Onze ans après ses débuts aux côtés des “Quatre Fantastiques”, le Surfer d’Argent va faire son retour sur grand écran, puisque la Fox développe un long métrage autour du super-héros Marvel.

Le Docteur Fatalis d’un côté, le Surfer d’Argent de l’autre : contrairement aux Quatre Fantastiques, l’avenir ciné de leurs amis/ennemis commence à se clarifier. Alors que le premier est entre les mains de Noah Hawley, créateur des séries Fargo et Legion, The Hollywood Reporter annonce qu’un long métrage centré sur le second est en développement du côté de la Fox, sous la supervision du scénariste Brian K. Vaughan, à qui l’on doit notamment les comic books Runaways, récemment adaptés en série par Hulu.

Créé en 1966 par le dessinateur Jack Kirby, ce personnage immortel et quasi-invulnérable est l’un des plus iconiques du catalogue Marvel, mais il n’a jamais vraiment connu les honneurs du cinéma et de la télévision, hormis deux séries d’animation et – surtout – une apparition en chair, en os et en métal, dans le deuxième film consacré aux Quatre Fantastiques, où il avait les traits de Doug Jones (acteur fétiche de Guillermo del Toro, actuellement à l’affiche de La Forme de l’eau) et la voix de Laurence Fishburne. Des premiers pas quelque peu déçevants et restés sans suite jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

Il faut dire que le Surfer d’Argent, ex-allié du dévoreur de planète Galactus bloqué sur Terre et privé d’une partie de ses pouvoirs, n’est pas un personnage facile à transposer au cinéma : à cause de son allure qui nécessite des effets spéciaux de pointe, et de la personnalité presque christique que lui confèrent des angoisses métaphysiques et questionnements existentiels très peu cinématographiques. Brian K. Vaughan saura-t-il relever ce défi pour permettre au héros de glisser sur les cîmes sur box-office ?

LA FOX EN (X-)FORCE ?

S’il n’y a pas encore de date annoncée pour découvrir la réponse en images, le projet vient s’ajouter à la liste déjà longue des longs métrages Marvel que prépare la Fox. Alors que deux d’entre eux sont attendus cette année, The Hollywood Reporter précise qu’il y en aura trois en 2019 et en 2020. Même si des titres restent encore à mettre sur certaines dates, sont pour l’instant prévus :

Deadpool 2 : 18 mai 2018 en France

X-Men – Dark Phoenix : 31 octobre 2018 en France

Les Nouveaux mutants : 20 février 2019 en France

Gambit : 5 juin 2019 en France

X-Force, spin-off de Deadpool dont le tournage débute en octobre de cette année

143, long métrage autour de Kitty Pryde signé Tim Miller

Doctor Doom (ou Docteur Fatalis en VF) de Noah Hawley
Le Surfer d’Argent

Soient autant de raisons de rassurer ceux qui craignaient que le rachat de la Fox par Disney ne réduise le nombre d’adaptations de comic books liés aux X-Men et aux Quatre Fantastiques. En espérant que le Surfer d’Argent ait droit à un meilleur film que celui sorti en 2007.

Les 4 Fantastiques et le Surfer d'Argent Bande-annonce VO

Click Here: kanken kids cheap

Michel & Michel face au héros Marvel : les dieux du faux raccord défient le dieu du tonnerre !

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

Pour vous aider à faire vos choix, voici les 3 films de la semaine les mieux notés par la presse sur AlloCiné !

1er : L’Île aux chiens
Note moyenne presse* : 4.1 / 5
 

L'Île aux chiens
De Wes Anderson

Note moyenne de la presse :

4,1

Critiques Presse

Critiques spectateurs

“Cette victoire des « super-enfants » et des explorateurs de tout poil suffit déjà amplement à toiser d’autres meutes bien moins téméraires et à conjurer, pour un bref moment d’enchantement, le cynisme de l’époque.” Par Joachim Lepastier (Cahiers du Cinéma)

“Touchant, drôle et poétique, ce film est à la fois une ode humaniste, une allégorie politique et un appel à la révolte.” Par Claire Picard (Télé Loisirs) 

2ème : L’héroïque lande, la frontière brûle

Note moyenne presse* : 3.9 / 5 

L'héroïque lande, la frontière brûle
De Elisabeth Perceval,Nicolas Klotz

Note moyenne de la presse :

3,9

Critiques Presse

Critiques spectateurs

“Chaque plan, sans perdre son réalisme, se convertit sans cesse en autre chose, en des images dont la logique obéit à des règles qu’on dira faute de mieux poétiques.” par Damien Aubel (Transfuge)

“Éprouvant et complexe, le résultat repousse admirablement les frontières entre documentaire et fiction.” par Simon Hoarau (Les Fiches du Cinéma)

3ème : The Third Murder
Note moyenne presse* : 3.6 / 5

The Third Murder
De Hirokazu Kore-eda

Note moyenne de la presse :

3,6

Critiques Presse

Critiques spectateurs

“Le cinéaste japonais aborde pour la première fois le thriller judiciaire, qu’il tisse avec ses thèmes récurrents, drames familiaux et filiations. Une réussite spectaculaire.” par Dominique Widemann (L’Humanité)

“C’est ce qu’il y a de très beau et de très apaisant avec les films (réussis) de Kore-eda : ils tiennent en équilibre sur un fil sans forcément savoir où mettre les pieds. Et, finalement, ne se terminent jamais.” par Eric Libiot (L’Express)

* Selon les notes presse du baromètre AlloCiné, à la date du vendredi 13 avril 2018, et pour des films sortis le 11 avril ayant au moins 10 critiques.

Disney a rencontré une dernière fois le réalisateur James Gunn (“Les Gardiens de la galaxie”) afin de lui confirmer son licenciement pour avoir publié des propos polémiques sur Twitter.

L’affaire est entendue ! Selon Variety, après une ultime discussion avec le réalisateur James Gunn, le président du studio Disney Alan Horn a pris la décision définitive de le licencier. Il y a environ un mois, d’anciens tweets du metteur en scène des Gardiens de la Galaxie avaient refait surface dans lequels il se moquait de sujets comme le viol ou la pédophilie. Des personnalités de droite et d’extrême droite avaient décidé de faire ressurgir ces messages afin d’épingler publiquement le réalisateur, fervent opposant à Donald Trump.

La réaction de Disney ne s’était pas fait attendre et aujourd’hui le couperet tombe : James Gunn n’est plus le bienvenu dans la maison de Mickey. Certains producteurs de Marvel Studios avaient rencontré Disney afin d’essayer de faire plier le studio, et les acteurs avaient affiché leur soutien au réalisateur par une lettre ouverte. Rien n’y a fait.

Qu’en pense Kevin Feige ?

Le producteur Kevin Feige n’était pas en ville lors de l’ultime rendez-vous entre Gunn et Disney, ce que Variety interprète comme un signe de son accord avec la firme. Dès son retour, Feige va devoir trouver un remplaçant à Gunn pour la mise en scène des Gardiens de la Galaxie 3, qui devait commencer son tournage début 2019.

Il est très probable que le script de James Gunn, terminé, soit conservé pour le film, mais le nouveau réalisateur devrait y ajouter sa patte avant que le coup de clap ne soit donné. Repartir avec un scénario neuf reviendrait à perdre du temps pour Marvel Studios, qui devrait changer de date de sortie envisagée pour Les Gardiens de la Galaxie 3 (2020), le temps qu’un nouvel auteur se penche sur cet univers que James Gunn connaissait comme personne, puisqu’il en était l’adaptateur depuis les origines.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

1/11

Sen. Kamala Harris, center, speaks to the media after addressing hundreds of airport workers, Uber and Lyft drivers, janitors, and city and county workers preparing to march on Los Angeles International Airport in a job action on Oct. 2.  

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

2/11

Sen. Kamala Harris reacts to a supporter after a rally in North Las Vegas on March 1.  

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

3/11

Sen. Kamala Harris speaks at a Planned Parenthood event during the state Democratic Party Convention in San Francisco on May 31. 

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

4/11

Sen. Kamala Harris speaks at Los Angeles Southwest College on May 19. 

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

5/11

Sen. Kamala Harris speaks at the Human Rights Campaign gala in Los Angeles on March 30.  

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

6/11

Sen. Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally in Ankeny, Iowa, on Feb. 23.  

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

7/11

Sen. Kamala Harris at a campaign rally in Bettendorf, Iowa, on Feb. 24.  

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

8/11

Sen. Kamala Harris campaigns in Irmo, S.C., on Feb. 16. 

(Logan Cyrus / For The Times)

9/11

Sen. Kamala Harris announces her presidential bid at a rally in her hometown of Oakland on Jan. 27. 

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

10/11

Star Jones and Sen. Kamala Harris at the Black Enterprise Women of Power Summit in Las Vegas on March 1.  

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

11/11

Sen. Kamala Harris gets a backstage hug from her godson, Alexander Hudlin, before kicking off her presidential campaign on Jan. 27 in Oakland. 

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

Kamala Harris quickly made the most of her national role when she arrived in the U.S. Senate three years ago, electrifying Democrats as an assertive antagonist toward the incoming Trump administration. That self-assurance set the foundation for her presidential run.

But her forceful demeanor belied the risk-averse approach to politics that she’d long established in California. Those competing instincts were among the main obstacles blocking her quest for the Democratic nomination. On Tuesday, Harris abandoned the campaign.

In the end, she lacked a central reason to run, beyond ambition and a notion — expressed by advisors and others close to the senator — that now was her moment, and she should seize it. A core argument for her candidacy or a deep set of convictions would have lent ballast to her campaign. Instead, voters would repeatedly walk away from events enthused about Harris, but wondering what she believed in and stood for.

“The problem ultimately was one of rationale and purpose,” said Paul Maslin, a Democratic consultant with a long track record in California politics. “Who was she? Why was she running? I don’t think it was clear.”

The daughter of a breast cancer researcher from India and an economist from Jamaica, Harris, 55, had plenty of attributes to make her a singular political figure, not least her racial background and relative youth in a crowded Democratic field dominated by white septuagenarians. Her career as a former California attorney general, San Francisco district attorney and violent-crime prosecutor in Oakland offered law-and-order credentials that, in theory, could play well in a general election against President Trump.

But her candidacy was felled by the enduring strength of former Vice President Joe Biden’s support among African Americans. As a woman of color running to be commander in chief, she was especially burdened by the fraught politics of race and gender. A poorly structured campaign gave way to infighting and public feuding.

Her failings aside, Harris was to a considerable extent a victim of these political times and the obsession Democrats have with defeating Trump. She was an inspiration to many voters, especially African American women, who were thrilled by the promise of her candidacy.

But this is no time for idealism, many said, suggesting the country was too racist and misogynist to elect anyone but an establishment white male — a cold-eyed calculation that has worked to Biden’s benefit.

Ultimately, though, her campaign ended because of the most common of reasons: lack of money. After a holiday weekend in Iowa of trying to chart a path forward amid growing challenges, Harris made the decision on Monday to quit the race and announced it to supporters in an email on Tuesday morning.

“I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life,” she wrote.
Underscoring how hastily the end had come, a super-PAC formed by former Harris aides had just begun spending $1 million on television advertising in Iowa when the news broke. The group immediately canceled the ad buy.

The TV spot focused on what made Harris a national star: her lacerating questioning of Trump appointees in Senate hearings. Voters often cited those moments on the campaign trail, relishing the idea of Harris similarly eviscerating Trump in the general election. Harris herself argued she was best fit to prosecute the case against Trump.

“I have taken on Jeff Sessions, I’ve taken on Bill Barr, I have taken on Brett Kavanaugh,” Harris said in her final Democratic debate. “I know I have the ability to do that.”

Throughout the campaign, Harris distinguished herself best in tightly choreographed settings, such as her flashy launch rally in downtown Oakland before more than 20,000 people.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Most consequential was her deftly executed takedown of Biden in the first Democratic debate over his fight against mandatory school busing as a U.S. senator in the 1970s. Her emotionally charged recollection of being bused across Berkeley as a young girl to a mostly white elementary school left the former vice president nearly speechless. Her poll numbers spiked afterward.

“I thought that campaign was really going to take off from there,” said Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, an advocacy group promoting women of color in politics.

But in the following days, Harris lost the moral high ground as she mangled answers to questions about whether busing would remedy today’s racial inequities in education.

For longtime Harris watchers, the lost momentum was symptomatic of a mushiness that predated the 2020 campaign. In California, Harris’ cautious instincts meant she lacked a strong public presence on controversial issues of the day, particularly on criminal justice matters.

In her 2016 Senate race, Harris branded herself as “fearless,” a purposeful attempt by her campaign to compensate for perceived timidity.

Aides say Harris shed some of her bet-hedging tendencies in the Senate as she took on Trump with heated rhetoric. In a hyper-partisan Congress, she was free from the tightrope she’d walked as attorney general in clashes between law enforcement and civil rights groups.

Still, Harris’ reluctance to take bold stands in California hobbled her entire presidential run. A few days before her Oakland rally, the New York Times published a damaging op-ed by Lara Bazelon, now a law professor at the University of San Francisco, who faulted Harris for opposing criminal justice reforms or staying silent as they were debated.

“It was deeply problematic for her to use the word ‘progressive’ to describe her prosecutorial record, because it was so profoundly inaccurate,” Bazelon said Tuesday.

If Harris had described herself as “a pragmatic law-and-order centrist,” Bazelon said, that would have been consistent with the “fairly conservative, cautious positions she took as D.A. and attorney general.”

While detractors saw waffling, supporters described her style as deliberate and steeped in preparation.

“The bar was higher for her, as a woman and a person of color,” said John A. Pérez, former California Assembly speaker, who advised her campaign.

One of her biggest missteps was on healthcare. Harris was an early backer of “Medicare for all,” aligning herself with the party’s progressive flank. After she flippantly said she would do away with private insurance during a CNN town hall, her campaign offered confusing explanations. She ultimately released a plan that embraced aspects of Medicare for all, but allowed for some private insurance. The plan came under attack from both progressives and moderates.

The campaign’s disorganization was reflected in its ever-shifting mottos (“For the people,” “Justice is on the ballot” and “Dude gotta go,” alluding to Trump) and messages, at times contradicting each other. Harris rejected her progressive opponents’ calls for big structural change, emphasizing instead a “3 a.m. agenda” of solutions to pocketbook worries that keep Americans up at night. But she also proposed eliminating the Senate filibuster to pass a $10-trillion climate change program.

Some of the mixed signals were due to strife among her campaign staff, insiders said, including a disagreement between Harris’ sister, Maya, the campaign chairwoman, and other senior aides on how to navigate the senator’s criminal justice record. The operation was structured with two heads — Maya Harris and campaign manager Juan Rodriguez, who is also a partner in the consulting firm run by her top advisors — which slowed decision-making.

“As a candidate, she had all the right attributes, and in the moments a campaign doesn’t fire on all cylinders, candidates and their campaign infrastructure have to share in that responsibility,” Pérez said.

Harris often boasted that she had never lost an election, but the massive scale of a California campaign can be hard to translate to the small states with early presidential contests.

“Iowa and New Hampshire are the anti-California,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s ill-fated 1996 presidential run. “You have to develop a relationship where you sit in people’s living rooms, you attend coffee klatches eight or 10 times, where they get to know you. That doesn’t happen in California.”

Not all of Harris’ troubles were self-inflicted. The campaign originally was planned around a strong showing in South Carolina, where black voters exert tremendous influence. But Biden has maintained solid support among black voters, to the detriment of Harris and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, the remaining black candidate in the race.

“Biden has most of them, and the ones he doesn’t have were not automatically going to go to Harris or Booker just because they are black,” Maslin said.

The ascendance of Pete Buttigieg, the little-known mayor of South Bend, Ind., undercut Harris’ strength with big-money donors. Susie Tompkins Buell, a top San Francisco fundraiser for Democrats, was an early supporter of Harris, but also was drawn to Buttigieg.

“He is showing great leadership by the effectiveness and harmony in this campaign,” Tompkins Buell said Tuesday. “He started slowly and has steadily developed and grown. It has felt organic. Kamala burst on the scene and couldn’t sustain.”

As Tuesday drew to a close, a Harris aide posted a video on Twitter of the former candidate dancing in her Baltimore headquarters with campaign aides.

Harris, looking more lighthearted than she had in weeks, shimmied and sang along as a Beyoncé song played. Its title: “Before I Let Go.”

Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — 

Before she announced an impeachment inquiry against President Trump in September, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi worried it might provoke a backlash from voters who thought Congress had better things to do.

That didn’t happen. Instead, voters headed straight for their partisan corners: Democrats rallied behind impeachment, Republicans closed ranks behind Trump.

It’s unlikely that Pelosi ever saw impeachment winning enough converts in the Republican-controlled Senate to make Trump the first U.S. president to be removed from office. The GOP appears, if anything, more united behind Trump now than before the process began.

But the televised impeachment hearings served an unexpected purpose that should give hope to Democrats desperate to beat Trump next year.

The proceedings provided a preview of the Democrats’ most powerful argument against Trump. If you have any doubt, look at the House Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday.

It argues that Trump has abused presidential power for his own personal and political gain. He has hijacked foreign policy and obstructed justice. He has destroyed institutions and undermined alliances. He is unfit for office.

The unspoken message: Impeach first, then vote him out of office.

“Trump is facing the worst political scenario he could,” Republican strategist Mike Murphy, a frequent critic of the president, told me. “This is turning into the world’s longest campaign commercial to not reelect Donald Trump.”

Even if the Senate votes to acquit Trump in a trial, the likely outcome at this point, it could help mobilize Democratic voters next fall.

“They’ll turn out like crazy,” Murphy said. “Trump will be stuck on the defensive…. It’s a net plus for the Democrats.”

Democratic strategist David Axelrod, who helped Barack Obama win the White House in 2008, says the turmoil that constantly surrounds the president — including impeachment — may prove his undoing.

Impeachment will hurt Trump because “it adds to the overall perception of chaos that surrounds him,” he told me. “If Trump loses [in 2020], it will be because people decide that we just can’t do this for another four years.”

Axelrod warned his fellow Democrats against broadening impeachment into a collection of partisan grievances against Trump.

“The best thing Pelosi and other Democrats can do is continue to play this absolutely straight … and avoid playing into the Republican narrative that this is all a politically motivated, bloodless coup,” he said.

Pelosi and her lieutenants never planned to make impeachment part of the 2020 campaign; indeed, they spent months tiptoeing around it.

No longer. A new impeachment-focused video by House Democrats is aimed against Republicans in Congress, some of whom could be vulnerable next year if they stand by the president.

Democrats who fretted that impeachment would backfire, the way it did against Republican lawmakers who impeached Bill Clinton two decades ago, can probably breathe a sigh of relief.

In 1998, most voters didn’t think Clinton’s impeachment was warranted. This time, the public is more closely divided.

A polling average compiled by the political website Five Thirty Eight this week found that 48% of Americans favor the president’s impeachment and removal, against 44% opposed.

Almost all Democrats favor Trump’s removal, almost all Republicans are opposed, and independents are divided. About 1 in 10 voters, depending on the poll, say they haven’t decided or don’t know.

But Democrats appear more united and more intense in their feelings than Republicans. Almost half of all voters, most of them Democrats, say their view of Trump is “very unfavorable.” Only about a third say their view of the president is “very favorable.”

There are still lots of unknowns, of course. No president has ever sought reelection after being impeached. And no challenger has ever run a presidential race during an impeachment trial. Both appear likely to happen.

If the Senate holds a trial in January, before the first primaries, it will pull several candidates off the campaign trail, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar.

Moreover, if the country is transfixed by a dramatic trial, the winners won’t get as much positive media attention as they normally would.

So expect jousting in the Senate over whether the trial should be fast or slow.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

If the Democrats see no prospect of convicting Trump, they may seek a quick trial. If Republicans want to complicate the Democratic primaries, they may look to slow-roll it.

But once the trial ends, even a Trump acquittal may help the challenger, not the president.

That’s what some analysts believe happened in 2000, almost two years after Clinton’s acquittal. He wasn’t up for reelection, but his vice president, Al Gore, lost in a race so tight it was decided by the Supreme Court.

“The conventional wisdom is that the impeachment of Bill Clinton helped the Democrats, but my view from inside the Gore campaign is that it helped the Republicans,” Tad Devine, a strategist who worked for Gore, told me. “It allowed George W. Bush to promise that he would restore honor and dignity to the White House — and it worked.”

In the impeachment case against Trump, the jury is still out. But so far, the evidence is weighing mostly against the president, not his accusers.

WASHINGTON — 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) is listening to every impeachment podcast he can as he drives around his district. Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano) catches up with news clips at the end of each day and watches snippets from the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings on his flights back and forth from Southern California.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara) pores over a white binder with every scrap of impeachment information his staff can find. He wants the research categorized and annotated as he prepares for one of the biggest decisions of his life, whether to impeach President Trump.

“I’m trying to devour as much as I can within the limited spare time that I have,” Carbajal said. “I’m trying to be as thorough and as educated as I can, because it’s that important of an issue.”

Congress’ probe of Trump’s actions toward Ukraine and whether they justify impeaching him is quickly moving into a new phase this week as the action shifts to the House Judiciary Committee. That panel is scheduled to start formal impeachment proceedings Wednesday with a hearing featuring constitutional law experts designed to educate members on what exactly is impeachment and what actions by a president merit that punishment.

The hearing provides a tacit acknowledgment that many people — even members of Congress — may not fully grasp what impeachment is. So before the next steps begin, let’s review.

Who will House Judiciary Committee members hear from?

The committee is bringing in four experts, Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor; Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor; Jonathan Turley of George Washington University law school and Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.

Feldman has argued that an actual crime is not necessary to impeach a president and has written in opinion columns that Democrats have legitimate grounds to impeach Trump because he has abused the power of his office.

Karlan is a former Obama administration Justice Department official who has not been vocal about the impeachment proceedings. She is well known in legal circles for her work of voting rights and political processes and has argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Karlan was a law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun.

Gerhardt, a former Al Gore campaign official, gave a similar presentation to Congress when the Judiciary Committee was considering impeaching Clinton. His book “Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know” describes itself as a nonpartisan “primer for anyone eager to learn about impeachment’s origins, practices, limitations, and alternatives.”

The one expert called by Republicans, Turley has written extensively about Trump and impeachment and has criticized Democrats’ for moving too quickly and being too narrowly focused in the impeachment process.

Although committee panels in Congress normally feature more witnesses called by the majority party than the minority, Republicans say they are upset they were allowed to call only one expert. In a letter Monday, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) asked Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to expand the panel and let the minority party call the same number of witnesses as Democrats. He pointed out that 19 academics with a range of opinions were called to educate members during the Clinton impeachment. Nadler has not responded.

What will they say?

Nadler said in a statement announcing the hearing that the point of the hearing is to “explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct like those against President Trump.”

Expect a lot of talk about what the framers of the Constitution intended when they created impeachment, what they meant by the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” what standards Congress should use as it examines the evidence, and whether the accusations against Trump rise to the level of impeachment.

Why does Congress have this power anyway?

Having just thrown off a monarchy, the writers of the Constitution were concerned about giving too much power to the executive, the position now known as the president, and having no recourse if that power were abused. So, at the very end of Article II of the Constitution, which set up the executive branch, they inserted 31 words that would give the legislative branch power to try, convict and remove a president, or certain other federal officials, for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The writers of the Constitution didn’t want to tightly define high crimes and misdemeanors but gave broad examples of what it should include. Legal experts describe it as an offense against the public trust at large, not necessarily a crime defined by law.

James Madison wrote in 1787 that there had to be a way to defend against “incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief executive” because the president might “pervert his administration” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” Alexander Hamilton described the standard in 1788 as “abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Legal experts also stress that this punishment was not intended to be used when Congress disagrees with the president’s policy decisions. (This is why Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have refused to bring articles of impeachment against Trump for policies they don’t like, such as family detention at the southern border.)

Impeachment is an Americanization of British and Colonial law that allowed parliament to police political offenses that subverted the government or public trust, though not those committed by the crown. The Americans narrowed the list of what offenses could be impeachable and expanded it to include the head of government.

Does the evidence against Trump warrant impeachment?

That is up to the 435 representatives in the House.

Individual House members have to decide whether the evidence collected rises — in their opinion — to the level of impeachment. The Constitution set no standard of evidence that has to be met like the “reasonable doubt” standard in the judicial system, though legal experts have suggested a standard closer to a preponderance of evidence, also known as probable cause.

During the Clinton impeachment hearings, the House Judiciary Committee was reluctant to set any formal burden of proof, stressing that it had “clear and compelling evidence,” but that such a finding wasn’t required.

Similarly it’s up to individual senators to decide if the evidence the House presents warrants removal from office. Even though the proceeding is called a trial, it is not a criminal proceeding. There’s no specific standard of evidence that has to be met as there is in the judicial system. Counsel for presidents in previous impeachment cases have argued that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases should also be the standard senators adopt; House managers who have presented impeachment cases have argued for a lower standard.

Pop quiz. Does impeachment mean removal from office?

Nope (it’s a common misconception). Think of impeachment as similar to having charges brought against the president. The Senate holds the trial and decides whether to remove the president.

The Senate has never removed a president. Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. Each finished his term.

With a Republican majority, the current Senate is unlikely to get the two-thirds vote necessary remove a Republican president.

As a whole, the process doesn’t often lead to removal from office. The House has impeached 19 individuals: 15 federal judges, one senator, one Cabinet member and two presidents. The Senate has convicted just eight of them, all federal judges.

Can the Supreme Court overturn the Senate if it convicts or stop the House from impeachment?

President Trump has tweeted a few times that the Supreme Court should step in to stop the impeachment proceedings, but the framers of the Constitution specifically sought to keep this from happening. They put the power to remove a president solely in the legislature’s hands.

The Supreme Court backed that up in 1993 when a federal judge from Mississippi challenged his removal. The Constitution makes impeachment “a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive branch,” the court said.

One caveat is that the Senate proceedings are overseen by the chief justice. That keeps the vice president, who is normally the presiding officer of the Senate, from overseeing a trial that could potentially elevate him to the presidency.

What else do you need to know before the hearing?

It could be a long day. The Judiciary Committee is one of Congress’ largest committees, and every representative gets a chance to ask questions.

The resolution that sets the ground rules for impeachment gives the chairman and ranking members, or a designated staff member, up to 45 minutes to ask questions at the beginning of the hearing. If you don’t normally watch committee hearings, it’s worth knowing that high-profile hearings — especially ones with some of the most conservative and liberal members of Congress like this — can devolve quickly into speechifying and pontificating as some committee members try to get attention during their five minutes of questions. Setting aside up to the first hour and a half for concentrated, direct questioning allows the chairman to set the tone for the entire hearing.

After that, all 41 members of the committee get their five minutes. If they all stick to that time limit (a big if) that’s an additional three hours and 40 minutes of questions.

And it’s just the first day

Further impeachment hearings haven’t been scheduled yet, but at least a few more are expected.

The committee held multiple hearings over six months when considering articles of impeachment against Nixon. It held four hearings in two days before voting on articles against Clinton.

The Intelligence Committee report has to be introduced and weighed in some way by the Judiciary Committee, likely with a presentation of the facts by the committee’s staff counsel who did much of the witness questioning in that committee. The Judiciary Committee will also look at Republicans’ rebuttal.

The Judiciary Committee could call witnesses to testify, and Republicans on the committee have the option to call witnesses or offer evidence of their own, though only if a majority of committee members agree.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

So far, Trump has refused to cooperate with the investigation or allow high-ranking officials to comply with subpoenas for testimony or documents, and his lawyers turned down an invitation to participate in Wednesday’s hearing. That could change, and they still have the ability to participate in future hearings and question witnesses if the president changes his mind.

If the Judiciary Committee recommends articles of impeachment, then the House will debate them and hold a vote.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists there is no timetable for impeachment, so there is a chance this could slip into 2020. Still, Democratic leaders are thought to want the process wrapped up before Christmas, so a whirlwind two and a half weeks could be ahead.

Then it’s time for a Senate trial, which could last weeks, but that’s a story for another day.

The House Judiciary Committee today will hold its first impeachment hearing, signifying a new — and unpredictable — step in the Democrats’ inquiry into President Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. The Judiciary Committee, made up of some of the most partisan members of Congress, is expected to be more rambunctious than the Intelligence Committee.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Doc Rivers’ eyes had not deceived him.

The halftime box score the Clippers coach stared at Tuesday night at Staples Center was, in fact, accurate: His team had made 50% of its shots, including nine three-pointers, in the first two quarters. And still, the Clippers led Portland, which had made 51% of its shots, by only three points.

Wasn’t it only two days before that Rivers had said his team’s defense was further along than its offense?

“We just said something’s going to give, one way or another,” Rivers said of his halftime message. “Either we’re going to start defending or we’re going to have a tough night.”

They chose the former.

Chastened after a porous first half, the Clippers closed off Portland’s driving lanes to the rim, took away good three-point looks and didn’t allow Carmelo Anthony to add to his charmed beginning with the Trail Blazers over the course of the final 24 minutes en route to a 117-97 victory.

“Just imposed our will on the defensive end,” said forward Montrezl Harrell, whose campaign for the NBA’s top reserve continued after 26 points and nine rebounds, with no turnovers, in 30 minutes.

In their last game at Staples Center before beginning a six-game trip, the Clippers (16-6) improved to 13-1 at home. Paul George scored 25 points and Patrick Patterson scored 19 off the bench, with George making six three-pointers and Patterson making five.

Though the Clippers have outscored opponents during first, second and fourth quarters this season, they ranked 18th in the league in third-quarter plus-minus entering Tuesday, outscored by an average of one point per game. That usually has set up a need for a dramatic fourth quarter, and the Clippers have become one of the NBA’s best teams in clutch situations.

Such late heroics were not needed against Portland, which pulled its starters with 7:41 to play trailing 102-80.

“We played defense,” George said.

That cushion was built during the third quarter, which the Clippers won by 10 after Anthony, the Western Conference’s reigning player of the week, and the team’s celebrated backcourt of CJ McCollum and Damian Lillard made two of their 11 combined field goals.

“They’re great players, we’re just sending a lot of people at them,” Rivers said of Portland’s dynamic backcourt, which had averaged more than 49 points together entering Tuesday. “We’re doubling a lot, we’re able to switch with bigger guys that can move their feet.”

Anthony finished with nine points. McCollum led Portland (8-13) with 20 points and Lillard added 16, and they combined to make 14 of 32 field goal attempts, including two each of their combined 15 three-point shots.

The Clippers built off their blueprint from their Nov. 7 victory against Portland, in which Lillard missed all four attempts in which he was guarded by Maurice Harkless, the former Trail Blazers forward.

Lillard won several matchups Tuesday against Harkless, including hitting a deep three-pointer in the opening quarter when Harkless didn’t extend his 7-foot wingspan in time to contest an attempt. But in the third quarter, Lillard missed all five shots he took, and Harkless was usually in the vicinity.

“I don’t know how many teams you can put your power forward on the other team’s point guard,” Rivers said. “Because of our size we’re able to do that.”

Without JaMychal Green, who did not play since bruising his tailbone in Sunday’s victory, Patterson played 26 minutes — double his season average — but was a release valve when things went wrong offensively. Kawhi Leonard scored 11 points, making three of 15 shots, but when his drives were cut off in the second quarter, he found Patterson open in the corner twice for three-pointers.

“Teammates just found me,” Patterson said. “And my shot seemed to fall.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Veteran Westchester coach Ed Azzam chose not to retire, so the Comets welcomed him back on Tuesday in an opening game of the Comets’ tournament by delivering career victory No. 900 in a 73-20 victory over Horace Mann.

Westchester will play Santa Monica on Thursday in a quarterfinal game at 6 p.m. Santa Monica defeated Gardena 60-50. The other quarterfinal will match Renaissance against St. Bernard at 7:30 p.m. Renaissance held off Long Beach Poly 52-50. Koat Keat scored 30 points. Ben Jones had 14 points for the Jackrabbits. St. Bernard defeated Hart 85-54. Damion McDowell scored 21 points and Reece Dixon-Waters added 19.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

No. 1 Sierra Canyon made its home debut before a packed crowd. The Trailblazers scored the game’s first 10 points en route to an 87-35 victory over Granada Hills. BJ Boston scored 25 points and Terren Frank 17. The Trailblazers (5-0) face a test against Santa Clarita Christian on Wednesday night at CSUN.

Chaminade stayed unbeaten with a 72-53 win over Santa Barbara in the Simi Valley tournament. Keith Higgins scored 24 points, Kenneth Simpson 23 and Abe Eagle grabbed 12 rebounds.

Oxnard improved to 5-0 with a 70-32 win over Golden Valley. Stacy Johnson scored 19 points. Valencia defeated Santa Paula 101-22. Noah Veluzat finished with 23 points and 10 assists. Sherman Oaks Notre Dame defeated University 105-85. Ben Shtolzberg had 32 points.

King-Drew (3-0) put itself in contention for a City Section Open Division spot with a 44-39 win over El Camino Real at Maranatha. Kalib LaCount scored 15 points. King-Drew and Washington Prep could be the teams to beat in the Coliseum League with Crenshaw.

Brentwood rallied for a 68-64 win over Culver City. Brayden Thomas had 16 points and Christian Moore returned from an injury to score 15 points. Freedom Rhames made a key three late in the game. Tyler Wiley had 21 points for Culver City. Pasadena defeated Palisades 63-54.

Damien defeated Marshall 75-26. Malik Thomas finished with 23 points.

In a top girls matchup, defending Open Division state champion Sierra Canyon defeated defending City Section Open Division champion Granada Hills 69-40.