Colombians bid farewell to presidential hopeful Uribe after shooting at political rally
Family, friends, members of Congress and a delegation of government officials from the United States honored Uribe, whose coffin was draped with Colombia's flag. The 39-year-old died Monday in the hospital where he had been since the June 7 shooting. Thousands of mourners paid their respects Tuesday.
'The bullets that took his life not only broke the hearts of his family, they reopened the fractures of a country that has yet to find peace,' Senate President Lidio García said, referring to Colombia's long history of violence against politicians.
Uribe had become one of the strongest critics of Colombia's current government. In October, he joined the list of politicians seeking to replace Gustavo Petro , the first leftist to govern Colombia, in the May 2026 elections.
Uribe was shot three times , twice in the head, while giving a campaign speech in a park in a working-class Bogota neighborhood. Authorities have arrested six people, including the teenager they say shot him, but they have not determined who ordered the attack or why.
The shooting, caught on multiple videos, alarmed Colombians who have not seen this kind of political violence against presidential candidates since Medellin drug lord Pablo Escobar declared war on the state in the 1990s.
Uribe's mother, well-known journalist Diana Turbay, was among the victims in that period. She died during a police rescue after being kidnapped by a group of drug traffickers led by Escobar seeking to block their extradition to the U.S.
'If my mother was willing to give her life for a cause, how could I not do the same in life and in politics?' Uribe, who was 5 when his mother was killed, said in an interview with a Colombian news outlet last year.
The senator's family said he would be buried Wednesday at Bogota's Central Cemetery. The cemetery is the oldest in the city and the final resting place of figures such as Liberal leader Luis Carlos Galán, who was shot dead in 1989 while giving a presidential campaign speech in Bogota.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bitcoin slips as U.S. rules out buying for strategic reserve
Bitcoin slips as U.S. rules out buying for strategic reserve originally appeared on TheStreet. Bitcoin prices fell sharply on Aug. 14 after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government has no plans to purchase additional Bitcoin for its planned strategic reserve, opting instead to rely on confiscated holdings. Speaking on Mornings with Maria, Bessent's comments came in response to questions about U.S. gold reserves and whether the government would consider similar moves with Bitcoin. 'I doubt we're going to revalue it, but we are going to keep it there as a store of value for the American people,' Bessent said when asked if the Treasury planned to revalue gold. He added that the U.S. has begun incorporating Bitcoin into its strategic reserves, but with a clear caveat. 'We've also started to get into the 21st century, a Bitcoin strategic reserve. We're not going to be buying that, but we're going to use confiscated assets and continue to build that up. We're going to stop selling that,' he said. The remarks dampened recent optimism among crypto investors who had speculated that the U.S. might enter the market as a buyer, potentially creating significant demand. Instead, Bessent's clarification signals that any growth in the reserve will come from seized digital assets — often the result of law enforcement actions against illicit activity — rather than open market purchases. The decision contrasts with the approach taken by some other nations, such as El Salvador, which has regularly bought Bitcoin as part of its national strategy. Analysts say the U.S. move may limit near-term institutional buying pressure but could still tighten supply if the government permanently holds confiscated coins. Following Bessent's interview, Bitcoin slipped from above $118,000 to near $117,000, with broader crypto markets also turning lower. The crypto market tumbled as over $1.05 billion in leveraged positions were wiped out in 24 hours, with longs losing $778M, per Coinglass. Bybit saw the biggest hit at $447M in liquidations, including a $10M BTC-USD position. Bitcoin slips as U.S. rules out buying for strategic reserve first appeared on TheStreet on Aug 14, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Aug 14, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security at 90: Where the program stands and how to fix it
Social Security is a vital source of income for millions of Americans, but after 90 years, the program faces significant financial challenges that could reshape it for future generations. If Congress fails to act, retirees could see their monthly checks cut by 23 percent in less than a decade — slashing thousands of dollars from the average person's annual benefits. Lawmakers are unlikely to let that happen, but so far, they've opted to kick the can down the road, avoiding politically unpopular solutions and complicating eventual fixes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) signed Social Security into law on Aug. 14, 1935, as a way to give 'some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.' Here's what to know about the state of the program 90 years later: How many people receive Social Security? Nearly 70 million people received Social Security benefits in July, with the average check totaling $1,863. Retired workers made up the largest share — roughly three-quarters, or about 53 million. The program also supports other groups: Nearly six million people received survivor benefits last month, while more than eight million collected disability insurance. Most people aged 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security, making it a vital lifeline for millions of adults — and children — who would otherwise fall below the poverty line. Without Social Security benefits, 37 percent of older adults would have had incomes below the official poverty line in 2023 — instead, only 10 percent did, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. More Americans now expect to rely on Social Security than in the past. In a recent Gallup poll, 37 percent of non-retirees said it will be a 'major source' of income in retirement — up from 28 percent two decades ago. When Social Security benefits could be cut Social Security isn't going away, but in less than a decade, millions of Americans could see their monthly retirement checks shrink if Congress doesn't intervene. The program's retirement trust fund is expected to run out by 2033, at which point Social Security would only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. For today's average retired worker, that would mean a cut of about $460 a month — more than $5,500 a year. That said, experts caution against claiming Social Security benefits early out of fear that the program may not be around in the future, as doing so results in permanently lower monthly checks. Federal lawmakers are expected to act before the cuts take effect, but the main concern is that the longer they wait, the more complicated the fix will become. Social Security is so widely supported that, until now, politicians have largely avoided moves that could prove unpopular with voters. The last major overhaul came roughly 40 years ago when the federal government gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67. When that happened in 1983, Social Security insolvency was just months away. Why Social Security is facing a financial shortfall The program's financial shortfall largely stems from the nation's changing demographics, which have resulted in fewer workers supporting more retirees. In 2010, there were 43 million people age 65 and older, and by 2024, that number had grown to 59 million, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. At the same time, the number of workers contributing to the program has fallen — from 2.9 covered workers per beneficiary in 2010 to 2.7 in 2024 — a ratio projected to decline further to 2.3 by 2044, the foundation said. That imbalance is a concern because Social Security is primarily funded through a payroll tax, which accounts for about 90 percent of the trust fund's income. Fewer workers mean less payroll tax revenue. The good news is that the demographic shift isn't a surprise, giving policymakers time to prepare. The bad news is that it's not easily reversed, and major policy changes may be needed to shore up the program for generations to come. Something else to keep in mind: Despite raising the income cap over time, a smaller share of wages is now subject to the payroll tax compared to the '80s and '90s. The portion of wages and salaries covered by the payroll tax has fallen to about 82 percent, down from 90 percent in 1983, according to the Tax Foundation. Part of that is due to a rise in employer-provided benefits, like health insurance, which is tax-deductible, and thus faces neither the income nor payroll tax, the Tax Foundation said. What can be done to fix Social Security? Lawmakers have a few options: increase Social Security revenue, reduce costs or, most likely, some combination of both. Democrats want to raise more money by making high earners pay Social Security taxes on income above the current cap. For 2025, the tax only applies to the first $176,100, so any earnings above that aren't taxed. Gradually increasing the payroll tax rate is another way to raise revenue. Right now, the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent total — split evenly between employees and employers at 6.2 percent each. The combined rate has been steady since 1990. While raising taxes is rarely popular, polling suggests boosting revenue is generally more acceptable to the public than cutting benefits. A 2024 Pew Research survey found that wide majorities of both Republicans (77%) and Democrats (83%) do not support Social Security benefit reductions. President Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits and even suggested eliminating federal income taxes on retirement checks — though that move would worsen the program's financial shortfall. Like his predecessors before him, Trump has offered little concrete policy direction for fixing Social Security. Tech billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to root out widespread waste, fraud and abuse fell short of expectations and sparked significant confusion. Earlier this year, Brookings released a bipartisan blueprint for fixing Social Security. The proposal included tax-based revenue boosts like increasing the maximum taxable ceiling and raising the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 12.6 percent. It also suggested benefit reductions, like increasing the retirement age for high earners, among other changes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
