Typically, when individuals are plotting and scheming a coup to take out a sitting officeholder, they do not confer with the officeholder they are plotting and scheming to take out of office, which is why the Democratic witnesses never directly conferred with Trump, just like they did with my Sweetie.
🚨WHAT THE F*CK?
"EPSTEIN was hiding in plain sight. We all knew about him, we all knew what he was doing." -Cindy McCain at a Human Trafficking Conference#QAnon#PANICpic.twitter.com/md969g4Uh6
The Catholic charity set up by Mother Teresa in India is being investigated over allegations that it was involved in selling children in its care.
The Indian government has ordered an inspection of all child care centers run by the Missionaries of Charity after two of its employees were arrested over the sale of several children earlier this month, NPR has reported.
The investigation stems from a Missionaries of Charity shelter for pregnant, unmarried women in the city of Ranchi, in the eastern state of Jharkhand. A nun, Sister Koncilia, and a social worker, Anima Indwar, were arrested after four children were found to have been sold, including a 6-month-old boy, for as little as $730. Indwar has confessed to her involvement, and all four children have been tracked down.
Police stand outside a home which provides shelter for pregnant unmarried women run by the Missionaries of Charity in Ranchi, India, on July 4, 2018. A nun and a worker at the facility are accused of selling children from the center.
According to the Catholic News Agency, police were tipped off to the trafficking by a couple who had paid about $1,760 for a child from the shelter. The couple went to the authorities when Indwar later took the child back without returning the money.
Ads by scrollerads.com
As police continued to follow up on leads and build a case, India's Women and Child Development Minister, Maneka Gandhi, ordered an immediate inspection of the child care facilities run by the charity across the country.
The charity arranged adoptions from its centers until 2015, when it discontinued the program because it opposed new government legislation that made it easier for single, divorced and separated people to adopt children, the BBC reported.
A spokeswoman for the order said that because it no longer arranged adoptions, the allegations of trafficking were baseless. "There was no question of selling any child, as the Missionaries of Charity had stopped giving children for adoption three years ago," Samita Kumar told Catholic News Agency. Kumar added that even when the charity did organize adoptions, it never charged prospective parents.
A tapestry depicting Mother Teresa at Saint Peter's Basilica during a mass for her canonization in Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican on September 4, 2016. Her Missionaries of Charity is under investigation for selling babies for adoption at one of its shelters.
Mother Teresa Charity Employees Allegedly Sold Babies
India's adoption network is loosely regulated, contributing to high rates of child trafficking in the country. Gandhi said that as many as 1,400 institutions were failing to comply with India's Juvenile Justice Act in which all shelters involved in adoptions must register with the central state adoption body.
The Missionaries of Charity was founded by Mother Teresa—an Albanian nun named Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu—in the eastern city of Kolkata in 1950. It grew to become one of the most visible charity organizations in the country, particularly caring for the sick and dying. The Vatican declared Mother Teresa, who died in 1997, a saint in 2016.
The nun faced a range of criticisms—notably from writer Christopher Hitchens—over the conduct of her organizations. It is alleged that her order used deathbed baptisms to forcibly convert their patients, and Mother Teresa was accused of glorifying the sick's suffering rather than relieving it. Friendship with controversial figures, including Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, and questions over her management of the charity's funds drew further criticism.
The DOJ concluded that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information.
The Justice Department secretly blessed President Donald Trump’s decision to stonewall the Democratic-led House over impeachment last year, the president’s legal team disclosed Monday.
The legal brief submitted to the Senate as part of Trump’s defense includes an opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information before lawmakers passed a formal impeachment resolution on Oct. 31.
“We conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s sole power of impeachment,” Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote in the detailed legal rationale.
The opinion was officially dated Sunday and released by the Justice Department on its website Monday, timing that appeared to dovetail with a Senate-set noon, holiday deadline for Trump’s first substantive brief in the impeachment trial.
Trump’s lawyers argue that one reason he is not guilty of obstructing congressional inquiries — the thrust of one of the articles of impeachment he faces — is because his instructions to his appointees to defy lawmakers’ subpoenas followed legal advice from DOJ.
“Contrary to the mistaken charge that the President lacked ‘lawful cause or excuse’ to resist House Democrats’ subpoenas, the President acted only after securing advice from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and based on established legal principles or immunities,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone, outside lawyer Jay Sekulow and other attorneys wrote.
The Justice Department’s position paper acknowledges that the White House approached OLC for advice soon after Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly confirmed a Ukraine-related impeachment inquiry on Sept. 23 and House committees began subpoenaing witnesses and documents in late September and October.
The newly disclosed opinion is vague about precisely when OLC was first approached to give its advice on the topic, when the response was rendered or what form that early advice took.
However, the new disclosures about the consultations with Justice could prompt some to reassess the confrontational letter Cipollone sent to the House on Oct. 8. That eight-page missive was roundly denounced by many legal experts, who said it sounded more like a political diatribe from the president than a reasoned legal argument against the House’s impeachment efforts.
“It’s hard to count the number of ways that this letter is, constitutionally and legally, garbage,” conservative attorney and Trump critic George Conway wrote on Twitter at the time. “This letter, in and of itself, is an impeachable offense.”
The historic impeachment trial of President Trump begins in earnest with a contentious vote on the rules that will govern the trial.
“The letter’s constitutional and ‘legal’ arguments are baseless,” former Obama White House counsel Bob Bauer wrote. “It misrepresents the constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the president’s behalf. On the merits, it is an exceptionally weak performance.”
In the letter, Cipollone contended the House’s procedure was fatally flawed because it had not been approved by a floor vote. “Your contrived process is unprecedented in the history of the nation, and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding,” the White House counsel wrote.
Despite the intense criticism, even ridicule that Cipollone’s letter received, Engel’s memo — which runs to 37 pages in the version the White House released and 54 in the format issued by DOJ — reaches the same conclusion.
Some of those who skewered Cipollone over the Oct. 8 letter said they would view it as less objectionable if he actually had some opinion from the Justice Department at the time supporting the aggressive positions he staked out.
“The OLC opinion is certainly better argued than the earlier Cipollone letter. It is more sober in tone, and more serious in its analysis,” said Keith Whittington, a Princeton University politics professor who joined in the earlier criticism.
“It is a pity the White House did not produce a document of this sort when it was first responding to the House inquiries. If it had done so, the president might have avoided the second article of impeachment and created a meaningful framework within which the House and White House could have negotiated some level of cooperation — or at least clarified the reasonable obstacles to cooperation,” Whittington added.
Other critics said it was still not clear whether Cipollone knew about Justice’s position before he fired off his combative message to the Hill. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions about the timing or form of the advice DOJ lawyers rendered last October.
“It is not apparent there was anything in writing or even that it had been provided as of the time of the Oct. 8 letter,” said former House attorney Michael L. Stern.
However, Whittington and Stern also noted that while Cipollone’s letter included the straightforward claim that the House needed to vote on impeachment before subpoenaing people or demanding documents, the White House counsel also made a variety of other arguments that the House’s process was unconstitutional.
Stern said it appeared Cipollone was actually soft-pedaling the point about the House needing to vote, because it was so “easily cured.” Indeed, the House did just that about three weeks later as it voted almost entirely along party lines, 232-196, to formalize the impeachment inquiry.
Some lawyers said the memo vindicated or at least buttressed Cipollone's position.
"Cipollone’s letter, and the underlying OLC opinion, are entirely correct," said David Rivkin, a Justice Department official during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration's. “While the House eventually complied with its obligations, its initial effort to commence the impeachment inquiry without taking a vote underscores its disregard of the constitutionally-required procedures."
If Cipollone had the Justice Department’s advice before he wrote the Oct. 8 letter, it’s not clear why he didn’t mention that. One possibility is doing so might have caused a clamor for an immediate, formal DOJ opinion in a very fluid situation.
SharePlay Video
Another is that announcing that DOJ was staking out such an arguably extreme position on that point might have undercut the arguments Justice Department lawyers were presenting in various court fights related to demands for Trump’s financial records, grand jury records from the Mueller probe and testimony from former administration officials on various topics.
For instance, on Oct. 1, Justice Department lawyers filed a brief saying the courts should hold off ruling on a House suit to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Don McGahn because efforts at accommodation should be given time to work. However, that position seemed to be undercut by Cipollone’s letter a week later signaling a stiff-arming of Congress. By the end of the month, DOJ gave up on the argument that more time was needed for “accommodation” between the branches.
Just three days after the White House counsel’s caustic letter, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case about a subpoena for Trump’s financial records. That ruling did not center on impeachment, but the dissenting judge on the three-judge panel, Trump appointee Neomi Rao, said she believed the Constitution requires a full vote of the House before going after records directly related to the president.
The Justice Department opinion released Monday includes at least nine citations to Rao’s dissent, although it was not issued by the time of Cipollone’s letter and may not have been available to OLC when it was first approached.
It is not unusual for OLC, whose legal advice is typically the last word within the Executive Branch, to issue informal opinions by phone or email and to follow up weeks or months later with a formal opinion.
“There are a lot of different ways in which OLC gives advice. A very small piece of that is writing formal opinions,” acting OLC chief Karl Thompson said in remarks reported by POLITICO in 2015. “The vast majority of our advice is provided informally — is delivered orally or in emails. That is still authoritative. It is still binding by custom and practice in the executive branch. It’s the official view of the office. People are supposed to and do follow it.”
Some officials said at the time that requests for formal opinions were on the decline because of concerns release of such opinions might be forced under the Freedom of Information Act. However, courts have been less friendly to such efforts in recent years.
Metadata attached to the Justice Department’s version of the opinion appears to link the document to Nate Forrester, an OLC attorney who also worked in that office during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Forrester also served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and as Alabama solicitor general. A Justice official said Forrester is a career lawyer in charge of preparing OLC’s opinions for formal publication and handled that aspect of the release.
Isn’t it interesting that a reporter with the last name of “Justice” is the one who investigated the children of Judge John Roberts? Referring to a report that New York Times investigative reporter Glen Justice was prying into the private adoption records of Roberts’ two children, radio talk-show host Kevin McCullough declared that “Every adoptive parent reading this will be understandably outraged, and they should be. Every decent human being in every decent family across this nation should speak up. And every person subscribing to the New York Times should think about whether or not they want to continue to do so.”
In a column carried by Illinoisleader.com, McCullough said, “The reason that such tactics get played out over and over is because the Times and other elements of the liberal dominated media feel they will suffer no foul consequence in doing so. Their idea is journalism has little to do with reporting the facts as much as it has to do with Democratic Party-friendly witch hunts that can be carried out without indictment for any wrongdoing. By conducting such an inquiry into the personal and private lives of Supreme Court nominee Roberts, his wife and the process they went through to become parents, the Times seems to be setting a new low-like they have been prone to in recent years-in its lack of journalistic standards.”
The National Council for Adoption issued a statement denouncing, “in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.
But Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Vice Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said she was “appalled to learn that reporters for the New York Times had started an investigation into the adoption records of U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his wife. Simple decency dictates that some boundaries should be placed on inquiries into the private lives of public figures by interest groups and the news media.”
She added, “In my view, this inquiry by the Times-no matter how preliminary the newspaper now says it was-steps over that boundary line. I note the paper initially claimed this misstep was inadvertent. But it has now been reported that the newspaper consulted its lawyers to determine ways to unseal court adoption records of the Roberts family. In my view, this is reprehensible.”
Hutchison said this was not the first time that coverage of Roberts went “over the line.” She explained that she was disgusted by a half-page Washington Post story “deriding the apparel worn by the Roberts children when their father’s nomination was announced at the White House.” She noted that the Los Angeles Times “ran a lengthy story examining private activities of Mrs. Roberts that were largely irrelevant to her husband’s nomination.”
Hutchison concluded, “I hope everyone involved in the confirmation process will take a deep breath and consider carefully the fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy in such cases. In the meantime, I will encourage the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, of which I’m a member, to take a position opposing inquiries such as those started by the New York Times.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, commented on the Times inquiry by saying that “?it should be agreed by all, especially Democrats and newspapers sympathetic to Democratic causes, that attacking family is repugnant. What kind of people would assault Judge Roberts through his children? What kind of people would publish vicious attacks on his little boy and little girl for how they were dressed? What kind of people would try to get at a judicial nominee because of the occupation or work of their spouse? Or attempt to dredge up damaging material through private adoption records? The unfortunate answer is they are the kind of people who have been picking our judges for years. They are also the people who will be picking our future judges unless we stay active today.”
These “people” are mostly in the media. They do these things because they are not being held accountable.
Gather round, my dearies, for the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed shall tell the tale of Pat Cipollone, Laura Ingraham and the industry of trafficking tiny humans as lab rats.
Laura Ingraham considers Pat Cipollone as her spiritual leader.
Well, I guess we should get to know Laura to find out the content of Pat's character.
This is Laura at CPAC, the conservative political operative job fair.
Listen to Laura market her talking points propaganda, rooted in absolutely no facts, whatsoever.
Here is a list of Laura's most favorite charities.
Manto de Guadalupe http://www.mantodeguadalupe.com/site/english/
We are a non-profit organization with two main goals:
- Defend life from conception to natural death
- Serve the poor in our local communities and around the world
Saving Lives and Changing Lives
Follow on Twitter: Verastegui777
Warriors & Quiet Waters Foundation, Inc. http://www.warriorsandquietwaters.org/
Through the experience of fly fishing in Montana, Warriors and Quiet Waters Foundation is a catalyst for positive change in the lives of post-9/11 combat veterans. We envision an America in which a new generation of combat veterans successfully reintegrates into society.
Wounded Warrior Project www.woundedwarriorproject.org
The mission of the Wounded Warrior Project is to honor and empower wounded warriors. To raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of severely injured service men and women, to help severely injured service members aid and assist each other, and to provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of severely injured service members.
The Fisher House www.fisherhouse.org
Supporting America's military in their time of need, we provide "a home away from home" that enables family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful time -- during hospitalization for an illness, disease or injury
The Greatest Generations Foundation www.tggf.us
The Greatest Generations Foundation (TGGF), a Denver based IRS 501(c)(3) International non-profit educational organization, that is committed to offering our country's combat Veterans the opportunity to revisit the sites of their battlefield campaigns.
Care Net www.care-net.org
Care Net is a growing affiliation network of more than 1,000 pregnancy centers throughout the United States and Canada. For over twenty-five years, we have been promoting, equipping, and developing our centers to better serve men and women in their communities.
Soldiers Angels www.soldiersangels.com
Soldiers' Angels are dedicated to ensuring that our military know they are loved and supported during and after their deployment into harms way.
America Supports You
"America Supports You," a nationwide program launched by the Department of Defense, will recognize citizens' support for our military men and women and communicate that support to members of our Armed Forces at home and abroad.
St. Jude's Children's Hospital www.stjude.org
St. Jude is unlike any other pediatric treatment and research facility. Discoveries made here have completely changed how the world treats children with cancer and other catastrophic diseases. With research and patient care under one roof, St. Jude is where some of today's most gifted researchers are able to do science more quickly.
Covenant House www.covenanthouseny.org
Covenant House New York, the first and largest center of the nation's foremost agency serving homeless, runaway and at-risk youth, opens its doors 24 hours a day for teens in need.
DC Hospice www.capitalhospice.org
The mission of Capital Hospice is to improve care for those facing life-limiting illness through direct support of pa
Laura did not just study in Russia, she adopted Russian tiny humans, then became the U.S. spokestoken for the entire industry, including the Ukraine, because it is nothing but a floating border for trafficking tiny human industries like being genetic, biomedical lab rats, and other horrors I have addressed, ad nauseum.
The Tale Of Kateryna Mykhaylivna Yushchenko & Her Ukrainian Trafficking Tiny Humans Trust Funds With George Bush
Laura lead the charge against the Russian adoption ban, or what we know in the Trafficking Tiny Humans Community as the Magnitsky Act, or what I like to call stealin' the children, land and votes.
AuthorccainstituteCategoriesAdoption, Haiti, International, International Adoption, Right to a family, Russian Adoption Ban, State DepartmentTagsAdoption, Adoption Ban, International Adoption, Kathleen Strottman, State Department, STUCK
STUCK_PosterArt_small
We are proud to announce that STUCK—an award winning documentary about international adoption—features CCAI’s Executive Director, Kathleen Strottman.
As Kathleen explains in the documentary, which uncovers the personal, real life stories of adopted children and their parents, “the right to a family is a basic human right and our policies have to start recognizing that.” The film also features CCA Co-Chair Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Richard Lugar and Charles Nelson, Co-Principal Investigator of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.
On March 1st, Both Ends Burning Founder Craig Juntenen will be launching a 60 city bus tour to promote the film and issue a call to action for the United States Government to promote international adoption as a worthy and effective way to find homes for children without families.
Laura is one of the Nasty Ones, who are fungible with the Meanies. This is the shit I am talking about. Your federal tax payer dollars at work. Behold, the residuals of the peculiar institution, in the form of predictive modeling crap as modern day human trafficking, using children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) as tiny human lab rats, in the name of the tax exempt god.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00747396
Recruitment Status : Active, not recruiting
First Posted : September 5, 2008
Last Update Posted : June 4, 2019
Sponsor:
Charles Alexander Nelson III
Collaborators:
Tulane University Health Sciences Center
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Minnesota
Temple University
Duke University
MacArthur Foundation
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Charles Alexander Nelson III, Boston Children’s Hospital
The purpose of this study is to determine the long term effects of early intervention (placement into foster care) on physical, cognitive, social and brain development and psychiatric symptomatology in previously institutionalized children.
Condition or disease
Intervention/treatment
Phase
Cognitive Ability, GeneralPsychiatric and/or Mood DisordersBrain FunctionSocial CognitionHealth BehaviorRisk-TakingExecutive Function
Other: Foster Care Placement
Not Applicable
Detailed Description:
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP) was a randomized controlled trial of foster care as an intervention for children abandoned at or around the time of birth and placed in one of six institutions for young children in Bucharest, Romania (Zeanah et al., 2003). The PI (Nelson) and Co-PIs (Zeanah and Fox) conducted this study beginning in the fall of 2000 from baseline assessments and implementation of the intervention in the spring of 2001.
The BEIP began with comprehensive assessments of 136 institutionalized children and their caregiving environments prior to randomization. Half the children were randomly assigned to high-quality foster care and the other half to remain in institutional care. The average age at foster care placement was 22 months (range=6-31 months). All children were initially seen prior to randomization and again for follow-up assessments at 30 months, 42 months 54 months, 8 years and 12 years of age. The development of children in foster care was compared to the development of children in institutions and to a group of never institutionalized children (community controls). These children are being assessed at age 16 years.
Study Design
Go to
Study Type :
Interventional (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment :
136 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment
Masking:
None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose:
Basic Science
Official Title:
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: Effects of Early Psychosocial Deprivation on Mental Health in Adolescence
Study Start Date :
September 2000
Estimated Primary Completion Date :
March 2025
Estimated Study Completion Date :
March 2025
Arms and Interventions
Go to
Arm
Intervention/treatment
Experimental: Foster Care Placement Group
Children randomized to this group were placed in high quality foster care developed for the study.
Other: Foster Care Placement
A group of children living in institutions in Bucharest, Romania was randomly assigned to placement in foster care. Foster parents were recruited, consented to background checks, and trained in Romanian. Before placement, foster parents visited their children to begin developing a relationship with the child. Hired foster parents were supported and monitored by project social workers. Foster parents in the BEIP network received frequent visits from the social workers, with visits occurring weekly for several months after placement of the child, then biweekly and later monthly. Foster parents were invited to participate in a support group organized by social workers. Project social workers consulted weekly with US staff experienced in dealing with young children in foster care.
Other Name: Foster Care Group
No Intervention: Care As Usual Group
Children randomized to this group remained in institutional care.
Outcome Measures
Go to
Primary Outcome Measures :
Changes in Cognition in later childhood and adolescence [ Time Frame: 8 years, 12 years, 16-18 years ]
WISC-IV
Changes in Cognition in early childhood [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 months, 42 months ]
Bayley Scales of Infant Development
Changes in weight [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
weight in kilograms
Changes in height [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
Height measured in centimeters
Changes in head circumference [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
Head circumference in centimeters
Changes in Psychiatric Symptomatology in adolescence [ Time Frame: 12 years, 16 years ]
DISC -IV
Changes in Psychiatric Symptomatogology [ Time Frame: 54 months, 8 years ]
Changes in Expressive Language Quality [ Time Frame: 30 mos, 42 mos and 8 years ]
language sample from interview
Changes in EEG Coherence Brain Function [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
EEG coherence
Changes in EEG Power Brain Function [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
EEG power
Changes in EEG Asymmetry Brain Function [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
EEG asymmetry
Changes in Attachment Disturbances and Disorders [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 54 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
Disturbances of Attachment Interview
Changes in Attachment Style [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos and 42 mos ]
Strange Situation Procedure
Changes in Caregiving Environment [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos and 42 mos ]
Observational Record of Caregiving Environment
Changes in Indiscriminate Behavior [ Time Frame: 54 mos, 8 years and 12 years ]
Stranger at the Door
Changes in Emotion Discrimination [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos and 8 years ]
Event-related Potentials
Changes in Face Recognition [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos and 8 years ]
Event-related Potentials
Changes in Brain Structure [ Time Frame: 8 years, 16 years ]
MRI
Changes in Problem Behaviors [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos and 42 mos ]
Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment
Changes in Social Communication and Interaction [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos, 42 mos, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
Social Communication Questionnaire
Changes in Genetics [ Time Frame: 8 years, 12 years, 16 years ]
Buccal Swab
Secondary Outcome Measures :
Changes in Emotional Reactivity/Temperament [ Time Frame: baseline, 30 mos and 42 mos ]
LAB-Tab Puppets and Peek-a-boo
Motor Skills [ Time Frame: 8 years ]
Bruininks-Oseretsky Test-2
Other Outcome Measures:
Changes in Physiological Reactivity to Stress [ Time Frame: 12 years, 16 years ]
Trier Social Stress Test
Eligibility Criteria
Go to
Information from the National Library of Medicine
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
Ages Eligible for Study:
16 Years to 18 Years (Child, Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
No
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria for assessment at age 16 years:
previously institutionalized and community children that took part in previous BEIP assessments
target recruitment age is +/- 3 mos of 16th birthday
Exclusion Criteria for assessment at age 16 years:
open or closed head injury within the past 12 months
viral or bacterial meningitis within the past 12 months
Contacts and Locations
Go to
Information from the National Library of Medicine
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00747396
Locations
Romania
Fundatia Tanner
Bucharest, Romania, 011467
Sponsors and Collaborators
Charles Alexander Nelson III
Tulane University Health Sciences Center
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Minnesota
Temple University
Duke University
MacArthur Foundation
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Investigators
Principal Investigator:
Charles A Nelson, Ph.D.
Children's Hospital Boston/Harvard University
Principal Investigator:
Nathan A. Fox, Ph.D.
University of Maryland, College Park
Principal Investigator:
Charles H. Zeanah, M.D.
Tulane University Health Sciences Center
More Information
Go to
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Charles Alexander Nelson III, Richard David Scott Chair in Pediatric Developmental Medicine Research, Professor of Pediatrics and Neuroscience, Boston Children’s Hospital
Trump is the 'most valuable witness': Lawmakers point to president as new hearings loom
Lawmakers from both parties on Dec. 1 discussed where impeachment hearings against President Trump stood and what more there was to learn.
As the impeachment inquiry moves into a critical week, President Trump and his Republican allies are debating the degree to which the president should participate in a process they have spent more than two months attacking.
On Sunday evening, White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone told the House Judiciary Committee in a five-page letter that Trump would not participate in its first impeachment hearing, scheduled for Wednesday. The invitation from Chairman Jerrold Nadler “does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process,” Cipollone wrote.
Four constitutional scholars — three chosen by Democrats, one by Republicans — are expected to testify on the standards for impeachment. Nadler (D-N.Y.) told Trump he had until 6 p.m. Sunday to notify the committee that he or his attorneys would attend; he has given Trump until Friday to decide whether to participate more broadly in the impeachment process.
In his letter Sunday, Cipollone did not rule out participating in future hearings but asked Nadler to detail his plans for the upcoming proceedings, including whether he would allow further testimony and cross-examination of fact witnesses, among them those who already testified before the House Intelligence Committee. He also said Republicans should be able to call additional witnesses.
“Even at this late date, it is not yet clear whether you will afford the President at least these basic, fundamental rights or continue to deny them,” Cipollone wrote.
Nadler spokesman Daniel Schwarz declined to comment on Cipollone’s letter.
The Trump administration’s response suggests it will continue taking a defiant approach to the impeachment proceedings, betting that Republicans will stick together behind a noncooperation strategy meant to cast the inquiry as a partisan witch hunt. The move comes as Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee prepare to meet Tuesday to approve the release of their report detailing the panel’s findings on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Where do the impeachment arguments stand?
The Fix’s Amber Phillips analyzes where the Democratic and Republican arguments on impeachment stand following the second week of public impeachment hearings. (Video: JM Rieger/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
On Sunday, Democrats called on the White House to cooperate, suggesting an innocent person would have no problem testifying.
“We’re certainly hoping that the president, his counsel, will take advantage of that opportunity if he has not done anything wrong,” Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) said on ABC News’s “This Week.” “We’re certainly anxious to hear his explanation of that.”
But there is a conflict inside the GOP over the extent to which Trump and his congressional defenders ought to engage, even as Republicans signaled they will continue their aggressive campaign to delegitimize the process as corrupt and unfair.
Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he understood why the White House might want to skip the Wednesday hearing, calling it “just another rerun” covering ground already surveyed in previous Judiciary Committee hearings.
“This is a complete American waste of time right here,” he said.
But he added that Republicans would be more keen to participate in future hearings — particularly one examining the findings of the House Intelligence Committee as prepared by its chairman, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).
Other Republican lawmakers said Trump could benefit from availing himself of the due-process protections that Nadler has offered, including the right to present evidence, suggest witnesses and cross-examine those called by Democrats to testify.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee member, said on “This Week” that he thought it “would be to the president’s advantage” to have counsel participate in the upcoming hearings. “But I can also understand how he is upset at the illegitimate process that we saw unfold in the Intelligence Committee,” he said.
The president did not address the issue himself Sunday. He sent two tweets about World AIDS Day in the early afternoon and spent a second day in a row at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., after returning early Friday from a Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
In the past, however, Trump has suggested that he would like to participate. Last month, he said he would “love” for several senior administration officials to testify in the impeachment inquiry, but he contended the White House was preventing them from doing so to protect the institution of the presidency.
“The D.C. Wolves and Fake News Media are reading far too much into people being forced by Courts to testify before Congress,” Trump said in a tweet on Nov. 26. “I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President. Other than that, I would actually like people to testify.”
On Sunday, Republicans also renewed an array of attacks on the impeachment process, a likely preview of what’s to come this week.
Collins attacked the timeline that Democratic leaders are pursuing, one that appears aimed at concluding an impeachment vote in the House before Christmas rather, he argued, than providing appropriate due process for the president.
“They want to get this president right now before everybody completely sees through the process sham,” Collins said. “So we’re rushing this.”
He also called Sunday for Schiff personally to testify, indicating that the Intelligence Committee chairman would face intense questioning from Republicans on the role his panel played in shepherding the whistleblower complaint that exposed Trump’s irregular dealings with Ukraine, among other matters.
The Republican congressman noted that Schiff has compared the panel’s fact-finding process to that of the independent prosecutors who examined matters that led to impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In those cases, Collins noted, those prosecutors subjected themselves to congressional questioning.
“He’s put himself into that position,” Collins said. “It’s easy to hide behind a report. It’s easy to hide behind a gavel and the Intelligence Committee’s behind-closed-door hearings. But it’s going to be another thing to actually get up and have to answer questions.”
Another Republican, Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), predicted the impeachment inquiry will take a turn for the combative this week, when it moves to the Judiciary Committee.
“It’s a bunch of brawlers sometimes on the Judiciary Committee, so it should get pretty hot and under the collar as we go along,” Biggs, who sits on the panel, said in an interview with Fox News Channel’s Mike Emanuel on “Sunday Morning Futures.” “I don’t think things have been done the way they’ve been done in the past, Mike, and so it causes some rancor and it should be pretty — much more feisty, I would say, than the Intel Committee was.”
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, said Sunday that Republicans were trying to distract from Trump’s wrongdoing by raising objections to the impeachment process without challenging the facts that have been gathered.
Demings said Democrats were “not going to play any games” with Republicans and called on Trump to end his stonewall of the Democrats’ witness and document demands.
“They want to . . . play a political game and tie the process up in the courts as long as they can and run the clock out,” she said. “We’re not willing to play that game.”
Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), meanwhile, argued that both Russia and Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite the intelligence community’s assessment that only Russia did so.
The comments mark Kennedy’s latest attempt to shift the focus away from the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia worked to help elect Trump, after a Fox News Channel interview last week from which he later backtracked.
“I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election,” Kennedy told host Chuck Todd on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Todd pressed Kennedy on whether he was concerned that he had been “duped” by Russian propaganda, noting reports that U.S. intelligence officials recently briefed senators that “this is a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine.”
Kennedy responded that he had received no such warning.
“I wasn’t briefed. Dr. Hill is entitled to her opinion,” Kennedy said, referring to former National Security Council Russia adviser Fiona Hill, who testified in the impeachment inquiry last month.
In her public testimony, Hill warned that several Trump allies had spread unfounded allegations that Ukraine, rather than Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Pat Cipollone
Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP
Pat Cipollone is the top White House counsel. President Trump chose Cipollone to replace his former attorney Don McGahn in October 2018.
Cipollone’s background includes serving in the Justice Department while President George H.W. Bush was in office. While in the private sector, he handled cases involving government contracts and congressional investigations.
On October 8, 2019, Cipollone sent a letter to House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, explaining that the White House would not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. This means that the White House will not comply with document requests or agree to testify before lawmakers.
Cipollone accused the Democrats of orchestrating an effort to “overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away.”
He added that the impeachment inquiry “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.” You can read the full letter here.
Here’s what you need to know about Pat Cipollone.
1. Pat Cipollone Is Said to Have Earned President Trump’s Trust & Respect
Pat Cipollone
Getty
(L-R) Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, and Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley at the White House on May 7, 2019
Pat Cipollone reportedly served as an informal adviser to the White House legal team for several months before he was brought on in an official capacity, a source confirmed to Business Insider.
After joining the administration, Cipollone was said to have quickly earned President Trump’s trust and respect. Kellyanne Conway told Politico in June of 2019, “He has the president’s ear, he’s earned the president’s respect and that allows people in this building not just to survive but to succeed in doing their jobs.”
Current and former senior administration officials told the Atlantic that Cipollone is “clear in his admiration” for the president and doesn’t try to hide that. He is also reportedly known for being very discreet and straightforward. Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, praised Cipollone to the magazine. “Pat would tell me if I was doing something I shouldn’t be doing or going in the wrong direction. He wouldn’t hesitate to tell me that, and I know he wouldn’t hesitate to tell the president that either.”
Cipollone is firmly on the president’s side when it comes to the call with the leader of Ukraine, which was part of what sparked the formal impeachment inquiry. In the letter Cipollone sent to Democratic leaders on October 8, 2019, he strongly defended the call and praised the president’s decision to release the official record of the call. “For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry.”
2. Cipollone Was a Litigation Partner at a Firm Based in Washington, D.C.
Pat Cipollone
Getty
(L) Lawyer Pat Cipollone, White House Press Secretary Sarah H. Sanders and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino in the Rose Garden of the White House on May 7, 2019
Pat Cipollone was a partner at the law firm Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP in Washington, D.C. His areas of focus were listed as commercial litigation, anti-trust & trade regulation, and healthcare fraud.
According to the firm bio, Cipollone had experience handling cases involving government contract matters, tax disputes, consumer fraud, crisis management, congressional investigations and insurance litigation, just to name a few. Before joining this firm, Cipollone worked at Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
One previous high-profile case Cipollone worked on included a class-action lawsuit against Equifax. He was on the 11-person legal team that defended customers who had their personal data, including social security numbers, exposed in a major data breach. The cyberattack reportedly impacted as many as 145 million customers.
He is licensed to practice law in Washington D.C. and Illinois. Cipollone earned a bachelor’s degree at Fordham University in 1988. He attended law school at the University of Chicago and served as the managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, graduating in 1991.
3. Pat Cipollone Previously Served in the Justice Department
Pat Cipollone had prior experience working in government before going to work in the White House. He was an attorney in the Justice Department during the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He served under Attorney General William P. Barr focused on communications and special projects.
Cipollone’s bio on his previous law firm’s website stated that Cipollone “has substantial expertise in defamation counseling and litigation on behalf of corporations, organizations and public figures, including prepublication negotiations and/or litigation with major media organizations.”
Simply put, he has a lot of experience dealing with negative media attention and representing well-known people. Though Cipollone’s government experience is limited, his background was likely viewed as a crucial asset, especially after Democrats took back control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections and increased investigations.
4. Cipollone is Active With Two Catholic Organizations
Pat Cipollone is a practicing Catholic. He is a co-founder of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. The annual event first launched in 2004 in Washington, D.C. and typically attracts more than 1,000 participants.
According to the event website, the Prayer Breakfast’s founders were inspired by “Saint John Paul II’s call for a New Evangelization.” Former Senator Rick Santorum is another founder.
Cipollone is on the board of directors of the Catholic Information Center. The group’s mission statement explains that the group is “committed to making the Catholic Church alive in the hearts and minds of men and women living and working in our nation’s capital. Through a variety of spiritual, intellectual, and professional programs, the CIC offers the tools to live an integrated life and to engage in all areas of human endeavors.” The organization holds daily weekday masses and confessions, as well as puts on speaking events. The Catholic Information Center is located about half a mile from the White House.
5. Cipollone Was Connected to Trump Ally Laura Ingraham & Was Described as a ‘Big Trump Supporter’ Before He Was Hired as White House Counsel
Laura Ingraham
✔
@IngrahamAngle
The Trump Administration and the country will be very well-served with this appointment of Pat Cipollone as WH Counsel. Whip smart, dedicated, tough but fair-minded, respected by both sides of the aisle. (And a great friend to many—incl me. ) https://twitter.com/FoxNewsResearch/status/1051488045847928832 …
Fox News Research
✔
@FoxNewsResearch
Pat Cipollone:
•Litigation partner at D.C. law firm
•Experience w/ investigations & disputes involving state/federal agencies
•Served at DOJ under then-AG William P. Barr (Bush 41 nominee)
•Has reportedly been advising Trump's outside legal teamhttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-has-chosen-pat-cipollone-as-new-white-house-counsel-sources-say.amp …
Pat Cipollone has a connection to Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who has been described as an “ally” of President Trump. According to the Washington Post, she views Cipollone as her “spiritual mentor.”
Ingraham praised the attorney on Twitter, writing “The Trump Administration and the country will be very well-served with this appointment of Pat Cipollone as WH Counsel. Whip smart, dedicated, tough but fair-minded, respected by both sides of the aisle. (And a great friend to many—incl me.)”
Axios, which first reported that Cipollone had begun filling out paperwork to become White House Counsel, cited an unnamed source that described Cipollone as being “loyal” to President Trump. The site quoted this source describing Cipollone as a “true believer” and a “big Trump supporter.”
