ÓñϪÄļÒÒ½Ôº×öÈËÁ÷ÒªºÃ(ÓñϪÎÞÍ´ÈËÁ÷ÄÄÀïÄÜ×ö) (½ñÈÕ¸üÐÂÖÐ)

Volkswagen has been fined another €800 million (6 million) over its diesel emissions scandal, this time because of failings at its Audi subsidiary.Volkswagen said Tuesday it accepted the fine imposed by German prosecutors, waving its right to appeal. It said the penalty would hit earnings this year."As a negative special item, [it will] reduce the group earnings for fiscal year 2018 accordingly," it said in a statement.The penalty by Munich prosecutors is just the latest consequence of the scandal that emerged in 2015 and initially wiped out billions off the company's value.Volkswagen admitted cheating on clean air rules with software that made emissions look less toxic than they actually were.The fine concludes the Munich prosecutors' investigation into the company. However, probes into executives, including Audi's former CEO Rupert Stadler, continue, the prosecutors said.The €800 million fine comprises a €5 million penalty for administrative offenses, the maximum allowed under German law.On top of that, prosecutors ordered Volkswagen to repay €795 million they said the company made from the cheating. The prosecutors said this included profits from the sales of affected vehicles.In this case, the diesel emissions cheating affected nearly 5 million cars sold by the Volkswagen group in Europe and the United States, prosecutors said. Specifically, it concerned V6 and V8 diesel engines manufactured by Audi and installed in Audi, Volkswagen and Porsche brands, and Audi vehicles equipped with EA 189 and EA 288 engine made by Volkswagen.Shares in Volkswagen (VLKAF) and Audi (AUDVF) were trading higher on Tuesday. Volkswagen stock is down 11 percent so far this year. 1699

WASHINGTON ¡ª The head of an obscure federal agency that is holding up Joe Biden's presidential transition knew well before Election Day that she might have a messy situation on her hands. Prior to Nov. 3, General Services Administration director Emily Murphy held a Zoom call with the man who was in her shoes 20 years earlier during the contested 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Seventy-seven-year-old Dave Barram says he gave Murphy some simple advice, telling her, ¡°If you do the right thing, then all you have to do is live with the consequences of it.¡±However, Murphy finds herself in a much different position than Barram did in 2000. It's been 10 days since President-elect Joe Biden was projected to win Pennsylvania, giving him the 270 electoral college votes to claim the presidency.Though the outcome of the election is clear, Murphy has not yet certified Biden as the winner as President Donald Trump's campaign has filed a bevy of lawsuits ¡ª a move that has delayed the official transition of power and which has held up funds that could ease the process.In an address on Monday, President-elect Joe Biden warned that continued delay in beginning the official transition process could lead to lost lives, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic.¡°More people may die if we don¡¯t coordinate,¡± Biden said Monday.While most Republicans have followed in the footsteps of Trump and Murphy and refused to recognize Biden as president-elect, a small group within the GOP is becoming more vocal in calling on the President to concede.Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a moderate member of the GOP, says that continued delay in the transition of power could hamper the government's efforts in distributing a potential COVID-19 vaccine.¡°It is no easy matter,¡± Collins said of distributing vaccines. ¡°It¡¯s absolutely imperative for public health, that all of the planning that¡¯s gone on for which the current administration deserves credit, be shared with the new administration.¡±So far, the lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign have not affected the outcome of the presidential race in any way. On Sunday evening, the campaign dropped a key portion of its lawsuit in Pennsylvania that sought to overturn hundreds of thousands of ballots on the basis of a lack of poll watchers. Instead, the campaign is choosing to focus on the issue of ballot curing, which they allege gave an unfair benefit to Democrats ¡ª despite the fact that the process likely did not effect enough ballots to overturn the election. 2526

WASHINGTON (AP) ¡ª In President Donald Trump's former life as a casino owner, he might have cheered Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law that barred every state but Nevada from allowing betting on most sporting events.But the Trump administration opposed the outcome reached by the high court at least in part because it could signal trouble in its legal fight against so-called sanctuary states and cities. Seven of the nine justices ¡ª five conservatives and two liberals ¡ª backed a robust reading of the Constitution's 10th Amendment and a limit on the federal government's power to force the states go along with Washington's wishes.The federal anti-gambling law is unconstitutional because "it unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion. "It's as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals."RELATED: San Diego County Board of Supervisors votes to support sanctuary state lawsuit against CaliforniaThere is a direct link between the court's decision in the sports betting case and the administration's effort to punish local governments that resist Trump's immigration enforcement policies, several legal commentators said."The court ruled definitively that the federal government can't force states to enforce federal law. In the immigration context, this means it can't require state or local officials to cooperate with federal immigration authorities," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's immigrants' rights project, said the ruling reinforced decisions from the 1990s, including one that struck down part of a federal gun control law that required local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.RELATED: Escondido?City Council votes to support sanctuary policy lawsuit"It reiterates that the real thrust of the 10th Amendment and the principles of law in this area is that the fed government can't tell the states or cities how to legislate," Jadwat said. The amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states.The gun law decision split the court's conservatives and liberals in 1997, in keeping with conservatives' complaints about the federal government's overreach and the importance of states' rights. But on Monday, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined their more conservative colleagues.The Justice Department declined to comment on the decision, but it had called on the court to uphold the federal law at issue ¡ª the department's usual practice when federal laws are challenged ¡ª by arguing that there was no constitutional violation.RELATED: San Diego church becomes 'sanctuary congregation' amid immigration debateIn the most recent ruling about sanctuary cities, the federal appeals court in Chicago held last month that the federal government cannot withhold public safety grants from cities that won't go along with Trump's immigration enforcement policies.In lawsuits challenging the administration, cities argue that turning local police authorities into immigration officers erodes trust with minority communities and discourages residents from reporting crime. The administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street.The administration's efforts to crack down on places that don't comply with immigration authorities have taken several forms. Trump issued an executive order aimed at withholding federal money from recalcitrant jurisdictions. The administration also has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. 3834

WASHINGTON ¡ª The Senate returns to Washington as all eyes are on Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa for clues to whether they will support any effort to approve a Supreme Court justice before November's election. President Donald Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are moving quickly to set up a nominee, confirmation hearings and a vote to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats oppose a Trump appointment so close to an election. Trump's Democratic rival, Joe Biden, is urging other Republican senators to join Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine in opposing a confirmation vote before the race is decided.In an interview on Monday, Trump said he thought that both Murkowski and Collins would be "badly hurt" for choosing not to vote for a Supreme Court justice nominee.The Republican caucus currently holds a 53-47 voting edge in the Senate. With Murkowski and Collins promising not to confirm, the GOP can only afford to lose two more Senate votes and still confirm a Supreme Court justice. Vice President Mike Pence would hold the tiebreaker in the event of a 50-50 vote, and would likely vote to confirm a Trump-appointed justice. 1213

Walmart announced Thursday that beginning in October, it will raise hourly wages for nearly 165,000 employees.The retail giant also introduced new leadership roles. 173

À´Ô´£º×ÊÑô±¨