Le Journal

Análisis por Aaron Blake, CNN La próxima semana podría llegar el momento que el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de EE.UU., Mike Johnson, ha estado postergando de una forma u otra durante casi cuatro meses: la votación sobre si se divulgan los archivos de Jeffrey Epstein. A finales de julio Johnson adelantó un día el receso de cinco semanas de la Cámara de Representantes para sofocar una creciente rebelión republicana. Posteriormente, mantuvo a la Cámara en receso durante un período extraordinariamente largo durante el cierre del Gobierno. Esto le brindó la ventaja —ya fuera su propósito expreso o no— de tener una excusa para no juramentar al decisivo miembro número 218, necesario para forzar la votación. El presidente Donald Trump tampoco deseaba claramente esta votación. El miércoles emprendió una infructuosa campaña de última hora para convencer al puñado de republicanos que firmaron la petición de destitución. Pero la votación se acerca, y Johnson ha anunciado que la programará para la próxima semana. ¿Qué sucederá después? ¿Qué implicaciones tendrá la votación? ¿Y cuál es la dinámica política en juego? No es el final del camino, pero sin duda es un momento significativo que podría marcar un nuevo rumbo en la saga de Epstein. Lo primero que cabe destacar es que, a pesar de la oposición, esta votación no es el fin último. No es que la Cámara de Representantes apruebe el proyecto de ley y, de repente, el departamento de Justicia publique todos los archivos del caso Epstein. El proyecto de ley aún tendría que ser aprobado por el Senado y firmado por el presidente. Pero es evidente que hay una razón por la que Johnson y la administración Trump no querían la votación. El temor parece ser que: 1) esto crearía una decisión muy difícil para muchos congresistas republicanos. 2) podría presionar al Senado y a la administración para que hicieran lo mismo, especialmente si se aprueba por un amplio margen en la Cámara de Representantes. Y el amplio margen parece ser lo que muchos anticipan. CNN informó esta semana que la dirección republicana de la Cámara de Representantes prevé deserciones masivas. El principal copatrocinador republicano de la petición, el representante Thomas Massie de Kentucky, tampoco está precisamente rebajando las expectativas. Ha fijado un umbral de éxito de dos tercios de la Cámara, o casi 290 votos, si todos los miembros están presentes. Ese es el punto en el que suficientes miembros apoyan la medida como para que pueda superar un veto presidencial. “Si de alguna manera logramos obtener dos tercios de los votos aquí en la Cámara de Representantes, eso ejerce mucha presión sobre el Senado, y además, si el Senado lo aprueba, será un paso muy serio para el presidente”, apuntó Massie a CNN. Eso sí que sería una victoria muy simbólica. No solo demostraría que una amplia mayoría bipartidista de la Cámara de Representantes quiere que se publiquen los archivos, sino que sugeriría que la cámara podría, de hecho, anular el intento de Trump de bloquearlo, aunque no se llegue a dar ese caso. Se necesitarían aproximadamente 75 de los 219 republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes, si todos los demócratas votaran a favor. Varios republicanos ya han dicho que votarán a favor del proyecto de ley, a pesar de no haber apoyado la petición de destitución de Massie. (Solo cuatro firmaron la petición). También estamos viendo cómo todo esto podría empezar a tener repercusión en el Senado, donde el senador John Kennedy de Louisiana señaló rápidamente el jueves que el Partido Republicano debería optar por la total transparencia. Kennedy había votado previamente en contra de un intento inicial de los demócratas del Senado para forzar la publicación de los archivos. “No creo que este problema vaya a desaparecer hasta que se aborde y se le dé una respuesta que satisfaga al pueblo estadounidense”, manifestó Kennedy a Kasie Hunt de CNN. “Y puede que me critiquen por decir esto, pero así es como lo veo”. Los miembros…

By John Fritze, CNN (CNN) — As she oversaw President Donald Trump’s emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, case this past week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once again proved she isn’t beholden to Supreme Court custom. The least senior justice, who has been the court’s most consistent critic of the second Trump administration, appeared to be sending signals not only about the technicalities of the SNAP case but also more subtle messages about the way the court has handled a litany of short-fuse appeals on its emergency docket this year dealing with presidential power. She did all that, oddly enough, by siding with Trump. “She’s modeling the way that the emergency docket should be used,” said Elizabeth Wydra, the president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. Since joining the court three years ago, Jackson has drawn attention for a sharp pen. That has been particularly notable in a series of cutting dissents she has written this year calling out the Trump administration for what she has framed as “lawlessness.” And she has not spared her colleagues for acquiescing to the White House in some of those decisions. “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote in August when the court allowed the Trump administration to halt about $800 million in research grants. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.” That pointed prose and her unflinching willingness to criticize her colleagues has made Jackson, who was nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, a divisive figure. “Even before the SNAP case, Justice Jackson had already emerged as the most vocal, most frequent, and sharpest critic of the majority’s inconsistent, difficult-to-justify, and often unjustified behavior in Trump-related cases,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Her machinations in the case, Vladeck said, underscored “a justice who is using every possible strategic and tactical maneuver behind the scenes to try to push the court toward what she believes the right answer is, but who is unafraid of sending increasingly loud public signals when those efforts are, as they so often have been this year, ultimately for naught.” The appeal on funding for SNAP emerged as the highest-profile legal case of the government shutdown. A lower court ordered the US Department of Agriculture to transfer $4 billion from another fund to pay full SNAP benefits for November – an order that the administration appealed as an overreach of judicial power. With a midnight deadline approaching – and benefits for more than 40 million Americans hanging in the balance – the case landed in a rush at the Supreme Court on a Friday evening. Trump wanted the justices to temporarily block the lower court order, known as a “stay.” Because she handles emergency appeals from the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals, the case went to Jackson. The “circuit justice” generally plays a straightforward role, setting a briefing schedule and – in big cases – ultimately referring the matter to the full court. But as he has raced up to the Supreme Court this year in case after case, Trump has been asking for something else as well: An even shorter-term order known as an “administrative stay,” which freezes the lower court decision while the justices review the written arguments in the case. That administrative decision, usually, rests with the assigned justice – in this case, Jackson. A former trial court judge who recently took up boxing as a way to relieve stress, Jackson ultimately granted Trump’s request, a move that initially raised anxiety among liberals and cheers from conservatives on social media. But Jackson also took several steps that were a departure from how other justices have handled administrative stays. First, Jackson included a few paragraphs of written explanation in her order,…

Por Hanna Park, CNN Un afortunado de Georgia ganó este viernes un premio mayor estimado en US$ 980 millones en el Mega Millions, el octavo premio más grande en la historia del juego, informó la lotería. El boleto ganador contenía los siguientes seis números: 1, 8, 11, 12, 57 y Mega Ball 7. Este acierto pone fin a una racha de 39 sorteos sin ganador del premio mayor y es la primera vez desde junio que alguien se lleva el máximo galardón. En el sorteo anterior, un boleto vendido en Virginia ganó US$ 348 millones. El afortunado puede optar por recibir los US$ 980 millones en pagos anuales durante 30 años, o por una entrega única en efectivo de US$ 452,2 millones, todo antes de impuestos. Este es el mayor premio de Mega Millions desde la reforma del juego en abril, que elevó el precio de los boletos a US$ 5, ajustó las probabilidades y aumentó el bote inicial a US$ 50 millones. Según la lotería, con el nuevo sistema, las probabilidades de ganar el bote son ahora de 1 entre 290 millones. En el último sorteo, un boleto vendido en Michigan ganó US$ 3 millones al acertar los cinco números blancos y el multiplicador 3X, informó la lotería. Otros 22 tickets acertaron cuatro números blancos y la Mega Ball, ganando US$ 20.000. El premio mayor récord de Mega Millions asciende a US$ 1.600 millones, conseguido por un solo boleto vendido en Florida en agosto de 2023. The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved. The post Un solo boleto vendido en Georgia gana el premio mayor de US$ 980 millones del Mega Millions appeared first on KRDO.

By Joseph Ataman, CNN Paris (CNN) — It was a late September night when muffled blasts and a stream of bubbles broke the surface of the Baltic Sea. Explosions had ripped through the two Nord Stream gas pipelines, Russia’s gas highway into Europe, months after Moscow’s full invasion of Ukraine. Years later, shockwaves from that night are still rippling across the continent. The 2022 attack on the hugely controversial pipelines triggered an international whodunnit, with suspicion falling immediately on Russia and even the US being forced to deny involvement. Today, intrigue continues to swirl around the blasts even as Germany readies a prosecution against the suspected Ukrainian saboteurs. And Poland’s efforts to stymie the case – seemingly to shield its ally Ukraine – has thrown up new tensions in Europe. Germany seems determined for Nord Stream to gets its day in court, filing arrest warrants for two Ukrainian men – Volodymyr Zhuravlov, who was detained in Poland, and Serhii Kuznietsov, who was detained in Italy – suspected of involvement in the blast. Leaders of other nations have cast doubt on whether criminal proceedings should be brought against those allegedly responsible. A decision by a Polish court in mid-October to free Zhuravlov, after slow-balling the man’s extradition, has severely undercut Berlin’s hopes of a prosecution. In the eyes of the judge, if the Nord Stream blasts were a Ukrainian act of sabotage, that would be a justified response to an unprovoked invasion. “If Ukraine was indeed the organizer of this act of aggression, then only Ukraine can be held responsible for this event,” Judge Dariusz Lubowski said in his verdict halting Zhuravlov’s extradition to Germany, CNN affiliate TVN24 reported. The 49-year-old Ukrainian claims he had nothing to do with the attack and that he was in Ukraine at the time it happened, according to TVN24. German prosecutors allege Zhuravlov, a “trained diver,” was “part of a group of individuals who placed explosives on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines near the island of Bornholm in September 2022.” The team allegedly used fake identities to rent a yacht to ferry them and their equipment to the blast site. Serhii Kuznietsov, a 49-year-old former Ukrainian soldier and an alleged coordinator of the operation, was detained on a German warrant in Italy in late August. Kuznietsov’s defense lawyer Nicola Canestrini told CNN that the Ukrainian denies any wrongdoing and he is currently appealing Italy’s Supreme Court’s decision to extradite him to Germany. “Europe’s problem, Ukraine’s problem, the problem of Lithuania and Poland, is not that Nord Stream 2 was blown up, but that it was built,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told journalists in early October. “It is certainly not in the interest of Poland, nor in the interest of decency and justice, to prosecute or extradite this citizen to another state,” he added. Tusk’s stance reflects long-standing concerns over the pipelines within Europe and beyond. As far back as 2007, Poland’s then-defense minister Radek Sikorski railed against the proposed Nord Stream 1 pipeline as, “the most outrageous attempt by Mr Putin to divide and damage the EU.” Europe’s dependency on Russian hydrocarbons has faced opposition from US administrations going back to the White House of George W. Bush. That feeling has long been bipartisan: as Republican Senator Ted Cruz told senators in 2019: the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, “if completed, would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy, even more vulnerable to Russian blackmail.” In Europe, the Polish stance exposed divisions in Europe. “Shocking” was how Peter Szijjarto, foreign minister of Hungary – one of Russia’s few allies on the continent and the recent recipient of a US exemption allowing them to continue buying Russian oil and gas – described Tusk’s stance. “One thing is clear: we don’t want a Europe where prime ministers defend terrorists,” he wrote on X. For many in Europe’s…