Politics

By Nandita Bose and Trevor Hunnicutt

CHICAGO (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden worked to lift Americans’ dour mood about the economy with what his aides billed as a major speech on Wednesday, an effort to shore up a top political weakness as he seeks re-election.

Biden, whose two-year term as president has witnessed a sharp rebound from the COVID-19 induced recession, has nonetheless watched his public approval ratings sag under the weight of voter anxieties about the direction of the economy.

Job creation and low unemployment are the positives while elevated inflation and the knock-on effects of spiking interest rates over the past year in areas such as the housing market have stoked fears of recession.

Speaking in Chicago, the U.S. president re-introduced his vision of middle-class American prosperity. That includes taxing the wealthy to invest in areas critical to national security, including semiconductors; educating workers; and improving economic competition, Biden said.

“This vision is a fundamental break with an economic theory that has failed America’s middle class for decades now,” Biden said.

More than half of Americans disapprove of how Biden is handing his job, while just 35% of respondents approved of his stewardship of the economy, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this month. Voters rate the economy as their top issue.

The U.S. economy grew at a 1.3% annualized rate in the first quarter and unemployment was at 3.7% in May, when inflation rose at a 4% year-over-year rate.

White House aides see those inflation figures as elevated but headed in the right direction under Biden-backed policies designed to reduce deficit spending and lower costs on a range of products from insulin to concert tickets.

Still, Federal Reserve officials have said they think they have “a long way to go” to get inflation back down to healthy levels and may need to raise borrowing costs more, which could cause a recession.

Aides are using the term “Bidenomics” to capture the Democratic president’s approach, drawing a contrast with the tax-cutting ethos once called “Reaganomics” for its affiliation with Republican former President Ronald Reagan, who left office in 1989.

“I’m not here to declare victory on the economy. I’m here to say we have a plan that’s turning things around incredibly quickly. We have more work to do.” He said the next phase would include making the federal tax system fair by eliminating loopholes for the wealthy.

Whether his message will break through is an open question. The summertime speech came ahead of the July Fourth holiday, 16 months before voters head to the polls and as Republicans sort through a large field of possible candidates led by former President Donald Trump.

Biden’s last major address to the nation, a prime-time June 2 Oval Office speech trumpeting a bipartisan deal to end the debt limit crisis, drew an audience of just 6.2 million people and was only picked up by two of the major U.S. broadcast networks, according to research firm Nielsen.

On Wednesday, Biden’s afternoon speech was aired on the major cable news networks.

Trump has made inflation a key element of his attacks on Biden in the early months of the race.

“Americans are worse off under Biden,” said Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in a statement. “Prices continue to skyrocket, and hardworking Americans pay the price for failed ‘Bidenomics.’”

Biden, 80, is also expected to attend a fundraising event while he is in the Chicago area ahead of a federal deadline for fundraising records. He is not expected to face a serious fight for his party’s nomination.

(Reporting by Nandita Bose and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Jamie Freed and Alistair Bell)

source

The message is not a new one, though the White House believes it bears repeating so that it soaks in. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at Monday’s news briefing that the president’s upcoming remarks would be a “cornerstone” speech and part of a larger administration-wide effort.

“It’s a vision about growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up — you hear us say that over and over again, because we believe that trickle-down economics does not work,” Jean-Pierre said. “We have the data to prove it.”

Indeed, the rate of inflation has fallen over the past year while the job market has remained solid, a combination that seemed unlikely to many economic analysts who expected efforts to bring down inflation would cause layoffs and a recession. Goldman Sachs has put the odds of a recession in the next 12 months at 25%, down from its previous estimate of 35%.

Biden’s GOP rivals have said that the president has broken the U.S. economy. They’ve tip-toed around the healthy 3.7% unemployment rate and focused instead on prices at the gas pump, grocery bills, the debt tied to Biden’s $1.9 trillion in pandemic relief and the administration’s focus on shifting away from fossil fuels in order to combat climate change.

“I will stop Joe Biden’s inflation nightmare, save the U.S. economy,” said former President Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, in a speech to evangelical Christians last weekend.

“You would think that with these economic problems with inflation, you may want to tap into more domestic energy,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in an Iowa speech. “But no, Biden is deliberately trying to kneecap our energy production and he’s trying to force Americans into electric vehicles, which will make us more reliant on China, who provides most of the materials for the batteries.”

Part of Biden’s challenge is that confidence in his economic leadership has waned. In March 2021 just after his round of pandemic relief became law, 60% of U.S. adults approved of how the president was handling the economy, according to an AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs poll. Since then, that figure has essentially halved.

Still, there are signs that people’s views of the economy are improving. The University of Michigan’s survey of consumer sentiment showed that Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters generally feel better about the current state of the economy than they did a year ago. But confidence among Democrats is still weaker than it was during Biden’s first year.

The administration released a memo ahead of Biden’s Wednesday speech that made the point that his policy ideas are broadly supported in polls, leaving unsaid that those proposals generally fare better than the president himself does.

Biden aides see ‘Bidenomics’ as an expansive framing to a host of the president’s policies for easy public consumption, tying together a diverse set of initiatives meant to boost the nation’s global competitiveness with programs meant to strengthen the middle class at home.

The president is betting that targeted government investments can catapult the economy forward and help workers. During his first two years when Democrats controlled the House, Biden followed up on his pandemic relief by pushing through a bipartisan infrastructure building bill, funding for computer chip plants and tax breaks to encourage the use of renewable energy.

This approach goes back to Biden’s own blue collar identity that surfaces in his speeches: the Scranton, Pennsylvania kid whose family at times just eked by financially.

But it can take several years to replace bridges and tunnels, to build new factories, to lay broadband cable for the internet and to make drivers comfortable with buying electric vehicles. Administration officials have privately acknowledged that there is a lag between the economy that the president is promising and what voters will likely see by the 2024 elections.

Biden in remarks in July 2021 had initially dismissed higher inflation as “transitory,” saying he was confident that the bout coming out of the pandemic was temporary. Those remarks became a point of attack among Republican lawmakers and some economists as inflation worsened after his statement.

Yet Biden has stressed that he provides an alternative to GOP policies that try to boost the economy mostly through tax cuts. He said Monday in announcing more than $40 billion to ensure high-speed internet for the entire country that his ideas are similar to the New Deal-era playbook used to combat the Great Depression nearly a century ago.

“What we are doing, as I said, is not unlike what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did when he brought electricity to nearly every American home and farm,” Biden said.

The question is whether voters think that Biden can deliver just as FDR did and whether elections work the same as they did back in 1936, when the Rural Electrification Act became law. Later that November, Roosevelt won more than 60% of the popular vote as he won a second term.

In today’s polarized era, Biden is unlikely to secure anywhere near that margin. But his message on Wednesday will likely be that his presidency has already begun to reshape the world’s largest economy for the better and voters should judge him on that record.

He previewed the takeaway he wants voters to hear at a fundraiser last week in California, even as polls indicate that much of the public still feels pessimistic about the direction of the U.S.

“We unleashed, I think,” he said, “a sense of expectation in America that we can do anything.”

source

(Reuters) – Rudy Giuliani, an ex-lawyer of former U.S. President Donald Trump, has been interviewed as part of a probe by Special Counsel Jack Smith into interference in the 2020 presidential election, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

Smith is looking into Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost, including a plot to submit phony slates of electors to block Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

The investigation – in which former Vice President Mike Pence and others who served in top roles in Trump’s administration have been subpoenaed – is ongoing.

CNN reported that the meeting involving Giuliani, his attorney Robert Costello and investigators happened in recent weeks.

Neither Smith’s office nor Costello immediately responded to separate emailed requests for comment from Reuters.

(Reporting by Costas Pitas; Editing by Leslie Adler)

source

By Jack Queen

(Reuters) -Former U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday sued E. Jean Carroll for defamation, alleging she falsely accused him of rape after a jury in a civil trial found that he sexually abused her.

Trump’s counterclaim against Carroll in Manhattan federal court comes after a jury’s unusual finding in May that he sexually abused and defamed but did not rape Carroll, a former Elle magazine advice columnist.

Trump seeks a retraction as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that Trump’s filing was “nothing more than his latest effort to delay accountability” for the jury’s verdict.

“Donald Trump again argues, contrary to both logic and fact, that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll,” Kaplan said.

Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The filing by Trump signals that his multi-front legal fight with Carroll is unlikely to end soon as both sides trade accusations and denials in the media.

Carroll amended the first of her two lawsuits against Trump and sought an additional $10 million in damages in May, citing his denials during a CNN appearance the day after the verdict.

Trump’s filing in that same lawsuit Tuesday cite Carroll’s statements on CNN after the verdict, when she said Trump raped her despite the jury’s finding that he only sexually abused her.

Trump, who is running to retake the White House in 2024 and has a comfortable lead over his Republican rivals, has denied raping Carroll. He is appealing the verdict, which found he must pay $5 million in damages.

Carroll testified that Trump raped her in a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and then ruined her reputation by calling her a liar when she went public in 2019.

The new filings come in Carroll’s first lawsuit against Trump, which she filed in 2019 for defamation only. The case has been bogged down in appeals over whether Trump was immune from being sued because he had been president when he spoke.

Carroll filed her second lawsuit against Trump for both defamation and sexual assault after New York passed a law giving survivors of sexual violence a window to file civil suits even if the statute of limitations on their claims had passed.

(Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Kim Coghill, Robert Birsel)

source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of important rulings during its current term that began last October and is expected to decide its remaining cases by the end of June including disputes involving race-conscious college admissions practices, President Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan and LGBT rights.

Here is a look at some of the rulings issued by the court this term.

VOTING RIGHTS

The justices on June 8 handed a major victory to Black voters who challenged a Republican-drawn electoral map in Alabama, finding the state violated a landmark law prohibiting racial discrimination in voting and paving the way for a second U.S. House of Representatives district with a Black majority or close to it. The court elected not to further roll back protections contained in the Voting Rights Act as it had done in two major rulings in the past decade.

ELECTION POWERS

The court on June 27 rebuffed a legal theory favored by many conservatives that could have given state legislatures sweeping power to set voting rules and draw electoral district boundaries for federal elections by preventing state courts from reviewing their actions. The ruling against Republican state legislators stemmed from a legal fight over their map of North Carolina’s 14 U.S. House districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

The court on May 25 further limited the regulatory reach of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, embracing a stringent new test for declaring wetlands protected under a landmark federal anti-pollution law in a ruling favoring an Idaho couple who challenged the EPA. The new test could leave wide swathes of sensitive wetlands and tributaries unprotected by the Clean Water Act, the landmark 1972 anti-pollution law.

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The justices on June 23 gave the Biden administration the green light to move ahead with guidelines shifting immigration enforcement toward countering public safety threats, handing the Democratic president a victory in a legal battle with Texas and Louisiana. The guidelines reflected Biden’s recalibration of U.S. immigration policy after the hardline approach taken by his Republican predecessor Donald Trump.

ENCOURAGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

A federal law that makes it a crime for a person to encourage illegal immigration does not violate constitutional free speech protections, the court ruled on June 23, upholding the decades-old measure defended by the Biden administration. A lower court had ruled that the law was overly broad because it may criminalize speech protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

PROTECTIONS FOR INTERNET COMPANIES

The court on May 18 left legal protections for internet and social media companies unscathed and refused to clear a path for victims of attacks by militant groups to sue these businesses under an anti-terrorism law. In both cases, families of people killed by Islamist gunmen overseas had sued to try to hold internet companies liable because of the presence of militant groups on their platforms or for recommending their content.

NATIVE AMERICAN ADOPTION

The justices on June 15 upheld decades-old federal requirements that give preferences to Native Americans and tribal members in the adoption or foster care placements of Native American children. The court found that the plaintiffs, including the state of Texas, did not have legal standing to challenge parts of the law they claimed were racially biased against non-Native Americans.

LABOR UNIONS

The justices on June 1 made it easier for employers to sue over strikes that cause property destruction – handing another setback to organized labor – in a ruling siding with a concrete business in Washington state that sued the union representing its truck drivers after a work stoppage.

FEDERAL AGENCY POWER

The court on April 14 made it easier to challenge the regulatory power of federal agencies in rulings backing Axon Enterprise Inc’s bid to sue the Federal Trade Commission and a Texas accountant’s gripe with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

CORRUPTION PROSECUTIONS

The court on May 11 further restricted the ability of federal prosecutors to pursue corruption cases, overturning the bribery conviction of Joseph Percoco, an ex-aide to Democratic former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and former construction company executive Louis Ciminelli.

STALKING LAW

The justices on July 27 threw out the stalking conviction of a Colorado man who for two years sent a barrage of unwanted Facebook messages to a female musician in a case involving free speech protections under the Constitution’s First Amendment. The court ruled that state prosecutors had not shown that he was aware of the “threatening nature” of his statements.

ANDY WARHOL ARTWORK

Andy Warhol’s estate lost its copyright fight with celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith when the court on May 18 faulted the famed pop artist’s use of her photo of Prince in a silkscreen series depicting the charismatic rock star.

PROPERTY TAXES

The court on May 25 curbed state and local governments from seizing and selling the homes of people with unpaid property taxes and keeping the proceeds beyond the amount owed, deeming the practice unconstitutional in a ruling in favor of a 94-year-old woman who battled tax authorities in Minnesota.

(Reporting by Will Dunham)

source

By Karen Freifeld and Luc Cohen

(Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Tuesday said he would likely decline former U.S. President Donald Trump’s request to move from state court to federal court a criminal case stemming from a hush money payment to a porn star.

Trump asserts that federal court is the proper venue for the case, arguing that his actions were related to the presidency, that the charges involve federal election law, and that he is immune from state prosecution.

“The argument is very clear that the act for which the president has been indicted does not relate to anything under color of his office,” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said at the end of a hearing in Manhattan federal court.

Hellerstein said he would formally rule within two weeks, but expressed what he called his “present attitudes” toward the case.

Trump, front-runnner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, pleaded not guilty in April in Manhattan to 34 state counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for the $130,000 payment to silence porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has said she had a sexual encounter with Trump. He denies it.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Luc Cohen; Editing by Howard Goller)

source

By David Shepardson and Lisa Baertlein

WASHINGTON/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su’s nomination to officially lead that agency is at risk even after she helped negotiate a crucial contract deal between U.S. West Coast seaport employers and the union representing 22,000 workers this month.

The criticism from Republican opponents in the U.S. Congress is tied to her work as California’s labor commissioner from 2011 through 2018 to classify gig workers as employees. Last week, 33 Republicans urged President Joe Biden to pull her nomination as labor chief, citing her work on that California state law.

Her nomination has been pending for two months since a Senate committee voted along party lines to advance her nomination.

U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley, a California Republican who chairs the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, has opposed Su saying she has “refused” to commit to whether she believes that state law – known as AB 5 – “is a model for the nation.”

The California law is fiercely opposed by gig economy employers such as Uber, Lyft and independent trucking contractors. It is supported by unions and many gig workers because it would guarantee benefits and protections, including a minimum wage. Truckers who want to remain independent say it would saddle them with a flurry of business-related expenses.

The White House is standing by her nomination. Democrats control the Senate 51-49 and her nomination may be hinge on some undecided Democrats.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who chaired Su’s confirmation hearing, said she is “prepared to take on powerful special interests and stand up for the needs of the working class of this country.”

White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients said in a statement to Reuters that Biden’s decision “to have Julie in the job was instrumental for the hardworking port workers, for management, and for our supply chains.” He said both sides trusted Su completely. “Neither side thought of her as a tool for the other.”

Su told Reuters in her first interview after the June 14 deal covering West Coast seaports that handle roughly 40% of U.S. container import volume that the stakes were high for employers and workers.

“These are workers who helped carry the economy through the worst crisis that we’ve seen, which was COVID,” Su said.

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Lisa Baertlein; Editing by David Gregorio)

source

By Jacqueline Thomsen

MIAMI (Reuters) – Donald Trump’s aide Walt Nauta is due to face federal criminal charges in a Miami court on Tuesday, accused of helping the former U.S. president hide national security documents from investigators after Trump left the White House.

Nauta is scheduled to be arraigned at 9:45 a.m. ET (1345 GMT) before Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres. The proceeding was delayed when Trump himself pleaded not guilty to charges on June 13 because Nauta did not have a lawyer admitted to practice at the Florida court.

Federal court records did not make clear whether Nauta had since retained a Florida lawyer and he could not be reached for comment. It was unclear if Nauta would be present in court on Tuesday.

Nauta, who worked for Trump as a White House valet and has continued to serve as an aide since Trump left office in January 2021, faces six counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, false statements, and withholding and concealing documents.

He was indicted alongside Trump on June 8.

Trump is the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges, both the federal charges of illegally retaining top-secret government documents and New York charges over hush money payments to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign.

The front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Trump has pleaded not guilty both to the federal charges, which also include conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the New York charges.

Prosecutors said Nauta moved boxes that contained classified documents so a lawyer for Trump could not find them and hand them over to federal investigators. They said that during a voluntary interview Nauta lied to federal agents about not knowing about the boxes being moved.

Nauta and Trump are allowed to be in contact, but cannot discuss the facts of the case except through their attorneys.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who last year ruled for the former president in a civil lawsuit filed over the seizure of documents from his Mar-a-Lago resort, last week scheduled Trump’s trial for Aug. 14.

Prosecutors with U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith on Friday asked Cannon to delay the trial until Dec. 11.

Cannon on Monday also set a July 14 hearing tied to how classified information in the case will be handled. Legal experts have said the complexities surrounding the use of highly classified documents as evidence are likely to delay Trump’s trial.

(Reporting by Jacqueline Thomsen; Editing by Scott Malone and Howard Goller)

source

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit by a group of congressional Democrats who had sought details about a government lease for a Washington hotel covering the time when it was owned by Republican former President Donald Trump.

The court acted after the lawmakers this month voluntarily dropped their 2017 lawsuit against the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency that manages federal government real estate, focused on what was called the Trump International Hotel. The justices last month had agreed to hear a bid by President Joe Biden’s administration to block the lawsuit.

Seventeen Democratic members of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee sued the GSA, seeking information about a 2013 lease of the Old Post Office building just a few blocks from the White House to Trump’s company to convert it into a hotel. The hotel became a gathering spot for Trump supporters, lobbyists and foreign dignitaries.

The Trump Organization last year completed the $375 million sale of the hotel’s lease to an investment firm that planned to rebrand the property.

The case pursued by the lawmakers had tested whether small groups of legislators have the proper legal standing to sue to enforce a federal law aimed at obtaining information from federal agencies. The GSA had rejected several requests by Democrats, whose party was then – as today – in the minority in the House, saying they lacked the authority as individual members to conduct oversight.

A federal judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the committee members did not as legislators suffer the kind of legal injury that would entitle them to sue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revived the case in 2020, concluding: “A rebuffed request for information to which the requester is statutorily entitled is a concrete, particularized and individualized personal injury.”

Biden’s Justice Department, defending the GSA, had appealed the case to the Supreme Court, saying that the case could set an unwelcome precedent by allowing just a few members of Congress, even fringe members of a minority party, to distract and harass executive branch officials.

David Vladeck, a lawyer representing the lawmakers, said the justices on Monday did “exactly what we asked the Supreme Court to do.”

Vladeck pointed to Democratic U.S. House member Jamie Raskin’s comments this month that the GSA produced the vast majority of records requested, enabling the lawmakers to make public Trump’s receipt of millions of dollars in “emoluments” from foreign governments and the Secret Service, as well as his efforts to conceal millions of dollars in losses from the hotel.

The U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clauses bar federal officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval, and the president from receiving gifts from states. Trump argued that Democratic lawmakers were reading the emoluments clauses too broadly and that the nation’s founders were prohibiting outright bribes.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

source

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a bid by a senior Republican state official to defend a map of Louisiana congressional districts that had been challenged by Black voters as discriminatory, sending the closely watched legal battle back to a lower court.

The justices had taken up the case last year but put it on hold pending their ruling in a similar case from Alabama, which they issued on June 8. The justices dismissed the appeal by Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin of a federal judge’s decision that the map delineating Louisiana’s six U.S. House of Representatives districts drawn by the Republican-led state legislature likely discriminated unlawfully based on race.

U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick last year directed Louisiana’s legislature create two, rather than just one, House districts where Black voters represent the majority of voters, a decision that could boost Democratic chances of regaining control next year of the House.

In their brief order dismissing the case “as improvidently granted,” they justices said that their action will allow the matter to proceed before the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “for review in the ordinary course and in advance of the 2024 congressional elections in Louisiana.”

Electoral districts in the United States are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes as measured by a national census, last taken in 2020. In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain.

Democrats have accused Republicans of exploiting state legislature majorities to draw electoral maps that dilute the clout of Black and other minority voters. Republicans have said the consideration of race in drawing electoral maps must be limited.

The Louisiana legislature passed the map in February 2022. Democratic Governor Jon Bel Edwards then vetoed it, criticizing the plan for failing to include a second Black-majority district considering that Black voters comprise almost a third of the state’s population. The legislature voted to override the veto.

The map was challenged by Black voters and civil rights groups in two lawsuits. The plaintiffs said the Republican-drawn unlawfully packed large numbers of Black voters into a single district and dispersed the rest into the five others in numbers too small to enable them to elect their preferred candidates.

One of the lawsuits said the Republican-drawn map “continues the State of Louisiana’s long history of maximizing political power for white citizens by disenfranchising and discriminating against Black Louisianans.”

The plaintiffs in court papers said that “stark racially polarized voting almost universally leads to the electoral defeat of Black-preferred candidates” in Louisiana.

Dick ruled that the way the map was drawn by the Republicans likely violated the Voting Rights Act, which for decades has been used to counter racially biased actions in voting and drawing electoral districts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 8 in the Alabama case, with two conservative justices joining the three liberals in the majority. They affirmed a lower court’s decision that the Republican-drawn map of that state’s seven House districts diminished the voting power of Black Alabamians in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court in that ruling elected not to further roll back protections contained in the Voting Rights Act as it had done in two major decisions in the past decade.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

source