Wall Street slips after rally, energy shares fall

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday, pressured by a drop in energy shares as investors found few reasons to buy equities following a rally that has held major indexes near five-year highs for around three weeks.


Equities have been strong recently, to the point that the day's modest decline was the largest for the S&P 500 since February 4. The index has jumped about 7 percent so far this year and is on track for its eighth straight week of gains.


However, many of those weekly gains have been slight, with equities trading within a narrow range for the past few weeks, suggesting valuations may be stretched at current levels.


"The market seems very tired and listless, and investors are prone to take profits now as they wait for the music to stop," said Matt McCormick, money manager at Bahl & Gaynor in Cincinnati.


Energy companies were among the weakest, hurt by disappointing results and a 2.2 percent drop in crude oil prices. The Energy Select Sector SPDR fell 0.9 percent, though it remains up 10.1 percent for the year.


Newfield Exploration tumbled 7.7 percent to $25.20 while Devon Energy Corp dropped 4 percent to $58.17. Both companies posted fourth-quarter losses, with Devon hurt as it wrote down the value of its assets by $896 million because of weak natural gas prices.


Housing shares also declined, pressured by weaker-than-expected results at Toll Brothers Inc and a drop in groundbreaking to build new U.S. homes, also known as housing starts, in January.


Toll Brothers' stock fell 5.4 percent to $34.91, but is up about 8 percent so far this year, building on a jump of nearly 60 percent in 2012. The Dow Jones U.S. Home Construction index <.djushb> lost 4 percent.


"Valuations appear a bit high at these levels, and if I was in a name that had seen a huge run, I'd want to take some chips off the table," said McCormick, who helps oversee about $8.2 billion in assets.


The Dow Jones industrial average <.dji> was down 12.13 points, or 0.09 percent, at 14,023.54. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index <.spx> was down 6.20 points, or 0.40 percent, at 1,524.74. The Nasdaq Composite Index <.ixic> was down 19.10 points, or 0.59 percent, at 3,194.49.


The Dow's losses were limited by Boeing Co , up 1.4 percent at $75.67 after a source told Reuters that the company had found a way to fix battery problems on its grounded 787 Dreamliner jets. Concerns over that line have weighed on Boeing recently, contributing to a 2 percent drop in the stock's price in January.


Investors are also waiting for the minutes from the Federal Open Market Committee's January meeting due at 2 p.m. (1900 GMT) for clues to the interest-rate outlook, as well as for any indication as to how long the Fed will keep buying bonds each month to bolster the U.S. economy and employment.


In other data released on Wednesday, permits for future home building rose in January to a 4 1/2-year high while a separate report showed wholesale prices rose last month for the first time in four months. The U.S. Producer Price Index rose in January for the first time in four months.


Shares of OfficeMax Inc fell 4.2 percent to $12.45 while Office Depot slid 14.3 percent to $4.30 as the companies announced a $1.2 billion merger agreement. The shares had surged in Tuesday's session after a source said a deal would be announced. Rival Staples Inc fell 7.6 percent to $13.53 and ranked as one of the S&P 500's biggest decliners.


SodaStream dropped 3.7 percent to $50.50 after the seller of home carbonated drink maker machines posted fourth-quarter earnings and provided a 2013 outlook.


According to Thomson Reuters data through Tuesday morning, of the 405 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported results so far, 71 percent have exceeded analysts' expectations, compared with a 62 percent average since 1994 and 65 percent over the past four quarters.


Fourth-quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies are estimated to have risen 5.7 percent, according to the data, exceeding a forecast for a 1.9 percent gain at the start of the earnings season.


(Editing by Kenneth Barry and Jan Paschal)



Read More..

Armstrong won't interview with USADA


AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Lance Armstrong won't interview under oath with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to reveal all he knows about doping in cycling, his attorney says.


USADA officials had told Armstrong he must speak with them if he wanted to reduce his lifetime ban from sports. Wednesday was the deadline for him to agree to the interview under that offer.


After more than two months of negotiations, Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said Wednesday the cyclist won't participate in a process designed "only to demonize selected individuals."


Armstrong said previously he is willing to participate in an international effort to clean up a sport that is based mostly in Europe.


For years, Armstrong denied using performance-enhancing drugs. But last year, USADA released a report that detailed extensive doping on his seven Tour de France-winning teams and stripped him of those titles. Armstrong then admitted last month in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that he doped to win those races.


"We remain hopeful that an international effort will be mounted and we will do everything we can to facilitate that result," Herman said in a statement. "Lance will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95 percent of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction."


Armstrong is facing several legal challenges, and testifying under oath to USADA could have exposed him to further troubles.


Armstrong was the subject of a two-year federal criminal investigation that was dropped in February with no charges filed, but the Department of Justice is still considering whether to join a federal whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis.


Armstrong also has been sued by a Dallas-based SCA Promotions to recover more than $12 million in bonuses. He also has been sued to by The Sunday Times in London to recover a libel judgment that Armstrong won against the paper.


Read More..

Obama can't kick his legacy down road




President Obama has a small window of opportunity to get Congress to act on his priorities, Gloria Borger says.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Gloria Borger: Prospect of deep budget cuts was designed to compel compromise

  • She says the "unthinkable" cuts now have many supporters

  • The likelihood that cuts may happen shows new level of D.C. dysfunction, she says

  • Borger: President may want a 2014 House victory, but action needed now




(CNN) -- So let's try to recount why we are where we are. In August 2011, Washington was trying to figure out how to raise the debt ceiling -- so the US might continue to pay its bills -- when a stunt was hatched: Kick the can down the road.


And not only kick it down the road, but do it in a way that would eventually force Washington to do its job: Invent a punishment.



Gloria Borger

Gloria Borger



If the politicians failed to come up with some kind of budget deal, the blunt instrument of across-the-board cuts in every area would await.


Unthinkable! Untenable!


Until now.


In fact, something designed to be worse than any conceivable agreement is now completely acceptable to many.



And not only are these forced budget cuts considered acceptable, they're even applauded. Some Republicans figure they'll never find a way to get 5% across-the-board domestic spending cuts like this again, so go for it. And some liberal Democrats likewise say 8% cuts in military spending are better than anything we might get on our own, so go for it.


Opinion: Forced budget cuts a disaster for military


The result: A draconian plan designed to force the two sides to get together has now turned out to be too weak to do that.


And what does that tell us? More about the collapse of the political process than it does about the merits of any budget cuts. Official Washington has completely abdicated responsibility, taking its dysfunction to a new level -- which is really saying something.


We've learned since the election that the second-term president is feeling chipper. With re-election came the power to force Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and good for him. Americans voted, and said that's what they wanted, and so it happened. Even the most sullen Republicans knew that tax fight had been lost.


Points on the board for the White House.






Now the evil "sequester" -- the forced budget cuts -- looms. And the president proposes what he calls a "balanced" approach: closing tax loopholes on the rich and budget cuts. It's something he knows Republicans will never go for. They raised taxes six weeks ago, and they're not going to do it again now. They already gave at the office. And Republicans also say, with some merit, that taxes were never meant to be a part of the discussion of across-the-board cuts. It's about spending.


Politics: Obama more emotional on spending cuts


Here's the problem: The election is over. Obama won, and he doesn't really have to keep telling us -- or showing us, via staged campaign-style events like the one Tuesday in which he used police officers as props while he opposed the forced spending cuts.


What we're waiting for is the plan to translate victory into effective governance.


Sure, there's no doubt the president has the upper hand. He's right to believe that GOP calls for austerity do not constitute a cohesive party platform. He knows that the GOP has no singular, effective leader, and that its message is unformed. And he's probably hoping that the next two years can be used effectively to further undermine the GOP and win back a Democratic majority in the House.


Slight problem: There's plenty of real work to be done, on the budget, on tax reform, on immigration, climate change and guns. A second-term president has a small window of opportunity. And a presidential legacy is not something that can be kicked down the road.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.






Read More..

Jackson Jr. in court: 'I am guilty, your honor'

Jesse Jr. and Sandi Jackson arriving in federal court in Washington today.









Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring with his wife, former Ald. Sandi Jackson, to siphon about $750,000 in federal campaign funds for the couple’s personal use, and could face years in prison.

Sandi Jackson was scheduled to plead guilty this afternoon to a single charge of tax fraud tied to the same allegations that the couple repeatedly tapped the ex-congressman’s campaign fund, used the money for personal use and then made fraudulent campaign and tax disclosures to cover up the misconduct.


Documents filed with Jackson Jr.'s plea agreement state that in January 2006, Jackson Jr. personally opened a bank account under the name “Jesse Jackson Jr. for Congress," and the following year withdrew $43,350 he used to buy a gold Rolex watch.

Between 2007 and 2011, he withdrew more than $14,000 to pay down personal credit cards, prosecutors stated. Between 2005 and April 2012, he was using campaign funds to fund a life of luxury, according to the documents.

“These expenditures included high-end electronic items, collector’s items, clothing, food and supplies for daily consumption, movie tickets, health club dues, personal travel and personal dining expenses,” the court filing states.

Items paid with a campaign credit card included more than $4,000 on a cruise and $243 at a Build-a-Bear workshop.

“Records from Best Buy reveal that defendant purchased multiple flat-screen televisions, multiple Blu-Ray DVD players, numerous DVD’s for his Washington, D.C. home,” the records state.


Prosecutors said $60,000 was spent on restaurants, nightclubs and lounges; $31,700 on personal airfare; $16,000 on sports clubs and lounges; $17,000 on tobacco shops; $5,800 on alcohol; $14,500 on dry cleaning; $8,000 on grocery stores and $6,000 at drug stores.








About 3,100 personal purchases were made on campaign credit cards, totaling $582,772.58, prosecutors said.


"Sir, for years I lived in my campaign," Jackson Jr. told U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins. "I used monies that should have been used for campaign purposes, and I used them for myself personally, to benefit me personally.  And I am acknowledging that that which the government has presented is accurate."


As he entered the courtroom this morning, Jackson Jr. gave his wife Sandi a peck on the cheek and took his seat. At one point he stepped from the defense table and shook hands with a lead FBI agent in the case, Tim Thibault, who was seated with government prosecutors.


Jackson Jr. spoke softly during the hearing and sometimes dabbed his eyes with a tissue. When asked by Wilkins how he would plead, Jackson answered: “I am guilty, your honor.”


Pressed by the judge on whether he was freely entering the plea, the former congressman acknowledged he had been under psychiatric care but said he had not been treated for addiction to alcohol or narcotics.

Asked whether he understood what was happening, he answered, "Sir, I've never been more clear in my life."


Leaving the courtroom, Jackson Jr. told a reporter, "Tell everybody back home I'm sorry I let 'em down, OK?"


At a press conference following the hearing, Jackson Jr. attorney Reid Weingarten said Jackson's health problems contributed to his crimes.

"It turns out that Jesse has serious health issues," he said. "Those health issues are directly related to his present predicament. That's not an excuse, that's just a fact."


As part of the plea deal, the parties have agreed that sentencing guidelines call for a term of between 46 and 57 months in prison, but the sides reserved the right to argue for a sentence above or below that range for him when he is sentenced June 28.


After his release from an expected prison term, he might face three additional years of supervised release, or probation.


Also under the guideline range agreed to by Jackson Jr. and lawyers on both sides, what had been a maximum fine of $250,000 drops to one in the range of $10,000 to $100,000. In addition, he remains subject to a forfeiture of $750,000.


The judge said Jackson could be released before sentencing and ordered him to be processed by the U.S. Marshal's Service, surrender his passport and undergo drug testing while awaiting sentencing.
His attorney asked if Jackson Jr. could be allowed to travel back and forth from Chicago, saying he essentially lived in both places, and the judge agreed.


Jackson entered the anticipated plea in Act One of a two-part drama playing out in federal court not far from the House chamber where he served. Act Two is on tap this afternoon, when his wife, former Chicago Ald. Sandi Jackson, is expected to plead guilty to filing false tax returns.

Jackson Jr. entered a negotiated plea of guilty on one felony count of conspiracy to commit false statements, wire fraud and mail fraud. Prosecutors say he spent campaign contributions to buy luxury items, memorabilia and other goods.

As the Jacksons arrived at federal court in Washington, D.C. this morning, neither responded to questions from reporters. The two stepped out of a black SUV, and Sandi Jackson walked ahead of her husband, carrying a satchel. Jackson Jr. looked up when reporters shouted questions but said nothing and looked down as he went into the building.

Minutes later, his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., and other family members walked through the front entrance of the courthouse, their arms linked together.

Jackson Jr., 47, was in the House of Representatives for 17 years until he resigned last November. Sandi Jackson, 49, was a Chicago alderman from 2007 until she stepped down in January. Both are Democrats.

Jackson Jr. began a mysterious medical leave of absence last June for what was eventually described as bipolar disorder. Though he did not campaign for re-election, he won another term last Nov. 6 while being treated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. He left office two weeks later, saying he was cooperating with federal investigators.

Married for more than 20 years, the Jacksons have a 12-year-old daughter and a 9-year-old son. The family has homes in Washington and on Chicago’s South Side.

Washington defense attorney Stan Brand, the former general counsel of the House of Representatives, said Tuesday that Jackson Jr.’s case involved the largest sum of money he’s seen in a case involving personal use of campaign money.

“Historically, there have been members of Congress who either inadvertently or maybe purposefully, but not to this magnitude, used campaign funds inappropriately,” he said.

Earlier this morning, Judge Wilkins disclosed that he had a past link to Jackson Jr.’s father. But both prosecutors and the Jackson defense waived any attempt to transfer the case, the judge noted in a court memorandum.

Wilkins wrote that he has no interest or bias in the case, but disclosed the following:

“In 1988, while a law student, Judge Wilkins served as a co-chair of Harvard Law School students supporting the presidential campaign of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., and on October 24, 1988, Judge Wilkins introduced Rev. Jackson when he came to speak at a campus event supporting the presidential candidacy of Governor Michael Dukakis. On March 21, 1999, while an attorney, Judge Wilkins appeared as a guest on a show hosted by Rev. Jackson on the CNN network entitled ‘Both Sides with Jesse Jackson’ to discuss a civil rights lawsuit in which Judge Wilkins was a plaintiff. Judge Wilkins believes that he has spoken to Rev. Jackson only on these two occasions, and he does not believe that he has ever met or spoken to the two defendants in these cases.”


kskiba@tribune.com





Read More..

Bulgarian government resigns amid growing protests


SOFIA (Reuters) - Bulgaria's government resigned on Wednesday after mass protests against high power prices and falling living standards, joining a long list of European administrations felled by austerity during four years of debt crisis.


Prime Minister Boiko Borisov, an ex-bodyguard who took power in 2009 on pledges to root out graft and raise incomes in the European Union's poorest member, faces a tough task of propping up eroding support ahead of an expected early election.


Wage and pension freezes and tax hikes have bitten deep in a country where earnings are less than half the EU average and tens of thousands of Bulgarians have rallied in protests that have turned violent, chanting "Mafia" and "Resign".


Moves by Borisov on Tuesday to blame foreign utility companies for the rise in the cost of heating homes was to no avail and an eleventh day of marches saw 15 people hospitalized and 25 arrested in clashes with police.


"My decision to resign will not be changed under any circumstances. I do not build roads so that blood is shed on them," said Borisov, who began his career guarding the Black Sea state's communist dictator Todor Zhivkov.


A karate black belt, Borisov has cultivated a Putin-like "can-do" image since he entered politics as Sofia mayor in 2005 and would connect with voters by showing up on the capital's rutted streets to oversee the repair of pot-holes.


But critics say he has often skirted due process, sometimes to the benefit of those close to him, and his swift policy U-turns have wounded the public's trust.


The spark for the protests was high electricity bills, after the government raised prices by 13 percent last July. But it quickly spilled over into wider frustration with Borisov and political elites with perceived links to shadowy businesses.


"He made my day," said student Borislav Hadzhiev in central Sofia, commenting on Borisov's resignation. "The truth is that we're living in an extremely poor country."


POLLS, PRICES


The prime minister's final desperate moves on Tuesday included cutting power prices and risking a diplomatic row with the Czech Republic by punishing companies including CEZ, moves which conflicted with EU norms on protection of investors and due process.


CEZ officials were hopeful on Wednesday that it would be able to avoid losing its distribution license after all and officials from the Bulgarian regulator said the company would not be punished if it dealt with breaches of procedure.


But shares in what is central Europe's largest publicly-listed company fell another 1 percent on Wednesday.


If pushed through, the fines for CEZ and two other foreign-owned firms will not encourage other investors in Bulgaria, who already have to navigate complicated bureaucracy and widespread corruption and organized crime to take advantage of Bulgaria's 10-percent flat tax rate.


Financial markets reacted negatively to the turbulence on Wednesday. The cost of insuring Bulgaria's debt rose to a three-month high and debt yields rose some 15 basis points, though the country's low deficit of 0.5 percent of gross domestic product means there is little risk to the lev currency's peg against the euro.


Borisov's interior minister indicated that elections originally planned for July would probably be pulled forward by saying that his rightist GERB party would not take part in talks to form a new government.


MILLIONS GONE


GERB's woes have echoes in another ex-communist EU member, Slovenia, where demonstrators have taken to the streets and added pressure to a crumbling conservative government.


A small crowd gathered in support of Borisov outside Sofia's parliament, which is expected to approve his resignation on Thursday, while bigger demonstrations against the premier were expected in the evening.


Unemployment in the country of 7.3 million is far from the highs hit in the decade after the end of communism but remains at 11.9 percent. Average salaries are stuck at around 800 levs ($550) a month and millions have emigrated, leaving swathes of the country depopulated and little hope for those who remain.


GERB's popularity has held up well and it still led in the latest polls before protests grew in size last weekend, but analysts say the opposition Socialists should draw strength from the demonstrations.


The leftists, successors to Bulgaria's communist party, have proposed tax cuts and wage hikes and are likely to raise questions about public finances if elected.


(Additional reporting by Angel Krasimirov; editing by Patrick Graham)



Read More..

M&A deals lift shares, suggest more value in market

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks rose on Tuesday as merger activity suggested the market could offer investors still more value even as the S&P 500 and Dow industrials hover near five-year highs.


Equities have resisted a pullback as investors use dips in stocks as buying opportunities. The S&P is up about 7 percent so far in 2013 and has climbed for the past seven weeks in its longest weekly winning streak since January 2011, though most of the weekly gains have been slim.


Office Depot Inc surged 9.4 percent to $5, pulling back from earlier highs after a person familiar with the matter said the No. 2 U.S. office supply retailer was in advanced talks to merge with smaller rival OfficeMax Inc . A deal could come as early as this week.


OfficeMax jumped 20 percent to $12.94 while larger rival Staples Inc shot up 9.4 percent to $14.17 as the best performer on the S&P 500.


More than $158 billion in deals has been announced thus far in 2013. Last week, agreements included the acquisition of H.J. Heinz Co by Berkshire Hathaway , and the sale by General Electric of its remaining stake in NBCUniversal to Comcast Corp .


"Equity investors have to be encouraged by M&A since, if the number crunchers are offering large premiums, that shows how much value is still in the market," said Mike Gibbs, co-head of the equity advisory group at Raymond James in Memphis, Tennessee.


The Dow Jones industrial average <.dji> was up 37.81 points, or 0.27 percent, at 14,019.57. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index <.spx> was up 6.84 points, or 0.45 percent, at 1,526.63. The Nasdaq Composite Index <.ixic> was up 9.39 points, or 0.29 percent, at 3,201.42.


U.S. markets were closed on Monday for the Presidents Day holiday.


Health insurance stocks tumbled, led by a 7 percent drop in Humana Inc to $72.50 after the company said the government's proposed 2014 payment rates for Medicare Advantage participants were lower than expected and would hurt its profit outlook.


UnitedHealth Group lost 1.7 percent to $56.37the biggest drag on the Dow. The Morgan Stanley healthcare payor index <.hmo> dropped 1.6 percent.


Express Scripts rose 2.4 percent to $56.87 after the pharmacy benefits manager posted fourth-quarter earnings.


Wall Street's strong start to the year for was fueled by stronger-than-expected corporate earnings, as well as a compromise by legislators in Washington that temporarily averted automatic spending cuts and tax hikes that are predicted to damage the economy.


The compromise on across-the-board spending cuts postponed the matter until March 1, at which point the cuts take effect. Ahead of the debate over the cuts, known as sequestration, further gains for stocks may be difficult to come by.


"If there's no major contention with sequestration, it looks like stocks are prepared to handle it, but until then we'll probably stay in a consolidation period marked by sideways trading with a slow rate of ascent," said Gibbs.


Economic data showed the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market index unexpectedly edged down to 46 in February from 47 in the prior month as builders faced higher material costs.


According to the Thomson Reuters data through Monday morning, of the 391 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported results, 70.1 percent have exceeded analysts' expectations, compared with a 62 percent average since 1994 and 65 percent over the past four quarters.


Fourth-quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies have risen 5.6 percent, according to the data, above a 1.9 percent forecast at the start of the earnings season.


(Additional reporting by Chuck Mikolajczak; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Kenneth Barry and Nick Zieminski)



Read More..

Pistorius: Thought lover an intruder in shooting


PRETORIA, South Africa (AP) — Oscar Pistorius wept Tuesday as his defense lawyer read the athlete's account of how he shot his girlfriend to death on Valentine's Day, claiming he had mistaken her for an intruder.


Prosecutors, however, told a packed courtroom that the double-amputee known as the Blade Runner intentionally and mercilessly shot and killed 29-year-old Reeva Steenkamp as she cowered inside a locked bathroom.


Pistorius told the Pretoria Magistrate's Court at a bail hearing he felt vulnerable in the presence of an intruder inside the bathroom because he did not have his prosthetic legs on, and fired into the bathroom door.


The Valentine's Day shooting in Pistorius' home in Pretoria shocked South Africans and many around the world who idolized him for overcoming adversity to become a sports champion, competing in the London Olympics last year in track besides being a Paralympian. Steenkamp was a model and law graduate who made her debut on a South African reality TV program that was broadcast on Saturday, two days after her death.


In a major point of contention emerged even during Tuesday bail hearing, prosecutor Gerrie Nel said Pistorius took the time to put on his prostheses, walked seven meters (yards) from the bed to the enclosed toilet inside his bathroom and only then opened fire. Three of the bullets hit Steenkamp of the four that were fired into the door, Nel said.


Pistorius said in his sworn statement that after opening fire, he realized that Steenkamp was not in his bed.


"It filled me with horror and fear," Pistorius said. The 26-year-old Olympian said he put on his prosthetic legs and tried to kick down the door before finally bashing it in with a cricket bat. Inside, he said he found Steenkamp, slumped over. He said he lifted her bloodied body into his arms and tried to carry her downstairs to seek medical help.


But by then, it was too late.


"She died in my arms," the athlete said.


Nel charged Pistorius with premeditated murder and said the athlete opened fire after the couple engaged in a shouting match and she fled to the bathroom.


"She couldn't go anywhere. You can run nowhere," Nel said. "It must have been horrific."


A conviction of premeditated murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in jail.


Chief Magistrate Desmond Nair ruled that Pistorius must face the harshest bail requirements available in South African law. That means Pistorius' lawyers must offer "exceptional" reasons for the athlete to be free before trial, besides simply giving up his two South African passports and posting a cash bond.


Pistorius sobbed softly as his lawyer, Barry Roux, insisted the shooting was an accident and that there was no evidence to substantiate a murder charge.


"We submit it is not even murder," he said. "There is no concession this is a murder."


Pistorius' emotional outbursts again played a part in how the hearing progessed, as it did during an initial hearing Friday. At one point, Nair stopped the hearing after Pistorius wept as Roux read a portion of the athlete's statement describing how Steenkamp bought him a Valentine's Day present, but wouldn't let him open it the night before.


"Maintain your composure," the magistrate said. "You need to apply your mind here."


Pistorius' voice quivered when he answered: "Yes, my lordship."


Affidavits from friends of Pistorius and Steenkamp described the two as a charming, happy couple. The night before the killing, they said, Pistorius and Steenkamp had canceled separate plans in order to spend the night before Valentine's Day together at his home, in a gated neighborhood.


Outside the court, several dozen singing women protested against domestic violence and waved placards urging that Pistorius be refused bail. "Pistorius must rot in jail," one placard said.


As details emerged at the dramatic court hearing in the capital, Steenkamp's body was being cremated Tuesday at a memorial service in the south-coast port city of Port Elizabeth. Six pallbearers carried her coffin, draped with a white cloth and covered in white flowers, into the church for the private service.


South Africa has some of the world's worst rates of violence against females and the highest rate in the world of women killed by an intimate partner, according to a study by the Medical Research Council. Professor Rachel Jewkes of the council said at least three women are killed by a partner every day in this country of 50 million.


Steenkamp campaigned actively against domestic violence and had tweeted on Twitter that she planned to join a "Black Friday" protest by wearing black in honor of a 17-year-old girl who was gang-raped and mutilated two weeks ago.


What "she stood for, and the abuse against women, unfortunately it's gone right around and I think the Lord knows that statement is more powerful now," her uncle Mike Steenkamp, the family's spokesman, said after her memorial.


He said the family had planned a big get-together at Christmas but that had not been possible. "But we are here today as a family and the only one who's missing is Reeva," he said, breaking down and weeping.


Pistorius has lost several valuable sponsorships estimated to be worth more than $1 million a year.


On Tuesday, the athlete was ousted from a pro-gay campaign being launched in Cape Town, organizers said. In a video axed from the campaign, Pistorius says: "You don't have to worry. You don't have to change. Take a deep breath and remember, 'It will get better.'"


And Clarins Group, which owns Thierry Mugler Perfumes, said in an email that "out of respect and compassion for the families involved in this tragedy, Thierry Mugler Perfumes have taken the decision to withdraw all of their advertising campaigns featuring Oscar Pistorius."


Read More..

How can U.S. deal with cyber war?




Michael Hayden says lack of domestic agreement is driving U.S. to take the offense on cyber attacks.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Obama administration beefing up effort to counter cyberattacks

  • Michael Hayden says emphasis is on striking first, as the U.S. does with drone attacks

  • Ex-CIA director says drone policy reflects lack of consensus on handling prisoners

  • Hayden: Is killing terrorists preferred because of division over how to try them?




Editor's note: Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was appointed by President George W. Bush as CIA director in 2006 and served until February 2009, is a principal with the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm. He serves on the boards of several defense firms and is a distinguished visiting professor at George Mason University.


(CNN) -- Human decisions have complex roots: history, circumstance, personality, even chance.


So it's a dangerous game to oversimplify reality, isolate causation and attribute any particular course of action to one or another singular motive.


But let me tempt fate, since some recent government decisions suggest important issues for public discussion.



Michael Hayden

Michael Hayden




Over the past several weeks, press accounts have outlined a series of Obama administration moves dealing with the cyberdefense of the United States.


According to one report, the Department of Defense will add some 4,000 personnel to U.S. Cyber Command, on top of a current base of fewer than a thousand. The command will also pick up a "national defense" mission to protect critical infrastructure by disabling would-be aggressors.


A second report reveals another administration decision, very reminiscent of the Bush Doctrine of preemption, to strike first when there is imminent danger of serious cyberattack against the United States.


Both of these represent dramatic and largely welcome moves.


But they also suggest the failure of a deeper national policy process and, more importantly, the failure to develop national consensus on some very difficult issues.


Chinese military leading cyber attacks


Let me reason by analogy, and in this case the analogy is the program of targeted killings supported and indeed expanded by the Obama administration. Again, I have no legal or moral objections to killing those who threaten us. We are, as the administration rightly holds, in a global state of war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.








But at the level of policy, killing terrorists rather than capturing them seems to be the default option, and part of that dynamic is fairly attributable to our inability to decide where to put a detainee once we have decided to detain him.


Congress won't let him into the United States unless he is going before a criminal court, and the administration will not send him to Guantanamo despite the legitimate claim that a nation at war has the right to detain enemy combatants without trial.


Failing to come to agreement on the implications of the "we are at war" position, we have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to detain anyone that we seem to default to killing those who would do us harm.


Clearly, it's an easier path: no debates over the location or conditions of confinement. Frequently such action can be kept covert. Decision-making is confined to one branch of government. Congress is "notified." Courts are not involved.


Besides, we are powerful. We have technology at our fingertips. We know that we can be precise, and the professionalism of our combatants allows them to easily meet the standards of proportionality and distinction (between combatants and noncombatants) in such strikes, despite claims to the contrary.


And we also believe that we can live with the second and third order effects of targeted killings. We believe that the care we show will set high standards for the use of such weapons by others who will inevitably follow us. We also believe that any long-term blowback (akin to what Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the image of "arrogance" such strikes create) is more than offset by the immediate effects on America's safety.


I agree with much of the above. But I also fear that the lack of political consensus at home can drive us to routinely exercise an option whose long-term effects are hard to discern. Which brings us back to last week's stories on American cyberdefense.


In the last Congress, there were two prominent bills introduced to strengthen America's cyberdefenses. Neither came close to passing.


In the Senate, the Collins-Lieberman Bill created a near perfect storm with the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Chamber of Commerce weighing in strongly against the legislation. That two such disparate bodies had issues with the legislation should suggest how far we are from a national consensus.


In the House, a modest proposal from the Intelligence Committee to enhance cybersharing between the private sector and the National Security Agency was met with a presidential veto threat over alleged privacy concerns and was never even considered by the Senate.


Indeed, my preferred option -- a more active and well-regulated role for NSA and Cyber Command on and for American networks -- is almost a third rail in the debate over U.S. cybersecurity. The cybertalent and firepower at Fort Meade, where both are headquartered, are on a short leash because few dare to even address what we would ask them to do or what we would permit them to do on domestic networks.


And hence, last week's "decisions." Rather than settle the roles of these institutions by dealing with the tough issues of security and privacy domestically, we have opted for a policy not unlike targeted killing. Rather than opt for the painful process of building consensus at home, we are opting for "killing" threats abroad in their "safe haven."


We appear more willing to preempt perceived threats "over there" than spill the domestic political blood that would be needed to settle questions about standards for the defense of critical infrastructure, the role of government surveillance or even questions of information sharing. And we seem willing to live with the consequences, not unlike those of targeted killings, of the precedent we set with a policy to shoot on warning.


I understand the advantage that accrues to the offense in dealing with terrorists or cyberthreats. I also accept the underlying legality and morality of preemptive drone or cyberstrikes.


I just hope that we don't do either merely because we don't have the courage to face ourselves and make some hard decisions at home.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Hayden.






Read More..

Ex-law partner: Drew Peterson attorney attacked me









Joel Brodsky’s ex-law partner testified that Drew Peterson’s former lead attorney had physically attacked her in the past and tried to intimidate her this morning before she took the witness stand.

The testimony from Reem Odeh, a former attorney for Peterson, came during a hearing on a motion for a new murder trial filed by Peterson’s defense team.






Peterson, convicted last fall of first-degree murder in the 2004 bathtub drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and his attorneys will argue that Peterson deserves a new trial in part because Brodsky’s work on the case was flawed. The 59-year-old former Bolingbrook police sergeant faces 20 to 60 years in prison at his scheduled sentencing Wednesday.
Odeh said this morning that Brodsky talked to her often about how he thought the Peterson case would benefit himself and the firm.

“On many occasions, especially when we would have our quarrels about financial matters regarding the case,” Odeh said.

She also said Brodsky made a comment to her in passing outside the courtroom this morning. Odeh testified that she could not recall Brodsky’s exact words but “I perceived that he was trying to intimidate me or threaten me.”
She also testified that Brodsky had attacked her when she left his firm in 2010.

"There was an incident where he physically attacked me and the police had to be called," she said. "Just remembering what I had to go through is very, very upsetting."

Outside court, Odeh said she never pressed charges because she wanted to end any contact with Brodsky. Also outside court, Brodsky said he never spoke with Odeh or threatened her before the hearing this morning, and said she lied when she testified that he physically attacked her when she dissolved their partnership in 2010.

Instead, it was he who fired her after she allegedly forged his signature on affidavits, he said.

"This is a very angry person who I found out was forging affidavits," Brodsky said.

Odeh denied she forged affidavits when asked about it outside court.
On the witness stand, Odeh said she left Brodsky’s firm under “very disturbing” circumstances. Many of her files and belongings were packed up and shipped out, and she took with her a copy of a contract between Brodsky, Peterson and a publicist.

She said she didn’t take the documents as a hedge against any future action by Brodsky or others.

“I thought that Mr. Brodsky was very furious with me for ending the partnership and leaving. So I gathered everything I could get my hands on and left.”

This morning’s hearing in Joliet began with questions from Judge Edward Burmila about one of Peterson’s attorneys.
Burmila said he was “concerned” about whether defense attorney Steve Greenberg could give his full attention to Peterson’s case given that Greenberg has been sued for libel this month by Brodsky.

"The issue now is that Mr. Greenberg's personal name and financial interest could be at interest due to this lawsuit and the timing of it," Burmila said to Peterson. "Someone could argue...that Greenberg is now pulling his punches because he'd be afraid that if he revisits these same issues, he'd be accused of once again libeling Mr. Brodsky. Do you still have confidence in these attorneys this morning...despite the pendency of this lawsuit?"

"Yes, your honor," Peterson replied.

Peterson remains the sole suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. Prosecutors believe Peterson killed her and have said they will ask the judge to weigh that when sentencing him.

Peterson's defense team is alleging that Brodsky's legal leadership — including calling a witness whose testimony several jurors said convinced them Peterson was guilty — amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, which can be grounds for a new trial.

Burmila has indicated that if he denies the motion for a new trial, he will immediately move into the sentencing hearing.

Read More..

Venezuela's Maduro would win vote if Chavez goes: poll


CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro would win a presidential vote should his boss Hugo Chavez's cancer force him out, according to the first survey this year on such a scenario in the South American OPEC nation.


Local pollster Hinterlaces gave Maduro 50 percent of potential votes, compared to 36 percent for opposition leader Henrique Capriles.


Chavez made a surprise return to Venezuela on Monday, more than two months after cancer surgery in Cuba, to continue treatment at home for the disease that is jeopardizing his 14-year socialist rule.


He has named Maduro, 50, a former bus driver and union activist, as his preferred successor.


Capriles, 40, a center-left state governor who lost to Chavez in a presidential vote last year, likely would run again.


Chavez still has not spoken in public since his December 11 operation in Cuba. Venezuelans were debating on Tuesday the various possible scenarios after his homecoming - from full recovery to resignation or even death from the cancer.


There was widespread expectation Chavez would soon be formally sworn in for his new six-year term at the Caracas military hospital where officials said he was staying. The January 10 ceremony was postponed while he was in Cuba.


"The president's timeline is strictly linked to his medical evolution and recovery," said Rodrigo Cabezas, a senior member of Chavez's ruling Socialist Party who, like other officials, would not comment on when he might be sworn in.


CAPRILES ANGRY


Should Chavez be forced out, Venezuela's constitution stipulates an election must be held within 30 days, giving Capriles and the opposition Democratic Unity coalition another chance to end the socialists' lengthy grip on power.


Capriles, who crossed swords with Hinterlaces at various points during the presidential election, again accused its director, Oscar Schemel, of bias in the latest survey.


"That man is not a pollster, he's on the government's payroll," Capriles told local TV.


"He said in December I would lose the Miranda governorship," he added, referring to his defeat of government heavyweight Elias Jaua, now foreign minister, in that local race.


Opinion surveys are notoriously controversial and divergent in Venezuela, with both sides routinely accusing pollsters of being in the pocket of the other. But Hinterlaces successfully forecast Chavez's win with 55 percent of the vote in October.


Its latest poll was of 1,230 people between January 30-February 9.


Polls last year showed Capriles - an energetic basketball-playing lawyer who admires Brazil's centrist mix of free-market economics with strong social welfare policies - as more popular than any of Chavez's senior allies.


But Chavez's personal blessing of Maduro, on the eve of his last cancer surgery, has transformed his status and made him the heir apparent for many of the president's supporters.


As de facto leader since mid-December, Maduro also has built up a stronger public profile, copying the president's techniques of endless live TV appearances, especially to inaugurate new public works or promote popular policies like subsidized food.


He lacks Chavez's charisma, however, and opponents have slammed him as a "poor imitation" and incompetent.


EMOTION


Local analyst Luis Vicente Leon said that should Chavez die, Maduro would benefit from the emotion unleashed among his millions of passionate supporters in Venezuela.


"The funeral wake for Chavez would merge into the election campaign," he told a local newspaper, noting how Argentine President Cristina Fernandez's popularity surged when her husband and predecessor Nestor Kirchner died in 2010.


Maduro already has implemented an unpopular devaluation of the local currency and said more economic measures are coming this week in what local economists view as austerity measures after blowout spending prior to last year's election.


In Caracas, the streets were quieter after tumultuous celebrations of Chavez's homecoming by supporters on Monday. A few journalists stood outside the military hospital.


Prayer vigils were planned in various parts of Venezuela.


"We hope Chavez will stay governing because he is a strong man," supporter Cristina Salcedo, 50, said in Caracas.


Student demonstrators who had chained themselves near the Cuban Embassy last week, demanding more information on Chavez's condition, called off their protest after his return.


Until photos were published of him on Friday, the president had not been seen by the public since his six-hour December 11 operation, the fourth since cancer was detected in mid-2011.


The government has said Chavez is breathing through a tracheal tube and struggling to speak.


Bolivian President Evo Morales arrived in Caracas on Tuesday in the hope of visiting his friend and fellow leftist.


(Additional reporting by Deisy Buitrago, Mario Naranjo, Girish Gupta in Caracas, Carlos Quiroga in La Paz; Editing by Bill Trott)



Read More..