text
stringlengths 376
1.26M
| label
int64 0
2
|
|---|---|
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, promised retaliation. The U.S. moved to send more troops to the Middle East. And a deluge of threats on social media.Published Jan. 3, 2020Updated Jan. 4, 2020VideotranscripttranscriptVideo Shows Aftermath of U.S. Strike That Killed Top Iran CommanderPresident Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. But we caught him in the act. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.President Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.CreditCredit...Ali Mohammadi/Bloomberg NewsTrump says airstrike was ordered ‘to stop a war.’President Trump said Friday afternoon that the airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the powerful Iranian commander, was ordered “to stop a war” and prevented attacks on Americans.“Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him,” he said, speaking to reporters from his resort in West Palm Beach, Fla. “We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war.”Mr. Trump said the United States is not seeking regime change in Iran, but called for Tehran’s “aggression in the region” to immediately end. He also warned Iran against retaliating, saying, “If Americans anywhere are threatened, we have all of those targets already fully identified, and I am ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary.”He added, “that in particular refers to Iran.”The airstrike directed by Mr. Trump dramatically ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Tehran, and Iran’s leaders quickly promised retaliation for the general’s killing.Around the time of the overnight strike, a Special Operations unit based in the United States boarded transport aircraft bound for the Middle East, one Defense Department official said. The deployment of the elite Army Rangers was the latest to the region. This week, the Pentagon readied 4,000 troops based at Fort Bragg, N.C., for a similar security mission to Kuwait. They are to depart in the coming days, joining 750 troops already deployed, officials said.“The brigade will deploy to Kuwait as an appropriate and precautionary action in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities,” a Department of Defense spokesperson said. General Suleimani, a powerful strategist who represented Iran’s influence across the region, was killed by an American drone at Baghdad’s airport, in an attack that had been authorized by President Trump. Iraq’s Parliament planned to hold an emergency session over the weekend to address the airstrike, which Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi called “a brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and a blatant attack on the nation’s dignity.” A powerful Iraqi militia leader was also killed.The strike, regarded by analysts as perhaps the riskiest American move in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, threatened to inflame hostilities across the region.Iran’s U.N. ambassador calls Suleimani’s killing ‘an act of war.’Iran’s United Nations ambassador, Majid Takht Ravanchi, called the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani “an act of war,” and vowed that it would be met with “revenge, a harsh revenge.”“Last night, they started a military war by assassinating, by an act of terror, one of our top generals,” Mr. Takht Ravanchi said during an appearance Friday on CNN. “We cannot just remain silent. We have to act and we will act.”Asked if Iran would act militarily, Mr. Takht Ravanchi said: “That’s for the future to witness.”Pro-Iranian social media accounts unleash a deluge of threatsIn the hours after the American strike, thousands of pro-Iranian social media accounts went to work.Accounts on Twitter and Instagram tagged the White House with death threats and posted images of President Trump with a severed head and coffins covered in the American flag, alongside the hashtag Operation Hard Revenge.It was not clear whether the activity was the work of actual accounts or state-backed bots, according to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. But they tweeted pro-Iranian, anti-American content at a rate of 3,000 tweets every 45 minutes, according to New York Times data.The social media activity may just be an opening salvo, experts said.Iran may begin a digital campaign of cyberattacks and disinformation in retaliation for General Suleimani’s death, they said. Tehran’s most likely target, the experts added, would be the American private sector.Over the past year, Iranian hackers have taken aim at Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. They have also targeted telecom companies, infrastructure systems and more than 200 oil, gas and heavy machinery companies around the world.The hackers have “developed the ability to disrupt critical infrastructure and they already have the ability to wipe data,” said James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic Studies in Washington. “But they’ve gone well beyond that now. The question is what services — pipelines? dams? — will they target now.”Iran is still not “at the top of the league” of countries with the ability to cause widespread destruction via cyberattacks, Mr. Lewis and other experts said. But Tehran is much further along than American officials gave it credit for in 2009, when a classified intelligence assessment concluded that it had the motivation to inflict harm, but lacked the skills and resources to do so.Since 2010 — when an Iranian nuclear facility was the target of a joint American-Israeli cyberattack — Tehran has embraced such attacks as part its strategy of “asymmetrical warfare.” While Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps may never match the West in conventional warfare, its specialized teams have learned how much destruction they can cause to vulnerable systems, according to American intelligence assessments and private security researchers.Over the past five years, American officials and cybersecurity experts have tracked Iranian hackers as they have significantly advanced their capabilities beyond wiping data to sophisticated attacks on financial networks, internet infrastructure, energy companies — and, even more disconcerting, sites like the Bowman Dam in Westchester County and the Energy Department’s Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls.“They now have the ability to do serious harm,” Mr. Lewis said. “As the conflict with the U.S. continues, they’re going to be tempted. Expect to see a lot more testing of how far they can get into company networks, universities, federal networks and smaller government networks in towns and cities.”Iran promises ‘forceful revenge’ for general’s killing.Iranian leaders issued strident calls on Friday for revenge against the United States after the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani in an overnight airstrike at the Baghdad airport. His death is a considerable blow to Tehran, and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for retaliation and for three days of national mourning. “His departure to God does not end his path or his mission, but a forceful revenge awaits the criminals who have his blood and the blood of the other martyrs last night on their hands,” the supreme leader said in a statement.Iran’s security body also pledged to avenge General Suleimani’s killing in the “right place and time,” saying it had reached a decision on how to do so. The American strike spurred mass displays of public mourning by Iran and its network of allies across the Middle East. Iranian officials said the general’s body would be taken on a funeral procession around Baghdad, and that a funeral would be held for him in Tehran on Sunday. On Friday, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter about the strike, saying that General Suleimani “killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more … but got caught!”General Suleimani was the head of the powerful Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the architect of nearly every significant operation by Iranian intelligence and military forces over the past two decades.The general’s prominent role meant that his death could have a ripple effect in any number of countries across the Middle East where Iran and the United States compete for influence. The New York Times; satellite image by Maxar via Bing. The strike was carried out by an MQ-9 Reaper drone that fired missiles on a convoy of vehicles leaving the airport. Several other officials from Iraqi militias backed by Tehran were also killed.“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” the Pentagon said in a statement. The United States has long been at odds with Iran over its nuclear program and influence in Iraq and other countries in the region. Those tensions have surged under the Trump administration.The strike on Friday was the latest escalation between the two nations after a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base, believed to have been carried out by an Iran-backed militia, killed an American contractor in December. ImageCredit...Ivor Prickett for The New York TimesAmericans were ordered to evacuate from Iraq, and oil prices rose.The State Department urged American citizens to leave Iraq immediately following the strike that killed General Suleimani in Baghdad, citing “heightened tensions.”Oil prices jumped on Friday after the news of the general’s death: The price of Brent oil, the international benchmark, surged in the early hours of Hong Kong trading to nearly $70 a barrel — an increase of $3.The immediate increase in the price of oil was among the largest since an attack on a critical Saudi oil installation in September that temporarily knocked out 5 percent of the world’s oil supply.By 11 a.m. in London, the price of Brent crude oil was at a three-month high of $69.20 a barrel. International oil companies based in the southeastern Iraqi city of Basra have begun evacuating American employees, according to Al Arabiya news outlet. The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 each opened about 1 percent lower on Friday, while oil company shares rose, with Exxon Mobil up 1.3 percent and Chevron up 1.2 percent in premarket trading.ImageCredit...Khalid Mohammed/Associated PressPompeo says the U.S. is committed to de-escalation.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he had spoken to top diplomats in Britain, China and Germany on Friday about what the State Department described as President Trump’s recent decision to carry out the strike “in response to imminent threats to American lives.”Mr. Pompeo also told his foreign counterparts that the United States was committed to de-escalation, according to the State Department. Mr. Pompeo posted several statements and a video on Twitter that he said showed Iraqis “dancing in the street.” (Witnesses said that brief demonstration had involved only a small group of men, and that no one else had joined in.)“This was a man who has put American lives at risk for an awfully long time,” Mr. Pompeo said on Friday on CNN. “Last night was the time that we needed to strike to make sure that this imminent attack that he was working actively was disrupted.”He declined to provide more details about the looming attack.One American official familiar with the internal discussions about the drone strike said the administration was still trying to figure out what would come next.The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the backlash over General Suleimani’s death could be even more fraught than the tensions after an American raid in 2011 that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, who was part of a stateless group and had no international support.The Swiss Foreign Ministry said in a statement that a diplomat from Switzerland, which represents American interests in Iran to maintain communication, had delivered a message from the United States to the Iranian Foreign Ministry in Tehran on Friday concerning the death of General Suleimani. It did not elaborate.“Given the latest events in the region, Switzerland invites both parties to avoid any escalation,” the ministry said.ImageCredit...Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader, via Associated PressSuleimani led 20 years of spying and proxy warfare.As the leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which leads Iran’s operations abroad, General Suleimani, who was 62, was the country’s top security and intelligence commander. He was behind nearly all military and intelligence operations orchestrated by Iran in the past two decades and directed Iran-backed militias in the fight against the Islamic State. American officials have also accused him of causing the deaths of hundreds of soldiers during the Iraq war and he was believed to have played a central role in orchestrating Iran’s support for the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. In Iran, General Suleimani was a respected political figure among hard-liners and was close to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. To many Iranians, he was also a war hero, after becoming a commander while he was only in his 20s during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.ImageCredit...Iranian Supreme Leader Office, via EPAThe general’s deputy succeeded him within hours, according to Iranian news agencies, with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appointing Brig. Gen. Ismail Qaani as leader of the Quds Force on Friday.General Qaani, 62, had been the force’s deputy commander since 1997, according to Reuters.The United States Treasury Department put General Qaani on a blacklist in 2012 for what it called “financial disbursements” to various terrorist groups, including Hezbollah.ImageCredit...Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA, via ShutterstockThe killing prompted protests in Iran and anger in Iraq.Large crowds gathered for Friday Prayer in Iran and filled public squares with mass protests, while officials met privately to plot strategy and leaders vowed to avenge General Suleimani’s death.Images broadcast on Iranian state television showed thousands of supporters of General Suleimani gathered in mourning outside his house in the southeastern town of Kerman, and in other cities.“The great nation of Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime,” President Hassan Rouhani wrote on Twitter.Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, called the strike an “act of international terrorism.” Iran was working with Iraqi officials to repatriate the general’s body for a funeral service, perhaps as soon as Saturday, a number of Iranian journalists reported.Iran’s Supreme National Security Council also held an emergency meeting on Friday, which the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, attended. The council issued a statement after the meeting saying it had reached a decision on how to respond to the killing, but did not say what that decision was. “America must know the criminal attack on General Suleimani was its worst strategic mistake in the Middle East and that America will not escape the consequences easily,” the statement read. “As our supreme leader said in his message, a harsh revenge awaits the criminals who have the general’s blood on their hands. These criminals will face revenge at the right time and place.”In Iraq, the strike appeared likely to accelerate calls for the departure of American troops. Along with General Suleimani, it killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of a powerful militia that is backed by Iran but under the umbrella of the Iraqi military. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq praised Mr. al-Muhandis and General Suleimani as heroes in the fight against the Islamic State and condemned their killing as a violation of sovereignty. ImageCredit...Thaier Al-Sudani/ReutersThe strike also killed a prominent Iraqi commander. Friday’s strike in Baghdad also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi militia leader who was one of Iran’s top lieutenants in Iraq and a veteran of battles against the United States and the Islamic State.Born Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, he was better known by his nom de guerre and gained prominence as mostly Shiite militias formed to fight the Islamic State in 2014. But he was a powerful force in Iraq for years, and his death alone would have sent shock waves through the country. In 2009, the United States Treasury Department designated Mr. al-Muhandis a “threat to stability in Iraq” and accused him of helping smuggle rockets, sniper rifles and other weapons into the country from Iran. Long before the Iraq war, he was accused of playing a role in the bombings of French and American Embassies in Kuwait in 1983, and the later attempt to assassinate Kuwait’s emir.Much of Mr. al-Muhandis’s history remains murky, including his exact age: He would have been about 66 or 67 at the time of his death, according to the United States government, which has said he was born in 1953 in Basra, Iraq. Mr. al-Muhandis fled Iraq with the rise of Saddam Hussein and spent years in exile in Iran, cultivating close ties with Iranian officials, becoming fluent in Persian and keeping a home in Tehran. He returned to Iraq in the aftermath of the American invasion in 2003 and briefly served in Iraq’s Parliament before dropping out of public view.He helped found a militia that fought against the United States, and was accused of training and equipping a network of anti-American groups. The militia has continued to oppose the United States, and American officials blamed it for the rocket attack that killed an American contractor last week.In a reflection of the chaos that has engulfed Iraq and the region, it was only five years after the Treasury Department put sanctions on Mr. al-Muhandis that he found himself effectively on the same side as the United States. The invasion of Iraq by the Islamic State from Syria gave his militia, Iran and the United States a common enemy. ImageCredit...Bilal Hussein/Associated PressIran’s regional allies joined in the outrage.Iranian allies across the Arab world condemned the United States, reflecting the strength of the regional network General Suleimani spent much of his life building, including links to the government of Syria and militant groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and elsewhere.The leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group and political party that General Suleimani helped build, vowed in a statement that his group would continue on the path the general set and “work night and day to achieve his goals.”It was the responsibility of all resistance fighters to seek “just retribution” against “the most evil criminals in the world,” the leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said, meaning the United States.In Yemen, the administration run by the Houthi rebels, who have received support from Iran in their war against Saudi Arabia, condemned the United States strike as a “cowardly attack” that “makes clear the increasing American spite against all who are in favor of justice for the Islamic world.”In Syria, where General Suleimani oversaw a huge effort to shore up the government of President Bashar al-Assad, a foreign ministry official condemned the “treacherous, criminal American aggression” that led to his killing, the state news agency SANA reported on Friday.ImageCredit...Evgenia Novozhenina/ReutersInternational leaders urged ‘maximum restraint.’António Guterres, the United Nations’ secretary general, voiced his deep concern over the recent rise in tensions in the Middle East, his spokesman, Farhan Haq, said in a statement.“The world cannot afford another war in the Gulf,” the statement read. “This is a moment in which leaders must exercise maximum restraint.”The killing of General Suleimani “most likely” violated international law, Agnes Callamard, the United Nations expert on extrajudicial executions, said in a post on Twitter. “Use of lethal force is only justified to protect against an imminent threat to life,” Ms. Callamard wrote. Use of drones for targeted killings outside active hostilities was “almost never likely to be legal,” she added.Many experts also said on Friday that the strike probably ended any prospect of negotiations to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the landmark nuclear agreement Iran signed in 2015 with the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany. The recent escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran began with the 2018 decision by President Trump to withdraw from the deal.The Russian Foreign Ministry called the killing of General Suleimani “an adventurist step that will increase tensions throughout the region,” according to local news agencies.A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry called for restraint on all sides, “especially the United States.”“China has always opposed the use of force in international relations,” the spokesman, Geng Shuang, said at a daily news briefing, according to news agencies.Britain’s foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, called on Friday for a de-escalation in tensions and said that further conflict in the region was not in his country’s interest.“We have always recognized the aggressive threat posed by the Iranian Quds force led by Qassim Suleimani,” Mr. Raab said in a statement. “Following his death, we urge all parties to de-escalate.”Federica Mogherini, the former European high representative for foreign and security policy, said on Twitter that the general’s killing was “an extremely dangerous escalation.”In France, the country’s junior minister for European affairs, Amélie de Montchalin, said that she would soon consult with countries in the region.“We have woken up to a more dangerous world,” Ms. de Montchalin told French radio, calling for “stability and de-escalation.”ImageCredit...Alkis Konstantinidis/ReutersNetanyahu praised Trump for the strikes.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel cut short an official visit to Greece to return to Israel on Friday after the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.Before boarding the plane, Mr. Netanyahu praised President Trump for “acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively.” General Suleimani, a longtime adversary of Israel, was credited with overseeing many attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets and he was linked with an attack on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in the 1990s. More recently, he was behind military actions from Syria, across Israel’s northern frontier. Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls the Palestinian coastal territory of Gaza, condemned what it called “U.S. bullying” that it said served the interests of Israel.It offered condolences to Iran on the death of General Suleimani, saying in a statement that he had “played a major and critical role in supporting Palestinian resistance at all levels.” Bassem Naim, a spokesman for the group, said on Twitter that the assassination “opens the doors of the region to all possibilities, except calm & stability.”ImageCredit...Erin Schaff/The New York TimesCongress is divided over the killing. Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded that the administration brief the full Congress on the strike and the next steps under consideration, noting that the move was made without lawmakers’ consultation or an authorization of military force.Ms. Pelosi spoke with Mark T. Esper, the defense secretary, Thursday night after the attack, an aide said, but was not given advance notice.The strike, Ms. Pelosi said in a statement late Thursday evening, “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America — and the world — cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.”In stark contrast, Republican lawmakers — including both Iran hawks and those who have frequently clashed with Mr. Trump over his foreign policy — have almost uniformly praised the move.“Will there be escalation? Yes. But the escalation is not on our part,” Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who was stationed twice in Iraq with the Air Force, told CNN. “We’re finally responding to continued provocations by Iran.”The strike immediately spurred debate among American lawmakers about President Trump’s war powers and left congressional leaders sharply divided along party lines. Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, accused Mr. Trump of bringing the nation “to the brink of an illegal war with Iran.”Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said on Twitter that Mr. Trump had “exercised admirable restraint” and added that the Quds Force were “entirely to blame.”Reporting was contributed by Ben Hubbard, Farnaz Fassihi, Megan Specia, Isabel Kershner, Ronen Bergman, Lara Jakes, Eileen Sullivan, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Elian Peltier, Catie Edmondson, Benjamin Mueller, Alan Yuhas, Nick Cumming-Bruce, Nicole Perlroth, Ben Decker and Joan Nassivera. | 0 |
His reassuring words to second grader Layla Salas came during a CNN town hall in Wisconsin on Tuesday night when he also tried to move the nation on from the divisive aftermath of the impeachment trial of the predecessor he referred to as "the former guy.""For four years, all that's been in the news is Trump. The next four years, I want to make sure all the news is the American people. I'm tired of talking about Trump," Biden said, depriving the ex-President of the attention he craves.That particular moment emphasized Biden's chosen position in the center of American politics where he won the election. His unwillingness to seek public revenge against his just-impeached predecessor, or to join other prominent Democrats in vociferously condemning the Republican senators who voted to acquit former President Donald Trump over the US Capitol insurrection, may disappoint more radical members of his own party. But with his restraint, Biden practiced what he has preached: an effort to bring a fractured nation together and to ensure that political disagreements don't become "uncivil wars."In these two answers, the President took care of the politics of his prime time appearance in which he needed to show compassion for a country demoralized by a year-long battle against the virus and to lead it out of Trump's dark shadow.The President also offered some hope -- with a specific promise against which he will be judged -- for 600 million doses of vaccine to be available by the end of July."What's going to happen is it's going to continue to increase as we move along. We will have reached 400 million doses by the end of May and 600 million by the end of July," Biden told CNN's Anderson Cooper in Milwaukee.Questions Biden cannot answer But on some substantive questions that Americans desperately want answered -- including how long the pandemic will last and when everyone can get the vaccine -- Biden could not give definitive answers. And there is fresh confusion and some equivocation from the administration on when all kids will be back in school and whether or not vaccinating teachers is a prerequisite for it to happen.Biden's prediction that life could be back mostly to normal by Christmas may strike many Americans, who had longed for freedom to return with the spring and the summer, as daunting evidence of a long haul ahead.He also seemed to take pains not to over promise on the question of when children can return to in-person learning. He hoped kindergarten through eighth grade pupils could go back to five days a week, and that this could happen by the end of his 100 days in office in April. But he couldn't say when older students, who are more susceptible to spreading Covid-19, would get the same treatment. He did advocate for pushing teachers to the front of the line for vaccinations, in an effort to get schools open more quickly, amid criticism from Republicans that he is unwilling to upset teachers unions, a powerful Democratic constituency.Vice President Kamala Harris said on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday that teachers should be "a priority," but she left it up to states on who should get vaccinated when. And in an appearance on CNN's "New Day," the vice president's chief spokeswoman Symone Sanders repeatedly declined to answer whether the President thinks that kindergarten through grade eight schools can open even if teachers have not been vaccinated, repeatedly peddling the administration line that teachers should be "prioritized" that fails to clarify the question.Biden's caution could be the positioning of a politician who is setting low targets he thinks he can outperform. It is appropriate given the capricious nature of a virus that is mutating in a way that makes it more infectious and potentially more resistant to vaccines."I don't want to over promise anything here," the President said, contrasting sharply with his predecessor's predictions that church pews would be full by Easter 2020 and that the virus would magically disappear.The President was disingenuous when he blamed poor reporting and a "miscommunication" on the perception that his team saw children in school buildings for one day a week as a mark of success. The comment came from his White House last week and was later walked back.Biden also said inaccurately that there were no vaccines when he took office -- a puzzling statement given that he received both doses of the Pfizer/BionNTech vaccine before his inauguration. There were limited doses developed by private companies and scientists in an impressive initiative sponsored by the Trump administration, but the former White House made a poor first of the initial rollout that badly complicated Biden's own plans. Even still, about 1 million doses per day were being administered by the time Biden took office on January 20.Still, Biden's missteps paled in the comparison to the hurricane of lies, false statements, bitter political attacks and self-aggrandizement that regularly dominated Trump's appearances in rally speeches and town hall events on conservative media.And despite his characteristic stumbling over some precise figures, the President came across as far more engaged and well briefed on all aspects of the pandemic than senior officials in the Trump administration.'You're going to be fine'With his self-deprecating asides, easy interaction with the audience and folksy recycling of his parents' "God love you" wisdom, Biden displayed the capacity to emotionally connect with individuals and a sense of humanity that enabled him to cross over some partisan divides in his election win.This shone through his encounter with Jessica Salas, a Milwaukee graphic designer who told him that her children often ask whether they will get Covid-19 and die."Kids don't get Covid very often. It's unusual for that to happen," Biden told Salas and her daughter, Layla, displaying a keen sense of the isolation of kids who can't go to school and go out and play with their friends."Don't be scared, honey. Don't be scared. You're going to be fine, and we're going to make sure mommy's fine, too," Biden told the little girl.It was the conversation that millions of Americans have had with their children over the last 11 months, and reflected Biden's capacity as a grandfather to speak to children on their level and the emotional depth of a man who has known deep personal pain and tragedy in his own life.Salas told CNN that Biden addressing her daughter like that was a "totally unexpected" moment."And that was really, really awesome. Afterwards she was like, 'Mommy, he told us everything's gonna be OK.' Which, obviously, wasn't his exact words, but the fact that she felt his sentiment meant a lot," Salas said.The President also touched on other points during the more than 60-minute town hall, including immigration, promising a "reasonable path to citizenship" for undocumented migrants who he said needed to be treated with "dignity." In one meandering answer in which he meditated on the racial awakening sparked by the killing of Minnesota man George Floyd at the hands of police last year, the President declared, "We have a chance now, a chance now, to make significant change in racial disparities." However, it was difficult to clearly pinpoint a clear set of policies in what even he admitted were long-winded remarks.In more reflective moments, Biden also revealed that every living President but one had called him since he moved into the White House last month. He didn't reveal private conversations but his mischievous grin directed at Cooper left no doubt that the missing connection was with Trump.The President also revealed that he had never been up in the White House residence before he took the oath of office, and talked of his discomfort at accepting help from the domestic staff that serves the First Family."I was raised in a way that you didn't look for anybody to wait on you. And it's where I find myself extremely self-conscious," he said, encapsulating a performance characterized by presidential humility that he sees as the antidote to a scary and polarized time in American history. | 0 |
Case in point: One of the two White House staffers who tested positive for coronavirus, Pence spokesperson Katie Miller, briefed reporters last Thursday without a mask outside a nursing home in Arlington, Va. Pence was there to distribute personal protective equipment to the home. The next day, Miller was removed from Air Force Two after receiving a positive test result, along with six other staffers who were in contact with her recently. Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Debra Saunders, who was covering the nursing home event, noted that Miller at one point “coughed, then quipped that she didn’t have the coronavirus. I shrugged off the remark.”The White House is now scrambling to ramp up its own safety procedures — even as Trump encourages the country to begin reopening — amid concerns that Miller and the military valet to the president who also tested positive may have infected others. The concerns about a potential West Wing outbreak highlight the exact reason public health officials recommend that people should wear masks in public — and stay home if they have been exposed: It's possible to be an asymptomatic carrier of the highly infectious disease. Miller, who tested negative as recently as the day before and “told other colleagues that she did not have symptoms, attended a senior staff meeting on the coronavirus at 8 a.m. on Friday and was near other aides, rattling some of her White House colleagues,” our colleagues Seung Min Kim, Josh Dawsey, and Amy Goldstein report. “Like other members of the White House staff, Ms. Miller did not regularly wear a mask while at work,” per the New York Times's Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman.But while the White House management office sent out an all-staff memo on Friday encouraging employees to “practice maximum telework” and to “work remotely if at all possible,” it “did not suggest that employees wear masks, as the CDC has suggested for all Americans in public spaces,” per our Post colleagues. “Masks generally protect other people from the person wearing the face covering, rather than preventing the individual from contracting the virus.” One potential reason those on White House grounds — especially those in proximity to Trump — have not been wearing masks: “The president sees it as a sign of weakness to wear masks and so people just haven’t been doing it,” one current White House staffer told a former colleague, a person familiar with their conversation told our colleagues Anne Gearan, Josh Dawsey, and Carol Leonnig. This could change — but probably not for everyone: Trump said on Friday during an interview with Fox News that certain staff members will now cover their faces. (Multiple members of the U.S. Secret Service have now tested positive and those stationed at the White House have reportedly started wearing masks regularly.) From an ABC reporter:There’s been little to no mask wearing in the White House. Discussions of secret service agents close to Pres. & in vicinity of the Oval Office to begin wearing masks, per sources. Some agents already on ground during Trump’s trip last wk were seen wearing masks. W/ @Santucci— Katherine Faulders (@KFaulders) May 11, 2020
And not everyone is self-isolating: The response from potentially exposed White House officials has been inconsistent, with “some senior members of the pandemic task force self-quarantining while others planned to continue to go to work,” Seung Min, Josh and Amy report. This could heighten the health risks: Another CDC guideline is for most workplaces to instruct potentially exposed employees to stay home for 14 days and self-monitor for symptoms. Pence, who has tested negative, is coming to work: “Late Sunday, the White House put out a statement saying that Mr. Pence would not alter his routine or self-quarantine,” per the Times. Pence “has tested negative every single day and plans to be at the White House tomorrow,” his spokesman Devin O’Malley said.Key members of the task force are staying home: “Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, both task force members, said they are self-quarantining or teleworking for two weeks after exposure to a coronavirus case at the White House.”Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases official, will be taking precautions that include “a mix of teleworking and wearing a mask during in-person meetings,” his spokesperson told Amy Goldstein and Hannah Knowles. Fauci, per his aide, is “considered to be at relatively low risk based on the degree of his exposure. Nevertheless, he is taking appropriate precautions to mitigate risk to any of his personal contacts while still allowing him to carry out his responsibilities in this public health crisis.”“But several administration officials said White House staffers were encouraged to come into the office by their supervisors, and that aides who travel with [Trump] and [Pence] would not stay out for 14 days, the recommended time frame to quarantine once exposed to the virus,” Seung Min, Josh and Amy report.Key quote: “It is scary to go to work. I think that I'd be a lot safer if I was sitting at home than I would be going to the West Wing,” Kevin Hassett, an economic adviser to Trump, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “But, you know, it's the time when people have to step up and serve their country.” It's possible the White House's rapid testing system may have given officials a false sense of security. There's no way to monitor the exact point of infection without testing constantly — a point Trump acknowledged even as he sought to tamp down on the value of testing in general. “This is why the whole concept of tests aren’t necessarily great. The tests are perfect, but something can happen between the test where it’s good and then something happens and all of a sudden — she was tested very recently and tested negative and today I guess for some reason she tested positive,” Trump told reporters on Friday. (Worth noting: This is, incidentally, another reason experts argue for masks in the workplace.)And the test itself may yield false negatives: “The White House is frequently testing its staff using ID Now, a rapid test by Abbott Laboratories that can generate a result in five to 13 minutes,” the Times reports. “The benefit is its speed and portability; the testing machine is about the size of a toaster oven. But some hospitals and doctors found that it was turning up too many false negatives — cases in which people really had the virus, but the test said they did not.”More steps coming: “The president’s physician and White House operations continue to work closely to ensure every precaution is taken to keep the president, first family and the entire White House complex safe and healthy at all times,” White House spokesman Judd Deere told Power Up last night. “In addition to social distancing, daily temperature checks and symptom histories, hand sanitizer, and regular deep cleaning of all work spaces, every staff member in proximity to the president and vice president is being tested daily for covid-19 as well as any guests.”The Friday memo "also told employees they must quarantine for 14 days if they leave the Washington region and must report all of their travel,” per Seung Min, Josh and Amy.But most people in the United States still don't have the ability to test as frequently as White House officials — and capacity is still below the level that public health experts say is necessary to schools and businesses to reopen. The risks have already become apparent in places that haven't closed or implemented enough measures to stop the spread. An outbreak has emerged at Tyson Foods pork plant in Waterloo, Iowa, where workers continued business as usual during the pandemic with minimal safety precautions: “As of Thursday, the county health department had recorded 1,031 coronavirus infections among Tyson employees — more than a third of the workforce. Some are on ventilators. Three have died, according to Tyson,” the New York Times's Ana Swanson, David Yaffe-Bellany and Michael Corkery report. Expect testing — and the White House's access to it — to be a big issue on the (mostly virtual) campaign trail: “The Trump administration could focus on producing and distributing adequate testing and protocols that conform with the guidance of public health experts; doing so would speed up the reopening process considerably and make it a whole lot more effective,” presumptive Democratic nominee and former vice president Joe Biden writes in an op-ed out this morning for The Post. “The administration is fully aware that this is the right path, too — after all, the president and his staff are now reportedly receiving daily tests,” Biden continued. They knew exactly how to make the Oval Office safe and operational, and they put in the work to do it. They just haven't put in that same work for the rest of us. If Trump and his team understand how critical testing is to their safety — and they seem to, given their own behavior — why are they insisting that it's unnecessary for the American people?” Senior White House economic officials attempted to reassure the American public on May 10 that the economy will bounce back. (The Washington Post)The PeopleTOP TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISERS SAY JOB MARKET COULD GET WORSE: “The statements from [Hassett] and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin came three days after the Labor Department reported its highest unemployment figures since the Great Depression,” Aaron Gregg, Felicia Sonmez, Lenny Bernstein and Carolyn Y. Johnson report.Hassett said "nobody knows" when those who lost their jobs will be able to return to work: "To get unemployment rates like the ones that we’re about to see . . . which I think will climb up towards 20 percent by next month, you have to really go back to the Great Depression to see that,” he said told Margaret Brennan.Mnuchin argued that the job market should begin to improve by September: When asked by [”Fox News Sunday" host Chris] Wallace whether the country’s unemployment rate was “close to 25 percent at this point, which is Great Depression neighborhood,” Mnuchin said, “Chris, we could be.”The PoliciesWHITE HOUSE WARY OF STIMULUS PRICE TAGS: “Senior Trump administration officials are growing increasingly wary of the massive federal spending to combat the economic downturn and are considering ways to limit the impact of future stimulus efforts on the national debt, according to six administration officials and four external advisers familiar with the matter,” Jeff Stein, Josh Dawsey and John Hudson report.What's on the table: “Some White House officials have gone as far as exploring policies such as automatic spending cuts as the economy improves, or prepaying Social Security benefits to workers before they become eligible, although these measures are unlikely to advance given the political stakes, said these officials and advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of internal deliberations.”The biggest effect may be on the next phase of stimulus: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has vowed an additional $2 trillion package, including hundreds of billions in aid for states,” our colleagues write. “Numerous congressional Democrats have also called for making the $1,200 stimulus checks recurring, so they arrive in Americans’ bank accounts every month until the crisis abates.”But some White House advisers are urging a “pause”: “I think that many people would like to just pause for a moment and take a look at the economic impact of this massive assistance program, which is the greatest in United States history,” National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” while pledging to continue conversations with both parties.Concerns about deficit are coming from traditional conservatives in the White House: That includes new chief of staff Mark Meadows and acting budget director Russ Vought. But it's unclear whether Trump will share their concerns, he also promised during the 2016 campaign not to touch Social Security or Medicare.Some voters are apparently skeptical that Trump will keep his word: “About 39 percent of voters think Trump is more likely to cut Medicare, while 51 percent say presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is more unlikely to cut their benefits, according to a 17-page Republican National Committee poll shown to the president last month, according to a person with knowledge of its findings,” our colleagues write.A protest was held at the Glynn County Courthouse in Brunswick, Ga., on May 8, 2020, to call for justice in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. (The Washington Post)Outside the BeltwayGEORGIA AG ASKS DOJ TO LOOK INTO ARBERY'S KILLING: “Ahmaud Arbery’s fatal shooting in February spurred public outrage last week after video emerged showing the 25-year-old trying to run by a pickup truck with two armed white men, before struggling with them and falling to the ground dead when shots were fired,” Hannah Knowles reports.More details: Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr requested “Bobby Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, lead a ‘complete and transparent review of how the Ahmaud Arbery case was handled from the outset,’” the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Christian Boone reports.What they might be looking into: Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson has faced accusations from two county officials that she stopped officers from making arrests the day Arbery was killed. She has denied those claims. Before retiring one of the armed men, Greg McMichael, worked in Johnson’s office. (Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Colby Itkowitz have more details about the case.)Remember charges were only filed after the footage went viral: “The Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested retired police detective Gregory McMichael and his son, Travis, on Thursday on charges of murder and aggravated assault, after the elder McMichael told officers that he pursued Arbery in the belief he was behind neighborhood burglaries," our colleague writes.The CampaignAS TRUMP GOES, SO GOES THE SENATE?: “Republicans are increasingly nervous they could lose control of the Senate this fall as a potent combination of a cratering economy, [Trump’s] handling of the pandemic and rising enthusiasm among Democratic voters dims their electoral prospects,” Seung Min Kim and Mike DeBonis report.Key quote: “It is a bleak picture right now all across the map, to be honest with you,” one Republican strategist closely involved in Senate races who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss concerns within the party told our colleagues. “This whole conversation is a referendum on Trump, and that is a bad place for Republicans to be. But it’s also not a forever place.”Where the race stands: “Strategists from both parties said the key battles for Republicans remain races in North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Maine and, to a lesser extent, Iowa,” our colleagues write. The GOP's hope for a lone pickup to pad their slim three-seat majority is in Alabama, where Democratic Sen. Doug Jones faces voters after his shocking special election upset.Dems are also outpacing Republicans in fundraising: “The first quarter of 2020 was also a boon in fundraising for Democrats, with 10 challengers outraising GOP opponents in seats currently held by Republicans: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Carolina and South Carolina. The only closely watched race where the Republican incumbent raised more cash than the Democrat was Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa.” PARTIES STRUGGLE TO PLAN CONVENTIONS: “The Republican National Committee has asked the federal government to provide personal protective gear for political conventions this summer, underscoring the challenges of staging the quadrennial events during a pandemic …,” Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer and Annie Linskey report.For now, the DNC is not following suit: “A White House official said no decision has been made on providing the PPE for conventions but that the political gatherings have been viewed in the past as national security events. The official confirmed that [RNC Chairwoman Ronna] McDaniel has raised the issue with the White House.”Trump wants a convention: “The president wants to go full steam ahead,” McDaniel told our colleagues. “We are full steam ahead for in person, in Charlotte.”“The Republican convention organizers hired a medical adviser on Thursday that might recommend ‘adjustments,’ McDaniel said, but added it was too soon to know. “One person with direct knowledge of the planning said ‘it is difficult to imagine a scenario where everyone is sitting right next to another person in the arena.’”Democrats don't want to zoom alone: “Party leaders are concerned about the optics of Trump pulling off an in-person event while Democrats switch to a socially distant television broadcast,” our colleagues write. “Some Democratic officials are also fearful that their delegates will be afraid to attend the event.”Changes they're considering: Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), a co-chair of the host committee for the Milwaukee event, described planning that was underway for more socially distant meetings and new hygiene measures to keep microphones clean during events.In the MediaWHAT ELSE YOU NEED TO KNOW:Metro doesn't expect to be fully back until Spring 2021: “Instead, the transit agency plans to slowly ramp up service and will ask the region’s employers to limit daily commuters by staggering work schedules and encouraging telework,” Justin George reports.The plan will be presented to Metro's board on Thursday: “It relies heavily on elected leaders, federal officials, military brass and chief executives to keep passenger numbers low so rail cars and buses don’t become dangerously crowded and worsen the spread of infection," our colleague writes. "Customers shouldn’t expect any major service improvements over what is available now until at least fall; Metro plans to keep the same reduced-service schedule until the start of the school year.”Trump administration reportedly to accuse China of attempting to hack covid research: “The alert, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security, is expected to accuse Beijing of working to steal from American institutions intellectual property and health information related to coronavirus vaccines and treatment through hacking and other illicit means and may come within days, the person said. The warning was not finalized and plans around its release could change, the person said,” the Wall Street Journal's Dustin Volz reports.A Sioux tribe in South Dakota is refusing to take down checkpoints panned by the governor: The office of Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) has said checkpoints along U.S. and state highways through tribal land are “not legal” and vowed to take the issue to federal court if they don't come down. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Chairman Harold Frazier, who leads one of the tribe's Noem has written to on Friday, told CNN that the checkpoints are not coming down, Sara Sidner, Leslie Perrot, Artemis Moshtaghian and Susannah Cullinane report.Frazier said his tribe is ill-equipped to handle a potential outbreak: “With the lack of resources we have medically, this is our best tool we have right now to try to prevent [the spread of Covid-19]," he told CNN. He added that “the nearest health care, critical care is three hours away from where we live.”New York's reopen remains far off: “The factors that made the city the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic — its density, tourism and dependence on mass transit — complicate a return to any semblance of normalcy. The city is still far from meeting the public health metrics necessary to reopen, from available critical-care beds to new hospital admissions for the virus,” the Times's J. David Goodman and Michael Rothfeld report.From singing in the rain to driveway dancing, families separated by social distancing still found ways to celebrate on Mother's Day weekend. (The Washington Post)Some of the best Mother's Day messages:New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) spoke to his mother, Matilda during his daily new conference. “Happy Mother's Day to you mom. I miss you. I love you so, so much,” he said. “I wish I could be with you, but I can't be. But I can't be, because I love you. That's why I can't be with you, because I love you.”Sopan Deb wrote in the New York Times about calling his mother for the first time in years and their steps toward reconciliation.Amy Saltzman in The Post's Magazine retraced the political career or her mom, Bettylu Saltzman, who despite never holding a paid-position on a campaign has become a force in Illinois politics and is credited when connecting a young Barack Obama to David Axelrod. | 0 |
The city of Minneapolis has agreed to pay $27m to settle a civil lawsuit with the family of George Floyd, even as jury selection was under way in the murder trial of the former police of the former police officer, Derek Chauvin, who killed him.The city council unanimously approved the settlement on Friday. The council emerged from closed session to announce the move, which includes $500,000 for the neighborhood where Floyd was arrested.The Floyd family attorney, Ben Crump, said in a prepared statement that it was the largest pre-trial civil rights settlement ever in a wrongful death lawsuit, and “sends a powerful message that Black lives do matter and police brutality against people of color must end”.Floyd, who was Black, was declared dead on 25 May 2020 after Derek Chauvin, a former police officer who is white, pressed his knee against his neck for almost nine minutes. Floyd’s death sparked mass protests in Minneapolis and across the US and led to a national reckoning on racial justice.“I hope that today will center the voices of the family and anything that they would like to share,” the council president, Lisa Bender, said. “But I do want to, on behalf of the entire city council, offer my deepest condolences to the family of George Floyd, his friends and all of our community who are mourning his loss.”Floyd’s sister, Bridgett Floyd, said in a statement: “On behalf of all of my family members, I am pleased that this part of our tragic journey to justice for my brother George is resolved.”She added: “Our family suffered an irreplaceable loss May 25 when George’s life was senselessly taken by a Minneapolis police officer. While we will never get our beloved George back, we will continue to work tirelessly to make this world a better, and safer, place for all.”Floyd’s family filed the federal civil rights lawsuit in July against the city, Chauvin and three other fired officers charged in his death. It alleged the officers violated Floyd’s rights when they restrained him, and that the city allowed a culture of excessive force, racism and impunity to flourish in its police force.George Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, said of the settlement: “Even though my brother is not here, he’s here with me in my heart. If I could get him back, I would give all this back.”“That dollar amount shows that what happened to George Floyd was wrong. It goes to show that we matter but it’s an opportunity to show that these types of injustices are wrong. It was a clear violation of George Floyd’s civil rights. It shouldn’t have happened,” said Todd Gramenz of Black Lives Matter St Paul.Black Lives Matter Saint Paul was established in 2014 after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson. They have been organizing protests and lobbying since then.Gramenz added that you cannot really put a dollar value on a life. “How do you value a Black man, who’s innocent, that’s killed?” he said, and called for more police who kill to stand trial.Only one Minnesota police officer has been convicted a murder before, a Black officer who killed a white women, yet several hundred Minnesotans have suffered police-involved deaths in the last 20 years.It was not immediately clear how the settlement might affect the trial or the jury now being seated to hear it. Joseph Daly, a professor emeritus at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said it will be hard to stop jurors or potential jurors from hearing about it.“Judge Cahill will likely explain to the jurors that each must make a decision based solely on the evidence they hear in the criminal trial,” Daly said.Any praise for the settlement overlooks “how many families that have failed to get a settlement and how they have failed to hold police accountable”, DJ Hooker from the Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar campaign group told the Guardian.He added: “It’s good that we see that this happened with the $27m but on top of that, we need to make sure that happens for all families affected by police brutality. Everyone doesn’t get the same amount. It’s not fair. Everyone needs to be able to get money when their loved ones die.”However, Hooker said holding police officers accountable and protecting the community by preventing brutality and violence was vital.L Chris Stewart, an attorney who worked with Floyd’s family, said the size of the settlement “changes evaluations and civil rights for a Black person when they die”.“And what happens is that trickles down to decisions in the communities across this country. When there is a city council or a mayor deciding, ‘Oh, should we get rid of no-knock warrants, should we get rid of chokeholds, do we want to change these policies?’ They have 27m reasons now why they should,” he said.Meanwhile, with jury selection in its fourth day, seven people have been seated so far, with the jury roughly balanced between white people and people of color, according to the authorities.Opening statements are expected around 29 March. | 0 |
Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and one of the most high profile federal prosecutors in the country, says he’s been fired after refusing to resign his post.I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) March 11, 2017
In a full statement Saturday, Bharara reiterated that he had been fired.“One hallmark of justice is absolute independence, and that was my touchstone everyday I served,” he said.CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente had called Bharara Saturday to dismiss him.Acting deputy Attorney General Dana Boente just called US Attorney Preet Bharara and told him President Trump was firing him.— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 11, 2017
The Department of Justice asked the nation’s 46 federal prosecutors to resign on Friday, something that previous administrations have also done after coming into power. It came as a surprise that Bharara was asked to resign, because he said publicly in November that President Donald Trump had asked him to stay on.“The president-elect asked, presumably because he’s a New Yorker and is aware of the great work that our office has done over the past seven years, asked to meet with me to discuss whether or not I’d be prepared to stay on as the United States attorney to do the work as we have done it, independently, without fear or favor for the last seven years,” Bharara said in November. “We had a good meeting. I said I would absolutely consider staying on. I agreed to stay on. I have already spoken to Senator Sessions, who is as you know is the nominee to be the attorney general. He also asked that I stay on, and so I expect that I will be continuing to work at the southern district.”It is typical for new administrations to wipe the slate clean of U.S. attorneys after entering office, but former President Barack Obama did so on a rolling basis, allowing Bush holdovers to stay on until their successors were confirmed. The Trump administration announced on Friday afternoon that they were asking all remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys to resign struck observers as both blunt and abrupt.By Friday evening it was becoming less clear if Bharara would hand in his resignation letter. And on Saturday, both The New York Times and CNN reported that he had no intention of doing so. Bharara is charged with overseeing prosecutions against Wall Street and has brought down multiple high profile New York elected officials on corruption charges while in office. He is also conducting an investigation into Fox News. And as New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman noted, a candidate to replace Bharara is Marc Mukasey, a lawyer for former Fox CEO Roger Ailes, who resigned last summer amidst a number of sexual harassment allegations.Though it is within his power to dismiss Bharara, doing so at this juncture contains political peril for Trump, to the extent that it suggests he’s immunizing himself from potential investigations. The Southern District of New York ― Bharara’s jurisdiction ― includes Trump Tower, the home and office of Trump and the headquarters of his presidential campaign.But beyond those questions, request for Bharara’s resignation and his potential firing also illustrates the deterioration of Trump’s relationship with the Senate’s top Democrat, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).Bharara was once a Schumer aide. And it is no secret that the senator wanted him to remain in his post as U.S. Attorney during the Trump administration. When Trump announced in November that Bharara would, in fact, be kept on, it was not clear if he did so at Schumer’s behest or as a show of good will to the Minority Leader.A statement from Schumer at the time suggested that the notion originated with Trump. “President-elect Trump called me last week and asked me what I thought about Preet Bharara continuing his role as U.S. Attorney,” the November statement read. “I told him I thought Preet was great, and I would be all for keeping him on the job and fully support it.”And while CNN reported on Saturday that Trump had agreed to keep Bharara at Schumer’s request, a person familiar with the call said that wasn’t true.“It was Trump who proposed keeping Preet to Schumer, not the other way around. Trump people are spinning that this is a result of the deteriorating relationship, but this was not a favor Schumer asked of Trump. Trump proposed it, Schumer endorsed and facilitated it,” the person said.A request for comment to the White House on who initially asked for Bharara to stay on board was not immediately returned, though Schumer’s office put out a statement shortly after the news broke on Friday expressed concern with the decision.Schumer praised Bharara’s work in a statement released Saturday. “Preet Bharara has been an exemplary U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York,” he said. “His relentless drive to root out public corruption, lock up terrorists, take on Wall Street, and stand up for what is right should serve as a model for all U.S. attorneys across the country. He will be sorely missed.” This article has been updated with new details, additional comment from Bharara and Schumer.Students' Letters To Donald Trump | 0 |
Mexicans are deeply frustrated with immigrants after a year of heightened migration from Central America through the country, according to a survey conducted by The Washington Post and Mexico’s Reforma newspaper. More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States.Those findings defy the perception that Mexico — a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances — is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border. The face-to-face survey among 1,200 Mexican adults was conducted after a sharp increase in immigration enforcement by Mexico following a June agreement with the Trump administration. Trump promised that deal would reduce the number of migrants crossing into the United States. He threatened to impose major tariffs on Mexico unless it complied. For a year, Mexicans watched as a growing number of Central Americans moved through the country on their way to the U.S. border. Some of those migrants traveled by foot and bus in large caravans, sleeping in small-town plazas and relying on donations of food and clothes. Once they reached Mexico’s northern border, the migrants waited months for the United States to process their asylum claims, often overwhelming local shelters. While migration from Central America through Mexico has existed for years, the overall increase in migrants as well as their more visible modes of transit turned the phenomenon into a public lightning rod. The Trump administration’s immigration policy, which forces many asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their hearings, increased the pool of migrants in northern Mexico and exacerbated the frustration felt by many Mexicans. The Post-Reforma survey finds 7 percent of Mexicans say their country should offer residency to Central American immigrants traveling through Mexico and trying to enter the United States. Another 33 percent support allowing them to stay temporarily while the United States decides whether to admit them. But a 55 percent majority says they should be deported to their home countries.When Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador agreed to step up Mexico’s immigration enforcement to avert U.S. tariffs, many analysts expected his base to be disillusioned. López Obrador had long advocated for migrants’ rights and the freedom of movement for asylum seekers. But 51 percent of Mexicans support using the country’s newly formed national guard to combat migration of undocumented immigrants in Mexico, a key provision of the agreement. Just under half of Mexicans have heard about the June agreement, but among those who have, 59 percent favor it ,while 34 percent are opposed.Some dissatisfaction with the migration pact may come from López Obrador supporters who believe the agreement is unsympathetic toward Central Americans in search of refuge. But in parts of Mexico, the most vocal critique of the deal is that it has forced Mexican cities to contend with a growing pool of asylum seekers. In some northern cities, rumors have spread that African migrants are carrying Ebola. In others, officials say they’ve simply run out of places for migrants to stay. Last week, for example, the governors of three northern Mexican states, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas, signed a statement saying that they could not accept any more migrants. They blamed López Obrador’s administration for allowing so many asylum seekers to wait along Mexico’s northern border without offering more resources to the region. By August, Mexico expects to receive 60,000 asylum seekers who are forced by the United States to wait for their hearings on Mexican soil. López Obrador has said those migrants will be given work permits, but it remains unclear who will provide their shelter or food. Many are likely to spend months in Mexico before they are granted or denied asylum in the United States. “The number [of migrants] that the federal government is talking about is impossible for us to deal with,” said Miguel Ángel Riquelme Solís, governor of Coahuila, at a news conference. A total of 11.6 million documented and undocumented Mexican migrants live in the United States, but unauthorized migration from Mexico has declined sharply over the past decade. The Post-Reforma poll shows 78 percent of Mexicans say it’s harder to migrate to the United States than five years ago. This year, Guatemalans are on track to make up the largest group of migrants apprehended at the U.S. border. It would be the first time in recent history when Mexicans do not make up the largest group of migrants by nationality. López Obrador holds a 70 percent job approval rating eight months after entering office, a strong standing albeit down from 78 percent in a Reforma poll in March. While he took office as a lifelong populist, López Obrador quickly had to respond to threats from Trump, mostly about immigration enforcement. Many expected López Obrador — who once compared Trump’s hostility toward Mexicans to the way Adolf Hitler spoke of Jews — to condemn the U.S. president. Instead, he has largely submitted to Trump’s demands on migration. That posture prompted many Mexican public intellectuals to deride López Obrador as a puppet of the U.S. president. Commentators suggested that Mexico may not have paid for Trump’s border wall, but it had effectively “become the wall.”Yet the Post-Reforma poll suggests that such an approach hasn’t eroded López Obrador’s popularity very much. A 54 percent majority say he is standing up for Mexico’s interests in his dealings with Trump, though a similar 55 percent say the recent immigration agreement was imposed upon Mexico by the United States rather than being negotiated by the two nations. López Obrador gets relatively high marks for his treatment of migrants, with 44 percent saying he has done a good job on the issue and 27 percent rating him negatively.Mexicans continue to have an overwhelmingly negative opinion about Trump. More than three-quarters of Mexicans dislike Trump, according to the survey, and more than 8 in 10 say he treats their country with disrespect. The Post-Reforma poll finds a scant 2 percent of Mexicans name immigration as their country’s most important problem, with a 55 percent majority citing insecurity and 9 percent each mentioning corruption and unemployment. Another 7 percent name the economy, followed by 4 percent each who say poverty, political problems and social problems are the country’s more pressing concerns. A sizable minority of Mexicans see migrants as a safety risk, with 39 percent believing they commit more crimes than Mexicans; 21 percent believe they commit fewer crimes, and 31 percent don’t see any difference. Mexicans’ views of immigrants appear to have soured sharply in the past year. A 2018 survey by the Pew Research Center found 57 percent said immigrants mainly strengthen Mexico, while 37 percent said they weaken it. The Post-Reforma poll asked a similar question and found opinion reversed: 64 percent of Mexicans say migrants are mainly a burden on the country, and 20 percent see them as strengthening it.Despite concerns about security and immigration, Mexicans are positive on balance about their country’s trajectory. Some 40 percent say Mexico is on the right track, while 26 percent think it’s on the wrong track, and 32 percent fall in the middle. A 53 percent majority reports trust in the national guard, which was launched by López Obrador and has played a major role in increased immigration enforcement. Two-thirds of Mexicans say they would like the national guard to be in their city, and 45 percent say they feel more safe with the force in place. López Obrador receives positive marks on fighting poverty, corruption, dealing with education and health issues. His ratings for some other issues are underwater — 45 percent give him negative marks on fighting drug trafficking and organized crime (24 percent rate him positively), and 41 percent rate him negatively on security (while 32 percent give him positive marks). The survey was jointly sponsored by The Washington Post and Reforma. It was conducted July 9-14 among 1,200 Mexican adults through face-to-face interviews in 100 election districts across the country. The overall results have an error margin of plus or minus five percentage points.Emily Guskin contributed to this report. | 0 |
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) discusses the compromise spending plan during a television news interview on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) Congress declared a holiday truce in the budget wars Wednesday, sending President Obama a blueprint for funding the government through 2015. But the next skirmish was already on the horizon: an election-year fight over the national debt. The budget deal that passed the Senate on Wednesday amounts to a handshake agreement to avoid a government shutdown when a temporary funding measure expires Jan. 15. However, the accord does not address the need once again to raise the debt limit, setting up a potentially complicated confrontation in late February or early March. That fight would come just months before midterm congressional elections, and the GOP is deeply divided over tactics to deal with the debt, a core issue for the Republican base. Some conservatives are calling for another showdown, insisting on an additional round of spending cuts in exchange for granting the Treasury Department more borrowing authority to pay the nation’s bills. But GOP leaders, especially in the House, have no appetite for another Washington fiscal crisis that could destroy their popularity among voters, aides said. Instead, they are hoping for a more peaceful resolution modeled on the latest budget deal — a bipartisan compromise that solves small problems and aims to offend almost no one. “Republicans kind of look at this election as probably the best opportunity we’ve ever had at taking control” of the Senate, said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). As a political message, threatening to default on the debt “hasn’t really worked all that successfully in the past,” he said. Washington Post economic columnist Neil Irwin tells you everything you need to know about the new budget deal — in two minutes. (Sarah Parnass/In Play/The Washington Post) As they rushed to finish work and leave town for a three-week Christmas break, senators were more inclined to bask in the glow of the budget deal than to plot strategy for the debt limit. The agreement draws to a close nearly three years of fighting over agency budgets — battles that repeatedly risked shutting down the government and actually did close parks, museums and federal offices for 16 days in October. Congressional leaders appointed Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to negotiate a cease-fire. The resulting agreement would roll back sharp spending cuts known as the sequester over the next two years, sparing the Pentagon from more reductions and restoring billions of dollars for domestic programs. The $62 billion cost would be more than covered by $85 billion in alternative policies, such as higher security fees for airline passengers, deeper cuts for Medicare providers and less generous retirement benefits for federal workers, including military retirees younger than 62. The deal makes no effort to solve the nation’s biggest budget problem: a social safety net strained by an aging population. But it also would not raise taxes or reduce Medicare benefits, leaving each party’s core ideological commitments intact. Last week, the deal sailed through the House and, on Wednesday, it easily passed the Senate, 64 to 36. Nine Republicans joined all 55 members of the Senate Democratic caucus in voting yes. Murray stood in the well of the chamber as the vote unfolded, accepting pats on the back from colleagues in both parties. “The American people are sick and tired of the constant crises we’ve seen here in D.C. over the past few years,” Murray said on the Senate floor. “I am hopeful this deal can be a foundation for continued bipartisan work, because we have so many big challenges we need to tackle for the families and communities we represent.” Afterward, senators voted overwhelmingly to end debate on a defense bill that sets Pentagon policy and military pay levels. A final vote to approve the National Defense Authorization Act was scheduled for Thursday, with hopes rising that the chamber also would approve several pending nominations and head home Friday. Meanwhile, leaders of the congressional spending committees immediately began working on 2014 appropriations — the first in two years — to distribute about $45 billion in extra cash to federal agencies. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) was optimistic that she and her House counterpart, Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), could work through some minor disagreements and deliver an omnibus spending bill to Obama's desk by Jan. 15. “I’m like a Raven: It’s the fourth quarter. There are seconds to go on the clock. And I’m ready to kick a 61-yard field goal,” said an exultant Mikulski, referring to Baltimore’s come-from-behind victory over the Detroit Lions on Monday Night Football. Once that deadline is cleared, attention will turn to the national debt, which stands at $17.2 trillion. Enforcement of the debt limit has been suspended until Feb. 7, when Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said he will have about a month before he starts running short of cash to pay the nation’s bills. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president will not negotiate over the debt limit, sticking to the stance he adopted earlier this year. Although Republicans won $2.1 trillion in spending cuts — including the sequester — in exchange for raising the debt limit in 2011, they suspended enforcement of the debt limit twice this year without significant concessions. “The president’s position is unchanged. He will not negotiate over Congress’s responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has racked up,” Carney told reporters, adding that administration officials do not expect Republicans “to travel down this road again.” Republicans have devoted little thought to the debt limit, said senior aides and lawmakers. “There hasn’t been any discussion of it in any of the caucuses or committees that I’ve been on. And I don’t think it’s very clear what might happen,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who served with Ryan and Murray on the special panel tasked with forging the budget deal. This weekend, Ryan said that the GOP will demand something in exchange for raising the debt limit, but that party leaders had not decided what. “We don’t want ‘nothing’ out of this debt limit,” Ryan said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So we’re going to meet in our retreats after the holidays and discuss exactly what it is we’re going to try and get for this.” This week, Senate Republican leaders echoed that view. “The plan is no clean debt ceiling,” said Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate. “We’re going to fight for some control on spending, and I predict we’ll get it.” But even some conservatives were skeptical that party leaders would risk another economy-rattling standoff that could alienate voters so close to a critical election — especially after they proved willing to weaken the sequester to avert another shutdown. “I think they’ll raise the debt ceiling and they’ll punt and try to win the election [by running against] Obamacare. But they’re not going to do anything useful to head off the bankruptcy of the country,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said of GOP leaders. “The consensus is we gave up on budgetary restraint with this budget deal. And it doesn’t leave me any hope that all of a sudden . . . we’re going to have a spine on the debt ceiling.” Ed O’Keefe and Paul Kane contributed to this report. | 0 |
HELSINKI – President Donald Trump accepted denials by Russian President Vladimir Putin that Moscow interfered with the 2016 U.S. election Monday, bringing swift condemnation from members of Congress from both parties.After meeting privately with Putin for two hours in Helsinki, Trump said he held both the United States and Russia responsible for the deterioration in relations between the two countries. "I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish," he said.Trump also declined to challenge Putin's insistence that his country did not meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, even though U.S. intelligence agencies under two administrations and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Moscow sought to skew the election toward Trump. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump told a joint news conference with the Russian president. "I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia," Trump said. "I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be."Trump's embrace of Putin came on the last day of a weeklong European trip in which he berated NATO allies over their defense spending and undercut British Prime Minister Theresa May in the tabloids.His handling of the Putin meeting drew scathing reactions from lawmakers.Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said Trump had made the United States look like "a pushover" and said the president's remarks "saddened" him. Corker added that he thought Putin was likely celebrating the outcome of the meeting. “I would guess he’s having caviar right now,” said Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described the meeting in Helsinki as a "tragic mistake." “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant,“ said McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin." More:Intelligence chief Dan Coats counters Trump: 'We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling'More:European lawmakers: 'We're not on our own,' despite Trump's siding with PutinOn Friday, the Justice Department laid out details of what it said was a far-reaching hacking scheme in an indictment of 12 Russian agents whom it accused of trying to undermine the U.S. election.Putin told reporters through a translator that he was glad that Trump had defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election but said Moscow would "never interfere in internal American affairs."Trump's refusal to challenge Putin's denials of election meddling prompted an unusual response from the president's own director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, who reasserted his belief that Moscow attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. "We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling," Coats said in a statement. Lawmakers had urged Trump to press for the extradition of the 12 Russian intelligence agents named in the indictment but Putin did not commit to doing so.Putin also suggested that the two countries form a joint working group on cybersecurity that would look into the election issue.Putin proposed that same plan after they met at a Group of Seven summit in Germany last year. Trump initially supported it, but then reversed himself. Monday, he reversed himself again, calling it an "interesting idea."Some lawmakers had also called on Trump to reiterate the U.S. position opposing Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. Putin said that issue came up during their private meetings, but Trump did not discuss it during the press conference. As he has done before, Trump attacked the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian election interference.Trump said he ran a clean campaign and beat Clinton soundly in 2016.“Zero collusion," Trump said. "And it has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers in the world. ... It’s ridiculous what’s going on with the probe.”More:Trump and Putin hold two-hour, closed-door meeting on trade, nuclear arms and ChinaMore:Republicans blast Trump meeting with Putin as 'shameful' and 'sign of weakness'More:Analysis: Friends or foes? Trump's embrace of Putin prompts backlashContributing: Eliza Collins, Jessica Estepa, Nicole Gaudiano and Kevin Johnson in Washington | 0 |
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) confronted her critics — both Republicans and Democrats — on Thursday after Democratic losses in Tuesday’s House special elections brought new scrutiny to her leadership and fresh calls for her to step aside lest she drag down her party’s candidates in the 2018 midterms.After briefly addressing the health-care bill unveiled Tuesday by Senate Republicans, Pelosi spent the bulk of her weekly news conference playing down the special-election losses, defending her leadership and lashing out at a cadre of “blatantly self-serving” internal critics inside the House Democratic Caucus.“When it comes to personal ambition and having fun on TV, have your fun,” Pelosi said. “I love the arena. I thrive on competition, and I welcome the discussion. … But I feel very confident in the support that I have in my caucus.”She added: “Every action has a reaction, I try to say that to them. Every attack provokes a massive reaction that is very encouraging to me from my members, from our supporters outside and across the country.”Pelosi’s most vocal Democratic critics in recent days consist mainly of members who opposed her bid last year for an eighth two-year term as the party leader in the House.“Nancy Pelosi was a great speaker. She is a great leader. But her time has come and gone,” Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) said Thursday on MSNBC. “I believe that she is not the leader for the future of the Democratic Party. It’s that simple.”In the record-breaking special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, Republicans routinely featured Pelosi in TV ads and mailers attacking Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff — seeking to paint him as a liberal whose values were more in touch with Pelosi’s San Francisco district than suburban Atlanta.Top GOP leaders frequently say that they have no better ally in electing House Republicans than Pelosi, given her wide name recognition and dismal image among conservative and moderate voters — a point echoed Thursday by none other than President Trump.“Do I think it’s fair that the Republican playbook over the last four election cycles has been attacking Nancy Pelosi and demonizing her?” Rice said. “No. That’s not fair. Nor is it accurate. But guess what? It works. They’re winning. So we have to address that reality.”In retort Thursday, Pelosi said, “I think I’m worth the trouble, quite frankly.”“You want me to sing my praises, is that what you’re saying?” she said. “Well, I’m a master legislator. I am a strategic, politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country, and that is why I’m able to attract the [financial] support that I do, which is essential to our elections, sad to say. … I have experience in winning the Congress. When people said to us in ’05 that you don’t have a chance, be prepared for a Republican permanent majority, [former Senate Democratic leader] Harry Reid and I didn’t accept that.”Pelosi added that Republicans have long sought to target Democratic leaders in their advertising, “and usually they go after the most effective leaders.”“I don’t think that any party should allow the opposite party to choose their leaders,” she said. | 0 |
The Caucus | Romney Comments on Palestinians Draw Criticism See next articles See previous articles Romney Comments on Palestinians Draw Criticism By Ashley Parker July 30, 2012 11:28 am July 30, 2012 11:28 am 10:33 p.m. | Updated A revised version of this post is available here. 3:12 p.m. | Updated JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney found himself on the defensive yet again on his overseas trip, this time after offending Palestinian leaders with comments he made at a breakfast fund-raiser here on Monday. Speaking to roughly four dozen donors at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Mr. Romney suggested that cultural differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians were the reason the Israelis were so much more economically successful than the Palestinians, without mentioning the impact that deep trade restrictions imposed by the Israeli government have had on the Palestinian economy. He also vastly understated the income disparities between the two groups. In his speech, Mr. Romney mentioned two books that had influenced his thinking about nations — “Guns, Germs and Steel,” by Jared Diamond, and “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,” by David S. Landes. Mr. Diamond’s book, Mr. Romney said, argues that the physical characteristics of the land account for the success of the people living there, while Mr. Landes’s book, he continued, argues that culture is the defining factor. “Culture makes all the difference,” Mr. Romney said. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.” “As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” he said. In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks “racist.” “It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” Mr. Erekat said. “It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people.” The Palestinians live under deep trade restrictions put in place by the Israeli government: After the militant group Hamas in 2007 took control of Gaza – home to about 1.7 million Palestinians – the Israelis imposed a near-total blockade on people and goods in Gaza. The blockade has been eased, and now many consumer goods are allowed in. But aid organizations say the restrictions still cripple Gaza’s economy. The West Bank, where 2.5 million Palestinians reside, is also subject to trade restrictions imposed by the Israelis. In Gaza, according to the C.I.A., “Israeli-imposed border closures, which became more restrictive after Hamas seized control of the territory in June 2007, have resulted in high unemployment, elevated poverty rates, and the near collapse of the private sector that had relied on export markets.” The agency added that “changes to Israeli restrictions on imports in 2010 resulted in a rebound in some economic activity, but regular exports from Gaza still are not permitted.” And in the West Bank, “Israeli closure policies continue to disrupt labor and trade flows, industrial capacity, and basic commerce, eroding the productive capacity” of the economy. On Monday afternoon, Romney campaign officials did not respond to a query about whether Mr. Romney believes that the blockade of Gaza or trade restrictions in the West Bank have had any dampening effect on economic activity in those areas. Mr. Romney also understated the difference between per capita G.D.P. by a wide margin, suggesting that Israelis produce about twice what Palestinians do. In fact, according to an estimate by the Central Intelligence Agency, in 2009 Israel had a per capita G.D.P. of roughly $29,800, while in 2008 — the last year the C.I.A. has numbers on their Web site for the Palestinians — the per capita G.D.P. of the West Bank and Gaza was $2,900. Though Mr. Romney came to Israel to offer his support for the country, delivering a speech Sunday night in Jerusalem in which he offered a strong defense of Israel’s right to protect itself against the threat of a nuclear Iran, Mr. Romney also met Sunday with the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister, Salam Fayyad. In public, the two men made small talk about the London Olympics. After Mr. Romney’s remarks drew criticism, his campaign said that The Associated Press had “grossly mischaracterized” the remarks by not providing the full context. For instance, the campaign said, after mentioning the per capita G.D.P. of Israel and Palestine, Mr. Romney also said: “And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.” The comments Monday are the second time that Mr. Romney has unwittingly offended a group of people in a part of the world he was visiting. When he arrived in London on the first stop of his trip, Mr. Romney set off a media firestorm when he seemed to cast question on the city’s preparedness for the Olympic Games. Obama campaign officials criticized Mr. Romney’s latest remarks, describing them as the sort of thing that could make it more difficult for Mr. Romney to ever play a credible role in the Middle East peace process, which depends on having buy-in not from just Israelis but from Palestinian officials as well. American credibility and influence in that arena depend on “us being seen as an honest broker,” said Colin Kahl, an Obama campaign foreign policy adviser who served as the top Middle East policy official in the Pentagon from 2009 to 2011. “But in this case, Romney fell off the tightrope pretty dramatically.” “It was a really strange comment,” Mr. Kahl added, noting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict encompasses “extraordinarily complicated and delicate issues and is not something you can just wing it on and expect not to make some mistakes, and Governor Romney made a big one.” | 0 |
(CNN)The nonprofit group that administers the SAT said Thursday it will assign a score to students who take the test to reflect their social and economic backgrounds. The new score -- first reported by the Wall Street Journal -- comes amid heightened scrutiny that colleges are facing over the admissions process and the diversity of their student bodies.The College Board said it would implement what it calls the "Environmental Context Dashboard," which would measure factors like the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's neighborhood, to better capture their "resourcefulness to overcome challenges and achieve more with less.""There is talent and potential waiting to be discovered in every community -- the children of poor rural families, kids navigating the challenges of life in the inner city, and military dependents who face the daily difficulties of low income and frequent deployments as part of their family's service to our country," David Coleman, chief executive officer of the College Board said in a statement sent to CNN. "No single test score should ever be examined without paying attention to this critical context," he added. The Environmental Context Dashboard has been piloted at 50 colleges and universities, according to a spokesman for the College Board, and the organization hopes to make it more widely available to other schools next year.Students are scored on a scale of 1 to 100 based on data from records like the US census and the National Center for Education Statistics. According to the College Board, a score of 50 would be considered average, while a number above 50 indicates more hardship. The score takes into account information from the student's background, but it does not include race. Instead, it focuses on factors like their high school's average senior class size, percentage of students eligible for free and reduce lunches and academic achievement in Advanced Placement classes. A student's environment at home and in his or her neighborhood, like the crime level, the median family income and family stability, will be factors as well.Colleges will be able to see the number when considering applicants, but students themselves won't be told their scores. The news comes against the backdrop of a bombshell college admissions scandal, which saw a slew of indictments against wealthy and powerful parents who allegedly paid their kids' ways into elite universities. The scandal reignited the debate surrounding race and economic backgrounds and what role they play in college admissions.Some parents were found to have paid bribes to have the SAT taken by others for their children. Not all the students were aware of the cheating arranged by their parents, according to the criminal affidavit in the case. No students currently face charges in the scandal. A lawsuit against Harvard University also has accused the school of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by giving them low "personal" ratings that take into account traits such as leadership and likability -- which lessen their chance of admission -- while giving higher ratings to African-American and Hispanic students. Harvard has denied there is any evidence of stereotyping. A judge has yet to make a ruling in the case. The College Board has been concerned about income inequality influencing SAT results for a long time. White students scored higher on average than black students and Hispanic students in 2018, while Asian students scored higher on average than white students. And students whose parents are wealthy and college-educated typically did better than their peers. Yale University was one of the schools that tried using the adversity scores as it worked to increase socioeconomic diversity on its campus. Jeremiah Quinlan, the school's dean of undergraduate admissions, told the Wall Street Journal that Yale has nearly doubled the number of low-income students and those who are first in their families to attend college to about 20% of new students. "This (adversity score) is literally affecting every application we look at," Quinlan told the Journal. "It has been a part of the success story to help diversify our freshman class." | 0 |
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said Friday that he would not fire his adviser Kellyanne Conway, despite the US Office of Special Counsel's recommendation that she be removed from federal service for several violations of the Hatch Act."No, I'm not going to fire her. I think she's a terrific person," Trump told Fox News' "Fox and Friends.""I got briefed on it yesterday and it looks to me like they're trying to take away their right of free speech. And that's just not fair," Trump added. "She's got to have the right of responding to questions."The US Office of Special Counsel recommended on Thursday that Conway be removed from federal service, saying she violated the Hatch Act on numerous occasions.The office said Conway erred by "disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media." The office is unrelated to Robert Mueller and his investigation.Trump said Friday he was going to briefed on this further later in the day."I'm going to get a very strong briefing on it. I'll see. But it seems to me to be very unfair, it's called freedom of speech," he said. Special counsel Henry Kerner wrote in a letter to Trump Thursday that his office's investigative report found that Conway was a "repeat offender" of the Hatch Act. "Ms. Conway's violations, if left unpunished, would send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act's restrictions. Her actions thus erode the principal foundation of our democratic system -- the rule of law," the letter said. "If Ms. Conway were any other federal employee, her multiple violations of the law would almost certainly result in her removal from her federal position," Kerner's letter said. "Never has (the office) had to issue multiple reports to the President concerning Hatch Act violations by the same individual."A separate statement from the Office of the Special Counsel, issued alongside the report, said that "given that Ms. Conway is a repeat offender and has shown disregard for the law, (the office) recommends that she be removed from federal service." White House counsel Pat Cipollone rebuked the report in a letter response to the special counsel's office, writing that the office did not give the White House or Conway time to respond to the report. Cipollone also said that Conway's social media statements and media interviews did not constitute Hatch Act violations. | 0 |
Story highlightsHouse votes to form a select committee; Democrats undecided on taking part19 months later, Washington remains riven by the Benghazi terrorist attack A recently divulged email reignites fierce partisan debate from the 2012 election Republicans see the issue as a vulnerability for Hillary ClintonRepublicans call it a government cover-up similar to what forced Richard Nixon to resign. Democrats call it a right-wing conspiracy theory.The fallout from the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans continues more than 19 months later, with further details last week that raised questions about how the Obama administration responded to the violence less than two months before the President's re-election.Few issues reveal the hyper-partisan politics of Washington more than the ongoing debate over an issue now known simply as Benghazi.Last Friday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa announced that he had subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to testify at a May 21 hearing, alleging that the State Department failed to comply with an earlier subpoena for documents. House Speaker John Boehner followed up by announcing a special congressional committee led by a Republican colleague would investigate the matter. The House voted on party lines Thursday to create the panel, but Democrats have yet to decide if they will take part in what they claim could be a Republican-led witch hunt.Issa called the administration's lack of compliance "in violation of any reasonable transparency or historic precedent at least since Richard Milhous Nixon."At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney shot back that Republicans continued trying to reap political benefit with what he called conspiracy theories about a Benghazi cover-up."What we have seen since hours after the attack, beginning with a statement by the Republican nominee for president, is an attempt by Republicans to politicize a tragedy, and that continues today," Carney told reporters, adding that "what hasn't changed has been the effort by Republicans to ... claim a conspiracy when they haven't been able to find one."Here are some answers to questions about the latest twists in the story:What happened in Benghazi?In September of 2012, a demeaning video made in the United States about the Prophet Mohammed got posted on YouTube and sparked protests at U.S. embassies in the Muslim world.On September 11, the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, an assault occurred at a U.S. compound in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.The Obama administration initially blamed the Benghazi attack on a protest against the video that escalated into a full-blown tactical assault. As details emerged in ensuing days, it became clear that an al Qaeda-affiliated group took part in what was a coordinated terrorist attack instead of a spontaneous demonstration.Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a special panel called an Accountability Review Board to investigate what happened. The group led by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and retired U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering criticized aspects of diplomatic security and made 29 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the State Department.Why all the controversy?Coming less than two months before the presidential election, the Benghazi attack quickly became a political flashpoint.President Barack Obama had campaigned heavily on his decision to approve the mission that killed Osama bin Laden and boasted of putting the al Qaeda leader's organization "on the run."On September 16, five days after the Benghazi attack, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on Sunday talk shows and said the assault grew out of a protest against the controversial video.Republicans immediately challenged the administration's version of what happened, calling it an attempt by the Obama administration to hide a major security breakdown that signaled the broader failed policy in the region.Obama won re-election in November, but Republicans have mounted congressional investigations into what happened in Benghazi and why Rice gave an incorrect explanation to the American people.What is the Benghazi email everyone is talking about?Last Tuesday, the conservative group Judicial Watch made public State Department documents it received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.One of the documents was a previously undisclosed email on September 14, 2012, from Ben Rhodes, a national security official specializing in communications, that listed talking points for Rice about the protests that had erupted at U.S. embassies and compounds in the Muslim world.Among the goals listed in the Rhodes email was to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."Republicans contend the email proves White House manipulation of the messaging for political purposes in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi, despite the administration's contention that Rice relied on talking points provided by the CIA for the sake of uniformity of messaging."This is all about an effort to convince the American people that the president of the United States had everything under control," GOP Sen. John McCain said.Boehner and other Republicans questioned why the Rhodes email wasn't included in documents that the State Department provided to Congress under the earlier subpoena. In announcing the new subpoena of Kerry, Issa cited what he called "a disturbing disregard for the (State) Department's legal obligations to Congress."Carney argued that the Rhodes email referred to the broader topic of protests throughout the Muslim world, rather than the specific Benghazi attack.Meanwhile, a State Department spokeswoman took issue with Issa's latest subpoena, telling reporters it was a political stunt. Noting Kerry was scheduled to be out of the country on the date of the hearing in the subpoena, Marie Harf said Issa's committee "would have known if they reached out to us instead of issuing a subpoena."Is this new or just more of what we already knew?The existence of the Rhodes email is new, and that provides Republicans with a fresh front in their attacks on the administration over Benghazi.Labeling the situation a "defiance of the House's subpoena power," Boehner called it "the most flagrant example yet of the administration's contempt for the American people's right to know the truth about what happened when four Americans died in a fiery terrorist attack."However, the messaging contained in the Rhodes email is the same as included in previously released documents, such as the CIA talking points that Rice relied on.Carney noted that the only reference in the Rhodes email to Benghazi -- denying that there was actionable intelligence ahead of time of an imminent assault -- was lifted from the CIA talking points. I thought the government promised to release all information?The Obama administration previously pledged to release all pertinent information on Benghazi sought by Congress. Carney noted that it turned over 25,000 pages of documents and that various officials testified at a series of hearings by various congressional committees investigating the matter.Asked why the Rhodes email obtained by Judicial Watch hadn't been turned over previously, Carney said it came under a FOIA request that differed from the congressional subpoenas from Issa's committee.Underlying Carney's explanation was that the Rhodes email referred to the broader issue of protests rather than the specific Benghazi attack, which was the focus of the subpoenas.The talking points supplied by Rhodes were intended to prepare Rice for possible questions in her talk show appearances, he said, calling the document a normal duty of a communications officer in any government.Republicans questioned that explanation, noting the Benghazi attack would clearly be the dominant topic that Rice would face and arguing the administration clearly knew that.What's the upshot of all this?For Republicans, the issue resonates with their conservative base, especially the accusation that the administration failed to provide proper security for American diplomats and was unable to send military assets to respond to the Benghazi attack.At a hearing last week by Issa's committee, a retired Air Force general on duty at U.S. Africa Command that night complained that the military should have tried to save the Benghazi victims even if the effort would have been futile.When Republican Rep. James Lankford asked Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell "did we have their back that night," Lovell responded: "Obviously not, sir."Boehner's announcement of a special panel to further investigate Benghazi fulfilled a request by many GOP colleagues eager to frame the final years of Obama's presidency on their terms.Until now, Boehner had resisted calls to establish such a committee, pointing to the four House panels already investigating the matter.Democrats wanting to get past the issue portray Republicans as driven by partisan desire to hurt Obama. Carney has referred to what he described as GOP conspiracy theories regarding Benghazi that have failed to pan out."Everything that this committee would look at has already been looked at ad nauseam by multiple committees," Harf said. "What's the point?"Is there more than meets the eye?In Washington, always.The issue gives Republicans perhaps their lone line of attack against Hillary Clinton, the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 if she decides to run.A new poll Thursday showed Clinton's strong standing. The Quinnipiac University survey from Florida had Clinton topping former two-term Gov. Jeb Bush, the leading potential Republican contender in the nation's most populous swing state.Because Clinton was secretary of state when the Benghazi attack occurred, Republicans have sought to depict her as inattentive to security needs of diplomatic staff.At the Oversight Committee hearing last week, Lovell described how he and others desperately considered possible deployment of a rapid-force team to Benghazi, but needed a State Department request that never came."Were they doing what they were trained to do or were they sitting around and waiting for the State Department and Hillary Clinton to call them up and say do something?" GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah asked him.However, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, issued a statement that said his panel investigated the matter and found "no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources (the military) had available to respond."Democrats face what analysts expect will be a difficult mid-term election in November, with little chance of winning back the House from Republicans and facing the possibility of losing their majority in the Senate.Boehner's call for yet another congressional committee to investigate could provide Democrats with a rallying point to motivate voters to prevent Republicans from retaking the Senate in November and gaining full control of Congress. | 0 |
News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg held an immigration forum in Boston on Tuesday night, the second of two held in two cities that day to press both President Obama and Mitt Romney on immigration reform. The Chicago event featured former White House chief of staff William Daley. In Boston, Murdoch was the featured guest for Bloomberg and, via the Boston Globe, he questioned Mitt Romney's approach to Hispanic voters:
Both Murdoch and Bloomberg said they were mystified that Romney hasn’t done more to reach out to Latino voters by outlining plans to ease immigration rules and resolve the legal status of immigrants already here.
“Give them a path to citizenship,” Murdoch said. “They pay taxes. They are hard-working people. Why Mitt Romney doesn’t do it, I have no idea because they are naturally Republicans.”
Bloomberg added: “The Republicans walking away from the Latino community is about as dumb a strategy as any political party has ever adopted. "
Bloomberg has had equally tough words for the White House on this topic. While the mayor, who contemplated running for president himself, is clearly looking to have a voice in the national conversation, the fact that the two presidential campaigns have been fighting, again, over dog rides and dog meat today is a reminder of why he has an opening to do so. | 0 |
The investigation that led to the arrest of a federal contractor on charges of leaking classified material that was published by The Intercept website apparently was not the stuff of big-budget Hollywood spy films.The affidavit filed Monday against Reality Leigh Winner, 25, states that federal authorities contacted the FBI on Thursday and said a "News Outlet" had reached out two days earlier relating to an upcoming story. The Intercept, which published its story Monday, apparently provided authorities with a copy of a top-secret NSA document discussing details of alleged Russian interference in U.S. elections.Officials quickly determined the information was classified."The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages ... appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space," the affidavit says.An internal audit determined that six people had accessed and printed the intelligence report, the affidavit says."A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet," it says. "The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet."Read more:Federal contractor arrested after NSA document published on news siteDevin Nunes: No credible evidence of Russia-Trump collusionNo more phone calls, the FBI had a Winner. Unlike Edward Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong and then to Moscow after leaking classified documents, Winner was easy to chase down. FBI Special Agent Justin Garrick, based in Atlanta, spoke to her Saturday in her Augusta, Ga., home."During that conversation, WINNER admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a 'need to know,' and with knowledge that the intelligence reporting was classified," the affidavit says.It adds that Winner, who had "Top Secret" clearance while working as a contractor with Pluribus International Corp., admitted taking the classified report from her office space and mailing it to the news outlet, even though she knew the website was not authorized to receive or possess the documents. The complaint claims Winner even acknowledged that she "knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation."The Intercept says the NSA document details the Russian "spear-fishing" attack targeting local government employees with emails that appeared to be from e-voting vendors but were designed to allow hackers to infect and gain control of computers.In late October, the hackers sent emails to 122 addresses tied to "local government organizations," the document says, adding that "officials involved in the management of voter registration systems" were the likely targets."It is unknown whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what potential data could have been accessed by the cyber actor," the alleged NSA document says. "However, based upon subsequent targeting, it was likely that at least one account was compromised."The Intercept issued a statement Tuesday saying it obtained the report anonymously and did not know the source until the news broke late Monday."It is important to keep in mind that these (charging) documents contain unproven assertions and speculation designed to serve the government’s agenda and as such warrant skepticism," the statement said. "Winner faces allegations that have not been proven. The same is true of the FBI’s claims about how it came to arrest Winner."Contributing: Kevin Johnson | 0 |
Story highlights White House spokesman Jay Carney denies the change is related to midterm elections Health officials want to give insurers, consumers and IT pros more time to learn from mistakesThe delay won't affect 2014 coverage or sign-upsPresident Obama's approval rating has taken a beating over the glitches in the Affordable Care ActWhite House spokesman Jay Carney denied Friday that next year's midterm elections are the reason behind the administration's decision to postpone the 2014 opening date for 2015 enrollment in Obamacare -- from October 15 to November 15. Pushing back the start date, Carney said, will give insurers more time to get an idea of their new pool of customers before they set their 2015 rates. Some critics, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that the move was simply a political ploy and that any changes to health care plans, such as premium increases, for example, should be public before the election. But Carney said the administration expects more people to sign up for health care insurance at the end of the current, initial open enrollment period -- which ends March 31, 2014 -- in part because of the website problems, so starting the next enrollment window later in the year would buy insurers more time to assess the situation. "What was already going to be a back-loaded process is going to be more back-loaded, and that's going to leave insurers a lot of data to sort through in a short period of time," he said. The Department of Health and Human Services has also extended the sign-up period from roughly seven weeks to eight. The new deadline is January 15, 2015, Carney said. The two-month window is a lot shorter than the current six-month window for 2014 coverage, he said. Asked why the administration won't change the more pressing March 31, 2014, deadline, as even some Senate Democrats have asked, Carney said the administration still believes the remaining four months is enough time to get people signed up for insurance. Young adults are less likely than their older counterparts to take out a health insurance policy, but even without that issue, enrollment in Obamacare has been minute overall, particularly via the federal sign-up website HealthCare.gov.Exact numbers are hard to pin down in the 36 states using the site. But as of November 2, just 26,794 people had enrolled in the HealthCare.gov states. CNN's current tally for this group stands at less than 45,000 enrollees, but that's based on just a handful of states that have provided updates.In the 14 states running their own sign-up methods, the numbers look better but still dismal. At least 133,000 people had enrolled at last count.Many more have taken advantage of the expansion of Medicaid.Sticker shockThe Department of Health and Human Services hopes that the added time will encourage insurers to get coverage details right and make their plans more affordable, while consumers have more time to flush the devil out of the details.Some consumers were not only hit with high premiums during the rollout but also with deductibles above flood stage.People picking the bronze plan, which has the lowest premiums, will shell out about $5,000 before insurers foot the bills.Even then, policyholders will cover plenty out of pocket, like doctor visits, lab tests and medications."All we ever heard about Obamacare is that it would lower our deductibles and premiums," said Jennifer Slafter, 40 of Mabel, Minnesota. "That's just not what's happened."Slafter and her husband, Steve, are scrambling to find affordable care for themselves and their two children. The exchange's BlueCross BlueShield plan was $1,087 a month with a $6,000 deductible, while a Medica plan was $877 a month with a $12,700 deductible.Both are steeper than their current plan.Battle aheadAs a side effect, the enrollment delay could also give everyone more time to contend with the political battle over Obamacare and whatever changes to the Affordable Care Act that might result.Republicans on Capitol Hill have distributed a digital playbook among their ranks to align talking points against Obamacare. The strategy memo is titled "Because of Obamacare ... I lost my insurance" and includes videos, fliers and social media posts.The American people are handing President Obama a beating over the many glitches in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, with his approval ratings in polls bouncing down a staircase from one low point to the next.Obamacare is even less popular. | 0 |
The city that never sleeps is ready for a great awakening. After enduring more than 13 months of a global pandemic that ravaged the Big Apple, New York is taking a major step toward a return to normal with mask mandates and restrictions on businesses being lifted. Pedestrians walk across the street on E. 23rd St. and Broadway in Manhattan, New York. (Abrigail Williams/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS) Gov. Cuomo offered a celebratory pat on the back Wednesday, marking the “milestone” as a majority of the state’s COVID capacity limits are officially eased and vaccinated New Yorkers are allowed to ditch their face coverings in most circumstances. “New York is coming back, and it’s a testament to the strength and grit of New Yorkers who banded together, stayed tough, and fought as one to defeat this COVID beast,” the governor said in a statement. The reopening means capacity limits are lifted for most businesses, as well as restaurants, offices, churches, museums and theaters. There are no more mask or social distance requirements for those who are fully vaccinated, in compliance with the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. Face coverings are still required in schools, hospitals, on mass transit and for those not yet inoculated. Businesses can choose to continue to require masks for all customers. Additionally, the statewide curfew on outdoor food and drink service was lifted earlier in the week. The midnight curfew for indoor dining is scheduled to be lifted at the end of the month. A sign at Starbucks on W. 23rd St. and Fifth Ave. notifies fully-vaccinated customers that face coverings are optional starting May 19 in Manhattan, New York. (Abrigail Williams/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS) The sweeping changes come as the Empire State’s COVID cases and hospitalization rates drop to their lowest levels since last fall and nearly half of all New Yorkers have been immunized against the deadly virus that ravaged the Big Apple. The statewide positivity rate stood at 1% as of Tuesday and 1,521 New Yorkers remained hospitalized with the virus, according to the governor’s office. A group of friends take advantage of vaccinations, relaxed Covid guidelines and a beautiful day on Wednesday in Madison Square Park in Manhattan. (Wes Parnell/for New York Daily News) Another 21 people died of COVID, bringing the state’s death toll to 42,524. “This progress has been a function of the hard work and dedication shown by New Yorkers throughout this entire pandemic, and it’s because of that progress that we are able to ease restrictions on businesses and lift mask and social-distancing requirements for vaccinated individuals in most public places,” Cuomo said. “This is a huge milestone in our reopening and our efforts to build New York back better and stronger.” The governor also offered updated guidance for health and safety measures at child care, day camp, and overnight camp programs that include tracking vaccination status and documentation for all staff and children and mandatory daily health screenings for staff and visitors. Child care facilities, day camps and overnight camps must implement capacity limits and enforce mask-wearing mandates for unvaccinated kids and staffers under new rules. Staff who are not fully vaccinated must wear masks and maintain 6 feet of distance from other unvaccinated staff, and facilities must enforce capacity limits that ensure “appropriate” social distancing. Children over 2 who are not fully vaccinated must wear face coverings except when eating, drinking, showering, swimming or sleeping. “To help ensure maximum protections for staff and children at child care and camp programs, we are issuing this guidance so the facilities can implement basic but critical measures that will allow them to operate safely,” Cuomo said. | 0 |
How are news organizations not wise to this scam?That’s the reaction I had when I heard that ABC News had suspended reporter David Wright after Wright got secretly recorded by Project Veritas, the group run by conservative con artist James O’Keefe. Their goal is to “expose” media they see as biased and liberals they don’t like, which they usually do by recording people without their knowledge, then deceptively editing their comments and releasing them as an “exposé.”I’ll explain a bit about that history and how it relates to what just happened, but here’s the latest:The network disciplined David Wright, who reports for ABC’s signature news programs, including “World News Tonight,” “Good Morning America” and “Nightline,” several people confirmed late Tuesday.The choppy, poorly shot video, released Wednesday morning by Project Veritas, captured Wright on what appeared to be a hidden camera, seeming to complain in general terms about political coverage.“I don’t think we’re terribly interested in voters,” he said, echoing gripes about the superficiality of some aspects of White House and campaign coverage that have been raised by journalists for decades. Also: “Commercial imperative is incompatible with news.”Not only are they suspending Wright, they’re also banning him from political coverage once he returns. They might as well put up a billboard atop their headquarters reading, “C’mon, conservative grifters: Have at us. We’re a bunch of cowards and we’ll crumble under the least bit of pressure.”On the tape, which was taken at what appears to be a bar, Wright makes the kind of complaints about news coverage that any reporter will find familiar: It’s too focused on the outrage of the day, it’s caught in an endless cycle of triviality, it can’t figure out how to hold Trump accountable, and so on.None of what he says should be controversial in the least, though I’m sure his bosses didn’t like it when he said that much of what’s on “Good Morning America” is just about promoting other products of Disney, ABC’s parent company.But what’s important here is that this is a scam conservatives have been running for decades. It’s often referred to as “working the refs” — you accuse the media of “bias,” and even if you have no substance to back up your claim, if you do it often and loudly enough, they’ll bend over backward to disprove you, usually by being extraordinarily tough on Democrats (see “But her emails”).Among the conservatives who make this their life’s work, no one is as sleazy as James O’Keefe. In 2010, he and several others pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with a scheme in which the others posed as telephone repairmen in a Democratic Senator’s office. They had been arrested after the FBI alleged they tried to access the Senator’s phone system.In 2016, he or one of his associates called George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, left a message under an assumed name, then forgot to hang up the phone, leaving a lengthy recording in which they discussed their plan to infiltrate OSF.In 2017, he attempted to con The Post but was caught because our reporters did their jobs like the professionals they are. O’Keefe goaded a woman to claim falsely to Post reporters that she had been impregnated as a teenager by Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. The idea was that The Post would publish the story, then O’Keefe would reveal it to have been false to discredit the media and help diffuse the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct that had been raised against Moore.The fact that O’Keefe is a literal con artist has not prevented his organization from getting enormous support from establishment conservatives. According to Project Veritas’s 2018 tax form, the group raised almost $9 million that year. Among the people and organizations that have supported them is the Trump Foundation, which gave $10,000 in 2015 (and of course, the Trump Foundation was itself a scam and has since been shut down).Given all that, it is utterly shocking that ABC News would hear that Project Veritas has released a secret recording of one of ABC’s most senior reporters, then suspend him that very day, for comments that shouldn’t be controversial at all. Not only is it a monumental act of cowardice, it only encourages con artists such as O’Keefe, showing them that it takes almost nothing for them to make one of the largest news organizations in the country knuckle under.This isn’t about whether the media should take criticism seriously; of course they should. There are times when conservatives have legitimate complaints about the way one issue or another is covered, just as there are times when liberals have legitimate complaints. It should be part of our job to listen, be self-aware and be thoughtful about how to improve.But that’s the opposite of what happened here. ABC News executives decided to punish one of their top reporters for nothing, for no reason other than naked fear. They should be ashamed of themselves.Correction: A previous version of this story inaccurately described a 2010 incident involving O’Keefe and a Democratic senator’s office. It has been changed to accurately reflect the plea agreement O’Keefe reached with prosecutors. Read more: | 0 |
Nov. 6, 2016Credit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesI have tried, for the duration of this election, to stay informed, without being obsessive. It hasn’t been easy. The media has been frenzied, at best, particularly as they cover Donald J. Trump. Early on, cable news networks aired entire Trump events before he was even his party’s nominee. They created an unhealthy demand for “news” that they were more than happy to supply. There is no escape.People who care about this election, which is to say most people, have also become frenzied. At times, I see people reacting to the election online and I want to say, “Get ahold of yourselves.” There is an almost dark, sexual energy to how people talk about the portent Donald Trump, as if they are both disgusted and excited about each new terrible revelation about the Republican candidate. I watch these people and wonder why they are surprised, how they can be surprised.We knew everything we needed to know about Mr. Trump when he said Mexicans were rapists and when he called for barring Muslims from entering the country. We knew exactly who he was years ago when he was a reality television spectacle and we knew exactly who he was as he cycled from one marriage to the next. Each new revelation simply reminds us that Mr. Trump is exactly who he appears to be.The closer we get to the election, the more I see people on social media rending their garments about how terrible 2016 has been and how terrible this election is, sharing tired jokes about Nov. 8 as the end of the world. In some ways, I understand the frenzy, the panic, the obsession over this election. It is a hell of a thing to see fascism being so robustly embraced by so many Americans.This anxiety is exhausting to watch. But regardless of this election’s outcome, Tuesday will not and cannot be the end of the world. We don’t have that luxury.I am excited about Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and soon to be (I hope), president of the United States. I haven’t written this too many times in the past year. This is not because I am apathetic. In part, I haven’t had the energy to deal with the inevitable harassment that rises out of demonstrating any kind of support for Mrs. Clinton. I’ve also been torn. I like, admire, and respect so many things about Mrs. Clinton. She is fiercely ambitious, intelligent, funny, interesting and complex. She prepares for everything she does like her life depends on it and in many ways, politically speaking, it does.During each of the three presidential debates I marveled at the extent of Mrs. Clinton’s policy knowledge and how she knew when and where to attack her opponent. I’m also thrilled to see a woman as president. Small-minded people want to call this voting with my vagina, as if there is something wrong with wanting to see a woman become president after 44 men have had a go at it. Despite the historicity of this moment, I am voting with my head, mostly, and some of my heart.Hillary Clinton does not come without baggage, though I must confess, I cannot bring myself to give one single damn about the emails. As a woman, as a human being, I find some of Mrs. Clinton’s decisions unacceptable — her vote for the war in Iraq; some of the rhetoric she used during the 1990s; her stance, for far too long, that marriage equality was best left to the states. She has made decisions that treated marginalized lives cavalierly. It is difficult to reconcile such decisions with everything I admire about Mrs. Clinton.I also know that no one can spend a lifetime in politics and public service and emerge with clean hands or a clear conscience. This is what I tell myself so I can feel more comfortable with supporting her. I recognize the rationalization.In truth, I am not overlooking anything. I see the whole of who Mrs. Clinton is and what she has done throughout her career. At their best, people are willing and able to grow, to change. Clinton is not the same woman she was twenty years ago, or ten years ago. Even during the primary, running against Bernie Sanders, she demonstrated an ability to move further left from many of her centrist positions. Mrs. Clinton, as she presents herself today, impresses me. I am choosing to believe she is at her best.And to be president of the United States, of any country, means making many impossible decisions, many of which will cost people their lives. As president, I know Hillary Clinton will make more decisions that appall me or make me uncomfortable. There is no such thing as an ideal president who never has to make life or death decisions. I can only hope that as president, Mrs. Clinton will make those decisions with grace and compassion.The election is imminent and for that, I am grateful. I cannot remember a longer election cycle in my lifetime, or one that has felt so disgraceful, because Mrs. Clinton is running against a man who is unworthy, in all ways, of any public office, let alone the presidency. I live in Indiana, a fairly conservative state. Mike Pence, the Republican nominee for vice-president, is the state’s governor so I know just how horrible, homophobic, and misogynistic he is. Governor Pence makes the threat a Trump presidency even more of a travesty.Whether it is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump who is elected, we will be living not in an apocalypse, but in a new world, and each and every one of us is going to have a lot of work to do to hold the new president accountable to the needs of the people they have been elected to serve. And when I think about everyone who will suffer if Mr. Trump is elected, I am overwhelmed. I feel hopeless. I also feel ready to fight. | 0 |
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday warned doctors and hospitals around the country that a commonly used medical scope could be difficult to clean and “may facilitate the spread of deadly bacteria.”The agency’s warning comes after seven patients were infected and two died from a drug-resistant “superbug” at UCLA’s Ronald Reagan Medical Center. Public health authorities are tracking down at least 179 other patients who might have been exposed to the dangerous bacteria through the use of contaminated medical scopes.The affected patients suffered from a drug-resistant superbug known as CRE, or Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, during “complex endoscopic procedures” to diagnose and treat diseases in the pancreas between October and January at the hospital, UCLA’s Health System said late Wednesday in an emailed statement.In its warning on Thursday, the FDA noted that the medical scopes in question, known as duodenoscopes, are used in more than half a million procedures each year in the United States as the “least invasive way” of draining fluids from pancreatic and biliary ducts blocked by tumors, gallstones and other conditions. The light, flexible tubes are typically threaded through the mouth, throat, stomach, or into the top of the small intestine. Unlike other endoscopes, they have a movable “elevator” mechanism at one end that allows the instrument to treat problems with fluid drainage.But that intricate design also can make the devices difficult to sterilize, the FDA said. Cleaning the scopes is “a detailed, multi-step process,” and meticulously following the manufacturer’s directions for disinfecting them “should reduce the risk of transmitting infection, but may not entirely eliminate it,” the agency said. The FDA also noted that recent medical publications and adverse event reports it had received had associated drug-resistant bacterial infections with patients who had undergone procedures using the scopes.UCLA told the Los Angeles Times, which first reported the deadly infections, that it detected the bacteria last month while conducting tests on a patient and alerted both the California and Los Angeles County health departments. An internal investigation revealed that two medical endoscopes may have transmitted the infection, though the scopes had been sterilized in line with the manufacturer’s standards, it said.Two people have died, at least seven others are possibly infected and more than 100 might have been exposed to a drug-resistant “superbug” at UCLA’s Ronald Reagan Medical Center in Los Angeles. (Reuters)Health officials sent out letters this week to 179 patients who were possibly exposed to the bacteria through one of the endoscopes, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said in a statement.“We notified all patients who had this type of procedure, and we were using seven different scopes. Only two of them were found to be infected. In an abundance of caution, we notified everybody,” UCLA spokesman Dale Tate told the Associated Press.The CRE superbug has been described as a form of “nightmare bacteria” by Tom Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Our strongest antibiotics don’t work and patients are left with potentially untreatable infections,” he said. CRE infections, most of which happen in hospital settings, can lead to infections in the bladder or lungs, causing coughing, fever or chills. And, according to the CDC, the bacteria kills nearly half of patients who get infections in the bloodstream.The patients infected at the Ronald Reagan Medical Center had undergone a procedure called an ERCP, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, the Los Angeles Times reported. The test uses an endoscope along with X-ray images to examine the pancreatic system to help diagnose tumors or treat gallstones, for instance. It is not the same one used for more common endoscopies and colonoscopies, the newspaper said.Over the past couple years, similar outbreaks have occurred when contaminated scopes were used at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital near Chicago, where 44 people were infected, and at the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, where at least 32 patients became ill and 11 died. Although it was unclear whether the outbreak in Seattle contributed to the deaths, the hospital stressed that medical professionals there, too, had cleaned the instruments according to the manufacturer’s stipulations.“There is either a design issue to be addressed or a change to the guidelines for the cleaning process,” Andrew Ross, section chief of gastroenterology at Virginia Mason, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s the role of the federal government to make some of those decisions.”Olympus Medical Systems Group, which is UCLA’s endoscope supplier, told the Los Angeles Times it is working with the FDA as well as doctors and hospitals to address public health concerns.Patients who may have been exposed at Ronald Reagan Medical Center have been given a home-testing kit that medical professionals will analyze. The university is now taking steps to ensure patients’ safety.“The two scopes involved with the infection were immediately removed and UCLA is now utilizing a decontamination process that goes above and beyond the manufacturer and national standards,” UCLA said in the statement. | 0 |
The Obama Administration continued its push to reduce the number of prisoners serving long sentences as a result of the nation’s federal drug laws on Monday with an announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder describing new rules that would expand the pool of convicts eligible to apply for presidential clemency. In a video released by the Department of Justice, Holder said they will expand the existing criteria government attorneys use to consider which offenders may be eligible for clemency. Later this week Deputy Attorney General James Cole will announce the new criteria, which Holder expects will lead thousands to apply to receive reduced sentences. “This new and improved approach will make the criteria for clemency recommendation more expansive,” Holder said. “This will allow the Department of Justice and the president to consider requests from a larger field of eligible individuals.” Throughout 2013, the Obama Administration began taking a piecemeal approach to reforming the nation’s drug laws as a part of Obama’s “Smart on Crime” initiative. In late 2013, Obama commuted the sentences of eight crack-cocaine offenders who had been serving lengthy sentences that would have been shortened under updated legislation. And last week, Obama commuted the sentence of another former drug prisoner whose sentence was lengthened as a result of a typo. Former pardon attorneys and experts have said many of prisoners with similar cases are currently serving lengthy sentences, and Holder said Monday he expects “thousands” of applications for clemency as a result of the expanded criteria. Both the White House and the Justice Department have so far declined to estimate the number of clemencies the new criteria and increase in applications could produce. In order to keep up with the influx of applications, Holder says the Department of Justice will assign more lawyers to review the applications. “As a society, we pay much too high a price whenever our system fails to deliver the just outcomes necessary to deter and punish crime, to keep us safe, and to ensure that those who have paid their debts have a chance to become productive citizens,” Holder said. “Our expanded clemency application process will aid in this effort. And it will advance the aims of our innovative new Smart on Crime initiative – to strengthen the criminal justice system, promote public safety, and deliver on the promise of equal justice under law.” Contact us at letters@time.com. | 0 |
As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads across the U.S. – canceling major events, closing schools, upending the stock market and disrupting travel and normal life – Americans are taking precautions against the new coronavirus that causes the disease sickening and killing thousands worldwide.The World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise the public be watchful for fever, dry cough and shortness of breath, symptoms that follow contraction of the new coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2.From infection, it takes approximately five to 12 days for symptoms to appear. Here's a step-by-step look at what happens inside the body when it takes hold. Coronavirus infectionAccording to the CDC, the virus can spread person-to-person within 6 feet through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. It’s also possible for the virus to remain on a surface or object, be transferred by touch and enter the body through the mouth, nose or eyes.Dr. Martin S. Hirsch, senior physician in the Infectious Diseases Services at Massachusetts General Hospital, said there’s still a lot to learn but experts suspect the virus may act similarly to SARS-CoV from 13 years ago.“It’s a respiratory virus and thus it enters through the respiratory tract, we think primarily through the nose,” he said. “But it might be able to get in through the eyes and mouth because that’s how other respiratory viruses behave.”When the virus enters the body, it begins to attack.Fever, cough and other COVID-19 symptoms It can take two to 14 days for a person to develop symptoms after initial exposure to the virus, Hirsch said. The average is about five days.Once inside the body, it begins infecting epithelial cells in the lining of the lung. A protein on the receptors of the virus can attach to a host cell's receptors and penetrate the cell. Inside the host cell, the virus begins to replicate until it kills the cell. This first takes place in the upper respiratory tract, which includes the nose, mouth, larynx and bronchi.The patient begins to experience mild version of symptoms: dry cough, shortness of breath, fever and headache and muscle pain and tiredness, comparable to the flu.Dr. Pragya Dhaubhadel and Dr. Amit Munshi Sharma, infectious disease specialists at Geisinger, say some patients have reported gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and diarrhea, however it's relatively uncommon. Symptoms become more severe once the infection starts making its way to the lower respiratory tract.Pneumonia and autoimmune diseaseThe WHO reported last month about 80% of patients have a mild to moderate disease from infection. A case of "mild" COVID-19 includes a fever and cough more severe than the seasonal flu but does not require hospitalization.Those milder cases are because the body’s immune response is able to contain the virus in the upper respiratory tract, Hirsch says. Younger patients have a more vigorous immune response compared to older patients.The 13.8% of severe cases and 6.1% critical cases are due to the virus trekking down the windpipe and entering the lower respiratory tract, where it seems to prefer growing.“The lungs are the major target,” Hirsch said.As the virus continues to replicate and journeys further down the windpipe and into the lung, it can cause more respiratory problems like bronchitis and pneumonia, according to Dr. Raphael Viscidi, infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.Pneumonia is characterized by shortness of breath combined with a cough and affects tiny air sacs in the lungs, called alveoli, Viscidi said. The alveoli are where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged.When pneumonia occurs, the thin layer of alveolar cells is damaged by the virus. The body reacts by sending immune cells to the lung to fight it off. "And that results in the linings becoming thicker than normal," he said. "As they thicken more and more, they essentially choke off the little air pocket, which is what you need to get the oxygen to your blood." “So it’s basically a war between the host response and the virus,” Hirsch said. “Depending who wins this war we have either good outcomes where patients recover or bad outcomes where they don’t.”Restricting oxygen to the bloodstream deprives other major organs of oxygen including the liver, kidney and brain. In a small number of severe cases that can develop into acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which requires a patient be placed on a ventilator to supply oxygen. However, if too much of the lung is damaged and not enough oxygen is supplied to the rest of the body, respiratory failure could lead to organ failure and death. Viscidi stresses that outcome is uncommon for the majority of patients infected with coronavirus. Those most at risk to severe developments are older than 70 and have weak immune responses. Others at risk include people with pulmonary abnormalities, chronic disease or compromised immune systems, such as cancer patients who have gone through chemotherapy treatment. Viscidi urges to public to think of the coronavirus like the flu because it goes through the same process within the body. Many people contract the flu and recover with no complications. "People should remember that they're as healthy as they feel," he said. "And shouldn't go around feeling as unhealthy as they fear." Follow Adrianna Rodriguez on Twitter: @AdriannaUSAT. Why social distancing is critical to curbing the coronavirus pandemicSocial distancing matters. Here is how to do it and how it can help curb the COVID-19 pandemic.Just the FAQs, USA TODAYPublished
10:08 pm UTC Mar. 13, 2020
Updated
5:08 pm UTC Mar. 16, 2020 | 0 |
Updated 4:10 p.m. ET, 2/10/2014
Washington (CNN) – Hillary Clinton told a close friend that Monica Lewinsky was a "narcissistic loony toon," and also discussed in detail why she decided to forgive her husband for having an affair with the White House intern, according to documents penned by Diane Blair, a close friend and longtime confidant to the former first lady.
The contents of the documents, which are part of Blair’s papers housed at the University of Arkansas, were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website that posted the story late on Sunday night.
[twitter-follow screen_name='politicalticker'] [twitter-follow screen_name='danmericacnn']
CNN has confirmed the documents are authentic and has reached out to a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who has not responded.
Read the documents
Blair’s writings are made up of notes and diary entries based on communication the former political science professor who died in 2000 had with Mrs. Clinton. “It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a 'narcissistic loony toon'; but it was beyond control," Blair wrote about a conversation she had with Clinton on September 9, 1998, during the height of the Lewinsky scandal that led to her husband’s impeachment.
Blair went on to write that Hillary Clinton had suggested her husband had made the mistake with Lewinsky because of the personal toll the deaths of his mother, her father, and their friend Vince Foster had taken on him while "the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them."
The story comes as speculation heats up that the former New York senator and secretary of state is weighing a second run for the White House. The Blair papers were not made public until 2010, well after Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008. And the details come as Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a likely 2016 GOP White House contender, continues to call the Lewinsky scandal a liability for Democrats.
Some Democrats pushed back, saying the documents don't reveal anything more about Hillary Clinton's feelings about the controversy than what she wrote in her memoir, "Living History." Clinton described herself as "dumbfounded, heartbroken and outraged" when her husband told her about his relations with Lewinsky. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him," she wrote. "'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?'"
Democrats argue the passages from her own book are more powerful because they come directly from her.
Where is Monica Lewinsky?
The Clinton-Lewisnky affair captivated the nation’s attention as the sordid details became international news. The relationship and grand jury investigation led the House to impeach Clinton on two charges in December 1998. In February 1999, the Senate acquitted him.
Just days after Clinton’s impeachment, Blair wrote that Hillary called her, and they had a lengthy conversation about impeachment.
“She sounded very up, almost jolly,” writes Blair. “Told me how she and Bill and Chelsea had been to church, to a Chinese restaurant, to a Shakespeare play, greeted everywhere with wild applause and cheers.”
She added, “This, she said, is what drives their adversaries totally nut(s), that they don't bend, do not appear to be suffering.”
According to Blair, Clinton said that “most people in this town have no pain threshold.”
Blair’s writings also show Hillary Clinton sought to downplay the relationship between her husband and Lewisnky.
“HRC insists, no matter what people say, it was gross inappropriate behavior but it was consensual (was not a power relationship) and was not sex within any real meaning… of the term,” Blair wrote.
In addition to Hillary Clinton's private thoughts on the Lewinsky matter, Blair's writing talks about Clinton's support for a single payer health care system, as well as her thoughts on foreign policy, among other subjects.
According to notes about a dinner Blair had with the first couple on February 23, 1993, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton talked “at length about the complexities of healthcare,” with the first lady saying stating “managed competition a crock, single payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.”
Hillary Clinton was the face of the White House’s unsuccessful 1993 push on health care reform and healthcare comes up throughout the Blair notes. Clinton’s admission that “single payer necessary” contrasts what she has sad in the past. In a 2008 interview with the New York Times, Clinton said, “You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single-payer system.”
Blair, a political science professor from Arkansas, joined Gov. Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign as a senior researcher and worked as a senior adviser on his successful 1996 reelection bid. She became a close friend to both Clintons, but particularly the first lady.
She died in 2000 at the age of 61. At the time, The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton eulogized Blair as “the best person that one could have as a friend.”
The documents portray Blair’s relationship with Clinton as both professional and personal. While they appeared to talk extensively about policy and politics, they also discussed books, travel and family.
The Blair documents were donated by her husband, James, in 2005. The documents were processed and completed by 2010 and contain 109 boxes of information that range from Blair’s professional materials to her correspondence with the Clintons.
If Clinton runs in 2016, what will Biden do?
James once helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 in commodity futures trading, which drew scrutiny for its timing.
According to the Free Beacon, Hillary Clinton was a supporter of making the Blair records public in 2010.
“With this collection, [Diane Blair’s] contributions will grow and live on, enlarging our understanding of history, politics and culture,” Hillary Clinton reportedly said, according to the Free Beacon. "I hope also that some young scholar will come along and write the story of Diane.
The Washington Free Beacon reporter who first poured through the documents didn't think she'd find all that much to write about.
"I went down to Arkansas. I honestly didn't think that there would be much there, because I feel like so much of the Clintons, especially the 1990's related stuff, has been so picked over by reporters. But yeah, I went down and surprisingly there were some interesting things there," Alana Goodman told CNN's Brooke Baldwin in an interview on CNN Newsroom.
Moment of tension between Bill and Hillary Clinton | 0 |
All American adults became eligible for coronavirus vaccine boosters on Friday, ending months of confusion over complicated guidelines that had slowed their uptake and prompted unilateral moves by governors from Maine to California to make the shots available more broadly.Federal health officials hope a straightforward boosters-for-all policy will prompt millions more people to get the shots before they travel or gather with friends and family over the holidays. Many are concerned about the worsening picture as winter approaches. After new cases dipped to almost 69,000 on Oct. 25 — their lowest point in months — they began climbing again, with the seven-day average rising 40 percent to more than 96,000 on Thursday.The final piece of the booster-policy overhaul fell into place early Friday evening when Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accepted two unanimous recommendations from the agency’s independent experts. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said anyone 18 and older may get a booster and — to stress the urgency of increasing protection for the most vulnerable age group — anyone 50 and older should make sure they get one.“Based on the compelling evidence, all adults over 18 should now have equitable access to a COVID-19 booster dose,” Walensky said in a statement. “Booster shots have demonstrated the ability to safely increase people’s protection against infection and severe outcomes and are an important public health tool to strengthen our defenses against the virus as we enter the winter holidays.”The more forceful recommendation for those 50 and older had not been on the CDC advisory panel’s agenda and was added at the last minute. Panel members said it was important to convey that older adults have the clearest benefit versus risk, with far less chance than young people of developing the rare but serious cardiac side effects from the mRNA vaccines.Grace Lee, a pediatrics professor at Stanford University and chair of the advisory panel, said she favored the callout to older people because many have a hard time keeping up with the guidelines. “That list keeps changing,” she said. “I’m not even sure I could keep up with who’s eligible and who’s not eligible.”Earlier in the day, the Food and Drug Administration authorized Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna boosters for people 18 and older who are at least six months past their second shot of the two-dose regimen.“I have heard from I don’t know how many states, ‘Everything is confusing here. Can you make it simpler?’ ” Peter Marks, director of the FDA center that regulates vaccines, said in an interview. “I think this is pretty simple now: If you are over 18, and you have been vaccinated … it is time to go get a booster. Doesn’t matter which one you get, go get a booster.”The new policy is an attempt to put into place a coherent federal position as about a dozen states moved ahead in recent days to give all adults access to boosters. Until Friday, federal guidelines said boosters were for people 65 or older as well as for others at high risk of covid-19 because of health problems, their job or living conditions. Any adult who received the single-dose Johnson & Johnson already has been eligible for a booster two months after vaccination.Those categories covered a high proportion of vaccinated Americans, but experts said their complexity slowed the booster rollout because some people believed they didn’t need the shots or didn’t qualify for them. And some health-care providers were confused as well. Only about 38 percent of fully vaccinated people over 65, and 18 percent of all adults, have gotten boosters, according to the CDC.“Simplifying eligibility will allow staff across the states, territories and local health departments to focus on making vaccination — primarily the primary vaccination series — as easy and as accessible as possible,” said Nirav Shah, director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. He told panel members that state health department staff have been “fielding a high volume of booster eligibility questions.”Still, individuals who wanted boosters, regardless of their eligibility, were able to get them by attesting they qualified, so the simplified policy largely reflects what has been taking place on the ground.The action on booster shots means the Biden administration has come full circle since August, when President Biden and his top health aides announced plans to make boosters available to all adults beginning in late September. The administration backed off after receiving sharp criticism from many scientists and public health experts who said there was little evidence that young, healthy people needed the extra shot, especially because of concerns about a rare side effect involving inflammation of the heart muscle seen mostly in young men.Three months later, with cases spiking, there was also more data — both on waning immunity and on the vaccines’ safety. But data on side effects, presented for the first time Friday, provided reassurance: Of 26 million mRNA boosters given in the United States, there were a dozen confirmed reports of myocarditis and another 38 pending investigation, said Tom Shimabukuro, a CDC vaccine safety official, citing preliminary data from one vaccine safety monitoring system. The median age of the dozen confirmed with myocarditis is 51. Ten were discharged from the hospital and six recovered from symptoms, he said.And FDA’s Marks said the agency also took a close look at the potential risk of heart-related side effects in older male teenagers and young men. Updated information and analyses showed that the risks posed by the boosters were very low and were far outweighed by the potential benefits of preventing covid-19, he said.Nevertheless, the agency noted in its Moderna booster fact sheet for health-care providers that some studies show a potentially higher risk of the cardiac side effect after the second shot of Moderna, compared with Pfizer-BioNTech. The FDA also noted a lower risk from the Moderna booster shot than from the initial vaccination. Some countries have restricted or barred the use of the Moderna vaccine in younger men because of concerns about that side effect.The FDA and CDC decisions were largely praised by experts Friday, although some questioned just how much firepower the booster shots might bring to the pandemic battle.“Whether that is going to have a major impact in terms of transmission, probably not,” said David Dowdy, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins. “A large fraction of transmission is still occurring from people who are not vaccinated.” Getting those people inoculated, he argued, should be the No. 1 priority.Still, Dowdy backed giving all adults the option of getting extra doses. “The risk-benefit ratio is sufficiently favorable that if you want a booster, this is the time to do it, with cases going up,” he said.Robert M. Wachter, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, was more enthusiastic.“The evidence is just crystal clear now that [vaccine] efficacy wanes for all infections” and that boosters can reduce breakthrough cases and vulnerability to long covid, he said.CDC official Sara Oliver told panel members Friday that the impact of a vaccine booster dose on transmission is unknown. But even a temporary boosting effect, she said, “may factor into the benefit risk balance, especially as we approach the winter and holidays with increased traveling and indoor gatherings.”The American Medical Association applauded the agencies’ decisions, saying, “The scientific evidence is clear that the vaccines against COVID-19 are safe and remain effective. We continue to strongly urge everyone who has not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 and is eligible, including children aged 5 and older and pregnant people, to get vaccinated as soon as possible to protect themselves and their loved ones.”The policy ends an awkward chapter for federal officials who have wrestled with the eligibility issue since summer and been leapfrogged by New York City and a growing number of states, including Louisiana, Maine and Colorado, that already endorsed widespread use of the extra shots to try to stave off a spike in cases.“The states made the right decisions, but the optics are awful in appearing to go rogue and undermining the federal agencies,” said Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics, molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine.While many experts expressed relief at the simpler recommendations, Jay A. Winsten, director of strategic media initiatives at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the conflicting messages over recent weeks have taken a toll that will have an ongoing impact on people’s trust in public health.“After months of confused and contradictory messaging, it’s baked into the coverage now and into the public psyche,” Winsten said. “The way they have handled this has done real damage to the agency’s credibility with a lot of people.”Dan Keating contributed to this report. | 0 |
Credit...Al Drago for The New York TimesOct. 25, 2017WASHINGTON — One week before they are set to unveil a sprawling overhaul of the federal tax code, Republicans struggled on Wednesday with key parts of their plan, reigniting a fight over retirement savings and racing to cut a deal with lawmakers from high-tax states ahead of a critical budget vote in the House on Thursday.The challenges — and the dogged effort to resolve them on Capitol Hill — highlight the increased importance of the tax issue for a fractured party desperate for a legislative victory.The prospect of a once-in-a-generation bill to cut taxes on businesses and individuals increasingly appears to be the best hope for a party anxious to find common ground and advance an effort that it has long championed as the pinnacle of Republican orthodoxy. It is a bit like having a baby to save a failing marriage.But, like a crying newborn, the drafting of the bill is already costing party leaders sleep. That was evidenced on Wednesday, when President Trump and a top House Republican sparred over whether the plan would include sharp reductions in how much Americans might save, before taxes, in 401(k) accounts. Meanwhile, congressional leaders worked to forge a compromise on state and local tax deductions that could be necessary for the House to pass a budget measure that is needed to ensure the tax bill does not fall to a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.Republicans from states where the state and local tax — or SALT — deduction is widely used were not making it easy.“To me, the only way to stop this is to defeat the budget tomorrow,” Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said on Wednesday. “Once the budget passes, they hold all the cards.”“They’re asking us to vote on the budget for a tax bill they haven’t shown us on a promise that somehow it’s going to be fair, even though they’re talking about knocking out SALT,” Mr. King said. “I don’t see how anyone from those districts can vote for the budget under that, even if they promise us something.”The challenge facing Republicans is trying to mitigate the revenue-losing effects of cutting tax rates, particularly Mr. Trump’s push to reduce the corporate rate to 20 percent from 35 percent, which the White House says is nonnegotiable. The budget resolution that is supposed to win final approval on Thursday would allow for $1.5 trillion in additional deficits from tax cuts over the next decade, but the proposed tax cuts already revealed would cost well over $2 trillion.ImageCredit...Al Drago for The New York TimesCutting rates unifies Republicans. Finding offsets, either by eliminating tax deductions or employing accounting tricks, divides them.On Wednesday, Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged a long list of still-unresolved issues in the House’s draft bill, which is to be released Nov. 1. They included where to place the income limits for various tax brackets, whether to maintain or cut tax rates on top earners, and the fate of several critical components of the revamped corporate code.Two issues in dispute flared up publicly: changes to retirement savings and to individuals’ ability to deduct their state and local taxes.Mr. Brady seemed to defend a proposal to drastically lower the cap on tax-free retirement account contributions. He indicated that there were better ways to encourage the bulk of workers to save, even after Mr. Trump declared on Monday that “there will be NO change to your 401(k).”“Right now, we are not a nation of savers,” Mr. Brady said at a breakfast convened by The Christian Science Monitor, adding: “We think in tax reform we can create incentives for Americans to save more and save sooner.”Privately, though, a member of House leadership assured lobbyists on Wednesday that retirement account limits would not be touched in the draft bill.House Republicans have been considering sharply reducing the amount that Americans are allowed to save, before taxes, in 401(k) retirement plans to $2,400 a year, from the current $18,000, or $24,000 for workers who are over 50. Lowering the cap would be unlikely to encourage more savings, research suggests, but it would amount to an accounting maneuver that would help Republicans make up some of the lost revenue from large cuts to business tax rates. Money in such retirement accounts is taxed when it is withdrawn. By taxing most deposits immediately, Republicans would push future tax revenue into the 10-year budget window they are now working in.Mr. Trump was not giving up. He told reporters that he wanted to “quickly” end speculation because “401(k)’s, to me, are very important.” Asked whether he might negotiate over the changes, he replied, “maybe we’ll use it as negotiating,” then added that Mr. Brady knew how critical the retirement accounts were.Representative David Schweikert, Republican of Arizona and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said the issue of tax rules for retirement savings was far more complicated than Mr. Trump’s declaration.ImageCredit...Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times“We’re the ones writing the bill,” Mr. Schweikert said. “At some point, he gets to agree or veto. And ultimately, we have to make the math work.”Mr. Brady also said Republican leaders were seeking a deal on the state and local tax deduction, which they had targeted for elimination. Mr. Brady seemed to suggest the deal could focus on maintaining deductions for property taxes, but not for income or sales taxes.That would reduce the savings from eliminating the deduction to about $1.3 trillion over 10 years, from an estimated $1.9 trillion over 10 years for eliminating the deduction entirely, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. But it may be the key to passing the budget resolution, which appears in jeopardy if Republicans from high-tax states are not pacified.A protracted fight over taxes would be particularly rough on a Republican Party already fraying on the edges. Mr. Trump is feuding with two Republican senators who plan to retire, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, as part of a growing rift between old-guard conservatives and Mr. Trump’s new-wave populists in Washington.In the face of those divides, Republican leaders aim to deliver a completed tax bill to Mr. Trump’s desk by Christmas. The stakes are rising by the day, as Republican donors and voters worry about the party advancing the legislative priorities it has long espoused. A failure on taxes, after the Republicans did not succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act, could jeopardize its congressional majorities in the 2018 midterms.“The Republicans are finally figuring out if they don’t pass this, the political consequences are going to be catastrophic,” said Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who is advising Mr. Trump on tax policy. “The attitude of the conservative base is, ‘If they don’t do this, they’re worthless.’”Finding common ground will only get more difficult as the effects of specific tax changes on constituents become clearer.Polling suggests Republican voters subscribe less to the tax cut philosophy than their elected representatives. A report this week from the Pew Research Center, based on polling in August, found that “Republicans were not especially unified in support of tax cuts,” said Carroll Doherty, the center’s director of political research.A September poll from the online survey company SurveyMonkey found that three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of cutting corporate taxes, which is the centerpiece of the tax plan. But that poll, and a related one in October, found a divide: Republican voters who approve of Mr. Trump were far more likely to approve of corporate tax cuts and to say that they believe their individual taxes will fall next year than those who have turned against the president.The divisions in the party do not, at this point, appear to imperil the tax-cutting effort. Mr. Corker, an outspoken deficit hawk, gave his blessing to parliamentary language that would allow the tax bill to add $1.5 trillion to federal deficits, though he made clear he could still vote against the final legislation. And Mr. Flake — diatribe on Tuesday aside — is still viewed as a likely “yes” on whatever tax bill makes it to the Senate floor, provided it survives several weeks of political kicking and screaming. | 0 |
What on earth was the point of Sarah Sanders?For 94 days, the outgoing White House press secretary gave no press briefing in the press room just a few steps from the press office that she nominally ran.But the press did not stop pressing.For more than three years, Sanders made no meaningful news on behalf of a boss who considers it his presidential priority to make as much meaningless news as possible.Yet the news did not stop breaking.With all the resources of the federal government’s communications machine at her fingertips, Sanders was the least resourceful communicator in Washington: a hapless and hopeless observer to every crisis, real or manufactured by the man sitting in the Oval Office, just down the hallway from her own.In other words, she was the perfect spokeswoman for a perfectly lazy president.02:43Sarah Sanders and her fiery relationship with the media – videoSanders may have demonstrated few obvious qualities as a press secretary: she earned no trust from the media, possessed no information to share with the world and enjoyed no grasp of policy or even politics.She had no special insights into Donald Trump’s thinking and no special relationship with him either. Other than this: her capacity to dodge responsibility and the truth were a polished mirror of his character.Normal spokespeople would have been mortified by the revelations of Robert Mueller that, by Sanders’ own admission, she just made stuff up when she briefed the press.Speaking the day after the president fired then FBI director James Comey, Sanders told the media that “countless members of the FBI” – representing what she called “the rank-and-file of the FBI” – had lost confidence in Comey. She claimed that this was the reason why Comey was fired, even though Trump himself would later tell NBC News that his decision was because of “this Russia thing”.Sanders later admitted to Mueller that she fabricated the entire smear. “She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything,” Mueller stated in his report.But who really needs credibility, a sense of shame or any degree of self-respect when you’re working for Trump?Speaking to Fox News after the Mueller report destroyed what was left of her reputation, Sanders worked her way through a few more fabrications. “Look, I acknowledged that I had a slip of the tongue when I used the word ‘countless’, but it’s not untrue,” she said.That is some World Cup-quality lying. The single sentence includes at least three lies and there are only 21 words in it: an average of one lie for every seven words.There was no acknowledgement of a slip of the tongue (lie No 1). It was no slip of the tongue (lie No 2). And she stands by the lie with the weasel words of a double negative about its non-untruthfulness (lie No 3 and quite possibly No 4).You don’t get to lie as well as that by chance or amateur skill. It takes dedication and effort on the training ground to make it look so easy and natural.Which all makes the faux controversy about Michelle Wolf’s roasting of Sanders so very precious. Back in 2018, several otherwise sensible journalists rose nobly to defend Sanders after Wolf took apart the press secretary at the White House correspondents’ dinner.“I actually really like Sarah,” Wolf said. “I think she’s very resourceful. Like, she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like, maybe she’s born with it. Maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies.”Noble-minded reporters thought this was mightily rude of a professional comedian, mentioning Sanders’ makeup in the same breath as her mendacity.But that was before Mueller revealed that Sanders lied to all of them shamelessly about the biggest news about Comey.That was before she told them all the Trump administration was doing “everything in our capacity” to care for children arriving at the border, as news broke of several of them dying in US custody.It was also before she brashly claimed the Trump administration had made a historic recovery effort in Puerto Rico, after experts said as many as 5,000 Americans died there in the botched recovery after Hurricane Maria.Other long-serving press secretaries have traditionally gone on to lucrative jobs in the private sector as spokespeople for large corporations and consultants advising powerful CEOs. But who in their right mind would want to give a communications job to such a poor communicator with so little credibility?Trump himself tweeted that she was returning to her home state of Arkansas, suggesting she should run for governor, just like her father.This would be abnormal for a former press secretary, but there was nothing normal about Sanders. If you can’t make a living lying to the media in public relations, you may as well lie to them as a candidate for public office.There’s a song that asks: “How can I miss you when you won’t go away?” But you were never really here, so that’s OK. Richard Wolffe is a columnist for the Guardian US | 0 |
WASHINGTON — President Trump's Department of Homeland Security has rescinded former President Barack Obama's order shielding millions of migrants from deportation, but is letting stand a policy that grants reprieves to people who arrived in the United States as children.Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly announced late Thursday that, after consulting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he is rescinding an Obama memorandum from 2014 that allowed immigrants to remain in the United States under certain conditions.The rescinded memo created a program that protected undocumented immigrants from deportation if they have a child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful resident.The program – known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA – was never implemented because it was challenged in court by 26 states and was put on hold by federal courts.The DHS decision to rescind the memo came ahead of a court-ordered deadline to resolve the case.Kelly said in a news release that he decided to rescind the memo because “there is no credible path forward” to litigate the policy.The decision fulfills part of a campaign promise by Trump, who vowed to overturn two of Obama’s memos on illegal immigration.However, Kelly said the decision would not impact an Obama program created in 2012 that granted reprieves from deportation to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.The terms of that program, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, will not change, Kelly said.The rescinded program provided expanded work authorization for recipients under DACA.But so-called Dreamers “who were issued three-year extensions before the district court’s injunction will not be affected and will be eligible to seek a two-year extension upon their expiration," the news release said. "No work permits will be terminated prior to their current expiration dates."Read more:DREAMers on edge over Trump on fifth anniversary of protected statusUndocumented Texas students fight anti-sanctuary lawFed's Kaplan: Immigration crackdown hurting economyAdvocates for undocumented immigrants warned that while Kelly left the DACA program in place for now, there’s nothing to keep the Trump administration from reversing it in the future.“This memo and the response from the White House is not a permanent promise to protect” the program, said Greisa Martinez Rosas, advocacy director for United We Dream, which identifies itself as the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the nation.“The DACA program still stands," she said, "but it’s vulnerable.”Advocacy groups also were incensed that the Trump administration rescinded the parental program on the fifth anniversary of DACA.Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., praised Kelly's decision to rescind the DAPA program, calling it “a deeply irresponsible policy from the start.”“It essentially said to illegal immigrants that we wouldn’t enforce our laws and encouraged them to risk their lives in coming to the United States,” Cotton said. “It was also a blatant attempt by the president to circumvent Congress that the courts swiftly shut down. I’m glad to see Secretary Kelly take it off the books. Such a high-handed fiat deserves nothing less than to be rescinded in full.”Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., blasted Kelly’s decision, noting that it came as Democrats and Republicans had put aside partisanship and gathered for the Congressional Baseball Game following the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., during a practice session early Wednesday.“Before the game had even finished, the Trump administration shattered this spirit of good feelings by announcing the rescission of the DAPA program,” Beyer said.Beyer took some confront in noting that the DACA program would remain in place, but said that the need for comprehensive immigration reform giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship “has never been more urgent.” | 0 |
May 7, 2016Credit...13Milliseconds for The New York TimesWE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.ImageCredit...Nancy Newberry for The New York TimesThe scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.This bias on campuses creates liberal privilege. A friend is studying for the Law School Admission Test, and the test preparation company she is using offers test-takers a tip: Reading comprehension questions will typically have a liberal slant and a liberal answer.Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?Jonathan Haidt, a centrist social psychologist at New York University, cites data suggesting that the share of conservatives in academia has plunged, and he has started a website, Heterodox Academy, to champion ideological diversity on campuses.“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”Should universities offer affirmative action for conservatives and evangelicals? I don’t think so, partly because surveys find that conservative scholars themselves oppose the idea. But it’s important to have a frank discussion on campuses about ideological diversity. To me, this seems a liberal blind spot.Universities should be a hubbub of the full range of political perspectives from A to Z, not just from V to Z. So maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherish — like diversity — in our own dominions. | 0 |
Jeff Bezos and his fellow passengers are back on the ground after completing their short flight to space.VideotranscripttranscriptHighlights From Blue Origin’s SpaceflightBlue Origin’s first flight to space with humans onboard included the billionaire Jeff Bezos, his brother Mark Bezos, Wally Funk and Oliver Daemen. The team traveled more than 60 miles above Earth.“There’s Oliver on the left, Jeff Bezos on the right. We are about to go to space, everybody.” “Command engine start — two, one, ignition. We have liftoff. The Shepard has cleared the tower.” And New Shepard has cleared the tower, on her way to space with our first human crew. And booster touchdown, welcome back New Shepard.” “First up, your booster has landed.” “Booster landed.” “Our rocket went over Mach 3. And now they’re coming, floating back down at just about 15 or 16 miles an hour. What a flight.” “Welcome back to Earth. Congratulations to all of you. All of you.” [cheering] “Welcome back, astronauts.”Blue Origin’s first flight to space with humans onboard included the billionaire Jeff Bezos, his brother Mark Bezos, Wally Funk and Oliver Daemen. The team traveled more than 60 miles above Earth.CreditCredit...Tony Gutierrez/Associated PressJeff Bezos, the richest human in the world, went to space on Tuesday. It was a brief jaunt — rising 60-some miles into the sky above West Texas — in a spacecraft that was built by Mr. Bezos’ rocket company, Blue Origin.The flight, even though it did not enter orbit, was a milestone for the company that Mr. Bezos, the founder of Amazon, started more than 20 years ago, the first time a Blue Origin vehicle carried people to space.“Best day ever,” Mr. Bezos exclaimed once the capsule had settled in the dust near the launch site.That Mr. Bezos himself was seated in the capsule reflects his enthusiasm for the endeavor and perhaps signals his intent to give Blue Origin the focus and creative entrepreneurship that made Amazon one of the most powerful economic forces on the planet.Outside of short delays in the countdown, the launch proceeded smoothly.Just after 8:30 a.m. Eastern time, the four passengers arrived at a bridge atop the launch platform, with each ringing a bell hung at one end before crossing to the capsule. They then began boarding the capsule one at a time and strapped into their seats.The stubby rocket and capsule, named New Shepard after Alan Shepard, the first American in space, rose from the company’s launch site in Van Horn at 9:11 a.m., a thin jet of fire and exhaust streaming from the rocket’s engine.Once the booster had used up its propellant, the capsule detached from the rocket at an altitude of about 47 miles. Both pieces continued to coast upward, passing the 62-mile boundary often considered to be the beginning of outer space.ImageCredit...Thom Baur/ReutersMr. Bezos and the passengers unbuckled and floated around the capsule, cheering in the capsule as they experienced about four minutes of free fall.“You have a very happy crew up here, I want you to know,” Mr. Bezos said as the capsule descended.The booster landed vertically, similar to the reusable Falcon 9 booster of the rival spaceflight company SpaceX. The capsule then descended until it gently set down in a puff of dust.At 9:21 a.m., 10 minutes and 10 seconds after launch, it was over.The four passengers exited the capsule just after 9:30 a.m., and embraced loved ones, friends and ground crew as they celebrated.What is the New Shepard rocket and what did it do?VideotranscripttranscriptVideo Shows Inside the Blue Origin Flight to SpaceThe Blue Origin crew included four passengers who had fun during the short flight, playing with Skittles and experimenting with gravity.“You just have to wait for it. Who wants a Skittle?” “Oh yeah, throw me one.” “See if you can catch this in your mouth.” Group: “Yeah!” “Well done. Here, toss me one.” “Here, catch.” “Oh, yeah.” “Whoo hoo!” “Has it been everything you thought it would be?” “Fantastic!” “Here, look — Oliver.”The Blue Origin crew included four passengers who had fun during the short flight, playing with Skittles and experimenting with gravity.CreditCredit...Nick Cote for The New York TimesNew Shepard, the Blue Origin spacecraft, is named after Alan Shepard, the first American in space. It consists of a reusable booster and a capsule on top, where the passengers sit. Unlike Virgin Galactic’s space plane, New Shepard is more of a traditional rocket, taking off vertically. Once the booster has used up its propellant — liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen — the capsule detaches from the booster. During Tuesday’s flight, both pieces continued to coast upward, above the 62-mile boundary often considered to be the beginning of outer space. During this part of the trajectory, the passengers unbuckled and floated around the capsule, experiencing about four minutes of free fall and seeing views of Earth and the blackness of space from the capsule’s large windows.The booster then landed first and vertically, similar to the touchdowns of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets. The capsule landed minutes after the booster, descending under a parachute and cushioned by the firing of a last-second jet of air. The whole flight lasted about 10 minutes.Is New Shepard safe?ImageCredit...Blue OriginBefore Tuesday’s flight, Blue Origin had launched New Shepard 15 times — all without anyone onboard — and the capsule landed safely every time. (On the first launch, the booster crashed; on the next 14 launches, the booster landed intact.)During one flight in 2016, Blue Origin performed an in-flight test of the rocket’s escape system where thrusters whisked away the capsule from a malfunctioning booster. A solid-fuel rocket at the bottom of the crew capsule fired for 1.8 seconds, exerting 70,000 pounds of force to quickly separate the capsule and steer it out of the way of the booster. Its parachutes deployed, and the capsule landed softly.Not only did the capsule survive, the booster was able to right itself, continue to space, and then, firing its engine again, land a couple of miles north of the launchpad in West Texas, a bit charred but intact.Still, the federal government does not impose regulations for the safety of passengers on a spacecraft like New Shepard. Unlike commercial passenger jetliners, the rocket has not been certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. Indeed, the F.A.A. is prohibited by law from issuing any such requirements until 2023.The rationale is that emerging space companies like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic need a “learning period” to try out designs and procedures and that too much regulation, too soon would stifle innovation that would lead to better, more efficient designs.The passengers must sign forms acknowledging “informed consent” to the risks, similar to what you sign if you go skydiving or bungee jumping.What the F.A.A. does regulate is ensuring safety for people not on the plane — that is, if anything does go wrong, that the risk to the “uninvolved public” on ground is minuscule.Who else was aboard the flight?Mr. Bezos brought his younger brother. Mark Bezos, 50, has lived a more private life. He is a co-founder and general partner at HighPost Capital, a private equity firm. Mark Bezos previously worked as head of communications at the Robin Hood Foundation, a charity that aids anti-poverty efforts in New York City.Blue Origin auctioned off one of the seats, with the proceeds going to Club for the Future, a space-focused charity founded by Mr. Bezos. The winning bidder paid $28 million — and we still do not know who that was.ImageCredit...Daemen FamilyLast week, the company announced that the auction winner had decided to wait until a subsequent flight “due to scheduling conflicts.”Instead, Oliver Daemen, an 18-year-old student from the Netherlands who was one of the runners-up in the auction, and who had purchased a ticket on the second New Shepard flight, was bumped up.The fourth passenger was Mary Wallace Funk — she goes by Wally — a pilot who in the 1960s was among a group of women who passed the same rigorous criteria that NASA used for selecting astronauts.Wally Funk’s long wait for a trip to space.At 82, Wally Funk has become the oldest person to ever have gone to space. But that is not what makes her so special.In 1961, three years before Jeff Bezos was born, Ms. Funk and 12 other women went through testing as part of the Woman in Space Program. The tests had been designed by Dr. William Lovelace for the Mercury astronauts. He wanted to put women through the same tests to see if they would be good candidates for space.Across the board, the women who passed that initial round of testing did as well or better than their male counterparts, and of that group, Ms. Funk excelled.When you hear about these women today, they are often called the Mercury 13, but they called themselves the FLATs: First Lady Astronaut Trainees.None of those women have gone into space. The U.S. government shut down the program just as the Cold War space race was heating up. Ms. Funk said that when she learned the program was canceled, she wasn’t discouraged.“I was young and I was happy. I just believed it would come,” she said in the book “Promised the Moon” by Stephanie Nolen. “If not today, then in a couple of months.”ImageCredit...Mark Ralston/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOver the years, she applied four times to be an astronaut and was turned down because she had never gotten an engineering degree. By contrast, when the astronaut John Glenn was selected for the Mercury program, he also did not have an engineering degree.Ms. Funk has spent the past 60 years trying to find another way into space.“I was brought up that when things don’t work out, you go to your alternative,” she said.Cady Coleman, a NASA astronaut who served aboard the space shuttle and the space station, sees in the invitation a message to Ms. Funk and many more unsung women in space and aviation.“Wally — you matter. And what you’ve done matters. And I honor you,” is what Dr. Coleman thinks Mr. Bezos is saying. She adds that “When Wally flies, we all fly with her.”But for many women and nonbinary people involved in space and astronomy, the moment is more nuanced.“These individual stories and victories are important, but they are not justice,” said Lucianne Walkowicz, an astronomer at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago.— Mary Robinette Kowal What will it cost to fly on New Shepard?ImageCredit...Blue Origin, via Associated PressFor the first flight, Blue Origin auctioned off one of the seats with the proceeds going to Mr. Bezos’ space-focused nonprofit, Club for the Future. The winning bid was $28 million, an amount that stunned even Blue Origin officials, far higher than they had hoped. Blue Origin announced it will distribute $19 million of that to 19 space-related organizations — $1 million each.The 7,600 people who participated in the auction provided Blue Origin with a list of prospective paying customers, and the company has started selling tickets for subsequent flights.Blue Origin has declined to say what the price is or how many people have signed up, but representatives of the company say there is strong demand.“Our early flights are going for a very good price,” Bob Smith, the chief executive of Blue Origin, said during a news conference on Sunday.During the auction for the seat on Tuesday’s flight, the company said that auction participants could buy a seat on subsequent flights. It has not publicly stated what it charged those who placed bids, or how many seats have been sold.Ariane Cornell, director of astronaut and orbital sales at Blue Origin, said that two additional flights are planned for this year. “So we have already built a robust pipeline of customers that are interested,” she said.Virgin Galactic, the other company offering suborbital flights, has about 600 people who have already bought tickets. The price was originally $200,000 and later raised to $250,000, but Virgin Galactic stopped sales in 2014 after a crash of its first space plane during a test flight. Virgin Galactic officials say they will resume sales later this year, and the price will likely be higher than $250,000.Bezos thanks Amazon workers and customers for his vast wealth, prompting backlash.ImageCredit...Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesFrom groceries and streaming subscriptions to web servers and Alexa, Amazon has become one of the most powerful economic forces in the world. And after Jeff Bezos returned from his brief flight to space on Tuesday in a rocket built by his private space company, Blue Origin, he made remarks that drew attention to the vast wealth the company had created for him.“I also want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all of this,” Mr. Bezos said during a news conference after his spaceflight.Mr. Bezos’ comment prompted swift critical reactions, including from a member of the House of Representatives who serves on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.“Space travel isn’t a tax-free holiday for the wealthy,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon. “We pay taxes on plane tickets. Billionaires flying into space — producing no scientific value — should do the same, and then some!”Mr. Blumenauer expressed concerns about the environmental effects of such space tourist flights. He said he had introduced legislation he called the Securing Protections Against Carbon Emissions (SPACE) Tax Act, aiming to make passengers on such flights pay a tax to offset their pollution impact.He wasn’t alone in connecting Mr. Bezos’ spaceflight with concerns about how Amazon’s business practices have affected his company’s employees as well as small businesses.“While Jeff Bezos is all over the news for paying to go to space, let’s not forget the reality he has created here on Earth,” Representative Nydia Velazquez, Democrat of New York, said on Twitter. She added the hashtag #WealthTaxNow on Tuesday morning and included a link to an article about how much Amazon’s employees had been paid.While those congressional Democrats offered criticism, the message from the White House was more welcoming.“This is a moment of American exceptionalism,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said when asked about the flight during a Tuesday news conference.What Jeff Bezos and crew wore to space.ImageCredit...Blue Origin, via Associated PressWhen Jeff Bezos blasted into space on Tuesday, he wasn’t channeling the Apollo astronauts in at least one respect: his sartorial choice.Mr. Bezos, the founder of Amazon, told NBC’s “Today” show on Monday that he wouldn’t need a traditional spacesuit for the more than 62-mile jaunt above the Earth.Mr. Bezos and the three other crew members aboard the New Shepard capsule wore light flight suits with a shiny sheen that resemble the jumpsuits worn by military pilots, or perhaps even a NASCAR driver’s racing suit.The blue suits, revealed in pictures and videos published by Mr. Bezos and his fellow passengers before the flight, have a mission patch on the upper left chest that features Blue Origin’s rocket blasting into space.“It feels good to be in the flight suit,” Mr. Bezos said in a promotional video that he posted on Monday on Instagram.The crew member’s first initials and surnames are printed in white letters on the chest area of the suits, which have black trim and the Blue Origin name emblazoned on the left sleeve. On the right arm is a flag patch, similar to those worn by astronauts and fighter jet pilots — the American flag for the Bezos brothers and Wally Funk, and the Dutch flag for Oliver Daemen.Blue Origin wasn’t the only company to make distinctive fashion choices in the competition between billionaires in their attempted private conquest of space.When Richard Branson realized his dream of traveling to space last week in a Virgin Galactic rocket plane, he wore a darker blue jumpsuit made by the sports apparel giant Under Armour, complete with the company’s ubiquitous logo.Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, enlisted a costume designer who worked on “Batman v Superman,” “The Fantastic Four,” “The Avengers” and “X-Men II” to create the prototype for the more functional spacesuit worn by astronauts flying in SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule.Correction: July 20, 2021An earlier version of this article misstated the altitude of a Blue Origin flight. It went to space, not orbit.Why did Jeff Bezos take this risk?Jeff Bezos, a child during the Apollo era, grew up fascinated by space. “Space is something that I have been in love with since I was 5 years old,” he said in 2014. “I watched Neil Armstrong step onto the surface of the moon, and I guess it imprinted me.”But that passion long took a back seat to his early business ventures. Mr. Bezos, now 57, first worked on Wall Street, and then started Amazon in 1994. Six years later he founded Blue Origin, the company behind the spaceship he is flying in on Tuesday. But building Amazon — his “day job,” as he once called it — consumed the vast majority of his time, as he transformed it from an online bookseller into one of the most powerful and feared retail forces ever.In recent years he began to step back a bit from Amazon, handing more day-to-day responsibilities to deputies. He would typically spend a day a week — usually Wednesdays — focused on Blue Origin, and in 2017 he announced that he would sell $1 billion of Amazon stock a year to fund the space venture.ImageCredit...Nick Cote for The New York TimesAmazon’s success kept propelling Mr. Bezos’ fortune higher, and in 2018, he surpassed Bill Gates to become the wealthiest person in the world. Booking trips to space rose to the top of his spending list.“The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel,” he said, couching his investment as a form of philanthropy, after he had been criticized for not doing more to share his wealth. “The solar system can easily support a trillion humans,” he said. “If we had a trillion humans, we would have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts and unlimited, for all practical purposes, resources and solar power.”“That’s the world,” he said, “that I want my great-grandchildren’s great-grandchildren to live in.”He briefly re-engaged in Amazon’s daily operations at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. But in February, he announced plans to step down as Amazon’s chief executive. Andy Jassy, one of his top deputies, took over the role early this month.Mr. Bezos said he wanted to devote more focus on Blue Origin and his other ventures.“I’ve never had more energy, and this isn’t about retiring,” he told Amazon employees. “I’m super passionate about the impact I think these organizations can have.”Now, two weeks after officially stepping aside, he has flown to space.What else is Blue Origin building for spaceflight?ImageCredit...Mike Blake/ReutersBlue Origin is developing a larger rocket, New Glenn (named after John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth), to launch satellites and other payloads. The first launch of New Glenn is to occur no earlier than the latter part of next year, delayed by two years.The rocket engine that Blue Origin developed for New Glenn will also power a competing rocket, Vulcan, built by the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The first launch of Vulcan is to occur early next year, and will carry a robotic lander to the moon paid for by NASA.The company also led a proposed design for a lander to take NASA astronauts back to the moon in the coming years. NASA had intended to select two lander designs, but because Congress did not provide as much money to the program as requested, NASA chose only one, from Elon Musk’s SpaceX.Blue Origin — as well as Dynetics, the third company in the competition — protested NASA’s decision with the Government Accountability Office. A decision on the protests is due in early August.What will these suborbital flights mean for the space industry?When Jeff Bezos flew into space on Tuesday, Rick Tumlinson, founding partner of the venture capital firm SpaceFund, hoped to catch a glimpse of the launch.“To see two flights in two weeks is truly the beginning of the tipping point,” said Mr. Tumlinson, who owns property not far from Blue Origin’s launch site near Van Horn, Texas, and, like millions of other people, watched Richard Branson’s flight on Virgin Galactic’s space plane last week.Mr. Tumlinson isn’t alone in his excitement. Space start-up founders and investors see Mr. Bezos’ and Mr. Branson’s suborbital flights driving additional interest to the space industry. They shrug off criticisms over Mr. Bezos, Mr. Branson and SpaceX founder and chief executive Elon Musk pouring some of their billions into the private space race.And their high-profile launches come as investor funding pours into space start-ups, fueling companies that are working to make satellites smaller and launches more accessible. Space start-ups raised over $7 billion in 2020, twice as much as two years earlier, and are on track to continue that rise this year, according to the space analytics firm BryceTech.ImageCredit...Virgin Galactic, via Reuters“The news of the day is that they’re going to put people in space,” said Charles Miller, chief executive of the satellite internet start-up Lynk. But he believes that successful private space companies will benefit humanity by making it easier to put people and satellites in orbit.“It’s going to have a profound impact on life on Earth,” he added.Space technology is a relatively small, tight-knit field, investors and founders said, full of people who have spent decades working for the broader interest and attention the industry is currently enjoying. And for many of them, the appearance of rivalry between Mr. Bezos, Mr. Branson and Mr. Musk is a positive for the industry, not a chance to take sides.“Everybody got up really early to watch Branson, and everyone will watch with bated breath what happens on Bezos’ flight,” said Lisa Rich, a founder of the venture capital firm Hemisphere Ventures and the orbital mission company Xplore.Tim Ellis, the chief executive of the 3D-printed rocket start-up Relativity Space, added: “We all cheer for each other.”— Erin Woo Did New Shepard really go to space?The United States Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration put the boundary of outer space at 50 miles. The F.A.A. has granted astronaut wings to anyone who flies above that altitude, including crew members of Virgin Galactic’s space planes that fly just over it.Internationally, however, the altitude that marks the start of space is usually set at 100 kilometers, or just over 62 miles, what is known as the Kármán line. The Blue Origin spacecraft exceeded this altitude during its flight. Blue Origin highlighted this fact, and several other features of New Shepard, in a tweet on July 9, that compared the spacecraft with Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo days before its fight with Mr. Branson aboard.From the beginning, New Shepard was designed to fly above the Kármán line so none of our astronauts have an asterisk next to their name. For 96% of the world’s population, space begins 100 km up at the internationally recognized Kármán line. pic.twitter.com/QRoufBIrUJ— Blue Origin (@blueorigin) July 9, 2021
What else is going on in private spaceflight?TV and film projects in orbit are attracting the greatest attention so far. In the year ahead, the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, and a Russian broadcaster, Channel One, are behind an effort in the year ahead to send Yulia Peresild, an actress, and Klim Shipenko, a filmmaker, to the space station to make the movie “Challenge.” Ms. Peresild will play a surgeon sent to orbit to save the life of a Russian astronaut.They will fly on a Russian Soyuz rocket. So will a Japanese fashion entrepreneur, Yusaku Maezawa, and Yozo Hirano, a production assistant. Their 12-day trip, scheduled to launch in December, is a prelude for a more ambitious around-the-moon trip Mr. Maezawa hopes to embark on in a few years in the giant SpaceX Starship rocket that is currently in development. His trip to the space station is being arranged by Space Adventures, a company that arranged eight similar visits for private citizens between 2001 and 2009.The Discovery Channel has announced a reality TV show, “Who Wants to Be an Astronaut?” in which the winner gets to travel to the International Space Station. The eight-episode show, in development, is to run next year.SpaceX has a couple of missions in the next 12 months that are scheduled to take private citizens to orbit. One is scheduled to launch in September and will carry Jared Isaacman, the billionaire founder of Shift4 Payments, and three other amateur astronauts, on a trip to orbit. A second, booked by the company Axiom Space, will carry three wealthy individuals and an astronaut working for the company to the International Space Station. | 0 |
On May 22, in a cringe-worthy exchange with Charlamagne tha God on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club,” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you are for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”Advisers from the Biden campaign attempted to walk back the comment, suggesting it was made in jest. Biden apologized.Biden’s comments reflect a common misunderstanding within both political parties about the role that white Americans play in maintaining black support for the Democratic Party. In the book “Steadfast Democrats,” two of us, Ismail White and Chryl Laird, offer insight into how Biden could draw the ire of the same black Americans whose Super Tuesday votes put him in a position to win the Democratic Party nomination for president.Our research finds that black Americans enforce party loyalty as a social normWe find that black social connections are key in maintaining blacks’ commitment to the Democratic Party. To most effectively leverage political strength as a minority group, black Americans have come to prioritize group solidarity in party politics. This partisan loyalty is maintained through a process we call “racialized social constraint,” whereby support for the Democratic Party is understood as just something you do as a black person, an expectation of political behavior meant to empower the racial group.If someone attempts to defect from this group norm, other black Americans enforce group unity by sanctioning the defector. They might denigrate them aloud or in print, questioning someone’s commitment to or standing within the racial group by calling them an Uncle Tom, a sellout, or something similar. These sanctions can sound a lot like Biden’s comments, phrased as, “If you are for Trump, then you ain’t black.” For those who value their standing within black social networks, such social sanctions can powerfully constrain behavior.We tested this idea with an experiment during the 2012 presidential election. We solicited an in-person black student convenience sample of 106 participants from a predominantly white university in the Midwest. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups where we offered participants $10 to donate to an organization that supported either President Barack Obama or his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Participants were told that they could donate some or all of the money or keep the money for themselves.Our participants were then instructed to make this decision in a separate room where there were two donation boxes: one for Romney and one for Obama. One group of participants went into the room alone; others were accompanied by someone they believed to be another participant. Of those who were accompanied, for half, the other participant was white, while for another half, the other participant was black.In both groups, the “other” participant was an actor who was instructed to immediately walk over to the Obama box and say, “I am giving all my money to Obama” and put the money in the box. We expected, given the social norm of black partisanship, that when black participants were in the room with a black norm enforcer, they would donate more money to Obama than when they were alone or with a white norm enforcer. In fact, when participants were accompanied by a black norm enforcer, they donated $6.85 to the Obama box, on average. That’s significantly higher than the average of $3.74 that participants gave when alone or the $4.45 average donated when paired with a white norm enforcer. Ultimately, we find that norm enforcement is the most effective when the enforcer is black.The problem with Biden’s comment is that he’s not blackBut while many black Americans agree with the idea Biden voiced — that black political empowerment is best achieved by supporting the Democratic Party and its candidates — they do not believe that white Americans, even Democrats, have the standing to question any black person’s “blackness,” under any circumstances.Furthermore, the black norm of supporting the Democratic Party is aimed at empowering the group. Biden’s comment might well have struck black Americans as suggesting that they are obligated to support him. It’s more likely that black Americans believe that he is obligated to them for their support.How can Biden overcome his gaffe and show his commitment to black Americans?So what could Biden do or say that could effectively convey his commitment to black Americans? One of us, Julian Wamble, found that when candidates signal that they are committed to acting on the racial group’s behalf, black voters are more likely to support them. These signals can take different forms. For instance, white politicians often convey this by showcasing their social connections to prominent black individuals and organizations.Toward that end, Biden has often highlighted his relationship with former president Obama, and regularly points to his record by saying, “The NAACP has endorsed me every time I have run.” Political scientist Andrea Benjamin’s research tells us that such endorsements can influence black voters’ decisions, particularly where race is concerned.Political scientists Christopher Stout and Keith Baker argued here at TMC that selecting a black woman as his vice presidential nominee would go a long way to show that commitment. That would be especially potent given the fact that black women are a significant force within the Democratic Party.Having knowledge of a group’s norms does not mean that an outsider can enforce them. The more prudent course for a candidate would be to elevate into positions of power people who can enforce these norms. A black woman vice presidential nominee would be an effective signal only if black people themselves perceived her to be committed to the black community’s interests. | 0 |
The request set up a collision between law enforcement and big technology firms in the latest battle over privacy and security.VideotranscripttranscriptBarr Accuses Apple of Giving No ‘Substantive Assistance’ in Pensacola InvestigationAttorney General William P. Barr is pushing Apple to unlock the phones of the gunman behind a deadly shooting at a naval air station in Pensacola, Fla.We have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter’s phones. So far, Apple has not given any substantive assistance. This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence once it is obtained a court order based on probable cause. We call on Apple and other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the lives of American people, and prevent future attacks. The evidence shows that the shooter was motivated by jihadist ideology. During the course of the investigation, we learned that the shooter posted a message on Sept. 11 of this year, stating “the countdown has begun.” During the Thanksgiving weekend, he then visited the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. He also posted other anti-American, anti-Israeli and jihadi messages on social media, including two hours before his attack.Attorney General William P. Barr is pushing Apple to unlock the phones of the gunman behind a deadly shooting at a naval air station in Pensacola, Fla.CreditCredit...Calla Kessler/The New York TimesJan. 13, 2020WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr declared on Monday that a deadly shooting last month at a naval air station in Pensacola, Fla., was an act of terrorism, and he asked Apple in an unusually high-profile request to provide access to two phones used by the gunman.Mr. Barr’s appeal was an escalation of a continuing fight between the Justice Department and Apple pitting personal privacy against public safety. “This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence,” Mr. Barr said. He called on technology companies to find a solution and complained that Apple had provided no “substantive assistance,” a charge that the company strongly denied on Monday night, saying it had been working with the F.B.I. since the day of the shooting.Detailing the results of the investigation into the Dec. 6 shooting that killed three sailors and wounded eight others, Mr. Barr said the gunman, Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani — a Saudi Air Force cadet training with the American military — had displayed extremist leanings. Mr. Alshamrani warned on last year’s anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that “the countdown has begun” and posted other anti-American, anti-Israeli and jihadist social media messages, some within hours of attacking the base, Mr. Barr said. “The evidence shows that the shooter was motivated by jihadist ideology,” the attorney general said.The government has also removed from the country some 21 Saudi students who trained with the American military, Mr. Barr said. He stressed that investigators found no connection to the shooting among the cadets, but said that some had links to extremist movements or possessed child pornography. Mr. Barr said the cases were too weak to prosecute but that Saudi Arabia kicked the trainees out of the program.The battle between the government and technology companies over advanced encryption and other digital security measures has simmered for years. Apple, which stopped routinely helping the government unlock phones in late 2014 as it adopted a more combative stance and unveiled a more secure operating system, has argued that data privacy is a human rights issue. If Apple developed a way to allow the American government into its phones, its executives argued, hackers or foreign governments like China would exploit the tool.But frustrated law enforcement officials accuse Apple of providing a haven for criminals. They have long pushed for a legislative solution to the problem of “going dark,” their term for how increasingly secure phones have made it harder to solve crimes, and the Pensacola investigation gives them a prominent chance to make their case. In a statement Monday night, Apple said the substantive aid it had provided law enforcement agencies included giving investigators access to the gunman’s iCloud account and transaction data for multiple accounts. The company’s statement did not say whether Apple engineers would help the government get into the phones themselves. It said that “Americans do not have to choose between weakening encryption and solving investigations” because there are now so many ways for the government to obtain data from Apple’s devices — many of which Apple routinely helps the government execute.It will not back down from its unequivocal support of encryption that is impossible to crack, people close to the company said.Justice Department officials said that they needed access to Mr. Alshamrani’s phones to see data and messages from encrypted apps like Signal or WhatsApp to determine whether he had discussed his plans with others at the base and whether he was acting alone or with help.“We don’t want to get into a world where we have to spend months and even years exhausting efforts when lives are in the balance,” Mr. Barr said. “We should be able to get in when we have a warrant that establishes that criminal activity is underway.”The confrontation echoed the legal standoff over an iPhone used by a gunman who killed 14 people in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., in late 2015. Apple defied a court order to assist the F.B.I. in its efforts to search his device, setting off a fight over whether privacy enabled by impossible-to-crack encryption harmed public safety. The San Bernardino dispute was resolved when the F.B.I. found a private company to bypass the iPhone’s encryption. Tensions between the two sides, however, remained, and Apple worked to ensure that neither the government nor private contractors could open its phones.ImageCredit...Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Barr said that Trump administration officials have again begun discussing a legislative fix.But the F.B.I. has been bruised by Mr. Trump’s unsubstantiated complaints that former officials plotted to undercut his presidency and by a major inspector general’s report last month that revealed serious errors with aspects of the Russia investigation. A broad bipartisan consensus among lawmakers allowing the bureau to broaden its surveillance authorities is most likely elusive, though some lawmakers singled out Apple for its refusal to change its stance.“Companies shouldn’t be allowed to shield criminals and terrorists from lawful efforts to solve crimes and protect our citizens,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement. “Apple has a notorious history of siding with terrorists over law enforcement. I hope in this case they’ll change course and actually work with the F.B.I.”Apple typically complies with court orders to turn over information on its servers. But said that it would turn over only the data it had, implying that it would not work to unlock the phones.Investigators secured a court order within a day of the shooting, allowing them to search the phones, Mr. Barr said. He turned up the pressure on Apple a week after the F.B.I.’s top lawyer, Dana Boente, asked the company for help searching Mr. Alshamrani’s iPhones. Officials said that the F.B.I. was still trying to gain access to the phones on its own and approached Apple only after asking other government agencies, foreign governments and third-party technology vendors for help, to no avail. The devices were older models: an iPhone 7 with a fingerprint reader and an iPhone 5, according to a person familiar with the investigation. Justice Department officials said that investigators have yet to make a final determination about whether Mr. Alshamrani conspired with others. They said that the Saudi government was offering “unprecedented” cooperation but that “we need to get into those phones.”Mr. Barr and other law enforcement officials described a 15-minute shootout before security officers shot and killed Mr. Alshamrani. During the firefight, Mr. Alshamrani paused at one point to shoot one of his phones once, Mr. Barr said, adding that his other phone was also damaged but that the F.B.I. was able to repair them well enough to be searched.Mr. Alshamrani also shot at photographs of President Trump and one of his predecessors, said David Bowdich, the deputy director of the F.B.I. A person familiar with the investigation identified the unnamed president as George W. Bush.Mr. Alshamrani’s weapon was lawfully purchased in Florida under an exemption that allows nonimmigrant visa holders to buy firearms if they have a valid hunting license or permit, officials said.Law enforcement officials have continued to discuss Mr. Alshamrani’s phones with Apple, they said. “We’re not trying to weaken encryption, to be clear,” Mr. Bowdich said at a news conference, noting that the issue has come up with thousands of devices that investigators want to see in other cases. “We talk about this on a daily basis,” he said. Mr. Bowdich was the bureau’s top agent overseeing the San Bernardino investigation and was part of the effort to push Apple to crack into the phone in that case. But much has also changed for Apple in the years since Tim Cook, its chief executive, excoriated the Obama administration publicly and privately in 2014 for attacking strong encryption. Obama officials who were upset by Apple’s stance on privacy, along with its decision to shelter billions of dollars in offshore accounts and make its products almost exclusively in China, aired those grievances quietly. Now Apple is fighting the Trump administration, and Mr. Trump has shown far more willingness to publicly criticize companies and public figures. When he recently claimed falsely that Apple had opened a manufacturing plant in Texas at his behest, the company remained silent rather than correct him. At the same time, Apple has financially benefited more under Mr. Trump than under President Barack Obama. It reaped a windfall from the Trump administration’s tax cuts, and Mr. Trump said he might shield Apple from the country’s tariff war with China. He had said last month that finding a way for law enforcement to gain access to encrypted technology was one of the Justice Department’s “highest priorities.”Mr. Alshamrani, who was killed at the scene of the attack, came to the United States in 2017 and soon started strike-fighter training in Florida. Investigators believe he may have been influenced by extremists as early as 2015. Mr. Barr rejected reports that other Saudi trainees had known of and recorded video of the shooting. Mr. Alshamrani arrived at the scene by himself, and others in the area began recording the commotion only after he had opened fire, Mr. Barr said. They and other Saudi cadets cooperated with the inquiry, he added.Jack Nicas contributed reporting from San Francisco. | 0 |
London (CNN)The Brexit process was thrown into disarray Monday as Prime Minister Theresa May pulled the plug on a crucial parliamentary vote on her deal for the country to leave the European Union.May admitted the decision to delay the vote was made after it became clear she would lose it "by a significant margin." She will now go back to EU leaders to seek further reassurances, she said. The embattled leader told the UK House of Commons that she had listened "very carefully to what has been said in this chamber and out of it" -- a statement that was met with laughter and jeering by members of Parliament.An emergency debate on the government's decision will take place in Parliament on Tuesday morning as "the first item of business," Speaker John Bercow said. Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn requested the emergency debate Monday night. May admitted that "there remains widespread and deep concern" over the Northern Ireland backstop. The backstop is an arrangement designed to ensure there is no return to a "hard border" between Ireland, which will remain part of the European Union after Brexit, and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves the bloc next March.Northern Ireland's secretary of state said she supported the decision to delay the vote. "Clearly, having listened to colleagues across the House, there is more work to be done to provide reassurances on the Northern Ireland-Ireland backstop," MP Karen Bradley said in a statement. "I am convinced that leaving the EU without an agreement would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and potentially for the long-term future of the Union. I am not prepared to take risks with or gamble the Union of the United Kingdom."The prime minister said she had hoped changes secured to the backstop, to avoid being trapped in it indefinitely, would be enough for MPs."I spoke to a number of EU leaders over the weekend and, in advance of the European Council, I will go to see my counterparts in other member states and the leadership of the council and the commission. I will discuss with them the clear concerns that this House has expressed," May said."We will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the House at this time," May added. On Tuesday morning May will travel to The Hague to hold a bilateral meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Downing Street said.It will be part of May's plan to seek "assurances" from EU leaders, which she can then convey to the UK Parliament to pass her Brexit deal.Opposition leader: Our country deserves betterCorbyn called her agreement a "botched deal" before adding that "our country deserves better than this.""The government has lost control of events and is in complete disarray," Corbyn said. "It's been evident for weeks that the prime minister's deal did not have confidence of this House yet she plowed on regardless, reiterating 'this is the only deal available.'"The leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, confirmed the vote was no longer on the House voting schedule after May's statement. The uncertainty over the future of Brexit caused sterling to plummet Monday to its weakest level in a year-and-a-half.UK parliamentarians were supposed to be given the opportunity to approve or reject the deal in a so-called "meaningful vote" in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening. In recent weeks, May had been trying to win support for her agreement but, with a high number of her own Conservative Party MPs opposed to it, she didn't appear to be having much success. EU: No further negotiationsThere was confusion and anger as May hit the pause button on the vote. European Council President Donald Tusk said the EU "will not renegotiate the deal including the backstop" and stressed that "as time is running out, we will also discuss our preparedness for a no-deal scenario."Tusk added that the EU is "ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification."In a post on Twitter before May spoke, EU Parliament chief Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt expressed his frustration at the vote's stalling."This delay will further aggravate the uncertainty for people & businesses. It's time they make up their mind!" he wrote.Earlier on Monday, the EU's top court ruled that Britain could unilaterally halt the formal process of leaving the bloc next year.The European Court of Justice sided with the advice of its top legal officer, who declared last week that the UK has the power to withdraw its notification to leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, without the agreement of other member states.But May's government dismissed the ruling, with Environment Secretary Michael Gove telling the BBC that the UK will divorce the bloc regardless of the ECJ decision. "We voted very clearly -- 17.4 million people sent a clear message that they wanted to leave the European Union," said Gove, a prominent Leave campaigner. "And that also means leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he said.Bradley said the agreement secured by the prime minister "is in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland." "The EU wanted to split Great Britain and Northern Ireland into two different customs territories. This agreement ensures that there is one United Kingdom customs territory in which Northern Ireland is an integral part. And the deal means that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland so that people can continue to lead their lives in the same way as they do today," Bradley said in her statement."Overall, the agreement fully respects the democratically expressed wishes of the people of the United Kingdom who voted by a majority in June 2016 to leave the European Union. It enables us to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders. And in the unlikely event that the future relationship with the EU is not fully agreed by the end of 2020 the UK will have the option of extending the implementation or transition period rather than entering the so-called backstop at all."CNN's Bianca Britton and Hilary McGann contributed to this story. | 0 |
Story highlightsNegotiations might be even more contentious than many expectedThe most vocal opposition to date has come from the tea party (CNN)Republican leadership's first effort to sell an Obamacare replacement plan has given rise to an unusual consensus in Washington. Officials on both sides of the aisle -- including disparate factions within parties -- and influential outside groups seem to be in agreement: the bill in its current form will never make it to the White House.President Donald Trump on Tuesday nodded to the long road ahead."Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation," he tweeted, while also calling Obamacare "a complete and total disaster."The early reviews suggest those negotiations might be even more contentious than many expected. That Democrats would be united in their opposition was a given -- and an afterthought. The party is almost completely powerless on Capitol Hill, where much of action will happen through the simple majority budget process. But the GOP rank-and-file and its orbit of donors and think tanks will have their say. And so far, they're saying the bill is "dead on arrival." Here's a look at who is opposed and why:The House Freedom Caucus and Senate allies say it's Obamacare liteThe most vocal opposition to date has come from the tea party and its descendants in the House. Many of them campaigned on promises of "full repeal." But the bill on the table right now is closer to a restructuring, then eliminating Obamacare. Though it would scrap the current mandate, the new proposal includes an inducement to stay insured, in the form of a 30% surcharge on a year's premium, for anyone who allows their coverage to lapse or drops it, then seeks to re-enter the market. Conservatives also view the prospect of a refundable tax credit to help pay for insurance as another "entitlement," or government spending program. In an interview on Monday, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a former Freedom Caucus chairman told CNN's Lauren Fox that the new plan is "in many ways is Obamacare by just a different format." Jordan and his colleagues are pushing a separate proposal that doesn't figure to get much attention from party leaders.Michigan Rep. Justin Amash said about the same on Monday night, tweeting that the replacement bill amounted to "Obamacare 2.0."Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows began to share his concerns last week, before the plan went public, tweeting, "Every tax, every mandate, every regulation of #Obamacare needs to go."On Monday, he published an op-ed with Sen. Rand Paul calling on GOP leadership to "move forward with a 'clean' repeal," effectively detaching the debate over a replacement bill from a vote to strike down Obamacare.Paul on Tuesday unleashed a string of complaints, doubling down on his assertion that the plan is not fundamentally different from the current law, but "Obamacare Lite.""It keeps Obamacare subsidies," he tweeted, "but renames them 'refundable credits.'"A larger group of House fiscal conservatives, the Republican Study Committee, has similar misgivings. In a staff memo obtained from a GOP source, the RSC cites among its "major concerns" the creation of a "Republican welfare entitlement" in the form of the proposed refundable tax credits."Writing checks to individuals to purchase insurance is, in principle, Obamacare," the memo says. The moderate Republican Senate holdouts are worried about MedicaidThe pressure is not coming exclusively from Democrats and the Republican right. A group of four more moderate Republican senators wrote a letter to Majority Mitch McConnell on Monday expressing their concern over potential cuts to Medicaid, which would be targeted for a broad overhaul.Obamacare's expanded federal funding would be phased out and the states would eventually receive a fixed amount of money for each enrollee in the broader program, allotted per recipient. Cost overruns would be footed by the states, which would, experts say, likely be forced to reduce eligibility and benefits. In their message to McConnell, GOP Sens. Rob Portman, Shelley Moore Capito, Cory Gardner and Lisa Murkowski, expressed worry that the plan would not adequately protect those covered by Medicaid expansion."We are concerned that any poorly implemented or poorly timed change in the current funding structure in Medicaid could result in a reduction in access to life-saving health care services," they wrote. "The Medicaid population includes a wide range of beneficiaries, many of which cycle on and off Medicaid due to frequent changes in income, family situations, and living environments."The letter was noteworthy for another, more pragmatic reason: four Republican votes against the bill, along with a united Democratic opposition, would be more than enough to sink it. Outside groups and big dollar donors are getting ready to fight on TVMany of the groups, think tanks and donors that helped bolster the GOP congressional majority are now openly at odds with the leadership.FreedomWorks, a conservative group that provided early support to the tea party, has called the bill's "surcharge" on people who let their coverage lapse a "Republican Individual Mandate."They announced on Tuesday evening plans to spend "well into six figures" on a "digital and social media ad campaign to mobilize conservatives in key districts and nationwide to contact their legislators and tell them to oppose ObamaCare Lite."The Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity tweeted a message for Speaker Paul Ryan: "Our advice: Take it back to the drawing board." In a letter to Ryan, and the architects of the plan, Reps. Kevin Brady and Greg Walden, AFP and Freedom Partners said on Tuesday that "as the bill stands today, it is Obamacare 2.0""We urge you to keep your promise," they write, "reject the House bill, and pass the full Obamacare repeal that Americans deserve."Also on Tuesday, The Heritage Foundation tweeted that "the House Republican health care bill falls short of the Obamacare repeal that Republicans have long promised."And in a statement, Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham argued that the plan is so similar to Obamcare that it effectively enshrines its principles."In many ways, the House Republican proposal released last night not only accepts the flawed progressive premises of Obamacare but expands upon them," Needham said, then joining the chorus asking to divide the replacement process from the repeal."Rather than accept the flawed premises of Obamacare," he continued, "congressional Republicans should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to deliver on longstanding campaign promises that create a free market health care system that empowers patients and doctors."The Trump administration is ready to negotiateHealth and Human Services Sec. Tom Price, a former Georgia congressman who has long sought to upend Obamacare, kicked off the White House press briefing on Tuesday by calling the bill "a work in progress," indicating that the administration was open to edits from Capitol Hill.Press Secretary Sean Spicer passed on a chance to call the plan Trump's, saying, "We're not jamming it down anyone's throats."And Vice President Mike Pence, who met on Tuesday with Republican senators, told reporters that Trump "supports" the bill, describing it as a "framework for reform."The White House will be the final hurdle for Republicans, who have spent years agitating to undo Obamacare. "We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told the Washington Post in January, promising the new product would arrive "in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better."How those pledges mesh -- or don't -- with the congressional GOP's final product could decide the fate of Obamacare and the officials dedicated to seeing it torn down. | 0 |
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve."They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."Obama said the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is "desperate" to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam. It counts on that legitimacy, he said, to propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie," he said.The president said the Islamic State and al Qaeda do draw selectively from Islamic texts to try to justify that they are in a religious war. But, he added, that doesn't mean they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims who reject the group's hateful ideology and violence."They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism," he said. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism."Obama's Handshakes Around The World | 0 |
The suspect, 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis, is in custody.At least 10 people are dead after a 17-year-old student allegedly opened fire at Santa Fe High School in Texas this morning, sending students fleeing for their lives, the governor said.Ten others were wounded, including a police officer who is in critical condition, officials said.A teacher is among the dead, according to law enforcement officials.Gov. Greg Abbott called the shooting "one of the most heinous attacks that we've ever seen in the history of Texas schools."The suspect, 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis, is in custody and has been charged with capital murder, officials said. The suspect allegedly wrote in journals that he wanted to carry out the shooting and then commit suicide, but he gave himself up to authorities, according to Abbott.At the Santa Fe Police Department, Pagourtzis gave a statement admitting to shooting multiple people inside the school with the intent of killing people, according to an probable cause affidavit.Pagourtzis also allegedly stated during the interview that he did not shoot students he liked "so he could have his story told," the affidavit states.There were no warning signs and the suspect doesn't have a criminal history, officials said.A second individual, a person of interest, has been detained, officials said.Two weapons were used in the massacre -- a shotgun and a .38 revolver -- both of which appear to be legally owned by the suspect's father, the governor said."I have no information if the father was aware the son had taken these weapons from the father," Abbott added.Explosive devices were also found at the school, and devices including a Molotov cocktail were found in a car and a home, authorities said.Freshman Peter Matuza was in art class this morning when he heard two explosions and ducked under a table, he said.The gunman shot Peter’s friend with a shotgun before turning and opening fire with a revolver, Peter told ABC News.Students were running and screaming and one student flipped a table over for cover, Peter said.Peter said he made eye contact with the suspect, noting, "he had a face of rage.""He could have killed me right there," he said.The gunman then “walked through a closet that went straight to the adjacent art room and began opening fire in there, as well,” Peter said.Bryton Sumbles, a former football player for the school, told ABC News that he reported Pagourtzis to teachers in the past because he thought it was odd that he would wear trench coats in 97-degree weather, and he thought it would be easy to hide a gun under the coat. Nothing seemed to come from the report, Sumbles said.Another former football player, Zefe Nunez, said he remembers Pagourtzis as being incredibly quiet and that he wouldn't talk to anyone. Nunez was in the first classroom that Pagourtzis allegedly fired on, and he flipped a desk to shelter himself and a classmate as glass shattered around him.Nunez said he ran away while Pagourtzis was allegedly reloading, adding that he was wearing the same black trench coat he would always wear."I heard the [fire] alarms and everybody ran out,” tenth-grader Dakota Shrader told ABC station KTRK in Houston. “At first all we heard was ‘run, run,’ and next thing you know we hear, ‘boom, boom, boom.’”“Everybody started running,” she said, “and I tried to make it to the safest place that I could as fast as I can. I called my mom right away.”“She couldn’t breathe, she was having an asthma attack,” her mom added. “I didn’t even know where to find her.”Among the injured is school district police officer John Barnes, who is in critical condition. Barnes, a retired Houston police officer, was shot in the arm and suffered major bleeding, hospital officials said.Two school district officers on campus were able to confront the shooter early on, authorities said.As students lined up outside the building, ambulances, helicopters and federal agents swarmed the school in Santa Fe, between Galveston and Houston.Cameras in the school are expected to provide a lot of information, said officials."I’m scared to even go back," said one student, crying. "It’s just not something that you should feel throughout the day, being scared. Especially somewhere where we say the Pledge of Allegiance."“It has been happening everywhere. I wasn’t surprised it happened here,” one student told KTRK. “I was just scared. I just kept running.”This is the sixth fatal shooting at a school since the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting that killed 17 students and staff in February. The Parkland massacre prompted a national debate about gun reform and school safety.Just last month students at Santa Fe High School participated in a nationwide school walkout against school gun violence. The walkout was held on April 20 -- the anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre that killed 13.A Santa Fe student said they read poems by a Parkland survivor, held 17 minutes of silence in honor of the 17 people killed in Parkland, and discussed ways they could raise gun violence awareness and make their voices heard.School shootings have "been going on too long in our country," President Trump said today from the White House."Too many years, too many decades now, we grieve for the terrible loss of life and send our support and love to everyone affected by this absolutely horrific attack," he said.Abbott said it's time to "make sure this tragedy is never repeated ever again."He said roundtable discussions with parents, students and educators will be held."We want to hear from everybody who has an interest in what has happened today so we can work together on putting together laws that will protect second amendment rights but at the same time ensure that our communities and especially our schools are safer places," Abbott said."My prayers are with each student, parent, educator and first responder impacted,” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a statement. “Our schools must be safe and nurturing environments for learning. No student should have to experience the trauma suffered by so many today and in similar events prior.”“We simply cannot allow this trend to continue,” she said. “Every day, the Federal Commission on School Safety is working to identify proven ways to prevent violence and keep our students safe at school. Our work remains urgent. Our nation must come together and address the underlying issues that lead to such tragic and senseless loss of life."Trump has ordered flags to fly at half-staff in memory of the victims.ABC News' Gina Sunseri, Jack Date, Aaron Katersky, Marcus Moore, Jim Scholz, Jennifer Watts, Jonah Lustig, Alyssa Pone, Meghan Keneally, Zunaira Zaki, Laura Coburn and Cho Park contributed to this report.Top Stories | 0 |
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- With a solid debate performance over the weekend and a strong showing in New Hampshire Tuesday, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had a chance to put the rest of the GOP establishment on borrowed time. Instead, there is a real danger for Rubio that a Granite State stumble could turn into a national fall.He could still relegate the other mainstream Republicans to the fringe with a decisive victory here in the first-in-the-nation primary Tuesday. But following his third place performance in Iowa, Rubio faces a dangerous electoral concoction: a combination of high expectations and the possibility that another establishment candidate, such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich, could beat him.If a Rubio rally on Sunday was any indication, the senator’s exchange with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in Saturday night's debate that pointed out his propensity to repeat the same talking points is actually giving Rubio’s supporters, long-standing ones and the prospective kind, pause.“Rubio got a little beat-down,” Will Stewart of Manchester said at an event that was billed as a Super Bowl watch party with Rubio.“The whole talking point issue is concerning,” Stewart, who is undecided, continued. “You hope there’s a little more depth there.”New London resident Paul Licari -- who said he was deciding among Kasich, Rubio and Christie -- described the exchange this way: “Christie was on it.”Even Rubio’s strongest allies were a little taken aback by the Florida senator resorting to the same canned line criticizing President Barack Obama after Christie called him on doing just that.Eddie Foye of Hookset told HuffPost he has been impressed with Rubio since the first time he heard him speak as a senator, and he’s been a Rubio supporter from early in the presidential race. And even though Foye came away from the debate exchange disliking Christie more, he admitted he was surprised at how poorly Rubio had handled the situation.“Marco was a little unprepared for his answers,” he said.Al Nunes of Wilmot, who said he was a Rubio supporter “more or less,” called the Christie-Rubio exchange interesting.“It was fair,” Nunes said. “The way I look at it is, if you can’t -- I mean, you got to get through these debates, you got to get through the process.”Rubio defended his response and said he would continue to repeat the same point.“It’s funny people keep saying it’s a bad thing. I’m going to keep saying it over and over again,” he said.Rubio was able to break from his stump script a bit more than usual Sunday, cracking jokes about the Super Bowl and delivering some witty repartee with the audience.When Rubio told the crowd that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had said there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton, a woman in the back of the athletic training facility, where the event was being held, shouted that she was going to hell then.“Well here's the good news, ma'am: You don't have to,” Rubio said, thinking on his feet. “You can vote against her and still find salvation."While many attendees thought they were coming to watch the Super Bowl with Rubio -- it was, after all, billed as a watch party -- Rubio seemed to accomplish what he needed to in a speech that was roughly 20 minutes and then, after taking some photos, departed before the game began.And that seemed to be enough for Granite Staters on the fence. “His response was that he stands by what he says,” Nunes told HuffPost after the event. “I’m comfortable with it. He showed me that he’s comfortable with himself. It was not like it’s being portrayed as talking points. He said what he meant.” Nunes, who was still hedging before the speech, said Rubio had locked down his vote.Samantha-Jo Roth contributed reporting.Most Awkward Moments On The 2016 Campaign Trail | 0 |
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the state’s congressional map went so far to benefit Republicans that it “clearly, plainly and palpably” violated the state constitution.The court, where Democrats have a 5-2 majority, blocked the use of the map in the 2018 midterm elections, ordered state lawmakers to begin to draw a new map. The suit against the congressional map, which only challenged it under Pennsylvania’s state constitution, was one of the most watched voting rights cases in the country. The ruling could encourage groups to bring similar challenges against congressional gerrymandering cases in other states and bypass a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently considering two cases dealing with partisan gerrymandering.Pennsylvania has been described as one of the worst gerrymandered states in the country, and analyses have found the map is responsible for at least three additional GOP seats in Congress. Republicans controlled the redistricting process in 2010 and drew the map to give them a considerable advantage. In the 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections they won 13 of the state’s 18 congressional seats, despite just winning about 50 percent of the vote.The suit, brought by the League of Women Voters on behalf of 18 voters in each of the state’s congressional districts, said that GOP lawmakers had retaliated against Democratic voters for supporting Democratic candidates, violating the equal protection and free expression guarantees in the state constitution. The justices gave GOP lawmakers until Feb. 9 to submit a new map and gave Gov. Tom Wolf (D) until Feb. 15 to approve it. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement on the plan, the justices said the court would move quickly on its own to develop a constitutional congressional map. The court said the new map could be expected by Feb. 19.“Pennsylvania voters will finally be able to cast their ballots in districts that were fairly and constitutionally drawn,” David Gersch, one of the lawyers who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, said in a call with reporters on Monday. “This is a tremendous day for Pennsylvania, tremendous day for the voters and it’s also a tremendous step by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.The current map is the worst map in Pennsylvania’s history.”The justices indicated the state’s congressional primary on May 15 would proceed as scheduled.The court only issued an order on Monday and said a full opinion would follow. In a dissenting statement, the court’s two Republicans, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Sallie Updyke Mundy, said they would not have issued a ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on its partisan gerrymandering cases. They agreed with a lower court’s finding, however, that the map raised “substantial concerns” about constitutional viability. In a separate dissenting opinion, Mundy expressed concern with the vagueness of the court’s order, arguing it had instructed the legislature to redraw the state’s congressional map without giving it any guidance on how to do so.Justice Max Baer (D) wrote an opinion joining the majority in part and dissenting in part. He said he would have held off on redrawing the congressional map until 2020 so it didn’t throw the state’s 2018 midterm elections into chaos and confusion.At oral arguments in Harrisburg last week, lawyers for House Speaker Michael Turzai (R) and Senate President Tempore Joseph Scarnati (R) defended the map, saying that courts had never articulated a standard for when partisan gerrymandering was so egregious that it could be unconstitutional.E. Mark Braden, a lawyer for Turzai, said it was inconceivable that a political body like a legislature, which is constitutionally tasked with drawing lines for Congress, would not take partisan considerations into account.Scarnati and Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R) criticized the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on Monday, saying they intended to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block the order to redraw the map.“Today’s ruling by the State Supreme Court is a partisan action showing a distinct lack of respect for the Constitution and the legislative process. The PA Supreme Court has overstepped its legal authority and set up an impossible deadline that will only introduce chaos in the upcoming Congressional election. The Court had this case since Nov. 9, 2017 ― giving it over 10 weeks to reach this decision,” they said in a joint statement. “Yet, it has elected to give the legislature 19 days to redraw and adopt the Congressional Districts. With matters the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in the past, it afforded the General Assembly four months to make corrections.”The statement continued, saying: “It is clear that with this ruling the Court is attempting to bypass the Constitution and the legislative process and legislate themselves, directly from the bench.”Gov. Wolf, a named defendant in the suit who supported striking down the maps, said his administration was assessing next steps. Wolf would have to sign off on any maps passed by the legislature.“I strongly believe that gerrymandering is wrong and consistently have stated that the current maps are unfair to Pennsylvanians. My administration is reviewing the order and we are assessing the executive branch’s next steps in this process,” he said in a statement.R. Stanton Jones, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, told reporters that any appeal would be unsuccessful because the challenge to the congressional map was only brought under the state constitution, not the federal one.“It’s well established that the United States Supreme Court does not review decisions of state court that exclusively construe state law, which is the exact situation you have here,” Jones said. “When people talk about federalism, the concept of federalism, this is an important part of it. The United States Supreme Court doesn’t get to tell a state’s highest court what is state law, in this case Pennsylvania law.”Democrats praised the court’s verdict.“This ruling is one more example of the courts telling Republican legislatures that drawing district lines for partisan purposes violates our democratic principles,” said former Attorney General Eric Holder, now head of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, in a statement. “What the Republican party has been doing diminishes the voting power of Americans and contributes to the polarization of our political system. This year, Pennsylvania voters can finally look forward to casting ballots under a fair and legal congressional map.” | 0 |
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday that transgender people will no longer be allowed to serve in the U.S. military “in any capacity” ― a stunning reversal of an Obama-era policy that affects thousands of service members. After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
The move, which ironically comes in the middle of the White House’s American Heroes Week, was wholly unexpected. It’s not clear why Trump decided to announce such a significant policy change via Twitter or when it would take effect. His timing in relation to other political events is also odd: He shared the news in the midst of Senate Republicans’ high-stakes fight to repeal Obamacare this week.Trump claims he made the move after consulting with military experts, despite the Pentagon lifting the ban on transgender service members in 2016 after an exhaustive review of its military readiness policies.“Our mission is to defend this country, and we don’t want barriers unrelated to a person’s qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who can best accomplish the mission,” then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said. “We have to have access to 100% of America’s population for our all-volunteer force to be able to recruit from among them the most highly qualified — and to retain them.”The biggest question is what the news means for the thousands of transgender men and women currently serving in the military. There are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender people in active military service, a Rand Corp. study estimates. Another group, the Palm Center, put the number as high as 15,500 a few years ago.White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders couldn’t give any details later Wednesday when she was asked what will happen to the transgender troops currently serving overseas or when the ban will take effect. During her daily press briefing, she repeatedly said the White House and the Defense Department will work out those specifics. Asked about Trump’s pledge as a candidate to fight for the LGBTQ community, Sanders said his decision to ban transgender troops was about “military readiness” and that the president “has been very clear he’s committed to fighting for all Americans.” As more questions poured in, Sanders said she would end the briefing if reporters didn’t ask about other topics.“If those are the only questions we have, we’re going to call it a day,” she said.The Pentagon has been referring all questions about the change to the White House.One thing that is clear is that conservatives have been gunning for this change. The right-wing Family Research Council was among the first out with a statement praising Trump for taking the step.“I applaud President Trump for keeping his promise to return to military priorities ― and not continue the social experimentation of the Obama era that has crippled our nation’s military,” said the group’s president, Tony Perkins. “The military can now focus its efforts on preparing to fight and win wars rather than being used to advance the Obama social agenda.”Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who unsuccessfully tried to deny hormone therapy and gender transition-related care to transgender troops during debate on a defense spending bill this month, also hailed Trump for being concerned about the cost of providing care to transgender service members.But those costs are incredibly low: Rand Corp. estimates 30 to 140 people would seek new hormone treatments per year, and 25 to 130 would seek gender transition-related surgeries. That amounts to a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in the Defense Department’s total health care spending, per Rand.The American Medical Association has emphasized the medical necessity of mental health care, hormone therapy and gender-transition surgery as forms of therapeutic treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a “serious medical condition” that stems from the distress a person feels when his or her gender identity does not correspond with his or her birth sex. Not all transgender people are diagnosed with gender dysphoria; some don’t experience that distress.LGBTQ rights groups slammed Trump for making the change solely to appease his conservative base.“This has been studied extensively, and the consensus is clear: There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country,” said Joshua Block, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & HIV Project. “The president is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of military personnel who have put their lives on the line for their country.”Gregory Angelo, the president of Log Cabin Republicans, a group that represents LGBTQ conservatives, said Trump’s move “smacks of politics, pure and simple.”“The United States military already includes transgender individuals who protect our freedom day in and day out,” Angelo said. “Excommunicating transgender soldiers only weakens our readiness; it doesn’t strengthen it.”The president’s action completely contradicts his 2016 campaign claims about being better for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans than his Democratic opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Trump dodged the draft a total of five times, once arguing he couldn’t serve in the U.S. military because of bone spurs in his heels.This article has been updated with comments from Sarah Sanders’ press briefing and more reactions to the announcement.LGBTQ Groups React To Trump Revoking Trans Protections | 0 |
On the chopping block: A slice of first lady Michelle Obama’s school nutrition bid and a key provision of President Barack Obama’s financial overhaul law. Saved by the threat of a shutdown: the EPA’s budget and energy rules. These are among the trade-offs embedded in the sprawling $1.1 trillion spending bill Democratic and Republican negotiators unveiled late Tuesday in an effort to keep the federal government functioning past Thursday. The Boy Scouts won a special fix for their pensions, while Americans living abroad would get relief from new Obamacare rules on health insurance. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) worked in provisions essentially hiking the number of hours from 70 to 82 that truckers would be able drive each week. The wealthy could soon be able to give far more cash to political parties. ( Also on POLITICO: Budget bill shows GOP's new muscle) Democrats won new limits on federal contracts for certain companies moving their tax addresses abroad, while Republicans secured language that would block any rules aimed at protecting small birds, the greater and Gunnison sage grouses. Republicans will have to wait a little longer, until they officially take control of the Senate, to try to pass cuts directly related to Obamacare: Funding is flat in the spending bill. And funding for the Environmental Protection Agency comes in at more than the White House asked for. “There are a lot of things in it,” acknowledged Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip. Others were less tactful. “It’s disgraceful,” Republican Sen. John McCain said, speaking before the bill came out, predicting it would be “jammed full of shit.” ( Also on POLITICO: Coburn threatens spending deal over defense bill) The bill is supposed to set the annual budgets for programs ranging from the Justice Department to NASA to the Food and Drug Administration. But it’s also a vehicle for all sorts of provisions that can ride on its coattails — and otherwise might be vetoed. That’s because lawmakers, and the president, are determined to avoid a government shutdown, which would begin after current federal funding expires Thursday. But party leaders were running short of the votes to get the job done because of the usual culprits: a “Hell No” faction of House Republicans. Some were balking at the plan because it wouldn’t block Obama’s recent immigration order. Others don’t like the overall spending levels. Still others object to being asked to vote on a bill they’ve barely even seen. So leaders searching for votes looked elsewhere from lawmakers still hoping to get their favorite initiatives across the finish line before Congress quits for the year. Lawmakers used to rely on earmarks to grease the legislative skids, but those have been banned for several years, so they instead to look to their colleagues’ favorite causes. The result is a behemoth measure that touches everything from union pensions to defense procurement, resulting in one of the most consequential bills to come before Congress this year. ( Also on POLITICO: Warren to Dems: Kill the bill) It also amounts to a frantic policy scavenger hunt for K Streeters, the administration, even rank-and-file members of Congress — all eager to discover what did and didn’t make it into the bill. D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton readily admitted Tuesday afternoon that she had no idea whether the bill would include Republican demands to block the District’s recent referendum to legalize marijuana. (It does.) “I don’t even know which Democrats are in the room,” Norton lamented, noting the referendum was approved by the District with 70 percent of the vote. “We want them to leave what the voters have done alone,” she said. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said he was anxious to learn whether the bill would include additional funding for counties in his state with lots of federal land exempt from taxation. Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman said he was concerned about getting provisions important to a nuclear power plant in his state. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said he believed he had gotten provisions included that would ensure veterans benefits aren’t interrupted should the government shut down again. ( Also on POLITICO: Reid's new mission: Blocking 'crazy stuff') Other lawmakers were left fuming over the process, complaining they had no idea what is in the bill. “Don’t you think we ought to be able to read it?” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “Shouldn’t we know what we’re voting on?” Sen. Richard Shelby, who, as the top Republican on the appropriations committee was one of the architects of the plan, defended the bill. “I don’t think it’s a Christmas tree,” he said. “Appropriations bills always have a lot of things in them because there’s a trillion dollars — how to spend it, how not to spend it.” Lawmakers finally released the bill late in the evening, and Washington’s policy scavenger hunt was on. In: A provision that would bar the EPA from regulating methane emissions from livestock production. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and livestock, which release methane in their flatulence, account for about 10 percent of U.S. emissions, according to the EPA. Out: Any poultry processed in China that might have wound up in school lunches. The Agriculture Department would be banned from using it. Retiring Rep. George Miller, a close ally of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, secured pension-related provisions running more than 160 pages sought by many unions. Banks won a rollback of a section of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law related to derivatives trading. The defense industry secured new funding for F-35s fighters the Pentagon didn’t even ask for, while anti-environmental groups won provisions targeting the administration’s climate change policies. States, meanwhile, would get the option to let schools skip out on rules requiring serving whole grains — a blow to the first lady’s child nutrition efforts. Even with all the goodies, it’s still not clear whether lawmakers have the votes to pass the plan. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) blasted the changes to Dodd-Frank. “We all need to stand and fight this giveaway to the most powerful banks in this country,” she said. “These are the same banks that nearly broke the economy in 2008 and destroyed millions of jobs.” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said he would oppose the plan in part because of changes that would allow the wealthy to donate up to $777,600, from the current $97,200, to the national party committees. The administration, meanwhile, said it could abide by the school-lunch changes. “In light of the effects to roll back school nutrition standards, we consider the minor adjustments to the standards a real win for kids and parents,” Sam Kass, a senior adviser on nutrition, said in a statement. Politico Pro staff contributed to this report. | 0 |
A reporter was fired over her story that incorrectly claimed President Trump spent Thanksgiving golfing and tweeting — even though she says she was assigned the story in advance and her editor failed to rework it after the president made an unannounced secret trip to Afghanistan. Jessica Kwong was terminated by Newsweek after Trump and Donald Trump Jr. mocked the botched story on Twitter. She told a reporter that she filed the story as instructed by her editors on Wednesday, based on Trump’s expected activities for the holiday. The story was headlined “How Did Trump Spend Thanksgiving? Tweeting, Golfing and More.” Kwong, who covers the Trump White House and the 2020 election, was not scheduled to work on Thanksgiving. Her editor found out in the late afternoon along with the rest of the world that Trump had actually taken a secret trip to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops. The editor updated the story with some new information about the Afghanistan trip but still incorrectly kept the claim that he had been golfing or on social media. Donald Trump Jr. joked that the inaccurate story shows that “Fake News gonna fake.” The president dissed Kwong’s bosses saying “I thought Newsweek was out of business?” | 0 |
(CNN)In two unsigned opinions Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of police officers seeking qualified immunity from allegations of excessive force. In both cases, the justices overturned lower court decisions that went against the officers. The rulings -- and the fact that no justice publicly dissented -- suggests that the court is not willing, at least for now, to radically transform how it considers qualified immunity cases. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine, developed by the courts, that shields law enforcement from liability for constitutional violations including allegations of excessive force. In recent years, legal scholars, lawmakers and judges have criticized the doctrine, arguing that it is not grounded in the proper legal authorities and too often shields officials from accountability. Calls for the court to take a substantial new look at the doctrine intensified after the killing of George Floyd in 2020. Under existing precedent, an officer is not liable, even if he or she violates the Constitution, unless it was "clearly established" by prior cases that the conduct at issue was unconstitutional. Critics say that bar is too high and forces those claiming excessive force to search for a prior case with nearly identical facts. Last term, there were two instances where the court wiped away lower court opinions that had granted qualified immunity to government officials, leading some to believe the court was moving in a new direction to chip away at the doctrine.But on Monday, the justices made clear that last term's cases were outliers, and that the traditional framework could stand. "Monday's cases are further evidence that the Supreme Court is not going to reconsider the fundamentals of the doctrine and the justices are reaffirming the general idea that in most cases plaintiffs still need to find a nearly identical precedent to make their case," said Jay Schweikert, a research fellow the Cato Institute who studies the issue. "This means that until and unless Congress addresses qualified immunity, public officials can continue to violate people's rights with impunity" Schweikert said. One of the opinions released Monday stemmed from a dispute in California. Police officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas responded to a 911 call reporting that a woman and her children feared that the woman's boyfriend, Ramon Cortesluna, was going to hurt them. The call came from a crying 12-year-old girl who said that she and her mother and sister had shut themselves in a room and that Cortesluna was trying to hurt them with a chainsaw. When the officers came to the house, Cortesluna emerged as directed. As he walked toward the officers, Rivas-Villegas eventually straddled Cortesluna and found a knife in his pocket. He placed his knee on the left side of Cortesluna's back near where the knife was and raised both his arms behind his back. Rivas-Villegas was in the position for approximately eight seconds. Cortesluna sued, arguing that Rivas-Villegas had used excessive force. A court of appeals ruled against the officer because "existing precedent" put him on notice that his conduct constituted excessive force. The Supreme Court Monday reversed the decision, holding that there were factual distinctions between the precedent and the case at hand. The second case, out of Oklahoma, concerned Dominic Rollice, whose ex-wife called 911 because Rollice was intoxicated in her garage and wouldn't leave. Officers Josh Girdner, Chase Reed and Brandon Vick responded. They met the wife at the front of the garage and began speaking to Rollice through the doorway. Police bodycam video captured Rollice, still conversing with the officers as he turned to walk to an area where his tools were hanging. He grabbed a hammer and faced the officers who asked him to drop it while drawing their guns. Instead, he raised it behind his back as if he was about to throw it at them and charge. In response, the officers fired their weapons and killed him. Rollice's estate filed suit. A panel of judges on the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the officers, holding in part that they had cornered him "recklessly." The court pointed to several cases it said that clearly established that the conduct was unlawful. The Supreme Court reversed again holding that "on this record" the officers did not violate any clearly established law. | 0 |
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will stay out of the dispute concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for now, meaning participants will still be able to renew their status.The move will also lessen pressure on Congress to act on a permanent solution for DACA and its roughly 700,000 participants -- undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children. Originally, President Donald Trump had terminated DACA but allowed a six-month grace period for anyone with status expiring in that window to renew. After that date, March 5, any DACA recipient whose status expired would no longer be able to receive protections.Monday's action by the court, submitted without comment from the justices, is not a ruling on the merits of the DACA program or the Trump administration's effort to end it. At issue is a ruling by federal District Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, who blocked the plan to end DACA and held that the Trump administration must resume accepting renewal applications. The action means the case will continue going through the lower courts.Alsup said a nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy.""Plaintiffs have established injury that reaches beyond the geographical bounds of the Northern District of California. The problem affects every state and territory of the United States," he wrote.The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has generally allowed nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration actions from lower court judges under this President to stand, meaning the DACA program could be spared a year or more until the Supreme Court could take up the case in next year's term, given the likely realities of the calendar.President Donald Trump blasted the 9th Circuit Monday."You know, we tried to get it moved quickly 'cause we'd like to help DACA. I think everybody in this room wants to help with DACA, but the Supreme Court just ruled that it has to go through the normal channels, so it's going back in," Trump told a group of state governors at the White House. "There won't be any surprise. I mean, it's really sad when every single case filed against us -- this is in the 9th Circuit -- we lose, we lose, we lose, and then we do fine in the Supreme Court. But what does that tell you about our court system? It's a very, very sad thing. So DACA's going back, and we'll see what happens from there."The White House said it was disappointed in the ruling."The DACA program -- which provides work permits and myriad government benefits to illegal immigrants en masse -- is clearly unlawful," said spokesman Raj Shah. "The district judge's decision to unilaterally re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority. The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process."New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, one of the 17 challenging Trump's move to end DACA, called the ruling a "win," but added "it also does not change the fact that we need a permanent solution to preserve DACA and protect Dreamers."Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court was an uphill climb, given it came before the 9th Circuit ruled. "While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view, it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA," O'Malley said. "We will continue to defend DHS's lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner."University of Texas professor law and CNN legal analyst Stephen Vladeck said justices normally don't weigh in at this stage."The justices have not granted such a request since 2004, but the government claimed that the urgency of settling the legal status of DACA, and the potential for nationwide confusion, justified such an extraordinary measure," Vladeck said.CNN's Noah Gray and Sarah Mucha contributed to this report. | 0 |
'Reagan never diluted what he had to say,' Paul said. On a pilgrimage to Ronald Reagan’s presidential library, Rand Paul prodded Republicans Friday to become more inclusive. “When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we will win again,” the Kentucky senator told a crowd in Simi Valley, Calif. “When we have people with tattoos and without tattoos, with ties and without ties, with suits and in blue jeans, then we win nationally.” During a question-and-answer session, Paul said the GOP must “adapt, evolve or die.” ( PHOTOS: Rand Paul’s career) “If we want to win nationally again, we will have to reach out to a diverse nation and welcome African Americans, Asians, Latinos into our party,” he said. “Latinos will come to the GOP when we treat them with dignity, when we embrace immigrants as hard workers who are an asset to our country.” Paul’s comments come as the party’s base remains leery of immigration reform, which they see as a pathway for amnesty, and Republicans in the Capitol markup draft legislation. Paul has said he would like to amend the bill being considered, which insulates him somewhat if the measure fails. Soon after, he warned that the party must stay true to core convictions. “Reagan never diluted what he had to say,” said Paul. “He didn’t say, ‘Maybe if you get time, maybe you could think about tearing that wall down.’ We need to be the party of passion.” ( PHOTOS: Highlights from Rand Paul’s filibuster) Other 2016 contenders—including Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie—have spoken at the venue, which has become a must-stop in the silent primary for the Republican presidential nomination. Paul has worked overtime to position himself as one of the logical claimants to Reagan’s mantle as he seeks to broaden his appeal beyond the libertarian base that powered his father Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns. ( Also on POLITICO: Paul preaches sustainability) Paul also volunteered a level of admiration for President Barack Obama – even if he also criticizes his job performance. He recalled riding with him aboard Air Force One and talking about bridge funding. “I like the president,” he said. “I don’t like his politics. I don’t like his policies. But I do like him.” The younger Paul spoke Friday of attending the 1976 Republican National Convention at 13. His dad was one of only a handful of congressmen who had endorsed Reagan over Gerald Ford, the sitting president. On the scandals of the day, Paul called on Obama to “fire and prosecute anyone who used government power to punish political opponents.” He argued that Republicans can compete in a blue state like California if they reach out to minorities on issues like education, specifically school choice. “Republicans will begin to gain African American support when we go into every community and fight for better schools,” he said. Paul was joined by his wife, Kelley, and son Robert, one of three boys. Former Gov. Pete Wilson sat in the audience. Nancy Reagan, who has been frail, was not able to make it. Showing his youthful exuberance, Paul told the crowd – which appeared older than who he usually speaks to – that Republicans need to be “the party of passion.” “When I think of a man coming over the hill singing, I think of the passion of Patrick Henry—‘Give me liberty or give me death’—combined with the energy of The Proclaimers song—‘I will walk 500 miles and I will walk five hundred more, just to be the guy who walked a thousand miles to fall down at your door.’” | 0 |
Chief strategist Stuart Stevens argued that the race is actually trending for Romney. Mitt Romney, sensing an opening in the Middle East mess and catching flak from conservatives for giving too little detail about his policy plans, is rolling out a new and broader strategy to make the election a referendum on “status quo versus change,” chief strategist Stuart Stevens told POLITICO. The shift, which is to include much more emphasis on Romney’s policy prescriptions, means he is scrapping the most basic precept of his campaign. From the time he began contemplating running again after his loss in the 2008 primaries, Romney’s theory of the case has been a relentless and nearly exclusive focus on the listless economy. ( Also on POLITICO: Inside the campaign: How Mitt stumbled) But with polls showing Obama for the first time moving clearly ahead in important swing states— most notably, Ohio—Romney advisers concluded they had to make a painful course correction. Stevens said the economy is likely to remain “the dominant focus” of the campaign. But ads and speeches will focus on a wider array of issues, including foreign policy, the threat from China, debt and the tone in Washington. Stevens said the big, unifying question will be: “Can we do better on every front?” On Monday, Romney unveiled a new ad, “ The Romney Plan,” that punches back at Obama’s consistent emphasis on growing the economy for the middle class, and emphasizes what the Republican would do. “My plan is to help the middle class,” Romney says in the ad. “Trade has to work for America. That means crack down on cheaters like China. It means open up new markets.” A second Romney ad out Monday, “ Failing American Families,” is harsher, with a male narrator saying: “Barack Obama: More spending. More debt. Failing American families.” The news ads are a concession to internal critics of the previous Romney ad series — 16 “A Better Future” ads, customized for nine swing states. Each begins with a clip of Romney at the convention, followed by a quick statistic arguing that Obama has failed that particular state, and ending with Romney’s plan to help the state (defense in Colorado, home values in Florida, manufacturing in North Carolina). Some Romney officials had argued that straight negative ads would be the only way to move numbers the way the campaign needs to. Romney also plans to emphasize policy solutions when he speaks Monday to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in Los Angeles. “I expected the president, at his convention, to talk about the unemployed and to unveil a jobs plan,” Romney says in prepared remarks. “Astonishingly, he did not.” Romney, badly losing the Hispanic vote to Obama, includes a pitch to improve “legal immigration.” “I will work with Republicans and Democrats to permanently fix our immigration system,” he says. “I believe we can all agree that what we need are fair and enforceable immigration laws that will stem the flow of illegal immigration, while strengthening legal immigration.” Arguing that Romney is doing better than many pundits recognize, Stevens said the Middle East unrest and continuing economic unease will help the Republican regain momentum and quiet the concerns among GOP insiders. “The events abroad are disconcerting and don’t reinforce that the status quo leadership is positive,” Stevens said. “There’s nothing that is happening, at home or abroad, that doesn’t reinforce the need for strong leadership and a change. “When the [Federal Reserve] did something it’s never done before, because the economy was so weak, we had to step back and say: ‘That’s nothing but a cry for change in the status quo.’ … We’re on track to win this race.” But the campaign is eager to spread the word they are responding to critics and shifting gears. After POLITICO reported Sunday night about internal concerns with Stevens’s role in the campaign, The New York Times and other publications went up with stories promising a new approach. Stevens defended his role, saying he works for a great campaign and takes responsibility for any bad days in the election. He conceded Romney will be second-guessed for allowing Obama to out-spend him 7-to-1 on ads during the two national party conventions. The following week, an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed Obama ahead by seven points in Ohio, 5 in Florida and 5 in Virginia – for Romney, the most ominous public poll of the cycle so far. Obama spent $20 million on 37,000 ads during the conventions, compared with $3.3 million on 4,500 ads for Romney, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, using data from the nonpartisan Kantar Media/CMAG. Stevens said the campaign went nearly dark for those two weeks because “the dominant story was going to be the convention.” “Life is always more pleasant when you’re on the air, but we were being very disciplined about it,” he said. “We would rather have that $20 million to spend now that it’s not competing with the conventions. You have to be disciplined about these things.” Romney’s own convention acceptance speech—on the same night actor Clint Eastwood stole headlines with his empty-chair monologue—criticized Obama’s leadership style and barely mentioned the GOP’s own policy alternatives. There was no bounce in polls following the GOP’s Tampa gathering. Alert for flickers of sunshine, Stevens pointed to slight movement in tracking polls by Rasmussen and Gallup to argue the race is actually trending for Romney. “In races, you’re going up or you’re doing down. He’s going down and we’re going up,” Stevens said. “His convention bounce has faded faster than most. If you’re losing 4 points [in Gallup and Rasmussen] and that’s a good week, I’d hate to see a bad week… “Obama lost [4] points and it was a rough week for us? I don’t quite see it that way. Any poll you pick, he’s losing a point a day.” Stevens insisted, contrary to what most strategists think, that national trends matter most at this point in the race. “Tracking polls track the race,” he insisted. “It would be like walking into a department store with 50 different scales and standing on them.” Stevens dismissed the hand-wringing that in recent days has consumed Washington GOP circles. He said commentators and political reporters have “a self-reinforcing feedback loop” that yields a misleading conventional wisdom among the Washington elite. “I feel good about where things are,” he said. “In races, you’re going up or you’re going down. He’s going down and we’re going up. His convention bounce has faded faster than most. At the convention, he missed a huge opportunity to lay out a new agenda. I think Mitt Romney is going to win.” Stevens paused and added: “Fairly comfortably.” James Hohmann contributed | 0 |
The report quoted an anonymous source as saying that Trump’s financial ties to Russia are the focus: “FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008.” The Washington Post has not independently confirmed Bloomberg’s report.Somebody is basically daring Trump to try to fire Mueller.Trump accuses Mueller of bias in Russia probe (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)Just a day before the Bloomberg report, in an interview with the New York Times, Trump said this is precisely the thing that for him would cross a “red line” with Mueller. The Times reporters repeatedly asked what would constitute Mueller going too far, and eventually Trump agreed that probing his business and his family’s financial dealings would be a “violation.”It has previously been reported that the Russia investigation has focused on the business dealings of Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, but this appears to be the first indication that Trump’s own finances are under scrutiny.In the Times interview, Trump didn’t quite say he would try to fire Mueller for such a thing, but he sure hinted at it. Here’s the transcript:MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?MAGGIE HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don’t — I don’t — I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? I don’t make money from Russia. In fact, I put out a letter saying that I don’t make — from one of the most highly respected law firms, accounting firms. I don’t have buildings in Russia. They said I own buildings in Russia. I don’t. They said I made money from Russia. I don’t. It’s not my thing. I don’t, I don’t do that. Over the years, I’ve looked at maybe doing a deal in Russia, but I never did one. Other than I held the Miss Universe pageant there eight, nine years. [CROSSTALK]SCHMIDT: But if he was outside that lane, would that mean he’d have to go?[crosstalk]HABERMAN: Would you consider —TRUMP: No, I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia. So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company. And actually, when I do my filings, peoples say, “Man.” People have no idea how successful this is. It’s a great company. But I don’t even think about the company anymore.…HABERMAN: Would you fire Mueller if he went outside of certain parameters of what his charge is? [crosstalk]SCHMIDT: What would you do?[crosstalk]TRUMP: I can’t, I can’t answer that question, because I don’t think it’s going to happen.And then it happened.It’s not clear that Trump can fire Mueller even if he wanted to, though. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and is overseeing the probe, has said that only he can fire Mueller and that he wouldn’t do it simply at Trump’s request, without “good cause.”If Rosenstein were to resist Trump’s demand and Trump fired him, too, it would fall to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand to oversee the probe and make that decision. If she resisted and Trump fired her, it would fall to Dana J. Boente, the acting assistant attorney general for national security.It’s also not clear that Mueller’s probe is restricted in any way, legally speaking. Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white-collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House, said there’s pretty much no limit.“Mueller’s designation as special counsel is very broad, and he will be looking at both direct and indirect issues related to Russia and the campaign,” Jacobovitz said. “If you recall, Spiro Agnew was convicted of tax evasion, and the Clinton independent counsel evolved from Whitewater to an affair. So independent counsels have a lot of discretion in terms of what they investigate.”But just because it would be difficult doesn’t mean Trump wouldn’t attempt it. He has shown before that he’s willing to fire people who run afoul of him (see: Comey, James B.) even as it resulted in Mueller investigating him for potential obstruction of justice. And Trump also doesn’t have much regard for the normal legal processes and the rule of law.Firing Mueller, though, would be the equivalent of firing Comey times 10 on the controversy scale. Now the ball, it seems, is in Trump’s court.Amber Phillips contributed to this post. | 0 |
Donald Trump won GOP primaries in seven states and Sen. Ted Cruz took three in a Super Tuesday rebound, sparking renewed calls from some Republicans to unify around a single Trump rival as the billionaire tightened his hold on front-runner status. The contests in 11 states showcased Trump’s dominance over a crowded GOP field. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) was the winner in one state: Minnesota, his first victory of the 2016 primary season. [Live updates and results from across the U.S.] Trump won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia, according to Edison Media Research. In several states, his lead was in double digits, and his share of the GOP vote neared 50 percent. With those wins, Trump has more than doubled his victory total in this GOP primary season. But even as Trump basked in his Super Tuesday romp, a well-funded super PAC was ramping up its effort to discredit the New York businessman with a new television advertisement that portrays him as a predatory huckster who scammed working- and middle-class Americans. The 60-second ad, which will begin airing Wednesday on stations across the country at a cost of more than $1 million, centers on Trump University, the billionaire mogul’s for-profit enterprise that promised to teach students the tricks of the real estate trade and is now defunct and the subject of a fraud suit. The attack echoes themes that Rubio, who is trying to unite the GOP’s anti-Trump forces under his own banner, has advanced as he has addressed swelling crowds in suburban areas. Cruz won Alaska, Oklahoma and his home state of Texas just after 9 p.m. These are the second, third and fourth states Cruz has won in this race; he also won the Iowa caucuses, the first contest of all. The win in Texas, in particular, was vital: It saved Cruz from a humiliating home-state defeat and gave him part of the largest slate of delegates that was up for grabs Tuesday. [Live updates and results from across the U.S.] But this was not the Super Tuesday that Cruz had hoped for months ago. He had campaigned hard in Southern states, hoping to dominate among evangelicals and very conservative voters. Instead, in state after state, he saw those voters flock to Trump. For Rubio, the Minnesota win was a boost he sorely needed. Earlier in the night, Trump had mocked him for not winning any states so far. But overall, Tuesday was a disappointment for Rubio. He had attacked Trump sharply in the past few days and shifted some late-deciding voters into his camp. But outside of Minnesota, it wasn’t enough. Ohio Gov. John Kasich came in a close second to Trump in Vermont. Virginia primary exit poll results The worry among the party establishment — which has put its last hopes on Rubio — was strong and growing after Trump’s Tuesday victories. Even Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), an outspoken critic of Cruz, said to CBS’s Charlie Rose on Tuesday night, “Well, I think we’re about ready to lose to the most dishonest politician in America, Hillary Clinton, and how could you do that?” “I made a joke about Ted, but we may be in a position to have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump, and I’m not so sure that would work,” he said, adding that when it came to that prospect,“I can’t believe I would say yes, but yes.” [ Explore the full Super Tuesday results ] Cruz addressed his supporters at a venue called the Redneck Country Club in Stafford, Tex. He sought not so subtly to convince Rubio to drop out of the race, saying that a divided field was allowing Trump to succeed. “So long as the field remains divided, Donald Trump’s path to the nomination remains more likely. And that would be a disaster . . . for conservatives, and for the nation. And after tonight, we have seen that our campaign is the only campaign that has beaten, that can beat, and that will beat Donald Trump,” Cruz said. He spoke to primary voters in future states: “We must come together.” Rubio, the establishment candidate who had sharply attacked Trump in the past few days, ran close to Trump in Virginia, boosted by support among college-educated voters and Republicans in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. But he fell short, with Trump piling up large margins in the state’s rural South and West. [No Republican nominee has ever won all the states Trump has] Still, exit polls showed some good news for Rubio: In several states, he did well among voters who decided late, according to media reports. That could be taken as proof that Rubio’s late attacks on Trump worked — and it could encourage Rubio to continue them, hoping to win more primaries in the coming weeks. “Just five days ago, we began to unmask the true nature of the front-runner so far in this race. Five days ago, we began to explain to the American people that Donald Trump is a con artist. And in just five days, we have seen the impact it is having all across the country,” Rubio told supporters in Miami. “We are seeing, in state after state, his numbers coming down. Our numbers going up.” He looked ahead to the Republican primary in Florida on March 15, a “winner-take-all” contest that could vault Rubio back into contention — or, if he loses, doom him. Rubio’s campaign has sought to position him as the top alternative to Trump: the one who’d be waiting and ready when voters — or delegates, at a fractious GOP convention — finally turned on the front-runner. But Tuesday’s results showed that isn’t exactly true. In six of the nine states where polls have closed, in fact, Rubio was running third. Trump spoke to supporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., in an ornate ballroom. In his speech, he mocked Rubio, calling him “the little senator” and reminding his crowd that “[Rubio] didn’t win anything. He hasn’t won anything, period.” [Overshadowed by Trump and Rubio, Cruz sees Texas as his last stand ] Trump also called his campaign “a movement,” and sought to look ahead to a general election contest against Clinton, the former secretary of state. “I am a unifier. When we get all of this finished, I’m going to go after one person, Hillary Clinton,” Trump said. He rejected suggestions that his comments — about Mexican immigrants, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and a ban on Muslim foreigners entering the country — had divided his party. “We are going to be a much finer party. We’re going to be a unified party,” Trump said. “I mean, to be honest with you. And we are going to be a much bigger party. Our party is expanding.” Later, Trump responded to a question by saying he’d been watching all the big cable-TV news networks, and liked them all. “See, I’m becoming diplomatic,” he said. In a wide-ranging news conference that followed Trump’s speech, he issued a kind of threat to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who – before Trump came on the scene – had a claim to being the most popular figure in the GOP. “Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well,” Trump said. “I’m sure I’ll get along with him. And if I don’t? He’ll have to pay a big price.” It seemed possible, given Tuesday’s results, that Rubio, Cruz and Kasich could find a reason to remain in the race. So even where Trump lost Tuesday night, he may have won — reaping the benefits of a crowded field of candidates and splitting the anti-Trump vote into pieces. [Winners and losers from Super Tuesday] Former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has failed to win a single primary or caucus so far, told supporters he was dismayed with the state of the nation’s political system and not prepared to quit the race yet. “It is rotten; it is rotten to the core,” Carson told a crowd of supporters in Baltimore. “I’m not ready to quit untangling it quite yet.” Carson has called on the five remaining candidates to meet privately in Detroit in advance of Thursday’s upcoming GOP Fox News Channel debate. He has asked them to take “a pledge to talk about the many serious problems facing our country, instead of personally attacking each other.” In the Democratic race, with nearly all the votes counted,Clinton won the Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia Democratic primaries as she looks to dramatically widen her lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders chalked up four victories: his home state of Vermont, as well as in Oklahoma, Minnesota and Colorado. At a polling place in Houston where Cruz cast his vote Tuesday, Francisco Valle, 74, held a sign depicting Trump with a Hitler-style mustache and his right hand raised; it read, “absolutely no Mexicans.” Valle also hung a sign with the letter T and word “Trump” in the shape of a swastika with “STOP” written beneath. “I am here because I want to make awareness of a movement that is very dangerous to all the minorities, because Hitler started the same way,” said Valle, who is Mexican American. “He blamed the Jews for all the problems, and now Trump is blaming the Mexicans for the problems.” Trump has suggested he is expanding the GOP’s base of support by appealing to Democrats and independents, even though some say he is alienating some traditional Republican backers. “We have tremendous numbers of people coming in, and the Republican Party is growing larger,” he said. If it fails to do that, he added, “it’s not going to win.” Wagner reported from Burlington, Vt.; Eilperin from Washington. Katie Zezima in Houston; Patricia Sullivan in Arlington, Va.; Laura Vozzella in Richmond, Va.; Abby Phillip in Minneapolis, Minn.; Scott Clement, Anne Gearan and Paul Kane in Washington; Robert Costa in Atlanta; Jose A. DelReal in Nashville; Fenit Nirappil in Norfolk, Va.; Ed O’Keefe in Alcoa, Tenn.; and David Weigel in Castleton, Vt., contributed to this report. | 0 |
Credit...Damon Winter/The New York TimesJune 20, 2016Donald J. Trump fired his divisive campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, on Monday as he confronts urgent challenges heading into the general election — a strategic shift after months of concerns from party officials and donors about Mr. Lewandowski’s stewardship of the campaign.The exit occurred a month before Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is to secure the official nomination at the party’s convention in Cleveland. It reflected a broader adjustment by the campaign as it grapples with a late start to fund-raising, anxiety among party leaders and a skeletal staff — all while Mr. Trump’s likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, swiftly builds out her operations in swing states.Mr. Trump had faced increasing concerns from allies and donors, as well as his children, over whether Mr. Lewandowski, who had never before worked on a national race, was able to direct a battle against Mrs. Clinton. Among those who had voiced concern was Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who told Mr. Trump last week that relations between his committee and Mr. Lewandowski had become increasingly strained, and that a change would be welcome, according to three people briefed on the discussion.Republicans across the spectrum welcomed the firing as a positive step, but they suggested that it needed to be followed by consistent changes in performance from the candidate himself.Mr. Lewandowski was fired at a Monday morning meeting with Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump’s two older sons, Eric and Donald Jr., said two others briefed on the meeting,who were not authorized to speak publicly. Mr. Trump and Mr. Lewandowski had what was described as a “very open conversation.”Mr. Lewandowski’s time was primarily spent on the campaign trail with the candidate, and day-to-day aspects of the operation were largely handled by the chief strategist, Paul Manafort. For months, Mr. Lewandowski had been a lightning rod for controversy, making headlines about himself that overshadowed his boss. This included his being charged with misdemeanor battery — a charge later dropped — after he was accused of grabbing a reporter as she approached Mr. Trump in Florida in March.It was not immediately clear whether someone new would be named campaign manager, but it was clear that the existing Trump team believed most of the duties had already been assumed by other people, principally Mr. Manafort.“Ultimately, Paul is in charge,” Barry Bennett, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, said. “He’s got the experience to help get Mr. Trump across the finish line.”As a young Republican operative, Mr. Manafort helped manage the 1976 convention floor for Gerald Ford in his showdown with Ronald Reagan, the last time Republicans entered a convention with no candidate’s having clinched the nomination. He performed a similar function for Reagan in 1980, and played leading roles in the 1988 and 1996 conventions, for George Bush and Bob Dole.Trump allies and critics alike regarded Mr. Lewandowski as a fierce defender of Mr. Trump’s idiosyncratic approach to the presidential race. At a moment when many in the party have pressed Mr. Trump to soften his message and build a more conventional political operation, Mr. Lewandowski hewed closely to the mantra he had developed during the Republican primaries: “Let Trump be Trump.”The limitations of that approach have been on vivid display in recent weeks. Mr. Trump has struggled to raise money from establishment donors, and he has drawn fresh criticism from Republicans and Democrats for his racial attacks on a federal judge and his revived proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States in the wake of the gay nightclub massacre in Orlando, Fla.With the Republican National Convention looming, he faces the task of broadening his team to include people with previous presidential campaign experience and uniting a party that is often not in lock step behind him.Mr. Trump has also been turning his attention to fund-raising for the first time, a task over which Mr. Lewandowski had assumed oversight, and one that has gone slowly for the campaign. The campaign has aired no ads for the general election, and neither Mr. Trump or his advisers have yet to publicly bless a “super PAC” that could raise significant amounts of money to support his presidential bid.“It would be welcome if new people come in who have more experience and can move him to a more inclusive, more substance-oriented campaign,” said Fred Malek, a fixture in Republican Party fund-raising.But he added: “How much the absence of a national kind of campaign is due to Corey and how much is due to Donald is kind of hard to tell. It looks to me like Trump drives his own train.”In announcing Monday morning that Mr. Lewandowski “will no longer be working with the campaign,” Hope Hicks, the campaign’s spokeswoman, said in a statement that “the campaign is grateful to Corey for his hard work and dedication, and we wish him the best in the future.”The firing followed regular reports of turmoil in the campaign. Mr. Lewandowski was often at odds with Mr. Manafort, who was brought on in March when the candidate seemed poised for a lengthy fight over Republican delegates.Mr. Lewandowski was said to have resisted certain moves that would have increased the number of staff members, at times blocking Mr. Manafort from making hires or later undoing them.But the people briefed on Mr. Lewandowski’s departure said the circumstances went well beyond any one episode or relationship. One stressed that the move had been in the works for many weeks, particularly since it had become clear that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee.Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr. described the split as “amicable” in an interview with NBC. And Mr. Lewandowski gave a series of interviews Monday afternoon in which he tried to brush aside questions about the internal particulars of his departure. He said he wished nothing but the best for Mr. Trump, and suggested that Mr. Trump’s doing well could only be good for him.“If Donald Trump wins, that’s good for Corey Lewandowski,” Mr. Lewandowski said on CNN. He played down any suggestion of tension between him and Mr. Trump’s children, and said every campaign expanded its operations for a general election.Few inside the campaign were given any warning about the dismissal of Mr. Lewandowski, who was on the campaign’s daily 8:30 a.m. conference call on Monday, according to a person briefed on the developments.Mr. Bennett, the senior Trump campaign adviser, declined to predict whether there would be other significant changes. But he said Mr. Lewandowski deserved credit for helping Mr. Trump get where he is.“There is no doubt what Corey did in the primary was amazing — helping him get more votes than anyone else has ever gotten, a record turnout in 45 out of the 50 states, record low expenditures,” Mr. Bennett said. “None of that’s ever been done before.” | 0 |
The Department of Homeland Security issued a sweeping set of orders Tuesday that implement President Trump's plan to increase immigration enforcement, placing the vast majority of the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants at risk of deportation.The memos instruct all agents — including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — to identify, capture and quickly deport every undocumented immigrant they encounter.The memos require undocumented immigrants caught entering the country to be placed in detention until their cases are resolved, increase the ability of local police to help in immigration enforcement, call for the hiring of 10,000 more immigration agents and allow planning to begin on an expansion of the border wall between the United States and Mexico.The memos make undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime the highest priority for enforcement operations. But they make clear that ICE agents should also arrest and initiate deportation proceedings against any other undocumented immigrant they encounter."Department personnel have full authority to arrest or apprehend an alien whom an immigration officers has probable cause to believe is in violation of the immigration laws," one memo said. "They also have full authority to initiate removal proceedings against any alien who is subject to removal under any provision of the (Immigration and Nationality Act)."More coverage:5 ways Trump will increase deportationsThe word 'refugee' has a surprising originTrump set to issue streamlined immigrant travel banTrump immigration raids show greater focus on non-criminalsWhite House press secretary Sean Spicer said the memos do not represent a goal of mass deportations."Everybody who is here illegally is subject to removal at any time. That is consistent with every country, not just ours," Spicer said. "But the priority that the president has laid forward (are) the people who have committed a crime or pose a threat to our public."The memos fulfill Trump's campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, said the memos capture many recommendations his group has been making for years."It's Christmas in February," Stein said. "What (Homeland Security Secretary John) Kelly has done is lay out a broad road map of regaining control of a process that's spun out of control."Immigration advocacy groups were crushed. Although Trump recently said his focus would be to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal histories or who pose a threat to national security, the new memos make clear that nearly all undocumented immigrants are at risk."These memos lay out a detailed blueprint for the mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America," said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America's Voice Educational Fund, which advocates on behalf of immigrants. "They fulfill the wish lists of the white nationalist and anti-immigrant movements and bring to life the worst of Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric."Miami-Dade commission votes to end county's 'sanctuary' statusImmigration 101: The legal paths to entering the U.S.One group appears to be spared for now. Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said Tuesday that deportation protections granted by President Obama in 2012 to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children will continue to be honored so long as those immigrants abide by the rules of the program.More than 750,000 undocumented immigrants have been granted deportation protections under that program, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA).The orders also detail a broad plan to keep undocumented immigrants caught crossing the southwest border from making it to the interior of the U.S. They call for detaining all of them until their cases are resolved.Currently, many undocumented immigrants are processed by immigration agents, released into the country and ordered to reappear for court hearings. The memos seek to end that practice, known as “catch and release,” by ordering the construction of more jails along the southwest border to house detained immigrants until their cases are resolved.The new directives also allow Customs agents to send some people directly back to Mexico, whether they’re Mexican or not. Under previous administrations, people from Mexico and Canada could be deported directly back home. But people from all other countries, such as from Central America, had to be detained until they could be flown back to their country of origin.The memos do not mention the idea of using National Guard troops along the southwest border, as reported by several media outlets last week.On the campaign trail, Trump regularly highlighted crimes committed by undocumented crimes and embraced the families of the victims of those crimes. Now, there will be a permanent office within ICE to carry on that message.The Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office, or VOICE, establishes a process to keep victims and their families informed about the status of criminal cases against the undocumented immigrants and any followup deportation proceedings. The new orders eliminate protections that had been granted to undocumented immigrants under the federal Privacy Act, meaning ICE will now publicly distribute information about these cases."I direct the Director of ICE to immediately reallocate any and all resources that are currently used to advocate on behalf of illegal aliens ... to the new VOICE Office," Kelly wrote in one directive.Contributing: David Jackson | 0 |
Story highlightsRepublicans say Benghazi investigation legitimate congressional oversightDemocrats say GOP is playing partisan politics with the attack on U.S. consulateCheney tells House conservatives that if Clinton won't answer questions, she should be subpoenaedAnalyst points to similarities between Hillary Clinton now and George H.W. Bush in 1988It was late in the day with the House oversight hearing on Benghazi winding down. On social media and elsewhere, there was conservative grumbling that Hillary Clinton was getting off relatively unscathed.Then came conservative Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina's second round of questions."If anyone wants to ask 'What difference does it make?' it always matters whether or not you can trust your government," Gowdy said, borrowing some words from the former secretary of state."And to the families, we're going to find out what happened in Benghazi, and I don't give a damn whose career is impacted," Gowdy continued. "We're going to find out what happened."Tough legitimate congressional oversight or partisan politics? Leading Republicans say the former; most Democrats the latter.Truth is, it is both.And as the Benghazi investigations continue, that presents both parties with challenges.For Republicans, if they want public support for continued hearings and questions beyond the GOP's conservative base, the challenge is to stress the legitimate questions about the Obama administration's response to the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate -- and its conflicting explanations of why it believes the attacks happened.House Speaker John Boehner served notice on Thursday that GOP pressure would not subside.The speaker said the administration should make public a series of e-mails and other records he said would provide key details about the attacks and the response.Among the records, he said, should be an e-mail from a top State Department official from the day after the attack. The e-mail, Boehner said, refers to "Islamic terrorists" as carrying out the attack."A senior State Department official e-mailed her superiors that the Libyan ambassador, she had told the Libyan ambassador, the attack was conducted by Islamic terrorists. The State Department would not allow our committees to keep copies of this e-mail when it was reviewed," Boehner said.The White House and its allies in Congress make the case that any confusion and conflicting information in the early hours and days after the attacks stemmed from the "fog of war" -- not any deliberate effort to mislead the American people about the source of the attacks.Traveling in Rome, the man who replaced Clinton, Secretary of State John Kerry, said he was as determined as the Republican House leadership to answer any legitimate questions."I have already made it crystal clear to the chairmen of the relevant committees that I have assigned my chief of staff, David Wade, to be responsible for liaising with them to answer any questions that they have," Kerry said. "I am absolutely determined that this issue will be answered, will be put to bed.""And if there is any culpability in any area that is appropriate to be handled in some way with some discipline it will be appropriately handled. But that judgment awaits me in a report that will be forthcoming and I am confident that any recent evidence will be a component of that consideration," Kerry said.Gregory Hicks, who became the top diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed, suggested at Wednesday's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing that he was demoted and otherwise punished or making it clear he believed the Obama administration was withholding or ignoring key facts about the Benghazi attacks and response.The committee chairman, California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, said Democrats on the panel had shown little interest in finding the truth. In turn, committee Democrats, including ranking member Elijah Cummings of Maryland, said Issa and other GOP members were to blame for a reckless campaign designed to "smear public officials."Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, took the most direct heat because of her assertions in a Sunday television interview days after the attack that linked the attacks to a demonstration outside the Benghazi consulate. Hicks said there was no demonstration and that top State Department officials had been told that, and he told the committee he was "stunned" and "embarrassed" by Rice's televised account.The administration concedes Rice spoke from flawed talking points, but insists the mistakes were born of understandable confusion. Many Republicans see it differently -- alleging the Obama White House, in the closing days of the presidential campaign, wanted to play down the idea of a successful, coordinated terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic post. "I do think that was the political motivation behind it," Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio said Thursday on Fox News. "What I think is sad is how many people around the administration, including the former secretary of state, Secretary Clinton, knew this to be the case, and allowed this to move forward anyway."You would've hoped that people would have stepped up and said this was wrong and the American people deserve the truth. That didn't happen."Democrats are quick to suggest it is Rubio playing politics, noting his own interest in a possible 2016 presidential campaign. Democrats make the same argument when asked about the harsh criticisms of Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul, another potential 2016 Republican contender.Paul calls Clinton's handling of Benghazi a "dereliction of duty" that, in his view, disqualifies her from higher office.Boehner tried to take a less confrontational tone on Thursday, but nonetheless said the White House was refusing to make public e-mails and other documents he says show the political calculation behind the Rice TV appearance and other elements of the administration's Benghazi response. "The White House continues to claim it only made stylistic changes to talking points used by Susan Rice, ignoring the fact that senior White House officials directed the changes being made" to those talking points, Boehner said.Conservative media outlets also clearly see an opportunity to raise questions about Clinton that could be a factor in her 2016 calculations.Respected conservative writer and commentator Terence Jeffrey reminded his readers this week of the initial Clinton Benghazi statement suggesting, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet."Jeffrey said the State Department refuses to provide information about who told Clinton an Internet posting might be a possible cause. Hicks told the hearing on Wednesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya reported back from the very beginning that they believed it was a terrorist attack.Among the conservatives urging House Republicans to demand answers from Clinton directly is former Vice President Dick Cheney.On Thursday, Cheney spoke to the weekly "Theme Team" meeting organized by House conservatives and two people present at the breakfast said the former vice president said if Clinton declined to voluntarily answer questions, then she should be subpoenaed to testify.Another veteran of the George W. Bush administration also weighed in Thursday, in a way that highlights the intersection of Benghazi oversight and Benghazi politics.In an e-mail sent to conservatives, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said, "What happened with Benghazi is not how it's supposed to be handled and I think it could be a hinge point for the Obama administration."The Bolton note was distributed by the House GOP's campaign arm -- the National Republican Congressional Committee -- and asks for political contributions to the GOP. In fact, if you click on the links in that Bolton e-mail, it takes you to an NRCC fund-raising website that declares "Benghazi was a cover-up" over a photograph of Clinton and President Barack Obama.That definitive assertion on a House GOP official fund-raising site is par for the course in Washington these days. But it gives Democrats fodder for their argument that Republicans have already made up their minds and aren't conducting oversight hearings with an open mind.Clinton is now a private citizen. But close allies on the committee, including New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, came to Clinton's defense during the proceedings. And other longtime Clinton political loyalists were privately nudging reporters and media outlets about the tone of the Benghazi coverage.One veteran Democratic strategist, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because Clinton chafes at those who publicly speculate about her 2016 interest, noted her overwhelming popularity among Democrats."She will have to deal with this," the strategist said, "but it will not be central to the campaign."Longtime Clinton ally and Democratic strategist Paul Begala takes a similar view."Once more, the GOP runs the risk of appearing to be blinded by their partisanship," Begala said. "I have no idea if Hillary will run. But I know this: If she does this issue will not be a major stumbling block."Begala drew historical comparison -- between Clinton now and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush heading into the 1988 presidential campaign. "Remember Iran-Contra?" Begala asked. "Infinitely more damaging than Benghazi. The Reagan administration sold weapons to the ayatollah's regime in Tehran, then diverted some of the proceeds to the (Nicaraguan) Contras, then lied about it. The scandal paralyzed the Reagan administration for 18 months."There were high-level resignations and criminal convictions, Begala recalled. "There was a major joint congressional investigation, with highly publicized, televised hearings. There was a special prosecutor. It was one of the biggest scandals of the 20th century. And two years later, it had no impact on Vice President Bush's campaign." | 0 |
People from the six countries listed in President Trump’s travel ban ― Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen ― can only travel to the U.S. if they possess a “bona fide” relationship with the U.S. The vast majority of people who would be coming to the U.S. from these countries can easily prove that relationship. Neither refugees being resettled in the U.S. nor visa holders will be impacted. The Supreme Court has agreed to review President Donald Trump’s travel ban in October, allowing a limited version of the order to go into effect in the meantime.Individuals from the six Muslim-majority countries affected by the ban ― Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ― who have a bona fide relationship with the United States aren’t blocked from entering the country.The court’s order released Monday said a “close familial relationship is required” for individuals who wish to live with or visit a family member. When the relationship is with an entity like a university, it must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading” the executive order.As an example, they said, students and lecturers would have a formal relationship, as would someone who accepted employment with an American company. But it would not apply to someone who “enters into a relationship simply to avoid” the executive order. For example, the order said, “a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.”The announcement shouldn’t disrupt most of the people who would otherwise be traveling to the U.S. from these six countries. Many refugees who are resettled in the U.S. come from the six targeted countries, but since they work with federally funded resettlement agencies they should qualify as having a bona fide relationship with the U.S.“The parts that are allowed to go into effect are actually incredibly narrow,” Becca Heller, executive director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said Monday. “Almost anyone coming to the U.S. who has a visa or who has been in the refugee program has some kind of tie to a U.S. person.”The scope of what consists of a bona fide tie to the U.S. isn’t clear, and many advocacy groups are worried federal agencies will each interpret it differently. Such differences could lead to confusion yet again at airports, noted Johnathan Smith, legal director of Muslim Advocates. IRAP is preparing to send lawyers to airports across the U.S. in the event that those with visas find themselves detained.The Department of Homeland Security assured in a statement Monday that it would implement the order “professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers.”The American Civil Liberties Union responded to the announcement with a message for Trump:“President Trump’s Muslim ban violates the fundamental constitutional principle that government cannot favor or disfavor any one religion,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the appellate case, said in a statement. “Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.”“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case and the Department of Justice looks forward to arguing on behalf of the President and his constitutional duty to protect the national security of the United States,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “We have seen far too often in recent months that the threat to our national security is real and becoming increasingly dangerous. Groups like ISIS and al Qaeda seek to sow chaos and destruction in our country, and often operate from war-torn and failed countries while leading their global terror network. It is crucial that we properly vet those seeking to come to America from these locations, and failing to do so puts us all in danger.”Within two weeks of taking office, Trump issued an executive order restricting visits from seven Muslim-majority countries ― the six previously listed plus Iraq ― for three months and suspending America’s refugee resettlement program, arguing that federal officials needed to review the vetting process in the interest of national security. The order fulfilled one of the new president’s most controversial campaign promises. But the chaotic weekend that ensued ― dozens of people detained at airports and protests nationwide ― also played an early role in defining the Trump administration as clumsy and disinterested in the details and process of policymaking. Trump signed the order without letting key officials, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, review it beforehand. Customs and Border Protection agents struggled to interpret whether the order applied to green card holders and to those who arrived carrying valid visas. Protests erupted at airports across the country. Apparently unfazed, Trump told reporters the day after signing the order that the travel restrictions were “working out very nicely,” adding that, “you see it at the airports, you see it all over.” The confusion ended the night of Jan. 29, when a federal judge in Brooklyn issued an injunction to keep key parts of the executive order from going into effect while legal challenges moved forward. The next day, DHS Secretary Kelly formally exempted green card holders from the provisions of the executive order.In the following months, several other federal judges issued similar rulings saying the order should be halted. Trump signed a second order in March ― this time removing Iraq from the original list of seven countries after negotiations with the Iraqi government ― in an attempt to clean up the legal problems posed by his first order.But the result was largely the same. Appeals courts in the 9th and 4th U.S. Circuits have upheld injunctions keeping the travel restrictions from going into effect. The Department of Justice appealed both cases, bringing them all the way to the Supreme Court.While the White House has almost unbridled authority to restrict who is allowed to enter the country, U.S. officials cannot discriminate against visitors for religious reasons. Trump’s bombastic words from the campaign trail came back to haunt him as the courts considered his orders. “The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that [the executive order’s] primary purpose is religious,” the 10-3 ruling issued by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May reads. “Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States.”Trump remained such a staunch defender of his travel ban that he vowed to “fight this terrible ruling,” all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, after a Hawaii federal judge blocked parts of the second ban in March.Read the court’s order below:This article has been updated with more information about how refugees will be affected by the order.The Supreme Court's 'Family' Photos | 0 |
The president and his top advisers said they had no choice but to end DACA, framing it as an abuse of executive power by President Barack Obama that was unlikely to survive a legal challenge. They called on lawmakers to determine the ultimate fate of DACA recipients, known as “dreamers,” and emphasized that no work permits would be revoked for at least six months to give Congress time to act.In a sign of the political sensitivities involved, Trump did not make public remarks, deferring to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unveil the decision at the Justice Department.In a written statement, Trump asserted that Obama made “an end-run around Congress” that violated “the core tenets that sustain our Republic.” He added that there can be “no path to principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.”A wide array of politicians, civic leaders and business executives spoke out against Trump’s move, including the Mexican government, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and the Catholic Charities of New York. Some Democrats, including New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, vowed to pursue legal action to protect the dreamers.In a lengthy post on his Facebook page, Obama called Trump’s move “cruel” and said it represented a “political decision” to a “moral question.”"Ultimately," Obama wrote, “this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people — and who we want to be.”Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security said the agency would no longer accept new applications for DACA other than those submitted before Tuesday. Immigrants enrolled in the program will be permitted to continue until their two-year work permits expire. And those whose permits expire through March 5, 2018, are allowed to seek renewals provided they do so by Oct. 5, officials said.Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Sept. 5 that the Trump administration has directed an "orderly, lawful wind-down" of DACA so that Congress can act. (The Washington Post)If Congress fails to act, dreamers would not be high priorities for deportation, the DHS officials said, but they would be issued notices to appear at immigration court if they are encountered by federal immigration officers. There are no plans for DHS to use personal information, including home addresses, of dreamers who registered for work permits to aid in deportation operations unless there is an immediate concern over national security, officials said.“Our enforcement priorities remain unchanged,” Trump said in his statement. “We are focused on criminals, security threats, recent border-crossers, visa overstays, and repeat violators. I have advised the Department of Homeland Security that DACA recipients are not enforcement priorities unless they are criminals, are involved in criminal activity, or are members of a gang.”Congressional leaders from both parties said the time was right to pursue a legislative solution to the dreamers, but they did not lay out a clear path on an issue that has vexed lawmakers since President Ronald Reagan signed the last major comprehensive immigration bill in 1986. The Dream Act, which would have offered a path to citizenship to dreamers, failed narrowly in the Senate in 2010 after passing in the House.House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who last week had urged Trump not to end the program until Congress acted, called DACA a “clear abuse of executive authority” by Obama.“It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the president’s leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country,” Ryan said.Trump had equivocated for months as pressure mounted among immigration hawks to fulfill a campaign promise to end DACA. Reflecting his personal ambivalence, he had vowed to show “great heart” in his decision and declared that dreamers could “rest easy.”But a threat from Texas and several other states to sue the administration if it did not end DACA by Tuesday forced Trump to make a decision. Several senior aides, including Sessions, who declared the Justice Department would be unable to defend the program in court, lobbied the president to end DACA. Others, including Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, the former DHS secretary, cautioned that terminating the program would cause chaos for young immigrants who enjoy broad popular support.The Obama administration had defended the creation of the 2012 program by citing the precedent of “prosecutorial discretion” in which law enforcement agencies with limited resources set priorities to fulfill their obligations. With more than 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, the government had the ability to deport only a small fraction each year, Obama aides said at the time.See protesters sweep through Washington after Trump announces he will end immigration protection for ‘dreamers’WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 05: Ashleigh Strange, left center, and Andrea Robertson, right, march in support of DACA near the Trump International Hotel Washington on Tuesday September 05, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)Sessions wrote a memo Monday concluding that DACA is unconstitutional, prompting acting Homeland Security secretary Elaine Duke to issue orders Tuesday to phase out the program, officials said. In his remarks, Sessions said Obama “sought to achieve specifically what the legislative branch refused to do” and added that “the Department of Justice cannot defend this overreach.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded Trump’s decision, saying DACA “went far beyond the executive branch’s legitimate authority.” Paxton said that as a result of Trump’s decision, the states would lift their threat of legal action.DACA supporters expressed skepticism that an administration that has taken a hard line on immigration would exercise restraint with dreamers once the work permits begin to expire.More than 300 immigration activists protested front of the White House, calling Trump a “liar” and a “monster,” and more than two dozen demonstrators were reportedly arrested outside Trump Tower in New York. Javier Palomarez, president of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, resigned from Trump’s presidential diversity committee over the “disgraceful action.”
In a tweet, former vice president Joe Biden wrote: “Brought by parents, these children had no choice in coming here. Now they’ll be sent to countries they’ve never known. Cruel. Not America.”And in a sign that both sides could seek to use the dreamers to rally their political bases, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent out a fundraising pitch to Democratic supporters, calling the decision “quite possibly the cruelest thing President Trump has ever done.”That prompted White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to counter that Pelosi’s fundraising was the “most heartless” act of the day.The fight over the dreamers now shifts to Congress, where several new proposals have been put forward. Those include the Bridge Act, a bipartisan bill with 25 co-sponsors that would extend DACA protections for three years to give Congress time to enact permanent legislation.But the White House and conservative Republicans are likely to demand additional provisions to boost border security, such as funding for Trump’s proposed border wall or new measures to restrict legal immigration. In his statement, Trump expressed support for the Raise Act, a proposal from conservative Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) to slash legal immigration levels by half over a decade.“We will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion — but through the lawful Democratic process,” Trump said, “while at the same time ensuring that any immigration reform we adopt provides enduring benefits for the American citizens we were elected to serve.”At the White House briefing, Sept. 5, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeatedly said Congress was elected to pass legislation reforming immigration law. (The Washington Post)The president was reportedly torn over the decision, according to White House officials, split between his desire to appear tough on illegal immigration and his personal feelings toward the dreamers, most of whom have lived in the United States most of their lives. | 0 |
It’s been only about four days since the world learned U.S. President Donald Trump tested positive for COVID-19—but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s been four days since he was infected. White House officials and Trump’s personal physician Sean Conley have repeatedly dodged questions about when the President last tested negative for COVID-19. “I don’t want to go backwards,” Conley said when asked about Trump’s last negative test during a Monday press briefing, at which he announced Trump would be discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to return to the White House. But the question isn’t only important retroactively. “It matters for a couple of reasons,” says Dr. Megan Ranney, a professor of emergency medicine at Brown University. “The first is because it helps to predict the course of illness. The second reason it matters immensely is because of contact tracing.” That is, without knowing when Trump last tested negative, it’s impossible to say how many people came into contact with him when he was contagious and may now be unknowingly spreading the virus. Knowing the date of Trump’s last negative test is not going backward; it is crucial to preventing future spread. The timeline of Trump’s illness has been unclear. He tweeted early Friday morning that he tested positive for COVID-19, shortly after his adviser Hope Hicks tested did. (Wall Street Journal reporting suggests the White House did not disclose a positive test result Trump received on Thursday while waiting for a second test to confirm the results.) On Friday, he received supplemental oxygen and was admitted to Walter Reed before being discharged Monday. But at a briefing on Saturday, Conley said Trump was 72 hours into his diagnosis—suggesting he was diagnosed with COVID-19 on Wednesday, not Thursday. He later claimed he misspoke and said the President tested positive on Thursday. If that’s true, the course of Trump’s illness has been unusual, says Dr. Leana Wen, a professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health and Baltimore’s former public health commissioner. It typically takes around a week for symptoms to progress to a point where a patient needs oxygen support. If Trump has been tested every day, as is White House protocol, Wen says it’s strange he would go from a negative test on Wednesday to hospitalization on Friday. “How is it possible that on Wednesday he didn’t have enough of a viral load to pick it up…and by Friday he has low oxygen and needed to be hospitalized?” Wen says. “If that’s the case, there is something worrisome about President Trump’s health.” (Ranney agrees this progression would be unusual, but says “it is not impossible.”) It’s important to know how far along Trump is in his illness for multiple reasons. First, many patients get worse around day seven to 10. If Trump isn’t there yet, he’s still not out of the woods. The fact that two drugs the President is taking—the antiviral remdesivir and the steroid dexamethasone—are typically reserved for hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 only adds to Wen’s concerns, she says. Second, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends patients isolate for 10 days after their symptoms appear to avoid spreading the virus to other people. If Trump only began experiencing symptoms on Thursday, he still may be contagious and should remain isolated back at the White House, as he reportedly plans to do. Finally, knowing when Trump last tested negative could offer clues about who came into contact with the President when he was potentially contagious, knowingly or not. Studies have shown that people can spread the virus days before they show symptoms, and Trump attended numerous events—including the first presidential debate—during the window when he was possibly contagious. “It’s possible there are people who were exposed to the President who don’t know it and are actively passing it on to others,” Wen says. Knowing when Trump last tested negative is crucial to running an effective contact tracing effort—an effort that the White House apparently has not yet begun. For every day of inadequate information, it gets harder to contact trace effectively, says Joseph Eisenberg, chair of the epidemiology department at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. Under the best of circumstances, contact tracing is a time- and labor-intensive process. And with each day that passes, more people potentially get exposed to the virus. “It is concerning from a public-health perspective that that information isn’t out there, from a transparency perspective, from a trust perspective and for the public to know,” Eisenberg says. Ranney adds that by not disclosing information that could help direct contact tracing, Trump is essentially flouting the public-health guidelines developed by his own administration. The CDC recommends that anyone who has come into contact with a sick person quarantine at home for two weeks, which people can’t do if they don’t know they’ve been exposed. “If we are to have any hope of controlling the virus in our country, reopening the economy, and getting our kids back to school, it is so essential [that we follow public health procedures],” Ranney says. “When our own President doesn’t follow them, it makes it that much more difficult.” Write to Jamie Ducharme at jamie.ducharme@time.com. | 0 |
MOSCOW — The familiar voice on the hotel room phone did not waste words. “What time does your clock say, exactly?” he asked. He checked the reply against his watch and described a place to meet. “I’ll see you there,” he said. Edward Joseph Snowden emerged at the appointed hour, alone, blending into a light crowd of locals and tourists. He cocked his arm for a handshake, then turned his shoulder to indicate a path. Before long he had guided his visitor to a secure space out of public view. During more than 14 hours of interviews, the first he has conducted in person since arriving here in June, Snowden did not part the curtains or step outside. Russia granted him temporary asylum on Aug. 1, but Snowden remains a target of surpassing interest to the intelligence services whose secrets he spilled on an epic scale. Late this spring, Snowden supplied three journalists, including this one, with caches of top-secret documents from the National Security Agency, where he worked as a contractor. Dozens of revelations followed, and then hundreds, as news organizations around the world picked up the story. Congress pressed for explanations, new evidence revived old lawsuits and the Obama administration was obliged to declassify thousands of pages it had fought for years to conceal. Taken together, the revelations have brought to light a global surveillance system that cast off many of its historical restraints after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Secret legal authorities empowered the NSA to sweep in the telephone, Internet and location records of whole populations. One of the leaked presentation slides described the agency’s “collection philosophy” as “Order one of everything off the menu.” Six months after the first revelations appeared in The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Snowden agreed to reflect at length on the roots and repercussions of his choice. He was relaxed and animated over two days of nearly unbroken conversation, fueled by burgers, pasta, ice cream and Russian pastry. Snowden offered vignettes from his intelligence career and from his recent life as “an indoor cat” in Russia. But he consistently steered the conversation back to surveillance, democracy and the meaning of the documents he exposed. “For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission’s already accomplished,” he said. “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.” “All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,” he said. “That is a milestone we left a long time ago. Right now, all we are looking at are stretch goals.” ‘Going in blind’ Snowden is an orderly thinker, with an engineer’s approach to problem-solving. He had come to believe that a dangerous machine of mass surveillance was growing unchecked. Closed-door oversight by Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was a “graveyard of judgment,” he said, manipulated by the agency it was supposed to keep in check. Classification rules erected walls to prevent public debate. Toppling those walls would be a spectacular act of transgression against the norms that prevailed inside them. Someone would have to bypass security, extract the secrets, make undetected contact with journalists and provide them with enough proof to tell the stories. The NSA’s business is “information dominance,” the use of other people’s secrets to shape events. At 29, Snowden upended the agency on its own turf. “You recognize that you’re going in blind, that there’s no model,” Snowden said, acknowledging that he had no way to know whether the public would share his views. “But when you weigh that against the alternative, which is not to act,” he said, “you realize that some analysis is better than no analysis. Because even if your analysis proves to be wrong, the marketplace of ideas will bear that out. If you look at it from an engineering perspective, an iterative perspective, it’s clear that you have to try something rather than do nothing.” By his own terms, Snowden succeeded beyond plausible ambition. The NSA, accustomed to watching without being watched, faces scrutiny it has not endured since the 1970s, or perhaps ever. The cascading effects have made themselves felt in Congress, the courts, popular culture, Silicon Valley and world capitals. The basic structure of the Internet itself is now in question, as Brazil and members of the European Union consider measures to keep their data away from U.S. territory and U.S. technology giants including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo take extraordinary steps to block the collection of data by their government. For months, Obama administration officials attacked Snowden’s motives and said the work of the NSA was distorted by selective leaks and misinterpretations. On Dec. 16, in a lawsuit that could not have gone forward without the disclosures made possible by Snowden, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon described the NSA’s capabilities as “almost Orwellian” and said its bulk collection of U.S. domestic telephone records was probably unconstitutional. The next day, in the Roosevelt Room, an unusual delegation of executives from old telephone companies and young Internet firms told President Obama that the NSA’s intrusion into their networks was a threat to the U.S. information economy. The following day, an advisory panel appointed by Obama recommended substantial new restrictions on the NSA, including an end to the domestic call-records program. “This week is a turning point,” said the Government Accountability Project’s Jesselyn Radack, who is one of Snowden’s legal advisers. “It has been just a cascade.” ‘They elected me’ On June 22, the Justice Department unsealed a criminal complaint charging Snowden with espionage and felony theft of government property. It was a dry enumeration of statutes, without a trace of the anger pulsing through Snowden’s former precincts. In the intelligence and national security establishments, Snowden is widely viewed as a reckless saboteur, and journalists abetting him little less so. At the Aspen Security Forum in July, a four-star military officer known for his even keel seethed through one meeting alongside a reporter he knew to be in contact with Snowden. Before walking away, he turned and pointed a finger. “We didn’t have another 9/11,” he said angrily, because intelligence enabled warfighters to find the enemy first. “Until you’ve got to pull the trigger, until you’ve had to bury your people, you don’t have a clue.” It is commonly said of Snowden that he broke an oath of secrecy, a turn of phrase that captures a sense of betrayal. NSA Director Keith B. Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., among many others, have used that formula. In his interview with The Post, Snowden noted matter-of-factly that Standard Form 312, the classified-information nondisclosure agreement, is a civil contract. He signed it, but he pledged his fealty elsewhere. “The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy,” he said. “That is an oath to the Constitution. That is the oath that I kept that Keith Alexander and James Clapper did not.” People who accuse him of disloyalty, he said, mistake his purpose. “I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA,” he said. “I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don’t realize it.” What entitled Snowden, now 30, to take on that responsibility? “That whole question — who elected you? — inverts the model,” he said. “They elected me. The overseers.” He named the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees. “Dianne Feinstein elected me when she asked softball questions” in committee hearings, he said. “Mike Rogers elected me when he kept these programs hidden. . . . The FISA court elected me when they decided to legislate from the bench on things that were far beyond the mandate of what that court was ever intended to do. The system failed comprehensively, and each level of oversight, each level of responsibility that should have addressed this, abdicated their responsibility.” “It wasn’t that they put it on me as an individual — that I’m uniquely qualified, an angel descending from the heavens — as that they put it on someone, somewhere,” he said. “You have the capability, and you realize every other [person] sitting around the table has the same capability but they don’t do it. So somebody has to be the first.” ‘Front-page test’ Snowden grants that NSA employees by and large believe in their mission and trust the agency to handle the secrets it takes from ordinary people — deliberately, in the case of bulk records collection, and “incidentally,” when the content of American phone calls and e-mails are swept into NSA systems along with foreign targets. But Snowden also said acceptance of the agency’s operations was not universal. He began to test that proposition more than a year ago, he said, in periodic conversations with co-workers and superiors that foreshadowed his emerging plan. Beginning in October 2012, he said, he brought his misgivings to two superiors in the NSA’s Technology Directorate and two more in the NSA Threat Operations Center’s regional base in Hawaii. For each of them, and 15 other co-workers, Snowden said he opened a data query tool called BOUNDLESSINFORMANT, which used color-coded “heat maps” to depict the volume of data ingested by NSA taps. His colleagues were often “astonished to learn we are collecting more in the United States on Americans than we are on Russians in Russia,” he said. Many of them were troubled, he said, and several said they did not want to know any more. “I asked these people, ‘What do you think the public would do if this was on the front page?’ ” he said. He noted that critics have accused him of bypassing internal channels of dissent. “How is that not reporting it? How is that not raising it?” he said. By last December, Snowden was contacting reporters, although he had not yet passed along any classified information. He continued to give his colleagues the “front-page test,” he said, until April. Asked about those conversations, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines sent a prepared statement to The Post: “After extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.” Snowden recounted another set of conversations that he said took place three years earlier, when he was sent by the NSA’s Technology Directorate to support operations at a listening post in Japan. As a system administrator, he had full access to security and auditing controls. He said he saw serious flaws with information security. “I actually recommended they move to two-man control for administrative access back in 2009,” he said, first to his supervisor in Japan and then to the directorate’s chief of operations in the Pacific. “Sure, a whistleblower could use these things, but so could a spy.” That precaution, which requires a second set of credentials to perform risky operations such as copying files onto a removable drive, has been among the principal security responses to the Snowden affair. Vines, the NSA spokeswoman, said there was no record of those conversations, either. U.S. ‘would cease to exist’ Just before releasing the documents this spring, Snowden made a final review of the risks. He had overcome what he described at the time as a “selfish fear” of the consequences for himself. “I said to you the only fear [left] is apathy — that people won’t care, that they won’t want change,” he recalled this month. The documents leaked by Snowden compelled attention because they revealed to Americans a history they did not know they had. Internal briefing documents reveled in the “Golden Age of Electronic Surveillance.” Brawny cover names such as MUSCULAR, TUMULT and TURMOIL boasted of the agency’s prowess. With assistance from private communications firms, the NSA had learned to capture enormous flows of data at the speed of light from fiber-optic cables that carried Internet and telephone traffic over continents and under seas. According to one document in Snowden’s cache, the agency’s Special Source Operations group, which as early as 2006 was said to be ingesting “one Library of Congress every 14.4 seconds,” had an official seal that might have been parody: an eagle with all the world’s cables in its grasp. Each year, NSA systems collected hundreds of millions of e-mail address books, hundreds of billions of cellphone location records and trillions of domestic call logs. Most of that data, by definition and intent, belonged to ordinary people suspected of nothing. But vast new storage capacity and processing tools enabled the NSA to use the information to map human relationships on a planetary scale. Only this way, its leadership believed, could the NSA reach beyond its universe of known intelligence targets. In the view of the NSA, signals intelligence, or electronic eavesdropping, was a matter of life and death, “without which America would cease to exist as we know it,” according to an internal presentation in the first week of October 2001 as the agency ramped up its response to the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. With stakes such as those, there was no capability the NSA believed it should leave on the table. The agency followed orders from President George W. Bush to begin domestic collection without authority from Congress and the courts. When the NSA won those authorities later, some of them under secret interpretations of laws passed by Congress between 2007 and 2012, the Obama administration went further still. Using PRISM, the cover name for collection of user data from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and five other U.S.-based companies, the NSA could obtain all communications to or from any specified target. The companies had no choice but to comply with the government's request for data. But the NSA could not use PRISM, which was overseen once a year by the surveillance court, for the collection of virtually all data handled by those companies. To widen its access, it teamed up with its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, to break into the private fiber-optic links that connected Google and Yahoo data centers around the world. That operation, which used the cover name MUSCULAR, tapped into U.S. company data from outside U.S. territory. The NSA, therefore, believed it did not need permission from Congress or judicial oversight. Data from hundreds of millions of U.S. accounts flowed over those Google and Yahoo links, but classified rules allowed the NSA to presume that data ingested overseas belonged to foreigners. ‘Persistent threat’ Disclosure of the MUSCULAR project enraged and galvanized U.S. technology executives. They believed the NSA had lawful access to their front doors — and had broken down the back doors anyway. Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith took to his company’s blog and called the NSA an “advanced persistent threat” — the worst of all fighting words in U.S. cybersecurity circles, generally reserved for Chinese state-sponsored hackers and sophisticated criminal enterprises. “For the industry as a whole, it caused everyone to ask whether we knew as much as we thought,” Smith recalled in an interview. “It underscored the fact that while people were confident that the U.S. government was complying with U.S. laws for activity within U.S. territory, perhaps there were things going on outside the United States . . . that made this bigger and more complicated and more disconcerting than we knew.” They wondered, he said, whether the NSA was “collecting proprietary information from the companies themselves.” Led by Google and then Yahoo, one company after another announced expensive plans to encrypt its data traffic over tens of thousands of miles of cable. It was a direct — in some cases, explicit — blow to NSA collection of user data in bulk. If the NSA wanted the information, it would have to request it or circumvent the encryption one target at a time. As these projects are completed, the Internet will become a less friendly place for the NSA to work. The agency can still collect data from virtually anyone, but collecting from everyone will be harder. The industry’s response, Smith acknowledged, was driven by a business threat. U.S. companies could not afford to be seen as candy stores for U.S. intelligence. But the principle of the thing, Smith said, “is fundamentally about ensuring that customer data is turned over to governments pursuant to valid legal orders and in accordance with constitutional principles.” ‘Warheads on foreheads’ Snowden has focused on much the same point from the beginning: Individual targeting would cure most of what he believes is wrong with the NSA. Six months ago, a reporter asked him by encrypted e-mail why Americans would want the NSA to give up bulk data collection if that would limit a useful intelligence tool. “I believe the cost of frank public debate about the powers of our government is less than the danger posed by allowing these powers to continue growing in secret,” he replied, calling them “a direct threat to democratic governance.” In the Moscow interview, Snowden said, “What the government wants is something they never had before,” adding: “They want total awareness. The question is, is that something we should be allowing?” Snowden likened the NSA’s powers to those used by British authorities in Colonial America, when “general warrants” allowed for anyone to be searched. The FISA court, Snowden said, “is authorizing general warrants for the entire country’s metadata.” “The last time that happened, we fought a war over it,” he said. Technology, of course, has enabled a great deal of consumer surveillance by private companies, as well. The difference with the NSA’s possession of the data, Snowden said, is that government has the power to take away life or freedom. At the NSA, he said, “there are people in the office who joke about, ‘We put warheads on foreheads.’ Twitter doesn’t put warheads on foreheads.” Privacy, as Snowden sees it, is a universal right, applicable to American and foreign surveillance alike. “I don’t care whether you’re the pope or Osama bin Laden,” he said. “As long as there’s an individualized, articulable, probable cause for targeting these people as legitimate foreign intelligence, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s imposing a ridiculous burden by asking for probable cause. Because, you have to understand, when you have access to the tools the NSA does, probable cause falls out of trees.” ‘Everybody knows’ On June 29, Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism coordinator, awoke to a report in Der Spiegel that U.S. intelligence had broken into E.U. offices, including his, to implant surveillance devices. The 56-year-old Belgian, whose work is often classified, did not consider himself naive. But he took the news personally, and more so when he heard unofficial explanations from Washington. “ ‘Everybody knows. Everybody does’ — Keith Alexander said that,” de Kerchove said in an interview. “I don’t like the idea that the NSA will put bugs in my office. No. I don’t like it. No. Between allies? No. I’m surprised that people find that noble.” Comparable reactions, expressed less politely in private, accompanied revelations that the NSA had tapped the cellphones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. The blowback roiled relations with both allies, among others. Rousseff canceled a state dinner with Obama in September. When it comes to spying on allies, by Snowden’s lights, the news is not always about the target. “It’s the deception of the government that’s revealed,” Snowden said, noting that the Obama administration offered false public assurances after the initial reports about NSA surveillance in Germany “The U.S. government said: ‘We follow German laws in Germany. We never target German citizens.’ And then the story comes out and it’s: ‘What are you talking about? You’re spying on the chancellor.’ You just lied to the entire country, in front of Congress.” In private, U.S. intelligence officials still maintain that spying among friends is routine for all concerned, but they are giving greater weight to the risk of getting caught. “There are many things we do in intelligence that, if revealed, would have the potential for all kinds of blowback,” Clapper told a House panel in October. ‘They will make mistakes’ U.S. officials say it is obvious that Snowden’s disclosures will do grave harm to intelligence gathering, exposing methods that adversaries will learn to avoid. “We’re seeing al-Qaeda and related groups start to look for ways to adjust how they communicate,” said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center and a former general counsel at the NSA. Other officials, who declined to speak on the record about particulars, said they had watched some of their surveillance targets, in effect, changing channels. That evidence can be read another way, they acknowledged, given that the NSA managed to monitor the shift. Clapper has said repeatedly in public that the leaks did great damage, but in private he has taken a more nuanced stance. A review of early damage assessments in previous espionage cases, he said in one closed-door briefing this fall, found that dire forecasts of harm were seldom borne out. “People must communicate,” he said, according to one participant who described the confidential meeting on the condition of anonymity. “They will make mistakes, and we will exploit them.” According to senior intelligence officials, two uncertainties feed their greatest concerns. One is whether Russia or China managed to take the Snowden archive from his computer, a worst-case assumption for which three officials acknowledged there is no evidence. In a previous assignment, Snowden taught U.S. intelligence personnel how to operate securely in a “high-threat digital environment,” using a training scenario in which China was the designated threat. He declined to discuss the whereabouts of the files, but he said that he is confident he did not expose them to Chinese intelligence in Hong Kong. And he said he did not bring them to Russia. “There’s nothing on it,” he said, turning his laptop screen toward his visitor. “My hard drive is completely blank.” The other big question is how many documents Snowden took. The NSA’s incoming deputy director, Rick Ledgett, said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” recently that the number may approach 1.7 million, a huge and unexplained spike over previous estimates. Ledgett said he would favor trying to negotiate an amnesty with Snowden in exchange for “assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured.” Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, later dismissed the possibility. “The government knows where to find us if they want to have a productive conversation about resolutions that don’t involve Edward Snowden behind bars,” said the American Civil Liberties Union’s Ben Wizner, the central figure on Snowden’s legal team. Some news accounts have quoted U.S. government officials as saying Snowden has arranged for the automated release of sensitive documents if he is arrested or harmed. There are strong reasons to doubt that, beginning with Snowden’s insistence, to this reporter and others, that he does not want the documents published in bulk. If Snowden were fool enough to rig a “dead man’s switch,” confidants said, he would be inviting anyone who wants the documents to kill him. Asked about such a mechanism in the Moscow interview, Snowden made a face and declined to reply. Later, he sent an encrypted message. “That sounds more like a suicide switch,” he wrote. “It wouldn’t make sense.” ‘It’s not about me’ By temperament and circumstance, Snowden is a reticent man, reluctant to discuss details about his personal life. Over two days his guard never dropped, but he allowed a few fragments to emerge. He is an “ascetic,” he said. He lives off ramen noodles and chips. He has visitors, and many of them bring books. The books pile up, unread. The Internet is an endless library and a window on the progress of his cause. “It has always been really difficult to get me to leave the house,” he said. “I just don’t have a lot of needs. . . . Occasionally there’s things to go do, things to go see, people to meet, tasks to accomplish. But it’s really got to be goal-oriented, you know. Otherwise, as long as I can sit down and think and write and talk to somebody, that’s more meaningful to me than going out and looking at landmarks.” In hope of keeping focus on the NSA, Snowden has ignored attacks on himself. “Let them say what they want,” he said. “It’s not about me.” Former NSA and CIA director Michael V. Hayden predicted that Snowden will waste away in Moscow as an alcoholic, like other “defectors.” To this, Snowden shrugged. He does not drink at all. Never has. But Snowden knows his presence here is easy ammunition for critics. He did not choose refuge in Moscow as a final destination. He said that once the U.S. government voided his passport as he tried to change planes en route to Latin America, he had no other choice. It would be odd if Russian authorities did not keep an eye on him, but no retinue accompanied Snowden and his visitor saw no one else nearby. Snowden neither tried to communicate furtively nor asked that his visitor do so. He has had continuous Internet access and has talked to his attorneys and to journalists daily, from his first day in the transit lounge at Sheremetyevo airport. “There is no evidence at all for the claim that I have loyalties to Russia or China or any country other than the United States,” he said. “I have no relationship with the Russian government. I have not entered into any agreements with them.” “If I defected at all,” Snowden said, “I defected from the government to the public.” Julie Tate contributed to this report. | 0 |
The outage disrupted the digital lives of small-business owners, politicians, aid workers and others. But for some, it was a welcome reprieve.Credit...Ed Jones/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPublished Oct. 5, 2021Updated Oct. 8, 2021For more than five hours on Monday, the world got a taste of life without Facebook and its apps.In Mexico, politicians were cut off from their constituents. In Turkey and Kenya, shopkeepers couldn’t sell their wares. And in Colombia, a nonprofit organization that uses WhatsApp to connect victims of gender-based violence to lifesaving services found its work impaired.“Because we have a field team, we were able to mitigate some of the more serious risks today’s outage presented,” said Alex Berryhill, the director of digital operations for the group, Cosas de Mujeres. “But that might not have been the case for hundreds of other hotlines around the world. Today was a big reminder: Technologies are tools, not solutions.”The Facebook outage on Monday was a planetary-scale demonstration of how essential the company’s services have become to daily life. Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger have long been more than just a way to chat and share photos. They are critical platforms for doing business, arranging medical care, conducting virtual classes, carrying out political campaigns, responding to emergencies and much, much more.In parts of the developing world, the cost of the Facebook outage was particularly acute. In India, Latin America and Africa, its services are essentially the internet for many people — almost a public utility, usually cheaper than a phone call and depended upon for much of the communication and commerce of daily life.The unease about a single corporation mediating so much human activity motivates much of the scrutiny surrounding Facebook.In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company, accusing it of being a monopolist that acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to secure its dominance. European Union policymakers are drafting sweeping regulations that would crimp the company’s power.In recent weeks, Facebook has been under fire after a whistle-blower, Frances Haugen, shared internal documents indicating, among other things, that the company knew Instagram was worsening teenagers’ body-image issues even while company executives publicly tried to minimize the app’s downsides.The revelations have spurred more criticism from regulators and the public. On Tuesday, Congress was hearing testimony from Ms. Haugen about Facebook’s impact on young users.Much of the recent criticism of Facebook has focused on the decisions the company’s leaders make — or fail to make — about governing, running and making money from its platforms. But as Monday’s outage demonstrated, another consequence of Facebook’s size is that many more people are affected when there are technical lapses like the ones the company says were responsible for the disruption.ImageCredit...Robert Fortunato for CBS News/60 Minutes, via Agence France-Presse - Getty ImagesIn Brussels, the hub of the European Union — where many government workers have turned to the rival messaging service Signal to communicate amid concerns about Facebook’s reach — the outage led to a fresh round of calls for more oversight of the biggest tech platforms.“In the global digital space, everyone could experience a shutdown,” Thierry Breton, the European commissioner drafting new tech regulations, said on Twitter. “Europeans deserve a better digital resilience via regulation, fair competition, stronger connectivity and cybersecurity.”In India, Brazil and other countries, WhatsApp has become so important to the functioning of society that regulators should treat it as a “utility,” said Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director at IT for Change, a technology-focused nonprofit in Bengaluru, India.People in India and other Asian countries where Facebook’s apps are popular largely slept through the outage, which occurred overnight for them. But Mr. Singh said the disruption still showed why regulators needed to supervise the internet giants more closely.Worldwide, 2.76 billion people on average used at least one Facebook product each day this June, according to the company’s statistics. WhatsApp is used to send more than 100 billion messages a day and has been downloaded nearly six billion times since 2014, when Facebook bought it, according to estimates from the data firm Sensor Tower.India accounted for about a quarter of those installations, while another quarter were in Latin America, according to Sensor Tower. Just 4 percent, or 238 million downloads, were in the United States.In Latin America, Facebook’s apps can be lifelines in rural places where cellphone service has yet to arrive but the internet is available, and in poor communities where people cannot afford mobile data but can find a free internet connection.Cosas de Mujeres, the nonprofit in Colombia, has hundreds of interactions every month with Colombian women and Venezuelan migrant women who face domestic and emotional violence or are at risk of trafficking or sexual exploitation, said Ms. Berryhill, the organization’s director of digital operations.“Usually we have phone operators receiving messages from women all day via WhatsApp, but that was not possible, and women could not contact us,” she said.María Elena Divas, a 51-year-old Venezuelan migrant in Bogotá, Colombia, uses WhatsApp to take orders for snacks like empanadas.“I didn’t sell anything today,” Ms. Divas said.Across Africa, Facebook’s apps are so popular that for many, they are the internet. WhatsApp, the continent’s most popular messaging app, is a one-stop shop to communicate with family, friends, colleagues, fellow worshipers and neighbors.In Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, anything from shoes and jewelry to plants and household appliances can be ordered for delivery from Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. In Johannesburg, vendors were cut off from Facebook Marketplace, which is used to sell everything from used cars to wigs and even corrugated iron shacks, known colloquially as zozos.The use of WhatsApp has grown so much that at one point it accounted for nearly half of all internet traffic in Zimbabwe. During the outage on Monday, the chief government spokesman in Tanzania used Twitter to urge the public to “remain calm.”“Our business came to a standstill,” said Lydia Mutune, owner of a pots and plants store in Nairobi that sells exclusively on Facebook and Instagram. “It was a wake-up call. It just showed me how my business and our lives are totally dependent on social media platforms.”ImageCredit...Tom Brenner for The New York TimesIn some places, people said that although the disappearance of Facebook’s apps hindered their work, it also removed a noisy distraction, making them feel better and more productive.James Chambers was panicked at first for Chez Angela, the Canadian bakery he and his wife own in Brandon, Manitoba. They post four to five times daily on Facebook and Instagram to draw customers into the shop. But on Monday, he said, “as the day went on, we actually found more people coming in and saying that it was good to be disconnected.”“We closed the day 30 percent above our normal Monday sale,” he added.Drogasmil, a pharmacy chain in Brazil, takes many prescription orders via WhatsApp, said Rafael Silva, a Drogasmil pharmacist in Rio de Janeiro.On Monday, there were none, but because he and his colleagues couldn’t chat on WhatsApp, the day felt “more serene,” he said.Jan Böhmermann, a German comedian, tweeted that he wished Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp would remain offline forever. His post received nearly 30,000 likes.Surveys show that WhatsApp is installed on nearly every smartphone in Brazil and that most Brazilians with a phone check the app at least once an hour.Restaurants take orders, supermarkets coordinate deliveries, and doctors, hairdressers and cleaners book appointments. During the pandemic, the app became a crucial tool for teachers to tutor students in remote areas of the country. It also has been central to the spread of disinformation.ImageCredit...Kelsey McClellan for The New York TimesIn Russia, the authorities said the outage was evidence supporting the country’s crackdown on Western internet companies.The disruptions “answer the question about whether we need our own social media and internet platforms,” said Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.Still, in many places, people were struck by how the outage revealed their dependence on Facebook’s tools — and their vulnerability when the service is unavailable.Selen Bayrak, owner of a small shop in Istanbul that sells spicy marmalades and sauces, said 80 percent of her sales were normally made through Instagram. She estimated that she managed to sell only a quarter of what she could have sold yesterday had Instagram not been down.In Mexico, many small-town newspapers cannot afford print editions, so they publish on Facebook instead. That has left local governments without a physical outlet to issue important announcements, so they, too, have taken to Facebook, said Adrián Pascoe, a political consultant.A municipality Mr. Pascoe is consulting for was unable to introduce its new services on Monday because the site was down. The announcement will take place on Wednesday instead, he said.León David Pérez’s two companies, including Polimatía, which provides e-learning courses, rely on Facebook and Instagram to market their products. The customer service department is run on WhatsApp.“The way businesses work, it’s been a crazy change in the last 20 years,” Mr. David said. “Then, we had no community online. Now we are hyper-connected, but we rely on a few tech companies for everything. When WhatsApp or Facebook are down, we all go down.”Reporting was contributed by Maria Abi-Habib, Ian Austen, Lynsey Chutel, Abdi Latif Dahir, Steven Grattan, Valerie Hopkins, Jack Nicas, Christopher F. Schuetze and Julie Turkewitz. | 0 |
Story highlightsThe State Department issues a global travel alert on possible al Qaeda attacksSources say al Qaeda is in final planning stages of unspecified plot Rep. King: Information is "specific," attacks "really could be almost anyplace"Western targets, not just American ones, are under threat, officials sayA global travel alert issued Friday by the State Department warned al Qaeda may launch attacks in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond in coming weeks, a threat that prompted Sunday's closure of 21 embassies and consulates.The U.S. government's actions are in response to growing intelligence that shows a potential for attacks in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East as well as North Africa, said U.S. officials who spoke to CNN on condition of not being identified."The threat appears to be much worse than it has (been) in a long time," said a senior national security official in Yemen, where the government is "on high alert against possible attacks in the days to come."Various Western targets -- not just those tied to the United States -- are under threat, according to two U.S. officials.According to three sources, the United States has information that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula members are in the final stages of planning for an unspecified attack. One of the sources said that such preparations appeared to have increased in recent days with the approaching end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. In particular, Sunday is Laylet al-Qadr, or the Night of Power, which is one of the holiest moments on the Muslim calendar.Said one U.S. official: "It all leads us to believe something could happen in the near future."Based on intelligence, U.S. officials said, there was particular concern about the U.S. Embassy in Yemen between Saturday and Tuesday. President Barack Obama -- who, amid regular updates on the situation, has directed officials to take all appropriate steps to protect Americans -- praised Yemeni President Abdo Rabu Mansour Hadi for his country's efforts following a meeting Thursday at the White House.Still, it's unclear whether the apparent plot targets that Arabian nation or one elsewhere -- which is why the travel alert applies so broadly, and why embassies from Bangladesh to Libya are being closed. The expected time of an attack also isn't known, with the U.S. travel alert noting the threat extends through the end of August."Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests," the alert states. "U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure."New York Rep. Peter King, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called the information "the most specific I've seen."While the principal attention is on the Arabian Peninsula, he stressed to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that"we can't rule anything out.""We are focused on the Middle East, but it's a potential series of attacks that really could be almost anyplace," said King.21 embassies, consulates ordered closedThe State Department made public Friday a list of 21 embassies and consulates that will close Sunday, which is normally the start of the work week in the countries affected.The 17 affected U.S. embassies are in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Yemen. The U.S. embassy in Israel will be closed as normal Sunday.Consulates in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also being shut down for the day. Embassies and consulates in the region typically close their doors or operate with minimal staff on Fridays and Saturdays.The shutdowns could extend beyond Sunday, a senior State Department official said.Retired Gen. James Mattis -- who until earlier this year was head of U.S. Central Command, responsible for a 20-country area that includes the Middle East -- said the decision to close the embassies shows the reality of the threat and the wisdom of U.S. policymakers.U.S. embassies have been targeted before in places such as Yemen, Turkey and Tanzania, he pointed out. Moreover, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is one of the terrorist network's most active and most destructive branches."We have to remember that we're up against an enemy who kills indiscriminately -- whether it be women, children, diplomats -- and our embassies ... have been one of the targets," Mattis told CNN on Friday. "They are showing some proactive discretion here, making certain that we don't give the enemy an opportunity that we can deny them."Questions, concerns after BenghaziHouse leaders have been briefed on the situation, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters, adding that the travel alert and embassy closings provided "some understanding of the seriousness of the threat."King, who has also heard such briefings, applauded the government's decision to close its diplomatic missions."I give them credit," the Republican said of the Obama administration. "I think the government is doing exactly the right thing here."Such bipartisan agreement in Washington come at a time politicians are still pushing to seek answers regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consular compound in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.Since then, Republicans have been pressing President Barack Obama's administration for answers, with some accusing officials of covering up what happened in Benghazi and not doing enough to track down the attackers.Eight GOP lawmakers are asking that incoming FBI Director James Comey brief Congress within 30 days about the investigation. They say the administration's inquiry thus far has been "simply unacceptable," according to a draft letter obtained by CNN.Earlier this week, Vice President Joe Biden and senior State Department officials went to Congress to discuss embassy security.Biden also briefed congressional leadership, key committee chairmen and ranking members about the latest threat concerns, a source who attended the meeting said.Another official said the recent intelligence might not have warranted such a response before the Benghazi attack, given the political firestorm it created for the Obama administration.On Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the agency was taking the steps at diplomatic sites out of an abundance of caution. | 0 |
First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.Trade win clears the way for Obama’s biggest bipartisan achievementThe Senate voting yesterday to proceed on President Obama’s trade agenda was a big win for the White House, a loss for organized labor and progressive Democrats, and a true political comeback (given that it looked like lost cause a couple of weeks ago). But maybe more than anything else, yesterday’s result clears the way for arguably the biggest bipartisan achievement of the Obama Era. After all, it’s not every day when Obama, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan all come together. And what’s remarkable is that all of these folks had opportunities to bail, with progressives and the Breitbart crowd in opposition. But they stuck together. Now, the president’s trade agenda isn’t finalized -- the Senate still must give final approval to the fast-track Trade Promotion Authority (but that requires just 51 votes), the House needs to pass Trade Adjustment Assistance (but it’s what Democrats truly want), and then the actual Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement must eventually get an up-or-down vote. But the chances of those things happening are much, much more likely than a week or two ago. And it’s due to a true man-bites-dog story: Obama and congressional GOP leaders working together -- and sticking together, despite opposition from their bases. A not-so lame duckRight after the 2014 midterms, many political observers -- including your authors here -- believed Obama had officially entered lame-duck status. But we were wrong. After the Democratic losses, Obama flexed his executive muscles on Cuba, the environment, and immigration (though the latter has been stalled in the courts). Now you can throw in likely passage of a historic trade agreement, as well as the possibility of a finalized nuclear deal with Iran. As we wrote last week, this June is a big legacy month for the president. So far, he’s cleared the trade hurdle. Now we’re on to health care (with a Supreme Court decision coming) and Iran (with the deadline at the end of the month). And on the topic of Iran, the WikiLeaks allegations of the NSA’s spying on France aren’t going to be helpful. Neither is the Ayatollah’s hardline speech on the talks.Hillary now has to make up her mind on the TPP trade agreementWhile yesterday’s Senate trade vote was a victory for Obama, it was bad news for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she no longer has an excuse NOT to take a position on the TPP trade agreement -- something she called the “gold standard” when she was Obama’s secretary of state. Over the last few weeks, Hillary’s play has been a cautious one (an all-too-familiar play), appearing to assume that TPA might not pass (so why even take a position on TPP?) and then embracing Nancy Pelosi and finally opposing the TPA measure that looks headed for Obama’s signature. But her caution on this tricky issue undercuts her strong moves elsewhere (on race, immigration, voting rights). And it opens her up to attacks like this one from Jeb Bush: “I haven’t changed in my view even though Hillary Clinton has. It is time to move forward as even recent Democratic presidents have recognized — and Sec. Clinton shouldn’t stand in the way for political gain,” he wrote. Now Hillary faces this choice: Support Obama (and her past position) but risk exposing her left flank, or oppose TPP yet risk looking like a pandering flip-flopper.Labor painsOne final point on yesterday’s Senate trade vote: It was a BIG loss for organized labor -- after its dwindling membership and political defeats in Wisconsin. A couple of weeks ago, they won a high-profile battle when House Democrats sank the Trade Adjustment Assistance. But they’re now headed to lose the trade war. There are still plenty of places where labor runs the show for Democrats (California comes to mind). But as a national movement, it’s losing political steam.The new civil-rights movement -- on social media: Be sure not to miss this piece by NBC’s Perry Bacon: “American politicians, from Republicans in South Carolina to President Barack Obama, are increasingly addressing issues of race in frank terms, spurred by a series of racially charged incidents across the country, the rise of ‘black Twitter’ and the strength of the ‘Obama coalition’ of white liberals and minority voters... In all these moves, both Democratic politicians and some Republicans seem to be following the moves of the activists who emerged in the wake of the death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson police last year. This new generation of activists, many of whom are African-Americans who primarily organize online, start using the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ last year, inspiring Clinton to repeat it.” Remember those bumper stickers in the 70s and 80s, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow”? That’s exactly what seems to be happening in this rise of a new civil-rights movement.Jindal enters the 2016 raceTurning to the 2016 race, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will announce his presidential bid from Kenner, LA at 5:00 pm ET. It wasn’t too long ago when Jindal was one of the Republican Party’s biggest stars (remember when he was tapped to give the GOP response to Obama’s first address to Congress?). Since then, he’s struggled -- particularly at home. And in this presidential contest, his chief objective is making that first debate stage and not being considered an afterthought. He’s been preparing this presidential bid for years. Can he meet the moment?Christie set to jump in as early as next week? Another GOP governor with problems at home looks set to officially jump into the 2016 race as early as next week -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Politico: “Chris Christie is in the final stages of preparing his 2016 presidential bid, with a formal announcement possible as soon as next week, according to several sources familiar with the discussions. The New Jersey governor’s planning has intensified in recent days. On Monday, his campaign-in-waiting announced that he’d hired two additional staffers in New Hampshire, a state seen as critical to his White House hopes. Earlier this month, Maria Comella, a longtime Christie aide, departed the governor’s official office to take a senior position at his political action committee.”Walker with trouble back homeFinally, here’s the New York Times on Wisconsin Republicans who aren’t all that pleased with Gov. Scott Walker’s presidential moves: “Republicans back home are in revolt. Leaders of Mr. Walker’s party, which controls the Legislature, are balking at his demands for the state’s budget. Critics say the governor’s spending blueprint is aimed more at appealing to conservatives in early-voting states like Iowa than doing what is best for Wisconsin. Lawmakers are stymied over how to pay for road and bridge repairs without raising taxes or fees, which Mr. Walker has ruled out.”Mark Murray is a senior political editor at NBC News.Chuck Todd is moderator of "Meet The Press" and NBC News' political director. Andrew Rafferty has been a political reporter for NBCNews.com since 2013. Rafferty writes and reports on politics for the web, and shoots and produces video for all NBC platforms. Prior to joining NBCNews.com, Rafferty was a campaign reporter covering the 2012 presidential election. Rafferty was on the road for both the Republican primaries and general election, providing content for both the web and television. Rafferty began at NBC News through a fellowship at "Meet The Press." He is from Buffalo, N.Y., and attended John Carroll University in Ohio. | 0 |
President Trump’s choice for the latest Supreme Court vacancy will continue a trend toward widening America’s power and wealth gaps.July 22, 2018Credit...Lilli CarréThe Editorial BoardThe editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.Corporate interests haven’t had it so good at the Supreme Court in a long time. Under Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. the court has given big business a leg up on workers, unions, consumers and the environment — and will do so even more aggressively if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s choice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Corporations won the power to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns in the 2010 Citizens United decision. The owners of businesses have earned the right to cite their personal religious beliefs to deprive workers of reproductive health care. At the same time, the justices have made it harder for employees and customers to sue big businesses by allowing corporations to require mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts people are forced to sign if they want jobs or want to buy goods and services. The court has also made it easier for polluters to get away with poisoning the air and water. In many of these decisions the five conservative justices have shown no restraint in rejecting judicial precedent and in substituting their own judgment for that of lawmakers. Just last month, in a blow to public-sector unions with contracts covering nearly seven million workers, their 5-to-4 ruling dismissed a unanimous 40-year-old decision that state governments and unions had long relied on. In the recent case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the court held that government workers covered by union contracts do not have to pay fees for collective bargaining expenses if they are not members. The ruling does not directly involve businesses. But it will hurt all workers because benefits won by unions often establish benchmarks that help improve wages and working conditions even at companies without unions. Under the Roberts court, between 2005 and 2015, when businesses were either plaintiffs or respondents but not both, businesses prevailed 61 percent of the time, according to a study by Lee Epstein, William Landes and Richard Posner published last year. That compares with a rate of 44 percent when Chief Justice William Rehnquist led the court from 1986 to 2004, and 43 percent when Warren Burger was chief justice from 1969 to 1986.Analysts have also looked at how rulings compare with positions advocated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That organization has been an aggressive champion for the legal interests of big business since at least 1971, when Lewis Powell, later a justice on the Supreme Court, wrote an influential memorandum calling on the group’s leaders to see the court as a “a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.”Mr. Powell was prescient. The Roberts court has sided with the chamber 70 percent of the time from 2006 through the term that concluded a few weeks ago, according to the Constitutional Accountability Center. By comparison, the Rehnquist court ruled in favor of the chamber’s position 56 percent of the time between 1994 and 2005 and the Burger court ruled for it 43 percent of the time between 1981 and 1986, years during which there were no changes in the court’s membership.Neither the Rehnquist nor the Burger courts could be considered liberal, but the justices that served on them were more likely to have heterodox political views, regardless of whether they were appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents. Over the years, conservative groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have worked to make sure that Republican presidents appoint judges and justices who are reliably pro-corporate. Partly as a result, the Roberts court has been much more adamant in opposing regulation and much more expansive in establishing corporate rights. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito Jr., both appointed by President George W. Bush, are the most pro-corporate justices since 1946, according to the Epstein, Landes and Posner research.Judge Kavanaugh, who serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, fits neatly into the Roberts-Alito worldview. In 2012, Judge Kavanaugh wrote an appeals court opinion striking down an Environmental Protection Agency rule that required upwind states to reduce power plant emissions that cause smog and soot pollution in downwind states, a decision that was later struck down by a 6-to-2 majority of the Supreme Court. And in 2016, he wrote an opinion that said the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional because Congress decided that the president could only fire its director for cause. The full appeals court reversed that portion of his decision in January. In a dissent last year from a decision involving net neutrality rules put in place by the Federal Communications Commission, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to issue the rules — despite a Supreme Court ruling saying it did. He wrote that by prohibiting broadband companies from interfering with information that customers tried to get over the internet, the rules violated the companies’ First Amendment rights. As the majority noted, his interpretation would allow a broadband company to hold itself out as a neutral provider of access to all websites, then block or impede access to competing services. Judge Kavanaugh dissented again when the appeals court upheld a Department of Labor decision that found SeaWorld had violated workplace safety laws by not adequately protecting a trainer who was killed by the orca Tilikum, made famous by the movie “Blackfish.” The judge argued that the department overstepped its authority by regulating sports and entertainment — something he argued it had not done before. In fact, the government has previously regulated safety in the entertainment industry and other workplaces where workers were killed by dangerous animals. The court’s pro-corporate decisions are widening the chasm in power and wealth between the country’s elite and everybody else. And the Roberts court is also increasingly preventing lawmakers, regulators and the public from doing anything about that growing problem.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. | 0 |
(CNN)More than a dozen news outlets -- from the Associated Press to USA Today, The Washington Post and Politico -- are filing friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN and Jim Acosta's lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.The list represents most of the biggest news organizations in the United States.The most notable name on the list is Fox News. In fact, Fox went further than most other media companies on Wednesday, issuing a statement that said "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized."The statement came from Jay Wallace, the president of Fox News, hours after Fox commentators like Sean Hannity publicly criticized Acosta and CNN.The two networks have been rivals for two decades -- but Wallace said this case is about the free press."Fox News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter's press credential," Wallace said. "We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court."Wallace added, "While we don't condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."Fred Ryan, the publisher and CEO of the Washington Post, also expressed his support for the action in a separate statement. He said on Tuesday night, "We support CNN in its effort to restore the press credentials of its White House reporter. It is a journalist's role to ask hard questions, hold the powerful to account and provide readers with as much information as possible."The Post and Fox News are joining the amicus brief along with a long list of others.Wednesday morning's statement listed The Associated Press, Bloomberg, First Look Media, Gannett, NBC News, The New York Times, Politico, USA Today, the National Press Club Journalism Institute, the Press Freedom Defense Fund, and the E.W. Scripps Company."Whether the news of the day concerns national security, the economy, or the environment, reporters covering the White House must remain free to ask questions. It is imperative that independent journalists have access to the President and his activities, and that journalists are not barred for arbitrary reasons," the thirteen outlets said in a statement. "Our news organizations support the fundamental constitutional right to question this President, or any President. We will be filing friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN's and Jim Acosta's lawsuit based on these principles."Additional news outlets are likely to sign on to the brief. After the initial statement came out, CBS said it intends to file a brief "in support of CNN's lawsuit to defend its constitutional rights."BuzzFeed said it will also be signing on. ABC News said in a statement that "we stand with CNN in believing that Jim Acosta should have his White House pass reinstated. We hope this is resolved swiftly." And the Wall Street Journal said it supports "efforts to restore Mr. Acosta's full access."CNN's lawsuit was filed Tuesday morning in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. There is a hearing scheduled in the case at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday. | 0 |
President Trump blamed Iran after demonstrators breached the compound’s outer wall. Tensions are high after American airstrikes killed members of an Iran-backed militia. VideoProtesters attacked the United States Embassy in Baghdad in response to American airstrikes on an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq. Many of the demonstrators were members of that militia and others.CreditCredit...Wissm Al-Okili/ReutersPublished Dec. 31, 2019Updated April 25, 2021BAGHDAD — Protesters broke into the heavily guarded compound of the United States Embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday and set fires inside in anger over American airstrikes that killed 24 members of an Iranian-backed militia over the weekend.The men did not enter the main embassy buildings and later withdrew from the compound, joining thousands of protesters and militia fighters outside chanting “Death to America,” throwing rocks, covering the walls with graffiti and demanding that the United States withdraw its forces from Iraq.The situation remained combustible, with the crowd vowing to camp indefinitely outside the sprawling compound, the world’s largest embassy. Their ability to storm the most heavily guarded zone in Baghdad suggested that they had received at least tacit permission from Iraqi security officials sympathetic to their demands.ImageCredit... Murtadha Sudani/Anadolu Agency, via Getty ImagesPresident Trump, faced with scenes of unfolding chaos at an American embassy, lashed out against Iran, which he blamed for the protests.“Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities,” he said in a tweet. “They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year!”[Latest: U.S. embassy in Baghdad is hit by rocket fire.] He also spoke with Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi about the need to protect Americans and American facilities.Speaking with reporters in an impromptu exchange Tuesday night at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Mr. Trump said he thought his administration had handled the situation in Iraq “very well.” Asked about the possibility of war, Mr. Trump said, “I don’t think that would be a good idea for Iran,” adding, “I want to have peace, I like peace. And Iran should want peace more than anybody.”Roughly 750 additional American troops will deploy to the region immediately, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said late Tuesday. “This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities,” he said. The troops are likely to deploy to Kuwait.Mr. Trump has long called for an end to American conflicts in the Middle East, but has been reluctant to pull troops from the region despite his remarks on the campaign trail.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke by telephone with Mr. Abdul Mahdi and President Barham Salih in separate calls, and “made clear the United States will protect and defend its people,” according to a summary of the call from the State Department. It said that the Iraqi leaders “assured the secretary that they took seriously their responsibility” to safeguard American officials and property.The State Department said that American personnel were safe and that there were no plans to evacuate the embassy. The ambassador, Matt Tueller, had been traveling and was not at the embassy when it was breached on Tuesday.The American airstrikes on Sunday have resulted in the most serious political crisis in years for the United States in Iraq, stoking anti-Americanism and handing an advantage to Iran in its competition for influence in the country.The airstrikes targeted an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia, Kataib Hezbollah, which the United States accused of carrying out a missile attack on an Iraqi military base that killed an American contractor and wounded American and Iraqi service members. A spokesman for the militia denied involvement in the attack.ImageCredit...Khalid Mohammed/Associated PressBut the size of the American response — five strikes in Iraq and Syria that killed two dozen fighters and wounded dozens of others — prompted condemnation from across the political spectrum in Iraq, and accusations that the United States had violated Iraqi sovereignty. It also drew sharp criticism and serious threats of reprisals from Iraq’s Iranian-backed militias. The fact that the Iraqi government permitted militia members to enter the fortified Green Zone on Tuesday, allowing the protest to happen, demonstrated Iran’s powerful influence as well as the government’s difficulty in controlling the militias.But the Iraqi leadership’s success in averting a deeper incursion into the embassy compound and preventing any confrontation with American personnel suggested that the government may have intended to allow the militias to vent their anger with minimal damage.The United States military made a show of force in response to the turmoil, with helicopter gunships circling overhead. From inside the compound, loudspeakers warned the crowd outside to keep away from the walls. Satellite image by Maxar via Bing The Pentagon sent 120 Marine reinforcements to Baghdad from Kuwait, roughly the same number sent to the embassy in 2014, when the Islamic State was threatening Baghdad.The protest began Tuesday morning when thousands of militia members gathered outside the Green Zone after prayer services for the fighters killed in the American strikes. While few of them were armed, many were members of Kataib Hezbollah and other fighting groups that are technically overseen by the Iraqi military. Kataib Hezbollah is separate from the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, although both groups are backed by Iran and oppose the United States.When the protesters pushed toward the entrance to the Green Zone, a heavily guarded district of government offices and embassies in central Baghdad, the Iraqi security forces did not stop them. Their accession to the protesters was a marked contrast to their treatment of the antigovernment protesters who have been demonstrating outside the Green Zone for months. Those protesters were met with tear gas and bullets and have not been able to enter the Green Zone.Once at the embassy, the protesters on Tuesday used long poles to shatter security cameras. They covered the compound walls with anti-American graffiti and set a guardhouse on fire. ImageCredit...Ameer Al Mohmmedaw/Picture Alliance, via Getty ImagesAfter breaking open a compound entrance, dozens of men entered and lit more fires while embassy security guards watched them from the embassy roof and fired tear gas.One group of protesters ended up separated from United States troops by only a pane of glass, according to a video shared on social media. It was not immediately clear how many Americans were inside the compound, but officials said they sheltered in place and were unhurt.The embassy complex, which opened in 2009 and cost an estimated $736 million to build, covers 104 acres, nearly as big as Vatican City, the world’s smallest country. By 2012, nearly 16,000 people worked there — most of them contractors, but also diplomats, military personnel, intelligence officers and aid workers — but the staff declined sharply over the following years.The embassy and an American consulate in Erbil, in northern Iraq, now have a combined staff of 486 people, with the majority in Baghdad.The scenes there on Tuesday stirred memories of the seizure of two searing, politically consequential events in recent American history: the seizure of the embassy and 52 hostages in Tehran during the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and the assault on a United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.ImageCredit...Thaier Al-Sudani/ReutersAs a congressman, Mr. Pompeo became a political star among Republicans for blistering criticism of Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state, over the Benghazi attack, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.Mr. Trump also had Benghazi in mind, calling the Baghdad attack “the anti-Benghazi.”The protesters eventually left the Baghdad compound, but some climbed on top of adjacent buildings, where they planted militia flags. Iraqi police and military personnel eventually arrived at the scene, but they did not disperse the protesters.The Iraqi interior minister, Yassin al-Yasiri, said in an interview near the embassy that American attacks on an Iraqi militia had invited trouble.“These are the dangerous ramifications of this strike,” he said. “What happened today is the danger that we were afraid of, and that the Americans should have been afraid of.”ImageCredit...Anmar Khalil/Associated PressWhile the protesters carried the flags of Iraq and a range of militia groups, the most prominent was that of Kataib Hezbollah, the group targeted by the United States.A spokesman for Kataib Hezbollah, Mohammed Muhi, said his group intended to erect tents in the street in front of the United States Embassy for an opened-ended sit-in to pressure the Americans to leave Iraq.“We will not leave these tents until the embassy and the ambassador leave Iraq,” Mr. Muhi said.About 1,000 militia members remained camped out in front of the embassy overnight. The upheaval comes at a critical time for Iraq and for the United States’ role in the country. Mass protests in recent months against poor governance have weakened the government and underscored the criticism of Iraqis who feel that Iran has too much sway over the country’s politics.At the same time, Iran and the United States have been competing for political influence in the aftermath of the battle against the Islamic State, which once ruled large areas of Iraq.Iraqi militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, were formed in part to help fight the Islamic State in tandem with the national security forces, a battle that effectively put them on the side of the United States.They have since evolved into a powerful military and political force with a significant bloc in Parliament. Some of the militias are backed by Iran and use their power to help advance its interests in Iraq.ImageCredit...Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe United States has about 5,200 troops in Iraq, down from a peak of 170,000 in 2007, in addition to a number of civilian contractors. The troops are stationed primarily at a base in Anbar Province, northwest of Baghdad, and at another in the Kurdish-controlled north of country. Their task is to train Iraqi security forces and help prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State.After years of military and political investment in Iraq, the United States finds itself in a position where few powerful Iraqis are willing to stand up for it and its role in the country.Condemnation of the American airstrikes continued on Tuesday. Mr. Abdul Mahdi, the Iraqi prime minister, announced an official three-day mourning period for the men killed in the strikes, which he called an “outrageous attack.” In a statement, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry reiterated the government’s condemnation of the strikes, but called on protesters to stay away from foreign embassies.“Any attack on foreign embassies or representatives will be firmly prevented by the security forces and punishable by law with the most severe penalties,” it said.Falih Hassan reported from Baghdad, Ben Hubbard from Beirut, Lebanon, and Alissa J. Rubin from Paris. Edward Wong and Thomas Gibbons-Neff contributed reporting from Washington. | 0 |
As of this morning, Donald Trump has been president of the United States for 100 days.It's a period of time that has clearly humbled Trump — in his own uniquely Trump way — and also humbled the political establishment. It's caused all of us to continually rethink everything we thought we knew about American politics, in real time, and attempt to adjust.Yes, 100 days is an arbitrary line, but it's also as good a time as any to step back and reflect on what we and President Trump have been through so far. And given Trump's 100th day falls on a weekend, we thought some light reading was in order.Below are some winners and losers, with the losers up first.LOSERSPresident TrumpThe first 100 days weren't good for Trump, objectively. And judging by his comments about his learning curve, he knows it. He has one signature accomplishment in confirming Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. But he has no significant legislative victories; three of his big executive orders have been halted by the courts; and his approval rating at 100 days is the lowest of any president in the modern era, by double digits. To top it all off, this was a president who promised to do huge things and do them quickly — now he's breaking promises almost weekly.To pitch Trump's first 100 days as a success, the White House has resorted to citing highly misleading statistics and even bragging about how many executive orders Trump has signed — executive orders that Trump could sign thousands of if he wanted to and that he referred to in the past as the sign of a weak president. That just about says it all.Paul D. RyanThe House speaker from Wisconsin, once a Trump skeptic, has certainly been along for the ride over the first 100 days. He has a reputation as a serious policy wonk and was hailed as the one Republican who could unite the party when he agreed to become speaker. Both of those perceived talents have been seriously called into doubt. Ryan's efforts to pass a health-care bill never seemed close to succeeding, and the decision to try to rekindle that failed bill in recent weeks looks like a strange one right now.It seems as though Ryan is allowing Trump to set the agenda and is doing his best to be a team player. But he's not looking like the skilled and serious politician who came into the speakership with such high hopes. Oh, and he's even more unpopular than Trump, with 29 percent approving of him and 54 percent disapproving, according to Pew.Democratic unityNon-interventionismWhatever you think of Trump's posture toward adversaries, it's the kind of talk that could one day mean Trump will have to put his military where his mouth is. And that's not really the non-interventionist foreign policy he ran on.Stephen K. BannonThere is plenty of legend and lore surrounding Bannon, the former Breitbart News executive who took over Trump's campaign in the general election and then ascended to the post of chief White House strategist. Bannon's nationalist politics and past embrace of the alt-right have made him a controversial and unloved figure — but one that Trump apparently relied upon and trusted. That's now no longer a given, after Trump delivered a rare public rebuke of Bannon and even questioned his importance in the 2016 election. “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump told the New York Post earlier this month. (Ouch.) Bannon is still in the White House, but his role sure seems to be diminished, which was pretty unthinkable 100 days ago.WINNERSObamacareIt turns out all that Trump's predecessor had to do to make Obamacare popular was to leave office and have Republicans prepare to repeal it! The Affordable Care Act has never polled better, with some surveys even showing a majority of Americans approve of it. Even more, the law has proven resilient in the face of GOP efforts to overhaul it. Republicans quickly gave up altogether on repealing it and are now trying to figure out how to replace it — with a somewhat similar, government-oriented alternative. But even that doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon, as both moderate and conservative Republicans balk.The court returned to its nominal 5-4 conservative majority when Trump nominee Gorsuch was confirmed earlier this month. And in Gorsuch's wake lay the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Democrats, incensed by the treatment of Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland last year and itching for a fight, opted to try to stop Gorsuch, even though he was the kind of nominee that usually sails through confirmation. The result: The GOP simply continued what Democrats started in 2013 and rolled back the filibuster rules. Now, if a liberal justice retires anytime soon (as seems quite possible), Republicans will need only 50 votes to confirm a justice who could tip the court clearly in their favor for years to come.Democrats' 2018 hopesThe minority party hasn't yet pulled off a big upset in a special election, but signs are pointing to an animated Democratic voting base and a real chance to seize upon Trump's historic unpopularity in the 2018 midterms. In Kansas, Democrats lost by just seven points in a district Trump carried by 27 points. As the chart below from Daily Kos Elections shows, that's a huge under-performance for the GOP.And in Georgia, even though Democrat Jon Ossoff didn't win the 6th District House seat outright and avoid a runoff, he approached 50 percent just like Hillary Clinton in a conservative district — one that Republicans who are not named Trump usually win with 60 percent-plus. If Democrats can win these kinds of anti-Trump suburban districts, they'll have a fighting chance to win the majority.Jared KushnerThe Trump White House is marked by seemingly constant backbiting and infighting, with nobody knowing who will emerge as the most influential advisers. But for now, that appears to be Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, who has asserted power as the embattled Bannon has sunk. We have yet to see Kushner's reportedly more pragmatic, politically moderate worldview come through in Trump's policies, but for now he seems to have Trump's ear. And having Trump's ear means a lot.Trump's base strategyTrump is unpopular, yes. He hasn't accomplished what he promised, yes. And things don't seem likely to get easier, either. But he's still in the game. And that's because he's got a base that just won't quit him. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last weekend showed just 2 percent of Trump voters thought he was a worse president than they expected, while 66 percent thought he was a better one. And 96 percent said they'd vote for him again.Trump has broken his promises on all kinds of things that were important to his base, including prosecuting Clinton over her emails, repealing Obamacare, labeling China a currency manipulator, etc., etc. But while his overall approval rating is bad, having his base intact keeps him powerful in the Republican Party, and that means he can still get things done. Trump's ability to be a successful president in his next 100 days will be highly dependent upon how he leverages that. | 0 |
JERUSALEM — After a verbal stumble in London that offended his British hosts, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney heads to Israel on Saturday, seeking to convince American voters that he is more in tune than President Obama with Israel’s concerns and needs. Although he can expect a warm reception from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose differences with Obama have been highly publicized, Romney will have to choose his public words here carefully, given the tricky terrain that is Middle Eastern politics. In an interview published Friday on the front page of Israel’s Haaretz daily, the candidate suggested that, if elected, he would take care to maintain a unified front with Israel. “I believe that with regards to our allies, we are always wiser to lock arms and to stand as one for the world to see,” he said. “There will be, of course, times of disagreement and disparity in our respective interests — but those we are best in keeping to ourselves.” Romney’s remark touched on a widespread perception here that the Obama administration has distanced itself, in policy terms, from its key ally in the Middle East. Romney’s apparent goal is to reassure voters back home — particularly American Jews and pro-Israeli evangelical Christian conservatives who have been wary of backing him — that he will be different. As well as meeting with Israeli leaders and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Romney plans to hold a fundraiser, the first such event held in Israel for a candidate in a U.S. presidential campaign. At $50,000 a couple, the breakfast event at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel is expected to include active American Jewish supporters, some of whom live part time in Israel, as well as local backers. Obama received only about a quarter of the votes cast by Americans living in Israel in 2008, according to a post-election survey. That reflected the orientation of many recent immigrants from the United States, who tend to be religiously observant and politically conservative. To those voters, the first-term record of Obama — who visited Israel as a candidate but not while in office — confirmed their early suspicions. “People here feel that [Obama] has not had the level of warmth toward Israel that most presidents have had,” said Abe Katsman, a Jerusalem attorney who serves as counsel to Republicans Abroad Israel. The complaints of Romney backers here center on positions that have put Washington at odds with Netanyahu: an insistence early in Obama’s term on a freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; a statement that a peace agreement with the Palestinians should be based on Israel’s 1967 boundaries, with “mutually agreed” land swaps; and an approach to Iran that is seen as not tough enough, engaging in protracted diplomacy while warning Israel against a unilateral military strike. “This idea of putting daylight between the U.S. government and Israel — who does that to an ally?” Katsman said. “And why make the disagreement public?” Netanyahu reacted icily last year to Obama’s call for negotiations with the Palestinians based on the 1967 lines, taking Obama to task before television cameras in a meeting at the Oval Office. Administration officials, however, say Obama’s positions on settlements and future borders have been consistent with long-standing U.S. policy. Obama has repeatedly stressed Washington’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel’s security, which has been bolstered by generous defense assistance — including aid for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defense system, which has successfully intercepted rockets fired at Israeli cities from the Gaza Strip. At the White House on Friday, Obama, in an apparent parry to Romney’s visit, signed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act and announced an additional $70 million in Iron Dome funding. In the Haaretz interview, given in London, Romney hinted at differences with Obama even as he said he would not criticize U.S. policies while abroad. Any comment on the issue of Israeli settlements, he said, “would lead me into waters of showing a distance between me and the president.” On the issue of a Palestinian state, he asserted that the question “is not whether the people of the region believe that there should be a Palestinian state. The question is if they believe there should be an Israeli state, a Jewish state.” Netanyahu has long maintained that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state must be part of any peace accord. On Iran, Romney supporters assert that their candidate is committed to vigorous action to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Romney’s statement to Haaretz — that if all other measures fail, a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities “should not be ruled out” and that he is committed “to take every step necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability” — echoed similar statements by Obama. In fact, Romney’s stance on Israel is not likely to differ dramatically from the administration’s, said Shlomo Avineri, professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “On some very substantive issues, there is very deep cooperation with the Obama administration, and there are Israelis who will tell you that there has never been that kind of cooperation before,” Avineri said.“If Romney will try to distance himself, it will be on Iran and possibly on the settlements, but it will mainly be about atmospherics, just as atmospherics is a major issue between Netanyahu and Obama.” Hillel Schenker, vice chair of Democrats Abroad-Israel , agreed. “I haven’t seen any indication of readiness to take any positions which are different from what have been essentially bipartisan Republican and Democratic positions,” he said. “Historically, there has never been a Republican president ready to accept the legitimacy of the settlements, and on Iran he’s saying the same thing Obama is saying. I see a lot of posturing.” Romney is “trying to do something that is simply not doable,” Schenker said, noting that for decades American Jews have voted heavily for Democratic presidential candidates. “This will not make the difference that he’s looking for.” Despite his cool relationship with Obama, Netanyahu has avoided taking sides ahead of Romney’s visit, refusing in recent interviews on two U.S. television networks to be drawn into evaluating the Republican candidate. “I will receive Mitt Romney with the same openness that I received another presidential candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama, when he came almost four years ago, almost the same time in the campaign, to Israel,” Netanyahu told “Fox News on Sunday” this week. “We — Israel has — enjoys bipartisan support, both Democrats and Republicans, and we extend bipartisan hospitality to both Democrats and Republicans.” We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. | 0 |
(Christopher Dolan / Times and Tribune) Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign brought in just $26 million in April as contributions plummeted from earlier months, another sign of his fading candidacy.The total was a little more than half the $46 million he raised in March. Sanders barely touched on the fundraising figure during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington on Sunday, instead focusing on the $200 million his campaign has raised altogether since he announced a year ago that he would run for president.“We have shown we can run a strong, winning campaign without a super PAC and without being dependent on big-money interests,” he said.But Sanders trails Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton by a wide margin in total delegates with only about a dozen contests left, and last week he laid off hundreds of campaign workers and acknowledged that he is focused on influencing the party platform at its convention in July in Philadelphia.Sanders again made the case that superdelegates, the party insiders who can vote for whomever they choose at the convention, should factor in their states’ popular votes, and which candidate has a better chance of beating Republicans in the fall.Sanders trails Clinton by 275 pledged delegates but can count on the support of only 38 superdelegates, compared with 502 for Clinton, according to a count by the Associated Press. (The Sanders campaign says 42 superdelegates support him.)Flipping party leaders who have committed to Clinton could be difficult. Clinton has been shoring up their support for years and many publicly announced their support of her before Sanders entered the race.“We must have the strongest candidate to beat [GOP front-runner Donald] Trump, or another Republican, and I think the objective evidence is that I am that candidate,” he said. Sanders repeatedly does better than Clinton in hypothetical general election match-ups that pit each of them against Trump, but such polls at this early stage of a presidential race are rarely indicators of November’s outcome.Sanders has criticized party rules that allow hundreds of superdelegates to vote for whom they want, but as the primary season draws to a close he’s also begun to appeal to them and even promised that the national convention will be contested, though that appears unlikely.“It is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 with pledged delegates alone,” Sanders said. “She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, the convention will be a contested contest.”With 546 pledged delegates up for grabs, California’s June 7 primary is the big prize left on the primary calendar. Sanders would have to win 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to secure the nomination before the convention.“That is, admittedly, and I do not deny it for a second, a tough road to climb, but it is not an impossible road to climb and we intend to fight for every vote in front of us and for every vote remaining,” he said. | 0 |
The package includes roughly $1.4 trillion in government funding.The House has passed a pair of funding measures to avert a government shutdown on Tuesday, voting across party lines detailing roughly $1.4 trillion in government funding ahead of the Friday deadline.The spending package -- consisting of two separate spending bills and thousands of pages of legislative text -- was introduced on Monday, and includes a boost on domestic spending backed by Democrats while also upping military spending.It also includes an increase in funding for President Donald Trump's border wall and largely keeps the status quo on the administration's immigration priorities -- which led a small group of Democrats to oppose the measure containing Department of Homeland Security funding.The package, the final piece of must-pass legislation taken up by Congress this year, also includes a number of unrelated policy provisions, including an increase in the legal age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 21 $25 million in funding for gun research and a 3.1% pay raise for both military service members and federal workers.The Senate is expected to pass both measures, which will fund the government until Sept. 30, and send them to Trump's desk for approval.The major bipartisan votes took place the day before the House prepares to take up a final vote on the impeachment of Trump on Wednesday.Top Stories | 0 |
Story highlights Grover Norquist says lawmaker "tried to weasel out" of anti-tax pledgeMore Republicans call for increased tax revenue in a deficit dealPresident Obama and Congress are trying to work out an agreementWithout a deal, the nation faces the so-called "fiscal cliff" come JanuaryIs it a slow leak that will grow into a cascade, or a minor drip easily plugged?More and more, conservative Republicans in Congress are breaking from a pledge they signed years earlier against any kind of tax increase or additional tax revenue.Facing the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and deep across-the-board spending cuts at the end of the year, the GOP legislators are signaling their willingness to cut a deal with President Barack Obama and Democrats that would include more money for the government.The overall numbers remain relatively small -- a handful of senators and House members -- but they include influential veterans such as Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, along with Rep. Peter King of New York.King has "tried to weasel out" of the pledge, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist told CNN's Piers Morgan on Monday. "I hope his wife understands commitments last a little longer than two years or something."Norquist said King knew when he signed it that he was pledging that "as long as you're in Congress, you will rein in spending and reform government, not raise taxes. It's not for 500 years or two generations. It's only as long as you're in the House or the Senate. If he stayed too long, that's his problem."On Sunday, Graham declared on ABC, "We don't generate enough revenue," officially disagreeing with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed at Norquist's behest.Others who have rejected the strict dogma of the Norquist pledge include Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Bob Corker of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who was elected in the tea party wave of 2010 and recently re-elected.Norquist, who founded the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, advocates shrinking government by cutting spending instead of raising taxes through higher rates or reforms.He sounded unconcerned Monday about the GOP backlash, telling CNN that "no pledge taker has voted for a tax increase.""You've had some people discussing impure thoughts on national television," Norquist said.At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney told reporters he hoped the "welcome" comments by some Republicans represented "a difference in tone and approach to these problems."To CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger, the softening tone by some in the GOP was explained by new poll numbers that showed 45% of Americans would blame Republicans for failing to avoid the fiscal cliff, while 34% would blame Obama.The public shift comes after Obama won re-election and Democrats increased their slim Senate majority and narrowed the GOP majority in the House in this month's election.In what have been secret talks so far, Obama and Congress are seeking to revive a possible "grand bargain" to cut the chronic federal deficits and debt. Without a deal, tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 -- when George W. Bush was president -- will expire, raising rates for everyone starting in January. In addition, spending cuts would reduce spending on the military, national parks, the Federal Aviation Administration and other important government services.However, the government and Congress still would have time to prevent draconian effects from the fiscal cliff when a new Congress convenes in January.William Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, called that a form of brinksmanship best avoided."To be sure, no one believes that non-agreement by December 31 would be the end of the story. After a period of finger-pointing, discussions would resume," he wrote last week in a New Republic opinion piece. "But equally, no one knows how the failure to reach agreement before the end of 2012 would affect the dynamics of the negotiations."In addition, "we can be reasonably sure ... that national and global markets would react adversely and that businesses, which are already retreating from planned investments in new plant and equipment, would become even more uncertain and risk-averse."The CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two-thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Of that total, Republicans favor such an approach by 52%-44%.In particular, Obama and Democrats insist that wealthy Americans, so far identified as those with income higher than $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families, should pay more taxes than they do now so that rates for everyone else stay the same.However, the outgoing Congress in a lame-duck session for the rest of the year, as well as the new Congress to be seated in January, include large numbers of Republicans who signed the Norquist pledge. Come January, there will be 39 senators, including Chambliss and Graham, and 219 House members who endorsed it.The House total constitutes a narrow majority in the 435-seat chamber, though some members have denounced their allegiance to the pledge.Some congressional conservatives sought to deflect attention from the Norquist pledge on Monday, focusing instead on the need to work out a deal that included concessions by Democrats."The goal is to solve the problem," insisted Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the No. 3 House Republican in the incoming Congress. He rejected Obama's call for letting tax rates on income over $250,000 return to higher levels of the 1990s, telling CNN "that doesn't solve the problem" because "you do nothing about the growth of government."Long a defining difference between Democrats and Republicans, the tax issue has stymied efforts to work out a deficit deal for the past two years.Obama and House Speaker John Boehner came close to agreement last year before conservative rejection of any increased revenue and liberal resistance to entitlement reform scuttled the effort.Boehner, the Ohio Republican who has emerged as party leader in the deficit talks, agrees to the concept of increased revenue, though he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky both remain opposed to actually raising tax rates.Instead, they propose broad tax reform that will lower rates while eliminating unspecified loopholes and exemptions to spur economic growth that they say will result in more overall government revenue."It's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We're below historic averages," Graham told ABC. "I will not raise tax rates to do it. I will cap deductions. If you cap deductions around the $30,000, $40,000 range, you can raise $1 trillion in revenue, and the people who lose their deductions are the upper-income Americans."At the same time, Graham and other conservative lawmakers demand that Democrats agree to significant reforms in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government-run health care programs for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor."I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform," Graham said.On the same program, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said some changes to Medicare are needed, but he ruled out any reforms to Social Security, the national retirement plan, saying it is a separately funded system that "does not add a penny to our debt."Noting opposition to entitlement reforms by traditional Democratic allies such as organized labor, Durbin said everyone has to realize that some changes are needed in Medicare and Medicaid."Those who say 'don't touch it, don't change it' are ignoring the obvious," said the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, adding that "we can make meaningful reforms in Medicare and Medicaid without compromising the integrity of the program, making sure that the beneficiaries are not paying the price for it, except perhaps the high-income beneficiaries. That to me is a reasonable approach."However, Durbin balked at one proposal sought by Republicans -- to slowly raise the eligibility age for Medicare above the current level of 65. "What happens to the early retiree who needs health insurance before that person's eligible for Medicare?" Durbin asked. "My concern about raising that Medicare retirement age is there will be gaps in coverage or coverage that's way too expensive for seniors to purchase."Graham rejected Durbin's point, saying the same change instituted in Social Security has worked. He also called for adjusting benefits based on the personal wealth of recipients, so that those with more money have to pay more for services.Norquist said Democrats will never agree to the negotiating position of Graham and other Republicans, calling the demand for entitlement reforms akin to a "pink unicorn that doesn't exist."The political risk for Republicans to going against the no-tax pledge comes from angering Norquist and other conservatives who can target them in GOP primary campaigns in 2014 and beyond.Norquist said Monday his group would "certainly highlight who has kept their commitment and who hasn't" when re-election time comes."The key here is whether or not the Republicans will move away from the ideologically rigid position, which has been the Grover Norquist pledge," Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan told NBC on Sunday. "You've got to raise additional revenues, including tax rates on the wealthy. They have to go up. Either real tax rates or effective tax rates, there are ways of doing that." | 0 |
Charlie Hebdo will not go away. And in the wake of unspeakably hideous tragedy, that's very good news.The attack Wednesday that killed 12 members of the staff, including editorial director Stephane Charbonnier, was bad enough. Allowing the thugs who carried out the massacre to kill the French satirical weekly would have been catastrophic.Despite the deaths of most of its senior journalists, the show will go on, Richard Malka, the paper's lawyer, told Le Monde. And the newspaper plans to print 1 million copies, a figure that dwarfs its usual print run of 60,000.In an interview on French television reported by the Guardian, Patrick Pelloux, a doctor who also writes for the paper, put his finger on why this decision is essential."It's very hard," he said. "We are all suffering, with grief, with fear, but we will do it anyway, because stupidity will not win."If Charlie Hebdo were simply to go away, he said, the death of his colleagues would have been "for nothing."Charlie Hebdo stirred up controversy with its irreverent, sometimes crass take on the world. It particularly offended Muslims with its treatment of the prophet Mohammed.Extremist zealots, not known for their senses of humor, hope to control the conversation through fear. Whether it's shooting up Paris newspaper offices, beheading journalists in the Middle East or ruthlessly and relentlessly persecuting reporters and editors in despot-ruled nations, the goal is the same: Kill the messengers and make the message go away.But it can't.The pen is mightier than the sword, the saying goes. But it certainly doesn't always seem that way. The power of evil people who kill without conscience can make the pen (or the keyboard) seem frail indeed, completely overmatched.Years back, giving a commencement address at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, humorist Gene Weingarten brandished a mammoth scabbard and a tiny pen. Gene was on to something.But the way truth continues to emerge is that there is often someone to pick up the shield of the slain colleague. Despite the sharply escalating anger of covering international flashpoints, for example, journalists continue to bear the enormous risks.In Casablanca, Victor Laszlo (played by Paul Henreid) talks about why he believes the Nazis will never prevail: "And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast."I can't say I'm quite as sanguine as Victor was. But I'm very glad to see that Charlie Hebdo will go on. | 0 |
(CNN)Republicans aren't waiting for Brett Kavanaugh's main accuser to have her say.With a generational conservative goal of a Supreme Court majority in sight, Senate GOP leaders are sketching a voting timetable that could see him confirmed within days even as they brace for a crucial hearing on Thursday on which the judge's fate rests.In another bold move, the party hired a female prosecutor experienced in sex crime cases to question Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses him of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers in the 1980s. Kavanaugh denies all the allegations against him.The GOP power play could see the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's nomination as soon as Friday, procedural votes at the weekend and a final Senate decision by early next week, assuming there are no more complications.The choice of veteran attorney Rachel Mitchell to ask the questions represents a stiff challenge to Ford, who will be stepping into a global spotlight to tell her story at a quintessential moment of American history. She had hoped to be fielding the less-focused queries of a male-only bench of Republican senators.The GOP attempt to restore Kavanaugh's momentum came amid tangible impatience in the party over his stalled progress, and as President Donald Trump's frustration erupted in a stunning personal attack on the judge's accusers, charging their claims were just a Democratic "C-O-N." "It's a very dangerous game for our country," Trump said Tuesday, adding that a Deborah Ramirez, a second woman who came forward with a complaint about Kavanaugh while he was at Yale University, had "nothing" and saying she was "messed up" and "drunk" at the time of the alleged incident.And in a late-night tweet Tuesday, Trump warned "the Democrats are playing a high level CON GAME in their vicious effort to destroy a fine person. It is called the politics of destruction. Behind the scene the Dems are laughing. Pray for Brett Kavanaugh and his family!"The Republican gambit also left Democrats seeking new ways to slow Kavanaugh's progress amid speculation that new allegations could emerge to weaken his candidacy -- a possibility that the GOP seemed to be trying to forestall by driving forward swiftly in the confirmation process.But it also appeared to risk inflaming the toxic politics around the nomination and falling foul of the changed environment around allegations of sexual misconduct involving powerful men as the #MeToo movement changes politics, the media, business and Hollywood.The fact that anyone with power in Washington is living on their nerves as the confirmation fight intensifies also underscores the massive stakes Kavanaugh's nomination represents with midterms less than six weeks away.Women voters already favor Democrats over Republicans ahead of November's elections, so the party can ill afford to seen as further traumatizing Ford."Rush Limbaugh to Republicans: 'You can kiss the MIDTERMS goodbye if you don't get highly qualified Kavanaugh approved.'" Trump tweeted.Kavanaugh's interview boosts GOPRepublicans appeared encouraged Tuesday by Kavanaugh's Fox News appearance with his wife, in which he vehemently denied any sexual wrongdoing and vowed that his nomination would not be driven out of the confirmation fight by a "false allegation."With some senators predicting procedural votes in the Senate on the nomination at the weekend, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a vote in his committee on Friday in the hope that Republicans on the panel will be ready to move forward after hearing from Ford.Democrats reacted with fury to Grassley's move, saying that it prejudged the outcome of Thursday's hearing and showed Republicans didn't want a fair process and had no interest in finding the truth."For Republicans to schedule a Friday vote on Brett Kavanaugh today, two days before Dr. Blasey Ford has had a chance to tell her story, is outrageous," said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee."First Republicans demanded Dr. Blasey Ford testify immediately. Now Republicans don't even need to hear her before they move ahead with a vote," she said.Another Democrat, Sen Jeff Merkley of Oregon, complained that Republicans were conducting a "jammed through, unfair process" on a lifetime Supreme Court appointment."The President is attacking the victims. That is just horrific in this day and age. I guess that is what we have come to expect from this individual in the Oval Office," Merkley said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, jabbed GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in unusually personal terms, saying he owed Ford an apology for labeling her allegations as a "smear job."But McConnell, of Kentucky, indicated that he believes that nothing that happens on Thursday will keep Kavanaugh from the court."We're going to be moving forward, I'm confident we're going to win. I'm confident ... he will be confirmed in the very near future." McConnell told reporters.But despite laying the groundwork for a vote, Republican leaders still cannot count on holding their majority.If two Republicans defect and all the Democrats vote against Kavanaugh, his nomination is doomed. The two most likely GOP senators to flip, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are under intense political pressure from both sides of the aisle.Murkowski appeared to hint at daylight with the leadership of her party Tuesday, suggesting that Ramirez, whose allegations broke in a story in The New Yorker over the weekend, should be brought into the congressional process. Asked whether an FBI investigation would help, a vetting step rejected by the committee and the White House, Murkowski answered: "It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn't it?"Collins refused to tip her hand, but did dismiss Democratic calls to postpone the Thursday's hotly anticipated committee proceedings, saying, "I think the hearing this week is very important."CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect the correct date of President Donald Trump's tweet.CNN's Sunlen Serfaty, Manu Raju, Phil Mattingly and Ted Barrett contributed to this story | 0 |
The night before Michigan's presidential primary, former Vice President Joe Biden came to Detroit on Monday, looking for votes, volunteers and campaign cash."Michigan, I’m counting on you in a big way," he told the crowd of about 1,000 people at Renaissance High School. "This is a state we have to win in November. I spent a lot of time in this state," adding he worked side-by-side with Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan when the city was going through bankruptcy. "I’ve always believed in Detroit, like I’ve always believed in Michigan."Biden brought two of his former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey — to the rally in Detroit, a city where 82% of the residents are African Americans. It was a nod to the overwhelming support Biden has gotten from the black community, especially in South Carolina on Feb. 29, where a landslide victory helped revive his campaign and helped him win 10 of the 14 states voting on Super Tuesday."We got knocked back four years ago. But we have to rise on up as a nation. We don’t shut up. We don’t give up. We stand up. We rise up," Booker said. "And there is one man who is ready to go to the center of the arena, who has the best shot to beat Donald Trump, the best one to heal the soul of America and bring dignity back to the office. And that person is one person, Joe Biden."Not everyone in the crowd was a Biden fan. About a dozen protesters carrying Green New Deal signs disrupted the rally, chanting, "Joe has to to go." They were escorted out of the gymnasium."The Bernie Bros are here," Biden said, telling security to let the protesters leave peacefully. "This isn't a Trump rally."And Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, who is supporting Biden, got some boos from the crowd when he took a swipe at Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. "In 2016, I voted for Bernie Sanders," Gilchrist said. "The difference was that nobody with the record, results and relationships of Joe Biden was on the ballot then."But on Tuesday, he said he'll vote for Biden.Biden said that the election is a pivotal moment in the nation's history, a time when voters must choose between decency and the chaos of the Trump administration."This election isn’t about a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, it’s a battle for the soul of America," he said. "Winning means uniting the country." He also reminded the crowd of the $2.5 billion investment the Obama administration made to help restore the Great Lakes."We got really incredible results," he said. "We were actually delivering for Michigan."Before the rally, Biden attended a $1,000-per-person fundraiser at the Detroit Athletic Club, hosted by some of Michigan's biggest political names: former Gov. Jim Blanchard, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan and Detroit businessman Dennis Archer Jr.More:20 questions you might have about Michigan's primary electionMore:Gretchen Whitmer, Mike Duggan hit campaign trail for Joe BidenWhile U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders drew thousands to rallies in Detroit, Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor over the weekend, two of Biden's events on Monday were tiny in comparison. He talked with a small group of health officials and the media in Grand Rapids. The campaign hastily added a stop in Flint on Monday and only gave the public and media a couple hours of notice, resulting in a small group of Flint residents showing up for the appearance at a community center.But by the time the rally began at Renaissance High School in Detroit, a line of supporters snaked around the block and the gym was at capacity. In a nod to fears of coronavirus, each person got a squirt of hand sanitizer as they entered the gymnasium."I like that he has experience. I like that he has know-how. And I like that I know Joe and I'm comfortable with him," said Pamela Garrett of Southfield.She said she likes some of the ideas coming from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, such as Medicare For All, but not the free college education for everyone."He's overreaching," she said. "On the school issue, I have a problem because how are you going to pay for that plan?"Pat and Fred Wright of Livonia had a different motivation."I like how he's different than the one we got in there now," Pat Wright said.Fred Wright said he started out as a supporter of former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg."I figured if he could run a major corporation, he could run the country," he said, adding that his main criteria was voting for someone who could beat President Donald Trump. "Bingo." Biden's rally at Renaissance High School was the biggest event of the day. It featured a raucous crowd that cheered throughout, a marching band, and signs emblazoned with "Joementum" and "Michiganders love Biden!"Even with Biden's late appearance in the state and his minimal organization on the ground, his numbers soared in several polls released on Monday. In a poll of 400 Michigan voters done by the Lansing polling firm EPIC/MRA last week for the Free Press, Biden had opened up a 24-point lead over Sanders, gaining a 51%-27% margin in the final days before Tuesday's presidential primary election.But Sanders was in the same position in 2016, down by 26 points to rival Hillary Clinton before the primary and he ended up pulling out a narrow victory.In Grand Rapids, Biden, speaking at the Cherry Health Heart of the City Community Health Center to a small audience of media and Cherry Health officials, said that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, led to the expansion of community health centers across the country. Biden said that he hopes to build on that in the White House.“The expansion of community health centers was one of Obamacare’s crowning achievements,” he said. “I was proud, very proud to work with President Obama to get Obamacare done in the first place. I’m going to stand firm against anyone who tries to tear down the progress and start all over again.”He also noted that Sanders, whom he described as a "good man," would have a difficult time getting such sweeping health care reform through Congress.“His Medicare for All push would be a long and expensive slog, if we can get it done at all," he said. "And the patients of Cherry Health, they can’t afford to wait for a resolution, they’re looking for results for their families and for themselves today, immediately, not tomorrow.”Biden was heading to Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday. But his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, is scheduled to wrap up the campaign in Michigan with visits to Lansing and Flint on Tuesday.Holland Sentinel reporter Arpan Lobo contributed to this report.Contact Kathleen Gray: 313-223-4430, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal. | 0 |
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump to become the 46th president of the United States on Saturday and offered himself to the nation as a leader who “seeks not to divide, but to unify” a country gripped by a historic pandemic and a confluence of economic and social turmoil.“I sought this office to restore the soul of America,” Biden said in a prime-time victory speech not far from his Delaware home, “and to make America respected around the world again and to unite us here at home.”Biden crossed the winning threshold of 270 Electoral College votes with a win in Pennsylvania. His victory came after more than three days of uncertainty as election officials sorted through a surge of mail-in votes that delayed processing. Trump refused to concede, threatening further legal action on ballot counting. But Biden used his acceptance speech as an olive branch to those who did not vote for him, telling Trump voters that he understood their disappointment but adding, “Let’s give each other a chance.”“It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric, to lower the temperature, to see each other again, to listen to each other again, to make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy,” he said. “We are not enemies. We are Americans.”Biden, 77, staked his candidacy less on any distinctive political ideology than on galvanizing a broad coalition of voters around the notion that Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy. The strategy, as well as an appeal to Americans fatigued by Trump’s disruptions and wanting a return to a more traditional presidency, proved effective and resulted in pivotal victories in Michigan and Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania, onetime Democratic bastions that had flipped to Trump in 2016. Biden’s victory was a repudiation of Trump’s divisive leadership and the president-elect now inherits a deeply polarized nation grappling with foundational questions of racial justice and economic fairness while in the grips of a virus that has killed more than 236,000 Americans and reshaped the norms of everyday life.Kamala Harris made history as the first Black woman to become vice president, an achievement that comes as the U.S. faces a reckoning on racial justice. The California senator, who is also the first person of South Asian descent elected to the vice presidency, will become the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government, four years after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.Harris introduced Biden at their evening victory celebration as “a president for all Americans” who would look to bridge a nation riven with partisanship and she nodded to the historic nature of her ascension to the vice presidency.“Dream with ambition, lead with conviction and see yourselves in a way that others may not simply because they’ve never seen it before,” Harris told Americans. “You chose hope and unity, decency, science and, yes, truth ... you ushered in a new day for America.”After he spoke, the cars at the drive-in rally — a pandemic campaign invention — began to honk their horns and a fireworks display lit up the night sky. Biden was on track to win the national popular vote by more than 4 million, a margin that could grow as ballots continue to be counted. Nonetheless, Trump was not giving up.Departing from longstanding democratic tradition and signaling a potentially turbulent transfer of power, he issued a combative statement saying his campaign would take unspecified legal actions. And he followed up with a bombastic, all-caps tweet in which he falsely declared, “I WON THE ELECTION, GOT 71,000,000 LEGAL VOTES.” Twitter immediately flagged it as misleading.Trump has pointed to delays in processing the vote in some states to allege with no evidence that there was fraud and to argue that his rival was trying to seize power — an extraordinary charge by a sitting president trying to sow doubt about a bedrock democratic process.Trump is the first incumbent president to lose reelection since Republican George H.W. Bush in 1992.He was golfing at his Virginia country club when he lost the race. He stayed out for hours, stopping to congratulate a bride as he left, and his motorcade returned to the White House to a cacophony of shouts, taunts and unfriendly hand gestures.In Wilmington, Delaware, near the stage that, until Saturday night, had stood empty since it was erected to celebrate on Election Night, people cheered and pumped their fists as the news that the presidential race had been called for the state’s former senator arrived on their cellphones.On the nearby water, two men in a kayak yelled to a couple paddling by in the opposite direction, “Joe won! They called it!” as people on the shore whooped and hollered. Harris, in workout gear, was shown on video speaking to Biden on the phone, exuberantly telling the president-elect “We did it!”Across the country, there were parties and prayer. In New York City, spontaneous block parties broke out. People ran out of their buildings, banging on pots. They danced and high-fived with strangers amid honking horns. Among the loudest cheers were those for passing U.S. Postal Service trucks.People streamed into Black Lives Matter Plaza near the White House, near where Trump had ordered the clearing of protesters in June, waving signs and taking cellphone pictures. In Lansing, Michigan, Trump supporters and Black Lives Matter demonstrators filled the Capitol steps. The lyrics to “Amazing Grace” began to echo through the crowd, and Trump supporters laid their hands on a counter protester, and prayed.Americans showed deep interest in the presidential race. A record 103 million voted early this year, opting to avoid waiting in long lines at polling locations during a pandemic. With counting continuing in some states, Biden had already received more than 75 million votes, more than any presidential candidate before him.Trump’s refusal to concede has no legal implications. But it could add to the incoming administration’s challenge of bringing the country together after a bitter election.Throughout the campaign, Trump repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, arguing without evidence that the election could be marred by fraud. The nation has a long history of presidential candidates peacefully accepting the outcome of elections, dating back to 1800, when John Adams conceded to his rival Thomas Jefferson.It was Biden’s native Pennsylvania that put him over the top, the state he invoked throughout the campaign to connect with working class voters. He also won Nevada on Saturday pushing his total to 290 Electoral College votes.Biden received congratulations from dozens of world leaders, and his former boss, President Barack Obama, saluted him in a statement, declaring the nation was “fortunate that Joe’s got what it takes to be President and already carries himself that way.” Republicans on Capitol Hill were giving Trump and his campaign space to consider all their legal options. It was a precarious balance for Trump’s allies as they try to be supportive of the president -- and avoid risking further fallout -- but face the reality of the vote count.On Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had not yet made any public statements -- either congratulating Biden or joining Trump’s complaints. But retiring GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is close to McConnell, said, “After counting every valid vote and allowing courts to resolve disputes, it is important to respect and promptly accept the result.”More than 237,000 Americans have died during the coronavirus pandemic, nearly 10 million have been infected and millions of jobs have been lost. The final days of the campaign played out against a surge in confirmed cases in nearly every state, including battlegrounds such as Wisconsin that swung to Biden.The pandemic will soon be Biden’s to tame, and he campaigned pledging a big government response, akin to what Franklin D. Roosevelt oversaw with the New Deal during the Depression of the 1930s. He announced that, as his transition kicks into high gear, he would on Monday appoint his own coronavirus task force.But Senate Republicans fought back several Democratic challengers and looked to retain a fragile majority that could serve as a check on some of Biden’s ambitions.The 2020 campaign was a referendum on Trump’s handling of the pandemic, which has shuttered schools across the nation, disrupted businesses and raised questions about the feasibility of family gatherings heading into the holidays.The fast spread of the coronavirus transformed political rallies from standard campaign fare to gatherings that were potential public health emergencies. It also contributed to an unprecedented shift to voting early and by mail and prompted Biden to dramatically scale back his travel and events to comply with restrictions. The president defied calls for caution and ultimately contracted the disease himself.Trump was saddled throughout the year by negative assessments from the public of his handling of the pandemic. There was another COVID-19 outbreak in the White House this week, which sickened his chief of staff Mark Meadows. Biden also drew a sharp contrast to Trump through a summer of unrest over the police killings of Black Americans including Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and George Floyd in Minneapolis. Their deaths sparked the largest racial protest movement since the civil rights era. Biden responded by acknowledging the racism that pervades American life, while Trump emphasized his support of police and pivoted to a “law and order” message that resonated with his largely white base.The third president to be impeached, though acquitted in the Senate, Trump will leave office having left an indelible imprint in a tenure defined by the shattering of White House norms and a day-to-day whirlwind of turnover, partisan divide and Twitter blasts.Trump’s team has filed a smattering of lawsuits in battleground states, some of which were immediately rebuffed by judges. His personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was holding a news conference in Philadelphia threatening more legal action when the race was called.Biden, born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and raised in Delaware, was one of the youngest candidates ever elected to the Senate. Before he took office, his wife and daughter were killed, and his two sons badly injured in a 1972 car crash.Commuting every night on a train from Washington back to Wilmington, Biden fashioned an everyman political persona to go along with powerful Senate positions, including chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees. Some aspects of his record drew critical scrutiny from fellow Democrats, including his support for the 1994 crime bill, his vote for the 2003 Iraq War and his management of the Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court hearings.Biden’s 1988 presidential campaign was done in by plagiarism allegations, and his next bid in 2008 ended quietly. But later that year, he was tapped to be Barack Obama’s running mate and he became an influential vice president, steering the administration’s outreach to both Capitol Hill and Iraq.While his reputation was burnished by his time in office and his deep friendship with Obama, Biden stood aside for Clinton and opted not to run in 2016 after his adult son Beau died of brain cancer the year before.Trump’s tenure pushed Biden to make one more run as he declared that “the very soul of the nation is at stake.”Full Coverage: Election 2020___Associated Press writers Will Weissert in Wilmington, Delaware and Jill Colvin and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report. | 0 |
It wasn’t supposed to be this way for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. No doubt he imagined there would be national attention as he took the oath of office for a second term. No doubt he assumed that what he said in his second inaugural address would be scrutinized. But context is everything in politics, and in the time between Christie’s impressive reelection victory in November and his snowy swearing-in on Tuesday, so much has changed. Inauguration Day once might have focused on Christie, the GOP establishment favorite for the party’s presidential nomination; Christie, a Republican capable of winning blue states in a general election; Christie, a politician who had good relationships with many Democrats; Christie, a no-nonsense governor who led his state back after Hurricane Sandy. This is the Christie who, a week after winning reelection, was on the cover of Time magazine with the subheadline, “How Chris Christie Can Win Over the GOP,” and the Christie who did a victory lap on the Sunday morning talk shows. Gov. Chris Christie's current "Bridge-gate" incident has brought new attention to an old allegation from the Democratic mayor of Elizabeth, N.J. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post) Instead, it was a day in which the national attention cast the governor in a far less flattering light, focusing on Christie, a politician now under state and federal investigations; Christie, a Republican whose hardball style may be more liability than asset; Christie, a governor whose administration is accused of threatening to hold Sandy relief money hostage; Christie, a perhaps future national candidate pinned down and politically damaged. The message of his inaugural address was the same one Christie preached during and after his reelection campaign: that of seeking bipartisan cooperation with Democrats in his state, in contrast to the red-blue divisions that have left Washington in gridlock and legislative paralysis. “We cannot fall victim to the attitude of Washington, D.C.,” Christie said. “The attitude that says, ‘I am always right and you are always wrong.’ The attitude that puts everyone into a box they are not permitted to leave. The attitude that puts political wins ahead of policy agreements. The belief that ‘compromise’ is a dirty word.” That is the image the governor has tried to project and would try to project in a national campaign. That is the Christie who won a fifth of the African American vote in November and half of the Hispanic vote, who won a third of the Democratic vote in his reelection and two-thirds of independents. Since then, Christie’s world has changed. First came revelations that some of his top advisers were involved in a decision to close down lanes approaching the George Washington Bridge in September, leading to massive traffic jams around Fort Lee, N.J. More recently have come charges from Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer (D) that Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno told her last spring that Sandy relief money for her city would depend on her support for a commercial development project in Hoboken. The Pew Research Center offers a different portrait of Christie today. A poll suggests that the patina of him as a governor with bipartisan appeal has been chipped away by what has happened since he was reelected. Compared with a year ago, favorable impressions of Christie have changed little — 40 percent in January 2013, 38 percent now. But his unfavorable ratings have doubled, from 17 percent to 34 percent. Among Democrats, they have jumped 25 points, to 43 percent negative, and among independents they are 18 points higher, at 33 percent negative. Christie’s credibility is also at issue. The governor has said he knew nothing about his aides’ involvement in the lane closures. But almost six in 10 Americans said they do not believe that. Among Democrats, it’s two in three. With the Hoboken mayor’s allegations, the battle between Christie and his accusers took on a sharply partisan tone. Until then, Christie had projected the image of a politician who apologized for what happened on the bridge and who said he would cooperate with any reasonable investigation. Now he is fighting back. On Saturday, the governor’s office issued a lengthy and pointed statement in an effort to rebut Zimmer’s charges and to call her credibility into question. The governor’s allies also took aim at MSNBC, which has pounced on the story and which aired the first interview with Zimmer on Saturday’s “Up With Steve Kornacki.” On Sunday, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) charged on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Democrats in the state legislature are on a “partisan witch hunt” in their efforts to damage the governor. On Monday, Guadagno denied the charges from Zimmer, who said she met with the U.S. attorney’s office on Sunday to tell her story. Other Republicans are coming forward to defend Christie. His advisers believe Zimmer is a flawed accuser whose new charges do not square with her past statements of praise for Christie. They are making that argument in every conversation they have. They believe her credibility can be challenged. With Guadagno’s denial, investigators must sort out a she-said, she-said controversy. They also believe Christie can continue his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association as the investigations unfold. His weekend fundraising trip to Florida told them that there is no reason to think he cannot carry out those responsibilities effectively. He has trips scheduled for February. “Donors lining those events up remaining steadfast,” a Christie adviser said Monday. The governor did not mention the investigations in his inaugural address, in contrast to his State of the State speech. He sought to turn back the clock to fall, reminding people that he had won an overwhelming victory — the largest in three decades, he said — that he said he took as affirmation to continue his bold leadership. “I will not let up,” he said. “I will insist we work together.” But as the lines harden — and Democratic legislators press forward with their investigation and federal authorities look at how hurricane relief money was administered — Christie’s ability to fight a partisan battle over the inquiries and practice bipartisanship in governing will become more difficult. That’s not to say he will not emerge from this in a position to run an effective presidential campaign, but only to suggest that, even if he does get through this, he might not look like the Christie who was so celebrated such a short time ago. | 0 |
New York (CNN Business)America's jobs recovery gathered some steam last month as US employers added 531,000 positions in October.The unemployment rate fell to 4.6%, the lowest level since the economic recovery started in May 2020.The number of jobs added in October easily outpaced economists' prediction of 450,000 jobs. It marked the first month since July that the official number didn't undercut the consensus estimate.The US economy gained jobs across the board last month, with leisure and hospitality, manufacturing and transportation and warehousing leading the job gains. The leisure and hospitality sector was hit hardest during the pandemic recession and is still 1.4 million jobs short of its pre-pandemic level.October's jobs report marks a turning point after two months of sluggish job gains, slowed by rising coronavirus cases as the Delta variant raged across the globe. "This is the kind of recovery we can get when we are not sidelined by a surge in Covid cases," said Nick Bunker, economic research director at Indeed. "The labor market is not yet fully recovered from the coronavirus-induced recession. But today's report is a sign that recovery could be closer than many thought," he said.The nation has come a long way since the height of the pandemic. More than 18 million jobs have been added back since the recovery started, still leaving America short 4.2 million jobs compared with February 2020.And the late summer months weren't quite as bad as they initially appeared: The Labor Department revised August and September's reports higher by a combined 235,000 jobs. The US economy added 795,000 jobs in August and September -- not bad for a so-called lull.People on the sidelinesThat said, there are still millions of people sitting on the sidelines of this tight labor market, unable to rejoin the labor force because of care responsibilities at home or worries about contracting the virus.The number of people who weren't in the workforce but want a job stood at 6 million last month, still nearly 1 million higher than before the pandemic. The number of people who said the pandemic kept them from looking for work in October fell to 1.3 million from 1.6 million in September.America's labor force participation rate stood at 61.6% in October, still 1.7 percentage points before the February 2020 level.Earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell noted the participation rate was a key point for the central bank's assessment of the health of the recovering jobs market, and that it was still too low.Although the recovery has picked up its pace, it remains uneven: The drop in the unemployment rate was led by job gains for men, particularly White and Hispanic workers.The overall jobless rates for Black and Asian and workers were unchanged last month. | 0 |
The crowd at the 2016 Republican National Convention on Tuesday repeatedly chanted “lock her up” at the mention of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s name.As New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spoke on the second night of the convention, he ticked off criticisms of Clinton, asking the crowd of she was “guilty or not guilty.” After a hearty shout of “guilty,” the crowd dissolved into shouts of “Lock her up, lock her up!”Watch a video of the moment above.Clinton tweeted a response to Christie’s speech:Best Photos From The Republican National Convention | 0 |
VideotranscripttranscriptClinton Wins South Carolina PrimaryHillary Clinton addressed supporters Saturday after being projected to win by a large margin.naHillary Clinton addressed supporters Saturday after being projected to win by a large margin.CreditCredit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesFeb. 27, 2016COLUMBIA, S.C. — Drawing overwhelming support from the African-American voters who deserted her here eight years ago, Hillary Clinton won her first resounding victory of the 2016 campaign in South Carolina on Saturday, delivering a blow to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as their fight turns to the 11 states where Democrats vote on Tuesday.After supporting Barack Obama in 2008, black voters, who will be the dominant force in the coming Southern primaries, turned out in droves for Mrs. Clinton here. They chose her over Mr. Sanders by more than six to one, while white voters narrowly favored her as well, according to exit polls.The rout was both politically and psychologically meaningful for Mrs. Clinton and her allies, who have been waiting for a moment that validated her candidacy with the level of unqualified intensity that South Carolina delivered. The huge margin of victory — she won nearly 74 percent of the vote — will extend her lead over Mr. Sanders in delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. But the results also helped her extinguish any doubts about her ability to win big with Democrats and about her broad appeal among minority voters, who will be decisive in many delegate-rich primaries in March.Mr. Sanders vowed to fight on, expressing confidence Saturday night that he would notch some victories and win delegates on Tuesday. But Mrs. Clinton and her supporters were elated, describing South Carolina as a turning point in the campaign.“We, tonight, have started Hillary Clinton on her way to the White House,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, the state’s most powerful black Democrat, as he introduced Mrs. Clinton at a victory rally here.Taking the stage at the University of South Carolina to cheers of “Madam President,” Mrs. Clinton promised to continue courting voters aggressively in the coming weeks, but she also began looking past Mr. Sanders to the leading Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump.“Tomorrow, this campaign goes national!” Mrs. Clinton said as she dedicated her victory to parents, teachers and “the entrepreneur who told me more dreams die in the parking lots of banks than anywhere else,” particularly among women and minorities.ImageCredit...Sam Hodgson for The New York TimesWithout mentioning Mr. Trump by name, Mrs. Clinton repeated a biblical anecdote from I Corinthians and said the country needed more “love and kindness.” (Mr. Trump botched a reference to II Corinthians last month.)“Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great again,” Mrs. Clinton said to raucous applause as she took aim at Mr. Trump’s slogan. “America has never stopped being great.”Mr. Sanders, speaking at a rally on Saturday night in Minnesota, which he hopes to win on Tuesday, spent less time criticizing Mrs. Clinton than reciting his familiar themes decrying Wall Street greed and calling for a $15 minimum wage. At times he sounded more like a passionate spokesman for a series of liberal causes than a ferocious competitor determined to defeat Mrs. Clinton in the next round of voting.“What this campaign is about — and it’s not easy — is trying to force discussion on issues that Congress chooses not to talk about and the media chooses not to talk about,” Mr. Sanders said, citing seniors and veterans who are struggling to live on minimal Social Security payments. Among Mr. Sanders’s allies and even some of her own, the scope of Mrs. Clinton’s victory here was startling. She did it by assiduously cultivating the support of black voters, not least by showing her devotion to President Obama and by promising to build on his legacy. She capped off months of campaigning here with stops on Friday at a popular soul food restaurant and bakery in Charleston and a rally at a historically black college in Orangeburg, alongside black surrogates including the TV personality Star Jones and Mr. Clyburn.“I don’t think President Obama gets the credit he deserves for digging us out of the ditch Republicans put us in,” Mrs. Clinton said, a line she often used in South Carolina, where Mr. Obama defeated her by 29 points in 2008.This time it was Mrs. Clinton who emerged from the first southern primary with a clearer path to the nomination. With 99 percent of the vote counted, Mrs. Clinton won 73.5 percent, to 26 percent for Mr. Sanders. Turnout was about 370,000, according to Edison Research — modest compared with the 532,000 ballots cast in the Clinton-Obama primary race here in 2008, and well below the record 743,000 votes cast in South Carolina’s Republican primary last Saturday, which Mr. Trump won.Mrs. Clinton was expected to win 39 of South Carolina’s delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 14. If she continues to accumulate delegates by such a sizable margin, as many Democrats expect, it will be hard for Mr. Sanders to catch up. Going into the South Carolina primary, Mrs. Clinton had 52 pledged delegates to 51 for Mr. Sanders. Pledged delegates are awarded proportionally in state primaries and caucuses.Under party rules, most delegates are awarded proportionally to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders based on their shares of the vote in congressional districts. The most Democratic-leaning districts are accorded the most delegates; in many places these are majority black and Hispanic districts, and Mrs. Clinton is far more popular with those voters than is Mr. Sanders.“Support from African-Americans is going to be the key for Secretary Clinton across the South, and South Carolina is a good indication of that,” said former Gov. Richard Riley, who was the secretary of education under President Bill Clinton and is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton.Mrs. Clinton’s strong support among black voters will serve as the biggest roadblock to Mr. Sanders’s chances for a surge in the weeks ahead. Clinton advisers believe she will trounce Mr. Sanders in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, which have contests on Tuesday, and, in doing so, move even further ahead of him in their race to capture the 2,383 delegates needed for the Democratic nomination. About 880 Democratic delegates are at stake on Tuesday, the largest number on any single day during the primary season.Mrs. Clinton also has backing from 453 superdelegates — party officials whose support counts toward the nomination — while Mr. Sanders has support from 20. Superdelegates can switch candidates at any time, and their support does not become official until the Democratic convention in July.Mrs. Clinton edged ahead of Mr. Sanders among white voters, although he prevailed with white men, according to exit polls by Edison Research. Mrs. Clinton lost among white voters in the last two states, New Hampshire and Nevada, but South Carolina allies like former Gov. Jim Hodges had said they were confident that her message about creating economic opportunities would appeal to white voters even though it was often targeted to black voters.But in interviews last week, several white Democrats were sharply critical of Mrs. Clinton and said they did not trust her, chiefly because of her use of a private email account and the American deaths in Benghazi, Libya, when she was secretary of state. While exit polls showed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders running evenly among voters who valued honesty and trustworthiness more than any other candidate qualities, some Clinton allies are deeply concerned that she could struggle with white men in the general election, and Republicans like Mr. Trump have made clear that they intend to sweep white Americans.Hillary Clinton greeted supporters in Columbia, S.C., after winning the South Carolina primary on Saturday.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesSlide 1 of 8 Hillary Clinton greeted supporters in Columbia, S.C., after winning the South Carolina primary on Saturday.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Sanders had tried to make inroads among African-American voters, including highlighting a grainy black-and-white photo published in The Chicago Tribune that showed a young Mr. Sanders being arrested in Chicago in 1963 while protesting segregation.In a radio ad that aired here, the director Spike Lee urged the state’s black voters to “Do the right thing!” and elect Mr. Sanders. “Bernie takes no money from corporations. Nada. Which means he is not on the take,” the director said, a jab at Mrs. Clinton’s paid speeches and perceived ties to Wall Street. But in the end, Mr. Sanders’s populist message proved no match for Mrs. Clinton’s strategy of embracing President Obama. Both she and Mr. Clinton heaped praise on the president during their recent stops in the state, in jarring contrast to the South Carolina primary eight years ago. In that race, Mr. Clinton infuriated African-Americans here by lashing out at the Obama campaign and comparing Mr. Obama’s success to the victories here by the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 primaries. Many Democrats, especially black voters, viewed those comparisons as diminishing to Mr. Obama.As if already looking past South Carolina, which had for months heavily favored Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders addressed big crowds at two rallies in Texas on Saturday before finishing in Minnesota. His aides believe that Mrs. Clinton remains vulnerable in many states and that Mr. Sanders is well positioned to win Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado and his home state of Vermont on Tuesday.On Sunday, Mrs. Clinton planned to campaign in Memphis, Nashville and Pine Bluff, Ark., a poverty-stricken city in Mr. Clinton’s home state.Even before the results of the South Carolina primary had been tallied, Mrs. Clinton held a rally on Saturday in Alabama. “Fired up! Ready to go!” the crowd chanted, using a popular line from Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign.Before the rally, she stopped at the Yo’ Mama’s chicken and waffles restaurant and the Urban Standard coffee shop in Birmingham, where she declared, “Down the hatch!” as she downed a “straight up” shot of espresso.“I like your style,” the barista said. | 0 |
George W. Bush says that he badly wants his brother Jeb to run for president -- and that if he were to face off against Hillary Clinton, he would "absolutely" beat her in a 2016 matchup."He knows I want him to run," the former president told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday. "If I need to reiterate it, I will: Run, Jeb. I think he'd be a great president."Asked if he considered Clinton to be "formidable," Bush said, "Very much so. No question. So is he, though."I think he'd beat her," he said.Of course, neither Clinton nor Jeb Bush, a former governor of Florida, has declared a candidacy for 2016, though Clinton is widely considered a frontrunner for the Democratic ticket should she pursue it. Jeb Bush leads the Republican pack in many polls based on potential candidates.George W. Bush said that politicians considering a run for president need to ask themselves two questions: whether they fear success, and whether they fear failure."Jeb doesn't," Bush said of fearing failure. "Nor does he fear success, by the way. One reason why is because he was an able governor of Florida. "The final consideration, of course, is ... the family," Bush went on. "And he has -- he's seen what it's like to be the son of a president. He's seen what it's like to be a brother of the president ... He's not rushing into running for the presidency. I have no clue where his head is now."Bush, in clips from the show that were released late last week, was also asked about the lack of an indictment in the case of Eric Garner, the African-American man whose death due to a police chokehold on Staten Island was caught on video. He said he found the grand jury's decision puzzling. Aging in Office | 0 |
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has mustered the 30 votes necessary to force a vote on the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) announced that she’s signed onto Markey’s request to overturn the new rules, under the Congressional Review Act — which lets Congress nullify recently passed regulations with a simple majority.
Markey announced his intention to file a resolution of disapproval in December, just after the FCC voted on new rules that killed net neutrality protections from 2015. These new rules were officially published last week, and with 30 sponsors, Markey can make the Senate vote on whether to consider overturning them. If this happens, it would lead to a debate and final vote.
That’s not remotely the end of the process: if it’s approved, the resolution will go to the House, and if it passes there, the desk of Donald Trump, who seems unlikely to approve it. And if it fails, it’s not the only option on the table — we’ve already heard about legal challenges and local legislation as well. But it keeps the fight for net neutrality running, and offers an immediate alternative to an “open internet” bill that doesn’t restore the old protections. | 0 |
Shake Shack plans to return a $10 million loan it received under an emergency small business rescue program, amid a growing backlash against big businesses that got the money before $350 billion in funding lapsed last week.
The burger chain was just one of several large restaurant operators and publicly traded companies that secured tens of millions of dollars in "Paycheck Protection Program" loans before the Trump administration announced Thursday that the funding was exhausted because of the high demand.
Other chains that reported receiving the loans include Potbelly, Ruth's Hospitality Group, Taco Cabana and J. Alexander's. The disclosures infuriated small business owners who were unable to get loans in time. The program, which is intended to avert massive layoffs during the coronavirus pandemic, is focused on businesses with fewer than 500 employees but allowed large restaurant operators to also apply. In a post on LinkedIn, Shake Shack CEO Randy Garutti and Chairman Danny Meyer said the company was fortunate on Friday to raise more capital in the markets — $150 million — and that it planned to return its entire Paycheck Protection Program loan "so that those restaurants who need it most can get it now." They called on Congress to adequately fund the program, as lawmakers near an agreement on an additional $300 billion.
"Our people would benefit from a $10 million PPP loan, but we’re fortunate to now have access to capital that others do not," they said. "Until every restaurant that needs it has had the same opportunity to receive assistance, we’re returning ours."
The ability of major companies to receive funding before smaller businesses has emerged as the latest flashpoint in a program that has left many involved dissatisfied since its hurried launch on April 3.
Garutti and Meyer said the program "came with no user manual and it was extremely confusing."
If there is concern that the program will not have enough funding again, they suggested sending businesses that have more limited access to outside funding "to the front of the PPP line."
"It’s inexcusable to leave restaurants out because no one told them to get in line by the time the funding dried up," they said. "That unfairly pits restaurants against restaurants. This industry rises and falls together."
Restaurants have been among the businesses hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic because of stay-at-home orders across the country. On Monday, the National Restaurant Association planned to send a letter to top lawmakers calling for Congress to create a dedicated recovery fund for the industry. | 0 |
Story highlightsPresident Barack Obama interviewed by CNN's Wolf BlitzerObama said Russian proposal on Syria chemical weapons was a "potentially positive development"Obama said the the United States would maintain pressure on SyriaThe president plans to address the nation on Syria on TuesdayRussia's proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control was a "potentially positive development," but could be a stall tactic, President Barack Obama told CNN on Monday."We're going to run this to ground," Obama said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, adding that the United States will work with Syrian ally Russia and the international community "to see if we can arrive at something that is enforceable and serious."A 'breakthrough' on the horizon?Obama said the new proposal that emerged Monday from Russia resulted from his threat to attack Syria for violating an international ban on using chemical weapons, as his administration contends occurred on August 21 in suburban Damascus.He and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the Syrian chemical weapons and the U.S. push for a military response at last week's G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Obama told Blitzer."We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now," the president said. "The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think, has prompted some interesting conversations."The Russian proposal could lead to a "breakthrough," but would require follow-up while maintaining pressure on Syria and Russia by continuing his push for Congress to authorize a military attack, Obama said.In an apparent response to some lawmakers who have questioned U.S. interests in a potential military strike, Obama said Syria's chemical weapons "pose a significant threat to all nations and to the United States, in particular." "That's why 98 percent of humanity have said we don't use these. That protects our troops, and it protects children like the ones that we saw in those videos inside of Syria," the president said, referring to video footage that showed people writhing near death.The U.S. government says more than 1,400 people died in the attack. Obama to keep beating the drum on SyriaObama will make a televised address from the White House on Tuesday night as part of the administration's offensive to build support for military action in Syria. His interview with CNN was one of six television interviews on Monday in his effort to reach the public directly. "If we can accomplish this limited goal without taking military action, that would be my preference," Obama said. "On the other hand, if we don't maintain and move forward without a credible threat of military pressure, I don't think we'll actually get the kind of agreement I'd like to see."Obama told ABC that there was no time limit for an agreement. Syria welcomed Russia's proposal Monday, paving the way for a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis that comes amid Syria's two-year civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people, according to U.N. estimates.Obama acknowledged that an agreement on the Russian proposal may not solve Syria's underlying civil war, "but it does solve the problem that I'm trying to focus on right now, which is making sure that you don't have over 400 children gassed indiscriminately by these chemical weapons."When asked by PBS about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's claim that the U.S. is lying about his use of chemical weapons, Obama said there can be no diplomatic solution if the Syrian president keeps make statements that are "untrue.""I think that if we can come up with a mechanism to get these under control, verify and enforce that they are not being used, then we should do everything we can to pursue that," Obama said. "But ... that's not going to happen if Assad thinks that he can lie his way through this and eventually the world forgets the images of those children who were gassed."Al-Assad's military lacks capability, Obama saidObama also sought to tamp down the specter of a threat from Assad for the United States to "expect every action" in retaliation for potential military strikes in Syria. "Mr. Assad doesn't have a lot of capability. He has capability relative to children, he has capability relative to an opposition that is still getting itself organized and are not professional trained fighters," Obama said. "He doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States."However, Obama said it was possible for Iran and Hezbollah to launch "asymmetrical strikes," but dismissed them as nothing more than "the kinds of threats that we are dealing with around the world."He told NBC that he had yet to decide how he would proceed if Congress voted against authorizing force.In light of the upcoming anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, Obama said the date brings heightened security, but he cautioned that "we're not going to be able to protect ourselves 100 percent of the time against every threat" and that the key was to be prepared without over-reacting. | 0 |
A U.S. Marine died on duty in Helmand province, Afghanistan on Monday, one of 21 soldiers who have died since the shutdown started, according to the Defense Department.But until the lapse in federal funding ends, the families of deceased military personnel cannot expect to receive the “death gratuity” of $100,000 the Defense Department deposits in their bank account within 24 to 36 hours, defense officials said.Grieving families also cannot expect the military to cover the usual costs of travel to meet their loved ones returning home in American flag-draped coffins through Dover Air Force Base, or pay for funerals and burials, according to the Defense Department.If the shutdown continues into November, monthly survivor benefits are in jeopardy because the Department of Veterans Affairs has warned it will not have money to pay them.“Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time,” said Nathan Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. “However, we are keeping a close eye on those survivors who have lost loved ones.”The Post’s Aaron Blake reports that Senate chaplain Barry Black, who has offered a series of stinging rebukes to Congress’s intransigence this week, focused on the issue this morning. | 0 |
Washington (CNN Business)The Supreme Court won't stop a lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook victims' families against Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school.The Court decided not to take up an appeal by Remington. That marks a blow to the gun industry: Depending on the outcome of the case, it could open the door to gun violence victims' families suing gun manufacturers for damages.The Sandy Hook victims' families are "grateful" for the Supreme Court's decision, attorneys for the families said in a statement. They called Remington's appeal the company's "latest attempt to avoid accountability."A spokesman from Remington could not immediately be reached for comment.A 2005 federal law protects many gun manufacturers from wrongful death lawsuits brought by family members. But families of victims of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, are pushing a different approach.A survivor and families of nine other victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting are attempting to hold Remington Arms Company, the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the crime, partly responsible by targeting the company's marketing strategy.Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.The rifle was "designed as a military weapon" and "engineered to deliver maximum carnage" with extreme efficiency, they argue in legal briefs.The attorneys said Tuesday they are ready to resume discovery and proceed towards trial "to shed light on Remington's profit-driven strategy" to expand the market for high-powered, semi-automatic guns and "court high-risk users at the expense of Americans' safety." Remington is a private company, but shares of competitor Sturm Ruger & Co. (RGR) fell less than 1%, and American Outdoor Brands (AOBC), maker of Smith & Wesson guns, fell by 1.2%.The consumer market for rifles has fallen precipitously in recent years. Colt, the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle, has announced it's exiting the consumer rifle market. A similar gun was used in the Sandy Hook shooting.-- CNN's Sarah Jorgensen contributed to this report | 0 |
The Caucus | September, November: 40 Precious Days to Spend on Early Vote See next articles See previous articles September, November: 40 Precious Days to Spend on Early Vote By Jeff Zeleny September 27, 2012 1:35 pm September 27, 2012 1:35 pm Video Early Voting in Iowa Jeff Zeleny talks with early voters. By Zena Barakat on Publish Date September 27, 2012. 1:21 a.m. | Updated DES MOINES — A stream of voters arrived at election offices across Iowa to cast their ballots. Waves of absentee ballots have started landing in mailboxes in 30 other states. And more than a month before what the calendar says is Election Day, President Obama began delivering his closing argument to voters. The rise of early voting, which got under way here on Thursday, is changing the rhythms of how Americans elect their presidents. The president is not as fixated on winning more votes than Mitt Romney on Election Day, but on executing a plan to accrue more votes over the next 40 days. For millions of Americans, the election is no longer on a fixed date. It is increasingly becoming another item on the fall checklist, a civic duty steeped in the convenience of everyday life. The development is reshaping campaigns, with Election Day becoming Election Month for as much as 40 percent of the electorate this year, including voters in the vital swing states of Ohio, Florida, Colorado and others. “It has made the October surprises way less relevant,” said Jim Messina, the campaign manager for Mr. Obama, who has built the president’s re-election strategy around the growing trend of voting early. One example: a two-minute ad that began running Thursday summing up Mr. Obama’s case for re-election. “In a close election, you can increase your number of voters in a very important way.” The president opened his campaign speeches this week with a pitch for early voting, imploring Ohio voters, “I need you to start voting six days from now.” It was a not-so-subtle effort to bottle his early success and capitalize on what several polls find is an edge over Mr. Romney in swing states, which could shrink as the remainder of the race unfolds, with the first debate next Wednesday. As the bell tolled eight from the clock tower of the Polk County Courthouse on Thursday, signaling the moment when the polls here would open, a line stretched down the street from the election office. A subject of conversation among those waiting was a statistic from 2008: Mr. Obama received fewer votes than Senator John McCain on Election Day in Iowa and some other states, but Mr. Obama won those states because his plan was built around a month of voting, not a day. Photo Credit The New York Times The rise of early voting, which is allowed with few restrictions in 32 states and the District of Columbia, has opened a new front in efforts to maximize turnout and find voters through exhaustive micro-targeting. An open question, though, is whether making voting more convenient will mean that more people actually take part in the presidential election. An Iowa law, which national election observers say is the only one of its kind in the country, allows a campaign to gather 100 signatures and petition election officials to create a temporary voting location aimed at serving a particular constituency. Here in Des Moines, Democrats requested that a voting site be opened Oct. 20 at La Tapatia Tienda Mexicana, a restaurant. Republicans requested a site be opened on the same day at Johnston Evangelical Free Church. Election officials granted both requests, along with those for voting sites at libraries, grocery stores and community centers. When Michelle Obama visits the University of Northern Iowa on Friday, her chief task will not be simply to deliver a speech. She will ask supporters to cast their ballots on the spot, a few steps away at a voting site requested by the campaign and approved by election officials. While some people will vote in person, even more will do so by mail. The Iowa Secretary of State’s office said Democrats had a 5-to-1 edge over Republicans in the numbers of absentee ballots requested statewide — largely because of efforts by the Obama campaign — but Republicans said the numbers would level out over the next five weeks. “We are going to close that gap in Iowa,” said Rick Wiley, political director of the Republican National Committee, which is overseeing early-voting efforts as part of its national field program. He added, “In years past, we were slow to embrace it, but it’s foolish not to.” The proportion of people nationwide casting early ballots climbed from 23 percent in 2004 to 31 percent in 2008, according to Michael McDonald, who studies early voting at George Mason University. This year, party strategists estimate that up to 40 percent of voters will cast ballots before Nov. 6, but the proportion is far higher in many battleground states. Photo Early voting started Thursday for residents of Waterloo, Iowa.Credit Scott Olson/Getty Images In Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada, advisers to both campaigns say as many as 70 percent of ballots will be cast before Nov. 6. And in Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa, the campaigns estimate at least 30 percent of people will vote early. Virginia and New Hampshire are the only battleground states without widespread, no-excuse early voting. Republican officials in several states acknowledge that the Obama campaign may start with a slight advantage in early voting because Democrats have grown more accustomed to casting their ballots early. To level the playing field, the Republican secretary of state in Ohio sent absentee ballot requests to every registered voter in the state. Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, a group affiliated with the Tea Party, sent a message to encourage members to consider voting early. He wrote, “I know we do not like absentee voting or early voting at all, but it is a key part of our election equation now and we need to understand how to use it to our advantage just like the other side does.” Here in Des Moines, the line slowed to a trickle after a few hours on Thursday morning, but the real burst of voting will come when absentee ballots start arriving by mail as early as Friday in voters’ mailboxes. The Obama campaign is deploying hundreds of field organizers and volunteers this weekend to “chase ballots,” or return envelopes to county election offices. The Republican Party here is sending a mailing to all of its voters, urging them to request an absentee ballot and vote before Election Day. As Nancy Bobo, 60, stood with other Obama supporters, she wondered aloud where the supporters of Mr. Romney were. “I don’t see them,” she said with a smile. “But we’re not taking anything for granted. We still have 40 days to go. You never know; things can change on a dime.” But in the northwest corner of Iowa, more than 200 miles away in the town of Orange City, Gert Kooi, 76, was among those voting for Mr. Romney on Thursday. “I voted today because we might not be here on Election Day, and my mind is long made up,” Ms. Kooi said in an interview. She added, “We just don’t care for Obama here.” Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting from Orange City, Iowa. | 0 |
(CNN)Following days of lengthy debate among vaccine experts, booster shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine can now be officially administered to some adults in the United States.Early Friday morning, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky diverged from the agency's independent vaccine advisers to recommend boosters for a broader group of people -- those ages 18 to 64 who are at increased risk of Covid-19 because of their workplaces or institutional settings -- in addition to older adults, long-term care facility residents and some people with underlying health conditions.The CDC recommendation includes the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Thursday, when it voted to recommend boosters for people age 65 and older and residents of long-term care facilities who received the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine series at least 6 months ago, and people ages 50 to 64 with underlying medical conditions. The CDC also endorsed the vaccine advisers' recommendation that people ages 18 to 49 with underlying medical conditions may receive a booster based on their individual benefits and risks.However, ACIP members voted 9-6 against recommending boosters for people ages 18 to 64 who were at greater risk because of their occupational or institutional settings, such as health care workers, caregivers for frail or immunocompromised people, people in homeless shelters and people in correctional facilities.Walensky's recommendation aligned with the US Food and Drug Administration; on Wednesday, it gave emergency use authorization for a booster dose of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine in people 65 and older, people at high risk of severe disease and people whose jobs put them at risk of infection."As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact. At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good," Walensky said in the statement. "I believe we can best serve the nation's public health needs by providing booster doses for the elderly, those in long-term care facilities, people with underlying medical conditions, and for adults at high risk of disease from occupational and institutional exposures to COVID-19. This aligns with the FDA's booster authorization and makes these groups eligible for a booster shot. Today, ACIP only reviewed data for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. We will address, with the same sense of urgency, recommendations for the Moderna and J&J vaccines as soon as those data are available.Debates about boosters ramped up in August when US health officials announced the United States would offer them to people who had received mRNA vaccines about eight months earlier, pending signoff from the FDA and CDC. However, data about the safety and efficacy of boosters doses was limited. Pfizer had asked the FDA for full approval of a booster dose for everyone 16 and older six months after they were fully immunized with two shots. The company argued that it had enough evidence that immunity starts to wane after six months and that giving a booster restores the immunity safely.More data on booster doses is being generated in the United States and Israel, in particular, and eligibility for boosters may open up in the future. Moderna has asked the FDA to authorize booster shots for its vaccine, but the FDA so far has only considered Pfizer's bid. Johnson & Johnson released partial data this week that it said showed a booster dose greatly raised immunity, but the company has not yet applied with the FDA to consider a booster vaccine dose. | 0 |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a North Carolina law that required voters to show photo identification when casting ballots, ruling that it intentionally discriminated against African-American residents.The ruling, a victory for rights advocates that will enable thousands of people to vote more easily, is also likely to be seen as a boost for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton going into the election on Nov. 8.The state is politically important as it does not lean heavily toward either Democrats or Republicans, and Clinton is heavily favored among black Americans over Republican nominee Donald Trump.The court’s decision also canceled provisions of the law that scaled back early voting, prevented residents from registering and voting on the same day, and eliminated the ability of voters to vote outside their assigned precinct.Critics argue that such provisions are designed to drive down turnout by minorities and poor people who rely more on flexible voting methods and are less likely to possess state-issued photo IDs. Proponents of such laws say they aim to eliminate voter fraud.In its ruling, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit said the state legislature targeted African-Americans “with almost surgical precision.”“We cannot ignore the recent evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” Judge Diana Motz wrote.U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the court’s ruling upheld Americans’ ability “to have a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this nation,” in remarks she delivered on Friday in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.North Carolina State University students wait in line to vote in the primaries at Pullen Community Center on March 15, 2016, in Raleigh, North Carolina.Sara D. Davis/Getty ImagesThe Republican leaders of North Carolina’s state legislature vowed to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a joint statement they argued the decision ignored legal precedent.“We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and (state Attorney General) Roy Cooper to steal the election,” said the statement from state lawmakers Phil Berger and Tim Moore.North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican who is up for re-election in November, also said the state would appeal the ruling and “review other potential options.”The chances of any appeal being heard before the election appeared slim. The state’s board of elections said the law’s voting rules would not be in effect in November, “absent alternative guidance from the courts.”Voting rights advocates heralded the court’s decision as a major victory.“This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade,” Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.Also on Friday, a federal judge ruled that parts of Wisconsin's voter ID law passed by the Republican-led legislature were unconstitutional. The judge ordered the state to revamp its voter ID rules, finding that they disenfranchised minority voters.North Carolina’s legislature passed the voting law weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 in June 2013 to eliminate a requirement that states with a history of discrimination, including North Carolina, receive federal approval before changing election laws.A campaign spokesman for Cooper said on Friday that the attorney general had “urged the Governor to veto this legislation before he signed it because he knew it would be bad for North Carolina.”A Reuters review of the law indicated that as many as 29,000 voters might not have been counted in this November’s election if the bans on same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting had remained in effect.(Additional reporting by Colleen Jenkins in Winston-Salem, N.C.; Editing by Frances Kerry)Read the court’s full ruling below:Historic Images Of Women Voting | 0 |
Last night in Las Vegas, for example, Hillary Clinton said it would be nakedly partisan and unconscionable if Republicans don’t give a hearing to the president’s nominee. And she emphasized the immigration case that the justices recently agreed to hear. “Because of his passing, there will be most likely a tie, four to four, on important issues that affect so many people in our country,” the Democratic front-runner said. “And the most important is the decision about President Obama’s actions under DACA and DAPA. If there is no new justice appointed, then as with other cases before the court, the decision that was decided will stay in place. And that was a bad decision.”Keep in mind that a quarter of Nevada’s population is Hispanic. Beyond being a battleground in the presidential race, there is also an open Senate race to succeed Harry Reid. Democrats will nominate a Latina and Republicans will nominate a white guy who is already in Congress.Or take abortion rights. Marco Rubio is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. For women, the prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned just became much more real. “When I’m president of the United States, I’ll nominate someone like Justice Scalia,” the Florida senator declared on the Sunday shows.And environmentalists just this month saw the court put a stay on Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The next justice will be the swing vote who determines the future of coal in the United States. Though these sorts of cases mean that business interests will pour more money than ever into 2016 races, it could also help Democrats attract crucial suburban women who might lean to the right but worry about global warming.More broadly, this could also undermine efforts by Senate Republicans to show that they are capable of governing and not just “the party of no.” Make no mistake: The upper chamber will grind to a standstill if the GOP follows through on this threat. Democrats who are inclined to work with them promise to stop doing so if Republicans play hardball.-- Ultimately, though, there is not really anything Democrats can do procedurally to force Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to hold a hearing on Obama’s nominee. The only lever they have is public pressure.The most potent pressure points are the seven GOP incumbents who are up for reelection this year in states Obama carried in 2012. New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte and Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson publicly came out in favor of obstruction yesterday. The others are holding their cards close to the vest for right now: Ohio’s Rob Portman praised Scalia but would not address the core issue. Spokesmen for Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey declined to comment and Illinois’ Mark Kirk ignored inquiries, per CNN.Pay particularly close attention to Portman, who is already vulnerable and could be wiped out if African Americans make up the same percentage of the electorate in 2016 as they did in 2012. They are likelier to vote if they believe he is disrespecting the first black president.“I intend to continue to talk about this until the polls close,” former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, the Democratic candidate against Portman, told my colleague Paul Kane yesterday. “Senator Portman, who has your allegiance, your country or your party leaders? … The people have spoken, on two occasions,” he added, referring to Obama’s 2008 and 2012 victories.-- Conventional wisdom is that whichever party wins the White House in November will control the Senate. That’s obviously the primary factor, but we’re not convinced it will be determinative. Democrats need to pick up four seats to win the Senate, and it’s conceivable they could get those from states that Clinton would probably carry even if she loses the Electoral College. In 2014, it’s worth recalling, Democrats lost each of the seven seats they had to defend in states Mitt Romney had carried two years earlier.And remember that this won’t be happening in a vacuum: If Obama knows for sure that his pick is not going to get formally considered, he can go with someone who gives his party maximum political leverage to bludgeon these Republican incumbents. Monica Márquez is the first Latina and first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court in Colorado, which will again be a crucial swing state. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is an African American woman. Lucy Koh is the first Asian American district judge in the Northern District of California. He could also go with someone who was previously confirmed unanimously by the Senate to give additional rhetorical heft to his attacks that Republicans are being hypocrites.-- What’s the Republican political calculus? Blocking judges historically motivates their base – including donors and the U.S. Chamber – more than it does liberals. And they don’t think independents will really care all that much. It will just sound like more Washington noise. McConnell, not a favorite of the grassroots, also needs to keep his own base ginned up. Amidst a presidential primary, it is untenable for Republicans to look like rubber stamps for Obama.Chris Christie offers a cautionary tale for GOP members. His bubble in New Hampshire was punctured when opponents began attacking him for offering support of Sonia Sotomayor while he was running for governor of New Jersey in 2008. Christie denied making comments he had made. Allies and rivals agree that the Sotomayor hit was a turning point for his campaign. Republicans who fear primary challenges, such as Alabama’s Richard Shelby, are never going to back any Obama nominee.Most smart Republicans in D.C. still believe either Trump or Cruz would lose a general election. Their hope is that a Supreme Court vacancy might help galvanize conservative volunteers to go do work for endangered Senate incumbents.-- To be sure, not every Democrat has a clean nose on this: Harry Reid shortsightedly invoked the nuclear option in 2013, which allows non-Supreme court judges to be approved by a simple majority. This incensed Republicans and only accelerated the upper chamber’s decline to be more like the unruly House.Lindsey Graham, one of just two current GOP senators who voted to confirm Elena Kagan during Obama’s first term, tells The Post that Reid poisoned the well by going nuclear. “I voted for every Supreme Court justice nominated by Bush and Obama. I believe the Senate should be deferential to qualified picks,” the South Carolina senator said. “But I did tell Harry Reid and the president that the consequence of changing the rules in the Senate to pack the court will come back to haunt them.”George F. Will also zeroes in on Reid’s use of the nuclear option in his column today, which he describes as “institutional vandalism.” He frames the battle this way: “Scalia’s death will enkindle a debate missing from this year’s presidential campaign, a debate discomfiting for some conservatives: Do they want a passive court that is deferential to legislative majorities and to presidents who claim untrammeled powers deriving from national majorities? Or do they want a court actively engaged in defending liberty’s borders against unjustified encroachments by majorities?” -- The big question right now: Will there even be a confirmation hearing? McConnell’s Saturday night statement declaring that the vacancy should be filled by the next president did not rule out the possibility of a confirmation hearing or floor time to consider whoever the president picks.That might be the more politically astute play, since Republicans could slow walk the vetting, trickle out negative revelations about the nominee to right-wing media outlets and then ultimately vote to reject the nominee. Having hearings could give some cover to purple state Republicans to say they are doing their jobs. “If the Republican leadership refuses to even hold a hearing, I think that is going to guarantee they're going to lose control of the Senate," said Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.Plus, even if Obama’s pick gets past the Judiciary Committee, they will be hard pressed to get confirmed by the full Senate. Fourteen Republicans would need to come out against Cruz’s promised filibuster. During Obama’s first term, when Democrats held a near super-majority, only nine Republicans voted for Sotomayor and five voted for Kagan.Given that the Senate is on a President’s Day recess, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama will not rush out an announcement this week. This gives both sides a few days to poll and focus group their options.A former top adviser to the president says the GOP could have been savvier:The smarter GOP play: Be skeptical now and wait to oppose a specific nominee. Pavlovian opposition makes the D argument so much easier— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) February 14, 2016
-- Another wildcard: How will the press cover this? One of the mainstream media’s problems is a really short attention span. What is unknowable today is whether this vacancy is a two-week story, a two-month story or a 10-month story? Also, is the narrative that Republicans are creating an unprecedented Constitutional crisis? Or is it played as a boring he-said, he-said storyline?Democrats note that Obama still has the bully pulpit, so he can come up with creative ways to drive news coverage about the GOP’s failure to bring his nominee up for a vote. The party can also use paid media to target the vulnerable Republican incumbents.-- For both sides, it really is difficult to overstate the stakes: Scalia left an indelible mark on both the court and our country for nearly three decades, and his replacement could do the same. Ironically, if Clinton wins and Democrats retake the Senate after McConnell spends the year taking heat, she will have a mandate to put the most progressive justice imaginable on the bench. And Republicans will have no real grounds to oppose her. For McConnell, right now, that’s a risk worth taking.-- MORE SCALIA STORY LINES: THE BUZZ AT THE CAPITOL: “Some hopeful Democrats now see the nomination of a sitting senator as the best chance Obama has to seat another justice on the Supreme Court before leaving office,” Juliet Eilperin and Paul Kane report. “There are several Senate Democrats who fit that description, including Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Christopher A. Coons (Del.) and Richard J. Durbin (Ill.). But individuals who have spoken with the White House about the nomination process … said the president is interested in a candidate who is young enough to serve an extended period of time. Only two of those senators — Klobuchar, at 55, and Coons, at 52 — are younger than 60, the age Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was when she was nominated.”… But we hear that POTUS is more likely to go with someone who has already been confirmed and vetted. “Although Obama has installed fewer federal appellate judges than either Presidents Clinton or George W. Bush, he has put enough nominees on the bench that Democratic appointees are in the majority on nine of the nation’s 13 circuit courts,” Juliet and Paul note. “In that group, the 9th Circuit’s Paul J. Watford, a 48-year-old African American, and Sri Srinivasan, a 48-year-old judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit who would be the first South-Asian American on the Supreme Court, would be the leading contenders. Others include the D.C. Circuit’s Patricia Ann Millett, 52, and Jane L. Kelly, 51, a judge on the 8th Circuit who was confirmed 96 to 0” with the support of Grassley.-- What does the loss of Scalia mean for cases currently on the docket? “In the short term, conservatives could still prevail on many of the cases before the court this term. But the wins could come in the form of tie votes that preserve the status quo rather than provide precedents that will shape the future,” writes Robert Barnes, our Supreme Court correspondent.A big break for public employee unions: “At oral arguments, the court seemed prepared to hand a significant defeat to organized labor and side with a group of California teachers who claim that their free-speech rights are violated when they are forced to pay dues to the state’s teachers union. The court’s conservatives — Scalia included — appeared ready to junk a 40-year-old precedent that allows unions to collect an ‘agency fee’ from nonmembers to support collective-bargaining activities for members and nonmembers alike. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, citing that precedent, had ruled for the union. And with the Supreme Court’s liberals seemingly united in upholding the precedent, a 4-to-4 vote would mean the union victory would stand.”The law could be interpreted differently in different regions: “For instance, a Texas law that imposes new restrictions on abortion providers was found constitutional by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A 4-to-4 tie would uphold that finding. But a similar law in Wisconsin was struck down and would be unaffected by the court’s tie in the Texas case.”-- Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports in the hours after Scalia’s death, which happened during a blue quail hunting trip. From Lana Straub, Eva Ruth Moravec, Sari Horwitz and Jerry Markon: After his body was discovered, it took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace. “When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have ordered an autopsy. ‘If it had been me . . . I would want to know,’ Juanita Bishop, a justice of the peace in Presidio, Tex., told The Washington Post in an interview Sunday.”Some details of his final hours at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a luxury compound less than an hour from the Mexican border, remain opaque: “As late as Sunday afternoon, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy would be performed, though officials later said Scalia’s body was being embalmed and there would be no autopsy. One report, by WFAA-TV in Dallas, said the death certificate would show the cause of the death was a heart attack.”GET SMART FAST:President Obama and Vladimir Putin agreed to expand diplomatic and military cooperation to implement a cease-fire and aid delivery in Syria. On a call between the two this weekend, Obama stressed the importance of “rapidly implementing humanitarian access” to besieged areas, and urged the Russian president to cease air campaigns against moderate Syrian opposition forces. (Karen DeYoung)…Meanwhile, the violence on the ground in Syria continued: Turkey shelled positions held by a U.S.-backed Kurdish militia for the second day in a row. (AP)Saudi Arabia launched a massive military exercise that will include troops from 20 nations, to project strength in the face of an ascendant Iran. (CNN)Afghanistan had a record number of civilian casualties last year due to Taliban suicide attacks and a fierce battle for the northern city of Kunduz. The country’s deteriorating security situation has led hundreds of thousands of people to flee, seeking refuge in neighboring countries or Europe. (Boston Globe)Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised new measures to counter gun smuggling and stiffen Canada’s already tough gun laws. The move comes in response to increasing numbers of handguns and assault weapons in Canadian cities. (William Marsden)Two blood-building drugs could boost brain development and IQ levels in premature babies, according to a first-of-its-kind study. Premature infants who received the shot at birth scored an average of 12 points higher on IQ tests than untreated infants at age 4. (Lindsey Tanner)Several tourists on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge were shot by blow darts. Police said the location of the victims’ wounds suggests that the darts were fired by a moving vehicle, and are working to determine if the attacks could have been caught on camera. (Peter Holley)A flight heading to New York was forced to turn back to London after a laser beam was pointed at the plane. The Virgin Atlantic flight was grounded overnight, and the airline said they are working with authorities to find the culprit. (BBC)A Disney cruise ship stopped on its journey from Miami to Grand Cayman to pick up 12 suspected Cuban migrants, whom they brought onboard and turned over to Grand Cayman authorities. (CNN)A Democratic state legislator in Kentucky introduced a bill that would force men seeking impotence drugs to jump through a series of procedural hoops beforehand, such as visiting a doctor twice and obtaining a note from their wives. The symbolic bill was proposed after Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed an “informed consent” bill, requiring women to consult with a doctor at least 24 hours before an abortion. (Peter Holley)POWER PLAYERS IN THE NEWS:President Obama said he would “very much” like to visit to Cuba during his presidency, but his diplomatic efforts may be thwarted by Zika: disease experts say the virus’ imminent arrival on the island is “almost certain.” (New York Times)John Kerry traveled to the Balkan nation of Albania for the first time to meet with the country’s prime minister. U.S.-Albanian relations have been solidified recently by the country’s strong support for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East. (Karen DeYoung)CIA Director John Brennan, on “60 Minutes,” said it is “inevitable” that ISIS will try to attack the U.S. homeland. (The Hill)The Pope will visit Juárez this week as part of his six day tour through Mexico. The city was previously considered the “murder capital of the world.” (USA Today)Hip Hop artist Kanye West dropped his new album amid controversy: the attention-grabbing rapper tweeted he was “$53 million in personal debt” before his appearance on “SNL,” urging fans to “pray.” (CNN)-- Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. -- South Carolina is Ground Zero for the Republican race—Ratings: 13.5 million watched the CBS debate on Saturday, surpassing the 13.3 million who watched last weekend’s debate on ABC and the 8 million who watched the Democratic debate in Milwaukee on PBS/CNN. (CNN Money)Driving the day: Laura and George W. Bush headline a rally for Jeb in North Charleston tonight. “It tacks away from Bush’s months-long insistence that he’s running as ‘my own man,’ but could be a perfect fit for South Carolina,” the Associated Press notes in a curtain-raiser. “George H.W. Bush won twice here. In 2000, George W. Bush beat John McCain. Now it’s his brother’s turn.”Kasich’s super PAC circulated a CNN clip from when Jeb said in New Hampshire last May, “I think that in Washington during my brother's time Republicans spent too much money. He could have used the veto power. He didn't have line item veto power, but he could have brought budget discipline to Washington, D.C."Republican leaders are predicting record turnout in Saturday’s primary: “The electorate here will be about twice as big as Iowa and New Hampshire combined,” said state GOP Chairman Matt Moore. “A third are very conservative, a third are somewhat; a third are moderate.” He’s quoted in a Charleston Post and Courier story about efforts to “restore South Carolina’s credibility in picking the eventual nominee.” From the piece: “GOP voters here chose correctly in all the party races since 1980 until the turnabout in 2012. ‘South Carolinians kind of blew it last time voting for Gingrich,’ said Clemson professor David Woodard, who thinks the state is Trump’s to lose. ‘They’re taking their ‘first-in-the-South primary’ and ‘we pick presidents’ to heart. There is a seriousness here that’s on display this time.’”On the Sunday shows, Trump focused on Cruz. "Justice John Roberts gave us Obamacare twice," Trump said on ABC. "He could have ended Obamacare twice. He got there because Ted Cruz pushed him like wild. ... Cruz shouldn't be talking because that was among the worst appointments I've ever seen. We have Obamacare because of Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and George Bush." Trump also emphasized Cruz's personality: "No endorsements, no support — he's a lone wolf. He's going to get nothing done, he's not a leader, he's never employed anybody, never created a job. He's a nasty guy, no matter how you figure it.”… And Cruz focused on Trump: "If Donald Trump becomes president, the Second Amendment will be written out of the Constitution because it is abundantly clear that Donald Trump is not a conservative. He will not invest the capital to confirm a conservative, so the result will be the same whether it’s Hillary, Bernie or Donald," Cruz said. "The Second Amendment will go away." (Elise Viebeck)Trump changed his explanation for why no one can find proof that he opposed the invasion of Iraq before 2003: “I wasn’t a politician so people didn’t write everything I said,” he said on “Meet the Press.” In September, he said there was ample documentation: “I’ll give you 25 different stories.” BuzzFeed notes that an August 2004 interview with Esquire is the first known instance of his public opposition.-- Democrats focused on next Saturday’s Nevada caucuses:Both candidates courted the African American vote at the same Baptist church in Las Vegas. John Wagner relays an incredibly awkward scene: “Clinton and her motorcade already had arrived the Victory Missionary Baptist Church, located in an economically struggling neighborhood west of the Vegas Strip, when Sanders’s entourage pulled in with a police escort. Clinton was seated in the first row, on the left side. Sanders took a seat in the first row, on the right side. The candidates did not shake hands or talk.”“The Rev. Robert E. Fowler Sr. announced: ‘Senator Sanders, your camp contacted us first so you have the opportunity to go first.’ Clinton nodded a few times when Sanders talked about criminal justice reform and investing in education. She watched him speak from a large screen above and did not look at him directly.”“The pastor then let Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) introduce Clinton. The civil rights icon made headlines last week when he seemed to question Sanders’s commitment to the movement -- walking those comments back the following day. On Sunday, Lewis talked only about Clinton.”Then Clinton, from the pulpit, said: “I am not a single-issue candidate, and this is not a single-issue country. Because if we were to achieve everything about banks and money in politics, would that end racism? Would that make it automatically going to happen that people would be able to get the jobs they deserve, the housing they need, the education their children need to have?”Later, Clinton stepped up her attacks on Sanders over health care in a Vegas suburb: "We both share the goal of universal health-care coverage, but he wants to start all over again," she said at a rally after church. "And he wants to have a new system that would be quite challenging because you would have to give up the insurance you have now, and it would cost a lot of money. The goal is a good goal -- I absolutely agree with that -- but the last thing our country needs now is to be thrown into another contentious debate about health care." (David Weigel)The Review-Journal reports that Sanders has spent twice as much on TV ads in Nevada as Clinton, $2.93 million to $1.46 million.Trolling HRC, the conservative super PAC American Crossroads launched a $42,000 digital buy to highlight hardline comments she’s made about illegal immigration during previous races. Watch here.WAPO HIGHLIGHTS:-- “Debate rips open GOP wounds, and party risks tearing itself apart,” by Robert Costa and Philip Rucker: “The GOP is at risk of tearing itself apart over its past as it heads into the thick of the primary season. A day after a debate marked by personal, petty exchanges, Republicans were grappling with their core beliefs, as well as the image they were broadcasting to the country … The increasingly harsh discussions of these and other issues amount to an existential crisis within the Republican Party and reflect the growing influence of non-ideological, populist voters. Contenders are making their most concerted effort yet to stop Trump [in South Carolina], even though previous attempts to take him down have attained little. The escalating quarreling may increase the likelihood of a long, expensive and potentially futile effort … As the candidates returned to the campaign trail, the mess they left behind on the stage of Greenville’s Peace Center had some party strategists wondering whether the damage may be politically irreparable.”-- “What made the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg work,” by Irin Carmon: “Nino and RBG, the court’s most famous odd couple friendship stood as an example of warmth and professionalism across traditional divides … The reserved Clinton appointee and the bombastic Reagan pick had vastly different views on the constitution and the role of the court. And yet. One former clerk told us Scalia was Ginsburg’s favored souvenir shopping buddy when they traveled together. On a trip to India, they famously rode an elephant, with Scalia sitting up front. They shared New Year’s Eves with their families and friends. In 2010, when Chief Justice Roberts announced [Ginsburg’s husband] Marty’s death from the bench, Scalia wiped tears from his eyes … Whether or not it was how Scalia saw it, for Ginsburg their public friendship also made a statement about the court as an institution: that it was strengthened by respectful debate, that it could work no matter how polarized its members were.”-- “A mini world war rages in the fields of Aleppo,” by Liz Sly: “Across the olive groves and wheat fields of the northern Syrian province of Aleppo, a battle with global dimensions risks erupting into a wider war. Russian warplanes are bombing from the sky. Iraqi and Lebanese militias aided by Iranian advisers are advancing on the ground. An assortment of Syrian rebels backed by the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are fighting to hold them back. Kurdish forces are taking advantage of the chaos, [while] the Islamic State has snatched a couple of small villages … Syria’s civil war long ago mutated into a proxy conflict, with competing world powers backing the rival Syrian factions almost since the earliest days of the armed rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad. But perhaps never before have the dangers — or the complications — of what amounts to a mini world war been so apparent as in the battle underway for control of Aleppo.”-- Doug Sosnik’s take on the road ahead: The Democratic strategist, who served as a close adviser to Bill Clinton during his presidency, is known in Washington for insightful memos that diagnose the national mood. We got the latest one. Three nuggets jumped out—Independents will see the 2016 election as a choice between the lesser of two evils: “This year’s Republican primary is the most rightward leaning since 1964, while Democrats have not been this far to the left since the 1972 campaign. As the parties have become increasingly ideological, Americans have drifted away from both of them. Self-identified independents are at near historic levels. … In this period of profound alienation, with both parties engaging in harsh ideological primaries, the public is likely to view the entire political process as a race to the bottom. They will be inclined to view their choice for president through the prism of which candidate is the least flawed and poses the least threat to their future well-being.”Obama’s approval rating is remarkably durable: “Since the summer of 2009, when these divisions began to intensify, Obama’s positive job approval ratings have remained flat, never going below 40% or above 53%. A closer look at these numbers shows the impact that age, race and income have had on his ratings. The narrow band reflects little movement from Obama’s core supporters, as well as steadfast opposition from his detractors.”The Democratic primary in New York will matter: “In the period between the March primaries and the middle of April, fewer than 400 delegates will be selected. With the exception of the Wisconsin primary on April 5th, most of the attention will be focused on the New York (Wall Street) primary on April 19th. The last two key dates during the primary will be April 26th, when five northeastern states will select 384 delegates, and June 7th when California and five other states west of the Mississippi will hold elections.”SOCIAL MEDIA SPEED READ, curated by Elise Viebeck:Hillary and Bernie were in Las Vegas:Congressional Democrats spent all day ripping Republicans over the upcoming Supreme Court fight:When @POTUS nominates his candidate for #scotus, the Senate should fulfill its constitutional duty and hold hearings/vote without delay.— Senator Bob Casey (@SenBobCasey) February 15, 2016
The prospect of 4-4 decisions is not in the public interest. The Senate has an obligation to quickly consider the president's nominee.— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) February 14, 2016
Senator McConnell's statement to block any nominee to #SCOTUS - no matter how qualified - is a perversion of the very notion of justice— Tim Kaine (@timkaine) February 14, 2016
The American people deserve a full Supreme Court.— Senator Chris Coons (@ChrisCoons) February 14, 2016
Ayotte's support for obstruction drew cheers from conservative activists:Comedian Mindy Kaling jokingly wished a happy Valentine's Day to one of the judges who could be on Obama's short list:Donald Trump attacked the RNC for the donors at the debate:Loved the debate last night, and almost everyone said I won, but the RNC did a terrible job of ticket distrbution. All donors & special ints— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2016
Tickets for future debates should be put out to the general public instead of being given to the lobbyists & special interests - the bosses!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2016
Finally, presidential candidates celebrated Valentine's Day:Along with the Obamas:Along with plenty of lawmakers:Others joked about a presidential race that seems like it will never end:Years from now, we'll find Bush and Rubio and their super PACs still campaigning in far-flung primary states, like those Japanese soldiers.— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 15, 2016
GOOD READS FROM ELSEWHERE:-- “REVENGE OF THE POPULISTS” is the headline on the front page of The State to describe the success of Trump and Sanders. The Columbia, S.C., newspaper searches for historical antecedents: “Trump rails against immigrants, echoing the nativist, mid-1800s Know Nothing Party that grew out of fears that an influx of Catholic immigrants was threatening the American way of life. Sanders’ outcry against banks and corporations has its roots in the populist movement of the late 1800s, formed by a coalition of laborers and farmers, suffering, they said, under high loan and railroad rates that lined the elite’s pockets.”The article emphasizes similarities in their messaging and supporters: “Angst over the economy — as in populist movements of the past — has led to similar lines of attack from Trump and Sanders. ‘This is not a rising-tide-that-lifts-all-boats recovery,’ said Danielle Vinson, a Furman University political scientist. … Both Trump and Sanders, for instance, denounce trade deals … Both have taken more isolationist stances in foreign policy … Both also have cast Washington politicians as shills for corporate interests.”-- The State also looks at the 12 percent of South Carolina voters who say they are undecided: “Retired oncologist Tripp Jones say his choice presents a dilemma in Saturday’s Republican presidential primary. None of the six candidates left in the GOP field fits the bill for Jones, a longtime Republican who ‘wants somebody who is going to take America to the next level but has common sense.’ Jones is among the 1-in-8 Republicans who are undecided as Saturday’s primary looms. Political ads do little for him. ‘I’ve got to settle on one, but I don’t have a clue yet who it will be,’ he said. Other voters plan to wait until the end. ‘I’m going to let it all play out,’ said Irmo Town Councilwoman Kathy Condom, who plans to vote Republican. ‘I’ll figure it out on the 19th (of February).’”Who they are --> Politico, “The Whale That Nearly Drowned The Donald,” by Michael Crowley: “Akio Kashiwagi was a mysterious figure reputed to have underworld connections. He was one of the world’s top five gamblers, a ‘whale’ in casino parlance, willing to wager $10 million in a single gaming bender. After his murder, one unnamed executive told the paper that Kashiwagi had owed the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $4 million … The story of Kashiwagi, drawn from Trump’s memoirs and news accounts from the day, offers a revealing window into Trump’s instincts. It shows that Trump isn’t just a one-time casino owner—he’s also a gambler, prone to impulsive, even reckless action. Trump is obsessed with winning, a topic he usually brings up in the context of his merciless deal-making style. But a crucial question about any would-be president who may be confronted with questions of war and peace is his attitude toward risk. Some presidents are highly averse to it … Others roll the dice.”-- The Atlantic, “The 'New Look' of the Post-Obama Electorate,” by Theodore R. Johnson: “In 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama rode the highest black voter turnout in U.S. history to the White House, black voters felt The Look had been exchanged … African American voters felt that a black president could give them special attention and understand black America’s grievances better than any other. It wasn’t favoritism African Americans sought; they simply wanted an acknowledgement that structural racism is real and some executive resolve to address it from the first president to have experienced it firsthand. But things haven’t gone quite as they had hoped. The welled-up hope that racism would be a presidential priority and undergo an incremental process of amelioration began to slowly dissipate in the face of politics as usual … And frustration has given rise to a new generation of black voters and activists, a generation who uses more overt and dynamic techniques to influence the political agenda.”--The New Yorker, “Can Cruz Beat Trump on Conservative Principles?,” by Ryan Lizza: “Ted Cruz is the best political tactician in the Republican race. But for all of Cruz’s tactical successes so far, he made one enormous mistake: he misunderstood the threat posed by Trump. By repeatedly praising Trump throughout 2015, Cruz did more than any other Republican to validate the reality-TV star as a true conservative … Cruz, the most well-funded conservative, stuck to his hug-Trump strategy until just a few days before the Iowa caucuses. At the CBS debate, [he] tried desperately to undo that damage, and his attempt to unmask Trump as a closet liberal led to the most fiery exchange of the evening. And now there is a new accelerant to the Cruz–Bush campaign to turn Trump into a liberal: Antonin Scalia’s death. For many ideological conservatives, the makeup of the Supreme Court is the most important issue in America … [and] the success of Cruz’s campaign may depend on that fight.”-- New York Times, “A Leisurely Return for the New York State Legislature,” by Jesse McKinley: “Last week, [New York’s] 213 elected lawmakers — or as many who were able to attend — gathered for a couple of hours, passed a few minor bills and some well-meaning resolutions, and then formally adjourned for a 14-day winter break, officially ending their workweek. The time was 1:32 p.m. On a Tuesday. Two months after the corruption convictions of Sheldon Silver and Dean G. Skelos, the former leaders of the State Assembly and Senate … that sense of urgency has seemingly dissipated, unable to penetrate the intractable culture of Albany: The 2016 Legislature has yet to offer any new bills related to ethics reform, and the leaders have been noncommittal on a raft of proposals made by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The state’s lawmakers have responded with a leisurely return to well-established habits, marked by two-day weeks in the capital, six-minute floor sessions and a collection of one-house bills with little or no chance of becoming law.” HOT ON THE LEFT Bill Maher lit a joint to make a sobering point about legal pot. From the Huffington Post: "If you're for legalizing it, put down the Cheetos and listen up. As part of his new rules on Friday's 'Real Time,' Bill Maher implored those who are for a completely weed-legal America to 'get your head out of your grass.' Though some think legalized pot is a forgone conclusion, Maher said 'progress doesn't just automatically snowball.' The TV host brought up how more than 500 dispensaries have been shut down in Los Angeles and dispensaries 'still can't get banking services.'" HOT ON THE RIGHT UVA student launches Trump-themed campaign for student government. From the Washington Examiner: "Erich Reimer wants to make University of Virginia Law great again. He wants to build a wall between the law school and the business school. UVA Law just doesn't win anymore. 'Let's be honest, when Main Grounds sends its people, they aren't sending their best and brightest,' the second year law student complains in a Donald Trump-themed campaign for the school's student council ... One twist: Reimer supports John Kasich, not Trump, for president." DAYBOOK:-- Happy President's Day.-- At the White House: President Obama is still in California, where he'll meet with leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Rancho Mirage throughout the day.-- On the campaign trail: Bernie Sanders is in Ypsilanti and Dearborn, Mich., while John Kasich stops in Allendale, East Lansing and Utica. Hillary Clinton is in Elko and Reno, Nevada. The rest of the field is in South Carolina. Here's the rundown:Bush: North Charleston (with George W. Bush)Rubio: Rock Hill, Florence, GilbertTrump: GreenvilleCruz: Aiken, Camden, FlorenceCarson: Spartanburg QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, said Bush must have chugged a Monster energy drink before Saturday’s debate because he suddenly had more fight in him." (Jenna Johnson) NEWS YOU CAN USE IF YOU LIVE IN D.C.:-- I guess this is what they call a “wintry mix”? “After an overnight burst, snow may be slow to get going early on, but should pick up by mid-morning,” the Capital Weather Gang forecasts. “During the course of the afternoon, snow likely changes to sleet and freezing rain from south to north. Temperatures remain below freezing keeping those untreated surfaces very slick. Highs range from 25-30.”INTRIGUE: Vince Gray is running against the woman he anointed to succeed him on the D.C. Council. “His former protege insists she is not retreating,” Paul Schwartzman reports. “Yvette Alexander, in an interview, accused Gray of challenging her as a first step toward a 2018 mayoral bid that would avenge his loss to Muriel E. Bowser in the 2014 Democratic primary. ‘He’s just trying to get his foot in the door,’ Alexander said. ‘If Vince Gray is honest about it, he would tell the truth and say, ‘I want to run for mayor. I want to get revenge.’ That’s who he is, and Ward 7 knows it.’" She also suggested that he didn’t get indicted because he “had a very good attorney.” Gray spokesman Chuck Thies fired back: “Vince doesn’t feel that she has grown in the job. When you’ve been there for eight years and you’re not an influential council member, it’s time for you to go. At this point, Yvette is just taking up space. That’s not Vince’s fault.”-- A year-long study of Alexandria's historic buildings revealed that many need immediate – and expensive-- renovations that could cost the city hundreds of millions. (Patricia Sullivan)-- Prince William County supervisors have given up on their efforts to reduce concealed-carry permit fees after the measure failed in a recent vote. (Jonathan Hunley)-- Parents in Southeast Washington have begun interviewing teachers for a new charter school, Rocketship, which is set to open next year in Ward 8. The D.C. Public Charter School Board voted in 2013 to allow the California-based charter operator to open as many as eight schools in the District. (Perry Stein)VIDEOS OF THE DAY:Bill Clinton seemed to downplay Obama's status as the first black president, saying "we're all mixed race people":Ted Cruz released ads hitting Donald Trump on judicial nominations and Planned Parenthood:In an old clip, Elena Kagan talks about hunting with Scalia:Paul Ryan shared his Valentine's Day plans:Jeanette Rubio talked about falling for Marco: | 0 |
March 12th, 2013 06:50 PM ET 9 years agoCNN's Ted Barrett and Dana Bash Washington (CNN) - When President Barack Obama attended the first of four meetings on Capitol Hill this week, it was clear that many of the Senate Democrats he lunched with wanted to bend his ear. "There were quite a bit of questions, he stayed for a long time," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, said about the meeting that was scheduled for 60 minutes but went for about 90. "Sen. (Majority Leader Harry) Reid gave him ample opportunity to leave and he decided to stay and answer more questions."
In fact, the president took about a dozen questions from senators and discussed a wide range of issues, including the budget, entitlement reform, foreign policy, immigration, guns and drones.
While the president's efforts this week to reach out to lawmakers is largely aimed at Republicans, several Democratic senators have acknowledged privately that they are frustrated the president doesn't have stronger relationships with them.
"I'm very impressed with the tone that I'm hearing today," said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, moments after the meeting ended. "And maybe I think he realized that we've got to work together."
It may sound odd to hear a Democrat talking about working together with a Democratic president, but that's a sentiment among many senators who feel shut out or ignored by the White House. After the meeting, some of those same senators said, based on the president's presentation, it was clear he understood he needed to improve relations with them. Obama will meet Wednesday with House Republicans; on Thursday he'll meet separately with House Democrats and Senate Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she hopes these meetings will lead to direct talks with the president on the thorny budget issues confronting the country. "I think this initial overture is very welcome. but it needs to be followed up with concrete working sessions that extend many hours, where we're all locked in a room, occasionally thrown something to eat, until we reach agreement on some of the very big issues facing us," she said.
One difficult issue is whether Democrats are willing to compromise on entitlement reform. "The president was pretty clear that we have to have these programs sustainable and it's reasonable to look at them," Cardin said.
The president told the Democrats that his recent outreach to Senate Republicans – including a private dinner at a fancy hotel last week – was positive. But he also said Republicans need to be more willing to compromise.
"He says working together with Republicans in terms of getting a grand bargain or a major dent in this issue is critically important," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, about a deal to reduce the deficit. "But compromise is essential and he hasn't seen enough from them yet but he is also going to keep on trying."
While serious subjects dominated the meeting, the president did win laughter after he playfully grabbed Reid's notes and made fun of the doodles drawn on them. The president joked that he wanted to send them to a psychiatrist for analysis. | 0 |
Washington (CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election is "close to being completed," acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker said Monday.Whitaker told reporters he has been "fully briefed" on the investigation."I look forward to Director Mueller delivering the final report," Whitaker said.Whitaker's announcement follows new bipartisan legislation filed Monday that would require Mueller to summarize his findings in a report to Congress and the public.The Russia investigation, which began when Mueller was appointed in May 2017, has showed signs of nearing its end. Some of the investigation's prosecutors moved to different jobs outside of Mueller's office and the office moved some of its cooperators like former national security adviser Michael Flynn toward sentencing. The arrest of former Trump adviser Roger Stone, one of the last key campaign associates in President Donald Trump's orbit, on Friday was also a long anticipated move from Mueller.Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also will be leaving soon after attorney general nominee William Barr's confirmation. Rosenstein previously signaled to other officials that he would leave when he was satisfied that Mueller's investigation was either complete or close enough to completion that it was protected from potential interference.Barr's confirmation hearings began Jan. 15, meaning that a vote could occur in mid-February at the earliest. An official briefed on the discussions surrounding Rosenstein's planned departure told CNN that Rosenstein wants to ensure a smooth transition, which includes the Mueller investigation. But Mueller has indicated that a grand jury's work on the probe could continue. The special counsel's federal grand jury, which began meeting in July 2017, was extended in January so it may continue to meet and vote on criminal indictments for up to six more months. The investigation has consistently returned results -- the grand jury has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates, their Russian business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, 12 Russian military intelligence officers, 13 Russians and three companies that allegedly manipulated social media to sway US voters. Manafort and Gates have since pleaded guilty to reduced sets of charges, with Mueller alleging in December that Manafort had lied on five major counts since agreeing to cooperate with the special counsel's office as part of his plea agreement.Flynn, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos have also pleaded guilty to charges from the special counsel's office.Some Democrats unnervedWhitaker also rattled some Democrats when he said decisions made by Mueller's office are going to be reviewed by the Department of Justice."I am comfortable that the decisions that were made are going to be reviewed through the various means we have," Whitaker said.Some congressional Democrats expressed concern over those comments in interviews with CNN Monday afternoon.Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat who's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it's "chilling" to hear Whitaker's comments."I don't have full confidence that acting Attorney General Whitaker intends to respect the independence of the special counsel and simply support and sustain the decisions he's made and simply release the report in full," Coons added.Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "He should not be a censor; it should stand on what Mueller and his group found."Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who's another member of that committee, downplayed Whitaker's comments, saying he takes anything the acting attorney general says with a "giant iceberg worth of salt."House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, said he thinks that Whitaker, or anyone else in the Department of Justice, should not have a say in what's in Mueller's report. "The special counsel should speak for the special counsel's investigation," he said.Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, had harsh words for Whitaker."I'm not thrilled he's been fully briefed because I don't think he's independent or reliable," Whitehouse said.He added that he's "not convinced" the probe is nearly completed. He said he thinks Whitaker may simply be delivering "administration talking points."This story has been updated.CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report. | 0 |
Roger Ailes, who spent decades advising political candidates and presidents about the power of television in American life before building Fox News into a media juggernaut ― and who left that network last summer following multiple allegations that he pressured female subordinates to have sexual relationships with him ― has died. He was 77.Elizabeth Ailes, his wife, said in a statement Thursday that she was “profoundly sad and heartbroken.” Roger Ailes died surrounded by his family, she said.Ailes biographer Gabriel Sherman tweeted Thursday that Ailes had experienced complications from a blood clot last week while in Palm Beach, Florida.Though rarely seen in public since his downfall at Fox News, Ailes told a friend a few days ago, “Well, if you want to know if I’m suicidal the answer is no,” according to Sherman.Ailes is widely recognized as a media visionary who targeted an underserved segment of the population and successfully portrayed the establishment media for millions of viewers as hopelessly liberal and out of touch with their concerns.But Ailes didn’t achieve cable news ratings success simply by offering an ideological alternative. He stoked fears and racial resentment, and in the post-9/11 years, his network maligned Americans it deemed insufficiently patriotic and beat the drums of war for a Republican president. Though it declared itself “fair and balanced” programming, Fox News also departed at times from journalistic standards in pushing Ailes’ agenda, including serving as a promotional and organizing vehicle for conservative activists against a Democratic president. Ailes also had a reputation for paranoia and vindictiveness and a tendency to smear and attack perceived enemies, and his wildly successful career is inextricably linked to the scandal that brought him down. Following a lawsuit filed in July by former “Fox & Friends” co-host Gretchen Carlson, dozens of women claimed that Ailes sexually harassed them at various points in his political and media career. Jarring new details are still coming out about the toxic workplace culture he allegedly fostered for women and people of color. There are several ongoing lawsuits, and federal investigators are still determining whether 21st Century Fox, the network’s parent company led by the Murdoch family, properly notified investors about payments to Ailes’ accusers. Ailes, who was born in 1940 in Warren, Ohio, saw his television career take off while rising through the ranks at “The Mike Douglas Show,” a Cleveland-based daily talk and variety show. It was there, in 1967, that he met former Vice President Richard Nixon as Nixon was preparing to run again for president, eight years after his loss to the more telegenic John F. Kennedy. In his telling, Ailes convinced the TV-averse Nixon that he needed to embrace the new medium. He later worked for Nixon’s campaign and famously boasted of his role helping shape the candidate’s image, as Joe McGinniss noted soon after in his book The Selling of the President 1968.McGinniss’ book burned bridges, and Ailes didn’t head to the White House following Nixon’s victory. Instead, he worked for several other politicians, produced plays, and developed ideas that would help lay the groundwork for Fox News decades later. In 1970, he wrote a memo for Nixon called “A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News,” in which he urged the White House to fully embrace the power of television.“Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication,” he wrote. “The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit ― watch ― listen. The thinking is done for you.”Ailes was called upon to help President Ronald Reagan prepare for a 1984 re-election debate after his disastrous performance in an earlier debate. He later worked on Vice President George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign. (Bush paid his respects to Ailes via Twitter on Thursday.)He wasn't perfect, but Roger Ailes was my friend & I loved him. Not sure I would have been President w/o his great talent, loyal help. RIP.— George Bush (@GeorgeHWBush) May 18, 2017
After shifting to media in the late 1980s, Ailes served as a top executive at CNBC and at the channel America’s Talking, a predecessor to MSNBC. He joined Rupert Murdoch in 1996 to create Fox News, which took off during the Clinton impeachment scandal in the late 1990s. By the early 2000s, Fox News was the top-rated cable news network ― a distinction it holds to this day. Ailes wielded political power through Fox News, with Republican candidates kissing his ring and would-be presidential contenders serving as paid contributors. He used the network to bolster President George W. Bush, and served as a leading media antagonist to his successor. Following the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, Fox News gave extensive coverage to the tea party movement. Top hosts at the time, like Glenn Beck, portrayed Obama as everything from a socialist to a fascist. At one point, Beck claimed that Obama, whose mother was white, had a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”Roger Ailes leaves the New Corp building in New York City, July 19, 2016.Drew Angerer via Getty ImagesUnder Ailes, Fox News at times played on racial fears and resentments, whether by portraying fringe activists like the New Black Panther Party as a serious threat or dismissing the concerns of the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of police killing civilians. The network also gave Donald Trump a platform to promote birtherism, the bogus, racially fueled claim that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Ailes sparred publicly with Trump over then-host Megyn Kelly, but the network became the candidate’s primary destination late in the race.Ailes also informally advised Trump during the campaign, and the two men were longtime friends. Trump defended Ailes after the allegations against the Fox News boss surfaced last year.But Trump’s support couldn’t save Ailes after more women came forward with accusations of sexual harassment, including Kelly. 21st Century Fox announced in a quarterly report this month that it has had to pay a total of $45 million in costs “related to settlements of pending and potential litigations.” Ailes himself reportedly received a payout of as much as $40 million.The bombastic executive’s departure had a domino effect. Former star anchor Bill O’Reilly was subsequently accused of sexual harassment, leading to his departure from the network last month. Bill Shine, an Ailes lieutenant for over two decades who became co-president when Ailes left, resigned earlier this month amid allegations that he dismissed sexual harassment and racial discrimination reports and even retaliated against employees.Still, Ailes had supporters inside the network, and some Fox News personalities paid tribute to their former leader on social media following the news of his death.Today America lost one of its great patriotic warriors. Roger Ailes. For Decades RA's has impacted American politics and media.— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 18, 2017
Elizabeth Ailes described her husband Thursday as her “best friend, the most wonderful loving husband and father to our son Zachary” and “a loyal friend to so many.”“Roger was a patriot, grateful to live in a country that gave him so much opportunity to work hard, to rise ― and to give back,” she continued. “During a career that stretched over more than five decades, his work in entertainment, in politics, and in news affected the lives of many millions. And so even as we mourn his death, we celebrate his life.”2017 Scenes From Congress & Capitol Hill | 0 |
Credit...Johannes Eisele/Getty Images — Agence France-PresseAug. 13, 2015HONG KONG — China on Thursday sought to calm fears that the country’s depreciating currency had set off, as authorities defended the devaluation decision.The country’s central bank has pushed the value of the currency lower for three consecutive days. Since Tuesday, the currency, the renminbi, has fallen 4.4 percent, the biggest drop in decades.While China said the move was aimed to make the currency more market-oriented, it has raised concerns that the already slowing economy was in deeper trouble. The sharp and sudden fall has also prompted questions about whether the country’s leadership can manage the slowdown.At an ad hoc news conference on Thursday, officials from the central bank defended the devaluation, saying that the currency had not entered a free fall. The central bank also said it would continue to intervene, as necessary.VideotranscripttranscriptChina’s Central Bank Backs CurrencyOfficials for the People’s Bank of China insist that the yuan remains strong, despite the recent currency devaluation.NAOfficials for the People’s Bank of China insist that the yuan remains strong, despite the recent currency devaluation.Zhang Xiaohui, an assistant governor at the central bank who became a member of its monetary policy committee in June, added that there was “no basis for the continued depreciation of the renminbi.”“From a long-term view, the renminbi remains a strong currency,” Ms. Zhang said, adding that “in the future, the renminbi will be back on the appreciation track.”For more than a year, China’s slowing economy has created pressure on the renminbi to weaken. Despite that, the government held to its longstanding practice and kept it closely linked to the dollar, which has grown stronger as the United States’ economy has rebounded.Previously, the central bank assigned a value to the currency each morning, allowing its value against the dollar to rise or fall by a maximum of 2 percent. In practice, it barely budged more than a small fraction of a percentage point each day.Now, policy makers say they will give market forces greater sway over currency’s value. The official exchange rate will be set based on the renminbi’s trading performance, not simply by a government decree.“The central bank has withdrawn from the normal mode of intervention,” Yi Gang, the deputy governor of the bank and the head of the unit that runs China’s foreign exchange system, said in Beijing. “But if you say the market has commonly recognized rules of the game, then those are still the rules that we lay out.”Commenting on reports that the bank was aiming for a 10 percent devaluation, Mr. Yi told reporters in Beijing that “this is nonsense and is totally unfounded.”By devaluing the renminbi now, China has also helped its exporters, whose goods will become relatively cheaper for overseas buyers. Bank officials on Thursday denied this was their goal in pushing down the currency.The central bank still seems willing to intervene directly. On Wednesday, when the renminbi showed signs of weakening by the 2 percent limit, the bank was widely reported to have jumped into the currency market, selling dollars to push up the value of the renminbi — which ended up closing only 1 percent lower.“They intervened massively and drove the exchange rate up,” said Arthur R. Kroeber, the managing director of Gavekal Dragonomics, a financial consultancy.But the new system “is clearly on the spectrum of a much more market-exchange-rate environment,” he added.On Thursday, trading slowed, although activity picked up in the final few minutes of the day. The renminbi weakened only slightly, by 0.2 percent. This suggested that, under the new system, the central bank would not be under pressure to make another drastic shift in the renminbi’s trading range on Friday.Stock markets across the region recovered modestly on Thursday after the recent sell-off, led by Shanghai, where the main index finished 1.8 percent higher after two days of declines. Other currency markets outside China also stabilized, including the South Korean won, which rose against the dollar in late Asian trading.Mr. Yi did not directly comment on intervention when asked about it on Thursday, but hinted it was a tool still at the central bank’s disposal.“When there’s excessive volatility in the market, it can still be effectively managed,” he said. | 0 |
Credit...Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesNov. 18, 2014WASHINGTON — Americans for Prosperity, a group founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, has held informal conversations with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill in recent weeks, cautioning them against fighting President Obama’s promised executive order on immigration with a strategy that could lead to a government shutdown. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey echoed that sentiment on Monday in a private meeting of newly elected House members. And in an op-ed article, Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, urged Republican lawmakers to “carefully develop a strategy” for the areas that most directly affect the economy and Americans.On Tuesday, House Republicans emerged from a closed meeting coalescing around two plans that would fight an expected executive order on immigration from Mr. Obama without fully shutting down the government.“We went down the government shutdown route a year ago. It didn’t work, and I think a lot of people that recall that don’t think it’s wise to repeat that exercise,” Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, said. “We’ve got a lot more than just a sledgehammer in the toolbox, and so let’s use some of these other weapons that we have.”One option floated by Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, calls for passing his committee’s broad spending bill by a Dec. 11 deadline, and then rescinding funds for Mr. Obama’s executive action.The other option, proposed by Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, calls for passing most of the broad spending bill but taking out money for programs specifically related to Mr. Obama’s planned immigration action and fighting the president with a short-term stand-alone measure for those particular funds.Mr. Obama could announce as soon as this week an executive order that would allow up to five million unauthorized immigrants to remain in the country and work without fear of deportation.“We want the government fully funded, but that particular area needs to be defunded,” Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, said. “We don’t want a government shutdown at all, but we’re going to super-scalpel on that area where the president is acting illegally.”Representative Matt Salmon, Republican of Arizona, said that his House colleagues were considering a range of options that would avoid a shutdown while fighting the president on immigration. “Everything is on the table, and the speaker has committed that we’re going to come up with a plan that does not allow the president to have the funding to do this,” Mr. Salmon said.Earlier, Mr. Rogers had called on colleagues in an opinion article to pass his committee’s spending bill “in a responsible, transparent and pragmatic way, without the specter of government shutdowns or the lurching, wasteful and unproductive budgeting caused by temporary stopgap measures.”Their collective voice carried an unmistakable message for the more conservative Republicans in Congress: Shutting down the government would be a terrible way for the party to start its time in power.Americans for Prosperity’s basic pitch to Republicans is: Do not let the president’s immigration stance derail you from your ambitious governing agenda. For those who want to fight Mr. Obama on immigration, the group counsels, the best opportunity will come in the next Congress, when Republicans will control both chambers, through the “regular order” process of committee deliberation and full debate on the floor.“It is important for the new Republican majority to stay focused on crucial priorities like rolling back Obamacare, passing the Keystone pipeline and other energy initiatives, and passing a free-market budget,” said Mr. Phillips of Americans for Prosperity. “That means not overreacting to executive orders by the president.”The 16-day government shutdown in 2013 over the Affordable Care Act badly damaged the Republicans’ standing, and many party elders and strategists want to avoid a repeat.In his op-ed article in Roll Call, Mr. Rogers said Republicans had a mandate “to work together, to govern, to stop the punting and procrastinating, and to make the tough decisions and cast the hard votes to accomplish the tasks they sent us to Washington to do. Completing our lingering appropriations work quickly will help us fulfill this mandate both now and in the months to come.”Speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he had been having “productive, bipartisan conversations” with Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, and Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, about passing the spending bill.“It’s clear to me that Republican leaders want to work together to keep the government funded,” Mr. Reid said. “I hope Republicans in Congress will reject this brinkmanship. A scorched-earth policy is no way to govern. Instead, responsible leaders within the Republican Party need to work with Democrats to complete the business of funding our government, regardless of when the president acts to keep families together.”Some Republicans, however, including Mr. Boehner, have left the possibility of a shutdown on the table. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, an outspoken opponent of an immigration overhaul, is readying legislation to undo whatever action the president takes, as well as to undo the protected status the president has already provided to young immigrants brought here illegally as children.“I’d like to find a way we can keep as much of the government operating as possible, but there’s no way that this Congress should go forward with any appropriations that goes into any department that reacts to the command of the president when he commands that they violate the law or the Constitution,” Mr. King said last week. “So that means that we can’t fund the branches of government that would be executing his lawless, unconstitutional act, should he commit it.”On Tuesday, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, echoed a concern among his colleagues, who believe that they have a chance of passing their own immigration legislation once Republicans control both chambers next Congress — but that any unilateral action by the president would torpedo that hope.“I hope he will reconsider, decide to work with us in a bipartisan, bicameral way to fix our broken immigration system,” Mr. Cornyn said. “If he proceeds forward with his executive order, it will squander the best opportunity we’ve had in a long time to make progress.”But even Republicans who have been outspoken critics of what they view as “executive amnesty,” as well as what they say is the president’s general overstepping of his constitutional authority, said that a government shutdown was not a savvy move for the party.“I’m just unalterably opposed to another government shutdown. I’m not going to do that to my state, and I will do everything in my power to see that we don’t shut down the government,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. “There are lots of ways we can respond, including going to court, including appropriations bills, including the Budget Act. There are lots of the things we can do. Shutting down the government should not be one of the options.” | 0 |
No amount of political gymnastics would help him reach the crucial 217 vote-level. In the end, it wasn’t only hard-line GOP conservatives that sank Speaker John Boehner’s plan to reopen the federal government and lift the $16.7 trillion debt limit. The Ohio Republican, battered from three years of intra-party battles, was caught between at least three different GOP factions as he tried to craft a compromise agreement: Republicans who didn’t want to slash government health care contributions for Capitol Hill aides, members who thought repealing the medical device tax was a giveaway to corporate America and conservatives, who thought Republican leaders were too soft on Obamacare. Boehner was unable to craft a deal that would satisfy all of the groups, forcing him to shelve his plan and show the world — again — just how hard it is for him to rule the raucous House Republican Conference. No amount of political gymnastics would help him reach the crucial 217 vote-level to send a bill to the Senate. GOP aides said that Boehner was — at a minimum — 20 to 30 votes short of the target. ( QUIZ: How well do you know John Boehner?) So a day that had started with some promise for Boehner ended in disaster. It put Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in prime position to strike a deal to solve Washington’s fiscal crisis. And it all but ensures that the shutdown he started — and the unprecedented debt default he risked — will end on someone else’s terms. The real question for Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is what comes next. Do they have to show more opposition by amending the bill, and continuing the grind of a multiweek shutdown and debt default crisis? Or can they simply put a Senate-passed compromise on the floor, saying the fight is over? That would almost certainly involve relying on a hefty number of Democrats to ensure passage. Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy face an ongoing dilemma: The House GOP Conference is like a balloon. Squeeze it one place, and a problem pops out somewhere else. ( PHOTOS: 25 great shutdown quotes) They have few, if any, tools to discipline conservative and tea party affiliated members. And they never whipped today’s proposal, assuming they could round up the votes for it without doing so. Boehner’s closest allies say they doubt he can afford another round of back-and-forth with his conference. They think this battle is over. Tuesday showed the inability of House Republicans to choose a plan, and stick to it. After singing the hymn “Amazing Grace” at a closed Republican meeting, Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy announced they would push a bill funding government operations through Jan. 15, and raise the debt ceiling through early February, while delaying the medical device tax in Obamacare and forcing the Obama administration to verify the income of those who receive subsidies under the health care law. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) urged Republicans to vote yes. Boehner, after the meeting, said nothing was settled in the plan, but vowed to avoid default. ( Also on POLITICO: Senate leaders finalizing deal) “I have made clear for months and months that the idea of default is wrong,” Boehner said. “And we shouldn’t get anywhere close to it.” But the plan quickly ran into opposition from GOP conservatives, who wanted the government funding portion to run through mid-December, leaving them time to fight it out over Obamacare’s individual mandate and the requirement that employers provide birth control. So Boehner and the other leaders changed that CR date, and thought they could move forward. But then Boehner found himself juggling other demands. One pocket of internal Republican opposition focused on Boehner’s plan to slash government contribution to health insurance for Capitol Hill aides. Boehner and his top lieutenants had already proposed that lawmakers, Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and political appointees at executive-branch agencies should lose the subsidy. But when Boehner expanded that ban to thousands of Hill staffers, a solid bloc of GOP lawmakers told Boehner they would oppose the bill. Boehner still tried to press on. Another rebellious faction believes repealing the medical-device tax was nothing but a giveaway to corporate America, not a part of Obamacare that should be erased. And then there were the conservatives, who looked at Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy’s plan, didn’t see any serious attempt to defund or repeal Obamacare, and took a pass. Several lawmakers in this group, sources say, were conservative House Republican freshmen. By around 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Boehner and his Republican leadership team decided enough was enough. They called off a Rules Committee meeting and decided that they would forgo a floor vote. There was even staff-level talk of a one-week debt ceiling bill to avoid default. GOP lawmakers and aides, who spent hours in meetings with Boehner Tuesday, were shocked to see him upbeat as his House Republican Conference crumbled around him. Boehner’s options, at this point, seem slim. Reid and McConnell were on the verge of a deal Tuesday night to lift the debt ceiling until Feb. 7, reopen government until Jan. 15 and create a budget conference committee that would be required to report results by Dec. 13. Treasury could extend the debt ceiling using extraordinary measures. Health and Human Services would be required to certify the income of those receiving subsidies under Obamacare. Repealing the so-called “belly-button tax” – a tax on insurance plans to help offset risk – dropped out of the agreement. The long-term impacts of Tuesday’s turmoil are not clear. Will Boehner suffer further erosion in his support from conservatives and tea party affiliated members, who already view him warily? Will Cantor’s future prospects in leadership suffer because he was at the negotiating table alongside Boehner? Boehner allies strongly reject the idea that the speaker could be damaged by this latest debacle. After all, it was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who was setting the terms of this debate, not Boehner. The Ohio Republican wanted to pass a clean government-funding bill more than a month ago, while organizing a tidy negotiating process around the debt ceiling. Instead, everything became one big mess, where House Republicans were unsure what they were asking for, what they should be seeking, and for what price. As late as Monday night, as they ate at Tortilla Coast, Cruz was urging 20 or so conservative House colleagues to stand strong. Many of them didn’t, and privately told leadership they would support their plan. Then Heritage Action for America and FreedomWorks came out against the leadership proposal late on Tuesday afternoon, which spooked many House conservatives. Now a few things are nearly certain: The House will have to wait for the Senate to act. They’re likely to get jammed. And it will be tough for Congress to come together before the Thursday debt ceiling deadline, risking further political damage to the GOP — and the nation. | 0 |
Carol D. LeonnigNational investigative reporter focused on the White House and government accountability September 29, 2014 The man who jumped the White House fence this month and sprinted through the front door made it much farther into the building than previously known, overpowering one Secret Service officer and running through much of the main floor, according to three people familiar with the incident. An alarm box near the front entrance of the White House designed to alert guards to an intruder had been muted at what officers believed was a request of the usher’s office, said a Secret Service official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The officer posted inside the front door appeared to be delayed in learning that the intruder, Omar Gonzalez, was about to burst through. Officers are trained that, upon learning of an intruder on the grounds — often through the alarm boxes posted around the property — they must immediately lock the front door. After barreling past the guard immediately inside the door, Gonzalez, who was carrying a knife, dashed past the stairway leading a half-flight up to the first family’s living quarters. He then ran into the 80-foot-long East Room, an ornate space often used for receptions or presidential addresses. Gonzalez was tackled by a counterassault agent at the far southern end of the East Room. The intruder reached the doorway to the Green Room, a parlor overlooking the South Lawn with artwork and antique furniture, according to three people familiar with the incident. Secret Service officials had earlier said he was quickly detained at the main entry. Agency spokesman Edwin Donovan said the office is not commenting during the ongoing investigation of the incident. Breaches of the White House fence have become more common, but most jumpers are tackled by Secret Service officers guarding the complex before they get even a third of the way across the lawn. Gonzalez is the first person known to have jumped the fence and made it inside the executive mansion. Secret Service Director Julia Pierson has said the breach was “unacceptable” to her, and on Friday she briefed President Obama on her plans to shore up security. Pierson is expected to face tough questions about the Gonzalez incident Tuesday at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The hearing is likely to cover a number of security lapses by the agency, including new revelations published over the weekend by The Washington Post about the failure to identify and properly investigate a 2011 shooting attack on the White House. The more detailed account of this month’s security breach comes from people who provided information about the incident to The Post and whistleblowers who contacted Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the oversight panel’s subcommittee on national security. Chaffetz said he plans to ask Pierson how an alarm meant to alert officers to intruders could be silenced or turned down. The congressman said two people inside the agency told him that boxes were silenced because the White House usher staff, whose office is near the front door, complained that they were noisy. A Secret Service official told The Post that the usher’s office was concerned the boxes were frequently malfunctioning and unnecessarily sounding off. The alarm boxes, which officers call “crash boxes,” are key pieces of the agency’s first-alert system, according to former agents and officials. If officers spot an intruder, they are trained to hit the large red button on the nearest box — sending an alert to every post on the complex about the location of an incursion and piping sound from that location to other boxes around the property. There were some heated moments Tuesday when Secret Service Director Julia Pierson testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about two security breaches at the White House, one in 2011 and one less than two weeks ago. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) “If true, the fact that crash boxes were muted to avoid being ‘disruptive’ is not due to a lack of resources or an insufficient number of checkpoints or barriers,” Chaffetz said. He called the incident a “failure of leadership” by the Secret Service. “The agency needs a solution that goes deeper than more fences and more people,” Chaffetz said. “It must examine what message is being sent to the men and women who protect the president when their leader sacrifices security to appease superficial concerns of White House ushers.” The new revelations follow accounts provided to The Post last week detailing how Gonzalez’s ability to enter the White House reflected a failure of multiple levels of security at the compound. The agency relies on these successive layers as a fail-safe for protecting the president and the White House complex. In this incident, a plainclothes surveillance team was on duty that night outside the fence, meant to spot jumpers and give early warning before they made it over. But that team did not notice Gonzalez. There was an officer in a guard booth on the North Lawn. When that officer could not reach Gonzalez, there was supposed to be an attack dog, a specialized SWAT team and a guard at the front door — all at the ready. The dog was not released, a decision now under review. Some people familiar with the incident say the handler probably felt he could not release the dog, because so many officers were in pursuit of Gonzalez and the dog may have attacked them instead. Since the incident, the Secret Service has added an additional layer of temporary fencing while the agency reviews its procedures. Alice Crites contributed to this report. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Carol D. Leonnig Carol Leonnig is an investigative reporter at The Washington Post, where she has worked since 2000. She won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for her work on security failures and misconduct inside the Secret Service. Follow | 0 |
(Credit: Evan Vucci/AP Photo) One day after d enying the U.S. is engaged in "a war" against ISIS militants, the White House today said a war is in fact underway, indicating it's an extension of the ongoing campaign against Islamic extremists.
"The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today.
"Semantics matter," he added.
At the Pentagon, spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby echoed that assessment: "This is not the Iraq War," he said. "But make no mistake we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates." The militant Islamic group goes by the acronym ISIL as well as ISIS and the name of Islamic State.
The new talking points follow a day of insistence by administration officials that President Obama's new anti-ISIS strategy only amounts to a "counter-terrorism campaign."
"No," the U.S. is not at war with ISIS, Secretary of State John Kerry told ABC News Thursday in Saudi Arabia. "We're engaged in a counter-terrorism operation of a significant order. And counter-terrorism operations can take a long time, they go on. I think 'war' is the wrong reference term with respect to that."
National Security Adviser Susan Rice said since there would be no "boots on the ground" - presumably referring to American combat troops in Iraq or Syria - the campaign would not fit the definition of "war."
But today a different tune, made all the more noteworthy given Obama's record of distancing himself from his predecessor's "war on terror" terminology and repeated insistence that "core" al Qaeda have been "decimated."
"This war, like all wars, must end," Obama declared of the "war on terror" in May 2013.
Now, his administration is pointing to that definition to say that we are still "at war" - and that it will continue, likely for years to come. | 0 |
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a lawsuit alleging President Donald Trump is illegally benefiting from profits made at the Trump International Hotel in D.C. can move forward.The decision is a big victory for Washington D.C. and Maryland attorneys general who brought the suit in June 2017.“We won the first round! Our case moves forward!” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh tweeted.The attorneys general argue that Trump is violating the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars elected officials from receiving benefits from foreign governments without Congress’ approval.The lawsuit alleges that businesses in D.C. and Maryland are hurt because organizations are choosing the Trump hotel over other area hotels to curry favor with the president. For example, Saudi Arabia spent thousands of dollars at the Trump International Hotel, in the Old Post Office building, between October 2016 and March 2017, according to the complaint.In February, the Trump Organization announced it had donated foreign earnings from its hotels to the Treasury Department, but the Maryland judge said in his ruling that those calculations have not been verified or provided to the court.A similar lawsuit against Trump brought by a liberal watchdog group was dismissed by a federal judge in New York last year for lack of standing. The judge in Maryland has decided that the states do have standing in this case.“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the President is violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution by reason of his involvement with and receipt of benefits from the Trump International Hotel and its appurtenances in Washington, D.C., as well as the operations of the Trump Organization with respect to the same,” Judge Peter Messitte ruled Wednesday.Trump was summoned in the Maryland case last week, and his lawyers now have three weeks to respond.Cover image: U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he arrives at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, on March 25, 2018. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images) | 0 |
WASHINGTON -- It's looking increasingly like the government is about to impose on itself $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts. So as part of its strategy to pressure Republicans into accepting new revenues as part of a deal to prevent the sequester from taking effect, the White House released new reports on Sunday that outline the ugly effects those cuts would have in individual states.Each state's report is linked below. But Jason Furman, principal deputy director of the White House's National Economic Council, pulled out some state-specific examples of the ways the cuts will hurt education, national defense, public health and the economy.In Ohio, 350 teacher and teacher-aide jobs are at risk, which means 43,000 fewer students will be served, Furman said on a Sunday conference call with reporters. In Virginia, 90,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed. About 4,180 fewer children in Georgia would get vaccines and, in Kentucky, 400 fewer victims of domestic violence would end up being served.Recently approved aid for Hurricane Sandy relief efforts will also be at risk, officials said, and commuters should expect more delays in airports.President Barack Obama's deficit reduction plan, which includes new revenues in addition to spending cuts, would be a "much better course, economically and substantively" than the sequester, Furman said. The president's proposal would achieve $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction, made up of roughly $1.1 trillion in spending cuts and $680 billion in new revenues drawn from limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans.White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer said the blame will fall squarely on House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) if the sequester kicks in, since they aren't budging in accepting new revenues that stem from higher taxes on the wealthy."Republicans are making a policy choice that these are cuts are better for the economy than closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy," Pfeiffer said on the same call Sunday. The American people, he said, "overwhelmingly disagree with that choice."Despite saying it will be Republicans' fault if the sequester takes effect, Pfeiffer said it "misses the point" to try to place blame for coming up with the sequester idea at all. It was never intended to take effect; Obama and Congress signed off on it during the 2011 debt fight purely as a way to put more pressure on themselves to come up with something better than sweeping, across-the-board cuts that total $1 trillion over ten years. But they failed to do so, and now that sequestration may become a reality, partisan finger-pointing has escalated in recent weeks over whose great idea that was in the first place."You should ask House Republicans why they think this is such an important debate," Pfeiffer said. "It's a fairly stupid one."GOP leaders issued statements later Sunday trashing Obama for not doing enough on overall deficit reduction.“Rather than issuing last-minute press releases on cuts to first responders or troop training or airport security, he should propose smarter ways to cut Washington spending. After all, Washington spending, even with the sequester, is bigger than it was when he got here,” McConnell said.“Republicans in the House have voted -- twice -- to replace President Obama's sequester with smarter spending cuts,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “The White House needs to spend less time explaining to the press how bad the sequester will be and more time actually working to stop it."Some governors bracing for the effects of the sequester are emphasizing the need for flexibility in making those cuts in their states. "We are budget balancers. There is an art to it," said North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R), talking to HuffPost at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, D.C. this weekend. "The worst thing is to have no flexibility."Dalrymple said governors were briefed at the meeting that the cuts would come from individual federal line items that would flow down to the states, a plan he said he feared wouldn't give state officials enough control over how their states were impacted. New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan (D), meanwhile, told HuffPost the real focus should be on passing Obama's proposal, not on how states should be preparing for cuts that will hurt the middle class.The sequester "is going to stop our economic recovery in its tracks," Hassan said.It's not surprising that some Democratic governors are criticizing GOP lawmakers for the sequester stalemate. But now even some conservative Republican governors are saying it's time for lawmakers in their party to stop drawing a hard line at including new revenues in a fiscal deal."We don’t like taxes. We don’t like increasing taxes," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) said during a Sunday appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation." "But we know we have to be pragmatic. We know there has to be some kind of compromise, but dang it, they need to get the job done. They don’t need to leave the public out there hanging."Below are links to each of the White House reports detailing how the sequester will impact individual states:They Don't Care About Sequestration | 0 |
Ever since he announced his candidacy to lead the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison, the first American Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, has been the target of a defamation campaign that is deceitful, repugnant, and yet quite predictable. At first expressed in whispers, but now being yelled from the rooftops by some of the party’s most influential figures, Ellison is being smeared as both an anti-Semite and enemy of Israel — the same smears virtually any critic of the Israeli government reflexively encounters, rendered far worse if the critic is a prominent American Muslim.
Three days ago, the now ironically named Anti-Defamation League pronounced Ellison’s 2010 comments about Israel “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” Other Israel advocates have now joined in. What are Ellison’s terrible sins? He said in a 2010 speech that while he “wanted the U.S. to be friends with Israel,” the U.S. “can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM.”As the full speech makes clear, he was referring to the indisputable fact that while Israel continues to take billions of dollars every year from the U.S. — far more than any other country receives in aid — it continually disregards and violates U.S. requests to stop ongoing expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, often in ways seemingly designed to impose the greatest humiliation on its benefactor:
Stop, you know why are we sending a mill — $2.8 billion dollars a year over there when they won’t even honor our request to stop building in East Jerusalem? Where is the future Palestinian state going to be if it’s colonized before it even gets up off the ground? …
… Now you got Clinton, Biden, and the president who’s told them — stop. Now this has happened before. They beat back a president before. Bush 41 said — stop, and they said — we don’t want to stop, and by the way we want our money and we want it now. [Ellison laughs.] Right? You know, I mean we can’t allow, we’re Americans, right? We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM. Right? And so we ought to stand up as Americans.
Equally sinful in the eyes of the ADL was this statement on U.S. foreign policy:
The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? [A male says “no.”] Is that logic? Right? When the people who, when the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.
As J.J. Goldberg of The Forward noted, Ellison wasn’t lamenting the insidious influence of U.S. Jews — as the ADL shamefully claimed — but rather was “plainly describing how American Muslims could have greater influence on American policy if they learned to organize.”
And agree or disagree with those positions, it is an indisputable fact that Israel receives far more in U.S. aid than any other country yet continually does exactly that which numerous U.S. presidents have insisted it not do, often to the detriment of U.S. interests. And many prominent foreign policy experts — including David Petraeus — have warned that excessive U.S. support for the worst actions of the Israeli government endangers U.S. national security by alienating Arabs in the region and fueling support for anti-American terrorism. The idea that a member of Congress is not permitted to debate these policies without being branded an anti-Semite is sheer insanity: malicious insanity at that.
But that insanity is par for the course in Washington, where anyone who even questions U.S. policy toward Israel is smeared in this way — from James Baker to Howard Dean to Bernie Sanders and even Donald Trump. So pernicious is this framework that the U.S. Senate just passed legislation expressly equating what it regards as unfair criticism of the Israeli government with “anti-Semitism.” And when one is an American Muslim, ugly stereotypes and pervasive Islamophobia are added to this toxic brew to make the smears worse by many magnitudes.
This smear campaign against Ellison received a major boost Friday night when the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, said at the Brookings Institution, a part of which he funds: “If you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted, he is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” Saban added: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”That Saban plays such a vital role in Democratic Party politics says a great deal. To the New York Times, this is how he described himself: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” In late 2015, Ali Gharib wrote in The Forward: “Saban’s top priority isn’t a liberal vision of American life. It’s Israel.” When Hillary Clinton in 2015 condemned the boycott movement aimed at ending Israeli settlements, she did it in the form of a letter addressed personally to Saban.
The Democratic Party’s central reliance on billionaire funders like Saban is a key reason that debates over Israel policy are not permitted within the party. It’s why any attempt to raise such issues will prompt systematic campaigns of reputation destruction like the one we’re witnessing with Ellison.
To get a sense for just how prohibited the most benign and basic debates are when it comes to Israel, consider the quotes from Ellison’s college days dug up by CNN as supposedly incriminating. In 1990, while a law student at the University of Minnesota, Ellison blasted the university president for condemning a speaking event featuring the anti-Zionist civil rights icon Kwame Ture (also known as Stokely Carmichael); Ellison’s argument was that all ideas, including Zionism, should be regarded as debatable in a college environment:
The University’s position appears to be this: Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with — like South Africa. This position is untenable.
In other words, Ellison — 26 years ago, while a student — simply argued that college campuses should not be deemed “safe spaces” in which debates over Israel are barred: an utterly mainstream view when the topic to be debated is something other than Israel.
Leave aside the bizarre attempt to use someone’s college-aged political activism against them three decades later. As my colleague Zaid Jilani very ably documented several days ago, even the most inflammatory of Ellison’s campus statements — including his long-ago-renounced praise for the Nation of Islam — were grounded in righteous opposition to “white supremacy and the policies of the state of Israel” and “show him expressing sympathy for the plight of underprivileged whites and making clear that he was not antagonistic toward Jewish people.” Writing about the smear campaign circulating on the internet against Ellison, The Forward’s Goldberg said he found “the evidence to be either frivolous, distorted or simply false.”
As CNN itself acknowledged when digging up these old Ellison quotes: “None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.” How is that, by itself, not the end of the controversy?
The reason why it isn’t is a glaring irony. With the advent of Donald Trump and policies such as banning all Muslims from the country, Democrats this year incorporated anti-Islamophobia rhetoric into their repertoire. Yet what is being done to Ellison by the ADL, Saban, and others is Islamophobia in its purest and most classic form.
Faiz Shakir is a senior adviser to Harry Reid who previously worked for Nancy Pelosi and the ThinkProgress blog at the Center for American Progress. He explains, from personal experience, that the vile treatment to which Ellison is now being subjected is common for American Muslims in political life:Keith Ellison is being smeared like so many before him. If you're Muslim in public life or even sympathetic to Muslim concerns, watch out!— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016At @thinkprogress, we were absurdly labeled anti-Semitic because we supported Obama admin stances. That cheapens "anti-semitic" charge— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016Just Google what Frank Gaffney was saying about Suhail Khan and Faisal Gill in the Bush White House.— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016In that last tweet, Shakir is referring to the fact that, to their credit, other Democratic voices — such as American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, J Street, and, most important, Chuck Schumer — continue to defend Ellison. J Street’s statement made the critical point: “It is time to retire the playbook that aims to silence any American official seeking high office who has dared to criticize certain Israeli government policies.”
But even these commendable defenses of Ellison illustrate how constricted the permissible range of views on Israel is within the Democratic Party. J Street vouched for Ellison by saying that he “is and has long been a friend of Israel” and is “a champion of pro-Israel, pro-peace policies.” Schumer went further, saying that while he disagrees with Ellison on numerous issues, “I saw him orchestrate one of the most pro-Israel platforms in decades.” Notably, demonstrating steadfast support for the polices of the Israeli government is literally a job requirement to lead the Democratic National Committee — and for every other significant position in Washington.
But Ellison has actually fulfilled that requirement. Even his opponents admit: “Ellison unambiguously self-identifies as pro-Israel, supports a two-state solution without reservation, has repeatedly said that Israel has a right to defend itself and expressed the importance of protecting and maintaining Israel’s security, and there is no evidence that he has ever supported or advocated for BDS.” It’s true that, as Jay Michaelson wrote in an excellent Daily Beast column, Ellison “has been critical of Israeli settlements, of right-wing Israeli governments, and of America’s unconditional support for Israel.” But even his Israel advocacy is rather banal, as Goldberg wrote:
It must be acknowledged that Ellison’s first loyalty in the Middle East is not to Israel. He is a Muslim, and he makes no secret of his sympathy for the Palestinians. That said, he is a Muslim peacenik. Since entering politics, he has consistently spoken out in favor of the two-state solution, by which he means Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. He’s been active on that front, frequently partnering with J Street and other liberal Zionist groups on efforts to promote peace and security.
In other words, Ellison is a mainstream liberal Democrat, albeit situated on the left wing of the party as it is currently constituted in Congress (which is not very far to the left given that Nancy Pelosi resides in a nearby ideological precinct).
What makes him such an easy and vulnerable target for smear campaigns such as the one Saban and the ADL are pursuing is that he is Muslim — a black Muslim to boot. Just look at the obvious codes in this paragraph from Michael J. Koplow, the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, writing in Haaretz under the headline “Keith Ellison Has a Real Israel Problem”:
Ellison is not a figure whom anyone would normally expect to be a supporter of Israel. He is an African-American Muslim who did not grow up in a particularly Jewish area of the country, came of age after 1967, when Israel’s image as a David began shifting to that of a Goliath, did not have any prominent Jewish mentors, and has a background in radical politics. As a student, he was harshly critical of Zionism and its legitimacy.
While Koplow cites these facts not to endorse the stereotypes but to affirm Ellison’s bona fides as someone one would not expect to be an Israel supporter, those are the demographic attributes giving the fuel to this revolting campaign. As Michaelson, who previously worked with the ADL, acknowledged: “There’s plenty of Islamophobia within my Jewish community as well,” and “the ADL is a perfect example,” citing the group’s shameful opposition to the construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan.
If you’re a Democrat, it’s easy to embrace the language of anti-Islamophobia when it comes to condemning Donald Trump and other Republicans. It’s more difficult, but more important, to do so when that poison is coming from within the Democratic Party itself.
One of the few silver linings of the ugly Trump rhetoric on Muslims can and should be (and has been) a unified rejection of this sort of toxicity, regardless of where it comes from. Democrats who are sincere about wanting to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry can do so by defending Keith Ellison from these incredibly ugly, baseless, and defamatory attacks. | 0 |
The deal Tuesday to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons program came at the end of two years of an intricate ballet involving President Obama and the leaders of six other countries. But as the debate moved from the negotiating tables of Vienna to the halls of the U.S. Capitol, Obama faced a new and complicated task: to protect the agreement from opponents who would undermine it in Washington over the next two months. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal,” Obama said Tuesday. “This is not the time for politics or posturing. Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems.” It would take two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to override such a veto. Most congressional Republicans remained deeply skeptical, some openly scornful, of the prospect of relieving economic sanctions while leaving any Iranian uranium-enrichment capability intact. And Democrats offered only cautious endorsements of the deal that represents a cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy as Congress begins a two-month review of the agreement. Hours after the deal was announced, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) accused Obama of abandoning his own objectives for the negotiations and called the agreement “unacceptable.” During his speech announcing the nuclear deal with Iran, President Obama said he welcomed robust discussion of the agreement but would ultimately veto legislation that "prevents the successful implementation of this deal." (AP) “It’s going to hand a dangerous regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief while paving the way for a nuclear Iran,” he said. “If it’s as bad a deal as I think it is at this point, we’ll do everything we can to stop it.” [Full text of the Iran nuclear deal] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the deal “appears to fall well short of the goal we all thought was trying to be achieved, which was that Iran would not be a nuclear state.” Democratic leaders, meanwhile, mainly offered pledges to closely review the deal rather than outright endorsements. In a morning statement, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called the agreement “historic,” but he did not address the deal at an afternoon news conference until he was prompted by reporters. “My staff hasn’t read it; I haven’t read it,” Reid said. “Let’s find out what we have first.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the deal “the product of years of tough, bold and clear-eyed leadership” from Obama but stopped short of a full endorsement. “Congress will closely review the details of this agreement,” she said. Not since George W. Bush sought the approval of Congress to go to war has a president turned to lawmakers for their support on a matter of such international importance. The congressional review of the deal will proceed according to a framework passed by Congress in May and signed into law by Obama. It provides for a 60-day review period, during which lawmakers could do nothing and allow the agreement to take effect, vote to approve the deal or vote their disapproval of it. Passing a disapproval measure would have to survive the veto that Obama promised Tuesday. Overriding that veto would require a two-thirds vote in both houses — with the decisive vote likely to come in the Senate, where the Republican majority is slimmer. Broad Republican opposition to the agreement is expected after months of pointed statements and political maneuvering from GOP leaders. Over Obama’s objections, Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a fierce critic of the negotiations, to address Congress in March. Shortly afterward, 47 of 54 Senate Republicans signed a letter addressed to Iranian leaders that was intended to undermine the talks. [Israel blasts Iran deal as ‘one of the darkest days in history’] At least 13 Democratic or independent senators would have to join with Republicans to override an Obama veto. Some Democrats expressed pointed skepticism Tuesday, starting with Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), who co-sponsored the congressional review legislation. In a statement, he said the agreement “ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold-nuclear state” and “doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program — it preserves it.” Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), the highest-ranking Jewish Democrat in the House, said he would “review every word, sentence and paragraph of the deal to ensure it satisfies my continued concerns.” “Until then,” he said, “you can continue to count me in the ‘skeptical’ column.” Few Senate Republicans indicated Tuesday that they were inclined to vote in favor of the deal. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has for months struck a relatively measured tone on the negotiations but said Tuesday that the deal amounted to “managed proliferation.” “I would say the agreement has taken a downward trend,” he said. Corker said he expected to hold hearings over the coming weeks before Congress breaks for its August recess but said the votes would probably be held in September — giving skeptics crucial weeks to marshal opposition. Under the review law, the 60-day clock does not begin until the agreement is officially certified and submitted to Congress, but it begins no later than five days after the deal is reached. During the review period, Obama is not permitted to relieve any Iranian sanctions. [The historic nuclear deal with Iran: How it works] Lawmakers have laid out a wide array of concerns, including the terms under which international inspectors will be given access to Iranian facilities, the pace of sanctions relief, the extent that Iranians will be able to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and the Iranian regime’s support for terrorist activities in the Middle East and beyond. In recent days, there has been close attention to the prospect that a U.N. arms embargo, imposed in 2007 amid international concerns over the direction of the Iranian nuclear program, might be lifted. The agreement released Thursday set forth a path for the embargo on conventional weapons to be lifted in as little as five years and for those on ballistic missiles to be lifted in as little as eight years. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that “under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” Lawmakers have seized on Dempsey’s quote in recent days as it appeared more and more likely that the arms embargo could be eased under the final agreement. “Who thinks it’s a good idea, given the Iranians’ toppling of the Mideast, to give them a lifting of the arms embargo that was not even part of the deal?” asked Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) during a morning appearance on MSNBC. “I would have never done that until they changed their behavior.” The announcement of the deal also triggered a wave of criticism from policy experts seeking to sway votes in Congress. Experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy took aim at whether components of the deal would be sufficient to ensure Iran’s compliance and whether access to oil money now frozen in escrow accounts would allow it to make more mischief in the region. “While the nuclear issue and Iran’s support of terrorism are ostensibly distinct, they are in fact implicitly linked,” David Makovsky and Matthew Levitt wrote on the group’s Web site.Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) offered one of the most robust defenses of the agreement to be found on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and predicted that, even if Congress forced Obama to veto a disapproval, it would not be overridden. “Anything’s possible, but I just don’t think so,” Feinstein said. “I think people are going to understand that we’re in a deteriorating situation in the Middle East, and this offers the opportunity to turn the page. . . . You know, nations do change.” | 0 |
WASHINGTON — President Trump suggested Friday that Senate Republicans may not be able to push through their health care plan meant to repeal and replace Obamacare and suggested a conservative-endorsed alternative instead.The president tweeted, "If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!"It's the second time this week that Trump seemed to recognize how difficult it may be to get this bill through the Senate. On Monday, he said on Twitter, "Republican Senators are working very hard to get there, with no help from the Democrats. Not easy! Perhaps just let OCare crash & burn!"A day later, as Republican opposition to the legislation grew, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky announced that he would postpone a vote on the legislation until after the July Fourth recess.McConnell needs at minimum 50 of the 52 Republicans in the Senate to vote for the bill. Currently, there are at least eight senators outright opposed to the legislation and a handful of others who have expressed concern.Still, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the tweet did not represent a change in Trump’s position.“We're still fully committed to pushing through with the Senate at this point, but we’re looking at every possible option for repealing and replacing Obamacare,” she said.Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. — a frequent Trump critic and someone who has stayed relatively quiet on the health care debate so far — said Friday on Fox News that he agreed with the president on repealing now and replacing later. "If we don't get this resolved by the Monday of the next week, July 10, if there isn't a combined repeal and replace plan, I'm writing a letter to the president this morning urging him to call on us to separate them," Sasse said.Sasse said the Senate should repeal the health care law and then Trump should require senators to stick around during their August recess to craft a replacement. He also recommended that the repeal be delayed for a year, so lawmakers would have time to craft and put a repeal in place.Sasse pointed out that Republican lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in the past to repeal Obamacare without a replacement. However, those votes were largely symbolic because President Obama made clear he'd always veto any attempts to undo his signature health care law.Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of the Republican senators who has said he cannot vote for the proposed legislation as it stands, agreed with the president's Friday tweet, saying that Obamacare should be repealed immediately."I have spoken to @realDonaldTrump & Senate leadership about this and agree," he said on Twitter. "Let's keep our word to repeal then work on replacing right away."But that message stands in contrast to a January conversation that Paul touted, during which the then-president-elect agreed with him on repealing and replacing the same day. It was not immediately clear if the plan was to do so in two separate but simultaneous bills or one.Conservative interest groups expressed hope in a call with reporters Friday morning about the chances of a full repeal taking place first."It’s good to see the president joining us in terms of the full repeal effort," said Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC and former attorney general of Virginia. Cuccinelli has been a strong opponent of Obamacare and has sued over the health care law. "It's distressing to see so many Republicans who have lied about their commitment to repeal," he said. A senior GOP aide told USA TODAY that there are no plans underway to send a separate repeal bill to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis. The aide pointed out that the original plan had always been to repeal and replace separately, but Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said that it was important to do the two simultaneously. That led to lawmakers changing course and focusing on a single bill. David Bozell, president of the conservative advocacy group ForAmerica, dismissed information coming from leadership aides in the Senate."President and Sen. Sasse kind of have their finger on the pulse a lot more than Senate leadership and their staff do," he told reporters.Nathan Nascimento, vice president of policy of the Koch funding arm Freedom Partners, said the two-step approach "would put Congress and the administration in the position to keep their promise" on health care.Trump's health care tweet — along with another about crime and killings in Chicago — came as the hosts of Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, addressed his Thursday Twitter attacks.Contributing: Gregory KorteRead more: Democrats to 'crank up the outrage' over Senate Republican health care bill over July 4 breakPoll: Only 12% of Americans support the Senate health care planHealth care bill talks include leaving Obamacare taxes intact, key senator saysCould bare-bones health care plans save the Senate bill? | 0 |
Shortly after being diagnosed with brain cancer, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) flew back to Washington, DC, on Tuesday and voted to advance Republicans’ plan to repeal Obamacare.
Then he gave a speech from the Senate floor in which he criticized the Senate for not following “regular order,” urged senators to consider themselves the equals of the president, and said he wouldn’t vote for the health care bill as it stands now. (He did not say which of the several health care bills under consideration he opposed.)
McCain’s return, greeted by applause and an ovation by his Senate colleagues, proved crucial for preventing the immediate defeat of Republicans’ health care bill — which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would cost tens of millions of people their health insurance. Then in his speech, McCain announced his opposition to the bill “as it is today” and castigated the process of a bill drafted in secret. He also admitted his own flaws as a US senator. “Sometimes I've wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy,” he said.
As Vox’s Dylan Scott has explained, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell needed 50 of 52 Republican senators to approve the motion to proceed on a health care debate. BuzzFeed’s Alexis Levinson captured a photo of McCain giving reporters a thumbs-up as he headed into the Senate chamber for the crucial vote: | 0 |
A retired St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department captain was shot and killed early Tuesday morning while protecting a friend's pawn shop from looters, according to authorities and the victim's wife.The retired captain, David Dorn, was responding to an alarm at Lee Pawn and Jewelry Store around 2:30 a.m. when he was shot and killed, police said.No arrests have been made, and police Chief John Hayden, Jr. said officers are "actively working on identifying suspects."Crimestoppers has offered a reward of up to $10,000 for information that leads to an arrest.David Dorn in 2008 when he was a St. Louis police officer.Scott Bandle / St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP"David Dorn was a fine captain," Hayden said at a news conference on Tuesday. "Many of us younger officers looked up to him. ... It's a very sad time for our agency."Former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch called Dorn a "true public servant.""Protecting & serving all the way to the end," Fitch tweeted. "None of us who knew you are surprised you went out fighting at Lee's Pawn this morning. God speed my friend."The fatal shooting happened amid protests and unrest over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis custody. Dorn retired from the police force after 38 years, according to Hayden. He died on the sidewalk in front of the pawn shop, and his death was apparently streamed on Facebook Live, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. In the video, a man tells Dorn to stay with him.Dorn's wife, police Sgt. Ann Marie Dorn, told the outlet that he was a friend of the pawn shop's owner and would go and check out the business whenever the burglar alarm sounded.Missouri Gov. Mike Parson condemned the killing of Dorn and other instances of looting and violence during the Floyd protests."What Minneapolis police officers did to George Floyd isn’t acceptable and they MUST be held accountable. What criminals have done in St. Louis and across Missouri the past few nights isn’t acceptable. They MUST be held accountable," he said in a tweet.President Donald Trump tweeted about the death, writing: "Our highest respect to the family of David Dorn, a Great Police Captain from St. Louis, who was viciously shot and killed by despicable looters last night. We honor our police officers, perhaps more than ever before. Thank you!"Four active-duty St. Louis officers were shot during protests in the city early Tuesday, all of them suffering non-life-threatening injuries.Minyvonne Burke is a breaking news reporter for NBC News. | 0 |
The Washington Post changed the headline of its obituary of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Sunday after facing backlash for calling him an “austere religious scholar.” Vice President of Communications at Washington Post Kristine Coratti Kelly said in a tweet that “the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly.” The first version of the article described Baghdadi as the “Islamic State’s terrorist-in-chief,” before it was changed to “austere religious scholar.” It’s unclear why the newspaper initially changed the headline, but it was changed for a third time to its current headline: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.” President Trump confirmed Sunday that U.S. forces killed Baghdadi during a raid in northern Syria the day before.Read it at Washington Post | 0 |
As the number of coronavirus cases across the US continues to grow, everyone from restaurant owners and musicians to the elderly and those with chronic illness have been affected.On Tuesday, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 4,226 confirmed cases, including 75 deaths. For the people who are able, there perhaps has never been a more important time to give to those in need.You can start by following guidelines on social distancing and local restrictions for self-quarantine. But here are some other ways to support your own community and those struggling all across the country:Support local businesses and not-for-profitsIn an effort to curb the spread of coronavirus, governors in at least nine states have announced the closure of eat-in restaurants and bars, while local officials have made sweeping bans on large gatherings.Dozens of well-known restaurants have opted to wait out this virus behind closed doors. Others are still open, and are asking the community to support them by ordering pick-up or delivery, and making sure to tip the staff as much as they can.Canlis, a fine-dining hotspot in Seattle, temporarily converted its restaurant into a drive-in burger eatery, bagel shed and family meal delivery service. Jessica Powers, spokeswoman for the restaurant, said the response from the community had been amazing. She encouraged anyone who wants to support the restaurant, but doesn’t want this more casual dining experience, to buy a gift card and make future bookings.The arts sector has also been hit especially hard, with a wide array of performances and concerts canceled across the country. Theaters and orchestras are encouraging people who have tickets to a canceled performance to not ask for a refund and even consider donating further to the organization.Look up your local businesses and not-for-profits online, and find out if there are ways you can still buy from them or donate.Contribute to local social service organizationsThere are plenty of groups and organizations helping those negatively impacted by coronavirus. The Center for Disaster Philanthropy recommends directing donations to free clinics in areas hit hardest by the outbreak, and also contributing to supplies of protective equipment and educational outreach initiatives about the virus.Those people who were already vulnerable before the outbreak will probably feel its effects hardest and longest, so the center recommends contributing to food banks. But try not to just make it a single donation, as the impacts of this outbreak will probably be felt long into the future.Paul Ash, executive director of the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank, said they are especially in need of volunteers in their warehouses and people who can help them open additional pantries. The food bank serves about 144,000 people on an average week, and is preparing for an increased need over the next few weeks because of the many people who are not going to work or have seen their job changed significantly because of the outbreak.“Those people will probably have enough in their refrigerator for a week or two, or enough in the bank account, but they’ll eventually come to a point, if this is anything like the financial crisis in 07, 08, they’ll come to a point where they are willing to avail themselves to a free bag of groceries from the food bank,” said Ash.Donate bloodWith thousands of blood drives across the country canceled because of the outbreak, the American Red Cross and America’s Blood Centers announced on Tuesday that the US is facing a “severe blood shortage”. The organizations encouraged anyone who is healthy and eligible to give blood or platelets, to make an appointment to donate through the Red Cross.The Red Cross’s leaders said they are taking additional steps to keep all donors safe, including checking the temperature of staff and donors and having plenty of hand sanitizer available.“We understand why people may be hesitant to come out for a blood drive but want to reassure the public that blood donation is a safe process, and that we have put additional precautions in place at our blood drives to protect the health of safety of our donors and staff,” Gail McGovern, president and chief executive officer, American Red Cross, said in a statement.Reach out to family and friendsSimply reaching out to those most severely affected by coronavirus can be a big help in such a turbulent time. For people older than 60 years and those with chronic illness or weakened immune systems, the virus can cause very severe issues.These people may be stuck in their homes and need food deliveries, or simply looking for some emotional support.But don’t stop there. Everyone is in the middle of a global pandemic. Staying connected with others through the many virtual tools at our disposal can be key to getting through this outbreak as unscathed as possible. | 0 |
VideoIn Boston, President Obama vowed he would not let Republicans try to turn the health exchange website’s problems into ammunition with the aim of overturning the health care law.CreditCredit...Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesOct. 30, 2013BOSTON — The White House on Wednesday blended expressions of contrition for the troubled rollout of its health care law with an aggressive rejection of Republican criticism of it, as the administration sought a political strategy to blunt the fallout from weeks of technical failures and negative coverage.While Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, apologized profusely during a politically charged hearing on Capitol Hill, President Obama traveled to Massachusetts to argue forcefully that the Affordable Care Act will eventually be just as successful as the similar plan pioneered by Mitt Romney, his onetime rival and a former governor of the state.Speaking in the historic Faneuil Hall, where Mr. Romney signed the Massachusetts plan into law, the president also took “full responsibility” for the malfunctioning health care website and promised to fix it. But he pledged to “grind it out” over the weeks and months ahead to ensure the law’s success and prove its Republican critics wrong.“We are going to see this through,” Mr. Obama vowed, pounding his fist on the podium as the audience roared with approval.ImageCredit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe dual messages from Mr. Obama and Ms. Sebelius over the course of the day reflect a recognition by officials inside the White House that while apologies are in order, the administration cannot let Republicans expand concerns about the HealthCare.gov website into a broader indictment of the law. Senior advisers to the president said they understood that the bungled rollout of the insurance marketplace has given Republicans another opportunity to litigate the political case against the health care law. But they said they viewed the weeks ahead as a period of inevitable improvement that will vindicate their position.“The weight of that momentum will have a positive impact,” one senior administration official said, requesting anonymity to talk about White House strategy planning. “Really it’s about blocking and tackling and getting that work done.”With Republicans showing no sign of backing off, the challenge for Mr. Obama and Democrats in the months to come will be to deflect political attacks that unfairly demonize the health care law while acknowledging its shortcomings. Achieving that nuance could prove tricky for an administration whose top health official, Ms. Sebelius, on Wednesday called the rollout of the online insurance marketplace a “debacle.” ImageCredit...Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesMs. Sebelius told lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that she was as surprised as anyone when the website collapsed on Oct. 1 under pressure from millions of users and was crippled by technical problems in subsequent days. While she was aware of the risks in a big information technology project, she said, “no one indicated that this could possibly go this wrong.”Ms. Sebelius told the committee: “Hold me accountable for the debacle. I’m responsible.”The shift in strategy from the White House comes as new challenges emerge for the law. The problem-plagued website crashed again just before Ms. Sebelius began testifying in front of a skeptical congressional panel. And officials acknowledged that the federal insurance marketplace for small businesses, which had already been delayed a month from Oct. 1, would not open until the end of November.In three and a half grueling hours of testimony, Ms. Sebelius gamely defended the troubled rollout of the law and apologized for what had gone wrong. But nothing she said could overcome the stark message displayed on a large video screen showing a page from HealthCare.gov: “The system is down at the moment. We are experiencing technical difficulties and hope to have them resolved soon. Please try again later.”Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, said the administration had not properly tested the security of the insurance website, which receives financial information on consumers seeking subsidies to help pay their premiums.ImageCredit...Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesMr. Rogers read from a government memo that said security controls for the federal exchange had not been fully tested as of Sept. 27. This creates a potentially “high risk” for the exchange, said the memo, from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The memo said that security controls would be “completely tested within the next six months.”Republicans continued to accuse Mr. Obama of lying to the American people when he said repeatedly over the past four years that people who had a health insurance plan they liked could keep it, regardless of the changes brought on by the Affordable Care Act. Lawmakers grilled Ms. Sebelius on why insurance companies are canceling policies for thousands of people across the country. Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the committee, said: “There are millions of Americans coast to coast who no doubt believed the president’s repeated promise that if they liked their plan, they’d be able to keep it. They are now receiving termination notices.”Ms. Sebelius tried, with little success, to allay concerns about those notices, which have been sent to hundreds of thousands of consumers stating that their individual insurance policies would soon be terminated because they did not comply with new standards under the Affordable Care Act. She said the cancellation of some policies was a justifiable byproduct of the 2010 health law. VideoHighlights from the testimony before a House committee by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, who called the first month of the HealthCare.gov site “flawed.”CreditCredit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesBut in Massachusetts, Mr. Obama for the first time admitted that some people who have had what he called “substandard” insurance plans may have to choose another one now that the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect. He accused lawmakers in Washington of distorting that fact by failing to mention that the new plans they have will be more comprehensive and often come with cheaper premiums.“If you leave that stuff out, you are being grossly misleading, to say the least,” Mr. Obama said.Mr. Obama made comparisons between the rollout of the national health care law and the problems experienced in the days after the Medicare prescription drug program went into effect in 2006. In his remarks, the president said that when those problems occurred, “Democrats worked with Republicans to make it work.”The president also repeatedly invoked Mr. Romney’s name as evidence of the bipartisan spirit that led to the passage and implementation of the health care law in Massachusetts. He said Mr. Romney “did the right thing on health care” in the state.But Mr. Romney did not return the favor, issuing a statement hours before the president’s speech that repeated his longstanding criticism of the national law.“Nothing has changed my view that a plan crafted to fit the unique circumstances of a single state should not be grafted onto the entire country,” Mr. Romney said. “Health reform is best crafted by states with bipartisan support and input from its employers, as we did, without raising taxes, and by carefully phasing it in to avoid the type of disruptions we are seeing nationally.”White House aides said they did not ask Mr. Romney to attend the speech. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits