jili 10 cc
Electoral Commission Addresses NDC Concerns Over Voting Machine Incident in Kwadaso
Up 288%, Is Palantir Stock a Buy?
Curt Cignetti and the No. 5 Indiana Hoosiers will face off against the No. 2 Ohio State Buckeyes at Ohio Stadium on Saturday afternoon. If Cignetti and the undefeated, 10-0 Hoosiers notch yet another win over the home-team Buckeyes, they'll punch their ticket to the Big Ten Championship game against the No. 1 Oregon Ducks. No one expected Indiana to be this good at this point in the 2024 season — except for Cignetti himself. Cignetti was hired as the Hoosiers' head coach just days before the 2023 Big Ten Championship game. In a TV appearance with the Big Ten Network before this title contest, Cignetti dropped a bold prediction for his Indiana team in Year 1. "I figured I had to make this trip up here since we'll be playing in this game next year," Cignetti said. Indiana is just one win away from making this prediction a reality. Cignetti's bold prediction is resurfacing on social media before Saturday's crucial, top-5 matchup against Ohio State. I've never seen someone back their words up like Curt Cignetti. On the eve of the biggest game in program history, a win that would place IU in the B10 Championship game vs Oregon, his words on Day 1 after being named #iufb Head Coach: "I figured I had to make this trip up... pic.twitter.com/m5DkwSragy Though Cignetti and the Hoosiers have strung together 10 impressive wins, they've yet to face off against a ranked opponent this season. Saturday's matchup against No. 2 Ohio State will be the team's first chance to truly prove itself as a legitimate College Football Playoff contender. Following Indiana's 10-0 start, the program signed Cignetti to an 8-year contract extension. © Rich Janzaruk/Herald-Times / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images Ryan Day and the home-team Buckeyes are favored by 10 points over the visiting Hoosiers. Saturday's game will kickoff at noon EST on Fox.It’s Monday, December 23, and the San Antonio Spurs (15-13) and Philadelphia 76ers (9-17) are all set to square off from Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia. The Spurs are currently 4-6 on the road with a point differential of -1, while the 76ers have a 4-6 record in their last ten games at home. We’ve got all the info and analysis you need to know ahead of the game, including the latest info on the how to catch tipoff, odds, recent team performance, player stats, and of course, our predictions, picks & best bets for the game from our modeling tools and staff of experts. Listen to the Rotoworld Basketball Show for the latest fantasy player news, waiver claims, roster advice and more from our experts all season long. Click here or download it wherever you get your podcasts. Game details & how to watch Spurs vs. 76ers live today Date: Monday, December 23, 2024 Time: 7:00 pm EST Site: Wells Fargo Center City: Philadelphia, PA Never miss a second of the action and stay up to date with all the latest team stats and player news. Check out our day-by-day NBA schedule page , along with detailed matchup pages that update live in-game. Game odds for Spurs vs. 76ers The latest odds as of Monday: Odds: Spurs (+183), 76ers (-221) Spread: 76ers -5.5 Over/Under: 220 points That gives the Spurs an implied team point total of 109.03, and the 76ers 111.89. Want to know which sportsbook is offering the best lines for every game on the NBA calendar? Check out the NBC Sports’ Live Odds tool to get all the latest updated info from DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM & more! Expert picks & predictions for Monday Spurs vs. 76ers game NBC Sports Bet Best Bet Vaughn Dalzell (@VmoneySports) like the Philly defense to clamp down on Jeremy Sochan: Jeremy Sochan Under 16.5 Points + Assists (-120) “Sochan has a tough matchup versus Kelly Oubre and Paul George when the Spurs visit the 76ers. While Sochan has been an animal rebounding, he’s averaging 3.8 potential assists per game in December and 14.1 points per game. He’s only met Philly twice in his career and recorded 18 and two P+A in those outings. I like the Under 16.5 here in the first meeting of the year.” Please bet responsibly. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, call the National Gambling Helpline at 1-800-522-4700. Our model calculates projections around each moneyline, spread and over/under bet for every game on the NBA calendar based on data points like recent performance, head-to-head player matchups, trends information and projected game totals. Once the model is finished running, we put its projections next to the latest betting lines for the game to arrive at a relative confidence level for each wager. Here are the best bets our model is projecting for today’s Spurs & 76ers game: Moneyline: NBC Sports Bet is recommending a play on the Philadelphia 76ers on the Moneyline. Spread: NBC Sports Bet is leaning towards a play ATS on the San Antonio Spurs at -5.5. Total: NBC Sports Bet is staying away from a play on the Game Total of 220. Want even more NBA best bets and predictions from our expert staff & tools? Check out the Expert NBA Predictions page from NBC Sports for money line, spread and over/under picks for every game on today’s calendar! Important stats, trends & insights to know ahead of Spurs vs. 76ers on Monday · The Spurs’ record in their last 5 games stands at 4-1 · 7 of the Spurs’ last 9 matchups with the 76ers have gone over the Total · The 76ers have failed to cover in 16 of their 26 games overall this season · The 76ers have won 3 straight games against the Spurs If you’re looking for more key trends and stats around the spread, moneyline and total for every single game on the schedule today, check out our NBA Top Trends tool on NBC Sports! Bet the Edge is your source for all things sports betting. Get all of Jay Croucher and Drew Dinsick’s insight weekdays at 6AM ET right here or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Follow our experts on socials to keep up with all the latest content from the staff: - Jay Croucher (@croucherJD) - Drew Dinsick (@whale_capper) - Vaughn Dalzell (@VmoneySports) - Brad Thomas (@MrBradThomas)Is Enron back? If it’s a joke, some former employees aren’t laughing
Hong Kong Opens Third Airport Runway With Marginal Gain in Landing SlotsSTATESVILLE, N.C. , Nov. 27, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (NASDAQ: KEQU) today announced that the Company plans to release its second quarter fiscal year 2025 financial results on Wednesday, December 11, 2024 after the close of trading. This information will be available on the Company's website www.kewaunee.com after the release. About Nu Aire Founded in 1971 and based in Minneapolis , the Company is a leading manufacturer of equipment for a diverse range of laboratory and pharmacy environments. Nu Aire is the North American market share leader in biological safety cabinets and other airflow products and also offers a complete line of CO2 incubators, ultralow freezers, animal handling equipment, pharmacy compounding isolators, and parts and accessories. Nu Aire's equipment is required for safety and quality in every type of laboratory: life sciences research, clinical, hospital, biotech and pharmaceutical R&D, academia, food and beverage, industrial and more. Nu Aire's website is located at http://www.nuaire.com/ . About Kewaunee Scientific Founded in 1906, Kewaunee Scientific Corporation is a recognized global leader in the design, manufacture, and installation of laboratory, healthcare, and technical furniture products. The Company's products include steel and wood casework, fume hoods, adaptable modular systems, moveable workstations, stand-alone benches, biological safety cabinets, and epoxy resin work surfaces and sinks. The Company's corporate headquarters are located in Statesville, North Carolina . Sales offices are located in the United States , India , Saudi Arabia , and Singapore . Three manufacturing facilities are located in Statesville serving the domestic and international markets, and one manufacturing facility is located in Bangalore, India serving the local, Asian, and African markets. Kewaunee Scientific's website is located at http://www.kewaunee.com . This press release contains statements that the Company believes to be "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this press release, including statements regarding the Company's future financial condition, results of operations, business operations and business prospects, are forward-looking statements. Words such as "anticipate," "estimate," "expect," "project," "intend," "plan," "predict," "believe" and similar words, expressions and variations of these words and expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other important factors that could significantly impact results or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors, risks, uncertainties and assumptions include, but are not limited to: our ability to realize the benefits anticipated as a result of the Nu Aire acquisition; competitive and general economic conditions, including disruptions from government mandates, both domestically and internationally, as well as supplier constraints and other supply disruptions; changes in customer demands; technological changes in our operations or in our industry; dependence on customers' required delivery schedules; risks related to fluctuations in the Company's operating results from quarter to quarter; risks related to international operations, including foreign currency fluctuations; changes in the legal and regulatory environment; changes in raw materials and commodity costs; acts of terrorism, war, governmental action, and natural disasters and other Force Majeure events. The cautionary statements made pursuant to the Reform Act herein and elsewhere by us should not be construed as exhaustive. We cannot always predict what factors would cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. Over time, our actual results, performance, or achievements will likely differ from the anticipated results, performance or achievements that are expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements, and such difference might be significant and harmful to our stockholders' interest. Many important factors that could cause such a difference are described under the caption "Risk Factors," in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2024 , which you should review carefully, and in our subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K. These reports are available on our investor relations website at www.kewaunee.com and on the SEC website at www.sec.gov . These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this document. The Company assumes no obligation, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Contact: Donald T. Gardner III 704/871-3274 View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kewaunee-scientific-to-report-results-for-second-quarter-fiscal-year-2025-302317861.html SOURCE Kewaunee Scientific Corporation
Tariff threats voiced by President-elect Donald Trump this week rippled through global stocks and triggered warnings from U.S. retail executives about the risk of higher prices. Former President George W. Bush, who congratulated Trump a day after the election, has not commented on Trump's remarks, in keeping with a low public profile. As recently as 2021, however, Bush criticized trade barriers, lamenting the GOP under Trump as "isolationist, protectionist." Trump's support for tariffs and skepticism toward global trade departs from previous Republican presidents spanning the past four decades. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush, each venerated free trade, though in some cases they put forward policies similar to Trump's protectionist proposals. "Trump is not talking about free trade," John Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan. "Trump's rhetoric is completely different." MORE: Trump's proposed tariffs would raise prices for these products, experts say In response to ABC News' request for comment, the Trump transition team said his tariff plans would boost the U.S. economy. "In his first term, President Trump instituted tariffs against China that created jobs, spurred investment, and resulted in no inflation. President Trump will work quickly to fix and restore an economy that puts American workers by re-shoring American jobs, lowering inflation, raising real wages, lowering taxes, cutting regulations, and unshackling American energy," Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said. Trump late Monday said he would charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States until action is taken by those countries to stem illegal immigration and the overflow of drugs across the border. For China, Trump said that he'd impose an additional 10% tariff on products coming to the U.S. The declarations of trade hostility echoed vows made by Trump on the campaign trail. Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago in October, Trump called "tariff" the "most most beautiful word in the dictionary." Tariffs as high as 2,000%, would safeguard key U.S. industries, such as auto manufacturing, Trump said. In the absence of tariffs, Trump added, it's "going to be the end of Michigan." The favorable tone toward protectionist policies contrasts with rhetoric voiced by Trump's Republican predecessors. Reagan, who served in the latter years of the Cold War in the 1980s, invoked free trade as a weapon in the fight against authoritarian adversaries abroad and perceived demagogues at home. "Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies," then-President Ronald Reagan said in 1988, after signing a free trade agreement with Canada. "We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends -- weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world -- all while cynically waving the American flag," Reagan added. The elder Bush, who had served as Reagan's vice president, adopted a similar posture toward trade. As president, George H.W. Bush sought to improve trade ties with China, and he helped establish the World Trade Organization, an international body that aims to facilitate global trade through a shared set of regulations. In the early 1990s, Bush negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, a trade pact between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. "Free trade throughout the Americas is an idea whose time has come," Bush said at a ceremony promoting NAFTA in December 1992. "This century's epic struggle between totalitarianism and democracy is over. It's dead. Democracy has prevailed," he added. "Today, we see unfolding around the world a revolution of hope and courage, propelled by the aspiration of ordinary people for freedom and a better life." The deal was ratified under Bush's successor, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. During his first presidential campaign in 2016, Trump sharply criticized NAFTA, which had drawn criticism for allowing manufacturers to relocate plants abroad and lay off U.S. workers. Weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Trump described NAFTA as "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." Like Reagan and his father, George W. Bush voiced support for free trade while in office. Since then, he has continued to back global commerce and oppose trade barriers. "Since World War II, America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies," George W. Bush said in 2017. MORE: Would Trump's tariffs trigger a global trade war? Experts weigh in. "Free nations are less likely to threaten and fight each other. And free trade helped make America into a global economic power," George W. Bush added. Despite their rhetoric, Trump's predecessors within the Republican Party put forward some policies that resembled his proposals this week. Reagan slapped 45% tariffs on Japanese motorcycles, and 100% tariffs on some Japanese electronics, seeking to counter that nation's economic rise and bolster domestic industry. Reagan also placed an annual quota on the allowable number of imported Japanese cars. "There was a huge gap between rhetoric and reality," Hanke, the former Reagan administration economist, told ABC News. For his part, George W. Bush attempted to protect the U.S. steel industry by placing tariffs on some steel imports. Facing pushback from the World Trade Organization and threats of retaliation from other countries, he removed the tariffs after 18 months.High school recruiting isn't the only way to build a winner in the transfer portal era
Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The Supreme Court made a wave of historic and game-changing decisions in 2024 on topics ranging from presidential immunity to social media and ballot disqualification. The presidential election combined with rising administrative law disputes helped tee up controversies that put the court and its decisions in the spotlight. Legal precedent flowing from those decisions created rippling effects for other cases and how entire branches of government are expected to make decisions. Here are several of the biggest cases this term. One of the most politically controversial cases this term stemmed from President-elect Donald Trump’s now-dismissed election interference case in Washington. In Trump v. United States, Trump appealed the case with the argument that under the Constitution, presidents should enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. It was the first major Supreme Court precedent establishing presidential immunity since 1982 in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, wherein the court held that presidents enjoy immunity from civil liability for actions taken within the outer perimeter of his duties. By taking up the case earlier this year, the Supreme Court created a lengthy delay for the pre-trial process and the case was eventually dismissed because of Trump’s election win. The court’s decision set a major historical precedent by outlining the contours of criminal immunity. For unofficial acts, presidents are not immune, while for official acts, presidents enjoy certain levels of immunity, according to the decision. The majority offered some broad guidance on distinguishing between official and unofficial acts but acknowledged that doing so “can be difficult.” Chief Justice John Roberts said that lower courts should not inquire into a president’s motives and that they could not deem something unofficial “merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.” While courts should base their distinctions on what a president’s discretionary authority entails, some conduct could qualify “even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision.” Trump has attempted to apply that decision to his other criminal cases, including one still playing out in New York. For example, Trump argued in New York that prosecutors improperly used evidence, including testimony, that was prohibited under the immunity decision. However, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said that the evidence in question related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and was therefore not protected. It’s unclear how exactly the new precedent should be applied, and future cases involving presidents could help iron out the details. While the Supreme Court offered a broad outline of immunity, it remanded Trump’s election case in Washington for further determinations by the lower court regarding specific conduct. The case has since been dismissed . Before the immunity ruling in June, Trump prompted another historic ruling from the high court in March. In Trump v. Anderson, the court wrestled with how to interpret a provision of the 14th Amendment that disqualifies insurrectionists from serving in certain government offices. The legal debate surrounding the topic was extensive with multiple critical points on which the court could base its decision. Some argued that Trump, as a former president, wasn’t the type of “officer of the United States” who was subject to disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Others disagreed with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Trump had engaged in insurrection—on Jan. 6, 2021—as covered by that section. A unanimous Supreme Court ultimately held that states, including Colorado, could not disqualify candidates for federal office as Congress was responsible for enforcing Section 3. Like the immunity decision, the decision in Trump v. Anderson also revealed divisions in the court. The court’s decision was 9–0 but justices produced separate concurrences that raised speculation that Justice Sonia Sotomayor might have initially intended to dissent. Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a standalone concurrence in which she suggested the court’s more liberal justices used overly heated rhetoric while agreeing that the court’s conservatives went too far in their majority opinion. Sotomayor’s concurrence, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused the majority of attempting to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office. Another high-profile case arose from Jan. 6 defendants challenging the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) application of a financial reform law in their prosecutions. The DOJ had charged some defendants with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which contains provisions related to document destruction and obstructing an official proceeding. The section in question reads: “Whoever corruptly—alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” The DOJ had argued that the second portion, starting with “or otherwise obstructs” allowed prosecutions that targeted obstructive conduct in a catch-all way that included methods other than those mentioned at the beginning of the section. A majority of the Supreme Court, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed in Fischer v. United States and held the following: “To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.” It’s unclear how Trump and his DOJ will apply the Fischer decision to the defendants’ unique circumstances. Sarbanes-Oxley carries a 20-year maximum sentence. In November, the DOJ said it was reviewing cases of “approximately 259 defendants who, at the time Fischer was decided, were charged with or convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512 to determine whether the charge should continue to be prosecuted.” The DOJ said that after Fischer, the government “decided to forgo the Section 1512(c)(2) charge for approximately 96 defendants, will continue to pursue the charge for approximately 13 defendants, and continues to assess the remaining defendants.” Read the rest here...
High school recruiting isn't the only way to build a winner in the transfer portal eraGeorgios Terzis Purchases 85,778 Shares of Cosmos Health Inc. (NASDAQ:COSM) Stock