Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) sent a letter to cable and streaming companies on Monday questioning their decisions to host certain news networks. The letter linked content aired on certain channels to the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. “Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse,” they wrote, singling out Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN) and Fox News for airing misinformation. “Right-wing media outlets, like Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News all aired misinformation about the November 2020 elections,” McNerney and Eshoo wrote. “These same networks also have been key vectors of spreading misinformation related to the pandemic.”

In response to the allegations, Fox News Media said in a statement, “As the most watched cable news channel throughout 2020, FOX News Media provided millions of Americans with in-depth reporting, breaking news coverage and clear opinion. For individual members of Congress to highlight political speech they do not like and demand cable distributors engage in viewpoint discrimination sets a terrible precedent.” Republicans also responded to the letters, saying they were calling to limit free speech rights and marked a departure from First Amendment norms. The House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday on disinformation and extremism in media. Newsmax issued a statement Monday decrying what the company said was an attack on the First Amendment. And Newsmax noted that the Eshoo-McNerney letter makes several false or misleading characterizations of its coverage.

After the rocket attack on February 15 in northern Iraq that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a US service member and other coalition troops, 10 days later, Biden directed U.S. military conducted a targeted military strike against infrastructure in eastern Syria used by Iran-Supported non-state militia groups. The airstrike was the first military action undertaken by the Biden administration.

The U.S. Defense Department said multiple facilities were destroyed at a border control point and there were casualties but did not provide any additional information.

However, democrats criticize Biden’s decision to launch airstrikes in Syria without consulting congress. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement that the “American people deserve to hear the administration’s rationale for these strikes and its legal justification for acting without coming to Congress. Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.”

“You cannot act with impunity. Be careful.” Biden wanted to send a message to the intruders and he explained later in a statement the actions were pursuant to the US’s inherent right of self-defense. The National security council spokesperson considered the strikes were necessary to address the threat and proportionate to the prior attacks.

Iranian Foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif condemned U.S. air strikes against Iran-backed militias in Syria. He claimed this action as illegal and a violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

Biden’s actions in the Middle East might be a movement to change the current relationship standards. He tired to recalibrate the U.S.-Saudi relationship: ending the Trump’s coziness with the authoritarian regime in Riyadh. What status will the relationship changing to? Will the gasoline prices fluctuate with the changes? Will terrorism aggravated?

CIMA Law group is specializing in Government relations and follows international and national breaking news closely.

In a story that has been culminating since 2011, last week the supreme court voted to allow Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial documents to be presented to a New York grand jury. The newly enforceable subpoena for the former president’s tax documents was served & enforced on Monday and documents are now in the hands of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance according to ABC news. While the scope of the investigation is large, Vance has specifically noted his interest in the former president’s payments in “hush money”, as this investigation first began in 2016 after Trump’s Lawyer Micheal Cohen paid adult-film-star actress Stormi Daniels $130,000 to keep quite about her alleged affair with the former president, a claim that has been denied. Cohen also alleged to congress that Trump lied about his personal and buissness finances to ensure favorable loans and avoid taxes, and many expect that these claims will also be investigated by Vance’s and the district of New York’s prosecution team. While the investigation is to begin by looking only at Trump’s financial misgivings with in the U.S., many expect that the investigation may tie back to Duetsche Bank, the german investment firm that has funded many of the former president’s real estate projects and has been gaining the speculative attention of world banking policing agencies.

Trump has called Vance’s investigation “a fishing expedition” and “a continuation of the witch hunt — the greatest witch hunt in history.”

Vance, whose term expires at the end of the year, hasn’t announced if he will seek reelection, leaving questions about who will lead any Trump-related prosecutions in the future. But with the recent confirmation of attorney general Merrick Garland who has stated that he is not opposed to opening retroactive investigations into Trump, specifically in regards to the January 6th insurrection of the capital, it can be safe to assume that Donald will not be out of hot water anytime soon.

CIMA law will provide updates as the story developed.

This week marks President Joe Biden’s first big test as his massive COVID-19 relief bill begins to take shape on Capitol Hill with very little bipartisan support. Contrary to popular belief, having control of the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House is never as easy as it looks – even when discussing legislation that may seem emphatically popular with the American public. As such, the next three weeks will be critical in determining how Democrat moderates and progressives will compromise, as well as which Republican leaders will be willing to put aside their political grievances in the name of the greater good.

As of now, Republican leaders in the House have made it abundantly clear that they intend to do everything within their power to ensure that the Biden administration does not receive the satisfaction of passing this legislation with bipartisan support. In fact, in a strict party-line vote earlier this month, all 50 Senate Democrats voted in favor of advancing a budget resolution to speed aid package through Congress, whereas 49 Senate Republicans voted against it. Moving forward, White House aides claim that Republicans who attack the merits of the bill can be expected to argue that the legislation includes a number of provisions that are unrelated to coronavirus relief – including providing funding for the arts, humanities, and the preservation of Native American languages.

On the other hand, Progressives are counting on the bill including a $15 minimum wage, whereas certain moderate Democrats, including Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema of West Virginia and Arizona respectively, have made it clear that they cannot support the proposed wage increase. With only a five-vote margin, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cannot afford to lose support from either progressives or moderates. Now, having surpassed over 500,000 deaths in the United States and nearly one year into the pandemic, Democrats must try to stay united if they wish to pass this $1.9 trillion bill and deliver for their new President on his first big ask.

Here at CIMA Law Group, we will be following the issue very closely.

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court denied an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans challenging a  Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed ballots received up to three days late to be counted in the 2020 election. According to CNN, the Republicans backing the appeal emphasized they were not attempting to overturn the election results, but that the state Supreme Court abused its power in allowing a change in ballot deadlines and must be tried under those circumstances. The ballots at issue amounted to approximately 10,000 votes, which would not change the outcome of the election in the state.

Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Ailto, and Neil Gorsuch, three of the more conservative justices, dissented from the court’s denial of review, but they made it clear they had no desire to disturb the election results. The three justices said the court should have taken the opportunity to determine if Pennsylvania’s elections officials and courts had usurped the state legislature’s authority over elections by easing mail voting restrictions. Reported by The Hill, Thomas said, “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules,” and went on further to say the refusal to do so is inexplicable.

By rejecting this appeal, the court signified its lack of interest in cases regarding the outcome of the 2020 election. This is the second time the court has denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans, as in October of 2020 the court denied a request to investigate the decision to accept late ballots. On Monday, the Supreme court rejected eight cases, and this case is the only one in which justices publicly dissented. CBS Pittsburgh reported this case was of heightened interest to voting rights expert who, “Wanted to see if the Supreme Court might put limits on what state courts can do when interpreting their own laws.”

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact CIMA LAW GROUP.

The Arizona department of Health services reported 1804 new coronavirus cases this weekend and the total cases in Arizona Statewide has reached 807,987 cases.  Meanwhile, U.S. has almost half a million dead. Most Americans will be expected to wear masks until 2022.

“It’s something that is historic. It’s nothing like we’ve ever been though in the last 102 years since the 1918 influenza pandemic,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“It really is a terrible situation that we’ve been through and that we’re still going through. And that’s the reason why we keep insisting to continue with the public health measures — because we don’t want this to get much worse than it already is.”

There is only 5.7% U.S. population been fully vaccinated. However, even after two doses of COVID-19 vaccines, do not grant a person a life similar to the one they had pre-covid-19.

Firstly, the vaccine does not guarantee 100% full immunity from COVID-19. People are still encouraged wear masks and avoid social gathering. The health experts explain there is also no guarantee the immunity will last forever since data needs months or even years to observe.

Secondly, health experts stated that restaurants are still the hotspot for COVID-19 spreading. Since there are no body wearing masks while they are eating, and the few restaurants installed the proper filtration equipment on their circulation systems, leaving the air poorly ventilated and a prime breeding ground for virus spread. 

Thirdly, there is also a possibility that the current vaccines won’t fully protect against the new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which is still newly under studying right now.

Lastly, been vaccinated also not mean the people are free to travel. Fauci said “I mean, if you absolutely have to travel and it’s essential, then obviously, one will have to do that. But we do not want people to think because they got vaccinated, then other public health recommendations just do not apply.”

After one year, we cannot deny the truth people are still living in the middle of the pandemic. What is the future for the American people remains unknown. We should continually being caution about social distancing and always wearing masks in public space, avoid social gathering, get vaccinated while it’s available.

CIMA Law group will follow up with the news closely.

A new poll has recently come out from the Morning Consult and Politico, affirming that the new United States President Joe Biden has an approval rating of 62% with a disapproval rating of 33%. This analytical data poses great questions to be scrutinized in order to gather an explanation for its occurrence. In today’s divisive U.S. political climate, a 63% approval rating is exceptionally high, even for what is known to be considered the honeymoon period. When a president first takes office, he is often given what is called a Honeymoon Period: For a few months, the public, the media, and members of Congress tend to give the president the benefit of the doubt and treat him well. However, this honeymoon period is usually fairly short and often gives way to opposition and hostility. Yet, the key takeaway of this information should be focalized on the fact that Joe Biden has the political capital to effectively do whatever he pleases. This then leads to the questioning of whether his amount of political power at the moment would have an effect on the amount of issues he chooses to take on and leave alone, and how it would affect his numbers.

Additionally, a Quinnipiac University poll finds Biden’s average approval rating is 55% and his average disapproval rating is 39%, which makes for an average net approval rating of +16 points. Nothing ever seemed to shake Donald Trump’s job approval rating. It moved less than any other president in the polling era. So far, Biden’s proven to be even steadier than Trump. And very much unlike Trump, people seem to actually like what Biden is doing. Biden’s net approval rating a month ago stood at +18 points in an average of polls. That means his net approval has shifted by only 2 points in his first month in office. In Trump’s first month in office, his net approval rating fell considerably more. He actually started with a slightly positive net approval rating of +1 or +2 points, depending on how you averaged the polls. A month in, he was at about -7 points. Steadiness in the polls is nothing new for Biden. The size of his advantage over Trump in the national presidential polls during the 2020 campaign was the most consistent in polling history. There’s really no way of knowing how steady Biden’s approval rating will be over the next few months. But you can see how the formula Biden used during the 2020 campaign could work for him in the White House.