text:
tv CNN Newsroom With Ana Cabrera CNN July 9, 2017 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh. sure. still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too. this is cnn breaking news. top of the hour, i'm ana cabrera in new york. welcome into our viewers in the united states and around the world. we are following breaking news right now. information emerging just a short time ago with potentially serious consequences for the trump white house. details uncovered by reporters from the "new york times." it seems to confirm a private meeting between people closest to then gop nominee, donald trump, and figures connected to the russian government. those people are his then
campaign manager paul manafort, his close policy advisor and son-in-law jared kushner and his own son, donald trump jr. there's more. at least five sources tell the "new york times" that the reason for this private meeting was the promise of election dirt. that would hurt the campaign of hillary clinton. cnn global affairs correspondent, elise labbot is here and we are joined as well. elise, to you first, what part of this is potentially damaging to the administration in the context of the federal investigation into election meddling? >> well, ana, this is an early indication that russians were seeking out members of the trump campaign. donald trump jr. says he didn't know he was meeting with an introduction from and doesn't say that miss universe pageant was held in 2013 in a suburb of moscow. so in essence, a contact he made
in russia, trying to set him up with someone who had info that could help the campaign and so, the question is why didn't donald trump junior report there. and this plays into the investigation swirling, including the special council about contacts and allegations of inclusion between the trump government.mbers of the russian now they insist that they had no idea, trump jr. says he doesn't know who he was meeting, but it ended up being a russian attorney trying to talk about the policy. so the question is why didn't he report that? >> what can you tell us about that attorney? what have we learned about natalia? >> well, natalia is a lawyer who had been trying to end a ban on russian adoption. now why is that important? because of that why that adoption ban of russian children was put in place. it was put in place in retaliation for the 2012 act
which put sanctions on russian officials that were involved in human rights abuses, and she also sought the repeal of that act. now we haven't been able to reach here, but she did tell the "new york times" she wasn't asking on behalf of the russian government, never discussed these matters with any government representatives, but again, she's known as someone who had worked to try and repeal this legislation damaging to russian officials as well as that adoption ban. so, russian national reaching out to the trump campaign, just as he clenched the nomination, ana. >> and according to to the "new york times," it is unclear whether the russian lawyer actually produced the compromising information about mrs. clinton. again, according to to the "new york times," where does this leave us? this new information, particularly the part about the damaging information about hillary clinton? how does that fit into the collusion investigation?
>> well, likely be apart of it and so the fbi as we know has been investigating the trump campaign since july. this is a month after this meeting took place. and we've been told that that, the investigation, when it began was started for other reasons. this is the first thoofbl we're learning of this other meeting between donald trump jr. and kushner and with this lawyer. you know, this woman is, we're told, has been on the fbi's radar. the big question here is, was she there on behalf of vladimir putin or on behalf of the russian government? was she sent there to try and get inside the campaign, as we've reported, the russians have work, there has been information to the u.s. government, to the fbi that the russians throughout the campaign have worked to try and infull trait the campaign. and was this another instance of that? was this woman sent there to try and infiltrate the campaign? and so this is another part of the investigation, whether it
goes to collusion or other stuff, you know, that's still to be determined because i just think we just don't know enough about this meeting, you know, we only have one side of it at this point. and you know, the other question here is, why did it take so long for this to come to light? and it only comes to light after jared kushner has to sort of amendment his sf 86, this is a form that gets submitted to the fbi essentially that lists -- supposed to list any potential contact with foreign governments, you know, when you get a job for the government and you have access to classified information, you fill out this form, and you're supposed to tell the government, you know, all of your contacts. that you've had with potential foreign entities, foreign countries, foreign, people who may be working for a foreign government. so that's how all this is coming to light now. so the fbi has probably had this information for some time. and so, you know, as to why they now chose to tell us, you know, what they say is the whole story, you know, we'll see, and
it's also going to be interesting to see if the fbi's going to want to talk to donald trump jr. or anyone else about their contact with this lawyer. >> and maybe they have already, and we just don't know it. thank you both. i want to get our national security analyst and former homeland security department official in here. juliette, the president's son does not deny that he, paul manafort, and jared kushner met with the russian lawyer last year. he confirms it in a statement to cnn. he says it was set up by a 2013 miss universe pageant acquaintance of his and he didn't know exactly who he was talking to going into the meeting. he didn't have the name. how does change things if the reason they attended that meeting was this lure of information that could potentially hurt the clinton campaign? >> i think it adds to a narrative, two-part narrative. the first is just simply that the trump administration, the friends, the hangers on, all these people that we hear about
were simply not honest about disclosures regarding contacts with the russians. disclosures they either had to do because they were going to join the trump administration so they had to do so in the forms or because there were media reports about them. so there's first denials and then amendments. so that's a first piece, just lots of sort of lack of clarity and transparency by these people related or close to trump and the russians. on the substance of the issue, it is just clear, at least in this one instance that trump jr., the son of the nominee, was interested or at least willing to meet with someone who had information, presumably from some sort of russian hacking or wikileaks or whatever else that would hurt hillary clinton. we don't know what that information was, we don't know whether donald trump jr. was willing to take it, but we do know this is a much more nefarious piece of the puzzle then say he was meeting with this woman because, as he said yesterday, russia adoption
policy, which really didn't hold up for very long. >> let me talk to you about the sourcing of this information. the times says they talked to three white house advisors, two other people with knowledge of the meeting and the motivation for it, what does that tell you about the tightness of the information at the white house? >> um, i think what you are starting to see, and i want to be very careful here, but this case is starting to look like other cases, criminal investigations, conspiracy investigations, that at the beginning everyone's quiet and defensive. but then, as people start to see that the fbi has information, perhaps there's fisa information, foreign intelligence surveillance wiretaps that have been, that have picked up information, you start to see people begin to defend themselves and not necessarily defend the conspiracy. from what i've read in the "new york times," donald trump jr. seems to be out on his own on this one. that is what we see in these
kinds of investigations. and likely others will begin to turn on others. this is normal, it just takes a long time because some of these people are being interviewed by the fbi under oath. they don't want to incriminate themselves if they know something, but didn't do anything wrong. >> is it plausible that somebody could get into trump tower for a meeting without giving their name? >> um, if they did, that would have not been very good. and the trump people, the trump campaign at that stage would have certainly been briefed about how to protect themselves from potential infiltrations, penal wanting information, people stealing information, look, by the time that these meetings occurred, it was clear trump, what he was going to have the nomination, and they would have been briefed as they always would be by the secret service and others. so they at least were in possession of the knowledge of how to protect themselves, but
because the campaign was, you know, at best, let's say unique, at worst, careless, that's where you see this kind of thing happening. i find it implausible that someone who's the son of the president would take a meeting with someone he did not know, or even google this person or ask the secret service agent or fbi agent who's clearly nearby. >> he only says it was an acquaintance who he met at the 2013 miss universe pageant, which we know was in moscow. >> right. i literally cannot -- i don't have a good answer for you, i'm supposed to be your analyst, i read that we've seen people on air about that, people from the
"new york times," that is just shocking. and it means that he's either protecting someone or that person is a government person or someone close or known to putin and he's just trying to protect both himself and maybe that person, but at this stage, whether that information comes out or not through donald trump jr., it will likely come out, and i think why you saw this second statement today by the president's son, i think that there's growing recognition that there is a lot of information about what happened in the trump campaign that i think for some time they probably thought did not need to be disclosed or would never get disclosed, and what you're seeing through the investigation and of course through fantastic reporting by this, you know, the times and cnn and the washington post, these stories do get out, and people do have to face a reckoning of the truth about what actually happened. >> juliette, thank you. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. we have so much more ahead on this breaking story. the president's eldest son confirming he met with a russian lawyer last year after being promised damaging information
about his father's political opponent. what are the potential legal implications if any for president donald trump and his son, donald trump jr. and include this report shake up the overall russia investigation under way right now. we'll discuss. you're live in the cnn newsroom. using artificial tears often and still have dry eye symptoms? ready for some relief? xiidra is the first and only eye drop approved for both the signs and symptoms of dry eye. one drop in each eye, twice a day. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. remove contacts before using xiidra and wait at least 15 minutes before reinserting. chat with your eye doctor about xiidra.
fixodent plus adhesives. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening. just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth.
when itrust the brandtburn, doctors trust. nexium 24hr is the number one choice of doctors and pharmacists for their own frequent heartburn. and all day, all night protection. when it comes to heartburn, trust nexium 24hr. [ rock music playing ] have fun with your replaced windows. run away! [ grunts ] leave him! leave him! [ music continues ] brick and mortar, what?! [ music continues ] [ tires screech ] [ laughs ] [ doorbell rings ] when you bundle home and auto insurance with progressive, you get more than a big discount. that's what you get for bundling home and auto! jamie! you get sneaky-good coverage. thanks. we're gonna live forever!
you get sneaky-good coverage. thanks. if you've got a life, you gotta swiffer
during the campaign last year donald trump jr. met with a russian lawyer after being promised damaging information on hillary clinton. trump jr. not denying this meeting. he does say he was unaware of the russian national's name before the meeting and joining us to discuss cnn global affairs analyst david rhode, correspondent for the washington examiner, david drucker and for the chicago sun times, jen sweet. your reaction to the new reporting. >> pattern, a story about ten days ago in the wall street
journal where a british cyber security expert said he was approached by republican operative named peter smith, and someone out on the web according to peter smith say they had hillary clinton's missing e-mails. and this british operative, he was very puzzled that this person peter smith was a long time opponent of the clintons, but he was looking for the british operative's help in getting those e-mails. whoever is offering these e-mails is possibly russian government, it doesn't matter to peterson. you have this pattern of people, you know, you know, how close the president is a question, but various people helping trump indirectly or directly reaching out to russians trying to get this information, then you have the russian's helping trump during the election. there's no smoking gun here, but this is a pattern. >> and bob baier, also confirmed that he knew multiple examples prior to the election and even
before this incident in which we are learning this meeting happened in june of last year in which there were russians trying to kind of put the feelers out about information in order to damage hillary clinton and others in the democratic party. david drucker, you are a reporter, you meet with politicians, campaign officials. donald trump jr. says he didn't know this person's name beforehand. is it believable that somebody could schedule a meeting, get into trump tower and meet with the campaign manager, paul manafort was there, remember, without giving their name? >> so, it would be highly unusual and especially at that point, you would have secret service protection for the presumed nominee, and that started well before then. and usually you have a lot more, a lot greater security checks than you would have had if donald trump was just a candidate starting out. but on top of that, paul manafort is pretty well versed in the russian government and in that part of the world. so this is something he would have understood, at least once
the meeting got under way. look, having said all of that, the reason this continues to be a problem for the trump campaign, at least politically, at least potentially with republicans on the hill who have put together a tougher sanctions bill on russia that is caught up in the house right now, probably because they're trying to help the president out, but it passed the senate wl 98-2 or something like that. >> 97-2 is what our reporting is. >> correct, thank you for that. is because they have number one, i think complete inability to proper lit disclose these meetings and had they disclosed them in an orderly fashion, in an organized fashion after the election, i think this wouldn't have looked as funny, but number two, the president seems to have decided for whatever reason that russia is going to be and vladimir putin is going to be exempt from his strong arming and from his jawboning.
he wasn't buying poout nl's read on the one on one meeting. a lot of this for many months would have looked a lot different than now. >> instead the president says that while he talked to putin about the election meddling, putin vehemently denied it is what the president's tweet said today, but that he chose -- it is time to move forward, in effect, lynn, doesn't that suggest that the president takes rush at it's word verses the intelligence community? >> well, we know he's had doubts with the intelligence community for a long time. i think what this really showed in that tweet this morning where he said he wanted to work constructively with russia, he thinks he can tweet away all the issues surrounding potential russia meddling in the 2016
campaign. and i think the events of this evening show with this new disclosure by the "new york times" about his own son meeting with a lawyer with ties to the kremlin shows that he cannot tweet this away. and i just to want add another point when you raised the question, how could donald trump jr. have not known who this lawyer is with kremlin ties? here's why it's plausible to me that he may not have known, when you read the stories -- the go between was somebody he knew from the miss universe pageant. this could have been that he was doing this person a favor, and so he didn't want to know, need to know, care to know, unschooled in how important it is to vet people, especially with foreign ties when he's at the top of the campaign, he was doing a favor to somebody who had a russian client or who had
russian connections with the miss universe pageant and donald trump jr. didn't even know who the client, didn't even -- we don't know from the stories who the client was. he did not disclose that in his statement that he gave on sunday. >> but why he wouldn't just say that as part of the statement then? why wouldn't he say -- >> you tell me -- >> i was doing a favor for a friend meeting with this person. i didn't know who it was and their connection to russia at all. >> in a statement. >> ana, one point on this, the one thing in donald trump jr.'s statement that was curious to me is that his explanation is that the person was trying to pedal information that had to do with the informations subsidizing the democratic national committee, in a sense -- the information was they were trying to help the dnc and help hillary clinton. and for people that understand hillary clinton, whatever people think think about hillary clinton, vladimir putin took it personally and she spoke out against this crackdown on
democracy on russia. even though it was a standard thing for an secretary of state, he took it personally, thought she was trying to undermine her. it's just not something the russian government under putin would do is to try and help hillary clinton get elected. >> you're saying it doesn't add up, that is part of the statement regarding this meeting. he says that the woman stated she had information that individuals to russia were funding the democratic national committee and supporting miss clinton. her statements were vague, ambiguo ambiguous, and made no sense. no detail us or supporting information was provided or even offered and it quickly became clear she had no meaningful information. but i want to read a tweet that donald trump jr. sent on june 8th. according to the "new york times," this meeting between him and the russian lawyer happened on june 9th. here's the tweet from june 8th, thanks, james, comey debunks "new york times" report about trump campaign having repeated
russian contact. david wrote, trump jr. knew he himself was going to have many this meeting with, we assume by then. what do you make of that tweet and in going into this meeting? >> i get and agree on the issue of disclosing the meetings, it's reckless, it's sloppy, and they're causing themselves these problems. i agree if they just disclosed these things, wouldn't have such problems and weren't such blanket denials. vice president trump mocked the idea there was contact between the trump campaign and russia. trump denies it himself, says this is fake news. there were multiple contacts between trump campaign officials or people close to donald trump and russians, we know that for a fact now. broader thing politically here is the mueller investigation has to go through. if there's any effort now by the president to weaken mueller or fire mueller, i just think he's in much more difficult position politically now that his son is involved in any way trying to stop that process. and most importantly, it puts republicans and congress in a
difficult position. they are enabling this administration. they are empowering it. you know, the hill investigations are moving slowly. so, this is all getting more and more delegate, you know, drip, drip, drip, this story, you know, it adds fuel to the fire. no proof of collusion to be fair to trump. there's no proof that, you know, donald trump may be speaking truthfully why didn't he disclose it earlier. trump wasn't disclose it, jared kushner was, and he only disclosed this meeting, according to to the times in the last few days. >> exactly. jared kushner, who has not disclosed all of his meetings, michael flynn didn't disclose all of his meetings, russian contacts, jeff sessions didn't disclose all of his meetings with russian contacts, it was all after the fact, after certain pieces of information were revealed. >> and they're making the problem worse. and again, you know, if they should have nothing to fear if they did nothing wrong, let mueller continue his probe. by far, that's the most important investigation here. >> panel, thank you all. david, david, lynn, we appreciate it. straight ahead the hillary
clinton campaign responds to the news we learned tonight. the "new york times" reporting the first known meeting between some of the highest members of the trump team and a russian national during the campaign. i just spoke with hillary clinton's former campaign manager and you will hear that interview next. you're watching special cnn live breaking news coverage. don't go anywhere. (vo) dogs have evolved, but their nutritional needs remain instinctual. that's why there's purina one true instinct. nutrient-dense, protein-rich, real meat number one. this is a different breed of nutrition. purina one, true instinct. [woman] we did it. [man] we're campers. look at us. look at us. it's so nice to get out of the city. it's so... quiet. is it, too quiet? it's awful. yeah. feel at home, pretty much wherever you are. t-mobile is america's best unlimited network.
tame frizz-prone hair with smoothing care. whole blends by garnier. smoothing haircare with coconut oil and cocoa butter extracts. for naturally beautiful, shiny hair. coconut oil and cocoa butter formulas from garnier whole blends. over six million women have found their blend. find yours. fixodent plus adhesives. over six million women have found their blend. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening. just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth.
what in real time?stomer insights from the data wait, our data center and our clouds can't connect? michael, can we get this data to...? look at me...look at me... look at me... you used to be the "yes" guy. what happened to that guy? legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. so, you're saying we can cut delivery time? yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. ltry align probiotic.n your digestive system? for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. get 24/7 digestive support, with align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand. now in kids chewables.
anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com.
we're back with our breaking news. the "new york times" reporting donald trump jr. met with a russian lawyer after being promised damaging information on hillary clinton. this happened during the campaign last june he says, shortly after president trump clenched the republican nomination. in a statement to cnn, donald trump jr. does not deny this meeting happened. he says it was arranged by an acquaintance he knew from the 2013 miss universe pageant which was held in russia. he did not know the name of the person he would be meeting. also at the meeting, jared
kushner and paul manafort who was president trump's campaign manager at the time. now a member of president trump's outside legal team tells cnn tonight the president was not aware of this meeting and did not attend. we're getting reaction from the man who ran hillary clinton's presidential campaign a short time ago. i spoke with robby mook. watch. >> first of all, i think we need to start asking ourselves, and i think in particular republican leaders in congress need to start asking themselves at what point do we stop giving the benefit of the doubt here? the evidence here of these close ties with russia continue to mount with each and every day. but then secondly, particularly concerning to me is we are seeing it play out in actual policy, and you mentioned don jr. was in the meeting, so was jared kushner who is now a government employee. senior advisor to the president, an official in the government. we saw the president propose this morning that the russian government worked with the
united states to create some sort of cyber security entity for our elections, which is frightening. we've been reading that the president is doing everything he can to stop a bipartisan bill to impose further sanctions on the russians to punish them for intervening in our election. so at some point, somebody needs to step up and say enough is enough. and the trump administration has to clean house, it has to get rid of conflicts of interest, and somebody's got to step in and make sure that our foreign policy is not being overtaken by russian influence. >> robby, you ran the clinton campaign, if somebody told you they had somebody who had damaging info on donald trump at that time and they wanted you to meet this person without knowing their name, would you go to that meeting? how would you handle it? >> well, i think everybody needs to make judgment calls in these situations. what is scary about this
particular situation is that the woman in question wasn't just anybody off the streets. she is closely tied to the kremlin, was leading their efforts to repeal and stop a law, a bipartisan law by the way that if it passed to punish business people and russia who were suspected to be involved in killing of a journalist there. restricted their ability to travel to this country and block their ability to participate in our banking system. this wasn't just anybody. this was an advocate and a voice for vladimir putin. and, so any time somebody representing a foreign government comes to you claiming to assist you, you know, in punishing your opponent when obviously the putin administration had a clear interest, clear antagonism rather towards hillary clinton,
i think that should have paused them. what's particularly interesting and frightening about what's happened here too is these same individuals said they never met from the russians and only months later an investigation is going on with pretty experienced prosecutors, all the sudden, all this new information is coming out. so yes, there are real questions about why they took the meeting, but also why didn't, why didn't they as the law tells them they have to to reveal they have this meeting? >> you were listening to former manager of hillary clinton's campaign, of course the presidential campaign, robby mook. we'll be right back and much more of this breaking news story straight ahead. stay where you are.
i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurhuh. with geico. i should take a closer look at geico... geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage. this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella. fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah? it's an expression, ya know? fire at will? you never heard of that? oh, there goes will! bye, will! that's not his name! take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more. work up a not at night.the day. only tempur-breeze® mattresses use an integrated system of technologies to keep you cool while you sleep. ultra-breathable support layers channel heat away from your body. purecool technology delivers cooling comfort you can feel. and the performance cover is cool to the touch. so you sleep cool and wake up feeling powerful. right now, save up to $500 on select tempur-breeze® mattress sets at our july 4th event. find the breeze that's right for you at tempurpedic.com
theseare heading back home.y oil thanks to dawn, rescue workers only trust dawn, because it's tough on grease yet gentle. i am home, i am home, i am home anyone can get you ready, holiday inn express gets you the readiest. because ready gives a pep talk. showtime! but the readiest gives a pep rally. i cleared my inbox! holiday inn express, be the readiest. holiday inn express, one laugh, and hello sensitring a bell? then you have to try always discreet. i didn't think protection this thin could work. but the super absorbent core turns liquid to gel. for incredible protection... snap! so it's out of sight... ...and out of mind.
always discreet. for bladder leaks. i've discovered incredible bladder leak underwear that hugs every curve. can't tell i'm wearing it, can you? always discreet underwear. for bladder leaks.
(woman vo) to refinance? time (man vo) yes! mortgage rates just plummeted. the time to refinance your home is right now. get started at lendingtree dot com. the only place you can compare up to five real offers side by side, for free. our average customer saves $20,000. quick. beat the fed's 2017 rate hike. do not miss this window. are you sure you have the best rate? it only takes 3 minutes to find out. go to lendingtree dot com right now. fixodent plus adhesives. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening. just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth.
we're back with the breaking news, the "new york times" reporting tonight that donald trump jr. met with a russian lawyer after being promised damaging information on hillary clinton. the statement to cnn, donald trump jr. does not deny this meeting happened. mark is a spokesman for president trump's outside legal team confirms what donald trump jr. says, but offers no additional. comment. and that is the president was not aware of and did not attend this meeting. let's talk over with criminal defense attorney and cnn legal analyst danny savala. bottom line here, danny, what are potential legal implications of this new report, the information in the "new york times" when it comes to donald trump and his son? >> well the potential implications depend on whether or not there were actual crimes committed by the russian side. now, consider this, take everything trump jr. says at face value. asked to come to a meeting. he went to the meeting.
he doesn't know what's going to happen at the meeting, and then somebody at that meeting says something that at best or at minimum implicates this russian attorney in a crime. let's say that's the case. well, the mere knowledge that somebody's committed a crime is not itself a crime. the closest federal analogy is a crime called miss depression. that requires active concealment by the person that becomes aware of the crime. now look, when we talk about what rush did or did not do, there are a ton of different federal statutes that were likely violated if they interfered with the election. if they accessed hillary clinton's e-mails, there's computer fraud, there's espionage, there are a host of federal statutes that may have been violated. but being asked to come to a meeting, stepping into that meeting, and only for the first time learning of a proposal or information that may itself be criminal is not itself criminal for the here. unless there's more information. >> so going into the meeting is
not criminal, but should he have then taken the information from that meeting and take than somewhere to some authority to say that he met with a russian who apparently has some information related to the hillary clinton campaign. this is somebody from a foreign country. >> it's a gray area. and you could make an argument either way. certainly morally as an american you might say that he has an obligation, but as a member of the eventual or a close personal, whatever at the time, to the incoming president, yet he might be because this is the executive, he's arguably a part of the executive branch, or at least people in that area are part of the executive branch. now you're getting into the area of the executive as the head of the department of justice, as the chief law enforcement officer, does have that obligation, but, donald trump wasn't at the meeting. and, if they simply didn't know, there isn't any affirmative duty that i can see that they had to go report. at least as citizens, the fact that they were working for the
very soon to be president makes this a very murky area. i understand, but, all of us as citizens simply have no obligation to report a crime unless there are additional facts present. >> we have hardly any time, but i want to get your take real quick in the short answer if you will, is this significant to robert mueller's investigation as a special prosecutor? >> of course it is, yes. because this is certainly something in their investigation that could lead to something additional as they pull on the string of this giant sweater, there may be more information that may be revealed by this. yes, it's certainly relevant. it's not people are fa that evidence of a crime at this point. >> got it, thank you. and today's breaking news comes just one day after russian president vladimir putin denied any russian meddling in the u.s. election. what he said at the g20 next. you're live in the cnn newsroom. ? (cat 1) whoa, gravy! (cat 2) you mean extra gravy! (cat 1) what?! (cat 2) that's new friskies extra gravy-chunky!
(cat 1) chunky gravy purr-adise! (cat 2) purr-adise? really? (vo) feed their fantasy. friskies. i ...prilosec otc 7 years ago,my doctor recommended... 5 years ago, last week. just 1 pill each morning, 24 hours and zero heartburn. it's been the number 1 doctor recommended brand for 10... ...straight years, and it's still recommended today. use as directed. depend real fit briefs feature breathable, cotton-like fabric. in situations like this, there's no time for distractions. it's not enough to think i'm ready. i need to know i'm ready. no matter what lies ahead. get a free sample at depend.com. ♪ i love you, basement guest bathroom. your privacy makes you my number 1 place... ...to go number 2.
i love you, but sometimes you stink. ♪ new febreze air effects with odorclear technology cleans... ...away odors like never before. because the things you love the most can stink. and try febreze small spaces to clean away odors for up... ...to 30 days. breathe happy with new febreze.
tha...oh, burnt-on gravy?ie. ...gotta rinse that. nope. no way. nada. really? dish issues? throw it all in. new cascade platinum powers through... even burnt-on gravy. nice. cascade.
more on the breaking news story. the president's son donald trump jr. tells cnn that he, trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, and then campaign chair paul manafort met with a russian lawyer last year. it was the first known meeting of several of the senior most members of trump's team and a russian national during the campaign. now the "new york times" first reported this priestly undisclosed meeting, times reports tonight the meeting occurred at trump tower just two weeks after trump clenched the republican presidential nomination. and the story comes just two days after that high stakes meeting between president trump and russian president vladimir putin. listen to what putin told reporters in hamburg, germany, yesterday, about his meeting with president trump. >> translator: the u.s. president raised this question, and we discussed it. it wasn't just one question. there were a lot of them. he devoted a lot of time to this issue. opposition is well known and i repeated it.
there is no basis for thinking that russia interfered in the election process. >> i want to bring in "new york times" columnist and author, she's joining us by phone. she literally wrote the book about vladimir putin putin titled the man without a face, the unlikely rise of vladimir putin. so thanks for being with us. you just heard vladimir putin there say there is no basis to think that russia interfered in the election process. now the "new york times" says a lawyer with links to the kremlin was shopping information damaging to the hillary clinton campaign and they were able to gain a meeting with the highest members of the trump team. could that have happened without putin's knowledge? >> yes, it could have happened without putin's knowledge. although, i don't think that's terribly important because i think that we can have a long argument about what putin might have meant about when he said that russia didn't interfere in the campaign because really russia has been lobbying for the
repeal of the act sanctions ever since those sanctions were introduced, right? and really what the story is about is about on the one hand what is important to russia, which is getting rid of those personalized sanctions, the targeted sanctions against the russian rich and powerful. these are these are not sanctions that harm ordinary russians. these are sanctions that are specifically targeted against russians who are considered by the u.s. government to be guilty of grave human rights violations. ask this is something that the government cares about very much and is on record about care iin very much. >> you see a direct connection to the kremlin given that information alone? >> does that information alone then lead you to believe there's a direct connection to the
kremlin? >> i can't claim there's a direct connection to the kremlin without knowing there's a direct connection. we do know that the kremlin was incensed when they were drod and has been containing against them and has been hurting because of them ever since they were introduced. >> let me ask you this. >> but it's the kremlin agenda. >> so donald trump's campaign was centered on the idea he was an outsider, not an experienced politician. is that ab experience something vladimir putin would have wanted to target. >> absolutely. that makes him a a mark. it sounds very much like an inexperienced campaign being targeted by people who have a singular agenda, which is to give the act repealed and they are naive enough to take a meeting. the promise of them damage iing
information about hillary clinton and there's no damaging information about hillary clinton. this is the account that they didn't bring anything to the table except their desire to get the sanctions repealed. and donald trump jr. was inexperienced enough to take the meeting. >> thank you very much for providing that insight. e we do appreciate it. thank you for being with us. just moments ago, president trump weighed in teaming up with vladimir putin tweeting this. the fact that president putin ask i discussed a a cyber security unit doesn't mean i think it can happen. it can't, but a cease-fire can and did. the latest words from the president regarding russia and the idea of teaming up with russians on cyber security. once again a big night ofbreaking news. stay with cnn. thank you for being with me.
brooke baldwin take its you to "the nineties for a a cnn original premier live to the preparty, next. at whole foods market, we believe in food that's naturally beautiful and fresh. delicious and powerful, and full of nutrients. so there are no artificial colors... no artificial flavors... no artificial preservatives... and no artificial sweeteners... ...in any of the food we sell. we believe that the food we eat connects us to the natural world and to each other. we believe in real food™. whole foods market.
it's so... quiet. is it, too quiet? it's awful. yeah. feel at home, pretty much wherever you are. t-mobile is america's best unlimited network. fixodent plus adhesives. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening. just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth.
for color this bold are you ready... and hair this nourished? garnier nutrisse ultra color with avocado, olive and shea oils. it nourishes hair to boost color. from dull brown to our bluest black. nutrisse ultra color. nourished hair. bolder color. anyone can get you ready, holiday inn express gets you the readiest. because ready gives a pep talk. showtime! but the readiest gives a pep rally. i cleared my inbox! holiday inn express, be the readiest.
i'm brooke baldwin here on the santa monica pier on a sunday. we have been partying and talking about "the nineties". . i had the pleasure of talking ta the executive producers and we were talking. tonight's episode a two-hour episode. specif specifically on tv in the '90s. "seinfeld," "friends," "family matters", but also about tv moments like o.j. simpson. here was a piece of our
conversation. >> we have an episode called "can we all get along." we look at race issues in the '90s. we look at o.j. in that particular episode, we look at the trial of o.j., what he was being tried and acquitted. in the television episode, we look at it from a television per spect i have. it was a television event. not only the car chase, but the trial itself. >> it was 93 million saw the e quit tall. i don't know how many people saw the car chase, but we all remember it. >> so 93 million people watching that moment. the acquittal alone in the '90s when that happened. tv moments and tv hits.
so this whole premier, we have been at the pier all afternoon. this crowd got a little sneak preview including my friends who we just did this it series called champions for change. all in anticipation of the climb. a marine missing her leg. you guys are about to go to indonesia so we have a a big climb ahead of you. but '90s, favorite tv show? >> "fresh prince of bel air." >> can you do the kacarl on to dance? >> favorite tv show. >> i'm from the greatest state of america new jersey. "the sopranos". and britney spears. >> this is what is happening as we talk about the '90s. we're about today bu this ep soid. i want to thank the entire crew and all of these wonderful
people for coming out today as we're celebrating. fashion fad you wish never went away? >> high waisted jeans and shorts. do you see this? i feel like they are back. >> tim and amanda and everyone here. i'm brooke baldwin. "the nineties" starts now. don't touch that dial. we're about to flip it for you. >> tv is changed dramatically with 150 channels that might be available in the near future. >> there's a lot of things we do you couldn't have on network television. >> people are trying to do something adventurous. >> this is more celebration of culture and opening the doors and allowing america to come on inside. >> there's always something on television. and some of it may be better than we deserve. >> that was cool.
<div class="tv-ttl">CNN Newsroom With Ana Cabrera<div>CNN July 9, 2017 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT</div></div>
The latest news and information from around the world with host Ana Cabrera.
quote Contains 1 quote, shared times, with 0 plays.
Clinton 19, Russia 19, Donald Trump Jr. 17, Jared Kushner 8, Us 7, Fbi 6, Paul Manafort 6, New York 5, Trump Jr. 5, Cnn 5, Geico 4, U.s. 4, Mueller 4, Trump 4, Brooke Baldwin 3, Peter Smith 3, Drip 3, Xiidra 3, America 3, Robby Mook 2
Uploaded by TV Archive on July 10, 2017

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Jayne Mansfield and the Chiswick Flyover
There was a time when we loved our cars with a passion. On Saturdays we would wash them and on Sundays take them out for a spin. We would titivate them with fluffy dice and padded steering wheels. On the back seat - already trimmed in polyester tigerskin - we would throw a tartan travel blanket and a couple of lacy cushions. We even wore special clothes to drive too. Boxy 'car coats', leather fronted 'driving gloves' and special non-slip driving shoes to help with those tricky double declutching gear changes were de rigeur. And when we were done with all that we would stick our names on them - usually under the plastic sun shield. Such was the love of the car that some people would take picnics to busy lay-bys just to sit and watch them go streaming by.
Road building proposals were met with genuine excitement. When work started on the M1 from London to Birmingham on March 24th 1958 the locals along the route brought deckchairs and packed lunches to sit and watch the diggers in action. When Fortes inaugurated their Newport Pagnell motorway service station on 15th August 1960 they had to open the site two hours early to allow in the huge crowd of cheering sightseers that had gathered outside. One feature they all wanted to see was the restaurant on the bridge. Not only could you eat but you could also watch the cars go by at the same time. Oh bliss!
Some motorway facilities took on almost legendary status. When Jimi Hendrix first came to Britain in 1966 he heard so much talk of the 'Blue Boar' from touring rock bands he assumed it was a concert venue, not the name for the M1 service station at Watford Gap.
While our cars indicated our status in the world, motorways, flyovers, and service stations were seen as heroic constructions, worthy of respect and admiration - and so it was with the Chiswick Flyover.
In August 1959, exactly fifty years ago, the builders were putting the final touches to the Chiswick Flyover - the first major two-level highway scheme to be constructed since World War 2. The works extended for about half a mile linking London's western approach, the Cromwell Road Extension, to the Great West Road soaring over the 40,000 cars a day that used the new 400ft diameter roundabout that lay beneath it. It was an engineering triumph and deserved a proper opening ceremony…well, that's what Mr. J. E Dayton, the joint Managing Director of Alderton's Construction Co., the principal contractors for the project, resolutely believed. His opinion was not shared.
H.C Adams, the chief engineer on the project, a high minded individual of the old school thought that the flyover should enjoy a 'modest' unveiling. He was supported in this view by the Minister of Transport, Mr. Harold Watkinson, who had already disagreed with Mr J.E Dayton over other construction issues like budget, scheduling and delays. Neither of these two gentlemen was in any mood for Mr. J. E Dayton's show-biz ambitions. We can only guess at their reaction when on the morning of September 30th 1959 a limo turned up on Chiswick flyover bearing the voluptuous Hollywood star Jayne Mansfield clutching a pair of gold plated scissors. Wearing a skintight crimson dress this 'blond temptress' had driven down from MGM Studios in Boreham Wood where she making "Too Hot to Handle" with Christopher Lee and Leo Genn. To a chorus of wolf whistles from the gathered workmen Miss Mansfield cut the official red ribbon, patted 'Humble', Mr J. E Dayton's 7 year old bulldog on the head "Sweet!" she said and then clambered into a car described in one report as a 'beat up old crock' for a brief tour of the concrete megalith. The Chiswick Flyover was officially open!
Letters to the Brentford and Chiswick Times published on October 2nd criticized the use of an American film star. "Surely a suitable British one would have been more appropriate for the opening of this wonderful piece of British engineering" was the general drift of complaint. Mr. J. E Dayton replied in the same edition that his company had approached both Donald Campbell and Stirling Moss, celebrities as stiff upper lipped and 'appropriate' as they come, but they were unavailable.
"We felt… that 30 months work and the completion of Britain's first flyover deserved a little celebration", he explained. "We could see no reason why any politician or fuddy-duddy should be invited. We feel that Miss Mansfield did a first-class job in a very charming manner"…which was one in the eye for politicians and fuddy duddies like Messrs Adams and Watkinson. David Webster , the MP for Weston Super Mere agreed with him. In Parliament on 3rd Nov. 1959 he said…
"I welcome … all that is being done in the development of transport and the building of roads…It is, I consider, altogether a good thing that Miss Jayne Mansfield opened the Chiswick flyover. It gave the occasion a bit of publicity and introduced a controversial note."
On September 30th 2009, the 50th anniversary of the flyover's glamorous opening, Councillor Paul Lynch, the mayor of Hounslow, hopes that Mariska Hargitay, the star of 'Law & Order' and Jayne Mansfield's youngest daughter will agree to come to the borough to commemorate the event. "Whether we love the flyover or hate it, we can't let this moment go by without doing something," Councillor Lynch said. "I suppose it wouldn't occur to anyone to get someone like Miss Mansfield to open a stretch of motorway these days, but in the fifties we still associated motoring with fun and we need to re-capture some of that spirit as we mark the half century." It is hoped that Miss Hargitay will attend a "small drinks party" immediately beneath the flyover so that it won't interfere with the flow of traffic.
Jayne Mansfield, her career on a downward slide, died in a car crash in the early hours of June 29th 1967 when her Buick Electra 225 smashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer. She was just 34 years old. After her death a change in the law required all tractor-trailers to be fitted with a metal under-ride guard. This guard is still known to this day as a Mansfield bar. The Chiswick Flyover still remains the Chiswick Flyover.
Despite the "blonde bimbo" image which she fostered in many films and stage shows, Jayne Mansfield said her I.Q. was 163. She also spoke five languages and was a classically trained pianist and violinist. Such intellectual pretensions were inconsequential. Mansfield admitted her public didn't care about her brains. "They're more interested in 40-21-35," she said.
– from Martyn Day
This article was written with the generous assistance of James Marshall, Local Studies Librarian at Hounslow Library, The Treaty Centre, Hounslow TW3 1ES
Previous Event Reminder: St Margarets Craft Fair Next 66 Crown Road Update


This page displays sold house prices for Beaumont Close in Southampton.
Beaumont Close in Southampton SO16 consists predominantly of detached houses. Properties on Beaumont Close typically have values around £400,000 - £550,000, but larger detached houses can command upwards of £550,000.
Map showing Beaumont Close in Southampton.


text:
Q: PHP Session Id Reset on page load I've looked at everything here and elsewhere, nothing seems to work!
Here's the issue:

*

*On page load, upon calling session_start(), I get assigned a PHP session ID.

*Once I refresh the page, I get a new session ID and that makes the $_SESSION variable come empty.

PHP Version is: 5.6.30-0+deb8u1
I did a small script to replicate outside of the application:
<?php
error_reporting(E_ALL);
ini_set('display_errors', 1);

echo '<pre>';
echo 'orig session.cookie_domain = '.ini_get('session.cookie_domain').PHP_EOL;
echo 'orig session.cookie_secure = '.ini_get('session.cookie_secure').PHP_EOL;
ini_set('session.cookie_domain', '.mydomain.com');
ini_set('session.cookie_secure', 'Off');
echo 'new session.cookie_domain = '.ini_get('session.cookie_domain').PHP_EOL;
echo 'new session.cookie_secure = '.ini_get('session.cookie_secure').PHP_EOL;
echo '-------------'.PHP_EOL;
print_r($_COOKIE);
session_start();
print_r($_COOKIE);
setcookie(ini_get('session.name'), session_id(), 0, '/', ini_get('session.cookie_domain'), false, false);
print_r($_COOKIE);
echo '-------------'.PHP_EOL;
echo 'session id: '.session_id().PHP_EOL;
echo '-------------'.PHP_EOL;
$_SESSION[session_id()][] = date('Y-m-d H:i:s');
print_r($_SESSION);
echo '</pre>';
//phpinfo();

output of script is:
orig session.cookie_domain =
orig session.cookie_secure =
new session.cookie_domain = .mydomain.com
new session.cookie_secure = Off
-------------
Array
(
    [__cfduid] => ddxxx
    [_ga] => GA1.2.xxxx
    [wp-settings-time-2] => 1500996194
    [_gid] => GA1.3.xxxx
)
Array
(
    [__cfduid] => ddxxx
    [_ga] => GA1.2.xxxx
    [wp-settings-time-2] => 1500996194
    [_gid] => GA1.3.xxxx
)
Array
(
    [__cfduid] => ddxxx
    [_ga] => GA1.2.xxxx
    [wp-settings-time-2] => 1500996194
    [_gid] => GA1.3.xxxx
)
-------------
session id: 7n4mm16s525mpqo99r242p90l3
-------------
Array
(
    [7n4mm16s525mpqo99r242p90l3] => Array
        (
            [0] => 2017-08-07 16:01:18
        )

)

A: After a lot of research, it came out to be Varnish cache causing the problem. The problem lies in Varnish caching the page without session cookies set, making it useless after a refresh of the page.
Disabling Varnish on the server solved the problem for me.
Also found out this for those who would prefer to keep Varnish active but get sessions to work: Cache-Control Header Fix

A: Do this, to preserve the existing session:
if(session_status() !== PHP_SESSION_ACTIVE) {
    session_start();
}

A: check is_writable(session_save_path()) in php file:
<?php
if (!is_writable(session_save_path())) {
    echo 'Session path "'.session_save_path().'" is not writable for PHP!';
    // you need set chmod -R 777 [session save path folder]
}

Hope to help you

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Farrers is, of course, best known for being the Queen's solicitors. It's acted for the Royal Family for over seventy years and its private client work is top notch, as are related fields such as agriculture and family. The firm's takeover of Crockers Oswald Hickson ramped up its media department and rather surprisingly it also does some interesting corporate work.
The firm also welcomed the departing private client team from Nabarro, swelling an already sizeable department. Whether this compensates for the departure of star matrimonial lawyer Fiona Shackleton to Payne Hicks Beach (taking the Prince of Wales with her) remains to be seen. As does the more general question of whether such a focussed, old-fashioned firm can continue to prosper – in recent years even the Queen turned to Herbert Smith Freehills for her litigation.
Still, all seems well enough for the moment. Lateral hires are still attracted to the firm, and it manages to bag some interesting instructions. In the last couple of years it has acted for the Natural History Museum in the settlement of Aboriginal Remains claims. And the firm was the official legal partner to the British Olympic Association for London's Olympic bid. The fact that it worked on the 1948 London Games can't have done any harm, even if the role of official provider of legal services to the Games ultimately went to Freshfields.
Farrers convincingly demonstrates that it is possible to make decent money out of private client work. Turnover for the last financial year was up from £50.8 million to £57.5 million. Whatever its HR department might say, this is not the sort of firm that will appeal to everyone. This is the stomping ground of the pashmina brigade, double barrelled names abound, and you won't find many trainees who speak like John Prescott. It is a very conservative firm - having practised from the same building for over 200 years doesn't exactly speak of trend setting innovation. And assistants complain that the offices at the back of that building feel like they're 200 years old as well. Although we are told that the ancient loos have recently been renovated.
The hours are civilised, it has a reputation that belies its relatively small size and it clearly puts its money where its mouth is when it comes to work/life balance – even part time lawyers have been known to enter the partnership. But compared to arch-rival Withers it now looks hopelessly crusty: and completely outclassed on pay.
negative responses (and not enough answered to qualify Farrers for the results table). One non-fee-earner dubbed her Farrer & Co colleagues "self-righteous t***s" for "thinking they are better than anyone else because they get to send the Queen a Christmas card". Another non-fee-earner at Farrers called the culture "toxic", saying she had "seen girls crying in the toilets". However, others disagreed, one lawyer said "people presume that the firm is snooty but it couldn't be more the reverse".
In the RollOnFriday Firm of the Year 2017 survey, on the negative side, said one junior, "the cookies used to be made in-house, and were simply divine". However, "they've replaced them with these shop bought monstrosities - an altogether unsatisfactory affair". But relatively bearable.
There are "completely bonkers partners", but "in the eccentric, endearing uncle/aunt sense". Another junior solicitor said there was "decent hours, a nice culture and good work", but these "come at a price. Sadly that price is our price; we should get paid more". Though another insists, "The bumf they sell to future trainees is, mostly, true. It really is a nice place to work".
Farrers doesn't appeal to everyone - but then, it doesn't want to. You will probably already know if it's the firm for you.


text:
Florida Edition
The Florida Truth-O-Meter
"Many of the companies bankrolling the ad campaign against Amendment 4 are recipients of a congressional bailout, in the form of humongous tax refunds earlier this year."
— Chain email on Tuesday, October 12th, 2010 in a chain e-mail
A chain e-mail attacks "Vote No on 4" backers as bulked up on bailout bucks
By Becky Bowers on Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.
They're at it again: People who write, "Forward this to everyone you know!"
Fact-checking chain e-mails doesn't often carry twists like a Carl Hiaasen novel. You could say PolitiFact Florida just got lucky.
We recently got our hands on an anonymous chain letter that landed in the in-box of Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and Washington bureau chief for the St. Petersburg Times. It delved into the often dense worlds of campaign finance, congressional bailouts and tax policy — then beseeched voters to visit the campaign website of Florida Hometown Democracy.
That's one of two of main political action committees wielding millions of dollars in their battle over Amendment 4, a Florida constitutional proposal on the Nov. 2, 2010, ballot that would put certain land use decisions directly before voters. Most of those millions — $10.5 million, in fact — have been raised by the main "Vote No on 4" effort.
This e-mail purported to lift the veil on just whose cash had been flowing to "Vote No on 4." The biggest donor, it said, was the Florida Association of Realtors, followed by big home builders. Then came this claim, in all its bolded and underlined glory: "Here's the killer: Many of the companies bankrolling the ad campaign against Amendment 4 are recipients of a congressional bailout, in the form of humongous tax refunds earlier this year." It later added: "So, when you see all those dire-sounding, fright-filled TV commercials, remember whose paying for them. You are."
E-mail forwards are a notoriously unreliable form of campaign rhetoric, so with a big choice looming Nov. 2, we decided to run the "humongous tax refunds" claim through the Truth-O-Meter.
First we were curious about the source of the e-mail, since we want to give the person behind a claim the chance to support it. We asked Wayne Garcia, communications director for Florida Hometown Democracy, if it originated with the campaign.
It wasn't a campaign e-mail, he said — he'd never seen it before. However, the idea was nothing new, and he pointed us to some evidence. The Hometown Democracy campaign made similar claims in a news release on Aug. 12, 2010. It listed major "Vote No on 4" campaign contributors such as Pulte Homes, Lennar Homes and KB Home that it said benefited from "billions in federal bailout money." Garcia also pointed us to news articles by the New York Times, Reuters and Builder Magazine that explained the tax refunds.
We got to work with a few key questions: Did companies actually get a "bailout" in the form of "humongous tax refunds"? And did evidence about a handful of home builders support the claim that "many of the companies" behind "Vote No on 4" got a bailout?
A bailout by any other name
First, the bailout question. Any "rescue from financial distress" qualifies as a bailout to us. And last year, the National Association of Home Builders did indeed lobby Congress for — and win — a change in tax law that it argued was a "critical stimulus measure for the U.S. economy" that would provide "an infusion of monetary resources for firms struggling to retain workers and undertake economic activity."
Technically — skip forward a few sentences if this word makes your eyes glaze over — it supported an expansion of the net operating loss carryback period, allowing businesses with losses to carry back deductions for five years instead of just two. As a National Association of Home Builders report explained, "The carryback option allows businesses to offset prior taxes paid, thereby generating tax refunds to finance ongoing expenses." A two-year carryback was simply too short for builders, it argued, since many had suffered since late 2005. In a two-year period, it claimed, there wouldn't necessarily be enough taxable income to offset builders' financial trauma.
Small businesses had scored this benefit in the stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. But big companies wanted to get in the game. The home builders' association projected the change was potentially worth billions.
President Barack Obama handed it to them Nov. 6, 2009, when he signed the Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act. A New York Times column proclaimed days later "Home Builders (You Heard That Right) Get a Gift." Builder Magazine added up the lucre in February 2010: Nearly $2 billion in total tax refunds for the last three months of 2009.
Not content to rely on secondhand sources, we spot-checked records ourselves, finding references to the new tax benefits in public filings. The general story held up. PulteGroup did indeed report an $800 million boost in fourth quarter 2009. KB Home reported an income tax benefit of $191.7 million, as reported in the Builder Magazine and Hometown Democracy charts. Meanwhile, the fourth-quarter Lennar Corp. number wasn't as easy to come by. While the charts said $251.1 million, Builder Magazine editor John Caulfield told us Oct. 27 that he was looking at the wrong report as he prepared his story. Lennar did say it expected a tax refund for the year of $320 million, though didn't appear to break out a fourth-quarter tax benefit.
We also confirmed "Vote No on 4" campaign contributions from builders named in the Florida Hometown Democracy news release. Many were heavy hitters: A query to a Florida Division of Elections database for contributors who've handed over more than $100,000 each to fight the direct democracy initiative shows Pulte Homes Corp., Lennar Family of Builders, KB Home and more.
(PulteGroup, for the record, said its commitment to oppose Amendment 4 "was made in 2009 prior to the receipt of any tax refund.")
Beyond the builders
Florida Hometown Democracy's August press release broke out just 12 builders as specific examples of companies that benefited from the tax change and contributed to "Vote No on 4." It pointed out that private companies wouldn't have to reveal their tax records.
So we wondered: Would the word "many" in the claim hold up under scrutiny?
Well, here's twist No. 1.
It wasn't just builders that benefited from the 2009 tax change. We called Steven Friedman, national director of home building services for Ernst & Young, who explained that the carryback provision applied to nearly everyone, companies and individuals alike.
Other than industries with special rules such as finance or insurance — and companies that already benefited from TARP funds — anyone with the appropriate losses and prior taxable income could benefit, he said.
"The point is, this was a very broad-based change in the law," he said. "This was not a rifle shot targeted to Wall Street, to home builders, take your pick."
We had crunched the campaign contributor data, which showed more than 1,000 contributions to the main "Vote No on 4" political action committee, Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy. When we pulled out individuals and industry and lobbying groups, such as leading donor Florida Association of Realtors Advocacy Fund, about 430 contributions were left, primarily from companies. The most common self-identified occupations included construction, development and real estate.
Did "many" of those companies benefit from the tax refund "bailout?" We would have to know whether they had suffered the appropriate losses in 2008 or 2009 and previously had taxable income to offset. We could make an educated guess that it was likely for builders, developers and real estate companies, given the recession, but without intensive research — and likely stonewalls in the case of private companies — we couldn't know for sure.
The final twist
If we could only talk with the originator of the chain e-mail claim, perhaps we would discover a powerful act of database journalism that cross-linked every business that contributed to "Vote No on 4" with any refunds supercharged by the 2009 tax law change.
As it was, we were making some leaps — names weren't usually an identical match. PulteGroup, for example, recorded the $800 million tax benefit. Pulte Homes Group made the $567,000 political donation.
Then we found the author. Well, sort of.
An Internet search on "humongous tax refunds" turned up the source, all right: novelist and Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen. But he had nothing to do with the chain e-mail.
Instead, someone had borrowed liberally from his Oct. 9, 2010, column, "Running scared over Amendment 4." Hiaasen, who takes shady Florida developers to task in his novels, used this column to shake a finger at special interests for their attacks on Amendment 4. He connected big-builder contributors to those tax refunds. He told his readers: "These guys are using your money to keep your voice, and your vote, out of the neighborhood planning process."
PolitiFact Florida got Hiaasen on the phone.
"The tax refunds these companies got were well documented," he said. True.
But could he confirm that "many" companies that contributed got the bailouts?
"It depends on your definition of many," he said.
It would be great if someone would cross-check those contributors with data on tax refunds, he offered. He could do it, just not immediately.
But he had been struck that builders, who contributed to the over-development that brought on the real estate collapse in the first place, had benefited from an act of Congress — and now opposed a measure that would give voters a say in their work.
"When you start taking handouts from the government and then suddenly have enough money to get politically involved at this level, with this much cash going in, I think you need to be accountable, and I think the public needs to know where their bailout dollars are going," he said.
But he didn't have that dreamy database we'd been hoping for.
So what does the Truth-O-Meter make of all this?
First, what we can confirm: Some companies bankrolling the ad campaign against Amendment 4 are recipients of a congressional bailout in the form of tax refunds.
What no one has yet proved, though it seems likely: "Many."
What we won't rule on: "Humongous." While hundreds of millions of dollars sounds large to us, that's a value judgment best reserved for opinion columns and novels.
The statement we're ruling on relies on finding companies that both got and gave, not on establishing a link between the cash flows. We don't define "many" but we confirmed at least "some" — just 12 builders represent nearly $2 million for "Vote No on 4," about 18 percent of the money raised. We find it valuable context that companies far beyond home builders, Realtors and developers also benefited from this tax change — even, say, newspaper companies. We rule this claim Half True. Though if Mr. Hiaasen comes up with that magical database, we'd be happy to reconsider.
UPDATE: John Caulfield, who graciously acknowledged his mistake on a Lennar number, later showed us one of our own errors. Our original post of this item used a year-end tax figure, not a fourth-quarter one, for KB Home. That has now been corrected.
Published: Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: John Bartosek
Subjects: Florida, Florida Amendments
Chain e-mail, "Disgusting is the ONLY word !" Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010
Florida Division of Elections campaign finance database, search results showing campaign finance totals for Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, accessed Oct. 19, 2010
Florida Hometown Democracy news release, "Bailed-Out "Bubble Builders" Funneling Millions into Florida to Deny Citizens The Right to Vote," Aug. 12, 2010, via spokesman Wayne Garcia
Florida Division of Elections campaign finance database, search results showing contributions over $100,000 to Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, accessed Oct. 19, 2010
PulteGroup, e-mail from spokeswoman Valerie Dolenga, Oct. 25, 2010
Becky Bowers, analysis of state campaign finance database, October 2010
Merriam-Webster, definition of "bailout", accessed Oct. 26, 2010
National Association of Home Builders, "Economic Analysis of NOL Carryback Relief," Aug. 18, 2009
National Association of Home Builders, e-mail from Liz Thompson, media relations manager in
public affairs and advocacy, Oct. 26, 2010
Library of Congress, Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009 [PDF]
New York Times, "Home Builders (You Heard That Right) Get a Gift," Nov. 14, 2009
Builder Magazine, "Builders Cash in on Tax Refunds," Feb. 9, 2010
PulteGroup, 8-K filing, Feb. 9, 2010
Lennar Corp., 8-K filing, Feb. 11, 2010
KB Home, news release on 8-K filing, Jan. 12, 2010
John Caulfield, senior editor for Builder Magazine, e-mail Oct. 27
Miami Herald, "Running scared over Amendment 4," Oct. 9, 2010
Carl Hiaasen, interview, Oct. 25, 2010
Builder Magazine, "Builders May Receive Cash Infusion from New Tax Bill," Nov. 6, 2009
Bloomberg Businessweek, "Tax-Loss Carryback Provision Glides in Congress," Nov. 2, 2009
We want to hear your suggestions and comments. Email the Truth-O-Meter with feedback and with claims you'd like to see checked. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.
Browse The Florida Truth-O-Meter
See all Florida Pants on Fire rulings
See all Florida False rulings
See Sen. Rick Scott's file
See Sen. Marco Rubio's file
See Gov. Ron DeSantis' file
Keep up to date with PolitiFact Florida


text:
Analysis of Recent Changes in the RPT Framework vis-à-vis SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)(Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2021
by Khushi Sharma* and Kashish Lalwani**
Published on March 2, 2022 March 2, 2022 By Editor
On 28-9-2021, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in its Board meeting approved changes in the related party transaction (RPT) framework under the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (LODR).[1] The changes were based on the recommendations of the Working Group,[2] constituted in November 2019, to review the policy space pertaining to related-party transactions.
The approved changes in the form of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)(Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2021 were notified on 6-11-2021. Major modifications under this amendment include the widening of the definition of "related party", revision of materiality threshold, and the requirement of "prior" approval of shareholders for material related-party transactions. These modifications have been made in an attempt to provide greater scrutiny of RPTs, taking into account the abuse of the relevant provisions, thus considering the interests of the shareholders.
This article seeks to analyse certain aspects of the aforementioned amendment and highlight the ambiguities therein. It then moves on to deal with threefold modifications in the provisions dealing with material related-party transactions and point out the issues pertaining to shareholders' approval for existing contracts/arrangements. While taking note of the legislative intent, it also aims to provide possible interpretation of the provisions where such issues lie. Finally, it concludes with the possible steps to clarify the ambiguities that have arisen and have put companies in a confused state.
Major modifications and their analysis
Definition of "related party"
The definition of a related p(RP) has been significantly changed by this amendment. It has been broadened to include any person or entity who is part of the promoter group of the listed entity as well as any person or entity holding equity shares of 20% or more either directly or as a beneficial interest under Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2013[3] (the Act). Due to this, all the promoter groups which hold control in interlinked groups will come under the scrutiny of LODR. Further, as a result of including persons with 20% or more shares in the definition of "related party", LODR will cover every individual holding a decision-making power and significant shareholding.
Definition of "related-party transaction"
While the erstwhile definition included only a transaction between a listed entity and its related party, now it also includes transactions between a listed entity or its subsidiary and related parties of the listed entity or its subsidiary.
(i) Cross RPTs
As mentioned above, now that RPTs will also include transactions between a subsidiary and its related parties, it is likely that the threshold of INR 1000 crores or 10% of annual consolidated turnover of the listed entity, for seeking shareholders' approval will reach sooner than usual. As per Section 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013[4], a "subsidiary" company will also include subsidiaries that are based abroad. If a foreign subsidiary enters into a transaction with another company, the Audit Committee and the shareholders of the parent Indian company will have a deciding factor in the success of that transaction. This will create a conflict of laws and jurisdictional issues.
This amendment could also be challenged on the ground that it violates the principle of separate legal existence. Further, the foreign subsidiaries will be governed by the laws of their place of incorporation. Therefore, there is no clarity as to how the implementation of these provisions be interpreted. To avoid all the hassle, a possible solution could be to grant certain exemptions and provide detailed guidance specifically in relation to foreign subsidiaries.
(ii) "Purpose and effect" clause
An important aspect of the amendment is that it will also include the transactions between a listed entity or its subsidiary with an unrelated party which has the "purpose and effect" of causing a benefit to the related party. This provision will come into effect from 1-4-2023.
This provision has been borrowed from the UK (Para 11.1.5 of Financial Conduct Authority Handbook).[5] It would be interesting to see how the "purpose and effect" is going to be interpreted. Since the word "and" has been used, both purpose and effect have to be read together while determining the impact of a transaction. In a situation where a transaction has not been entered into intentionally for the benefit of a related party, it will not be considered an RPT just because it is indirectly benefiting a related party. While the effect can be seen explicitly, it would be a difficult task to determine the purpose as it might not be evident. It will have to be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances.
The authors believe that this provision would be very beneficial in keeping a check on fraudulent and camouflaged transactions. The provision brings into effect the "smoke test" propounded by the Supreme Court of India in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd.[6] to detect collusive or sham transactions which create an illusion of transfer of money when in reality the transaction has been entered into with an ulterior motive.
It will prevent the companies from bypassing approval processes by entering into transactions with unrelated parties. However, the regulatory authorities should contemplate and provide guidance on the investigation to determine the "purpose and effect". This will prevent the companies from exploiting the loopholes and will also give them a clear understanding of the provision.
(iii) Exclusions in the definition
Until now, the companies have been forming separate RPT policy and made certain exclusions in line with the LODR and the Act. However, this Amendment has brought in certain exclusions in the definition of RPT itself. These exclusions include the issue of specified securities on a preferential basis, certain corporate actions like payment of dividends, etc., and lastly, acceptance of deposits by banks, etc. With this amendment, it can be concluded that the companies will not be in a position to make any further exclusions apart from what is mentioned in the provision.
Threefold modification in the provisions dealing with material related-party transactions
Before proceeding further, it is important to note that an RPT as defined under Regulation 2(1)(zc),[7] shall be construed to include a single transaction or a group of transactions in a contract.
Modifications in the provisions dealing with material RPTs are threefold. First, under Regulation 23(4)[8] the requirement of approval of material RPTs from the shareholders has been made "prior" to the entering of such transactions. Second, the threshold of determining the materiality of RPTs has been changed and now stands as a value above: (i) INR 1000 crores; or (ii) 10% of annual consolidated turnover of the listed entity, whichever is lower. Third, the scope of RPTs has been expanded to cover cross-RPTs.
Thus, these modifications when collectively interpreted would mean, related-party transaction/s including cross-RPTs that exceed the materiality threshold will require prior shareholders' approval.
Issues pertaining to shareholders' approval for existing contracts/arrangements
In the light of these changes, there are certain issues that arise. Though the modification in the materiality threshold is applicable with effect from 1-4-2022,it has the potential to trigger changes on the part of a company's compliance requirement prior to the effective date. The provision of compliance requirement of shareholders' approval [Regulation 23(4)] uses the term "material related party transactions" and not "material related party contracts". Therefore, there is a possibility of the amendment affecting contract/centered into prior to the effective date of changed materiality threshold if such contract/s have transactions to be carried on or after 1-4-2022.
A company with a turnover of INR 2000 crores for the financial year 2019-2020, enters into a contract worth INR 1500 crores with a related party. When the contract was entered into, the materiality threshold was a value exceeding 10% of the consolidated turnover of the past financial year, hence shareholders' approval for carrying out this contract was not a requirement. Some transactions under this contract are to be executed after the end of Financial Year (FY) 2020-2021. The question here is,
In the light of the changed materiality threshold, are companies required to reclassify the ongoing RPTs as material and non-material since an ongoing contract (which crosses the changed materiality threshold) may have transactions to be executed on or after FY 2021-2022?
If such a reclassification is required, certain follow-up questions would arise. Apart from shareholders' approval for material RPTs that will be executed after the end of FY 2021-2022,
Will it be required for continuation of RPTs under a contract/s reclassified as material? and,
Will it be required for ratification of completed RPTs forming part of a contract reclassified as material?
Analysis: Is reclassification of ongoing RPTs required
Regulation 23(6) provides for the application of Regulation 23 to all prospective transactions, therefore, the application of the amended provision would apply to transactions taking place after the end of FY 2021-2022. However, these prospective transactions may be part of contracts or arrangement centered into prior to 1-4-2022.
Before the notification of the amendment i.e. before 6-11-2021, companies entered into contracts or arrangements, keeping in view the10% threshold and not taking into account cross-RPTs. Some of these contracts or arrangements may consist of transactions to be carried on or after 1-4-2022. If these contracts or arrangements cross the revised materiality threshold, the question that arises is:
Is shareholders' approval under such types of contracts required only for the transactions that will be executed after the end of FY 21 or it is required for all the RPTs aggregated under those contracts?
Through the reading of Regulation 23(6) of the LODR, it is clear that transactions to be executed after the end of FY 2021 (including the ones that are part of ongoing contracts or arrangements) that cross the revised materiality threshold will require prior shareholders' approval. Therefore, in the absence of reclassification of ongoing contracts considering the changed materiality threshold and the inclusion of cross-RPTs, companies may face ramifications. These ramifications may come in the form of breach of contract if transactions that are to be executed after the end of FY 2021 under such ongoing contracts are denied shareholders' approval.
The second part of the above-posed question can be further divided into two sub-questions:
(i) Will the RPTs (to be executed before 1-4-2022 under a contract/s reclassified as material require shareholder's approval for continuation?
(ii) Will the completed RPTs forming part of a contract be reclassified as material, require shareholders' approval ratifying it?
The answer to these questions depends on the applicability of Regulation 23(8) in light of the present amendment.
Regulation 23(8) states,
23(8). All existing material related party contracts or arrangements entered into prior to the date of notification of these regulations and which may continue beyond such date shall be placed for approval of the shareholders in the first General Meeting subsequent to notification of these regulations.[9]
This regulation has been in place from the date of the notification of the LODR i.e. 2-9-2015. There is an absence of additional words such as, "as amended from time to time", after "these regulations" or any explanation stating that the date of notification as provided in Regulation 23(8) would change with respect to the date of notification of amendments that may be made in Regulation 23. In such an absence, it appears that the date of notification suggested in the regulation is 2-9-2015 i.e. the date of the publication of the Regulations in the Official Gazette [Regulation 1(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)Regulations, 2015[10]].
If the date of notification is taken as 2-9-2015, then, Regulation 23(8) does not become applicable in the light of the present amendment and answer to the above questions i.e. the requirement of shareholders' approval for completed RPTs and RPTs to be executed before 1-4-2022 under ongoing contracts, is unclear.
Now, if it considered that by "these regulations" as mentioned in Regulation 23(8) is meant these regulations as amended from time to time, then the date of notification will become 9-11-2021 i.e. the date on which Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)(Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2021 has been notified in the Official Gazette. However, this amendment is to come into force from 1-4-2022.
If this interpretation is taken, there is confusion as to which date out of the two will be considered for the purpose of Regulation 23(8).
If we analyse the impact of such an interpretation ignoring this confusion, it can be concluded that the companies will have to reclassify the ongoing RPTs and take the approval of shareholders for all the RPTs aggregated under the material related party contracts or arrangements.
Further, in the background of the circular issued by SEBI on 22-11-2021[11], listed entities have to place an array of information before the Audit Committee and the shareholders, and if ongoing contracts have to comply with Regulation 23(8), they will have to be taken to the shareholders accompanied by information as mandated under the SEBI circular.
Not only this, the amendment has increased the disclosure requirements manifold. The listed entities will have to give in the details of loans, deposits, etc. and the purpose for which this amount will be utilised by the beneficiaries under Regulation 23(9) in a specified format.
Another important aspect of the amendment is that the Audit Committee is also supposed to grant prior approval for "material modification" in a RPT. However, a major problem here is the definition of "material". This has not been clarified by SEBI. It is the prerogative of the Audit Committee to decide whether a transaction will constitute "material modification". Leaving this decision solely on the Audit Committee without any guidelines or clarification might create confusion and bring in transactions under scrutiny unnecessarily.
Following the notification of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)(Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2021 which has brought changes in the RPT regime taking note of prevailing loopholes which have been exploited, neglecting the interest of various stakeholders, several questions have arisen, some of which have been discussed in this article.
The broadening of the definition of RPT will have a significant impact in terms of bringing many more transactions under the scanner. It will prevent fraud and help in putting a check on sham transactions. Even though SEBI has included transactions with a third party having the "purpose and effect" of benefiting a related party, the interpretation of "purpose and effect" needs to be clarified in further guidance notes and circulars. Further, by bringing the transactions entered into by subsidiaries and especially foreign subsidiaries under scrutiny, the principles of separate legal entity and autonomy of making independent decisions has been gravely affected.
The major question is the impact of the changed materiality threshold and inclusion of cross-RPTs on ongoing contracts which if reclassified considering these modifications will become material RPTs. The position in this regard as of now is ambiguous. What is clear from the reading of Regulation 23(6) is that the RPTs crossing the revised materiality threshold, to be executed after the end of FY 2021-2022 will require "prior" shareholders' approval.
However, it is unclear if the RPTs under a contract or an arrangement (which consists of RPTs that will be executed after FY 2021-2022) need reclassification and subsequently require shareholders' approval for continuation or ratification as the case may be.
Though the intention of the changed RPT framework is better corporate governance and protecting the interests of the minority, however, these changes have put a cumbersome compliance burden on the companies. It might also bring up practical difficulties especially to the big corporate houses with a large number of subsidiaries. Further, due to lack of clarity in certain matters as discussed in this article, these changes can put companies in confusing positions and they might end up unintentionally breaching the amended provisions.
Clarifications on the part of SEBI dealing with issues arising out of the modified Listing Regulations (LODR) will, therefore, be welcomed in order to balance the interests of the companies as well as its stakeholders.
*Fourth year student, BA LLB (Hons.), Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
**Third year law student at Hidayatullah National Law University.
[1]Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015,
[2]Report of the Working Group on Related Party Transactions, 27-1-2020<https://www.sebi.gov.in/reports-and-statistics/reports/jan-2020/report-of-the-working-group-on-related-party-transactions_45805.html>.
[3]Companies Act, 2013, S. 89.
[4]Companies Act, 2013, S. 2(87).
[5]LR 11.1 Related party transactions, <https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/LR/11/1.html>.
[6](2021) 3 SCC 475.
[7]Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, Regn. 2(1)(zc).
[8]Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and DisclosureRequirements) Regulations, 2015, Regn. 23(4).
[9]Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, Regn. 23(8).
[10]Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, Regn. 1(2).
[11]Disclosure Obligations of Listed Entities in Relation to Related Party Transactions, SEBI/HO/CFD/CMD1/CIR/P/2021/662, 22-11-2021,
<https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/nov-2021/disclosure-obligations-of-listed-entities-in-relation-to-related-party-transactions_54113.html>.
Previous storyDefinition of 'Advanced Metering Infrastructure' introduced vide CEA (Installation and Operation of Meters) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022
Next storyCan State discriminate between persons having experience in home State from those having experience in other States? Is there any intelligible differentia? SC answers
Op EdsOP. ED.
Small Time Cartels: The Robin Hood We Need?
By Bhumika Indulia Published on January 23, 2021 January 23, 2021
The Road that Needs to be Paved for Central-KYC in India (Part-II)
By Bhumika Indulia Published on February 21, 2020 July 14, 2020
Fee Schedule of Arbitral Tribunal: Focusing on the Sole Arbitrator's Fee
By Bhumika Indulia Published on June 11, 2020 July 14, 2020


text:
Chimney Bluffs State Park is a  state park in the town of Huron in Wayne County, New York. The park is situated on the southern shore of Lake Ontario, east of Sodus Bay. From the park's hiking trails, visitors can view the large clay formations at the water's edge for which the park is named.

Geology

The bluffs are formed from eroded drumlins, teardrop-shaped hills of glacial till that were deposited and shaped by glaciers during the most recent ice age. The erosive power of wind, rain, snow, and waves has formed the landscape into sharp pinnacles. Although the pinnacles and cliffs, some of which rise up to  above the lake shore, have existed for thousands of years, they are constantly changing and further eroding.

Park history and features

The Chimney Bluffs area has been a landmark for many years. According to the pamphlet given by the park, smugglers used the area as a landing point while transporting liquor from Canada during Prohibition. The area was acquired by the state of New York in 1963 after having previously been operated informally as a privately owned recreation area.

It lay undeveloped until 1999 when a parking lot, service building with heated restrooms, picnic areas with grills, and hiking trails throughout the park were added. It is considered a year-round park for hiking and picnicking in the summer. Swimming is prohibited. Winter activities include cross-country skiing and snowshoeing; a trailhead for snowmobiling is also located within the park.

The park has approximately  of hiking trails, including a  trail along the Bluffs between the west and east entrances.

From some vantage points in the park, visitors can see Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station,  to the northeast, as well as the coal smokestacks located in Oswego.

Gallery

See also
 List of New York state parks

References

External links
 New York State Parks: Chimney Bluffs State Park

State parks of New York (state)
Parks in Wayne County, New York

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The Peterborough Evening Telegraph Education Awards, which recognises all achievements in all areas of education, was held on Monday 15 September at the Key Theatre.
At the Regional Championships in June she won gold medals in four individual categories and as part of three relay teams. She now holds the Regional records in 400m freestyle and 200m fly. At the Central Zonal meet she won gold medals in the 15 and under age group for 400m Individual Medley, 200m fly and 200m free. She competed at the British Champs and Commonwealth trials in Glasgow in April. She reached the junior final in both events and achieved a European Junior time in the 200m fly which means she is eligible for selection by GB Junior team in the European Championships.
Dan Leigh (Yr11) and Jamie Scholes (Yr10) won Highly Commended awards. Miss Jeal said "Dan is also an extremely hardworking and committed swimmer. He trains for many of hours each week and has achieved a number of outstanding times and qualifications this year." These include national times for 200m Free and 400m Free as well as being selected for the England Talent Programme, representing the Eastern Division of the English Schools Swimming Association at the National Championships in Bristol. He also came first overall at the Cambridgeshire County Championships and winning nine gold, three silver and two bronze medals.
Jamie Scholes, another extremely successful and committed swimmer, was East Region Champion in 2014 in the 14-year-old boys category. He won an English Schools 200m backstroke Gold Medal, a National Arena League 100m Backstroke meet record among other successes.
"He is an outstanding student and sportsmen and he is striving for success!" said Miss Jeal in her nomination.
Congratulations also goes to Teaching Assistant Miss Terri McGinn who was Highly Recommended in the Best Support Staff category, sponsored by Chroma Schoolwear and Trophies. She was nominated for her constant support of all her students, especially the year 10 and 11s that need support with their reading, writing and understanding whilst having to prepare for their GCSEs.