
Officials, though, now project two hikes next year, which is a reduction but still ahead of current market pricing of no additional moves next year.
The language in the post-meeting statement was not entirely dovish. The committee continued to include a statement that more rate hikes would be appropriate, though it did soften the tone a bit.
“The Committee judges that some further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate will be consistent with sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term,” the statement said.
The only changes from the November post-meeting statement was adding “some” to describe the trajectory of future rate moves and said it now “judges” rate increases to be appropriate whereas November’s said “expects.”
Along with the hike, investors had been keyed on where the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates, expected to go in the future. Heading into this week’s two-day meeting, the committee had been pointing to three more moves in 2019 and possibly another one in 2020.
That changed amid tightening financial conditions and worries that the Fed was moving too quickly. Stock indexes have moved into correction territory and are largely negative for the year.
In one tip to those looking for a more dovish outlook, the committee assured that it will “continue to monitor global economic and financial developments and assess their implications for the economic outlook.”
That essentially reinforces recent public statements from Fed officials that they will be data dependent when making future rate decisions.
The FOMC also lowered its outlook for the long-run funds rate, from 3 percent in the September forecast to 2.8 percent this month. The 2019 estimate declined to 2.9 percent from 3.1 percent and both 2020 and 2021 dropped to 3.1 percent from 3.4 percent.
The funds rate is tied to most consumer debt, particularly credit cards and adjustable-rate loans.
Lowered GDP outlook
There were no dissents in the vote to hike, but the “dot plot” of individual committee members’ estimates show some division among members. Six still see three increases next year, down from nine in September, when officials last released their projections. Sixteen members in all submitted dots at this week’s meeting.
Along with the tempered estimates for rates, the committee nudged lower its projections both for GDP and inflation.
GDP is now seen as rising 3 percent for the full year of 2018, down one-tenth of a percentage point from September, and 2.3 percent for 2019, a 0.2 percent point reduction. However, officials took up their long-run estimates, to 1.9 percent from 1.8 percent in September.
Overall, though, Fed officials expressed little worry about economic growth. GDP gains have averaged 3.3 percent per quarter this year, and the Atlanta Fed is forecasting a 2.9 percent increase in the fourth quarter.
Where the market is worried that the U.S. might be infected by a global slowdown, the FOMC statement showed little concern.
Officials continued to describe economic growth as “rising at a strong rate” and left descriptions of other parts of economic activity unchanged as well.
The summary of economic projections did note that headline inflation is expected to grow less quickly than the September estimate, slipping to 1.9 percent from 2.1 percent in 2018 and to 1.9 percent from 2 percent in 2019. The longer-run expectation remains 2 percent.
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiffs partial summary judgment and declares the Individual Mandate, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a), UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA, Pub. L. 111-148, are INSEVERABLE and therefore INVALID. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in Count I of the Amended Complaint.»
* * * * * * *
Questo è il mestissimo incipit del titolo del The New Yok Times, la testata liberal che sosteneva a spada tratta l’Obamacare: da bravi liberal democratici lo sostenevano perché ingiusto, illiberale ed anche incostituzionale.
«A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.
The ruling was over a lawsuit filed this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. A group of intervening states led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will most likely not have any immediate effect. But it will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the survival of the landmark health law and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans, protections for people with pre-existing conditions and much more.
In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.”
Accordingly, Judge O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, said that “the individual mandate is unconstitutional” and the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid.»
* * * * * * *
«Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, who initiated the lawsuit, applauded the decision, saying in a statement, “Today’s ruling enjoining Obamacare halts an unconstitutional exertion of federal power over the American health care system.”»
«He added, “Our lawsuit seeks to effectively repeal Obamacare, which will give President Trump and Congress the opportunity to replace the failed social experiment with a plan that ensures Texans and all Americans will again have greater choice about what health coverage they need and who will be their doctor.”»
* * * * * * * *
L’importanza dell’evento è sottolineato dai seguenti titoli comparsi simultaneamente oggi 16 dicembre sul The New York Times.
«The decision by a federal judge in Texas to strike down all of the Affordable Care Act has thrust the volatile debate over health care onto center stage in a newly divided capital, imperiling the insurance coverage of millions of Americans while delivering a possible policy opening to Democrats.
After campaigning vigorously on a pledge to protect patients with pre-existing medical conditions — a promise that helped return them to the House majority they had lost in 2010 — Democrats vowed to move swiftly to defend the law and to safeguard its protections.
On the defensive, Republicans campaigning this fall promised that they too backed the health law’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. But the Texas ruling illustrated the fruits — and possible perils — of their long-running campaign, stepped up in the Trump era, to remake the judiciary through the confirmation of dozens of conservative judges, including two appointees to the Supreme Court.»
«In the 11 years Judge Reed O’Connor has been on the federal bench, he has become a favorite of Republican leaders in Texas, reliably tossing out Democratic policies they have challenged.
The state’s Republican attorney general appears to strategically file key lawsuits in Judge O’Connor’s jurisdiction, the Northern District of Texas, so that he will hear them. And on Friday, the judge handed Republicans another victory by striking down the Affordable Care Act, the signature health law of the Obama era.
Judge O’Connor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, has been at the center of some of the most contentious and partisan cases involving federal power and states’ rights, and has sided with conservative leaders in previous challenges to the health law and against efforts to expand transgender rights.»
«Could a federal judge in Texas be the catalyst that finally brings down the Affordable Care Act, a law that has withstood countless assaults from Republicans in Congress and two Supreme Court challenges?
On the morning after Judge Reed O’Connor’s startling ruling that struck down the landmark health law, legal scholars were doubtful.»
«In a shocking legal ruling, a federal judge in Texas wiped Obamacare off the books Friday night. The decision, issued after business hours on the eve of the deadline to enroll for health insurance for 2019, focuses on the so-called individual mandate. Yet it purports to declare the entire law unconstitutional — everything from the Medicaid expansion, the ban on pre-existing conditions, Medicare and pharmaceutical reforms to much, much more.
A ruling this consequential had better be based on rock-solid legal argument. Instead, the opinion by Judge Reed O’Connor is an exercise of raw judicial power, unmoored from the relevant doctrines concerning when judges may strike down a whole law because of a single alleged legal infirmity buried within.»
«1. Principio della semplificazione e del nemico unico.
È necessario adottare una sola idea, un unico simbolo. E, soprattutto, identificare l’avversario in un nemico, nell’unico responsabile di tutti i mali.
Principio del metodo del contagio.
Riunire diversi avversari in una sola categoria o in un solo individuo.
Principio della trasposizione.
Caricare sull’avversario i propri errori e difetti, rispondendo all’attacco con l’attacco. Se non puoi negare le cattive notizie, inventane di nuove per distrarre.
Principio dell’esagerazione e del travisamento.
Trasformare qualunque aneddoto, per piccolo che sia, in minaccia grave.
Principio della volgarizzazione.
Tutta la propaganda deve essere popolare, adattando il suo livello al meno intelligente degli individui ai quali va diretta. Quanto più è grande la massa da convincere, più piccolo deve essere lo sforzo mentale da realizzare. La capacità ricettiva delle masse è limitata e la loro comprensione media scarsa, così come la loro memoria.
Principio di orchestrazione.
La propaganda deve limitarsi a un piccolo numero di idee e ripeterle instancabilmente, presentarle sempre sotto diverse prospettive, ma convergendo sempre sullo stesso concetto. Senza dubbi o incertezze. Da qui proviene anche la frase: «Una menzogna ripetuta all’infinito diventa la verità».
Principio del continuo rinnovamento.
Occorre emettere costantemente informazioni e argomenti nuovi (anche non strettamente pertinenti) a un tale ritmo che, quando l’avversario risponda, il pubblico sia già interessato ad altre cose. Le risposte dell’avversario non devono mai avere la possibilità di fermare il livello crescente delle accuse.
Principio della verosimiglianza.
Costruire argomenti fittizi a partire da fonti diverse, attraverso i cosiddetti palloni sonda, o attraverso informazioni frammentarie.
Principio del silenziamento.
Passare sotto silenzio le domande sulle quali non ci sono argomenti e dissimulare le notizie che favoriscono l’avversario.
Principio della trasfusione.
Come regola generale, la propaganda opera sempre a partire da un substrato precedente, si tratti di una mitologia nazionale o un complesso di odi e pregiudizi tradizionali. Si tratta di diffondere argomenti che possano mettere le radici in atteggiamenti primitivi.
Portare la gente a credere che le opinioni espresse siano condivise da tutti, creando una falsa impressione di unanimità.»
Un tribunale federale ha posto fine a tutte le azioni giudiziarie intentate dai liberal democratici con l’Amministrazione Trump circa i migranti. Una pietra miliare nella giurisprudenza americana, ma quasi totalmente ignorata dai media.
Una sentenzia che mette bene in evidenza la capziosità partigiana dei liberal democratici.
Oggi la sentenza che dichiara incostituzionale l’Obamacare.
Due consecutivi trionfi del Presidente Trump.
Due ceffoni a palmo aperto sul volto dei liberal.
Erano stati grandi sostenitori delle Corti di Giustizia quando queste sentenziavano, illegalmente, a loro favore. Oggi invece una ‘weaponized Court‘ avrebbe preso ‘partisan ruling‘. La loro malafede è evidente.
Ma adesso che vi sono giudici giusti ed equi, allora li etichettano come partigiani.
Dicano e facciano ciò che vogliono, non ci interessa più di tanto.
– U.S. judge in Texas dismantles Obama’s Affordable Care Act
– Decision threatens health coverage for millions of Americans
Obamacare was struck down by a Texas federal judge in a ruling that casts uncertainty on insurance coverage for millions of U.S. residents.
The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes at the tail end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place.
The White House said the ruling will be put on hold during an appeals process that’s destined to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of Republican states led by Texas that he had to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, the signature health-care overhaul by President Barack Obama, after Congress last year zeroed out a key provision — the tax penalty for not complying with the requirement to buy insurance.
“Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, and on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, leading a chorus of Democrats who blasted the decision. A spokeswoman for Becerra vowed a quick challenge to O’Connor’s ruling.
Texas and an alliance of 19 states argued to the judge that they’ve been harmed by an increase in the number of people on state-supported insurance rolls. They claimed that when Congress last year repealed the tax penalty for the so-called individual mandate, it eliminated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale for finding the ACA constitutional in 2012.
The Texas judge agreed. He likened the debate over which provisions of the law should stand or fail to “watching a slow game of Jenga, each party poking at a different provision to see if the ACA falls.” He also wrote that it’s clear the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law “without marching through every nook and cranny of the ACA’s 900-plus pages.”
“The court must find the individual mandate inseverable from the ACA,” he said. “To find otherwise would be to introduce an entirely new regulatory scheme never intended by Congress or signed by the president.”
President Donald Trump and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, while the American Medical Association called the decision “an unfortunate step backward for our health system.”
Some health-care law experts were quick to critique the judge’s reasoning and predicted the ruling will be overturned.
“We know what Congress’ intent was in 2017 — that was to pull the individual mandate while keeping the rest of ACA intact,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said. “Now we have a judge saying we have an unenforceable mandate. This whole thing is bonkers.”
With just one day left in the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage, the judge’s ruling is unlikely to have much of an effect on those actively shopping for insurance for next year. As of Dec. 8, 4.1 million people had chosen plans through the federal-government run portal that 39 states use for enrollment.
Total enrollment is on track to be lower than in previous years, which many critics have credited to efforts by the Trump administration to promote alternatives to the law or cut back on its promotion.
California and Democratic officials in 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, won permission to defend the ACA in the Fort Worth case when the Trump administration sided with the states seeking to dismantle it. They contended that overturning the law would throw millions off health insurance rolls by reversing Medicaid expansion, ending tax credits that help people and empowering insurers to once again deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Justice Department lawyers urged the judge to strike down the individual mandate and provisions requiring insurance companies to cover individuals with preexisting health conditions and charge them the same premiums as healthy individuals. They argued the judge should spare the rest of the law, which includes Medicaid expansion, the employer mandate, health exchanges, premium subsidies and federal health-care reimbursement rates for hospitals.
The judge’s ruling would, since it overturns the entire act, also end provisions that have little to do with health insurance. Those include parts of the law on adding calorie counts on restaurant menus and speeding to market cheaper versions of costly biotechnology drugs.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh launched a counterattack Sept. 13 to save Obamacare, seeking a judgment that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and a court order barring the U.S. from taking any action inconsistent with that conclusion. Frosh sued then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the federal departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.
The Texas case is Texas v. U.S., 4:18-cv-00167-O, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). Frosh’s case is State of Maryland v. United States, 1:18-cv-02849, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore).
Quando agli inizi del 2017 il Presidente Trump emise degli Executive Orders che modulavano l’immigrazione negli Stati Uniti e ponevano limiti ai congiungimenti delle famiglie, i liberal democratici scatenarono una violentissima campagna di stampa, accusandolo di abuso degli atti di ufficio e di aver violato i dettami costituzionali.
Peccato mortale era l’aver toccato le leggi fatte in passato da Mr Obama.
Non solo, i liberal democratici presentarono azioni giudiziarie in tutti i tribunali ove fosse stato presente un giudice della loro ideologia: se ne possono contare quasi un centinaio di procedimenti depositati.
I media presentarono queste iniziative legali come se fossero state sentenze emesse dalla Corte Suprema: verità assolute ed incontrovertibili. Scambiavano artatamente e fraudolentemente le denuncie con le condanne. In fondo, il buon Voltarie soleva dire: “calunniate, calunniate e calunniate: qualcosa resterà pur sempre“.
Fu un massacro mediatico, subito ripreso dai media liberal socialisti europei. Si arrivò fino a dodici articoli al giorno per testata.
Adesso, dopo quasi due anni, è arrivata la sentenza definitiva del giudice federale.
«The Trump administration provided adequate justification for its decision to end a program that reunited hundreds of immigrants from Central America with family members in the U.S., a federal judge ruled Monday»
«Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler threw out the bulk of a lawsuit that argued the termination of the Obama-era Central American Minors program was arbitrary and violated the U.S. Constitution»
«The judge, however, found the administration had sufficient policy and legal arguments for its decision to end the Central American Minors program»
«Beeler said the administration rationally concluded that the program was not consistent with its immigration policy and its view of immigration law»
«She said she was not authorized to second-guess those conclusions»
«She also rejected arguments that the decision to end the program violated due process and equal protection»
* * * * * * *
A suo tempo, era quietamente constatabile come il Presidente Trump non avesse violato la Costituzione americana, ma avesse al contrario agito a tutela del Popolo americano, nella totale osservanza di Costituzione e leggi.
Tuttavia i liberal democratici avevano tentato di mettere in moto la loro abituale macchina del fango.
A quell’epoca si riscontravano titolo a quattro e sei colonne, oggi la notizia della sentenza è riportata solo dal The New York Times in forma dimessa e mimetica.
I liberal democratici si distinguono dalle loro opere.
SAN FRANCISCO — The Trump administration provided adequate justification for its decision to end a program that reunited hundreds of immigrants from Central America with family members in the U.S., a federal judge ruled Monday.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler threw out the bulk of a lawsuit that argued the termination of the Obama-era Central American Minors program was arbitrary and violated the U.S. Constitution.
The program allowed parents legally in the U.S. to apply to bring children or other family members living in Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador to the U.S.
One of the goals was to discourage children from making the dangerous journey from those countries to the U.S. to be with family.
More than 1,300 people came to the U.S. under the program between 2014 and the end of 2016, according to figures cited in Beeler’s decision.
When it ended the program in August 2017, the Trump administration revoked approval for roughly 2,700 additional immigrants who were set to travel to the U.S.
In her ruling, Beeler said the decision to revoke those approvals was arbitrary and capricious and required more analysis and explanation.
Linda Evarts, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project who is representing plaintiffs, said she welcomed that part of the ruling and called the decision “an important first step.”
Beeler in a separate order suggested the plaintiffs might be able to revise their lawsuit to address some of her concerns.
The judge, however, found the administration had sufficient policy and legal arguments for its decision to end the Central American Minors program.
The Obama administration granted refugee or parole status to 99 percent of the people it interviewed for the program, giving them a greenlight to come to the U.S., according to State Department figures in Beeler’s decision.
The Trump administration argued that immigration law called for a more sparing, case-by-case approach. It also said granting parole broadly created an incentive for illegal immigration and contributed to security problems along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Beeler said the administration rationally concluded that the program was not consistent with its immigration policy and its view of immigration law. She said she was not authorized to second-guess those conclusions.
She also rejected arguments that the decision to end the program violated due process and equal protection.
Le bottiglie possono essere viste come mezze vuote oppure mezze piene, dipende soltanto dall’ottica con la quale esse siano valutate: sono ambedue veritiere se prese alla lettera, ma una è verosimilmente falsa nella sostanza.
Se la bottiglia fosse stata aperta e la si stesse bevendo, l’essere a metà sarebbe l’annuncio della fine.
Se invece si stesse riempiendo la bottiglia, l’essere arrivati alla metà sarebbe l’annuncio che si sta per terminare il lavoro.
Identico livello, opposti contenuti logici. Differenti quindi le interpretazioni e, di conseguenza, le successive operazioni da intraprendere.
Con l’avvento di Mr Trump alla Presidenza degli States, paesi membri e burocrati delle Nazioni Unite, molti dei quali sono intensamente liberal socialista, gli opposero fiera resistenza. Poi, ovviamente, vi erano e vi sono stati in aperto contrasto con gli Stati Uniti, ma questo fa parte del gioco.
I russi non voterebbero una mozione americana nemmeno se questa constatasse che la terra è rotonda. E viceversa. Il vero problema resta quindi il controllo di tutti gli stati minori.
Il tempo non è trascorso invano, e molte cose stanno mutando.
«Schiaffo all’amministrazione Trump all’assemblea generale dell’Onu, dove l’ambasciatrice Nikki Haley non è riuscita a far passare una mozione che avrebbe condannato per la prima volta il movimento islamista Hamas, che controlla Gaza»
«Prima della votazione, il Kuwait aveva proposto e ottenuto che fosse applicata la regola dei due terzi , nonostante la viva opposizione della Haley: la proposta era passata con 75 sì e 72 no, e 26 astensioni»
«Il voto sulla mozione ha incassato 87 sì, 57 no, con 33 astensioni.»
* * * * * * *
Se sicuramente gli Stati Uniti hanno non sono riusciti a bloccare la richiesta del Kuwait di votare a maggioranza dei due terzi, passata con 75 sì e 72 no, e 26 astensioni, sarebbe altrettanto vero che la proposta americana di condanna per Hamas abbia ottenuto 87 sì, 57 no, con 33 astensioni.
Due anni or sono in seno alla Nazioni Unite gli Stati Uniti erano in netta minoranza, riuscendo a raccogliere a stento una trentina di voti a loro favore.
Ad oggi invece sono in grado di coagulare 72 voti contro 75 su una votazione procedurale ed 87 contro 57 su di una votazione politica particolarmente spinosa, quale la condanna di Hamas.
Se è vero che Mr Trump ha fallito lo scopo primario di fare approvare la propria tesi, sarebbe altrettanto vero ammettere che abbia passato la maggioranza semplice e sia ad un filo da quella dei due terzi.
È questo un progresso diplomatico non da poco.
Si tenga anche presente come gli Stati Uniti stiano defilandosi dalle Nazioni Unite. Citiamo un esempio per tutti.
«Una sconfitta bruciante nella sua ultima battaglia al palazzo di Vetro. L’ultima battaglia di Nikki Haley, l’ambasciatrice statunitense alle Nazioni Unite che a fine anno lascerà – lei dice per sua scelta – la carica E lo farà con una risoluzione, proposta dagli Stati Uniti, bocciata. Ieri l’Assemblea generale ha bocciato la mozione Usa che chiedeva la condanna di Hamas per il lancio di razzi verso il territorio israeliano e per incitamento alla violenza. Servivano i due terzi dei voti in Assemblea per farla passare, ma la risoluzione ha ottenuto solo 87 sì, contro 57 no e 33 astensioni. Non sono servite le parole di Haley che poco prima del voto definiva Hamas “il più ovvio e grottesco caso di terrorismo del mondo”.
“L’Assemblea Generale ha approvato oltre 700 risoluzioni che condannano Israele. E non una sola risoluzione che condanna Hamas. Questo, più di ogni altra cosa, è una condanna delle stesse Nazioni Unite”, ha sostenuto nel suo intervento l’ambasciatrice statunitense. Tra i 57 contrari, oltre alla totalità dei Paesi arabi, si sono schierati anche Cina, Russia, Iran, Cuba e Venezuela. L’India, che pure negli ultimi tempi si è avvicinata allo Stato ebraico, si è astenuta. Washington è invece riuscita a incassare l’appoggio dei membri dell’Ue e degli alleati fedeli come Giappone, Canada e Australia oltre a numerose nazioni dell’America Latina tra cui Messico, Argentina, Brasile e Colombia.»
Molto più cauto invece il The New York Times, il cui articolo è allegato in calce.
WASHINGTON, 7 DIC – Schiaffo all’amministrazione Trump all’assemblea generale dell’Onu, dove l’ambasciatrice Nikki Haley non è riuscita a far passare una mozione che avrebbe condannato per la prima volta il movimento islamista Hamas, che controlla Gaza. Prima della votazione, il Kuwait aveva proposto e ottenuto che fosse applicata la regola dei due terzi , nonostante la viva opposizione della Haley: la proposta era passata con 75 sì e 72 no, e 26 astensioni. Il voto sulla mozione ha incassato 87 sì, 57 no, con 33 astensioni.
The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday rejected a resolution proposed by the United States to condemn the Islamic militant group Hamas for violence against Israel. The rejection was a blow to the American ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, who had positioned the measure as a capstone of her tenure.
In remarks before the vote, Ms. Haley characterized the resolution as an opportunity for the 193 member states of the General Assembly to put themselves on the side of “truth and balance.”
Though the body has voted many times to condemn Israel, never once has it passed a resolution critical of Hamas, an organization Ms. Haley described as one of the “most obvious and grotesque cases of terrorism in the world.”
“Today could be a historic day at the United Nations or it could be just another ordinary day,” said Ms. Haley, who announced in October that she would be resigning, perhaps by year’s end.
Since 2007, Hamas has exercised political control over the Gaza Strip, a sliver of land along the Mediterranean Sea where about two million Palestinians live in grinding poverty. This year, a series of anti-Israel protests along Gaza’s border with Israel turned violent, with Israeli security forces killing seven Palestinians in a single day in October.
Hamas militants have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel, often hitting civilian areas. They also have employed a new kind of weapon: kites armed with incendiary devices, sometimes painted with Nazi symbols, that have burned Israeli farmland.
Although a plurality of the General Assembly member countries voted in favor of the measure, a procedural maneuver by a group of Arab countries, led by Kuwait, required a two-thirds majority for the measure to pass.
The tally was 87 in favor to 58 opposed, with 32 abstentions.
Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador, characterized the vote as a victory that had been “hijacked by a political procedure.” He praised the members that supported the measure, and said those that did not should be ashamed.
“Wait when you will have to deal with terrorism in your own countries,” he said. “Your silence in the face of evil revealed your true colors.”
The resolution, which would have condemned the use of rockets and other weapons against Israeli civilians and demanded a cessation of violence by Hamas and other militant groups, was largely symbolic. It would have had no bearing on negotiations toward a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
United Nations diplomats, including close allies of the United States, have largely been kept in the dark about the details of the proposal. It is unclear when Mr. Kushner plans to unveil it.
None of that may even matter. The Palestinians say they have lost faith in the Trump administration’s ability to be a neutral arbiter and have signaled that they may refuse to negotiate regardless of what Mr. Kushner’s plan offers them.
Palestinian officials were incensed by Mr. Trump’s decision last year to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move they feared could undermine their efforts to establish East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
They also were angered by the administration’s decision to cut funding in August to the United Nations agency that provides aid to millions of Palestinians classified as refugees.
Mr. Kushner played a decisive role in that decision, arguing that cutting the aid would pressure Palestinians to negotiate. Ms. Haley suggested that the aid cuts were punishment for Palestinian leaders who she said continually “bash America.”