Ex-presidente Toledo negociou pagamento em reunião no Rio de Janeiro, dizem delatores
Keiko Fujimori, PPK, Mercedes Arroz y Alejandro Toledo
Se a política peruana fosse um jogo de boliche, a delação de executivos da Odebrecht poderia, sem exageros, ser comparada a um strike. A imagem resume bem o efeito do que ocorreu no país vizinho desde dezembro de 2016, quando a gigantesca colaboração foi assinada. Foram, em maior ou menor grau, envolvidos na Lava-Jato o atual presidente, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, o PPK, sua vice, Mercedes Arioza, os ex-presidentes Ollanta Humala e Alejandro Toledo, e a candidata a presidente derrotada Keiko Fujimori.
Humala, atualmente no presídio Barbadillo, em Lima, pode não ser o único a ser preso. Os delatores entregam detalhes de um enredo de pagamentos de caixa dois feitos pelo Setor de Operações Estruturadas semelhante ao de seus adversários políticos, hoje também sob investigação. O caso com mais detalhes, entretanto, envolve bem mais do que caixa dois.
O ex-presidente Alejandro Toledo, hoje foragido nos Estados Unidos, já tem uma ordem de prisão expedida em decorrência da Lava-Jato, sob a acusação de ter negociado propina numa reunião no Rio de Janeiro. Os delatores afirmam que, em contrapartida por criar condições que permitissem a empresa ganhar a licitação da rodovia Interoceânica, que ligaria o Brasil ao Oceano Pacífico, Toledo recebeu de suborno US$ 20 milhões entre 2006 e 2008.
A propina teria sido depositada em contas de empresas do grupo empresarial Josef Maiman, um dos principais financiadores da campanha de Toledo.
Na delação, há ainda relatos de pagamentos de propina para que a Odebrecht conquistasse, além de dois trechos da Interoceânica, a linha um do metrô de Lima, o trecho no estado Callao da estrada Vía Costa Verde, uma estrada em Cusco, na região dos Andes, e outra no estrado Carhuaz.
DEPOIMENTO DE MARCELO ODEBRECHT
Contra Keiko Fujimori, a primogênita do ex-presidente e ditador Alberto Fujimori, o mais robusto dentre os documentos a que o GLOBO teve acesso é o depoimento de Marcelo Odebrecht de maio passado. Ele fala explicitamente que doou em caixa dois para Keiko, que encarna o discurso de defesa da ética na política. Pelo Twitter, ela negou a acusação: “Eu não conheço o senhor Marcelo Odebrecht”.
Em depoimento, Odebrecht ainda revelou que o ex-ministro da Fazenda Antonio Palocci, preso pela Lava-Jato e negociando um acordo de delação, teria tido papel decisivo em pagamentos ilícitos ao ex-presidente Ollanta Humala.
“Todos grandes candidatos esperavam de certa maneira que nós doássemos. A atuação do Antonio Palocci foi decisiva para doarmos para o Ollanta Humala, mas todos esperavam”, afirmou Marcelo Odebrecht em seu depoimento de maio.
Se a versão peruana da Lava-Jato avançar, o atual presidente, PPK, e sua vice, Mercedes Arraoz, também podem ter problemas. Contra ela, paira a acusação de ter recebido caixa dois na campanha presidencial de 2011 — o que ela nega.
Já PPK vive em meio ao fantasma da Interoceânica, a mesma que pode levar Toledo à cadeia. O atual presidente era ministro da Economia no governo Toledo, que tinha na rodovia uma de suas maiores peças de propaganda. Embora a quebra do sigilo bancário de PPK não tenha apontado nenhum recurso vindo das construtoras brasileiras, uma investigação da Justiça peruana ainda apura se PPK beneficiou a Odebrecht. O presidente nega as acusações.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump plans to join with two Republican senators to unveil legislation that would place new limits on legal immigration. It would seek an immigration system based on merit and jobs skills instead of family connections.
Trump was appearing with Republican Sens. David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the bill. The president said at an Ohio rally last month that he was working with the conservative senators to “create a new immigration system for America.”
Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a hallmark of his administration and has tried to slash federal grants for cities that refuse to comply with federal efforts to detain and deport those living in the country illegally.
His involvement will put him at the centre of efforts to make changes to the legal immigration system. Previewing the event, White House officials said the bill would aim to create a skills-based immigration system to make the U.S. more competitive, raise wages and create jobs.
The White House said that only 1 in 15 immigrants comes to the U.S. because of their skills, and the current system fails to place a priority on highly skilled immigrants.
Perdue and Cotton introduced the legislation in February that would change the 1965 law to reduce the number of legal immigrants, limiting the number of people able to obtain green cards to join families already in the United States.
The bill would also aim to slash the number of refugees in half and eliminate a program that provides visas to countries with low rates of immigration.
Trump’s appearance was aimed at bringing attention to the bill, which has been largely ignored in the Senate, with no other lawmaker signing on as a co-sponsor. GOP leaders have showed no inclination to vote on immigration this year.
Some immigrant advocates have criticized the proposal, saying that slashing legal immigration would hurt industries like agriculture and harm the economy.
“Our system is broken, but the response should be to modernize it, not take a sledgehammer to it,” said Jeremy Robbins, executive director of New American Economy, a group of business leaders, mayors and others backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform.
Letrado Pedro Angulo dice que modificación planteada por el Ejecutivo atenta contra independencia y autonomía de jueces y fiscales.
Poder del Estado y Organismo Constitucionalmente Autónomo. Composición: http://www.elpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/comgreso-peru.jpg y http://cde.peru21.pe/ima/0/0/2/4/2/242341.jpg
El proyecto de ley para reformar la conformación del Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura (CNM), presentado por el presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczynski ante el Congreso, ha causado preocupación en algunas instituciones, como los colegios de abogados.
“Este proyecto, que coincide con otro que había presentado el legislador Gilbert Violeta, nos causa gran preocupación, pues se está proponiendo la eliminación de los representantes del colegio de abogados y de los demás colegios profesionales en el CNM”, dijo el decano del Colegio de Abogados de Lima, Pedro Angulo.
El letrado recalcó que se pretende hacer una modificación constitucional, que, según él, afectaría la actual conformación del CNM establecida en la Carta Magna y que violentaría su autonomía. “Lo que se está buscando es que el Ejecutivo y el Legislativo sean los que designen a los miembros del CNM, y eso pondría en una situación de precariedad la independencia y autonomía de los jueces y fiscales. Eso es lo que más nos preocupa”, manifestó a este Diario.
Adelantó que los decanos de los colegios de abogados del país se reunirán en Lima la próxima semana para expresar públicamente su discrepancia con el proyecto y exhortar al Ejecutivo a evaluar bien el asunto.
En el CNM, los colegios de abogados tienen un representante, mientras que el resto de colegios profesionales tienen dos.
El primero en salir a cuestionar el proyecto fue el presidente del CNM, Guido Aguila, quien manifestó a El Comercio que dicha propuesta es un riesgo que acabaría politizando la justicia. “El proyecto propone que los siete miembros del CNM se reduzcan a cinco y que, de esos cinco, uno sea nombrado por el Ejecutivo y el otro por el Congreso. Así, el 40% del CNM tendría un tinte político”, dijo.
Lamentó que el proyecto no se haya conversado en el Acuerdo Nacional por la Justicia, en el que se ha venido trabajando la reforma del CNM. “Ha sido una sorpresa conocer ese proyecto en el mensaje”, subrayó.
La iniciativa ha causado polémica, pues algunos la acusan de politizar la entidad encargada de nombrar, ratificar y destituir a jueces y fiscales.
¿En qué consiste la reforma que plantea el Ejecutivo para el Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura? (USI)
El presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczysnki enfatizó, en su mensaje a la Nación, la necesidad de reformar el Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura (CNM), organismo que se encarga de nombrar, ratificar y destituir a los jueces y fiscales.
En ese sentido, el gobierno presentó un proyecto de ley que ha desatado polémica pues algunos aseguran que politizará a la entidad que, según la Constitución, debe “ser independiente”.
La iniciativa plantea que los miembros de la CNM se reduzcan de siete a cinco y se seleccionen de la siguiente manera:
– Uno elegido por el Poder Ejecutivo, designado mediante resolución suprema con el voto aprobatorio del Consejo de Ministros.
– Uno elegido por el Congreso, con el voto de los dos tercios del número legal de legisladores.
– Uno elegido por el Poder Judicial, entre los magistrados de la Corte Suprema jubilados y en actividad.
– Uno elegido por el Ministerio Público, entre la Junta de Fiscales Supremos jubilados y en actividad.
– Uno elegido por los miembros señalados precedentemente, de acuerdo a lo establecido en la Ley Orgánica del CNM.
Con ello, quedan excluidos de la elección el colegio de abogados del país, los demás colegios profesionales, las universidades públicas y las universidades privadas, que actualmente sí participan en la designación de los miembros de la CNM.
Sobre los requisitos para ser integrante de la CNM, el proyecto de ley indica lo siguiente:
– Ser peruano de nacimiento, ser ciudadano en ejercicio y mayor de 45 años de edad.
El miembro del CNM gozará de los mismos beneficios y derechos, y está sujeto a las mismas obligaciones e incompatibilidades que los magistrados de la Corte Suprema.
En la explicación de motivos, el Ejecutivo argumenta que con la nueva conformación se pretende un CNM más equilibrado, con mayor compromiso de parte del poder político en el mejoramiento y reforma judicial a partir de la designación de jueces y fiscales, y el compromiso de los actores de justicia y la academia.
Además, indica que al pasar de siete a cinco miembros (al excluir a los representantes de las facultades de Derecho y de los colegios profesionales), se ahorra el costo en organización y tiempo.
Cabe señalar que el vocero de la bancada de Fuerza Popular, Daniel Salaverry, sí se ha mostrado a favor de la reforma del CNM que el Ejecutivo propone. “Saludamos su propuesta y su intención de reformar el Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura”, dijo.
President Trump has removed Anthony Scaramucci from his new job as communications director, exactly 10 days after he was named to the position, sources familiar with the situation confirmed to CBS News’ Major Garrett.
The New York Times first reported the development, which said that Kelly asked Mr. Trump to remove Scaramucci from his role. The report added that Kelly also made clear Monday morning that he’s now in charge.
Scaramucci had previously bragged that he would report directly to the president rather than the chief of staff.
At a Cabinet meeting earlier in the day, Mr. Trump said, “I predict that General Kelly will go down, in terms of the position of chief of staff, one of the great ever. And we’re going to have a good time, but much more importantly, we’re going to work hard and we’re going to make America great again.”
Mr. Trump named Kelly, who had been serving as Homeland Security secretary, to the new role on Friday, replacing Reince Priebus. Priebus said that he had resigned from the position, which he had served in since the inauguration in January.
Scaramucci was viewed as a provocative figure who bumped heads with both Priebus and Sean Spicer, who resigned from his job as press secretary the same day that Scaramucci was chosen to lead the White House communications operation. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has since taken over as press secretary.
“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus — if you want to leak something — he’ll be asked to resign very shortly…Reince is a f******* paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac.”
Then using a vulgar colloquialism, Scaramucci said that Priebus had tried to block him for months, and was now giving Fox executive Bill Shine the same treatment. The entire exchange between Lizza and Scaramucci was outlined in a story published online Thursday by the New Yorker.
Scaramucci is the second communications director to leave the position. In May, Michael Dubke resigned from the gig, saying that he was leaving for personal reasons.
It was the most dramatic night in the United States Senate in recent history. Just ask the senators who witnessed it.
A seven-year quest to undo the Affordable Care Act collapsed — at least for now — as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kept his colleagues and the press corps in suspense over a little more than two hours late Thursday into early Friday.
Not since September 2008, when the House of Representatives rejected the Troubled Asset Relief Program — causing the Dow Jones industrial average to plunge nearly 800 points in a single afternoon — had such an unexpected vote caused such a striking twist.
The bold move by the nation’s most famous senator stunned his colleagues and possibly put the Senate on the verge of protracted bipartisan talks that McCain is unlikely to witness as he begins treatment for an aggressive form of brain cancer.
“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote,” he said in a statement explaining his vote. “We should not make the mistakes of the past.”
Rumors swirled late Thursday that the Arizona Republican, who had captured the nation’s sympathy this week after delaying his cancer treatment in order to return to Washington, might vote against the GOP’s “skinny repeal” plan — a watered-down version of earlier Republican proposals to repeal the 2010 health-care law.
McCain warned at a hastily arranged news conference Thursday afternoon that he was leaning against supporting the legislation unless House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) assured GOP senators that the House would not move to quickly approve the bill in its current form. McCain and Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wanted Ryan to launch broad House-Senate negotiations for a wider rollback of the law. Two hours later, Ryan issued a statement signaling he would launch negotiations, and Graham and Johnson announced their support.
McCain headed for the stage — the Senate floor — around midnight, emerging from his office in the Russell Senate Office Building for the subway ride to the U.S. Capitol.
When he arrived, he held a brief conversation with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y.), an exchange that left the New Yorker smiling.
“I knew it when he walked on the floor,” Schumer later recounted, explaining that McCain had already called to share his plans.
But few, if any, of his Republican colleagues realized what was about to transpire.
Two votes were called just after midnight. The first was on a Democratic proposal to refer the “skinny repeal” bill back to a committee. The second vote was to pass “skinny repeal,” which would have repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and rolled back a tax on medical devices.
“Let’s vote against skinny repeal,” Schumer told his colleagues before the votes as he once again derided the rushed nature of the health-care debate.
McCain stood on the Republican side of the room nodding in agreement.
With Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) already planning to vote against the plan, Republicans could not afford to lose McCain. Vice President Pence was already at the Capitol prepared to break a tie. Instead, he launched a last-ditch effort to win McCain’s support.
As the first vote began, McCain took his seat next to Graham, his closest friend in the Senate. The South Carolinian mostly nodded as McCain gesticulated, and signaled — through his body language — that he was likely to vote no. When Murkowski walked over to join the conversation, McCain winked and gave her a thumbs down — signaling his intentions.
Collins joined the group as another clutch of Republican senators formed in the well of the Senate Chamber. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who operates in McCain’s long shadow, stood next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who counts GOP votes, and Pence. Eventually, Flake was dispatched to talk to McCain.
He obliged, walked over to McCain and asked Graham to move over one seat. But McCain did not acknowledge Flake, focusing instead on Murkowski and Collins.
That left Flake, one of the most polite members of the Senate, leaning into the conversation uncomfortably with a pained look on his face, as if he had to tell his father that he had run over the family dog with his car.
Seeing that Flake was not making progress, Pence walked over at 12:44 a.m. McCain smiled, pointed at Collins and Murkowski, said something about “marching orders,” and stood up.
“Mr. Vice President,” he said, greeting Pence. For the next 21 minutes, the vice president cajoled McCain, Collins and Murkowski. Twice during the conversation, a Pence aide came to whisper in the vice president’s ear — other reporters learned it was the White House calling. Pence finally left to take a call, but later returned to speak with McCain.
By then, other senators around the room realized what was happening.
“You could see the body language in the entire chamber change in two hours,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) recalled. “One side was kind of ebullient, moving around and talking and the other side was subdued, and all of a sudden it began to change. There was an instinctive reaction that maybe this thing wasn’t going to pass. Nobody knew for sure.”
“It was pretty somber,” added Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
At 1:10 a.m., McCain crossed the Senate Chamber to talk to Schumer, Klobuchar and other Democrats, including Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). As he approached, McCain told them he worried that reporters watching from the gallery above could read his lips. When he realized that the press was indeed watching, he looked up at the ceiling and shouted, “No!” as senators and reporters laughed. Then, Democrats beamed when McCain shared his news. Feinstein gave him a hug.
Walking back to the Republican side of the room, McCain was stopped by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who also offered a hug.
“I love John McCain. He’s one of the great heroes of this country,” Hatch explained later. “Whether we agree or not, I still love the guy.”
The vote on “skinny repeal” began at 1:24 a.m., but McCain was out in the lobby once again conferring with Pence. In his absence, Collins and Murkowski cast their “no” votes along with the 48 members of the Democratic caucus.
McCain returned at 1:29 a.m. without Pence, approached the Senate clerk and gave a thumbs down — the third “no” vote.
Several people gasped. Others applauded. Reporters dashed out to report the news.
McCain returned to his seat, walking past Cornyn and Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who stood grim-faced and despondent. Cassidy rubbed his face several times with his hands. Thune’s face contorted. The color in Cornyn’s face seemed to drain.
“Certainly Senator McCain knows how to improve the drama,” Cassidy recalled later.
The vote concluded, and the results were announced — the bill was voted down, 51 to 49. Just days before, McCain had fired a warning shot with a lengthy floor speech that criticized the rushed, secretive process that led to “skinny repeal.” Early Friday morning, McCain, Collins and Murkowski delivered the fatal blow.
McConnell, humiliated by the results, stood to address his colleagues. The color of his face now matched the pink in his necktie.
“This is clearly a disappointing moment,” he said.
Senator John McCain returned to the Senate Chamber on Tuesday to cast a deciding vote allowing the legislative body to begin debating a bill put together behind closed doors by Republicans that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
Health industry professionals have overwhelmingly supported Republicans seeking federal office, and one could imagine McCain and others who benefit from that support might push policy that would be more financially beneficial to their benefactors.
Healthcare providers are among the top 5 contributors by industry to McCain’s campaign coffers, having given $7,184,854 since 1989, according to OpenSecrets.org.
A full list of donors in the health and insurance industries provided by FollowTheMoney.org reveals that USAA, Humana, Liberty Mutual, American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Cigna Corp, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisors and others have been top donors to McCain throughout his career, providing as much as $20,000 (USAA’s contribution) each to his campaigns.
Selecting just for health industry contributions, here are some of the top donors to McCain ranked by contribution amount, from the Institute for Money in State Politics:
The Pentagon spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications in 2014, 10 times the estimated annual medical costs for transgender services.
Military Times reported in 2015 that the military spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications such as Viagra and Cialis the year before. Meanwhile, a 2016 Rand Corporation study estimated that the maximum annual medical costs for transgender military members would be around $8.4 million, Business Insider reports.
“You’re talking about .000001% of the military budget,” being spent on transgender services, Navy SEAL veteran Kristin Beck, who is transgender, told Business Insider.
President Trump announced Wednesday on Twitter his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military “in any capacity.” He cited the “tremendous” costs for providing medical services for transgender troops.
“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” Trump tweeted.
His announcement sparked widespread condemnation from members of both parties, including Republicans who broke with the president to speak out against the ban.
