Sherie Rene Scott(Photo: Emilio Madrid-Kuser) Tony nominees Sherie Rene Scott and Mary Testa, along with Pico Alexander, will appear in John Patrick Shanley’s new play The Portuguese Kid, set to play Manhattan Theatre Club’s off-Broadway venue, New York City Center—Stage I. They join the previously announced Tony winner Jason Alexander in the work that will begin September 19 ahead of an October 24 opening night.Set in Providence, Rhode Island, The Portuguese Kid focuses on the habitually widowed Atalanta (Scott), who pays a visit to her second-rate lawyer Barry Dragonetti (Alexander). Intending to settle her late husband’s affairs, the larger-than-life Greek tightwad quickly becomes a nightmare for her cheesy, self-aggrandizing attorney. Add Barry’s impossible Croatian mother (Testa), a dash of current politics and a couple of opportunistic young lovers, and you have in hand a recipe for comic combustion.Scott is a two-time Tony nominee whose credits include The Front Page, Everyday Rapture, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. Testa, also a two-time Tony nominee, is currently appearing off-Broadway in The Government Inspector. Her other credits include Xanadu, 42nd Street, Guys and Dolls and On the Town. Pico Alexander has appeared off-Broadway in Punk/Rock and What I Did Last Summer.Additional casting and creative team for The Portuguese Kid will be announced at a later date. The Portuguese Kid was a part of the Vassar and New York Stage and Film’s Powerhouse season in 2016. Related Shows The Portuguese Kid View Comments Show Closed This production ended its run on Dec. 10, 2017
(link is external) Dan Lamothe & Josh Dawsey, “Insurgents” Lobbied Trump for War Crimes Pardons with Little Pentagon Involvement, Officials Say, NY Times (Nov. 21, 2019), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/insurgents-lobbied-trump-for-war-crimes-pardons-with-little-pentagon-involvement-officials-say/2019/11/21/b6a0c62e-0c75-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html(link is external). (link is external) Gen. Krulak Statement on Trump’s Military Pardons, Human Rights First (Nov. 15, 2019), available at https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/gen-krulak-statement-trumps-military-pardons(link is external). (link is external) Philipps, supra note 1. (link is external) Gaouette, supra note 2. (link is external) Kyle Rempfer, Army Officer Convicted of Murder in Afghanistan to Get Another Look by Civilian Court, Army Times (July 1, 2019), available at https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/01/army-officer-convicted-of-murder-in-afghanistan-to-get-another-look-by-civilian-court/(link is external). (link is external) Dave Philipps, Trump May Be Preparing Pardons for Servicemen Accused of War Crimes, NY Times (May 18, 2019), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html(link is external). (link is external) David S. Cloud, Senior Military Officers Rebel Against Trump Plan to Pardon Troops Accused of War Crimes, LA Times (May 22, 2019), available at https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pentagon-oppose-trump-pardon-murder-warcrimes-20190522-story.html(link is external). Vermont Business Magazine Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) are asking the Department of Justice’s Office of Pardon Attorney what role it played in President Trump’s extraordinarily controversial decision to pardon US soldiers charged or convicted with serious war crimes. In light of U.S. military leaders’ vocal opposition to President Trump’s interventions in these cases, Leahy and Whitehouse are seeking answers about what advice the President received – and from whom – in making this decision to exercise his clemency powers. The senators wrote: “We write to determine what role your office played in President Trump’s recent decision to pardon military service members convicted or charged with war crimes. While the President possesses broad pardon powers, these pardons were issued in the face of strong opposition from senior military officials, who warned that such pardons would undermine the U.S. military justice system and shake faith in our military’s commitment to abide by the laws of war. Given your office’s institutional role and expertise for over 125 years in guiding presidents in the exercise of their pardon powers, we write to inquire whether, and to what extent, your office was involved in these matters.”The letter continues: “The President’s pardon powers are virtually absolute. That is precisely why safeguards must be in place to ensure that they are wielded judiciously – institutional safeguards like your office, which exists to ensure that the President’s pardon powers are exercised fairly and in the interests of justice. Given our obligation to conduct oversight of the Justice Department, we request written answers to the following questions no later than December 13th.”A signed copy of the letter can be found here(link is external). The full text of the letter is copied below.LETTERNovember 26, 2019Rosalind Sargent-BurnsActing Pardon AttorneyU.S. Department of JusticeOffice of the Pardon Attorney950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530Dear Ms. Sargent-Burns,We write to determine what role your office played in President Trump’s recent decision to pardon military service members convicted or charged with war crimes.(link is external) While the President possesses broad pardon powers, these pardons were issued in the face of strong opposition from senior military officials, who warned that such pardons would undermine the U.S. military justice system and shake faith in our military’s commitment to abide by the laws of war.(link is external) Given your office’s institutional role and expertise for over 125 years in guiding presidents in the exercise of their pardon powers, we write to inquire whether, and to what extent, your office was involved in these matters.President Trump intervened in the cases of three military service members either charged with or convicted of serious war crimes. He pardoned and freed Army First Lt. Clint Lorance, who was serving a 19-year sentence for ordering his subordinates to fatally fire on unarmed civilians.(link is external) He pardoned and stopped the trial of Army Green Beret Maj. Matt Golsteyn, who confessed to and was charged with executing an unarmed detainee and immolating his corpse.(link is external) And he restored the rank of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was charged with shooting unarmed civilians and killing a captured teenage combatant with a knife, and ultimately convicted of posing in a photograph with a dead captive.[5(link is external)]When President Trump’s plan to intervene in these cases was first reported in early November, the Department of Defense was so alarmed that Secretary of Defense Esper and other senior military officials reportedly orchestrated a lobbying effort to dissuade the President from doing so.(link is external) The Pentagon’s concerns about President Trump’s pardons have been echoed by many respected U.S. military figures.(link is external) Retired General Martin Dempsey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the “wholesale pardon of US service members accused of war crimes signals . . . that we don’t take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously,” and is an “abdication of moral responsibility.”(link is external) Retired General Charles Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated that these pardons could endanger our troops by “alienating populations whose support the United States needs…and providing a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm.”(link is external) Most recently, in resigning his position as Secretary of the Navy over this issue, Richard Spencer wrote in a letter to the President that he “no longer share[s] the same understanding with the Commander in Chief . . . in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline,” and pointedly reminded the President that “The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries.”(link is external) The U.S. military establishment’s vocal opposition to the President’s interventions in these cases raises serious questions about what advice President Trump received – and from whom – in deciding to exercise his clemency powers. Reports indicate that President Trump’s views about these cases were shaped early on by a Fox News personality and advocates for the three soldiers.(link is external) Senior Pentagon officials, left out of White House discussions until recent weeks, believed the President was being provided misleading and even false information.(link is external) The White House reportedly reached out to your office about these cases once in May, but it is unclear whether there was any further contact between your office and the White House, or whether your office ultimately provided your recommendations to the President.(link is external)The President’s pardon powers are virtually absolute. That is precisely why safeguards must be in place to ensure that they are wielded judiciously – institutional safeguards like your office, which exists to ensure that the President’s pardon powers are exercised fairly and in the interests of justice. Given our obligation to conduct oversight of the Justice Department, we request written answers to the following questions no later than December 13th:Did the White House reach out to your office on May 17, 2019, about the cases of Army First Lt. Clint Lorance, Army Green Beret Maj. Matt Golsteyn, and Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, as reporting indicates?If so, was this the first time the White House reached out to your office about these three cases?If not, when was the first time the White House reached out to your office about these three cases, if at all?Did the White House ask for your recommendation about whether to issue pardons in these cases? Did the White House express the President’s intent to issue pardons in these cases, regardless of your input and recommendations, as reporting indicates?Did your office provide recommendations to the White House about whether the President should exercise his pardon powers in these three cases?If so, what were your recommendations? Please describe your recommendations in each of the three cases, and the rationale for each recommendation. To the extent possible, please provide copies of documents memorializing your recommendations in each of the three cases.If so, when were those recommendations conveyed to the White House?If so, did your office either meet or attempt to meet with the President or anyone else in the White House to explain or discuss your recommendations with respect to the three cases?If your office did not provide recommendations in these three cases, why not?Was anyone outside your office at the Justice Department involved in providing advice and recommendations to the White House regarding these three cases? If so, who, and what role did they play? Were there any attempts to channel communications between your office and the White House on these matters through another division or office in the Justice Department? If so, why?To what extent was your office communicating and coordinating with the Department of Defense with respect to these three cases? Were you soliciting information or other input and recommendations from the Defense Department about these three cases? If so, what information and recommendations did you request and receive from the Defense Department?Section 9-140.110 of the Department of Justice’s Justice Manual states that your office “receives and reviews all petitions for Executive Clemency (which includes pardon after completion of sentence, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution and reprieve), initiates and directs the necessary investigations, and prepares a report and recommendation for submission to the President in every case.”Was there a petition for Executive Clemency submitted to your office or the Justice Department in any of these three cases?Has the Office of the Pardon Attorney ever recommended a presidential pardon or commutation for a military service member convicted of war crimes? If so, please provide details about those cases and why the Office of the Pardon Attorney recommended a pardon or commutation.Has the Office of the Pardon Attorney ever recommended a presidential pardon when an individual has not yet been convicted and has charges pending? If so, please provide details about those cases and why the Office of the Pardon Attorney recommended a pardon.How many of the pardons or commutations issued by President Trump during his term thus far involved a petition for Executive Clemency to your office and followed the process described in Section 9-140.110?Sincerely,___________________________ ___________________________Patrick Leahy Sheldon WhitehouseUnited States Senator United States Senator(link is external) Dave Philipps, Trump’s Pardons for Servicemen Raise Fears That Laws of War Are History, NY Times (Nov. 16, 2019), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/trump-pardon-military.html(link is external). (link is external) Dave Philipps, Navy SEAL Chief Accused of War Crimes Is Found Not Guilty of Murder, NY Times (July 2, 2019), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/navy-seal-trial-verdict.html(link is external). (link is external) Nicole Gaouette et al., Trump Ignores Pentagon Advice and Intervenes in Military War Crimes Cases, CNN (Nov. 18, 2019), available at https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/trump-war-crimes-intervenes/index.html(link is external). (link is external) Navy Secretary Richard Spencer’s Letter to the President Acknowledging His Termination, CNN (Nov. 24, 2019), available at https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html(link is external). (link is external) Id. (link is external) Leo Shane III et al., Trump Grants Clemency to Troops in Three Controversial War Crimes Cases, Military Times (Nov. 16, 2019), available at https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/16/trump-grants-clemency-to-troops-in-three-controversial-war-crimes-cases/(link is external). (link is external) Philipps, supra note 12.(link is external) Id.Source: (TUESDAY, Nov. 26, 2019) – Senator Patrick Leahy
Week 5 PPR Rankings: TEsThese rankings are for full-point PPR leagues.MORE WEEK 5 DFS: Stacks | Values | Lineup builder 1Travis Kelce, KC vs. IND.2George Kittle, SF vs. CLE.3Zach Ertz, PHI vs. NYJ.4Evan Engram, NYG vs. MIN.5Darren Waller, OAK vs. CHI (in UK).6Austin Hooper, ATL @ HOU.7Mark Andrews, BAL @ PIT.8Tyler Eifert, CIN vs. ARI.9Greg Olsen, CAR vs. JAX.10Will Dissly, SEA vs. LAR.11Delanie Walker, TEN vs. BUF.12Eric Ebron, IND @ KC.13Jared Cook, NO vs. TB.14O.J. Howard, TB @ NO.15Noah Fant, DEN @ LAC.16Jason Witten, DAL vs. GB.17Trey Burton, CHI vs. OAK (in UK).18Jack Doyle, IND @ KC.19Vance McDonald, PIT vs. BAL.20Dawson Knox, BUF @ Titans.21Gerald Everett, LAR @ SEA.22Lance Kendricks, LAC vs. DEN.23Jimmy Graham, GB @ DAL.24Jeremy Sprinkle, WAS vs. NE25Ricky Seals-Jones, CLE @ SF.26Irv Smith Jr., MIN @ NYG.27James O’Shaughnessy, JAX @ CAR.28Kyle Rudolph, MIN @NYG.29Jordan Akins, HOU @ ATL. It almost seems like a waste of internet space to publish separate Week 5 fantasy TE PPR rankings and standard rankings. What’s the difference? It’s not like RB or WR where you see at least a few big swings in value based on catches and targets. High-volume tight ends are great for standard and PPR, and favorable matchups will vault a low-target TE into a sleeper in both formats. The biggest riser in this week’s rankings is Tyler Eifert, who gets a Cardinals defense allowing over 25 PPR fantasy points to TEs per game (not a typo). On the other side, Eric Ebron drops a few spots because of his rather pedestrian eight catches on the season. However, he still has 128 yards and two touchdowns (and a favorable matchup in KC), so he should be in PPR lineups despite his TD-or-bust nature. WEEK 5 NON-PPR RANKINGS:Quarterback | Running back | Wide receiver | Tight end | D/ST | KickerAustin Hooper (@ HOU) gets a slight bump up despite a statistically tough matchup. Hooper trails only Darren Waller (vs. CHI in London) in TE receptions, so it’s tough to leave him out of the upper tier. Jared Cook (vs. TB) and O.J. Howard (@ NO) both have talent and decent matchups (especially Cook), so they’re knocking on the door of start ’em status despite disappointing all year.WEEK 5 PPR RANKINGS: Running back | Wide receiverBenjamin Watson (@ WAS) is a name to watch as he returns from his season-opening four-game suspension. The Patriots have barely utilized their TEs this year, but Watson is a veteran target who’s worked with Tom Brady before, so perhaps he sees more usage.WEEK 5 DFS LINEUPS:Y! cash | Y! GPP | FD cash | FD GPP | DK cash | DK GPPReminder: Check back for updates during the week.WEEK 5:Top waiver pickups | FAAB planner | Trade values | Snap countsLISTEN TO THE SN FANTASY WEEK 5 PREVIEW PODCAST BELOW
By Neil MaidmentMuch-fancied Belgium needed extra time to crack heroic United States goalkeeper Tim Howard in a thrilling 2-1 extra-time victory on Tuesday that set up a World Cup quarter-final clash with Argentina.The Belgians had dominated the first 90 minutes but a barrage of efforts were thwarted by an inspired Howard, whose resistance was finally broken in the 93rd minute when midfielder Kevin De Bruyne buried an angled shot from seven metres.In a pulsating extra time, substitute striker Romelu Lukaku powered home a second in the 105th minute after a clever De Bruyne pass, before Julian Green’s neat volley ensured a tense finish in which Clint Dempsey almost sneaked an equaliser.“We had about 15 chances, we were controlling the game I think it is largely deserved even though at the end we conceded one,” Belgium coach Marc Wilmots told reporters.“My players reached their limits to qualify. I said fresh legs would be important today and that is how it was. Now the whole of Belgium can celebrate.”Wilmots’s side had arrived at the Fonte Nova arena with three successive wins in Brazil, although the team’s lacklustre performances had raised doubts about their ability to go deep into the tournament.Much sharper attacking intent against the U.S. would have pleased their fans, although congratulations would have turned to recriminations had U.S. substitute Chris Wondolowski not horribly skewed wide from five metres in the last seconds of normal time.“It was real drama, a thriller, we had enough possibilities to equalise the game or even put it away earlier,” said U.S. coach Juergen Klinsmann, whose side had seen off Ghana and Portugal to qualify for the last 16.“It was a game that just went to the extreme.”LOW DRIVEIn a sign of things to come, striker Divock Origi was in on goal inside 40 seconds, only to see his low drive parried away by Howard and more chances stacked up as the U.S. were forced to set up camp outside their own box and look for quick breaks.The lively De Bruyne should have done better after 23 minutes having found space in the box, while Clint Dempsey’s tame volley was the Americans’ only chance of the first half.The Belgian onslaught cranked up a gear after the break with the scrambling U.S. defence grateful to see Howard save efforts by Dries Mertens and Jan Vertonghen before Origi’s header hit the crossbar.A Kevin Mirallas run and shot, two more stinging Origi drives and a Vincent Kompany effort were all dealt with by Howard, who faced 38 attempts on his goal during the game.With extra time moments away, Wondolowski missed a glorious chance that the Americans would come to rue.All Belgium’s goals in Brazil had been scored after the 70th-minute mark and their persistence finally paid off in extra time when De Bruyne was given time and space to turn and fire home after Lukaku raced down the right wing to cross.The midfielder soon returned the favour, teeing up the frontman to power home a second and spark a thrilling finale.Roared on by deafening chants of ‘USA’, Klinsmann’s side summoned the energy to raise American hopes.Midfielder Green met a delicately chipped Michael Bradley pass to volley home two minutes later and Dempsey almost forced penalties, only for his clever set-piece effort to be foiled by Thibaut Courtois.“It was heart-breaking. We left it all out there but we lost to a really good team. It hurts but hats off to Belgium they were fantastic,” Howard said.“Sometimes when you give your best it doesn’t come off.”The win sealed Belgium’s first World Cup quarter-final appearance since 1986 and they will next play Argentina on Saturday.