Click on the Manage Content for adding and managing content.
Click on the Rotator Settings and choose what and how it will be displayed.

Dodging the drones: Aerial attackers stalk Ukrainian troops, and a CNN team, on a key road to the front

Kraig Pakulski 0 12 Article rating: No rating
Ukrainian soldiers walk along the so-called

By Nick Paton Walsh, CNN

Druzhkivka, eastern Ukraine (CNN) — The “Road of Life” – pockmarked, laden with torched vehicles and covered with netting to block drones – fights its name. A lifeline resupplying Ukrainian troops on the toughest of front lines, sometimes by robotic delivery, the stretch of asphalt from Druzhkivka to Kostyantynivka is purely about survival.

Ukrainian troops, often emerging exhausted after months pinned down in the same position, move almost exclusively by foot, passing the burned-out vehicles of those who chose to try to dodge the drones with speed, rather than by being small.

Drones now rule the war in Ukraine and the only protection from Russia’s endless stream of aerial attacks is to hide in the trees, shoot them down, or ultimately hope they decide on another, bigger target – normally vehicles, or military equipment.

It’s a technological shift that’s reconfigured modern warfare and, for now at least, given Ukraine breathing room against a much larger adversary. But for troops operating in the so-called “kill zone,” extending miles deep along the front lines, every move in the open risks lethal peril.

The CNN team walked a small, supposedly safer section of the road between two Ukrainian positions, accompanied by Kosta, Sasha and Bohdan, from the 24th Mechanized Brigade. An hour’s proposed walk each way turned into a five-hour ordeal, with at least 14 attacks from, or close encounters with, Russian drones.

The first comes quickly, and just after a rare pair of tanks have passed. The buzz of drones above, and then gunfire, the woodland and damaged houses around suddenly alive with the Ukrainian troops hidden in them, firing at the skies. It is a cue to run into a courtyard, as our escorts try to see if there is any target to fire at, in the grey, overcast soup above.

On the road outside, Sasha and Kosta are bolder, firing from the open. And they hit their target, the thud of the drone’s explosive payload flashing on the tarmac, about 500 feet away. We have to keep moving, as others may follow.

Drone warfare turns frontline norms on their head. Armor is a prime target, and a liability. Clusters of troops are a target. The protective netting that arches over so many of the roads in the eastern Donbas region – stopping drones in their tracks – is not your friend here, but a limitation on movement. When you hear a drone, you must run for the foliage, where you can hide and they cannot fly. Walk inside the protective nets, and you need to find, or cut, a hole to get into the woods.

Dodging drones also flips the human instinct to seek safety in numbers. You have to split apart, run from each other, as being alone makes you less interesting to a Russian attack pilot. A radio warning has our team running for the green again, the buzz above, gunfire echoing all around.

After an hour, the drone’s ubiquitous hum becomes hard to distinguish – is it your ears, or imagination? Your senses do not relax, but it is hard to remain as concerned by every drone noise as in the first minutes.

Our encounters with drones usually end with the explosive crash of one falling nearby. It is unclear who shot it down, where it was headed, or if it was alone. But the need to move washes away any time to process.

One drone flies right above our heads. Sasha and Bohdan’s fire – rifles at a distance and a shotgun when up close – bring it down. The damaged propellers whir eeri

Corte Suprema rechaza apelaciones de las farmacéuticas que impugnaban los precios de los medicamentos negociados con Medicare

Kraig Pakulski 0 11 Article rating: No rating

Por John Fritze y Tami Luhby, CNN

Este lunes, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos rechazó una serie de apelaciones de varias de las mayores farmacéuticas del país que impugnaban un programa que obliga a las empresas a negociar con Medicare los precios de algunos de sus medicamentos más populares. Se espera que esta iniciativa les ahorre miles de millones de dólares a los contribuyentes y al Gobierno federal.

La decisión de la Corte de desestimar las apelaciones, sin dar explicaciones, mantiene vigentes varias sentencias de tribunales inferiores que respaldan el programa que el Congreso promulgó en 2022. Otros litigios relacionados con el programa aún están pendientes.

La cuestión radica en una disposición de la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación de 2022, que permite a Medicare negociar los precios de ciertos medicamentos por primera vez, tras años de debate sobre si dicha negociación constituiría, en la práctica, una fijación de precios por parte del Gobierno. Sin embargo, el aumento del costo de los medicamentos recetados ha incrementado la presión financiera sobre Medicare y sus beneficiarios.

Las farmacéuticas, entre ellas AstraZeneca y Janssen, afirmaron que el programa conduce a una “negociación simulada”, que viola sus derechos al debido proceso. La mayoría también argumentó que el programa viola la Primera Enmienda porque las obliga a “adoptar la versión del Gobierno” sobre un acuerdo negociado. Los tribunales inferiores rechazaron estos argumentos, y señalaron que las empresas son libres de retirar sus productos de los programas de salud gubernamentales.

Según le informó la administración de Trump a la Corte Suprema, solo en 2021 el Gobierno federal gastó más de US$ 250.000 millones en medicamentos cubiertos por Medicare.

La primera ronda de negociaciones abarcó 10 medicamentos y se espera que genere un ahorro de US$ 6.000 millones para el Gobierno federal y una reducción de US$ 1.500 millones en los gastos de bolsillo para las personas mayores, según anunció la administración de Biden, en 2024. Los precios entraron en vigor en enero.

Entre esos medicamentos se encontraba Farxiga, fabricado por AstraZeneca, que se utiliza para tratar la diabetes, las enfermedades cardíacas y las enfermedades renales. Otro medicamento incluido en esa primera ronda fue Eliquis, un anticoagulante fabricado por Bristol Myers Squibb que se utiliza para tratar y prevenir coágulos sanguíneos y accidentes cerebrovasculares. En el caso de Farxiga, AstraZeneca informó a la Corte Suprema que el proceso de negociación, que fue el eje del caso, resultó en un descuento del 68 % sobre su precio de lista.

Según anunció eñ Gobierno de Trump, en noviembre, la segunda ronda, que abarcó 15 medicamentos, permitirá a Medicare ahorrar unos US$ 12.000 millones y reducir los gastos de bolsillo de los afiliados en US$ 685 millones cuando los precios entren en vigor, el próximo mes de enero. Las negociaciones para la tercera ronda están en marcha.

Los medicamentos se seleccionan de una lista de fármacos elegibles con el mayor gasto total de Medicare.

Las farmacéuticas y sus aliados llevan tres años litigando contra el programa de negociación de precios de medicamentos de Medicare. Se han presentado numerosas demandas en distintos distritos de Estados Unidos. Hasta la fecha, todas las decisiones han sido desfavorables para la industria, ya que los jueces han dictaminado que la participación en Medicare es voluntaria y que las empresas pueden retirarse si no están conformes con el precio que ofrece el Gobierno.

Entre las impugnaciones legales que presentan los fabricantes se encuentra la de que se los obliga a entregar sus medicamentos a Medicare sin la debida compensación, según Andrew Twinamatsiko, director del Centro de Política Sanitaria y Derecho del Instituto O’Neill de la Universidad de Georgetown. Las compañías farmacéuticas afirman que esto constituye una e

A potential helipad and new parking spots are the latest changes at the White House

Kraig Pakulski 0 30 Article rating: No rating
President Donald Trump speaks to the press before boarding Marine One as he departs from the South Lawn of the White House on February 27.

By Kevin Liptak, CNN

(CNN) — Two new projects at the White House aim to resolve a common problem: where to park.

In one case, the parking spot in question is for Marine One, the green-and-white helicopter whose designated space is on the South Lawn grass.

The other is for administration staffers, whose rank can often be ascertained by how close to the executive mansion they’re allowed to pull their cars.

Both projects are the latest changes to the White House grounds overseen by President Donald Trump, who has taken personal interest in overhauling the historic campus to solve what he says are modern-day problems.

In the case of the helicopter, the problem stems from the high-velocity heat blasted downward by a new model used for presidential transport, the VH-92A Patriot. In test runs, the exhaust has scorched the grass.

To fix the issue, Trump has discussed plans to install a helipad on the White House grounds, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Currently, Marine One lands on three small round planks that are placed on the grass shortly before it arrives. Landing on a permanent spot without any vegetation underneath could avoid damage to the turf.

The burnt-grass problem has prevented use of the new helicopter at the White House for years. While Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden both used the new model outside Washington, an older model that the Pentagon is trying to retire is required to ferry the president from the South Lawn to points afield.

“President Trump has continued to make improvements at the White House and all around D.C. to benefit future presidents and Americans,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in response to questions about plans for the helipad, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

On the other side of the building, a different parking solution is emerging. Over the weekend, yellow lines denoting parking spots appeared on a pedestrianized stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue opposite the North Portico.

The sight of a new parking lot in the spot where tourists often congregate to admire the White House alarmed many. But the White House quickly explained it was temporary.

“It is temporary staff parking through June 28 to accommodate projects and events within the White House complex,” an official administration social media account said.

Staff parking at the White House is a hierarchy. Those with the highest rank are given spots to park on West Executive Drive, which runs between the West Wing and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The further down the ladder, the farther the parking spot from the building. Mid- and low-level staffers park on the Ellipse, which can be a hike from the offices inside the complex.

Next month, Trump is hosting a UFC fight on the South Lawn and a “fan fest” on the Ellipse, potentially disrupting some of the normal staff parking. The new spots on Pennsylvania Avenue are far closer to the working areas of the White House.

The stretch where the spots were created has been closed for months as renovations proceed in Lafayette Park — another pet project of Trump, who insisted on seeing the fountains working again and the grass repaired.

The avenue has been closed to vehicle traffic

Trump retira una demanda contra el IRS en medio de conversaciones sobre un fondo de US$ 1.800 millones para aliados

Kraig Pakulski 0 14 Article rating: No rating

Por Tierney Sneed y Casey Gannon, CNN

El presidente Donald Trump retiró su demanda de US$ 10.000 millones contra el Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS), según documentos judiciales, una señal de que la administración se prepara para avanzar con un plan destinado a establecer un fondo de US$ 1.800 millones que compensaría a aquellos que consideren haber sido objeto de investigaciones injustas bajo administraciones anteriores.

El escrito judicial presentado la mañana del lunes no proporciona detalles sobre ningún acuerdo extrajudicial. En cambio, señala que el caso se encontraba aún en una fase muy preliminar. Los abogados de Trump afirmaron que esto significaba que él no necesitaba solicitar permiso para desestimar la demanda, ni el IRS requería dar su consentimiento para dicha desestimación. El documento indicaba que la desestimación se realizaba “con perjuicio”, lo cual impediría a Trump la posibilidad de intentar volver a presentar el caso en el futuro.

En enero, Trump —junto con sus hijos, Donald Trump Jr. y Eric Trump— demandó al IRS y al Departamento del Tesoro por una suma de al menos US$ 10.000 millones. La demanda acusaba al IRS de haber filtrado de manera no autorizada las declaraciones de impuestos de Trump correspondientes a su primer mandato presidencial.

La demanda de Trump alegaba que el IRS no cumplió con su obligación de proteger la información fiscal confidencial, así como la información tributaria de la Organización Trump. Charles Littlejohn, un excontratista del IRS, fue sentenciado a cinco años de prisión por haber filtrado los registros fiscales de Trump, junto con los registros de miles de otras personas.

Trump demandó al IRS en su calidad de ciudadano particular, y no en su calidad de presidente.

Poco después de que Trump presentara la demanda, la jueza federal que preside el caso en Florida —la jueza de distrito Kathleen Williams— expresó su escepticismo respecto a si este constituía el tipo de disputa legal legítima que correspondía tramitar en su tribunal.

La jueza solicitó a un grupo de abogados externos que le presentaran un informe sobre dicha cuestión. Estos abogados también plantearon inquietudes acerca de la idoneidad de que un presidente en ejercicio solicitara una compensación económica por motivos personales contra una agencia gubernamental perteneciente a su propio poder ejecutivo.

Este acuerdo se suma a varios otros alcanzados en el marco de demandas presentadas por aliados de Trump.

En marzo, el Departamento llegó a un acuerdo extrajudicial con Michael Flynn. Flynn había demandado al Gobierno por US$ 50 millones, acusando al FBI de haber intentado tenderle una trampa durante los primeros días de la administración Trump. Como resultado del acuerdo, Flynn recibió una compensación superior al millón de dólares.

Carter Page, exasesor de la campaña de Trump, también llegó a un acuerdo extrajudicial con la administración Trump en el mes de abril. Page había demandado al Departamento de Justicia y al FBI por la vigilancia gubernamental defectuosa a la que fue sometido debido a sus contactos con Rusia en 2016.

Minutos después de que el equipo legal de Trump notificara al tribunal el lunes que se retiraba la demanda, cerca de 100 demócratas de la Cámara de Representantes presentaron un escrito en calidad de “amigos del tribunal”, acusando a Trump de “flagrante actuación en beneficio propio”.

En el escrito señalaron que, si Trump pretendía someter el caso voluntariamente para facilitar dicho acuerdo extrajudicial, el tribunal debería examinar minuciosamente esa maniobra en virtud de una norma legal que le permitiría sancionar a los abogados implicados.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Read more

Spanish court orders tax authority to repay Shakira $64 million over wrongful fines

Kraig Pakulski 0 17 Article rating: No rating
Shakira was found not to be resident in Spain for personal income tax purposes.

By Jack Guy, CNN

(CNN) — Spain’s tax authority has been ordered to repay Colombian superstar Shakira more than 55 million euros ($64 million) after a court in Madrid ruled that it had mistakenly pursued her for unpaid taxes.

Tax officials imposed massive fines on the singer in 2021 after concluding that she had spent more than 183 days in Spain in 2011, and was therefore liable to pay personal income tax, according to a statement from the Audiencia Nacional high court published Monday.

However, Shakira was only in Spain for 163 days, meaning she wasn’t a resident of the country for tax purposes, the court added.

Shakira and her representatives hailed a “decisive and historic ruling” in a statement Monday.

“After more than eight years of enduring brutal public targeting, orchestrated campaigns to destroy my reputation, and sleepless nights that ultimately impacted my health and my family’s well-being, the National High Court has finally set the record straight,” the singer said.

“Every step of the process was leaked, distorted, and amplified, using my name and public image to send a threatening message to the rest of the taxpayers. Today, that narrative crumbles, and it does so with the full force of a court ruling,” she added.

The Audiencia Nacional emphasized that its ruling refers only to taxes due in 2011.

In 2023, Shakira settled a separate tax evasion suit related to the period 2012-2014.

The Grammy-winning singer admitted the charges against her and agreed to pay the amount owed in full and an additional fine, according to a statement released by the Barcelona prosecutor’s office at the time.

She paid a total of €17.5 million ($20 million), an amount composed of the taxes owed plus interest, as well as a fine of €7.3 million ($8.5 million), the statement said.

Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of more than eight years in prison if Shakira were convicted on all six counts of tax fraud. But the settlement said that, instead of prison, she would pay additional fines of about $437 a day for a three-year sentence, or just over $470,000.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Al Goodman and Claudia Rebaza contributed to this report.

The post Spanish court orders tax authority to repay Shakira $64 million over wrongful fines appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

RSS
First854855856857859861862863Last