topic
stringclasses 108
values | source
stringclasses 192
values | bias
class label 3
classes | url
stringlengths 30
422
| title
stringlengths 5
255
| date
stringlengths 0
10
| authors
stringlengths 0
184
| content
stringlengths 131
54k
| content_original
stringlengths 1.71k
62.4k
| source_url
stringclasses 79
values | bias_text
class label 3
classes | ID
stringlengths 16
16
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fbi
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/19/donald-trump-james-comey/101886486/
|
Comey, called 'nut job' by Trump, to testify in open session before Senate
|
2017-05-19
|
WASHINGTON — Former FBI director James Comey will soon testify in open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , following revelations Friday that President Trump told Russian leaders that Comey is a `` nut job '' who was adding pressure to the high-stakes investigation of possible interference in the 2016 election .
Comey , abruptly fired by Trump last week , has agreed to testify in public sometime after Memorial Day , the committee said in a statement .
“ I hope that former Director Comey ’ s testimony will help answer some of the questions that have arisen since Director Comey was so suddenly dismissed by the President , '' said Sen. Mark Warner , D-Va. , the committee 's vice chairman . `` I also expect that Director Comey will be able to shed light on issues critical to this Committee ’ s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election . Director Comey served his country with honor for many years , and he deserves an opportunity to tell his story . Moreover , the American people deserve an opportunity to hear it . ”
A current White House official has drawn the scrutiny of federal investigators in the widening inquiry into Russia 's interference in the 2016 election , a person familiar with the matter said Friday .
The person , who is not authorized to comment publicly , declined to identify the White House official . The development was first reported by the Washington Post .
The New York Times reported that Trump told Russian officials that Comey is a `` nut job , '' and that dismissing him meant the pressure of the FBI 's Russia probe has been `` taken off . ''
White House officials did not deny either story , but only stressed that Trump and his staff had no collusion with Russia .
“ As the President has stated before , a thorough investigation will confirm that there was no collusion between the campaign and any foreign entity , '' White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in response to the Post story that a White House official is now ensnared in the probe .
The president himself labeled the ongoing FBI probe a `` witch hunt '' this week after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee it in the wake of Comey 's firing . Earlier this week , revelations that Comey kept memos detailing his conversations with Trump , including one in which the president apparently pressed his former FBI director to drop the inquiry into former national security adviser Michael Flynn , roiled Washington .
Sen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , said he hopes Comey 's testimony brings some much-needed clarity .
“ The Committee looks forward to receiving testimony from the former Director on his role in the development of the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 US elections , and I am hopeful that he will clarify for the American people recent events that have been broadly reported in the media , ” Burr said .
Trump travels to Saudi Arabia as bombshells multiply in Washington
Calling impeachment talk 'ridiculous , ' Trump denies pressing Comey to drop Michael Flynn investigation
As for the conversation with the Russians about Comey , Spicer essentially put the onus on the ex-FBI director .
`` The President has always emphasized the importance of making deals with Russia as it relates to Syria , Ukraine , defeating ISIS and other key issues for the benefit and safety of the American people , '' Spicer said . `` By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia 's actions , James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia . ''
Spicer denied that Trump fired Comey to block the Russia investigation , saying , `` the investigation would have always continued , and obviously , the termination of Comey would not have ended it . The real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations . ''
On May 10 , the day after he fired Comey , Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the United States , Sergey I. Kislyak , in a meeting that has generated furious controversy .
The Times , citing a report on the meeting a source read to them , said that Trump told the Russians : “ I just fired the head of the F.B.I . He was crazy , a real nut job ... I faced great pressure because of Russia . That ’ s taken off. ” The president also reportedly said : “ I ’ m not under investigation . ”
The news said the documents that included the president 's comments were based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and have been circulated as the official account of the May 10 meeting . The report says one official read quotations to The Times , and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion . Other news reports also said that , during that same meeting , Trump discussed classified counter-terrorism information with the Russians .
Democrats said the new stories underscore their belief that Trump fired Comey in order to shut down the Russia probe . `` If there was any question as to why Comey was really fired , @ realDonaldTrump just answered it . As I said , Nixonian , '' said Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa .
CNN reported that at one point during the 2016 campaign , Russian officials bragged in conversations that they had cultivated a strong relationship with Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team .
Citing two unidentified sources , CNN also reported that White House lawyers have begun researching impeachment procedures in an effort to prepare for what officials still believe is a distant possibility that Trump could have to fend off attempts to remove him from office .
White House officials believe the President has the backing of Republican allies in Congress and that impeachment is not in the cards , CNN reported . Even Democrats have tried to calm impeachment talk out of concern it is premature . But lawyers in the White House counsel 's office have consulted experts in impeachment during the past week and have begun collecting information on how such proceedings would work , a person briefed on the matter told CNN .
Trump 's glibness in private - and even public - statements has apparently caused his staff some consternation . The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Trump ’ s aides have been pressing for more restraint by the president on Twitter , and some weeks ago they organized what one official called an “ intervention. ” Aides have been concerned about the president ’ s use of Twitter to push inflammatory claims , notably his unsubstantiated allegation from March that his Democratic predecessor , Barack Obama , had wiretapped his offices , the Journal reported .
In that meeting , aides warned Mr. Trump that certain kinds of comments made on Twitter would “ paint him into a corner , ” both in terms of political messaging and legally , an unnamed official told the Journal .
The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Rep. Elijah E. Cummings , D-Md. , called on Republican leaders to obtain the documents related to Trump 's comments to Russian officials about Comey .
“ This new report that President Trump openly admitted to the Russians that he ‘ faced great pressure ’ from the FBI ’ s criminal investigation that was ‘ taken off ’ when he fired Director Comey is astonishing — and extremely troubling , '' Cummings said in a statement .
`` If these White House documents in fact exist memorializing the President ’ s statements to the Russians , the Oversight Committee needs to obtain copies immediately , '' he continued . `` Chairman ( Jason ) Chaffetz should request these White House documents today and have his subpoena pen ready— just as he did earlier this week with the memos written by Director Comey . ”
|
David Jackson, and Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Former FBI director James Comey will soon testify in open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, following revelations Friday that President Trump told Russian leaders that Comey is a "nut job" who was adding pressure to the high-stakes investigation of possible interference in the 2016 election.
Comey, abruptly fired by Trump last week, has agreed to testify in public sometime after Memorial Day, the committee said in a statement.
“I hope that former Director Comey’s testimony will help answer some of the questions that have arisen since Director Comey was so suddenly dismissed by the President," said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the committee's vice chairman. "I also expect that Director Comey will be able to shed light on issues critical to this Committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Director Comey served his country with honor for many years, and he deserves an opportunity to tell his story. Moreover, the American people deserve an opportunity to hear it.”
A current White House official has drawn the scrutiny of federal investigators in the widening inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.
The person, who is not authorized to comment publicly, declined to identify the White House official. The development was first reported by the Washington Post.
The New York Times reported that Trump told Russian officials that Comey is a "nut job," and that dismissing him meant the pressure of the FBI's Russia probe has been "taken off."
White House officials did not deny either story, but only stressed that Trump and his staff had no collusion with Russia.
“As the President has stated before, a thorough investigation will confirm that there was no collusion between the campaign and any foreign entity," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in response to the Post story that a White House official is now ensnared in the probe.
The president himself labeled the ongoing FBI probe a "witch hunt" this week after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee it in the wake of Comey's firing. Earlier this week, revelations that Comey kept memos detailing his conversations with Trump, including one in which the president apparently pressed his former FBI director to drop the inquiry into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, roiled Washington.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he hopes Comey's testimony brings some much-needed clarity.
“The Committee looks forward to receiving testimony from the former Director on his role in the development of the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, and I am hopeful that he will clarify for the American people recent events that have been broadly reported in the media,” Burr said.
Read more:
Trump travels to Saudi Arabia as bombshells multiply in Washington
Calling impeachment talk 'ridiculous,' Trump denies pressing Comey to drop Michael Flynn investigation
As for the conversation with the Russians about Comey, Spicer essentially put the onus on the ex-FBI director.
"The President has always emphasized the importance of making deals with Russia as it relates to Syria, Ukraine, defeating ISIS and other key issues for the benefit and safety of the American people," Spicer said. "By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia's actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia."
Spicer denied that Trump fired Comey to block the Russia investigation, saying, "the investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. The real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations."
On May 10, the day after he fired Comey, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak, in a meeting that has generated furious controversy.
The Times, citing a report on the meeting a source read to them, said that Trump told the Russians: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job ... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” The president also reportedly said: “I’m not under investigation.”
The news said the documents that included the president's comments were based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and have been circulated as the official account of the May 10 meeting. The report says one official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion. Other news reports also said that, during that same meeting, Trump discussed classified counter-terrorism information with the Russians.
Democrats said the new stories underscore their belief that Trump fired Comey in order to shut down the Russia probe. "If there was any question as to why Comey was really fired, @realDonaldTrump just answered it. As I said, Nixonian," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.
CNN reported that at one point during the 2016 campaign, Russian officials bragged in conversations that they had cultivated a strong relationship with Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team.
Citing two unidentified sources, CNN also reported that White House lawyers have begun researching impeachment procedures in an effort to prepare for what officials still believe is a distant possibility that Trump could have to fend off attempts to remove him from office.
White House officials believe the President has the backing of Republican allies in Congress and that impeachment is not in the cards, CNN reported. Even Democrats have tried to calm impeachment talk out of concern it is premature. But lawyers in the White House counsel's office have consulted experts in impeachment during the past week and have begun collecting information on how such proceedings would work, a person briefed on the matter told CNN.
Trump's glibness in private - and even public - statements has apparently caused his staff some consternation. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Trump’s aides have been pressing for more restraint by the president on Twitter, and some weeks ago they organized what one official called an “intervention.” Aides have been concerned about the president’s use of Twitter to push inflammatory claims, notably his unsubstantiated allegation from March that his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, had wiretapped his offices, the Journal reported.
In that meeting, aides warned Mr. Trump that certain kinds of comments made on Twitter would “paint him into a corner,” both in terms of political messaging and legally, an unnamed official told the Journal.
The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., called on Republican leaders to obtain the documents related to Trump's comments to Russian officials about Comey.
“This new report that President Trump openly admitted to the Russians that he ‘faced great pressure’ from the FBI’s criminal investigation that was ‘taken off’ when he fired Director Comey is astonishing — and extremely troubling," Cummings said in a statement.
"If these White House documents in fact exist memorializing the President’s statements to the Russians, the Oversight Committee needs to obtain copies immediately," he continued. "Chairman (Jason) Chaffetz should request these White House documents today and have his subpoena pen ready— just as he did earlier this week with the memos written by Director Comey.”
Contributing: Doug Stanglin
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
P1nDH6VOXOJkCvuN
|
|
cia
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/opinion/bergen-torture-path-to-bin-laden/index.html?hpt=op_t1
|
OPINION: Did torture help lead to bin Laden?
|
2014-12-10
|
Peter Bergen
|
( CNN ) -- Did waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that were used on al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody eventually lead to the Navy SEAL operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan early in the morning of May 2 , 2011 ?
The Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday has a simple answer to that : Hell , no !
According to the Senate report , the critical pieces of information that led to discovering the identity of the bin Laden courier , Ahmed al-Kuwaiti , ( Ahmed the Kuwaiti ) whose activities eventually pointed the CIA to bin Laden 's hiding place in Pakistan , were provided by an al-Qaeda detainee before he was subjected to CIA coercive interrogation , and was based also upon information that was provided by detainees that were held in the custody of foreign governments . ( The report is silent on the interesting question of whether any of these unnamed foreign governments obtained any of their information by using torture . )
Further critical information about the Kuwaiti was also provided by conventional intelligence techniques and was not elicited by the interrogations of any of the CIA detainees , according to the report .
Even worse for the CIA -- which has consistently defended the supposed utility of the interrogation program , including in the hunt for bin Laden -- a number of CIA prisoners who were subjected to coercive interrogations consistently provided misleading information designed to wave away CIA interrogators from the bin Laden courier who would eventually prove to be the key to finding al Qaeda 's leader .
The Senate report provides the fullest accounting so far of the exact sequence of intelligence breaks that led the CIA to determine that the courier , the Kuwaiti , was likely to be living with bin Laden in Pakistan .
This reads more like a careful Agatha Christie detective story than a story about the efficacy of coercive interrogations , which some have characterized as torture .
The report points out that the courier was in touch with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks , and that it was SIGINT ( signals intelligence ) from phones and email traffic that made this link first in 2002 , well before any CIA detainees made such a connection .
Indeed , in a fascinating footnote , the report makes the case that it was `` voice cuts '' of the courier that were first collected in 2002 that were matched eight years later to the Kuwaiti and were `` geolocated '' to an area of Pakistan in 2010 where he was traveling around . This was a crucial lead that helped prompt the CIA to examine the mysterious compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan , where bin Laden was hiding .
In 2002 , reports from four different detainees held by foreign governments provided important information about the courier 's age , physical appearance and family , information that was also acquired prior to any information about the courier being obtained from CIA detainees . Detainees held by foreign governments also said that the courier was close to bin Laden .
It was Hassan Ghul , an al Qaeda operative captured in Iraqi Kurdistan , who provided the most detailed account of bin Laden 's courier and his relationship to bin Laden in January 2004 , before he entered CIA custody .
According to a CIA official cited in the report , Ghul , who was in Kurdish custody , `` sang like a tweetie bird . He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset . ''
Ghul described the courier as bin Laden 's `` closest assistant '' and `` one of three individuals likely to be with '' al Qaeda 's leader . And he correctly surmised that bin Laden would have minimal security and `` likely lived in a house with a family somewhere in Pakistan . ''
If there was good intelligence coming from sources that were not in CIA custody , the Senate report demonstrates that the detainees who were in CIA custody and were subjected to coercive interrogations made every effort to hide the significance of bin Laden 's courier .
Five of the most senior al-Qaeda detainees in CIA custody , all of whom were subjected to some of the most intensive coercive interrogation techniques , variously said that the courier worked only with low level members of al Qaeda ; that he was not a courier for bin Laden ; that he was n't close to al Qaeda 's leader , and that he was focused only on his family following his marriage in 2002 . None of this , of course , was true .
The CIA , of course , is not happy about the portrayal of its work in the Senate report , and in a rebuttal on its website on Tuesday the agency pushed back , saying that detainees `` in combination with other streams of intelligence '' played a role in finding bin Laden .
In particular the CIA cites a detainee , Ammar al-Baluchi , who was coercively interrogated and provided what it terms the first information indicating that the Kuwaiti was indeed bin Laden 's courier , rather than just someone who was an ordinary member of al Qaeda .
The CIA rebuttal is not , however as persuasive as the very detailed history laid out in the Senate report , which is buttressed by copious source notes .
And , in any event , were interrogations of al Qaeda detainees really the key to how bin Laden ultimately was found ? After all , it still took almost a decade after the first identification of the courier to find bin Laden .
Indeed , there were a number of key breaks that had little to do with the interrogations of al Qaeda detainees , which I discovered in the course of reporting my book `` Manhunt . ''
A large break , according to U.S. counterterrorism officials , came in 2007 , when a foreign intelligence service that they wo n't identify told the CIA that the Kuwaiti 's real name was Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed .
It would still take three more years for the CIA to find Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed in Pakistan , a country with a population of 180 million . This involved painstaking work going through reams of phone conversations to try to locate him through his family and circle of associates .
In June 2010 , the Kuwaiti and his brother both made changes in the way they communicated on cell phone , which suddenly opened up the possibility of the `` geolocation '' of both their phones , according to U.S. counterterrorism officials .
Finally , sometime in the late summer of 2010 , the Kuwaiti received a call from an old friend in the Persian Gulf , a man whom U.S. intelligence officials were monitoring . `` We 've missed you . Where have you been ? '' asked the friend . The Kuwaiti responded elliptically . `` I 'm back with the people I was with before . '' There was a tense pause in the conversation as the friend mulled over that response . Likely realizing that the Kuwaiti was back in bin Laden 's inner circle , the caller replied after some hesitation , `` May God facilitate . ''
The CIA took this call as a confirmation that the Kuwaiti was still working with al Qaeda , a matter that officials were still not entirely sure about .
The National Security Agency was listening to this exchange and through geolocation technologies was able to zero in on the Kuwaiti 's cell phone in northwestern Pakistan . But the Kuwaiti practiced rigorous operational security and was always careful to insert the battery in his phone and turn it on only when he was at least an hour 's drive away from the Abbottabad compound where he and bin Laden were living . To find out where the Kuwaiti lived by monitoring his cell phone would only go so far .
In August 2010 , a Pakistani `` asset '' working for the CIA tracked the Kuwaiti to the crowded city of Peshawar , where bin Laden had founded al Qaeda more than two decades earlier . In the years when bin Laden was residing in the Abbottabad compound , the Kuwaiti would regularly transit though Peshawar , as it is the gateway to the Pakistani tribal regions where al Qaeda had regrouped in the years after 9/11 .
Once the CIA asset had identified the Kuwaiti 's distinctive white Suzuki SUV with a spare tire on its back in Peshawar , the CIA was able to follow him as he drove home to Abbottabad , more than two hours ' drive to the east .
The large compound where the Kuwaiti finally alighted immediately drew interest at the agency because it did n't have phone or Internet service , which implied its owners wanted to stay off the grid .
Soon , some CIA officials would come to believe that bin Laden himself was living there .
|
Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a vice president at New America and professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad," which this piece, in part, draws upon.
(CNN) -- Did waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that were used on al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody eventually lead to the Navy SEAL operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan early in the morning of May 2, 2011?
The Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday has a simple answer to that: Hell, no!
According to the Senate report, the critical pieces of information that led to discovering the identity of the bin Laden courier, Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, (Ahmed the Kuwaiti) whose activities eventually pointed the CIA to bin Laden's hiding place in Pakistan, were provided by an al-Qaeda detainee before he was subjected to CIA coercive interrogation, and was based also upon information that was provided by detainees that were held in the custody of foreign governments. (The report is silent on the interesting question of whether any of these unnamed foreign governments obtained any of their information by using torture.)
Further critical information about the Kuwaiti was also provided by conventional intelligence techniques and was not elicited by the interrogations of any of the CIA detainees, according to the report.
Even worse for the CIA -- which has consistently defended the supposed utility of the interrogation program, including in the hunt for bin Laden -- a number of CIA prisoners who were subjected to coercive interrogations consistently provided misleading information designed to wave away CIA interrogators from the bin Laden courier who would eventually prove to be the key to finding al Qaeda's leader.
The Senate report provides the fullest accounting so far of the exact sequence of intelligence breaks that led the CIA to determine that the courier, the Kuwaiti, was likely to be living with bin Laden in Pakistan.
This reads more like a careful Agatha Christie detective story than a story about the efficacy of coercive interrogations, which some have characterized as torture.
The report points out that the courier was in touch with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks, and that it was SIGINT (signals intelligence) from phones and email traffic that made this link first in 2002, well before any CIA detainees made such a connection.
Indeed, in a fascinating footnote, the report makes the case that it was "voice cuts" of the courier that were first collected in 2002 that were matched eight years later to the Kuwaiti and were "geolocated" to an area of Pakistan in 2010 where he was traveling around. This was a crucial lead that helped prompt the CIA to examine the mysterious compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding.
In 2002, reports from four different detainees held by foreign governments provided important information about the courier's age, physical appearance and family, information that was also acquired prior to any information about the courier being obtained from CIA detainees. Detainees held by foreign governments also said that the courier was close to bin Laden.
It was Hassan Ghul, an al Qaeda operative captured in Iraqi Kurdistan, who provided the most detailed account of bin Laden's courier and his relationship to bin Laden in January 2004, before he entered CIA custody.
According to a CIA official cited in the report, Ghul, who was in Kurdish custody, "sang like a tweetie bird. He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset."
Ghul described the courier as bin Laden's "closest assistant" and "one of three individuals likely to be with" al Qaeda's leader. And he correctly surmised that bin Laden would have minimal security and "likely lived in a house with a family somewhere in Pakistan."
If there was good intelligence coming from sources that were not in CIA custody, the Senate report demonstrates that the detainees who were in CIA custody and were subjected to coercive interrogations made every effort to hide the significance of bin Laden's courier.
Five of the most senior al-Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, all of whom were subjected to some of the most intensive coercive interrogation techniques, variously said that the courier worked only with low level members of al Qaeda; that he was not a courier for bin Laden; that he wasn't close to al Qaeda's leader, and that he was focused only on his family following his marriage in 2002. None of this, of course, was true.
The CIA, of course, is not happy about the portrayal of its work in the Senate report, and in a rebuttal on its website on Tuesday the agency pushed back, saying that detainees "in combination with other streams of intelligence" played a role in finding bin Laden.
In particular the CIA cites a detainee, Ammar al-Baluchi, who was coercively interrogated and provided what it terms the first information indicating that the Kuwaiti was indeed bin Laden's courier, rather than just someone who was an ordinary member of al Qaeda.
The CIA rebuttal is not, however as persuasive as the very detailed history laid out in the Senate report, which is buttressed by copious source notes.
And, in any event, were interrogations of al Qaeda detainees really the key to how bin Laden ultimately was found? After all, it still took almost a decade after the first identification of the courier to find bin Laden.
Indeed, there were a number of key breaks that had little to do with the interrogations of al Qaeda detainees, which I discovered in the course of reporting my book "Manhunt."
A large break, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials, came in 2007, when a foreign intelligence service that they won't identify told the CIA that the Kuwaiti's real name was Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed.
It would still take three more years for the CIA to find Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed in Pakistan, a country with a population of 180 million. This involved painstaking work going through reams of phone conversations to try to locate him through his family and circle of associates.
In June 2010, the Kuwaiti and his brother both made changes in the way they communicated on cell phone, which suddenly opened up the possibility of the "geolocation" of both their phones, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials.
Finally, sometime in the late summer of 2010, the Kuwaiti received a call from an old friend in the Persian Gulf, a man whom U.S. intelligence officials were monitoring. "We've missed you. Where have you been?" asked the friend. The Kuwaiti responded elliptically. "I'm back with the people I was with before." There was a tense pause in the conversation as the friend mulled over that response. Likely realizing that the Kuwaiti was back in bin Laden's inner circle, the caller replied after some hesitation, "May God facilitate."
The CIA took this call as a confirmation that the Kuwaiti was still working with al Qaeda, a matter that officials were still not entirely sure about.
The National Security Agency was listening to this exchange and through geolocation technologies was able to zero in on the Kuwaiti's cell phone in northwestern Pakistan. But the Kuwaiti practiced rigorous operational security and was always careful to insert the battery in his phone and turn it on only when he was at least an hour's drive away from the Abbottabad compound where he and bin Laden were living. To find out where the Kuwaiti lived by monitoring his cell phone would only go so far.
In August 2010, a Pakistani "asset" working for the CIA tracked the Kuwaiti to the crowded city of Peshawar, where bin Laden had founded al Qaeda more than two decades earlier. In the years when bin Laden was residing in the Abbottabad compound, the Kuwaiti would regularly transit though Peshawar, as it is the gateway to the Pakistani tribal regions where al Qaeda had regrouped in the years after 9/11.
Once the CIA asset had identified the Kuwaiti's distinctive white Suzuki SUV with a spare tire on its back in Peshawar, the CIA was able to follow him as he drove home to Abbottabad, more than two hours' drive to the east.
The large compound where the Kuwaiti finally alighted immediately drew interest at the agency because it didn't have phone or Internet service, which implied its owners wanted to stay off the grid.
Soon, some CIA officials would come to believe that bin Laden himself was living there.
They were, of course, right.
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
NUbs8gmNSsSuFtll
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/16/trump-clinton-trade-barbs-over-obama-birther-movement.html
|
Trump, Clinton trade barbs over Obama 'birther' flap
|
2016-09-16
|
Donald Trump tried to tamp down a newly revived campaign dust-up Friday over his views on President Obama ’ s birthplace , declaring the president was born in the United States – “ period ” – after declining to make that statement earlier this week .
The Republican presidential nominee also tried to blame Hillary Clinton for starting the controversy back in 2008 , which her team denies . He cast his remarks as a bid to put the issue to rest once and for all , at a time when his poll numbers are rising .
“ Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy . I finished it , ” Trump said in Washington , D.C. “ President Barack Obama was born in the United States , period . Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again . ”
He spoke at his new Trump International Hotel in Washington , D.C. , a visit that began with lengthy remarks from military supporters and veterans . He briefly addressed the “ birther ” issue at the end .
The statement comes after Trump ’ s response on the matter in an interview Wednesday revived the issue . In the interview with The Washington Post , Trump was asked whether he believed Obama was born in the U.S. `` I 'll answer that question at the right time , '' Trump told the paper . `` I just do n't want to answer it yet . ''
Trump ’ s campaign spokesman , trying to calm the waters , said overnight the Republican candidate now believes Obama was born in the U.S. Campaign spokesman Jason Miller said Trump `` did a great service to the country '' by bringing closure to the debate .
`` In 2011 , Mr. Trump was finally able to bring this ugly incident to its conclusion by successfully compelling President Obama to release his birth certificate , '' Miller said .
But the Clinton campaign seized on Trump ’ s reluctance to address the issue in his Post interview .
Speaking shortly before Trump across town at the Black Women 's Agenda Symposium , Clinton said Friday the Republican nominee was “ feeding into ” the “ bigotry and bias that lurks in our country ” – and should apologize .
“ Barack Obama was born in America , ” she said . “ Donald Trump owes him and the American people an apology . ”
The dust-up comes as Trump gains on Clinton in national and battleground state polls , even surpassing her in some states .
A new ███ poll shows Clinton topping Trump by just one point among likely voters in the four-way ballot nationally .
Both candidates were fundraising Friday after events in Washington . Clinton has endured a rough week on the campaign trail , after criticizing some Trump supporters last Friday as `` deplorables '' and then having to take time off from the campaign due to a bout of pnemonia .
She used the birther issue to try and go back on offense .
While Obama was born in Hawaii , Trump several years ago was a key figure in stoking the so-called `` birther '' controversy . Critics saw it as an attempt to delegitimize the nation ’ s first black president .
Trump has said repeatedly during the campaign that he no longer talks about the `` birther '' issue .
The Trump campaign ’ s statement late Thursday claimed that Clinton launched the “ birther ” movement during her unsuccessful primary run against Obama in 2008 .
`` Hillary Clinton 's campaign first raised this issue to smear then-candidate Barack Obama in her very nasty , failed 2008 campaign for President , '' the statement said . `` This type of vicious and conniving behavior is straight from the Clinton Playbook . As usual , however , Hillary Clinton was too weak to get an answer . ''
Clinton has long denied the claim , and fact-checkers previously have found no public evidence that she or her campaign directly pushed the issue . Rather , Trump ’ s comments appear to refer to reports that Clinton supporters circulated an email during the bitter 2008 primary race questioning Obama ’ s citizenship .
Yet former McClatchy D.C. bureau chief James Asher said on Twitter Friday that Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal in fact “ told me in person ” that Obama was born in Kenya .
Obama had released a standard short form of his birth certificate before the 2008 presidential election . Anyone who wants a copy of the more detailed , long-form document must submit a waiver request , and have that request approved by Hawaii 's health department .
In 2011 , amid persistent questions from Trump about his birthplace , Obama submitted a waiver request . He dispatched his personal lawyer to Hawaii to pick up copies and carry the documents back to Washington on a plane .
The form said Obama was born at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4 , 1961 , at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu . It is signed by the delivery doctor , Obama 's mother and the local registrar .
At the White House on Friday , Obama declined to comment at length on the issue , saying he ’ s got other business to attend to – and is confident about where he was born .
|
Donald Trump tried to tamp down a newly revived campaign dust-up Friday over his views on President Obama’s birthplace, declaring the president was born in the United States – “period” – after declining to make that statement earlier this week.
The Republican presidential nominee also tried to blame Hillary Clinton for starting the controversy back in 2008, which her team denies. He cast his remarks as a bid to put the issue to rest once and for all, at a time when his poll numbers are rising.
“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it,” Trump said in Washington, D.C. “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period. Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again.”
He spoke at his new Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., a visit that began with lengthy remarks from military supporters and veterans. He briefly addressed the “birther” issue at the end.
The statement comes after Trump’s response on the matter in an interview Wednesday revived the issue. In the interview with The Washington Post, Trump was asked whether he believed Obama was born in the U.S. "I'll answer that question at the right time," Trump told the paper. "I just don't want to answer it yet."
Trump’s campaign spokesman, trying to calm the waters, said overnight the Republican candidate now believes Obama was born in the U.S. Campaign spokesman Jason Miller said Trump "did a great service to the country" by bringing closure to the debate.
"In 2011, Mr. Trump was finally able to bring this ugly incident to its conclusion by successfully compelling President Obama to release his birth certificate," Miller said.
But the Clinton campaign seized on Trump’s reluctance to address the issue in his Post interview.
Speaking shortly before Trump across town at the Black Women's Agenda Symposium, Clinton said Friday the Republican nominee was “feeding into” the “bigotry and bias that lurks in our country” – and should apologize.
“Barack Obama was born in America,” she said. “Donald Trump owes him and the American people an apology.”
Her campaign called his Friday comments "disgraceful."
The dust-up comes as Trump gains on Clinton in national and battleground state polls, even surpassing her in some states.
A new Fox News poll shows Clinton topping Trump by just one point among likely voters in the four-way ballot nationally.
In the head-to-head matchup, Trump’s up by one point.
Both candidates were fundraising Friday after events in Washington. Clinton has endured a rough week on the campaign trail, after criticizing some Trump supporters last Friday as "deplorables" and then having to take time off from the campaign due to a bout of pnemonia.
She used the birther issue to try and go back on offense.
While Obama was born in Hawaii, Trump several years ago was a key figure in stoking the so-called "birther" controversy. Critics saw it as an attempt to delegitimize the nation’s first black president.
Trump has said repeatedly during the campaign that he no longer talks about the "birther" issue.
The Trump campaign’s statement late Thursday claimed that Clinton launched the “birther” movement during her unsuccessful primary run against Obama in 2008.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign first raised this issue to smear then-candidate Barack Obama in her very nasty, failed 2008 campaign for President," the statement said. "This type of vicious and conniving behavior is straight from the Clinton Playbook. As usual, however, Hillary Clinton was too weak to get an answer."
Clinton has long denied the claim, and fact-checkers previously have found no public evidence that she or her campaign directly pushed the issue. Rather, Trump’s comments appear to refer to reports that Clinton supporters circulated an email during the bitter 2008 primary race questioning Obama’s citizenship.
Yet former McClatchy D.C. bureau chief James Asher said on Twitter Friday that Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal in fact “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.
Obama had released a standard short form of his birth certificate before the 2008 presidential election. Anyone who wants a copy of the more detailed, long-form document must submit a waiver request, and have that request approved by Hawaii's health department.
In 2011, amid persistent questions from Trump about his birthplace, Obama submitted a waiver request. He dispatched his personal lawyer to Hawaii to pick up copies and carry the documents back to Washington on a plane.
The form said Obama was born at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu. It is signed by the delivery doctor, Obama's mother and the local registrar.
At the White House on Friday, Obama declined to comment at length on the issue, saying he’s got other business to attend to – and is confident about where he was born.
Fox News’ Nicholas Kalman and Tamara Gitt and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
AjXQcFaibD0DE97y
|
|
us_congress
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/03/gop-reps-gaetz-gohmert-biggs-push-for-mueller-resignation-in-new-resolution.html
|
GOP Reps. Gaetz, Gohmert, Biggs push for Mueller resignation in new resolution
|
2017-11-03
|
Brooke Singman
|
Three GOP congressmen introduced a resolution Friday calling for special counsel Robert Mueller to resign from the Russia collusion probe , citing his ties to the FBI and its role in controversies involving Russia .
Rep. Matt Gaetz , R-Fla. , a member of the House Judiciary Committee , along with co-sponsors , Rep. Andy Biggs , R-Ariz. , and Louie Gohmert , R-Texas , introduced the resolution on Friday .
“ Evidence has emerged that the FBI withheld information from Congress and from the American people about Russian corruption of American uranium companies , ” Gaetz said in a statement Friday . “ A confidential U.S. witness , working in the Russian nuclear industry , revealed that Russia had deeply compromised an American uranium trucking firm through bribery and financial kickbacks . ”
Gaetz was referring to Mueller ’ s supervision of a bribery probe involving a subsidiary of Russia ’ s Rosatom , which eventually got approval from the U.S. to buy a Canadian mining company , Uranium One , that controlled a swath of American uranium reserves . At the time of the probe , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , who appointed Mueller as special counsel , was a U.S. attorney and Mueller was FBI director . Republicans want to know how that deal was approved despite the evidence gathered in the bribery probe .
MUELLER FACING NEW REPUBLICAN PRESSURE TO RESIGN IN RUSSIA PROBE
Gaetz also pointed to the FBI informant , whose gag order was lifted by the Justice Department last week , and is now able to provide information to Congress , free of the FBI ’ s nondisclosure agreement he signed when Mueller served as director .
“ Although federal agents possessed this information in 2010 , the Department of Justice continued investigating this “ matter ” for over four years . The FBI , led at the time by Robert Mueller , required the confidential witness to sign a non-disclosure agreement . When the witness attempted to contact Congress and federal courts about the bribery and corruption he saw , he was threatened with legal action , ” Gaetz said in a statement . “ By silencing him , Obama ’ s Justice Department and Mueller ’ s FBI knowingly kept Congress in the dark about Russia ’ s significant and illegal involvement with American uranium companies . ”
Gaetz said that due to these “ deeply troubling ” events , Mueller ’ s “ impartiality is hopelessly compromised . ”
Rep. Trent Franks , R-Ariz. , has also called for Mueller ’ s resignation .
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley , R-Iowa , has called for an independent special counsel to investigate the Obama-era Uranium One deal .
There are currently two pieces of legislation in the Senate , with bipartisan sponsorship , that would ensure a judicial check on the executive branch ’ s ability to remove a special counsel . Republican Sens . Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , and Thom Tillis , R-N.C. , are behind the bills , along with Democratic senators .
The proposed resolution comes just days after Mueller ’ s team announced the first charges in their investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign officials in the 2016 presidential election .
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates were indicted on 12 counts by a federal grand jury as part of the probe . Both pleaded not guilty . And Former Trump foreign policy campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos entered a guilty plea on Monday after admittedly making false statements to the FBI .
|
Three GOP congressmen introduced a resolution Friday calling for special counsel Robert Mueller to resign from the Russia collusion probe, citing his ties to the FBI and its role in controversies involving Russia.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, along with co-sponsors, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, introduced the resolution on Friday.
“Evidence has emerged that the FBI withheld information from Congress and from the American people about Russian corruption of American uranium companies,” Gaetz said in a statement Friday. “A confidential U.S. witness, working in the Russian nuclear industry, revealed that Russia had deeply compromised an American uranium trucking firm through bribery and financial kickbacks.”
Gaetz was referring to Mueller’s supervision of a bribery probe involving a subsidiary of Russia’s Rosatom, which eventually got approval from the U.S. to buy a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, that controlled a swath of American uranium reserves. At the time of the probe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as special counsel, was a U.S. attorney and Mueller was FBI director. Republicans want to know how that deal was approved despite the evidence gathered in the bribery probe.
MUELLER FACING NEW REPUBLICAN PRESSURE TO RESIGN IN RUSSIA PROBE
Gaetz also pointed to the FBI informant, whose gag order was lifted by the Justice Department last week, and is now able to provide information to Congress, free of the FBI’s nondisclosure agreement he signed when Mueller served as director.
“Although federal agents possessed this information in 2010, the Department of Justice continued investigating this “matter” for over four years. The FBI, led at the time by Robert Mueller, required the confidential witness to sign a non-disclosure agreement. When the witness attempted to contact Congress and federal courts about the bribery and corruption he saw, he was threatened with legal action,” Gaetz said in a statement. “By silencing him, Obama’s Justice Department and Mueller’s FBI knowingly kept Congress in the dark about Russia’s significant and illegal involvement with American uranium companies.”
Gaetz said that due to these “deeply troubling” events, Mueller’s “impartiality is hopelessly compromised.”
“He must step down immediately,” Gaetz said Friday.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., has also called for Mueller’s resignation.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has called for an independent special counsel to investigate the Obama-era Uranium One deal.
There are currently two pieces of legislation in the Senate, with bipartisan sponsorship, that would ensure a judicial check on the executive branch’s ability to remove a special counsel. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., are behind the bills, along with Democratic senators.
The proposed resolution comes just days after Mueller’s team announced the first charges in their investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign officials in the 2016 presidential election.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates were indicted on 12 counts by a federal grand jury as part of the probe. Both pleaded not guilty. And Former Trump foreign policy campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos entered a guilty plea on Monday after admittedly making false statements to the FBI.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
r4VMpx3usXKCEBe1
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/trump-2020-rust-belt-joe-biden-1332973
|
Trump scrambles to reverse Rust Belt slide
|
2019-05-20
|
Alex Isenstadt, Katherine Landergan, Daniel Strauss
|
Donald Trump ’ s aides and allies are moving aggressively to shore up his support in three Rust Belt states that propelled him to the presidency — but where his own polling shows him in trouble heading into 2020 .
Trump will travel to Pennsylvania Monday for a rally that comes after recent visits to Wisconsin and Michigan , two other states at the center of his reelection strategy . Those appearances are just the most public display of his team ’ s efforts to fortify his standing .
Behind the scenes , they 've rushed to the aid of languishing state Republican Party machines and have raised concerns that a potential GOP Senate candidate in Michigan could hurt the president ’ s prospects there . They are also scrutinizing the map for opportunities to fire up his base in the trio of states .
The moves come at a time of growing anxiety over the geographic linchpin of his 2020 hopes . The Trump campaign recently completed a 17-state polling project that concluded the president trails Joe Biden in Pennsylvania , Wisconsin and Michigan , according to two people briefed on the results . America First Action , the principal pro-Trump super PAC , is expected to conduct its own polling and focus groups in Pennsylvania and Michigan later this summer .
People close to the president insist they ’ re not panicked . They think Biden ’ s numbers will drop once the honeymoon stage of his campaign wears off . Earlier this month , the president convened his top advisers , including campaign manager Brad Parscale , Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and Jared Kushner for a dinner focused on 2020 that was described as an upbeat affair .
COUNTDOWN TO 2020 The race for 2020 starts now . Stay in the know . Follow our presidential election coverage . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time .
Yet there ’ s nagging concern after a midterm election in which Republicans across the Midwest got clobbered — and as Trump ’ s trade war is threatening farmers and factory workers who helped put him in office .
The president won each state by less than 1 percentage point in 2016 .
“ The fact that the president and vice president are frequent travelers to Michigan — I think that shows that everyone gets the math , ” said former Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette , a Trump supporter who recently joined the president for a rally in Grand Rapids . “ Do the math : You ’ ve got to carry a state like a Michigan , a Wisconsin , a Pennsylvania . ”
Former Trump White House chief of staff and ex-state GOP Chairman Reince Priebus was among those who pushed for a post-midterm study to assess what went wrong for the GOP . It resulted in a scalding , 15-page autopsy concluding that the Wisconsin Republican Party had “ drifted from its roots as a grassroots organization and became a top-down bureaucracy , disconnected from local activists , recklessly reliant on outside consultants and took for granted money that was raised to keep the party functioning properly . ”
To fix the financial woes , the report said , “ we need to understand the missteps fully and put a flag in the ground to say ‘ this ends now . ’ ”
Released last week , the autopsy followed a brutal midterm election that saw Republicans lose the governorship , traditionally a key organizational and financial asset in presidential elections . The report detailed a series of steps the state party needs to take ahead of 2020 .
Priebus , who still speaks with the president , is expected to brief major contributors on the report next month in Milwaukee . Efforts are already underway to pay off the party ’ s post-midterm debt : Republican megadonor Diane Hendricks , a Trump 2016 fundraising committee vice chair , recently gave the state party $ 500,000 , two people familiar with the donation confirmed .
“ At its core , we did the autopsy because 2018 didn ’ t go the way we wanted it to go , ” said Wisconsin GOP Chairman Andrew Hitt , an attorney for Trump ’ s 2016 campaign . “ It really became clear that some things just fundamentally didn ’ t go right and so we wanted take a deep dive and look at them and correct them . ”
Republicans also lost the governorship in Michigan last year . Afterward , the reelection campaign took the unusual step of intervening in the race for state GOP chair , with Parscale issuing a public endorsement of former state legislator Laura Cox . This spring , Michael Ambrosini , a former Trump White House aide and ex-RNC official , took the No . 2 post at the state party .
Trump advisers , meanwhile , are on alert for anything else that might diminish the president ’ s prospects in the state — including , they worry , a Senate bid by Iraq War veteran John James .
Republican Senate leaders are aggressively courting the rising GOP star to challenge Democratic Sen. Gary Peters . But Trump aides have warned Senate GOP officials that a statewide campaign by James could force Democrats to spend more money in the state , driving turnout on the other side and potentially hurting the president . The Trump team has argued it would be safer for James to run for a House seat .
James has met with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in recent weeks to discuss his options .
In Pennsylvania , where Republicans have been mired in turmoil and infighting since the midterms , Trump campaign officials traveled to the state capital last month to discuss turnout and field plans with state party leaders .
The Trump team deliberately chose Pennsylvania ’ s Lycoming County for Monday ’ s rally , where the president will campaign with a Republican heavily favored to win a special House election this week . Trump won nearly 70 percent of the vote there in 2016 , and his advisers hope to mobilize his hardcore supporters well ahead of the general election season .
Pence has embarked on his own foray into the Rust Belt , flying to Michigan in April and doing a multistop tour in Wisconsin last week . He ’ s slated to headline a fundraiser for the Pennsylvania GOP in Hershey next month .
Pence , the former Indiana governor , is focusing on trade during his travels , visiting manufacturing plants and farms . He has reported back to the president on concerns he ’ s heard from workers about tariffs .
Despite the concern about Trump ’ s Rust Belt standing , his supporters insist the president ’ s appeal to blue-collar workers remains strong .
Lou Barletta , a former Pennsylvania congressman who ’ s expected to attend the Monday rally , argued that polling understates the president ’ s popularity — just as it did in 2016 .
“ If people haven ’ t learned anything from the last election , ” said Barletta , “ they ’ re going to get burned again . ”
|
Supporters of President Donald Trump demonstrate last month in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Trump's reelection team is looking to fortify his standing there and in parts of the industrial Midwest. | Mark Makela/Getty Images 2020 Elections Trump scrambles to reverse Rust Belt slide His campaign is moving to shore up his standing in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — where its own polling shows him trailing Joe Biden.
Donald Trump’s aides and allies are moving aggressively to shore up his support in three Rust Belt states that propelled him to the presidency — but where his own polling shows him in trouble heading into 2020.
Trump will travel to Pennsylvania Monday for a rally that comes after recent visits to Wisconsin and Michigan, two other states at the center of his reelection strategy. Those appearances are just the most public display of his team’s efforts to fortify his standing.
Story Continued Below
Behind the scenes, they've rushed to the aid of languishing state Republican Party machines and have raised concerns that a potential GOP Senate candidate in Michigan could hurt the president’s prospects there. They are also scrutinizing the map for opportunities to fire up his base in the trio of states.
The moves come at a time of growing anxiety over the geographic linchpin of his 2020 hopes. The Trump campaign recently completed a 17-state polling project that concluded the president trails Joe Biden in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, according to two people briefed on the results. America First Action, the principal pro-Trump super PAC, is expected to conduct its own polling and focus groups in Pennsylvania and Michigan later this summer.
People close to the president insist they’re not panicked. They think Biden’s numbers will drop once the honeymoon stage of his campaign wears off. Earlier this month, the president convened his top advisers, including campaign manager Brad Parscale, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and Jared Kushner for a dinner focused on 2020 that was described as an upbeat affair.
COUNTDOWN TO 2020 The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential election coverage. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Yet there’s nagging concern after a midterm election in which Republicans across the Midwest got clobbered — and as Trump’s trade war is threatening farmers and factory workers who helped put him in office.
The president won each state by less than 1 percentage point in 2016.
“The fact that the president and vice president are frequent travelers to Michigan — I think that shows that everyone gets the math,” said former Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Trump supporter who recently joined the president for a rally in Grand Rapids. “Do the math: You’ve got to carry a state like a Michigan, a Wisconsin, a Pennsylvania.”
Wisconsin is also getting special attention from the campaign.
Former Trump White House chief of staff and ex-state GOP Chairman Reince Priebus was among those who pushed for a post-midterm study to assess what went wrong for the GOP. It resulted in a scalding, 15-page autopsy concluding that the Wisconsin Republican Party had “drifted from its roots as a grassroots organization and became a top-down bureaucracy, disconnected from local activists, recklessly reliant on outside consultants and took for granted money that was raised to keep the party functioning properly.”
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201905/308/1155968404_6036719092001_6036699186001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
To fix the financial woes, the report said, “we need to understand the missteps fully and put a flag in the ground to say ‘this ends now.’”
Released last week, the autopsy followed a brutal midterm election that saw Republicans lose the governorship, traditionally a key organizational and financial asset in presidential elections. The report detailed a series of steps the state party needs to take ahead of 2020.
Priebus, who still speaks with the president, is expected to brief major contributors on the report next month in Milwaukee. Efforts are already underway to pay off the party’s post-midterm debt: Republican megadonor Diane Hendricks, a Trump 2016 fundraising committee vice chair, recently gave the state party $500,000, two people familiar with the donation confirmed.
“At its core, we did the autopsy because 2018 didn’t go the way we wanted it to go,” said Wisconsin GOP Chairman Andrew Hitt, an attorney for Trump’s 2016 campaign. “It really became clear that some things just fundamentally didn’t go right and so we wanted take a deep dive and look at them and correct them.”
Republicans also lost the governorship in Michigan last year. Afterward, the reelection campaign took the unusual step of intervening in the race for state GOP chair, with Parscale issuing a public endorsement of former state legislator Laura Cox. This spring, Michael Ambrosini, a former Trump White House aide and ex-RNC official, took the No. 2 post at the state party.
Trump advisers, meanwhile, are on alert for anything else that might diminish the president’s prospects in the state — including, they worry, a Senate bid by Iraq War veteran John James.
Republican Senate leaders are aggressively courting the rising GOP star to challenge Democratic Sen. Gary Peters. But Trump aides have warned Senate GOP officials that a statewide campaign by James could force Democrats to spend more money in the state, driving turnout on the other side and potentially hurting the president. The Trump team has argued it would be safer for James to run for a House seat.
James has met with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in recent weeks to discuss his options.
In Pennsylvania, where Republicans have been mired in turmoil and infighting since the midterms, Trump campaign officials traveled to the state capital last month to discuss turnout and field plans with state party leaders.
The Trump team deliberately chose Pennsylvania’s Lycoming County for Monday’s rally, where the president will campaign with a Republican heavily favored to win a special House election this week. Trump won nearly 70 percent of the vote there in 2016, and his advisers hope to mobilize his hardcore supporters well ahead of the general election season.
Pence has embarked on his own foray into the Rust Belt, flying to Michigan in April and doing a multistop tour in Wisconsin last week. He’s slated to headline a fundraiser for the Pennsylvania GOP in Hershey next month.
Pence, the former Indiana governor, is focusing on trade during his travels, visiting manufacturing plants and farms. He has reported back to the president on concerns he’s heard from workers about tariffs.
Despite the concern about Trump’s Rust Belt standing, his supporters insist the president’s appeal to blue-collar workers remains strong.
Lou Barletta, a former Pennsylvania congressman who’s expected to attend the Monday rally, argued that polling understates the president’s popularity — just as it did in 2016.
“If people haven’t learned anything from the last election,” said Barletta, “they’re going to get burned again.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
iOJEeoyW5VidoC1v
|
free_speech
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/27/trump-wants-to-weaken-libel-laws-amid-feuds-with-reporters.html
|
Trump wants to weaken libel laws amid feuds with reporters
|
2016-02-27
|
Feeling maligned by the media , Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them .
`` I love free press . I think it 's great , '' he said Saturday on ███ Channel , before quickly adding , `` We ought to open up the libel laws , and I 'm going to do that . ''
The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that `` when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles , we can sue them and win lots of money , '' he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth , Texas .
Trump added that , should he win the election , news organizations that have criticized him will `` have problems . '' He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post .
Trump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino . On Twitter , Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations , including The Associated Press .
`` The press has to be fair , '' he said in the broadcast interview .
`` His statement shows why we need libel protections , '' said Gregg Leslie , legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press . `` Trump gets offended , he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate . That 's not a good reason to sue someone . ''
Libel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them . To win such a case , the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth .
Trump said he would like to lower that standard . `` We 're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before , '' he said .
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard , Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress , Leslie said .
`` I 've never heard of politicians say they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment , '' he said . `` You 'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that . ''
Trump 's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law . Last year , he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States .
Courts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American . Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way .
`` You do n't have to do a constitutional amendment . You need an act of Congress . I 'm telling you -- you need an act of Congress , '' he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of ███ last year .
|
Feeling maligned by the media, Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them.
"I love free press. I think it's great," he said Saturday on Fox News Channel, before quickly adding, "We ought to open up the libel laws, and I'm going to do that."
The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that "when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth, Texas.
Trump added that, should he win the election, news organizations that have criticized him will "have problems." He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Trump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino. On Twitter, Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations, including The Associated Press.
"The press has to be fair," he said in the broadcast interview.
First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's suggestions.
"His statement shows why we need libel protections," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Trump gets offended, he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate. That's not a good reason to sue someone."
Libel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them. To win such a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Trump said he would like to lower that standard. "We're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before," he said.
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard, Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress, Leslie said.
"I've never heard of politicians say they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment," he said. "You'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that."
Trump's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law. Last year, he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Courts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American. Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way.
"You don't have to do a constitutional amendment. You need an act of Congress. I'm telling you -- you need an act of Congress," he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News last year.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
jrSuaoqhrU6EQrtB
|
|
fbi
|
Fox News (Online)
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rosenstein-defends-russia-probe-in-senate-testimony-faults-fbi-on-fisa-problems
|
Rosenstein testifies he would not have signed FISA warrant for Trump aide if he knew of problems
|
Brooke Singman
|
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents .
Rosenstein confirmed that he signed a FISA warrant renewal application for Page , during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he was the first witness as part of the panel ’ s fresh investigation into the origins of the Russia probe .
`` If you knew then what you know now , would you have signed the warrant application ? '' committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , asked Rosenstein .
GRAHAM REQUESTS NAMES OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO 'UNMASK ' TRUMP CAMPAIGN , TRANSITION OFFICIALS
Rosenstein , in his opening statement , defended his own actions related to the FISA warrant , saying that “ every application I approved appeared to be justified based on the facts it alleged. ” Rosenstein implicitly pointed the finger at the FBI for since-revealed problems in that process .
“ The FBI was supposed to be following protocols to ensure that every fact was verified , ” Rosenstein said , going on to cite Justice Department inspector general findings last year revealing that the FBI actually “ was not following the written protocols , and that ‘ significant errors ’ appeared in applications filed in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation . ”
Rosenstein repeatedly claimed to be unaware of details that have since been used by critics to raise questions about the probe . Rosenstein said he `` obviously didn ’ t know there was exculpatory evidence '' with regard to the origins of the Russia investigation , including details about Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos .
Rosenstein also noted that “ one of the most important matters ” during his time at the Justice Department as deputy attorney general was the “ investigation of Russian election influence schemes . ”
He defended his handling of that process , including the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
“ Attorney General Sessions had complied with a legal obligation to recuse himself from that investigation , ” Rosenstein said , referring to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions ’ decision to recuse himself from the probe due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016 . “ As a result of events that followed the departure of the FBI Director , I was concerned that the public would not have confidence in the investigation and that the acting FBI Director was not the right person to lead it. ” Rosenstein had recommended Trump remove James Comey as director , effectively making his deputy , Andrew McCabe , the leader of the bureau .
“ I decided that appointing a Special Counsel was the best way to complete the investigation appropriately and promote public confidence in its conclusions , ” Rosenstein said , noting that the appointment of Mueller was “ consistent with Department of Justice precedent . ”
LIST OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO UNMASK FLYNN RELEASED : BIDEN , COMEY , OBAMA CHIEF OF STAFF AMONG THEM
“ I asked the Special Counsel to review each criminal allegation the FBI considered relevant to Russian election influence operations and recommended whether to close the matter ; investigate because it might be relevant to Russian election meddling ; or refer the matter to another prosecutor , ” Rosenstein explained , noting that he ensured that Mueller had to go through a “ supervisory chain of command ” with “ highly qualified ” DOJ attorneys and officials .
“ Crossfire Hurricane ” is the FBI ’ s internal code name for the bureau ’ s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election . That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016 . Mueller 's team eventually announced that it found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination .
Rosenstein also said that “ whenever agents or prosecutors make serious mistakes or engage in misconduct , ” the DOJ “ must take remedial action . ”
“ Ensuring the integrity of governmental processes is essential to public confidence in the rule of law , ” Rosenstein said .
Rosenstein is the first witness as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s fresh Russia probe review .
Graham last month outlined the parameters for that investigation , which included , among other things “ whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as special counsel . ”
Graham , R-S.C. , during his opening statement Wednesday , acknowledged the importance of allowing Mueller to run his investigation , recalling legislation that he and GOP senators introduced to protect Mueller from firing .
`` Now it is important to find out what the hell happened , '' Graham said . `` How could it have gotten to be where it wound up being ? ''
Graham also prompted Rosenstein to acknowledge there was scant collusion evidence in August 2017 .
`` The whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians , there was no there there in August 2017 . Do you agree with that statement ? '' he asked .
August 2017 is when Rosenstein penned the “ scope memo ” for Mueller ’ s investigation , which outlined the authority of Mueller . Last month , the memo was released in full , and revealed for the first time that Mueller ’ s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known .
Previously , it had been revealed that in May 2017 , Rosenstein authorized Mueller to probe `` i ) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump ; ii ) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ; [ and ] iii ) any other matters within the scope of [ obstruction of justice laws ] . ”
But , Rosenstein 's later August 2017 scope memo had remained largely redacted . The newly released version of the document makes clear that Rosenstein did n't hesitate to authorize a probe into the Trump team that extended beyond general Russian interference efforts .
DECLASSIFIED SUSAN RICE EMAIL SHOWS COMEY SUGGESTED 'SENSITIVE ' INFO ON RUSSIA NOT BE SHARED WITH FLYNN
The newly released version of the 2017 scope memo further makes clear that Mueller could look into whether Michael Flynn `` committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition . ”
Additionally , the scope memo stated that Mueller was charged specifically with investigating whether several former Trump officials -- including Carter Page , Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort -- had `` committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government 's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States . ”
Meanwhile , Rosenstein ’ s appearance comes just one day before the committee votes on potential subpoenas for documents and testimony from top Obama officials .
DOJ DROPS CASE AGAINST MICHAEL FLYNN , IN WAKE OF INTERNAL MEMO RELEASE
The potential subpoenas would cover documents , communications and witness testimony in a public setting or behind closed doors for any “ current or former executive branch official or employee involved in the 'Crossfire Hurricane ' investigation . ”
Graham is seeking testimony from former FBI Director James Comey , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , former CIA Director John Brennan , former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and others .
Graham announced earlier that his investigation would specifically focus on unmasking and abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . It comes amid swirling controversies surrounding the unmasking of Flynn 's name in intelligence reports , as well as the DOJ 's effort to drop the Flynn case citing problems with the FBI 's handling of it .
|
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents.
Rosenstein confirmed that he signed a FISA warrant renewal application for Page, during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he was the first witness as part of the panel’s fresh investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.
"If you knew then what you know now, would you have signed the warrant application?" committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Rosenstein.
"No, I would not," Rosenstein said.
GRAHAM REQUESTS NAMES OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO 'UNMASK' TRUMP CAMPAIGN, TRANSITION OFFICIALS
Rosenstein, in his opening statement, defended his own actions related to the FISA warrant, saying that “every application I approved appeared to be justified based on the facts it alleged.” Rosenstein implicitly pointed the finger at the FBI for since-revealed problems in that process.
DOJ RELEASES LONG-AWAITED MUELLER SCOPE MEMO
“The FBI was supposed to be following protocols to ensure that every fact was verified,” Rosenstein said, going on to cite Justice Department inspector general findings last year revealing that the FBI actually “was not following the written protocols, and that ‘significant errors’ appeared in applications filed in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
Rosenstein repeatedly claimed to be unaware of details that have since been used by critics to raise questions about the probe. Rosenstein said he "obviously didn’t know there was exculpatory evidence" with regard to the origins of the Russia investigation, including details about Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.
Rosenstein also noted that “one of the most important matters” during his time at the Justice Department as deputy attorney general was the “investigation of Russian election influence schemes.”
He defended his handling of that process, including the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
“Attorney General Sessions had complied with a legal obligation to recuse himself from that investigation,” Rosenstein said, referring to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from the probe due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016. “As a result of events that followed the departure of the FBI Director, I was concerned that the public would not have confidence in the investigation and that the acting FBI Director was not the right person to lead it.” Rosenstein had recommended Trump remove James Comey as director, effectively making his deputy, Andrew McCabe, the leader of the bureau.
“I decided that appointing a Special Counsel was the best way to complete the investigation appropriately and promote public confidence in its conclusions,” Rosenstein said, noting that the appointment of Mueller was “consistent with Department of Justice precedent.”
LIST OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO UNMASK FLYNN RELEASED: BIDEN, COMEY, OBAMA CHIEF OF STAFF AMONG THEM
“I asked the Special Counsel to review each criminal allegation the FBI considered relevant to Russian election influence operations and recommended whether to close the matter; investigate because it might be relevant to Russian election meddling; or refer the matter to another prosecutor,” Rosenstein explained, noting that he ensured that Mueller had to go through a “supervisory chain of command” with “highly qualified” DOJ attorneys and officials.
“Crossfire Hurricane” is the FBI’s internal code name for the bureau’s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016. Mueller's team eventually announced that it found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination.
Rosenstein also said that “whenever agents or prosecutors make serious mistakes or engage in misconduct,” the DOJ “must take remedial action.”
“Ensuring the integrity of governmental processes is essential to public confidence in the rule of law,” Rosenstein said.
Rosenstein is the first witness as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s fresh Russia probe review.
Graham last month outlined the parameters for that investigation, which included, among other things “whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as special counsel.”
Rosenstein, in May 2017, appointed Mueller as special counsel.
Graham, R-S.C., during his opening statement Wednesday, acknowledged the importance of allowing Mueller to run his investigation, recalling legislation that he and GOP senators introduced to protect Mueller from firing.
"Now it is important to find out what the hell happened," Graham said. "How could it have gotten to be where it wound up being?"
Graham also prompted Rosenstein to acknowledge there was scant collusion evidence in August 2017.
"The whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians, there was no there there in August 2017. Do you agree with that statement?" he asked.
Rosenstein replied: "I agree with that general statement."
August 2017 is when Rosenstein penned the “scope memo” for Mueller’s investigation, which outlined the authority of Mueller. Last month, the memo was released in full, and revealed for the first time that Mueller’s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known.
FLYNN-KISLYAK TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED
Previously, it had been revealed that in May 2017, Rosenstein authorized Mueller to probe "i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; [and] iii) any other matters within the scope of [obstruction of justice laws].”
But, Rosenstein's later August 2017 scope memo had remained largely redacted. The newly released version of the document makes clear that Rosenstein didn't hesitate to authorize a probe into the Trump team that extended beyond general Russian interference efforts.
DECLASSIFIED SUSAN RICE EMAIL SHOWS COMEY SUGGESTED 'SENSITIVE' INFO ON RUSSIA NOT BE SHARED WITH FLYNN
The newly released version of the 2017 scope memo further makes clear that Mueller could look into whether Michael Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition.”
Additionally, the scope memo stated that Mueller was charged specifically with investigating whether several former Trump officials -- including Carter Page, Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort -- had "committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States.”
Meanwhile, Rosenstein’s appearance comes just one day before the committee votes on potential subpoenas for documents and testimony from top Obama officials.
DOJ DROPS CASE AGAINST MICHAEL FLYNN, IN WAKE OF INTERNAL MEMO RELEASE
The potential subpoenas would cover documents, communications and witness testimony in a public setting or behind closed doors for any “current or former executive branch official or employee involved in the 'Crossfire Hurricane' investigation.”
Graham is seeking testimony from former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and others.
Graham announced earlier that his investigation would specifically focus on unmasking and abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It comes amid swirling controversies surrounding the unmasking of Flynn's name in intelligence reports, as well as the DOJ's effort to drop the Flynn case citing problems with the FBI's handling of it.
Fox News' John Roberts and Gregg Re contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
mHffRUo5J3YXWy01
|
|
elections
|
Reason
| 22
|
http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/05/the-collectivist-election
|
The Collectivist Election
|
2016-11-05
|
Matt Welch, Christian Britschgi, Jacob Sullum, Billy Binion, Scott Shackford, Eric Boehm, Noah Shepardson, Mike Riggs
|
When Henry Adams wrote in the early 20th century that `` politics , as a practice whatever its professions , had always been the systematic organization of hatreds , '' there was ample ███ to take him literally .
The world back then was on the verge of a cataclysmic war that would kill 17 million people and help incubate both communism and fascism . Adams had come of age in London as the son of the American ambassador under President Abraham Lincoln , a man who knew all too well how political disputes can turn bloody . And Adams ' great-grandfather , the second president of the United States , was accused by Thomas Jefferson 's supporters during the famously acrimonious 1800 election of having , among many other unpleasant things , a `` hideous hermaphroditical character . ''
So maybe the one positive of the 2016 version of American political hatred is that it probably wo n't make people work double shifts down at the morgue . But everything else about this repellant contest between the two most reviled major-party nominees in modern history points to an alarming resurgence of that foul and dangerous defect of judgment known as collectivism .
When we hear the c word nowadays it 's usually in the context of Stalin 's agricultural five-year plans or the rah-rah slogans on 1930s posters . But there 's another , more personal meaning of the term that has dwindled in usage , even while its application to major-party politics seems to ratchet up each cycle . And that is : treating the disparate individuals within any given bloc as sharing a collective set of characteristics , intentions , and pathologies . It 's what Hillary Clinton meant with `` basket of deplorables , '' it 's what Donald Trump has done with `` Mexican heritage '' and its variants , and it 's all too often the nightstick that our friends and loved ones grab for when talking about politics in a presidential year .
What makes the Democratic version of collective antipathy particularly noxious is the fact that it often comes disguised as a treacly appeal to unity . Trump `` wants to divide us , '' Clinton lamented at the Democratic National Convention . `` We have to heal the divides in our country.…And that starts with listening , listening to each other . Trying , as best we can , to walk in each other 's shoes . ''
Unless , of course , you have or work with large amounts of money . `` Wall Street , corporations , and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes , '' Clinton thundered later in the same speech . `` If companies take tax breaks and then ship jobs overseas , we 'll make them pay us back . ''
Clinton 's vanquished Democratic opponent , the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders , is even more tin-eared about his own hypocrisy . `` This election is about which candidate understands the real problems facing this country and has offered real solutions , '' Sanders said in his convention speech . `` Not just bombast , not just fearmongering , not just name calling and divisiveness . '' But a few minutes later , Sanders engaged in some bombastic fearmongering of his own , bemoaning that `` the wealthiest people in America , like the billionaire Koch brothers…spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying elections and in the process undermine American democracy . '' ( David Koch is a trustee of ███ Foundation , which publishes this magazine . )
Clinton 's most controversial instance of Othering during this season came at a September fundraiser in New York , where she said , `` to just be grossly generalistic , you could put half of Trump 's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables . Right ? The racist , sexist , homophobic , xenophobic , Islamophobic—you name it.…Now some of those folks , they are irredeemable , but thankfully they are not America . '' While the irredeemable and un-American twists were new ( as was the memorable metaphor ) , Clinton 's behind-closed-doors sentiment only mirrored what the Democratic nominee has said routinely throughout this dreary campaign .
At an October 2015 Democratic presidential primary debate , Clinton was asked by moderator Anderson Cooper , `` Which enemy are you most proud of ? '' Her reply , after some throat-clearing : `` Probably the Republicans . '' Some people laughed , but it was n't really a joke . When Vox Editor in Chief Ezra Klein asked Clinton nine months later whether she regretted the remark , she said , `` Not very much , '' adding : `` You know , they say terrible things about me , much worse than anything I 've ever said about them . That just seems to be part of the political back and forth now—to appeal to your base , to appeal to the ideologues who support you . We have become so divided . '' Do tell .
The best that you can say about Hillary Clinton 's collectivism—and the Democratic habit of mind that accepts and repeats such formulations unblinkingly—is that at least the deplorables chose their own status , whether through true bigotry or mere party membership . Donald Trump 's Others , by contrast , are often born that way .
In June , Trump told The Wall Street Journal that District Judge Gonzalo Curiel , who was presiding over a case involving the failed Trump University , should have been disqualified by his `` Mexican heritage . '' `` I 'm building a wall , '' the eventual GOP nominee explained . `` It 's an inherent conflict of interest . ''
In a follow-up interview , Face the Nation 's John Dickerson asked Trump to clarify what exactly the Mexican parents of an Indiana-born judge had to do with Curiel 's adverse rulings in the case . `` Excuse me , I want to build a wall , '' Trump shot back . `` I mean , I do n't think it 's very confusing.…Has nothing to do with anything except common sense . You know , we have to stop being so politically correct in this country . ''
Gross generalizations and shorthand stereotypes often make sense—until they do n't . On the playgrounds and in the popular culture of my youth , Mexicans were lazy , Poles were stupid , and `` queers '' were people who you 'd `` smear '' on a football field because they were so weak . Now , Mexicans are uniquely industrious , Poles win Nobel prizes , and the buffest guy at the gym is probably gay . The same thing Donald Trump now says about the Chinese , the entire political and journalistic class was saying about the Japanese in the 1980s . Yes , facts on the ground change , but stereotypes often recede when the dominant culture recognizes them as reductionist , shameful , even ridiculous .
Reverting to that kind of collectivism , assigning negative value indiscriminately across an entire population , feels retrograde in a country so steeped in individualistic ethos . Once we start dismissing 20 percent of the population ( or 47 percent , as with Mitt Romney ) , particularly in a discussion involving politics , we are playing with fire . Determinism , when wedded to state power , has produced some of the worst moments in American history .
Ayn Rand 's writing on this is hard to top . `` Like every form of determinism , '' Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness , `` racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species : his rational faculty . Racism negates two aspects of man 's life : ███ and choice , or mind and morality , replacing them with chemical predestination . ''
The problem is n't just racism 's malign effects on the recipient . It also has rotting effects on the intellect of the originator : `` Like every other form of collectivism , racism is a quest for the unearned , '' Rand wrote . `` It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men 's characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment . ''
American political discourse in 2016 too is about bypassing the responsibility of judgment and trying to bludgeon people into line through insult comedy . Here 's hoping that more and more of our fellow citizens will refuse to take the politicians ' bait . And that Hillary Clinton starts reading some Ayn Rand .
|
When Henry Adams wrote in the early 20th century that "politics, as a practice whatever its professions, had always been the systematic organization of hatreds," there was ample reason to take him literally.
The world back then was on the verge of a cataclysmic war that would kill 17 million people and help incubate both communism and fascism. Adams had come of age in London as the son of the American ambassador under President Abraham Lincoln, a man who knew all too well how political disputes can turn bloody. And Adams' great-grandfather, the second president of the United States, was accused by Thomas Jefferson's supporters during the famously acrimonious 1800 election of having, among many other unpleasant things, a "hideous hermaphroditical character."
So maybe the one positive of the 2016 version of American political hatred is that it probably won't make people work double shifts down at the morgue. But everything else about this repellant contest between the two most reviled major-party nominees in modern history points to an alarming resurgence of that foul and dangerous defect of judgment known as collectivism.
When we hear the c word nowadays it's usually in the context of Stalin's agricultural five-year plans or the rah-rah slogans on 1930s posters. But there's another, more personal meaning of the term that has dwindled in usage, even while its application to major-party politics seems to ratchet up each cycle. And that is: treating the disparate individuals within any given bloc as sharing a collective set of characteristics, intentions, and pathologies. It's what Hillary Clinton meant with "basket of deplorables," it's what Donald Trump has done with "Mexican heritage" and its variants, and it's all too often the nightstick that our friends and loved ones grab for when talking about politics in a presidential year.
What makes the Democratic version of collective antipathy particularly noxious is the fact that it often comes disguised as a treacly appeal to unity. Trump "wants to divide us," Clinton lamented at the Democratic National Convention. "We have to heal the divides in our country.…And that starts with listening, listening to each other. Trying, as best we can, to walk in each other's shoes."
Unless, of course, you have or work with large amounts of money. "Wall Street, corporations, and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes," Clinton thundered later in the same speech. "If companies take tax breaks and then ship jobs overseas, we'll make them pay us back."
Clinton's vanquished Democratic opponent, the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, is even more tin-eared about his own hypocrisy. "This election is about which candidate understands the real problems facing this country and has offered real solutions," Sanders said in his convention speech. "Not just bombast, not just fearmongering, not just name calling and divisiveness." But a few minutes later, Sanders engaged in some bombastic fearmongering of his own, bemoaning that "the wealthiest people in America, like the billionaire Koch brothers…spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying elections and in the process undermine American democracy." (David Koch is a trustee of Reason Foundation, which publishes this magazine.)
Clinton's most controversial instance of Othering during this season came at a September fundraiser in New York, where she said, "to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.…Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America." While the irredeemable and un-American twists were new (as was the memorable metaphor), Clinton's behind-closed-doors sentiment only mirrored what the Democratic nominee has said routinely throughout this dreary campaign.
At an October 2015 Democratic presidential primary debate, Clinton was asked by moderator Anderson Cooper, "Which enemy are you most proud of?" Her reply, after some throat-clearing: "Probably the Republicans." Some people laughed, but it wasn't really a joke. When Vox Editor in Chief Ezra Klein asked Clinton nine months later whether she regretted the remark, she said, "Not very much," adding: "You know, they say terrible things about me, much worse than anything I've ever said about them. That just seems to be part of the political back and forth now—to appeal to your base, to appeal to the ideologues who support you. We have become so divided." Do tell.
The best that you can say about Hillary Clinton's collectivism—and the Democratic habit of mind that accepts and repeats such formulations unblinkingly—is that at least the deplorables chose their own status, whether through true bigotry or mere party membership. Donald Trump's Others, by contrast, are often born that way.
In June, Trump told The Wall Street Journal that District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over a case involving the failed Trump University, should have been disqualified by his "Mexican heritage." "I'm building a wall," the eventual GOP nominee explained. "It's an inherent conflict of interest."
In a follow-up interview, Face the Nation's John Dickerson asked Trump to clarify what exactly the Mexican parents of an Indiana-born judge had to do with Curiel's adverse rulings in the case. "Excuse me, I want to build a wall," Trump shot back. "I mean, I don't think it's very confusing.…Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country."
Gross generalizations and shorthand stereotypes often make sense—until they don't. On the playgrounds and in the popular culture of my youth, Mexicans were lazy, Poles were stupid, and "queers" were people who you'd "smear" on a football field because they were so weak. Now, Mexicans are uniquely industrious, Poles win Nobel prizes, and the buffest guy at the gym is probably gay. The same thing Donald Trump now says about the Chinese, the entire political and journalistic class was saying about the Japanese in the 1980s. Yes, facts on the ground change, but stereotypes often recede when the dominant culture recognizes them as reductionist, shameful, even ridiculous.
Reverting to that kind of collectivism, assigning negative value indiscriminately across an entire population, feels retrograde in a country so steeped in individualistic ethos. Once we start dismissing 20 percent of the population (or 47 percent, as with Mitt Romney), particularly in a discussion involving politics, we are playing with fire. Determinism, when wedded to state power, has produced some of the worst moments in American history.
Ayn Rand's writing on this is hard to top. "Like every form of determinism," Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness, "racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination."
The problem isn't just racism's malign effects on the recipient. It also has rotting effects on the intellect of the originator: "Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned," Rand wrote. "It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men's characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment."
American political discourse in 2016 too is about bypassing the responsibility of judgment and trying to bludgeon people into line through insult comedy. Here's hoping that more and more of our fellow citizens will refuse to take the politicians' bait. And that Hillary Clinton starts reading some Ayn Rand.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
alVGBJ9gR1qhWRhw
|
defense
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0403/Hagel-invokes-Eisenhower-as-he-signals-era-of-austerity-at-Pentagon-video?nav=87-frontpage-entryLeadStory
|
Hagel invokes Eisenhower as he signals era of austerity at Pentagon (+video)
|
2013-04-03
|
Anna Mulrine
|
In his first major policy speech Wednesday , Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel signaled he will be taking a hard look at the way the Pentagon spends its money and at whether the US military needs quite so many officers .
He also said that while the US military “ remains an essential tool of American power , ” it is also “ one that must be used judiciously , with a keen appreciation of its limits . ”
Speaking at the National Defense University in Washington , Secretary Hagel invoked the memory of President Dwight Eisenhower , who came up as a young officer in the wake of the Great Depression . He noted that the World War II general spoke at the same university 50 years ago .
“ The wise and prudent administration of the vast resources required by defense calls for extraordinary skill in meshing the military , political , economic , and social machinery of our modern life , ” Hagel said , quoting Eisenhower . “ So the greatest effective use is made of resources with a minimum of waste and misapplication . ”
Now that the “ gusher ” of war-time military spending is turned off , Hagel said , top Pentagon officials will be taking a hard look at some key spending areas .
This speech signaled precisely what those areas will be : acquisitions , personnel costs , and overhead .
“ Left unchecked , spiraling costs to sustain existing structures and institutions , provide benefits to personnel , and develop replacements for aging weapons platforms will eventually crowd out spending on procurement , operations , and readiness – the budget categories that enable the military to be and stay prepared , ” Hagel warned .
This will mean taking a hard look at Pentagon employees , including “ how many people we have – military and civilian – how many we need , what these people do , and how we compensate them for their work , service , and loyalty with pay , benefits and health care . ”
This will in turn prompt “ tough questions , ” Hagel concedes , including `` what is the right mix of civilians and military , and whether the force has the right balance of officers and enlisted . ”
Much of the DOD ’ s organizational chart dates back “ to the early days of the Cold War , ” Hagel said , noting that the last major defense reorganization was drafted during the height of the Reagan defense buildup .
While the military “ is not , and never should be , run like a corporation , ” Hagel noted , there is a danger that the DOD could go from “ an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering benefit programs , capable of buying only limited quantities of irrelevant and overpriced equipment . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
That ’ s because too often the weapons systems that Pentagon officials buy “ are vastly more expensive and technologically risky than what was promised or budgeted for. ” And the hard truth is that the most pressing problems the world faces “ do not necessarily lend themselves to being resolved by conventional military strength , ” he said .
“ Indeed the most destructive and horrific attack ever on the United States came not from fleets of ships , bombers , and armored divisions , but from 19 fanatical men wielding box cutters and one-way plane tickets . ''
|
In his first major policy speech Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel signaled he will be taking a hard look at the way the Pentagon spends its money and at whether the US military needs quite so many officers.
He also said that while the US military “remains an essential tool of American power,” it is also “one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits.”
Speaking at the National Defense University in Washington, Secretary Hagel invoked the memory of President Dwight Eisenhower, who came up as a young officer in the wake of the Great Depression. He noted that the World War II general spoke at the same university 50 years ago.
“The wise and prudent administration of the vast resources required by defense calls for extraordinary skill in meshing the military, political, economic, and social machinery of our modern life,” Hagel said, quoting Eisenhower. “So the greatest effective use is made of resources with a minimum of waste and misapplication.”
Now that the “gusher” of war-time military spending is turned off, Hagel said, top Pentagon officials will be taking a hard look at some key spending areas.
This speech signaled precisely what those areas will be: acquisitions, personnel costs, and overhead.
“Left unchecked, spiraling costs to sustain existing structures and institutions, provide benefits to personnel, and develop replacements for aging weapons platforms will eventually crowd out spending on procurement, operations, and readiness – the budget categories that enable the military to be and stay prepared,” Hagel warned.
This will mean taking a hard look at Pentagon employees, including “how many people we have – military and civilian – how many we need, what these people do, and how we compensate them for their work, service, and loyalty with pay, benefits and health care.”
This will in turn prompt “tough questions,” Hagel concedes, including "what is the right mix of civilians and military, and whether the force has the right balance of officers and enlisted.”
Much of the DOD’s organizational chart dates back “to the early days of the Cold War,” Hagel said, noting that the last major defense reorganization was drafted during the height of the Reagan defense buildup.
While the military “is not, and never should be, run like a corporation,” Hagel noted, there is a danger that the DOD could go from “an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering benefit programs, capable of buying only limited quantities of irrelevant and overpriced equipment.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
That’s because too often the weapons systems that Pentagon officials buy “are vastly more expensive and technologically risky than what was promised or budgeted for.” And the hard truth is that the most pressing problems the world faces “do not necessarily lend themselves to being resolved by conventional military strength,” he said.
“Indeed the most destructive and horrific attack ever on the United States came not from fleets of ships, bombers, and armored divisions, but from 19 fanatical men wielding box cutters and one-way plane tickets."
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
jsFGuwR1efUKOGLe
|
sexual_misconduct
|
The Week - Opinion
| 00
|
https://www.theweek.com/articles/911495/how-tara-reades-allegations-could-bring-down-joe-biden
|
How Tara Reade's allegations could bring down Joe Biden
|
2020-04-29
|
Damon Linker, Joel Mathis, Ryan Cooper
|
Earlier this month , I wrote a column asking what Democrats should do about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden , the party 's presumptive nominee for president . My answer ? Not much . The accusation made by Tara Reade , a former Biden staffer from his days in the Senate during the early 1990s , did n't strike me as especially convincing , so Democrats , I suggested , could move forward without much concern . Though toward the end of the column I included two caveats : If Reade offered further corroboration of her claims or if evidence emerged of a larger pattern of abusive actions toward women on Biden 's part , that could well change my views of the matter .
Just two weeks later , both of my conditions have been met .
Last week we learned that Reade 's mother called into the Larry King Show in 1993 to talk about how her daughter had quit working for a `` prominent senator '' after unspecified `` problems '' as a staffer . Then earlier this week Business Insider reported that a former neighbor of Reade 's ( a self-described `` strong Democrat '' ) recalls a conversation with her in 1995 or 1996 in which Reade tearfully described being sexually assaulted by Biden . Together , those two stories help to corroborate Reade 's specific claim about herself .
Finally , on Tuesday , a 2008 essay by the late Alexander Cockburn surfaced in which the journalist reported that Biden had made `` unwelcome and unwanted '' sexual advances against a woman in 1972 or 1973 . That establishes a possible longstanding pattern of Biden 's behavior that further validates Reade 's accusation ( and potentially opens the door to others ) .
In light of these revelations , the time has come for a two new questions : Can Biden survive the gathering storm around Tara Reade 's allegations ? And if so , will that fact be good or bad for the Democratic Party in November ?
The first question is the easier one to answer : Biden 's presumptive nomination is quite likely to survive the corroboration of Reade 's claims . That 's because members of Biden 's electoral base in the Democratic Party — older , culturally moderate white working-class voters in the Midwest and older , culturally moderate African Americans — are unlikely to be turned against him by one corroborated allegation of sexual assault from nearly three decades in the past . If anything , rank-and-file Democrats have expressed regret that some # MeToo allegations have taken down popular members of the party ( former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is the example cited most frequently ) — and they 're also irritated that Democrats are expected to adhere to standards their opponents openly flout .
The factions of the party most likely to turn on Biden because of a sexual-assault scandal are those who 've been least wedded to his candidacy from the start — those firmly on the left , who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders ; and white urban progressives , who tended to favor Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's candidacy . Neither group possesses the numbers or influence in the party to get it to overrule the preferences of the other two electorally crucial factions — and obviously their opinions will also carry little weight with the candidate himself . This means that , so long as no additional corroborated accusations materialize , Biden will most likely get to hold onto the nomination if he wants to .
That might turn out to be a very bad thing for the party come November .
But how could this be ? How could a sexual assault allegation place Biden at a disadvantage in the general election against President Trump , a man who has openly bragged on tape of sexual assault and has himself been accused of rape on multiple occasions ?
On substance , Trump will have zero moral ground to stand on . But he wo n't be taking a stand in the name of treating women with respect . Neither will he be accusing Biden of being a sexual predator . Instead , he and the entire Republican noise machine will constantly , relentlessly hammer Biden , leading Democrats , and the media for flagrant hypocrisy and double standards . The moral content of the issue wo n't matter one bit . What will matter is that Biden has set himself up as a moral arbiter on issues of sexual harassment and violence , insisting we must `` believe all women , '' and that in the fall of 2018 he and many other members of his party sought to destroy the reputation of Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for allegations of sexual assault that were less convincingly corroborated than those Reade has lodged against Biden .
The Democratic nominee for president and his party are ruthless political operators who seek above all else to destroy their enemies and help themselves , all the while setting themselves up as impartial moral authorities . This will be the message , driven home over and over again : that claims of purity and impartiality are pretense , transparent fakes . Democrats might posture like they 're better than Republicans , including the president , but they are n't . They 're every bit as bad . They 're just more dishonest about it .
The Biden campaign 's effort to portray itself as a moral reset from the debasement of the Trump years will run into this counter-message like a power sander . The Trump campaign will strip it away with a barrage of paid ads , prime-time cable news diatribes , and a hailstorm of tweets — all of it repeating the message ( illustrated with clips from and about the Kavanaugh hearings ) that Biden and his fellow Democrats are every bit the BS artists that Trump is , only they wo n't admit it . They 'll lie about it , right to your face .
To Democrats this prediction may sound implausible . There 's no way that Trump , a man whose mendaciousness is well established and total , can possibly succeed in portraying Biden as more dishonest than he is . But he wo n't have to show that Biden is worse , just that he 's no better .
That 's Trump 's ( perhaps only ) winning move — to bring the playing field down to his level , to lower Biden 's favorability rating , to make him seem less admirable , less likable , less morally upstanding , less … superior than Trump . He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton in 2016 , using the FBI investigation of her email practices while secretary of state as a cudgel . Last summer , the strategy was to impugn Biden 's son , making them both look like corrupt wheeler dealers in Ukraine . That did n't work out , but now Reade 's allegations have made it possible for Trump and his party to do what they love most of all , which is to accuse Democrats and the media of smarmy double standards instead .
Of course this wo n't work with most Democratic voters , but that wo n't be its aim . The aim will be to ensure maximal turnout and Trump loyalty among Republicans — and the destruction of Biden 's reputation among independents in crucial swing states .
Will it succeed ? Trump will be facing re-election while presiding over a deadly pandemic and the early stages of an economic depression , so who knows . What I do know is that the behavior Tara Reade has plausibly alleged about the presumptive Democratic nominee is going to be a major liability for him as we head toward Election Day .
Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox ? Sign up for The Week 's `` Today 's best articles '' newsletter here .
|
Earlier this month, I wrote a column asking what Democrats should do about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden, the party's presumptive nominee for president. My answer? Not much. The accusation made by Tara Reade, a former Biden staffer from his days in the Senate during the early 1990s, didn't strike me as especially convincing, so Democrats, I suggested, could move forward without much concern. Though toward the end of the column I included two caveats: If Reade offered further corroboration of her claims or if evidence emerged of a larger pattern of abusive actions toward women on Biden's part, that could well change my views of the matter.
Just two weeks later, both of my conditions have been met.
Last week we learned that Reade's mother called into the Larry King Show in 1993 to talk about how her daughter had quit working for a "prominent senator" after unspecified "problems" as a staffer. Then earlier this week Business Insider reported that a former neighbor of Reade's (a self-described "strong Democrat") recalls a conversation with her in 1995 or 1996 in which Reade tearfully described being sexually assaulted by Biden. Together, those two stories help to corroborate Reade's specific claim about herself.
Finally, on Tuesday, a 2008 essay by the late Alexander Cockburn surfaced in which the journalist reported that Biden had made "unwelcome and unwanted" sexual advances against a woman in 1972 or 1973. That establishes a possible longstanding pattern of Biden's behavior that further validates Reade's accusation (and potentially opens the door to others).
In light of these revelations, the time has come for a two new questions: Can Biden survive the gathering storm around Tara Reade's allegations? And if so, will that fact be good or bad for the Democratic Party in November?
The first question is the easier one to answer: Biden's presumptive nomination is quite likely to survive the corroboration of Reade's claims. That's because members of Biden's electoral base in the Democratic Party — older, culturally moderate white working-class voters in the Midwest and older, culturally moderate African Americans — are unlikely to be turned against him by one corroborated allegation of sexual assault from nearly three decades in the past. If anything, rank-and-file Democrats have expressed regret that some #MeToo allegations have taken down popular members of the party (former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is the example cited most frequently) — and they're also irritated that Democrats are expected to adhere to standards their opponents openly flout.
The factions of the party most likely to turn on Biden because of a sexual-assault scandal are those who've been least wedded to his candidacy from the start — those firmly on the left, who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders; and white urban progressives, who tended to favor Sen. Elizabeth Warren's candidacy. Neither group possesses the numbers or influence in the party to get it to overrule the preferences of the other two electorally crucial factions — and obviously their opinions will also carry little weight with the candidate himself. This means that, so long as no additional corroborated accusations materialize, Biden will most likely get to hold onto the nomination if he wants to.
That might turn out to be a very bad thing for the party come November.
But how could this be? How could a sexual assault allegation place Biden at a disadvantage in the general election against President Trump, a man who has openly bragged on tape of sexual assault and has himself been accused of rape on multiple occasions?
On substance, Trump will have zero moral ground to stand on. But he won't be taking a stand in the name of treating women with respect. Neither will he be accusing Biden of being a sexual predator. Instead, he and the entire Republican noise machine will constantly, relentlessly hammer Biden, leading Democrats, and the media for flagrant hypocrisy and double standards. The moral content of the issue won't matter one bit. What will matter is that Biden has set himself up as a moral arbiter on issues of sexual harassment and violence, insisting we must "believe all women," and that in the fall of 2018 he and many other members of his party sought to destroy the reputation of Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for allegations of sexual assault that were less convincingly corroborated than those Reade has lodged against Biden.
The Democratic nominee for president and his party are ruthless political operators who seek above all else to destroy their enemies and help themselves, all the while setting themselves up as impartial moral authorities. This will be the message, driven home over and over again: that claims of purity and impartiality are pretense, transparent fakes. Democrats might posture like they're better than Republicans, including the president, but they aren't. They're every bit as bad. They're just more dishonest about it.
The Biden campaign's effort to portray itself as a moral reset from the debasement of the Trump years will run into this counter-message like a power sander. The Trump campaign will strip it away with a barrage of paid ads, prime-time cable news diatribes, and a hailstorm of tweets — all of it repeating the message (illustrated with clips from and about the Kavanaugh hearings) that Biden and his fellow Democrats are every bit the BS artists that Trump is, only they won't admit it. They'll lie about it, right to your face.
To Democrats this prediction may sound implausible. There's no way that Trump, a man whose mendaciousness is well established and total, can possibly succeed in portraying Biden as more dishonest than he is. But he won't have to show that Biden is worse, just that he's no better.
That's Trump's (perhaps only) winning move — to bring the playing field down to his level, to lower Biden's favorability rating, to make him seem less admirable, less likable, less morally upstanding, less … superior than Trump. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton in 2016, using the FBI investigation of her email practices while secretary of state as a cudgel. Last summer, the strategy was to impugn Biden's son, making them both look like corrupt wheeler dealers in Ukraine. That didn't work out, but now Reade's allegations have made it possible for Trump and his party to do what they love most of all, which is to accuse Democrats and the media of smarmy double standards instead.
Of course this won't work with most Democratic voters, but that won't be its aim. The aim will be to ensure maximal turnout and Trump loyalty among Republicans — and the destruction of Biden's reputation among independents in crucial swing states.
Will it succeed? Trump will be facing re-election while presiding over a deadly pandemic and the early stages of an economic depression, so who knows. What I do know is that the behavior Tara Reade has plausibly alleged about the presumptive Democratic nominee is going to be a major liability for him as we head toward Election Day.
Editor's note: A previous version of this article mischaracterized a quote by Alexander Cockburn. It has been corrected. We regret the error.
Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.
|
www.theweek.com
| 0left
|
5lJkJbGlomd05JoA
|
healthcare
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/columnists/scottrasmussen/2012/06/29/supreme_court_keeps_health_care_law_on_life_support
|
Supreme Court Keeps Health Care Law on Life Support
|
2012-06-29
|
Scott Rasmussen, Guy Benson, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas
|
The U.S. Supreme Court 's decision that President Obama 's health care law is constitutional keeps it alive for now . But it 's important to remember that the law has already lost in the court of public opinion . The Supreme Court ruling is a temporary reprieve more than anything else .
In March , I wrote that the health care law was doomed even if it survived the court . Looking at the data today , it 's hard to draw any other conclusion .
Fifty-four percent of voters nationwide still want to see the law repealed . That 's going to be a heavy burden for the Obama campaign to bear .
It 's hard to believe that public opinion will change between now and Election Day because opinion on the law has n't budged in two years . In fact , support for repeal now is exactly the same as it was when the law first passed .
Consistently , for the past two years , most voters have expressed the view that the law will hurt the quality of care , increase the cost of care and increase the federal deficit .
As a result , the fact that the law remains in place may end up hurting the president 's chances for re-election more than helping them . It gives Mitt Romney another easy target and one that can be tied directly into concerns about the economy .
If Romney wins , there is virtually no chance the existing health care law will survive .
If the president is re-elected , the law has a better chance of surviving , but it would still face an uphill struggle . Legislative battles to protect the law would most likely dominate his second term .
To understand why , keep in mind that most Americans initially supported the concept of health care reform because they wanted the cost of care to be reduced . But only 18 percent believe the current law will accomplish that goal . A massive 81 percent also believe it will end up costing the government more than projected .
The president believes that government regulation can control the cost of care , but most voters disagree . Voters think that consumer choice and competition between insurance companies will do more to reduce costs than additional regulations .
Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters . Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another .
Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles . A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures . All such choices would be banned under the current health care law .
Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers . They do n't want the government telling them what to do .
The president and his colleagues in Congress thought the battle for their health care plan ended in March 2010 . Romney and many Republicans thought it might end in the Supreme Court before Election 2012 really took off .
Now , we recognize that the battle for the president 's health care plan is just beginning .
|
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision that President Obama's health care law is constitutional keeps it alive for now. But it's important to remember that the law has already lost in the court of public opinion. The Supreme Court ruling is a temporary reprieve more than anything else.
In March, I wrote that the health care law was doomed even if it survived the court. Looking at the data today, it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
Fifty-four percent of voters nationwide still want to see the law repealed. That's going to be a heavy burden for the Obama campaign to bear.
It's hard to believe that public opinion will change between now and Election Day because opinion on the law hasn't budged in two years. In fact, support for repeal now is exactly the same as it was when the law first passed.
Consistently, for the past two years, most voters have expressed the view that the law will hurt the quality of care, increase the cost of care and increase the federal deficit.
As a result, the fact that the law remains in place may end up hurting the president's chances for re-election more than helping them. It gives Mitt Romney another easy target and one that can be tied directly into concerns about the economy.
If Romney wins, there is virtually no chance the existing health care law will survive.
If the president is re-elected, the law has a better chance of surviving, but it would still face an uphill struggle. Legislative battles to protect the law would most likely dominate his second term.
To understand why, keep in mind that most Americans initially supported the concept of health care reform because they wanted the cost of care to be reduced. But only 18 percent believe the current law will accomplish that goal. A massive 81 percent also believe it will end up costing the government more than projected.
The president believes that government regulation can control the cost of care, but most voters disagree. Voters think that consumer choice and competition between insurance companies will do more to reduce costs than additional regulations.
Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.
Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.
Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. They don't want the government telling them what to do.
The president and his colleagues in Congress thought the battle for their health care plan ended in March 2010. Romney and many Republicans thought it might end in the Supreme Court before Election 2012 really took off.
Now, we recognize that the battle for the president's health care plan is just beginning.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
drkJF2Mjb3idRvQQ
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/koch-brothers-harry-reid-2016-election-110133.html?hp=t1
|
The Kochs' plan to beat Harry Reid
|
2014-08-19
|
Burgess Everett
|
Charles and David Koch have ramped up operations in Reid 's backyard . | AP Photos The Kochs ' plan to beat Reid
LAS VEGAS — Harry Reid ’ s reelection is more than two years off , but the Koch brothers ’ political machine is already methodically laying the groundwork that will be used to try to take him out .
The efforts in recent months have been largely subterranean , but they are unmistakable . A handful of nonprofit groups in the vast political network helmed by allies of the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch have established or expanded permanent ground operations in Reid ’ s backyard . Focused on wooing key demographics like Latinos and veterans , they ’ ve also paid for ads assailing the Senate Democratic leader .
Reid , meanwhile , is ramping up his home-state political operation , quietly moving to undercut Koch-backed operations here , as well as working to neutralize potential GOP opponents .
Intensifying and complicating the competition is that allies of Reid and the Koch are assiduously courting the wild-card donor who could dictate the terms of his race , casino mogul Sheldon Adelson . He is a friend and constituent of Reid ’ s , but sources say Koch operatives raised more than $ 20 million from him in 2012 , and they ’ re working to secure additional funding .
The high-level jockeying on both sides is particularly striking given that there is so little top-tier political activity in Nevada this fall . Both camps insist they ’ re focused entirely on the policy repercussions of 2014 midterm elections across the country . But it ’ s hard not to detect an intensely personal tension underlying the Koch-Reid dynamic .
While there ’ s been some speculation that Reid might retire rather than run for reelection if Democrats lose control of the Senate this fall , the 74-year-old , in interviews with ███ , seemed almost giddy about the prospects of facing down the Kochs in 2016 . So fixated is Reid that for a time this summer he kept on his desk in the Capitol a cartoon clipped from the pages of a July issue of the New Yorker magazine depicting a Scout leader reading from a book to his troop sitting around a campfire . “ Run everybody , run for your life , ” the leader says . “ It ’ s them , it ’ s the Koch brothers . ”
Reid has used the Senate floor as a forum for a months-long anti-Koch campaign , during which he ’ s called the brothers everything from “ un-American ” to “ radical ” and has worked to turn them into national poster children for a Republican Party that caters to the interests of the very richest while ignoring those of the middle class .
The attacks have motivated the very rich conservatives who help fund the Koch political operation . At the brothers ’ annual summer donor seminar in June , organizers erected a life-sized cardboard cutout of Reid , his arms spread and his mouth agape as if in midspeech . Emanating from it was a cartoon-like quote bubble with the word “ Un-American . ”
Cardboard Harry was the object of derision , said attendees . “ These donors are competitive , and competitive people like to see the competition , ” said one . “ They get fired up by competition . ”
While Reid ’ s attacks don ’ t seem to be resonating deeply with the American public as a whole , they may help whip up Democratic donors and activists this fall . And , while Reid can be coy on the subject , he appears intent on using the tactic on his own base headed into 2016 .
As Reid last week ambled from an SUV to a side entrance of an MGM Grand here for a speech to the supportive United Steelworkers International Convention , he told ███ he wasn ’ t worried about the Koch forces ’ buildup in his backyard . “ I ’ ve always been targeted . … That ’ s not news , ” he said , playfully dismissing a question about whether there was a personal element to the Koch effort . “ I don ’ t see that they have any reason to come after me . Why would they ? ”
But a few minutes later , after taking the stage to Bob Marley ’ s “ Get Up , Stand Up , ” Reid confided to 2,500 cheering union members that , in fact , he is trying to personally antagonize the Kochs .
“ Ladies and gentlemen , when I was walking in here today , somebody grabbed me from one of the Washington publications and said ‘ the Koch brothers say they ’ re here organizing in Nevada , ’ ” Reid regaled the crowd . “ I said ‘ why would they be worried about me ? What have I done to bother them ? ’ ”
After allowing a brief , dramatic pause , he answered his own question boastfully : “ Only everything I can , right ? ”
The line sparked some of the lustier applause of a 20-minute speech that went on to include several swipes at the Kochs . They “ have a fundamental belief that our government should have one purpose and one purpose only , and that ’ s to help the Kochs get richer . They don ’ t care about the middle class , ” Reid charged .
Reid would be well-served to take seriously the prospect of a major Koch-funded challenge , asserted John Gopsill , a local Nevada leader in the steelworkers union , after Reid addressed the convention . “ I don ’ t think he can raise the kind of money the Koch brothers can bring to this state , and , unfortunately , money talks , ” Gopsill said . “ That ’ s why we have to get out on the ground and knock on doors and make phone calls . I really and truly believe that ’ s how we ’ ll win it for him . ”
The race for Reid ’ s seat is expected to be among the top 2016 priorities for Republicans , who are likely to be playing defense in most Senate races . Nevada could be a rare exception , owing partly to Reid ’ s less-than-stellar approval ratings , and it ’ s also primed to be a top swing state in the presidential campaign .
Even before Reid picked his fight with the Kochs , their operation had been investing heavily in Nevada , which has a libertarian streak that comports well with the small-government , free-enterprise sensibility shared by most of the Koch-backed groups .
The most muscular of the groups , Americans for Prosperity , first established a presence here in 2009 . It ’ s continually expanded since , opening a new office in April on the western edge of Vegas , out of which four full-time employees work . There ’ s also a full-time field director in Northern Nevada , and AFP is looking to hire two more executives in the state , where it has roughly 50,000 registered activists statewide .
The Koch-backed veterans outreach group Concerned Veterans for America has four employees in Nevada . While only one is full-time , it ’ s looking to hire a full-time local director “ to oversee and execute the organization ’ s grass-roots efforts in Nevada. ” CVA has more than 800 active volunteers , a handful of whom paid a visit to Reid ’ s Nevada office in May to pressure him to support reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs . It followed up by spending $ 50,000 on a June digital campaign accusing Reid of “ putting his loyalty to his party and the president ahead of America ’ s veterans . ”
And the LIBRE Initiative , which seeks to spread fiscal conservatism among Hispanics , has also committed significant resources to Nevada since first setting up shop here in 2012 . Back then , it shared space in AFP ’ s Vegas office , but this year it moved into a new office of its own across the street from a wedding venue called the “ Elvis Chapel. ” An April ribbon-cutting was attended by at least one GOP congressional candidate , and the group now has two full-time staffers and a growing volunteer base in the state .
In addition to creating good will in the community by providing social services such as Spanish-language training for the state ’ s drivers exam , LIBRE has gotten some traction in Nevada ’ s Spanish-language media , where the group ’ s executive director , Daniel Garza , a former Bush administration official , and Southwest region press secretary Ronald Najarro , have appeared often promoting the group ’ s services or as conservative foils to liberals , including juxtaposed against Reid and his allies .
|
Charles and David Koch have ramped up operations in Reid's backyard. | AP Photos The Kochs' plan to beat Reid
LAS VEGAS — Harry Reid’s reelection is more than two years off, but the Koch brothers’ political machine is already methodically laying the groundwork that will be used to try to take him out.
The efforts in recent months have been largely subterranean, but they are unmistakable. A handful of nonprofit groups in the vast political network helmed by allies of the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch have established or expanded permanent ground operations in Reid’s backyard. Focused on wooing key demographics like Latinos and veterans, they’ve also paid for ads assailing the Senate Democratic leader.
Story Continued Below
Reid, meanwhile, is ramping up his home-state political operation, quietly moving to undercut Koch-backed operations here, as well as working to neutralize potential GOP opponents.
( QUIZ: How well do you know the Koch brothers?)
Intensifying and complicating the competition is that allies of Reid and the Koch are assiduously courting the wild-card donor who could dictate the terms of his race, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. He is a friend and constituent of Reid’s, but sources say Koch operatives raised more than $20 million from him in 2012, and they’re working to secure additional funding.
The high-level jockeying on both sides is particularly striking given that there is so little top-tier political activity in Nevada this fall. Both camps insist they’re focused entirely on the policy repercussions of 2014 midterm elections across the country. But it’s hard not to detect an intensely personal tension underlying the Koch-Reid dynamic.
While there’s been some speculation that Reid might retire rather than run for reelection if Democrats lose control of the Senate this fall, the 74-year-old, in interviews with POLITICO, seemed almost giddy about the prospects of facing down the Kochs in 2016. So fixated is Reid that for a time this summer he kept on his desk in the Capitol a cartoon clipped from the pages of a July issue of the New Yorker magazine depicting a Scout leader reading from a book to his troop sitting around a campfire. “Run everybody, run for your life,” the leader says. “It’s them, it’s the Koch brothers.”
Reid has used the Senate floor as a forum for a months-long anti-Koch campaign, during which he’s called the brothers everything from “ un-American” to “ radical” and has worked to turn them into national poster children for a Republican Party that caters to the interests of the very richest while ignoring those of the middle class.
( Also on POLITICO: Billionaires swamp local races)
The attacks have motivated the very rich conservatives who help fund the Koch political operation. At the brothers’ annual summer donor seminar in June, organizers erected a life-sized cardboard cutout of Reid, his arms spread and his mouth agape as if in midspeech. Emanating from it was a cartoon-like quote bubble with the word “Un-American.”
Cardboard Harry was the object of derision, said attendees. “These donors are competitive, and competitive people like to see the competition,” said one. “They get fired up by competition.”
While Reid’s attacks don’t seem to be resonating deeply with the American public as a whole, they may help whip up Democratic donors and activists this fall. And, while Reid can be coy on the subject, he appears intent on using the tactic on his own base headed into 2016.
( Also on POLITICO: Koch-linked group cancels ads)
As Reid last week ambled from an SUV to a side entrance of an MGM Grand here for a speech to the supportive United Steelworkers International Convention, he told POLITICO he wasn’t worried about the Koch forces’ buildup in his backyard. “I’ve always been targeted. … That’s not news,” he said, playfully dismissing a question about whether there was a personal element to the Koch effort. “I don’t see that they have any reason to come after me. Why would they?”
But a few minutes later, after taking the stage to Bob Marley’s “ Get Up, Stand Up,” Reid confided to 2,500 cheering union members that, in fact, he is trying to personally antagonize the Kochs.
“Ladies and gentlemen, when I was walking in here today, somebody grabbed me from one of the Washington publications and said ‘the Koch brothers say they’re here organizing in Nevada,’” Reid regaled the crowd. “I said ‘why would they be worried about me? What have I done to bother them?’”
After allowing a brief, dramatic pause, he answered his own question boastfully: “Only everything I can, right?”
The line sparked some of the lustier applause of a 20-minute speech that went on to include several swipes at the Kochs. They “have a fundamental belief that our government should have one purpose and one purpose only, and that’s to help the Kochs get richer. They don’t care about the middle class,” Reid charged.
Reid would be well-served to take seriously the prospect of a major Koch-funded challenge, asserted John Gopsill, a local Nevada leader in the steelworkers union, after Reid addressed the convention. “I don’t think he can raise the kind of money the Koch brothers can bring to this state, and, unfortunately, money talks,” Gopsill said. “That’s why we have to get out on the ground and knock on doors and make phone calls. I really and truly believe that’s how we’ll win it for him.”
KOCH-FRIENDLY TURF
The race for Reid’s seat is expected to be among the top 2016 priorities for Republicans, who are likely to be playing defense in most Senate races. Nevada could be a rare exception, owing partly to Reid’s less-than-stellar approval ratings, and it’s also primed to be a top swing state in the presidential campaign.
( PHOTOS: Harry Reid’s career)
Even before Reid picked his fight with the Kochs, their operation had been investing heavily in Nevada, which has a libertarian streak that comports well with the small-government, free-enterprise sensibility shared by most of the Koch-backed groups.
The most muscular of the groups, Americans for Prosperity, first established a presence here in 2009. It’s continually expanded since, opening a new office in April on the western edge of Vegas, out of which four full-time employees work. There’s also a full-time field director in Northern Nevada, and AFP is looking to hire two more executives in the state, where it has roughly 50,000 registered activists statewide.
The Koch-backed veterans outreach group Concerned Veterans for America has four employees in Nevada. While only one is full-time, it’s looking to hire a full-time local director “to oversee and execute the organization’s grass-roots efforts in Nevada.” CVA has more than 800 active volunteers, a handful of whom paid a visit to Reid’s Nevada office in May to pressure him to support reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It followed up by spending $50,000 on a June digital campaign accusing Reid of “putting his loyalty to his party and the president ahead of America’s veterans.”
And the LIBRE Initiative, which seeks to spread fiscal conservatism among Hispanics, has also committed significant resources to Nevada since first setting up shop here in 2012. Back then, it shared space in AFP’s Vegas office, but this year it moved into a new office of its own across the street from a wedding venue called the “ Elvis Chapel.” An April ribbon-cutting was attended by at least one GOP congressional candidate, and the group now has two full-time staffers and a growing volunteer base in the state.
In addition to creating good will in the community by providing social services such as Spanish-language training for the state’s drivers exam, LIBRE has gotten some traction in Nevada’s Spanish-language media, where the group’s executive director, Daniel Garza, a former Bush administration official, and Southwest region press secretary Ronald Najarro, have appeared often promoting the group’s services or as conservative foils to liberals, including juxtaposed against Reid and his allies.
Follow @politico
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
m1TwfJOhm89Gx4Gm
|
campaign_finance
|
Townhall
| 22
|
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/08/28/yikes-did-ilhan-omars-campaign-fund-her-alleged-affair-n2552295
|
Yikes: Did Ilhan Omar’s Campaign Funds Mostly Go Toward Her Alleged Affair?
|
2019-08-28
|
Katie Pavlich, Guy Benson, Julio Rosas, "Cortney OBrien", Leah Barkoukis
|
Yesterday the New York Post reported that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is having an affair with Democratic strategist Tim Mynett . The allegation was made in divorce papers filed by his wife . In July , Omar filed for divorce from her current husband . A refresher :
Dr. Beth Jordan Mynett says her cheating spouse , Tim Mynett , told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative and that he even made a “ shocking declaration of love ” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife , alleges the filing , submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday .
It turns out Mynett 's firm was funneled a boat load of Omar 's campaign cash . He was paid more than $ 200,000 for consulting and the campaign reimbursed at least $ 21,000 for his personal travel . That travel was n't properly reported or itemized .
An official complaint regarding the large payments to Mynett 's firm has already been filed , alleging she broke the law .
`` Today , NLPC filed a Complaint with the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) against Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) alleging that she and her campaign violated the prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds by reimbursing political consultant Tim Mynett for his travel in 2019 . The Complaint also alleges that Omar and her campaign failed to itemize the travel reimbursements , as required , '' the National Legal and Policy Center released in a statement Wednesday .
`` Although Mynett 's formal relationship with Rep. Omar 's campaign began in July 2018 , with the payment of $ 7000 directly to Mynett , the reimbursements for Mynett 's travel did not commence until April 2019 , the same month that Dr. Mynett alleges in her filing that her husband told her of the affair , and made a 'shocking declaration of love ' for Rep. Omar , '' the complaint states .
According to the divorce filing , Mynett 's `` more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than his actual work commitments . ''
And then there are these timing details from the Washington Examiner :
Here 's the odd thing : The overwhelming majority of Omar 's funds spent on the E Street Group were paid after she won the contested primary and during the totally noncompetitive general election race in her D+26 district . Contrary to FEC rules , Omar 's filings did not designate whether her E Street Group disbursements ( or any of her disbursements ) were for the primary election or the general election .
Omar is refusing to discuss her `` personal life '' and has not commented on the issue of campaign funds being improperly used .
`` I have no interest in allowing the conversation about my personal life to continue and so I have no desire to discuss it , '' Omar told CBS Minnesota today .
In June , Omar was ordered to payback thousands of dollars to her campaign after breaking campaign finance laws .
|
Yesterday the New York Post reported that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is having an affair with Democratic strategist Tim Mynett. The allegation was made in divorce papers filed by his wife. In July, Omar filed for divorce from her current husband. A refresher:
Dr. Beth Jordan Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing, submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday.
It turns out Mynett's firm was funneled a boat load of Omar's campaign cash. He was paid more than $200,000 for consulting and the campaign reimbursed at least $21,000 for his personal travel. That travel wasn't properly reported or itemized.
An official complaint regarding the large payments to Mynett's firm has already been filed, alleging she broke the law.
"Today, NLPC filed a Complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) alleging that she and her campaign violated the prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds by reimbursing political consultant Tim Mynett for his travel in 2019. The Complaint also alleges that Omar and her campaign failed to itemize the travel reimbursements, as required," the National Legal and Policy Center released in a statement Wednesday.
"Although Mynett's formal relationship with Rep. Omar's campaign began in July 2018, with the payment of $7000 directly to Mynett, the reimbursements for Mynett's travel did not commence until April 2019, the same month that Dr. Mynett alleges in her filing that her husband told her of the affair, and made a 'shocking declaration of love' for Rep. Omar," the complaint states.
According to the divorce filing, Mynett's "more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than his actual work commitments."
And then there are these timing details from the Washington Examiner:
Here's the odd thing: The overwhelming majority of Omar's funds spent on the E Street Group were paid after she won the contested primary and during the totally noncompetitive general election race in her D+26 district. Contrary to FEC rules, Omar's filings did not designate whether her E Street Group disbursements (or any of her disbursements) were for the primary election or the general election.
Omar is refusing to discuss her "personal life" and has not commented on the issue of campaign funds being improperly used.
"I have no interest in allowing the conversation about my personal life to continue and so I have no desire to discuss it," Omar told CBS Minnesota today.
In June, Omar was ordered to payback thousands of dollars to her campaign after breaking campaign finance laws.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
GNKWfCf3N2JLKvPo
|
us_house
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/boehners_worst_failure_yet_incompetence_near_shutdown_sorry_state_of_gop_governance/
|
Boehner’s worst failure yet: Incompetence, near-shutdown & sorry state of GOP “governance”
|
2015-03-02
|
Simon Maloy
|
On Friday afternoon , just a few short hours before the Department Homeland Security was set to shut down , the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives scheduled a vote to grant DHS three more weeks of funding . The idea was to buy John Boehner some time to do… something . The legislative impasse that led us to the precipice of the shutdown was created by Boehner , who passed a bill tying DHS appropriations to the rollback of President Obama ’ s immigration executive actions . He spent several weeks insisting that the House had “ done its job ” and would not pass any new legislation funding DHS . But Senate Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a clean DHS funding bill , which forced Boehner to once again act . Rather than bow to political reality and take the only route available to him to actually fund the agency , Boehner opted to prolong the agony and punt .
And he couldn ’ t even do that . The three-week continuing resolution failed when over 50 conservative Republicans voted against it , rebuking Boehner and the leadership and sending the entire process into utter chaos with less than half a day remaining until the shutdown .
As has happened so many times over the last four years , the rest of the Congressional leadership was impelled to overcome Boehner ’ s incompetence and cobble together a last-minute solution . Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid pushed a one-week CR through the Senate late Friday night , and Nancy Pelosi instructed House Democrats to support its passage , with the promise from Boehner that the House would pass a clean , long-term DHS funding bill this week . The one-week bill passed with the overwhelming support of Democrats , and Obama signed it .
So , for all intents and purposes , the House minority leader was calling the shots last Friday , determining which legislation would pass and mapping out future votes . Boehner was along for the ride , keeping a low profile with the rest of the Republican leadership while the Democrats held press briefings sketching out the way forward . It ’ d be embarrassing enough of this had never happened before , but it ’ s getting difficult to keep track of how many times Pelosi has had to bail out Boehner . That it is still happening despite the fact that Boehner is now sitting on one of the largest Congressional majorities in decades is about as damning an indictment of his speakership as one could ask for .
And that spells real trouble going forward . The story of the first two months of the all-Republican Congress has been complete dysfunction and the inability to perform the rudimentary tasks of government . The Republicans are fighting amongst themselves and venting obvious frustration with Boehner ’ s shambolic approach to governing . On Friday night , McConnell passed the one-week CR and then immediately adjourned the Senate for the weekend – putting all the pressure to act on Boehner and sending a clear message that he ’ s done with this fight . Earlier in the day , Sen. Mark Kirk ( R-IL ) pleaded with House Republicans to stop the madness . “ Hopefully we 're gon na end the attaching of bullshit to essential items of the government , ” he said .
But the DHS finding fight is just the first test of basic governance confronting the Republican Congress . Sometime later this year the U.S. is going to bump up against the debt limit , and there ’ s an excellent chance that the debt limit renewal will coincide with the next appropriations fight ( the “ Cromnibus , ” passed last December , only funded government operations through this September ) . The difficulty the Republicans have had working in concert to fund a single department doesn ’ t bode well for a combination debt limit/government funding showdown ( with the attendant threats of default and shutdown ) .
But before we even get to that point , there ’ s a chance the Republican Congress will have to deal with the potentially catastrophic fallout from the King v. Burwell decision . If the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act ’ s subsidies in 37 states , Republicans will be under intense pressure to do something to mitigate the damage . Can anyone credibly argue that Congress is up to the task when the Speaker of the House has little to no control over one-fifth of his caucus ?
And , of course , the DHS funding fight still has to be resolved . Congress bought themselves an extra week , and Democrats agreed to the extension with the thinking that cold political logic and a sense of self-preservation will finally push Boehner to give in and fund the agency without strings . But Boehner ’ s capacity for illogical and irrational behavior is why they ’ re in this situation to begin with . Boehner will eventually cave , but there ’ s no guarantee when that will happen .
And really this fight never should have happened in the first place . From the moment of its inception , the Republican strategy was bound to fail . But the leaders in both houses of Congress plowed ahead because they had no idea what else to do , and now they ’ re being dragged along as the Democrats push through last-minute legislative patches to keep the lights on at DHS . There are a lot of words to describe that process , but “ governance ” is not one of them .
|
On Friday afternoon, just a few short hours before the Department Homeland Security was set to shut down, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives scheduled a vote to grant DHS three more weeks of funding. The idea was to buy John Boehner some time to do… something. The legislative impasse that led us to the precipice of the shutdown was created by Boehner, who passed a bill tying DHS appropriations to the rollback of President Obama’s immigration executive actions. He spent several weeks insisting that the House had “done its job” and would not pass any new legislation funding DHS. But Senate Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a clean DHS funding bill, which forced Boehner to once again act. Rather than bow to political reality and take the only route available to him to actually fund the agency, Boehner opted to prolong the agony and punt.
And he couldn’t even do that. The three-week continuing resolution failed when over 50 conservative Republicans voted against it, rebuking Boehner and the leadership and sending the entire process into utter chaos with less than half a day remaining until the shutdown.
Advertisement:
As has happened so many times over the last four years, the rest of the Congressional leadership was impelled to overcome Boehner’s incompetence and cobble together a last-minute solution. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid pushed a one-week CR through the Senate late Friday night, and Nancy Pelosi instructed House Democrats to support its passage, with the promise from Boehner that the House would pass a clean, long-term DHS funding bill this week. The one-week bill passed with the overwhelming support of Democrats, and Obama signed it.
So, for all intents and purposes, the House minority leader was calling the shots last Friday, determining which legislation would pass and mapping out future votes. Boehner was along for the ride, keeping a low profile with the rest of the Republican leadership while the Democrats held press briefings sketching out the way forward. It’d be embarrassing enough of this had never happened before, but it’s getting difficult to keep track of how many times Pelosi has had to bail out Boehner. That it is still happening despite the fact that Boehner is now sitting on one of the largest Congressional majorities in decades is about as damning an indictment of his speakership as one could ask for.
And that spells real trouble going forward. The story of the first two months of the all-Republican Congress has been complete dysfunction and the inability to perform the rudimentary tasks of government. The Republicans are fighting amongst themselves and venting obvious frustration with Boehner’s shambolic approach to governing. On Friday night, McConnell passed the one-week CR and then immediately adjourned the Senate for the weekend – putting all the pressure to act on Boehner and sending a clear message that he’s done with this fight. Earlier in the day, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) pleaded with House Republicans to stop the madness. “Hopefully we're gonna end the attaching of bullshit to essential items of the government,” he said.
Advertisement:
But the DHS finding fight is just the first test of basic governance confronting the Republican Congress. Sometime later this year the U.S. is going to bump up against the debt limit, and there’s an excellent chance that the debt limit renewal will coincide with the next appropriations fight (the “Cromnibus,” passed last December, only funded government operations through this September). The difficulty the Republicans have had working in concert to fund a single department doesn’t bode well for a combination debt limit/government funding showdown (with the attendant threats of default and shutdown).
But before we even get to that point, there’s a chance the Republican Congress will have to deal with the potentially catastrophic fallout from the King v. Burwell decision. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies in 37 states, Republicans will be under intense pressure to do something to mitigate the damage. Can anyone credibly argue that Congress is up to the task when the Speaker of the House has little to no control over one-fifth of his caucus?
And, of course, the DHS funding fight still has to be resolved. Congress bought themselves an extra week, and Democrats agreed to the extension with the thinking that cold political logic and a sense of self-preservation will finally push Boehner to give in and fund the agency without strings. But Boehner’s capacity for illogical and irrational behavior is why they’re in this situation to begin with. Boehner will eventually cave, but there’s no guarantee when that will happen.
Advertisement:
And really this fight never should have happened in the first place. From the moment of its inception, the Republican strategy was bound to fail. But the leaders in both houses of Congress plowed ahead because they had no idea what else to do, and now they’re being dragged along as the Democrats push through last-minute legislative patches to keep the lights on at DHS. There are a lot of words to describe that process, but “governance” is not one of them.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
kjmhhnACV6xT8gO9
|
culture
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/lets-talk-about-tolerance/
|
Let’s Talk about ‘Tolerance’
|
2018-04-06
|
David French, Mairead Mcardle, Michael Brendan Dougherty, John Mccormack, Carrie Severino, John Fund, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Bill Corsair, Jason Richwine
|
A protestor outside the location for the 2017 “ Congress of Tomorrow ” Joint Republican Issues Conference in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , January 25 , 2017 . REUTERS/Mark Makela
Conservatives who enter progressive domains like the academy or elite media are quite familiar with the idea of tolerance . Such institutions place an enormous amount of emphasis on it , in fact , so much so that they reserve the right to be intolerant to preserve the tolerant ethos of the community , sometimes explicitly . In one of my favorite First Amendment cases , I sued a university that declared in no uncertain terms , “ Acts of intolerance will not be tolerated . ”
Yes , it used those exact words . Think for a moment — isn ’ t every act of enforcement a new violation that requires a new act of enforcement , triggering another violation ? Ah , never mind . We know what the university wanted , a catch-all provision it could use to expel , punish , and silence anyone who ran afoul of the prevailing campus orthodoxy .
But I don ’ t want to focus on intolerance . Let ’ s talk about tolerance , instead . Earlier this week I read an old post by “ Scott Alexander , ” a pseudonymous psychiatrist who writes at the blog Slate Star Codex . Called “ I can tolerate anything except the outgroup , ” it blows up the notion that the kind of inclusion the Left claims it values bears any relationship at all to true tolerance .
As Alexander notes , a person on the left will claim that they ’ re tolerant because of their regard for “ gays , lesbians , bisexuals , asexuals , blacks , Hispanics , Asians , transgender people , and Jews. ” But ask that same person a simple question , “ What ’ s wrong with gay people ? ” and the answer is immediate : “ What do you think I am , some kind of homophobic bigot ? Of course I have nothing against gay people . ”
Then , guess what , you ’ re not tolerating anything . You ’ re mistaking tolerance for fellowship or tolerance for tribalism . The word “ tolerance ” of course implies that there is something to tolerate .
To the very marrow of their being , they believe that they ’ re something they ’ re not . They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance .
I like Alexander ’ s definition of true tolerance : “ Respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup ” — not respect and kindness toward members of what others would define as an outgroup , but rather respect and kindness toward people that are out of your group . His concept reflects Christian values like grace or charity , which imply that there is something to forgive or something to overlook in your relationships with others . When there is nothing to forgive or nothing to overlook and no patience required , there ’ s no tolerance . There ’ s no grace . There ’ s no charity .
The result of this flawed understanding is that millions of people misapprehend their own values . To the very marrow of their being , they believe that they ’ re something they ’ re not . They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance .
To be clear , there are some progressives who are wise to this game . They ’ ve read their Herbert Marcuse , and they know quite well that the new tolerance — what Marcuse called “ liberating tolerance ” — means “ intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. ” But most progressives haven ’ t read Marcuse . They ’ ve never heard of him , and they ’ d be shocked at the notion that one of the alleged defining characteristics of their lives is a fiction .
I ’ m of course thinking of all this in connection with The Atlantic ’ s termination of my friend and former colleague Kevin Williamson yesterday . The justification for Kevin ’ s firing — as repeated endlessly on Twitter — is that women don ’ t want to “ share office space with a man who wants them dead. ” There are two easy responses to this assertion .
First , it ’ s false . As Kevin has explained elsewhere , he ’ s generally against the death penalty , he ’ s against lynching , and he ’ s against ex post facto laws . So , no , women would not be sharing office space with someone who “ wants them dead . ”
Second , is there no appreciation for Kevin ’ s tolerance ? He ’ s the son of a teen mom , born shortly before Roe v. Wade , and narrowly escaped being aborted . He ’ d be sharing office space with people who believe it would have been totally fine , completely morally acceptable , and possibly virtuous if a doctor had ripped him to pieces in his mother ’ s womb .
The bottom line is that one party in this controversy — Kevin Williamson — was willing to be tolerant . As Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg related in his termination memo , Kevin had been “ nothing but professional ” in his interactions . In other words , Kevin had “ shown kindness and respect toward members of [ his ] outgroup . ”
But all too many progressives don ’ t see that . To them , there was nothing for Kevin to tolerate . Their views on abortion aren ’ t just tolerable , they ’ re glorious . They ’ re liberating . They ’ re the linchpin of the sexual revolution , the key to women ’ s liberation . What was intolerable was the notion that a man — no matter how courteous and professional in person — could sit next to them advocating ideas they hate .
There is a conversation to be had about whether a writer ’ s views should disqualify him from employment at any given magazine . Mission-driven journals , like Reason or The Nation or ███ , hire people who share and broadly advance the mission of the magazine ( while of course permitting and encouraging debate from within their respective ideological camps ) . Journals like The Atlantic at least seem to aspire to something different . They ’ re left-leaning , to be sure , but do not have an explicit ideological bent . In fact , the magazine explicitly claims to be “ of no party or clique ” and has certainly published works from left and right . It ’ s printed my work , for example . I doubt The Nation would be interested in doing the same .
But in polarized times , “ of no party or clique ” is a hard space to occupy . It requires moral courage . It requires the ability to withstand considerable internal and external pressure . It requires the ability to treat with respect and kindness even people you might otherwise despise . The Atlantic has the right to define its own mission and message . It has the right to hire and fire writers according to their viewpoints . It ’ s not the government . It ’ s a private actor with its own rights to free speech and freedom of association .
Exercise those rights , but progressives be honest about your purpose . You can call it tribalism . You can call it social justice . Just , please , do not lie and call it tolerance .
|
A protestor outside the location for the 2017 “Congress of Tomorrow” Joint Republican Issues Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 25, 2017. REUTERS/Mark Makela
Why do so many progressives fundamentally misunderstand the term?
Conservatives who enter progressive domains like the academy or elite media are quite familiar with the idea of tolerance. Such institutions place an enormous amount of emphasis on it, in fact, so much so that they reserve the right to be intolerant to preserve the tolerant ethos of the community, sometimes explicitly. In one of my favorite First Amendment cases, I sued a university that declared in no uncertain terms, “Acts of intolerance will not be tolerated.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Yes, it used those exact words. Think for a moment — isn’t every act of enforcement a new violation that requires a new act of enforcement, triggering another violation? Ah, never mind. We know what the university wanted, a catch-all provision it could use to expel, punish, and silence anyone who ran afoul of the prevailing campus orthodoxy.
But I don’t want to focus on intolerance. Let’s talk about tolerance, instead. Earlier this week I read an old post by “Scott Alexander,” a pseudonymous psychiatrist who writes at the blog Slate Star Codex. Called “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup,” it blows up the notion that the kind of inclusion the Left claims it values bears any relationship at all to true tolerance.
As Alexander notes, a person on the left will claim that they’re tolerant because of their regard for “gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews.” But ask that same person a simple question, “What’s wrong with gay people?” and the answer is immediate: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people.”
Advertisement
Then, guess what, you’re not tolerating anything. You’re mistaking tolerance for fellowship or tolerance for tribalism. The word “tolerance” of course implies that there is something to tolerate.
To the very marrow of their being, they believe that they’re something they’re not. They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance.
I like Alexander’s definition of true tolerance: “Respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup” — not respect and kindness toward members of what others would define as an outgroup, but rather respect and kindness toward people that are out of your group. His concept reflects Christian values like grace or charity, which imply that there is something to forgive or something to overlook in your relationships with others. When there is nothing to forgive or nothing to overlook and no patience required, there’s no tolerance. There’s no grace. There’s no charity.
The result of this flawed understanding is that millions of people misapprehend their own values. To the very marrow of their being, they believe that they’re something they’re not. They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
To be clear, there are some progressives who are wise to this game. They’ve read their Herbert Marcuse, and they know quite well that the new tolerance — what Marcuse called “liberating tolerance” — means “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.” But most progressives haven’t read Marcuse. They’ve never heard of him, and they’d be shocked at the notion that one of the alleged defining characteristics of their lives is a fiction.
I’m of course thinking of all this in connection with The Atlantic’s termination of my friend and former colleague Kevin Williamson yesterday. The justification for Kevin’s firing — as repeated endlessly on Twitter — is that women don’t want to “share office space with a man who wants them dead.” There are two easy responses to this assertion.
First, it’s false. As Kevin has explained elsewhere, he’s generally against the death penalty, he’s against lynching, and he’s against ex post facto laws. So, no, women would not be sharing office space with someone who “wants them dead.”
Advertisement
Second, is there no appreciation for Kevin’s tolerance? He’s the son of a teen mom, born shortly before Roe v. Wade, and narrowly escaped being aborted. He’d be sharing office space with people who believe it would have been totally fine, completely morally acceptable, and possibly virtuous if a doctor had ripped him to pieces in his mother’s womb.
The bottom line is that one party in this controversy — Kevin Williamson — was willing to be tolerant. As Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg related in his termination memo, Kevin had been “nothing but professional” in his interactions. In other words, Kevin had “shown kindness and respect toward members of [his] outgroup.”
Advertisement
But all too many progressives don’t see that. To them, there was nothing for Kevin to tolerate. Their views on abortion aren’t just tolerable, they’re glorious. They’re liberating. They’re the linchpin of the sexual revolution, the key to women’s liberation. What was intolerable was the notion that a man — no matter how courteous and professional in person — could sit next to them advocating ideas they hate.
Advertisement
There is a conversation to be had about whether a writer’s views should disqualify him from employment at any given magazine. Mission-driven journals, like Reason or The Nation or National Review, hire people who share and broadly advance the mission of the magazine (while of course permitting and encouraging debate from within their respective ideological camps). Journals like The Atlantic at least seem to aspire to something different. They’re left-leaning, to be sure, but do not have an explicit ideological bent. In fact, the magazine explicitly claims to be “of no party or clique” and has certainly published works from left and right. It’s printed my work, for example. I doubt The Nation would be interested in doing the same.
But in polarized times, “of no party or clique” is a hard space to occupy. It requires moral courage. It requires the ability to withstand considerable internal and external pressure. It requires the ability to treat with respect and kindness even people you might otherwise despise. The Atlantic has the right to define its own mission and message. It has the right to hire and fire writers according to their viewpoints. It’s not the government. It’s a private actor with its own rights to free speech and freedom of association.
Advertisement
Exercise those rights, but progressives be honest about your purpose. You can call it tribalism. You can call it social justice. Just, please, do not lie and call it tolerance.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
PdH9DPsVkHSJ8qYR
|
national_security
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/6/obama-hid-efforts-to-aid-irans-windfall/
|
Obama hid efforts to aid Iran's windfall
|
2018-06-06
|
Guy Taylor
|
The Obama administration — despite repeatedly assuring Congress that Iran would remain barred from the U.S. financial system — secretly mobilized to give Tehran access to American banks to convert the windfall of cash it received from sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal into dollars , an investigative report by the Senate has revealed .
A copy of the report , obtained by The ███ , outlines how Obama-era State and Treasury Department officials discreetly issued a special license for the conversion to a major Omani bank and unsuccessfully pressured two U.S. banks to partake in the transaction , all while misleading lawmakers about the activities .
The document , compiled by the Senate ’ s Republican-led chief investigative subcommittee , began circulating Tuesday , just as the Trump administration issued its harshest warnings to date to foreign governments and companies to avoid doing business with Iran or find themselves in the crosshairs of Washington ’ s reimposition of sanctions as part of Mr. Trump ’ s withdrawal from the nuclear deal .
“ Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks , and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions , ” said Sigal Mandelker , Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence .
She also called on foreign governments to harden their financial systems against “ deceptive ” Iranian transactions that ultimately channel money to terrorists .
The Iranian government “ uses shell and front companies to conceal its tracks ” as part of an elaborate scheme designed to procure cash for the Quds Force of Iran ’ s militant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization , Ms. Mandelker said .
She issued the warnings in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank as Iran announced Tuesday that it was formally moving ahead with preparations to increase its nuclear enrichment capacities — the sharpest response to date by the Islamic republic to Mr. Trump ’ s pullout from the nuclear accord .
Iranian officials said the increase , while provocative , does not violate its commitments under the nuclear accord .
The president sent shock waves around the world with his May 8 decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear pact and begin reimposing U.S. sanctions , which the U.S. , Europe , China and Russia had collectively lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran ’ s promise to curb its suspect nuclear programs and allow international inspections .
While Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Tuesday that it plans only to increase enrichment within limits set by 2015 deal , the announcement came with threats from a top Iranian official that the activities could be quickly expanded . The warning put fresh pressure on European leaders to keep the nuclear accord alive despite Mr. Trump ’ s withdrawal .
The head of Iran ’ s nuclear agency , Ali Akbar Salehi , said Tehran is prepared to dramatically increase its capacity for enrichment but that the work so far is limited to building a facility for assembling the centrifuges . He made the comment a day after Iran ’ s supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , ordered the increase in capacity and vowed that Iran would preserve its nuclear program despite the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 accord .
The Senate report focuses new scrutiny on the lengths President Obama ’ s team was willing to go to ensure the deal ’ s success as it was still being negotiated .
The Senate Homeland Security Committee ’ s permanent subcommittee on investigations probe contends that the Obama administration went out of its way to keep U.S. lawmakers in the dark about calculated and secretive efforts to give Tehran a back channel to the international financial system and to U.S. banks , facilitating a massive U.S. currency conversion worth billions of dollars .
“ Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal , ” according to a draft copy of the document obtained by The Times . “ Despite these claims , the U.S. Department of the Treasury , at the direction of the U.S. State Department , granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system .
“ Even after the specific license was issued , U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system , ” the report said .
Sen . Rob Portman , the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee , is set to outline his panel ’ s findings Wednesday .
Under terms of the nuclear deal , Iran was given the right to reclaim billions of dollars in state assets and bank accounts frozen by international sanctions , but it remained “ illegal for U.S. persons , entities , and financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran . ”
The ban included any “ intermediary ” transactions by U.S. banks to convert currency for Iran — a development that would have elevated the value of the Iranian assets on the global market and allowed Tehran to more easily move the money through the international banking system .
On the day the nuclear deal was implemented in 2015 , Tehran had some $ 5.7 billion worth of assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat , Oman , according to Senate investigators , who said Tehran moved quickly to request access to the U.S. dollar .
On Tehran ’ s request , Bank Muscat contacted the U.S. Treasury Department ’ s office of foreign assets control .
According to the Senate report : “ Muscat sought to convert $ 5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros . [ But ] because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar , the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars . ”
Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2015 that Iran would “ continue to be denied access to the [ U.S. ] financial and commercial market ” under the proposed accord , but the Treasury office went ahead with attempts to quietly allow the currency transaction sought by Iran .
“ On February 24 , 2016 , OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $ 5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system , ” according to the Senate report , which claims the move was made “ even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it . ”
Even as office of foreign assets control officials directly “ encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds , ” the Treasury Department continued to deny it was working to facilitate the currency transaction , said the report , which cites a 2016 letter from the department to Sen. Marco Rubio , Florida Republican , and Sen. Mark Kirk , Illinois Republican , that contended the Obama “ administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system . ”
The catch , according to Senate investigators , was that neither of the U.S. banks approached by the office of foreign assets control would take on the Iranian currency exchange — in part because of political concerns over the prospect of being found out to have secretly circumvented the remaining ban on U.S. transactions with the Islamic republic .
Despite the Obama administration ’ s efforts , Iran was ultimately forced to convert its Bank Muscat assets to euros in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system , the Senate investigators said .
Mr. Portman said in a statement Tuesday night that “ the Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran . ”
“ Despite claims both before and after the Iran deal was completed that the U.S. financial system would remain off limits , the Obama administration issued a specific license allowing Iran to convert billions of dollars in assets using the U.S. financial system , ” Mr. Portman said . “ The only reason this transaction wasn ’ t executed was because two U.S. banks refused , even though the administration asked them to help convert the money . ”
Such sanctions , he added , “ are a vital foreign policy tool , and the U.S. government should never work to actively undermine their enforcement or effectiveness . ”
|
The Obama administration — despite repeatedly assuring Congress that Iran would remain barred from the U.S. financial system — secretly mobilized to give Tehran access to American banks to convert the windfall of cash it received from sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal into dollars, an investigative report by the Senate has revealed.
A copy of the report, obtained by The Washington Times, outlines how Obama-era State and Treasury Department officials discreetly issued a special license for the conversion to a major Omani bank and unsuccessfully pressured two U.S. banks to partake in the transaction, all while misleading lawmakers about the activities.
The document, compiled by the Senate’s Republican-led chief investigative subcommittee, began circulating Tuesday, just as the Trump administration issued its harshest warnings to date to foreign governments and companies to avoid doing business with Iran or find themselves in the crosshairs of Washington’s reimposition of sanctions as part of Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal.
“Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks, and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions,” said Sigal Mandelker, Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
She also called on foreign governments to harden their financial systems against “deceptive” Iranian transactions that ultimately channel money to terrorists.
The Iranian government “uses shell and front companies to conceal its tracks” as part of an elaborate scheme designed to procure cash for the Quds Force of Iran’s militant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, Ms. Mandelker said.
She issued the warnings in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank as Iran announced Tuesday that it was formally moving ahead with preparations to increase its nuclear enrichment capacities — the sharpest response to date by the Islamic republic to Mr. Trump’s pullout from the nuclear accord.
Iranian officials said the increase, while provocative, does not violate its commitments under the nuclear accord.
The president sent shock waves around the world with his May 8 decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear pact and begin reimposing U.S. sanctions, which the U.S., Europe, China and Russia had collectively lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran’s promise to curb its suspect nuclear programs and allow international inspections.
While Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Tuesday that it plans only to increase enrichment within limits set by 2015 deal, the announcement came with threats from a top Iranian official that the activities could be quickly expanded. The warning put fresh pressure on European leaders to keep the nuclear accord alive despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal.
The head of Iran’s nuclear agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Tehran is prepared to dramatically increase its capacity for enrichment but that the work so far is limited to building a facility for assembling the centrifuges. He made the comment a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the increase in capacity and vowed that Iran would preserve its nuclear program despite the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 accord.
Congress out of the loop
The Senate report focuses new scrutiny on the lengths President Obama’s team was willing to go to ensure the deal’s success as it was still being negotiated.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee’s permanent subcommittee on investigations probe contends that the Obama administration went out of its way to keep U.S. lawmakers in the dark about calculated and secretive efforts to give Tehran a back channel to the international financial system and to U.S. banks, facilitating a massive U.S. currency conversion worth billions of dollars.
“Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” according to a draft copy of the document obtained by The Times. “Despite these claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system.
“Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system,” the report said.
Sen. Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee, is set to outline his panel’s findings Wednesday.
Under terms of the nuclear deal, Iran was given the right to reclaim billions of dollars in state assets and bank accounts frozen by international sanctions, but it remained “illegal for U.S. persons, entities, and financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran.”
The ban included any “intermediary” transactions by U.S. banks to convert currency for Iran — a development that would have elevated the value of the Iranian assets on the global market and allowed Tehran to more easily move the money through the international banking system.
On the day the nuclear deal was implemented in 2015, Tehran had some $5.7 billion worth of assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman, according to Senate investigators, who said Tehran moved quickly to request access to the U.S. dollar.
On Tehran’s request, Bank Muscat contacted the U.S. Treasury Department’s office of foreign assets control.
According to the Senate report: “Muscat sought to convert $5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros. [But] because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars.”
Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2015 that Iran would “continue to be denied access to the [U.S.] financial and commercial market” under the proposed accord, but the Treasury office went ahead with attempts to quietly allow the currency transaction sought by Iran.
“On February 24, 2016, OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system,” according to the Senate report, which claims the move was made “even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it.”
Even as office of foreign assets control officials directly “encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds,” the Treasury Department continued to deny it was working to facilitate the currency transaction, said the report, which cites a 2016 letter from the department to Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, and Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, that contended the Obama “administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.”
The catch, according to Senate investigators, was that neither of the U.S. banks approached by the office of foreign assets control would take on the Iranian currency exchange — in part because of political concerns over the prospect of being found out to have secretly circumvented the remaining ban on U.S. transactions with the Islamic republic.
Despite the Obama administration’s efforts, Iran was ultimately forced to convert its Bank Muscat assets to euros in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system, the Senate investigators said.
Mr. Portman said in a statement Tuesday night that “the Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran.”
“Despite claims both before and after the Iran deal was completed that the U.S. financial system would remain off limits, the Obama administration issued a specific license allowing Iran to convert billions of dollars in assets using the U.S. financial system,” Mr. Portman said. “The only reason this transaction wasn’t executed was because two U.S. banks refused, even though the administration asked them to help convert the money.”
Such sanctions, he added, “are a vital foreign policy tool, and the U.S. government should never work to actively undermine their enforcement or effectiveness.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
AepXB0obRWFsIBHV
|
immigration
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban-stakes/index.html
|
Huge stakes for Trump immigration do-over
|
2017-02-22
|
Stephen Collinson, Tal Kopan, Dana Bash
|
( CNN ) President Donald Trump will now wait until next week to unveil his new attempt to impose a temporary travel ban on citizens of states he says pose a high risk of terrorism .
An administration official said the order , which represents a do-over after Trump 's first attempt was blocked by federal courts , would come by the middle of the week . The order had been expected to emerge sometime this week .
The order will form the second thrust of a new administration push to significantly overhaul the shape of the American immigration system , following the release of new memos Tuesday empowering state and local authorities to enforce laws that could eventually lead to mass deportations .
It also marks an important moment for Trump 's vision of an expansive executive presidency as he contemplates other areas of sweeping policy action .
The significance of this new attempt -- the language of which is expected as soon as Wednesday -- is reflected in the participation of White House Counsel Don McGahn .
McGahn 's office had only a cursory look at Trump 's original order , which was written by transition and policy staff . Significantly , Trump 's key political aide Stephen Miller has had much less to do with the second executive order , sources familiar with the matter said , and the Trump administration was communicating with Republicans on Capitol Hill about the legislation .
Another administration official disputed the notion that Miller is less involved now , saying he is in fact more involved in this process than the first one .
Trump 's initial attempt to install a travel ban -- one of his fundamental campaign promises -- was a disaster , halting the administration 's fast start in its tracks .
JUST WATCHED Iran : Travel ban an affront to the entire nation Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Iran : Travel ban an affront to the entire nation 10:54
The move temporarily blocking citizens of Syria , Sudan , Yemen , Iran , Iraq , Somalia and Libya from entering the US unleashed a weekend of chaos at the nation 's airports , after the hurriedly drafted and poorly implemented order caused confusion among border and customs officials about what it actually meant and which classes of travelers were included .
His order was quickly halted by the federal courts in a first showdown between his strong-arm executive powers and the judiciary -- leading Trump to belittle judges on Twitter .
The showdown inflicted an early blow on the reputation of the new White House and claims that Trump 's expertise as a master dealmaker and businessman would make up for his inexperience in Washington and governance as he set about fundamentally transforming America .
Stung by the scorn of the courts and the political world , the White House eventually retreated to plot a new approach -- one that is likely to be considerably narrower than the initial version . Permanent US residents , or green card holders , for instance , are expected to be exempted from the ban .
Trump rarely admits an error or apologizes for a misstep . But even he realizes that there is not much he can do but frame a new executive order to satisfy the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ' decision upholding a stay on the order imposed by a federal judge in Seattle .
His spokesman Sean Spicer said on Wednesday that the administration would tailor the new order to the ruling of the 9th Circuit and that the new plan was `` basically completed . ''
`` I think what we 're now doing is working with the various agencies and departments to make sure that the implementation of that is done in an extremely smooth way , '' Spicer said .
It is vital for the credibility of the President and a White House that things do indeed go smoothly this time around .
This may be the best , last chance for the administration to establish whether it can write an executive order that can honor Trump 's goals but at the same time not fall foul of constitutional due process rights of travelers trying to get into the United States who might be covered by the ban .
The White House faces a high bar in drafting the new order because its constitutional interpretation has already proven open to being challenged . The 9th Circuit , for instance , rejected the administration 's argument that the judiciary lacked the authority to block the travel ban as `` contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy . ''
Apart from the legal minefield the new order must traverse , the Trump White House has huge political credibility tied up in the travel ban .
A repeat of angry demonstrations at airports , with tales of travelers being turned back after getting on planes with what they thought were valid visas , would deal another blow to the new administration .
By Tuesday , there were initial signs that the administration had started to conduct the widespread consultation among its allies in the House and the Senate that was missing with the initial travel ban .
A top House Republican aide said the Department of Homeland Security had been in touch with House Speaker Paul Ryan 's office about the new executive order . But it is unclear whether the White House has been engaging with the committees with jurisdiction over immigration and national security .
Keeping allies in the loop is important because the refashioned executive order is likely to be viewed elsewhere in Washington as an omen for whether the administration is able to pull off the technical , legislative and political lifts needed to implement the promises for fundamental changes in America that Trump vowed as a candidate .
Of course , there is certain to be anger and controversy once the new order is released -- its opponents will brand it unconstitutional and un-American and the affected nations are likely to vocally protest and may take counter-measures . Lawsuits are already promised .
But a smooth implementation process could at least preserve the administration political space to press ahead with a scheme that does garner support from many Americans , especially Trump supporters .
It would also spare Capitol Hill Republicans from media interrogations about the White House 's ham-handed unveiling of the original order .
There is intense interest in Washington and around the world about how the second executive order will differ from Trump 's initial attempt .
Going forward , a new order could also only apply to people who are not yet in the visa process . The new order may apply to all seven nations originally named and could retain a ban on the entry of Syrian refugees , a source on Capitol Hill said .
This story has been updated to reflect the latest reporting .
|
(CNN) President Donald Trump will now wait until next week to unveil his new attempt to impose a temporary travel ban on citizens of states he says pose a high risk of terrorism.
An administration official said the order, which represents a do-over after Trump's first attempt was blocked by federal courts, would come by the middle of the week. The order had been expected to emerge sometime this week.
The order will form the second thrust of a new administration push to significantly overhaul the shape of the American immigration system, following the release of new memos Tuesday empowering state and local authorities to enforce laws that could eventually lead to mass deportations.
It also marks an important moment for Trump's vision of an expansive executive presidency as he contemplates other areas of sweeping policy action.
The significance of this new attempt -- the language of which is expected as soon as Wednesday -- is reflected in the participation of White House Counsel Don McGahn.
McGahn's office had only a cursory look at Trump's original order, which was written by transition and policy staff. Significantly, Trump's key political aide Stephen Miller has had much less to do with the second executive order, sources familiar with the matter said, and the Trump administration was communicating with Republicans on Capitol Hill about the legislation.
Another administration official disputed the notion that Miller is less involved now, saying he is in fact more involved in this process than the first one.
Trump's initial attempt to install a travel ban -- one of his fundamental campaign promises -- was a disaster, halting the administration's fast start in its tracks.
JUST WATCHED Iran: Travel ban an affront to the entire nation Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Iran: Travel ban an affront to the entire nation 10:54
The move temporarily blocking citizens of Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Libya from entering the US unleashed a weekend of chaos at the nation's airports, after the hurriedly drafted and poorly implemented order caused confusion among border and customs officials about what it actually meant and which classes of travelers were included.
His order was quickly halted by the federal courts in a first showdown between his strong-arm executive powers and the judiciary -- leading Trump to belittle judges on Twitter.
The showdown inflicted an early blow on the reputation of the new White House and claims that Trump's expertise as a master dealmaker and businessman would make up for his inexperience in Washington and governance as he set about fundamentally transforming America.
Stung by the scorn of the courts and the political world, the White House eventually retreated to plot a new approach -- one that is likely to be considerably narrower than the initial version. Permanent US residents, or green card holders, for instance, are expected to be exempted from the ban.
Trump rarely admits an error or apologizes for a misstep. But even he realizes that there is not much he can do but frame a new executive order to satisfy the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding a stay on the order imposed by a federal judge in Seattle.
His spokesman Sean Spicer said on Wednesday that the administration would tailor the new order to the ruling of the 9th Circuit and that the new plan was "basically completed."
"I think what we're now doing is working with the various agencies and departments to make sure that the implementation of that is done in an extremely smooth way," Spicer said.
It is vital for the credibility of the President and a White House that things do indeed go smoothly this time around.
This may be the best, last chance for the administration to establish whether it can write an executive order that can honor Trump's goals but at the same time not fall foul of constitutional due process rights of travelers trying to get into the United States who might be covered by the ban.
The White House faces a high bar in drafting the new order because its constitutional interpretation has already proven open to being challenged. The 9th Circuit, for instance, rejected the administration's argument that the judiciary lacked the authority to block the travel ban as "contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."
Apart from the legal minefield the new order must traverse, the Trump White House has huge political credibility tied up in the travel ban.
A repeat of angry demonstrations at airports, with tales of travelers being turned back after getting on planes with what they thought were valid visas, would deal another blow to the new administration.
Has White House learned a lesson?
By Tuesday, there were initial signs that the administration had started to conduct the widespread consultation among its allies in the House and the Senate that was missing with the initial travel ban.
A top House Republican aide said the Department of Homeland Security had been in touch with House Speaker Paul Ryan's office about the new executive order. But it is unclear whether the White House has been engaging with the committees with jurisdiction over immigration and national security.
Keeping allies in the loop is important because the refashioned executive order is likely to be viewed elsewhere in Washington as an omen for whether the administration is able to pull off the technical, legislative and political lifts needed to implement the promises for fundamental changes in America that Trump vowed as a candidate.
Of course, there is certain to be anger and controversy once the new order is released -- its opponents will brand it unconstitutional and un-American and the affected nations are likely to vocally protest and may take counter-measures. Lawsuits are already promised.
But a smooth implementation process could at least preserve the administration political space to press ahead with a scheme that does garner support from many Americans, especially Trump supporters.
It would also spare Capitol Hill Republicans from media interrogations about the White House's ham-handed unveiling of the original order.
There is intense interest in Washington and around the world about how the second executive order will differ from Trump's initial attempt.
Going forward, a new order could also only apply to people who are not yet in the visa process. The new order may apply to all seven nations originally named and could retain a ban on the entry of Syrian refugees, a source on Capitol Hill said.
This story has been updated to reflect the latest reporting.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
8uUoQA9KRO3sKiyA
|
us_senate
|
BBC News
| 11
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40664635
|
John McCain has brain cancer, his office says
|
Veteran US Republican Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer and is reviewing treatment options , according to his office .
The options may include chemotherapy and radiation , his doctors said . The 80-year-old politician is in `` good spirits '' recovering at home .
He thanked those who had wished him well and said he would be back soon .
The tumour was discovered during a surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye last week .
A Vietnam veteran , Mr McCain spent more than five years as a prisoner of war .
The six-term senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate underwent surgery at a clinic in Phoenix , in the state of Arizona , last Friday .
Tissue analysis revealed that a primary brain tumour known as glioblastoma was associated with the clot , a statement from the Mayo Clinic said .
`` The senator 's doctors say he is recovering from his surgery 'amazingly well ' and his underlying health is excellent , '' it added .
`` Treatment options may include a combination of chemotherapy and radiation . ''
Senior Republicans and Democrats wished him a speedy recovery , prompting Mr McCain to tweet his thanks , and a warning :
`` I greatly appreciate the outpouring of support - unfortunately for my sparring partners in Congress , I 'll be back soon , so stand-by ! ''
John McCain is known in Washington as a tough , independent-minded senator - a warrior who is now facing another battle against cancer .
He earned his reputation the hard way , being shot down as a US Navy pilot over Vietnam where he was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years , including two in solitary confinement .
Repeatedly beaten and tortured , Mr McCain was never again able to raise his arms above his head .
During the most recent presidential election campaign , Donald Trump belittled the senator as `` not a war hero '' saying `` I like people who were n't captured '' .
Mr McCain may have annoyed many Republicans by arguing for reforms to campaign finance and immigration laws .
He may have irritated opponents of America 's many wars with his forceful arguments in favour of the projection of US military might .
But this country reveres its veterans . The attacks on John McCain 's personal sacrifice were roundly condemned then - and millions of Americans will be praying for his recovery now .
Glioblastoma is a particularly aggressive brain tumour , and increases in frequency with age , affecting more men than women .
Mr McCain , who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services , was in `` good spirits as he continues to recover at home with his family '' , his office said .
His family reacted with `` shock '' to the news , his 32-year-old daughter Meghan said .
`` It wo n't surprise you to learn that in all of this , the one of us who is most confident and calm is my father , '' she said on Twitter .
`` So he is meeting this challenge as he has every other . Cancer may afflict him in many ways : but it will not make him surrender . Nothing ever has . ''
President Donald Trump said Mr McCain had `` always been a fighter '' and , in a statement , said : `` Get well soon '' .
Meanwhile , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Mr McCain was a `` hero to our country '' .
`` He has never shied from a fight , and I know that he will face this challenge with the same extraordinary courage that has characterized his life , '' he said on Twitter .
Former President Barack Obama tweeted : `` John McCain is an American hero and one of the bravest fighters I 've ever known . Cancer does n't know what it 's up against . Give it hell , John . ''
|
Image copyright AFP Image caption Mr McCain is "reviewing treatment options", a statement says
Veteran US Republican Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer and is reviewing treatment options, according to his office.
The options may include chemotherapy and radiation, his doctors said. The 80-year-old politician is in "good spirits" recovering at home.
He thanked those who had wished him well and said he would be back soon.
The tumour was discovered during a surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye last week.
A Vietnam veteran, Mr McCain spent more than five years as a prisoner of war.
The six-term senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate underwent surgery at a clinic in Phoenix, in the state of Arizona, last Friday.
Tissue analysis revealed that a primary brain tumour known as glioblastoma was associated with the clot, a statement from the Mayo Clinic said.
"The senator's doctors say he is recovering from his surgery 'amazingly well' and his underlying health is excellent," it added.
"Treatment options may include a combination of chemotherapy and radiation."
Senior Republicans and Democrats wished him a speedy recovery, prompting Mr McCain to tweet his thanks, and a warning:
"I greatly appreciate the outpouring of support - unfortunately for my sparring partners in Congress, I'll be back soon, so stand-by!"
Analysis: Warrior faces a new battle
By James Cook, BBC North America correspondent
John McCain is known in Washington as a tough, independent-minded senator - a warrior who is now facing another battle against cancer.
He earned his reputation the hard way, being shot down as a US Navy pilot over Vietnam where he was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years, including two in solitary confinement.
Repeatedly beaten and tortured, Mr McCain was never again able to raise his arms above his head.
During the most recent presidential election campaign, Donald Trump belittled the senator as "not a war hero" saying "I like people who weren't captured".
Many Americans were horrified.
Mr McCain may have annoyed many Republicans by arguing for reforms to campaign finance and immigration laws.
He may have irritated opponents of America's many wars with his forceful arguments in favour of the projection of US military might.
But this country reveres its veterans. The attacks on John McCain's personal sacrifice were roundly condemned then - and millions of Americans will be praying for his recovery now.
Glioblastoma is a particularly aggressive brain tumour, and increases in frequency with age, affecting more men than women.
Mr McCain, who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, was in "good spirits as he continues to recover at home with his family", his office said.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'We are in shock': John Kennedy says senators prayed for John McCain
His family reacted with "shock" to the news, his 32-year-old daughter Meghan said.
"It won't surprise you to learn that in all of this, the one of us who is most confident and calm is my father," she said on Twitter.
"So he is meeting this challenge as he has every other. Cancer may afflict him in many ways: but it will not make him surrender. Nothing ever has."
President Donald Trump said Mr McCain had "always been a fighter" and, in a statement, said: "Get well soon".
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Mr McCain was a "hero to our country".
"He has never shied from a fight, and I know that he will face this challenge with the same extraordinary courage that has characterized his life," he said on Twitter.
Former President Barack Obama tweeted: "John McCain is an American hero and one of the bravest fighters I've ever known. Cancer doesn't know what it's up against. Give it hell, John."
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
mhaoCCjxc9gyqKVj
|
||
transportation
|
Daily Kos
| 00
|
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/11/1652160/-Trump-loves-to-talk-big-on-infrastructure-but-what-he-s-offering-is-an-applause-line-not-a-plan
|
Trump loves to talk big on infrastructure, but what he's offering is an applause line, not a plan
|
2017-04-11
|
Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Story Count, Comment Count, Popular Tags
|
Donald Trump likes to deliver big promises on infrastructure . Delivering an actual infrastructure plan , though , is a different matter . ( Sound familiar ? ) Trump ’ s problem is that while strengthening the nation ’ s infrastructure would be very popular with voters , who would benefit from the improved transit and water systems and new schools and the millions of jobs that would come from repairing or building all of that , Republican politicians are not interested in making rich people pay for any of that . ( Trump , you may recall , is a Republican politician . ) Also , Trump ’ s strong suit has not exactly been delivering workable plans to fulfill his positive campaign promises . He ’ s good at signing orders and bills undoing things President Obama did , but he ’ s not so good at coming up with his own policies , from health care to infrastructure .
And so Trump keeps talking about infrastructure in his speeches :
But at this point , White House spokesman Sean Spicer has only said the Trump Administration is in the “ beginning phases ” of putting together an infrastructure plan – which means there is no legislative text ready for action in the Congress .
There have been indications that any infrastructure bill coming out of the Trump White House will be less about investing in America and more about gutting environmental regulations and selling roads and bridges off to corporations , but at this point even that is extremely hazy , and while Republicans seem content about it , Democrats are getting impatient :
“ Every conversation or any interaction I have had with the president has been infrastructure , infrastructure , infrastructure , ” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said at a news conference last week . “ Where 's the bill ? Show us the bill . ”
Democrats would love a real infrastructure bill that put people to work repairing or replacing crumbling bridges , building tunnels to improve transit in congested areas—you could list important projects pretty much all day . But with Trump ’ s popularity and credibility in the basement , Democrats don ’ t seem like they plan to roll over and gratefully accept a massive privatizing giveaway to the wealthy . And Trump—or at least some of the people around him—may realize that continuing to talk vaguely about a popular idea serves his ego more as an applause line than unveiling a disappointing betrayal of an actual plan would . Don ’ t hold your breath on a solid infrastructure plan that Congress could vote on , in other words .
|
Donald Trump likes to deliver big promises on infrastructure. Delivering an actual infrastructure plan, though, is a different matter. (Sound familiar?) Trump’s problem is that while strengthening the nation’s infrastructure would be very popular with voters, who would benefit from the improved transit and water systems and new schools and the millions of jobs that would come from repairing or building all of that, Republican politicians are not interested in making rich people pay for any of that. (Trump, you may recall, is a Republican politician.) Also, Trump’s strong suit has not exactly been delivering workable plans to fulfill his positive campaign promises. He’s good at signing orders and bills undoing things President Obama did, but he’s not so good at coming up with his own policies, from health care to infrastructure.
And so Trump keeps talking about infrastructure in his speeches:
But at this point, White House spokesman Sean Spicer has only said the Trump Administration is in the “beginning phases” of putting together an infrastructure plan – which means there is no legislative text ready for action in the Congress.
There have been indications that any infrastructure bill coming out of the Trump White House will be less about investing in America and more about gutting environmental regulations and selling roads and bridges off to corporations, but at this point even that is extremely hazy, and while Republicans seem content about it, Democrats are getting impatient:
“Every conversation or any interaction I have had with the president has been infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said at a news conference last week. “Where's the bill? Show us the bill.”
Democrats would love a real infrastructure bill that put people to work repairing or replacing crumbling bridges, building tunnels to improve transit in congested areas—you could list important projects pretty much all day. But with Trump’s popularity and credibility in the basement, Democrats don’t seem like they plan to roll over and gratefully accept a massive privatizing giveaway to the wealthy. And Trump—or at least some of the people around him—may realize that continuing to talk vaguely about a popular idea serves his ego more as an applause line than unveiling a disappointing betrayal of an actual plan would. Don’t hold your breath on a solid infrastructure plan that Congress could vote on, in other words.
|
www.dailykos.com
| 0left
|
S2u5RG44XzYO1CCF
|
politics
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/01/fact-checking-president-trump-first-address-congress/98537824/
|
Fact-checking President Trump's first address to Congress
|
2017-03-01
|
Brooks Jackson , D'Angelo Gore , Eugene Kiely , Lori Robertson and Robert Farley
In his first address to a joint session of Congress , President Trump stuck closely to his prepared remarks , but ran afoul of the facts in some cases .
Trump said the U.S. has spent $ 6 trillion in the Middle East and “ with this $ 6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country. ” The amount spent so far is $ 1.7 trillion , according to the Defense Department .
He cherry-picked the findings of a recent report , saying it found immigration costs U.S. taxpayers “ billions of dollars a year. ” The report said immigration “ has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth . ”
Trump said “ 94 million Americans are out of the labor force , ” a figure that includes the retired , college students and stay-at-home parents . The vast majority — 88.5 million — said they didn ’ t want a job .
Trump said he would “ promote clean air and clean water , ” a vague claim that came hours after he had signed an executive order to roll back a 2015 “ Clean Water Rule . ”
And the president repeated claims we ’ ve fact-checked before on border security , welfare , job creation since he was elected , health insurance and crime . For instance , he said the U.S. left “ our own borders wide open , for anyone to cross. ” But the border patrol budget and number of agents have both doubled since 2001 .
The false and misleading claims in Trump ’ s Feb. 28 address to Congress touched on familiar topics to fact-checkers , including the Middle East , the labor force , immigration and more .
Trump claimed that the U.S. has spent $ 6 trillion in the Middle East and “ with this $ 6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country ” two or three times .
Trump : `` America has spent approximately $ 6 trillion in the Middle East , all this while our infrastructure at home is crumbling . With this $ 6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country — twice . And maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate . ''
But Trump is using a long-term cost estimate ; the actual amount spent so far is $ 1.7 trillion .
In a report released this month , the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Department of Defense estimates that the U.S. has spent $ 1.7 trillion on “ war-related activities ” from 2001 through Sept. 30 , 2016 . That includes military operations in Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria and Libya .
Trump may be referring to a long-term estimate by a Boston University political science professor , Neta Crawford . She puts the long-term cost of the war on terrorism at between $ 4.8 trillion and $ 7.9 trillion when including future costs for such things as veterans ’ medical and disability costs , debt service on borrowed money , and war-related spending in the Department of Homeland Security .
Trump is right about the cost of war being high , but the $ 6 trillion he cites has not been spent yet — so he ’ s not correct in saying “ with this $ 6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country . ”
Trump talked not only about cracking down on illegal immigration , but also about changing the current system for legal immigration . He claimed the current system hurts U.S. workers and taxpayers , citing a report by the National Academy of Sciences .
Trump : `` Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration . The current , outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers , and puts great pressure on taxpayers . `` Nations around the world , like Canada , Australia and many others have a merit-based immigration system . It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially . Yet , in America , we do not enforce this rule , straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon . According to the National Academy of Sciences , our current immigration system costs America ’ s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year . ''
Trump distorts the findings of the National Academies of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine in a report released in September .
The long-term impact of the legal immigration system on the overall wages and employment of native-born American workers is “ very small , ” the report said . “ To the extent that negative impacts occur , they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high school—who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills , ” according to a press release on the report .
As for taxpayers , the impact of the legal immigration system on government budgets is “ mixed , ” the report found . State and local governments “ bear the burden of providing education benefits to children , ” but the federal government benefits from “ the resulting educated taxpayers ” who work and pay taxes .
The report found that for 2011-2013 immigration there was a net annual cost of $ 57.4 billion for first-generation adults and their dependents ; but second generations create a benefit of $ 30.5 billion a year , and third-plus generations create an annual benefit of $ 223.8 billion .
Overall , the report found that “ immigration is integral to the nation ’ s economic growth ” and “ has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S . ”
“ The panel ’ s comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration — including on economic growth , innovation , and entrepreneurship — with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term , ” said Francine D. Blau , a professor of economics at Cornell University who chaired the panel that wrote the report .
As evidence of the poor economic “ circumstances we inherited , ” the president said “ 94 million Americans are out of the labor force . ”
That ’ s true as far as it goes — but it ’ s not evidence of a bad economy . Trump failed to mention that the vast majority of those who aren ’ t working or looking for work are retired , disabled , attending school or home caring for family members .
Of the 94.3 million who were counted as out of the labor force last year , 88.5 million said they didn ’ t want a job , according to annual figures from the Current Population Survey . Barely half a million — 553,000 — said they wanted a job but weren ’ t looking because they were discouraged about finding one .
Trump also said that “ more than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working. ” Perhaps so , if you count stay-at-home parents , the disabled and those in school . But the fact is , as Trump took office in January , the unemployment rate among those 25 to 54 years old stood at only 4.1 % .
So in that age group only 1 in 25 who wanted work had looked and couldn ’ t find it .
Trump said his administration would work with members of both parties to ( among other things ) “ promote clean air and clean water. ” That ’ s a vague claim , but it ’ s worth noting that only hours earlier , the president had signed an executive order aimed at eventually rolling back a 2015 Obama administration “ Clean Water Rule. ” And reports were circulating that Trump ’ s budget would propose laying off 20 % of the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s workforce .
That rule gives the federal government broad authority to limit pollution in small streams and wetlands that drain into major bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River , but it had come under fire from developers , farmers and other landowners who saw their property rights threatened .
Trump called it “ this very destructive and horrible rule ” as he signed the order to roll it back .
Meanwhile , Trump administration officials were pushing for a 24 % cut in the EPA ’ s budget , according to reports in Politico and E & E News , citing unnamed sources .
Borders : Trump said that “ we ’ ve defended the borders of other nations , while leaving our own borders wide open , for anyone to cross. ” That ’ s nonsense . The border patrol budget more than doubled from $ 1.15 billion in fiscal 2001 to $ 3.64 billion in fiscal 2016 . The number of border patrol agents also increased over 100 % from 9,821 in fiscal 2001 to 19,828 in fiscal 2016 , when those agents made nearly 416,000 border apprehensions nationwide .
Refugee vetting : Trump said that “ my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures ” because “ it is not compassionate , but reckless , to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting can not occur. ” As we have explained before , all refugees seeking to enter the U.S. must pass a more rigorous screening than even those entering on a tourist or student visa . And those from Syria , which is one of the seven nations singled out in Trump ’ s travel ban , are subjected to special measures including iris scans and an “ enhanced review ” by the Department of Homeland Security . It remains to be seen how Trump will change the vetting process , but the current process , for refugees at least , can take up to two years .
Welfare : Trump envisioned “ millions lifted from welfare to work ” by the time the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary , in nine years . But the welfare rolls have already dropped by millions — from 10.9 million average monthly recipients in fiscal 1997 to 2.8 million in fiscal 2016 . The drop was precipitated by legislation signed by President Clinton in 1996 instituting work requirements and time limits to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program . This is at least the thirdtime Trump has made a claim about moving people from welfare to work since he was sworn in .
Jobs : Trump boasted that “ since my election , Ford , Fiat-Chrysler , General Motors , Sprint , Softbank , Lockheed , Intel , Walmart and many others , have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs. ” But as we have reportedrepeatedly , many of the investments announced by those companies were in the works before the election or were largely market driven . Executives of those companies praised Trump ’ s plan to cut corporate taxes and reduce regulation , but several of them said the recently announced investments would have been made no matter who was elected president , and were part of a years-long investment strategy . We won ’ t know how Trump is doing on jobs until the Bureau of Labor Statistics comes out with its monthly figures for February , and it may take many more months or even years , to fully evaluate Trump ’ s impact on jobs . We can say this , though : The creation of “ tens of thousands ” of jobs by these companies would represent a small part of the overall economy , which has shown a years-long trend of growth . The economy added nearly 2.2 million jobs in the 12 months before Trump took office . It has gained jobs for 76 straight months – the longest streak on record .
Health insurance : Trump said that “ Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits , ” giving the average 116 % increase in Arizona as an example . But that state was the only one to have a “ triple digit ” average increase in premiums on the ACA exchange , for individuals who buy their own insurance . As we ’ ve written before , the average nationwide change was a 25 % increase from 2016 to 2017 among the 38 HealthCare.gov states . Ten of those states had single-digit increases or a decrease in the average second lowest-cost silver plan . And it ’ s worth noting that 84 % of the 10.4 million Americans with marketplace coverage in the first half of 2016 received tax credits that limit the amount those individuals have to pay toward premiums .
Crime : Trump got his talking point right when he said , “ The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century. ” It ’ s a line he has repeatedly misstated . But while the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate did go up by 10.8 % from 2014 to 2015 , the long-term trend has been a decrease in murders . The 2015 rate , 4.9 per 100,000 people , is less than half the peak rate of 10.2 in 1980 , according to FBI data .
Trump to Congress : 'The time for trivial fights is behind us '
How the last 5 presidents handled their first address to Congress
Trump : 'My job is to represent the United States of America '
|
Brooks Jackson, D'Angelo Gore, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson and Robert Farley
FactCheck.org
In his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump stuck closely to his prepared remarks, but ran afoul of the facts in some cases.
Trump said the U.S. has spent $6 trillion in the Middle East and “with this $6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country.” The amount spent so far is $1.7 trillion, according to the Defense Department.
He cherry-picked the findings of a recent report, saying it found immigration costs U.S. taxpayers “billions of dollars a year.” The report said immigration “has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth.”
Trump said “94 million Americans are out of the labor force,” a figure that includes the retired, college students and stay-at-home parents. The vast majority — 88.5 million — said they didn’t want a job.
Trump said he would “promote clean air and clean water,” a vague claim that came hours after he had signed an executive order to roll back a 2015 “Clean Water Rule.”
And the president repeated claims we’ve fact-checked before on border security, welfare, job creation since he was elected, health insurance and crime. For instance, he said the U.S. left “our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross.” But the border patrol budget and number of agents have both doubled since 2001.
The false and misleading claims in Trump’s Feb. 28 address to Congress touched on familiar topics to fact-checkers, including the Middle East, the labor force, immigration and more.
$6 Trillion War?
Trump claimed that the U.S. has spent $6 trillion in the Middle East and “with this $6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country” two or three times.
Trump: "America has spent approximately $6 trillion in the Middle East, all this while our infrastructure at home is crumbling. With this $6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country — twice. And maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate."
But Trump is using a long-term cost estimate; the actual amount spent so far is $1.7 trillion.
In a report released this month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Department of Defense estimates that the U.S. has spent $1.7 trillion on “war-related activities” from 2001 through Sept. 30, 2016. That includes military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.
Trump may be referring to a long-term estimate by a Boston University political science professor, Neta Crawford. She puts the long-term cost of the war on terrorism at between $4.8 trillion and $7.9 trillion when including future costs for such things as veterans’ medical and disability costs, debt service on borrowed money, and war-related spending in the Department of Homeland Security.
Trump is right about the cost of war being high, but the $6 trillion he cites has not been spent yet — so he’s not correct in saying “with this $6 trillion we could have rebuilt our country.”
Cost of U.S. Immigration System
Trump talked not only about cracking down on illegal immigration, but also about changing the current system for legal immigration. He claimed the current system hurts U.S. workers and taxpayers, citing a report by the National Academy of Sciences.
Trump: "Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers. "Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America’s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year."
Trump distorts the findings of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in a report released in September.
The long-term impact of the legal immigration system on the overall wages and employment of native-born American workers is “very small,” the report said. “To the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high school—who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills,” according to a press release on the report.
As for taxpayers, the impact of the legal immigration system on government budgets is “mixed,” the report found. State and local governments “bear the burden of providing education benefits to children,” but the federal government benefits from “the resulting educated taxpayers” who work and pay taxes.
The report found that for 2011-2013 immigration there was a net annual cost of $57.4 billion for first-generation adults and their dependents; but second generations create a benefit of $30.5 billion a year, and third-plus generations create an annual benefit of $223.8 billion.
Overall, the report found that “immigration is integral to the nation’s economic growth” and “has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.”
“The panel’s comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration — including on economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship — with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term,” said Francine D. Blau, a professor of economics at Cornell University who chaired the panel that wrote the report.
Labor Force and Employment
As evidence of the poor economic “circumstances we inherited,” the president said “94 million Americans are out of the labor force.”
That’s true as far as it goes — but it’s not evidence of a bad economy. Trump failed to mention that the vast majority of those who aren’t working or looking for work are retired, disabled, attending school or home caring for family members.
Of the 94.3 million who were counted as out of the labor force last year, 88.5 million said they didn’t want a job, according to annual figures from the Current Population Survey. Barely half a million — 553,000 — said they wanted a job but weren’t looking because they were discouraged about finding one.
Trump also said that “more than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working.” Perhaps so, if you count stay-at-home parents, the disabled and those in school. But the fact is, as Trump took office in January, the unemployment rate among those 25 to 54 years old stood at only 4.1%.
So in that age group only 1 in 25 who wanted work had looked and couldn’t find it.
Clean Water?
Trump said his administration would work with members of both parties to (among other things) “promote clean air and clean water.” That’s a vague claim, but it’s worth noting that only hours earlier, the president had signed an executive order aimed at eventually rolling back a 2015 Obama administration “Clean Water Rule.” And reports were circulating that Trump’s budget would propose laying off 20% of the Environmental Protection Agency’s workforce.
That rule gives the federal government broad authority to limit pollution in small streams and wetlands that drain into major bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River, but it had come under fire from developers, farmers and other landowners who saw their property rights threatened.
Trump called it “this very destructive and horrible rule” as he signed the order to roll it back.
Meanwhile, Trump administration officials were pushing for a 24% cut in the EPA’s budget, according to reports in Politico and E&E News, citing unnamed sources.
Familiar Claims
Trump repeated several other claims we’ve written about before.
Borders: Trump said that “we’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross.” That’s nonsense. The border patrol budget more than doubled from $1.15 billion in fiscal 2001 to $3.64 billion in fiscal 2016. The number of border patrol agents also increased over 100% from 9,821 in fiscal 2001 to 19,828 in fiscal 2016, when those agents made nearly 416,000 border apprehensions nationwide.
Refugee vetting: Trump said that “my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures” because “it is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.” As we have explained before, all refugees seeking to enter the U.S. must pass a more rigorous screening than even those entering on a tourist or student visa. And those from Syria, which is one of the seven nations singled out in Trump’s travel ban, are subjected to special measures including iris scans and an “enhanced review” by the Department of Homeland Security. It remains to be seen how Trump will change the vetting process, but the current process, for refugees at least, can take up to two years.
Welfare: Trump envisioned “millions lifted from welfare to work” by the time the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, in nine years. But the welfare rolls have already dropped by millions — from 10.9 million average monthly recipients in fiscal 1997 to 2.8 million in fiscal 2016. The drop was precipitated by legislation signed by President Clinton in 1996 instituting work requirements and time limits to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This is at least the thirdtime Trump has made a claim about moving people from welfare to work since he was sworn in.
Jobs: Trump boasted that “since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.” But as we have reportedrepeatedly, many of the investments announced by those companies were in the works before the election or were largely market driven. Executives of those companies praised Trump’s plan to cut corporate taxes and reduce regulation, but several of them said the recently announced investments would have been made no matter who was elected president, and were part of a years-long investment strategy. We won’t know how Trump is doing on jobs until the Bureau of Labor Statistics comes out with its monthly figures for February, and it may take many more months or even years, to fully evaluate Trump’s impact on jobs. We can say this, though: The creation of “tens of thousands” of jobs by these companies would represent a small part of the overall economy, which has shown a years-long trend of growth. The economy added nearly 2.2 million jobs in the 12 months before Trump took office. It has gained jobs for 76 straight months – the longest streak on record.
Health insurance: Trump said that “Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits,” giving the average 116% increase in Arizona as an example. But that state was the only one to have a “triple digit” average increase in premiums on the ACA exchange, for individuals who buy their own insurance. As we’ve written before, the average nationwide change was a 25% increase from 2016 to 2017 among the 38 HealthCare.gov states. Ten of those states had single-digit increases or a decrease in the average second lowest-cost silver plan. And it’s worth noting that 84% of the 10.4 million Americans with marketplace coverage in the first half of 2016 received tax credits that limit the amount those individuals have to pay toward premiums.
Crime: Trump got his talking point right when he said, “The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century.” It’s a line he has repeatedly misstated. But while the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate did go up by 10.8% from 2014 to 2015, the long-term trend has been a decrease in murders. The 2015 rate, 4.9 per 100,000 people, is less than half the peak rate of 10.2 in 1980, according to FBI data.
For a full list of sources, see FactCheck.org.
USA TODAY coverage of Trump's speech:
Analysis: After a hostile takeover, it's Trump's party now
Top takeaways from President Trump's first address to Congress
Trump to Congress: 'The time for trivial fights is behind us'
GOP lawmakers cheer Trump's speech as Democrats sit stone-faced
How the last 5 presidents handled their first address to Congress
Trump's speech: Exaggerations, omissions, facts
Trump: 'My job is to represent the United States of America'
Democrats say Trump already breaking promise to working class
Full text of President Trump's first address to Congress
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
RZr4yGJeywY2wFbz
|
|
world
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2016/1227/At-heart-of-Obama-Abe-Pearl-Harbor-meeting-the-power-of-reconciliation
|
At heart of Obama-Abe Pearl Harbor meeting: the power of reconciliation
|
2016-12-27
|
Howard Lafranchi
|
When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that he would visit Pearl Harbor , meeting President Obama in Hawaii Tuesday , it was noteworthy that both leaders characterized the visit as an opportunity for reconciliation .
The United States and Japan , after all , would seem to have reconciled long ago . The two nations have made peace and become close allies since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor 75 years ago and the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima four years later .
But the two leaders ' message is clear . What the Obama-Abe visit will demonstrate is that reconciliation is not a one-and-done , but is a perpetual work in progress between onetime adversaries – even after decades of close relations . Coming seven months after Mr. Obama ’ s groundbreaking visit to Hiroshima , Mr. Abe ’ s Pearl Harbor trip is yet another step beyond a declaration made decades ago .
“ To some extent , these two events … are the last remaining hurdles in the process of reconciliation , ” says James Schoff , a senior fellow and expert in US-Japan relations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington . “ This is taking us a greater distance down this road – and it ’ s a long road . ”
Demonstrating the power of reconciliation can be an important example for other relationships , some diplomatic experts say . The progress of the US-Japan relationship shows it can only happen after leaders and the people behind them grasp how reconciliation is not simply a nicety but crucially in their self-interest , some experts say .
That motivation may help explain Abe ’ s initiative to visit Pearl Harbor , where a surprise Japanese attack killed more than 2,400 American service members and civilians . It was originally announced that he would be the first sitting Japanese leader to visit the site , but as many as three Japanese prime ministers apparently visited Pearl Harbor with less fanfare in the 1950s . Abe is the first to visit with a US president .
“ Abe ’ s plan and policy is to ensure that as much as he can personally , he closes the book on World War II – because Japan faces a worrisome future in a very unstable region , ” says Michael Auslin , director of Japan studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington . “ By visiting Pearl Harbor I think he ’ s saying , ‘ We no longer shirk responsibility for the past , but we do so in part because we ’ re concerned about preserving this unique relationship [ with the US ] to deal with our current challenges . ’ ”
Abe isn ’ t taking the first step in what might be considered the ultimate US-Japan reconciliation dance . In May , Obama became the first American president to visit Hiroshima , the Japanese city where the US first used the atomic bomb . ( The second and last time was three days later on the city of Nagasaki , forcing Japan ’ s surrender . )
Abe ’ s visit to Pearl Harbor “ makes a fitting counterpoint to [ Obama ’ s Hiroshima ] trip , marking the alpha and omega of World War II in the Pacific , ” says Bruce Klingner , a senior research fellow in Northeast Asian issues at the Heritage Foundation in Washington .
By commemorating the two terrible events that opened and closed the horrendous Second World War between their countries , the two leaders are underscoring how the US and Japan have been able to “ overcome the animosity of conflict to become enduring partners and allies , ” Mr. Klingner wrote in a recent commentary on the Heritage website .
Coming to terms with their intertwined history and onetime adversarial past has allowed the two countries to build a partnership that is now a “ symbol of what democracies can achieve together , ” he says .
That the two leaders are only now visiting the two iconic sites offers some measure of how fraught such symbolic gestures can be .
First , the US had some misgivings about an Abe visit to Pearl Harbor so soon after Obama ’ s trip to Hiroshima because there were concerns it would look like a “ quid pro quo , ” Mr. Schoff says – or that it would establish some unwanted equivalency between the two events .
“ Even though the US and Japan have been solid allies for more than a half century , the two sides have remained divided about the tragedies of the beginning and the end of the war , ” says Dr. Auslin . “ They may never see fully eye-to-eye on the two events , but with these two visits together they are putting aside whatever differences remain to focus on how much stronger the two countries are together . ”
Abe ’ s visit to Pearl Harbor is particularly important as a “ message ” not just to Americans but to Japan ’ s neighbors – chief among them South Korea – who were the victims of imperial Japan ’ s violent expansion across the region , says Auslin , author of “ The End of the Asian Century . ”
Abe has made reconciliation with South Korea a goal of his tenure . A year ago , the Japanese leader and South Korean President Park Geun-hye sealed an agreement that begins to address the wrenching issues left by Japan ’ s more than three decades of occupation of the Korean Peninsula .
Part of that agreement was reparations for “ comfort women ” the Japanese military seized during occupation – a couple hundred of whom remain alive today . Several of Abe ’ s predecessors considered the issue settled and behind the two countries , but clearly South Korea did not .
By going further than previous Japanese leaders , Abe was not just acknowledging past mistakes but recognizing the overriding interest both countries have in getting beyond their past , Auslin says .
But some say Japan and its neighbors – particularly South Korea and China – have much further to go on the path to reconciliation .
“ If anything , I ’ d say the whole question of Japan ’ s occupation and wartime activities has become a bigger issue as these Asian countries have grown and prospered , ” says Schoff . “ Their rising status has made them much more vocal on these issues. “
Perhaps the crucial factor that sets the US-Japan reconciliation apart , Schoff says , is that , during the “ process ” of walking the path together , the two countries have become friends .
“ When they begin to express sympathy for each other ’ s misfortune , that ’ s when you see that there ’ s an element of understanding that has been picked up on this path of reconciliation , ” he says .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Referring to Abe ’ s statement that he hoped to send “ messages ” with his Pearl Harbor visit , Schoff says , “ There ’ s a message of friendship in these expressions of sympathy and understanding . ”
|
When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that he would visit Pearl Harbor, meeting President Obama in Hawaii Tuesday, it was noteworthy that both leaders characterized the visit as an opportunity for reconciliation.
The United States and Japan, after all, would seem to have reconciled long ago. The two nations have made peace and become close allies since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor 75 years ago and the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima four years later.
But the two leaders' message is clear. What the Obama-Abe visit will demonstrate is that reconciliation is not a one-and-done, but is a perpetual work in progress between onetime adversaries – even after decades of close relations. Coming seven months after Mr. Obama’s groundbreaking visit to Hiroshima, Mr. Abe’s Pearl Harbor trip is yet another step beyond a declaration made decades ago.
“To some extent, these two events … are the last remaining hurdles in the process of reconciliation,” says James Schoff, a senior fellow and expert in US-Japan relations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. “This is taking us a greater distance down this road – and it’s a long road.”
The benefits of reconciliation
Demonstrating the power of reconciliation can be an important example for other relationships, some diplomatic experts say. The progress of the US-Japan relationship shows it can only happen after leaders and the people behind them grasp how reconciliation is not simply a nicety but crucially in their self-interest, some experts say.
That motivation may help explain Abe’s initiative to visit Pearl Harbor, where a surprise Japanese attack killed more than 2,400 American service members and civilians. It was originally announced that he would be the first sitting Japanese leader to visit the site, but as many as three Japanese prime ministers apparently visited Pearl Harbor with less fanfare in the 1950s. Abe is the first to visit with a US president.
“Abe’s plan and policy is to ensure that as much as he can personally, he closes the book on World War II – because Japan faces a worrisome future in a very unstable region,” says Michael Auslin, director of Japan studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “By visiting Pearl Harbor I think he’s saying, ‘We no longer shirk responsibility for the past, but we do so in part because we’re concerned about preserving this unique relationship [with the US] to deal with our current challenges.’ ”
Abe isn’t taking the first step in what might be considered the ultimate US-Japan reconciliation dance. In May, Obama became the first American president to visit Hiroshima, the Japanese city where the US first used the atomic bomb. (The second and last time was three days later on the city of Nagasaki, forcing Japan’s surrender.)
Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor “makes a fitting counterpoint to [Obama’s Hiroshima] trip, marking the alpha and omega of World War II in the Pacific,” says Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow in Northeast Asian issues at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
By commemorating the two terrible events that opened and closed the horrendous Second World War between their countries, the two leaders are underscoring how the US and Japan have been able to “overcome the animosity of conflict to become enduring partners and allies,” Mr. Klingner wrote in a recent commentary on the Heritage website.
Coming to terms with their intertwined history and onetime adversarial past has allowed the two countries to build a partnership that is now a “symbol of what democracies can achieve together,” he says.
That the two leaders are only now visiting the two iconic sites offers some measure of how fraught such symbolic gestures can be.
First, the US had some misgivings about an Abe visit to Pearl Harbor so soon after Obama’s trip to Hiroshima because there were concerns it would look like a “quid pro quo,” Mr. Schoff says – or that it would establish some unwanted equivalency between the two events.
“Even though the US and Japan have been solid allies for more than a half century, the two sides have remained divided about the tragedies of the beginning and the end of the war,” says Dr. Auslin. “They may never see fully eye-to-eye on the two events, but with these two visits together they are putting aside whatever differences remain to focus on how much stronger the two countries are together.”
A message beyond America
Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor is particularly important as a “message” not just to Americans but to Japan’s neighbors – chief among them South Korea – who were the victims of imperial Japan’s violent expansion across the region, says Auslin, author of “The End of the Asian Century.”
Abe has made reconciliation with South Korea a goal of his tenure. A year ago, the Japanese leader and South Korean President Park Geun-hye sealed an agreement that begins to address the wrenching issues left by Japan’s more than three decades of occupation of the Korean Peninsula.
Part of that agreement was reparations for “comfort women” the Japanese military seized during occupation – a couple hundred of whom remain alive today. Several of Abe’s predecessors considered the issue settled and behind the two countries, but clearly South Korea did not.
By going further than previous Japanese leaders, Abe was not just acknowledging past mistakes but recognizing the overriding interest both countries have in getting beyond their past, Auslin says.
But some say Japan and its neighbors – particularly South Korea and China – have much further to go on the path to reconciliation.
“If anything, I’d say the whole question of Japan’s occupation and wartime activities has become a bigger issue as these Asian countries have grown and prospered,” says Schoff. “Their rising status has made them much more vocal on these issues.“
Perhaps the crucial factor that sets the US-Japan reconciliation apart, Schoff says, is that, during the “process” of walking the path together, the two countries have become friends.
“When they begin to express sympathy for each other’s misfortune, that’s when you see that there’s an element of understanding that has been picked up on this path of reconciliation,” he says.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Referring to Abe’s statement that he hoped to send “messages” with his Pearl Harbor visit, Schoff says, “There’s a message of friendship in these expressions of sympathy and understanding.”
[Editor's note: The article has been corrected to note that Abe is not the first Japanese prime minister to visit Pearl Harbor.]
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
c7JhuZ55C0LgsAg9
|
mexico
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/usmca-2
|
USMCA
|
The left generally supports the deal as a marginal improvement on NAFTA and a win for organized labor .
“ While this measure has some things not to like , it has others that are worthy . The USMCA would do away with a back-channel dispute resolution mechanism that corporations have used to demand concessions from the member governments . And the pact includes significant provisions on e-commerce , which was in its infancy when NAFTA was passed , as well as protections for U.S. copyright holders . The simple truth is that NAFTA has been a success , so a modest update is not a bad thing . Critics point to job losses in manufacturing since it went into effect . But most of the losses were from technological change or trade with countries like China… While not perfect , and leaving out some crucial areas like climate change , the USMCA is worth passing . ”
“ The most important improvement — the one for which workers ’ advocates fought for hardest — is the facility-specific labor enforcement measures , because without those , the improved labor standards mean nothing . For the first time in any trade agreement , tariffs and fines can be imposed against specific products produced in facilities that are determined to deny workers collective-bargaining rights . If there are repeated violations , goods can be blocked at the border…
“ The AFL-CIO has vehemently opposed almost every significant trade deal since NAFTA , but after playing an active role in the USMCA negotiations and forcing labor standards and enforcement improvements in Trump ’ s 2018 deal , they told their members , ‘ We have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support . ’ ”
“ Democrats seem to have secured other important concessions in the deal . The original USMCA was widely considered a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies because it guaranteed the makers of expensive biologic drugs 10 years of protection from cheaper competition . That provision , which could have made it harder for the U.S. to lower its own drug costs , is out . The new agreement also adds more enforcement on environmental rules . The deal isn ’ t perfect : Nancy Pelosi failed to remove protections for internet companies that could make it more difficult for the U.S. to amend its own laws…
“ But , at first glance , it looks like an improvement over both the original-recipe NAFTA and the first draft of the USMCA , and it could help set better standards for America ’ s future trade deals . ”
Critics , however , contend that “ The United States International Trade Commission predicts the measures will succeed in the narrow purpose of shifting work to the United States , but only at a high cost : Consumers will pay more for new vehicles , resulting in fewer sales , and economic growth will suffer . There is a broader threat , too . Shifting work to Mexico has allowed American car companies to reduce costs , and to compete more effectively with foreign producers . Without NAFTA , there might be even fewer car-making jobs in the United States today . And as a result of the changes , there may be fewer in the future…
“ The best argument for passage is prophylactic . President Trump has threatened to abandon NAFTA in the absence of a new deal , and the changes are less important than the part that would stay the same : a free-trade area for most goods encompassing the three largest nations of North America . ”
“ Just what would the USMCA do for the economy in 2020 ? Not much , it turns out… One of the two big economic projections on the deal , performed by the U.S. International Trade Commission ( ITC ) , estimated it would add 176,000 jobs to the economy over the next six years . For context , that 's about as many jobs as we add in any single month of decent economic growth…
“ The USMCA will add 51,000 new jobs to manufacturing , mining , and farming over its first six years of operation . For context , those three industries employ something in the vicinity of 14 million people . That 's an increase of less than one percent — and not even in 2020 , but spread out over six years . Similarly , employment in the auto sector would increase by about three percent over the deal 's first six years . The idea that such minute changes will lead to meaningful differences that workers in Michigan , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Iowa , and Wisconsin would see and feel in their lives and communities before November 2020 seems like a stretch . ”
“ By declaring that the United States will respond with airstrikes to any attacks on American targets or assets , Mr. Trump is drawing a bright red line that Iran can not cross . And yet , Iran relies on a network of proxy actors from Yemen , Syria , Iraq and Lebanon . Must they all respect Mr. Trump ’ s red line ? There are plenty of hotheads in those proxy forces that will be incensed by the assassination , the same way young men with weapons and minimal discipline often are… Mr. Trump can ’ t keep an entire region from crossing his red line , making violent conflict all the more likely if the president holds to it… “ It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham , Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind Mr. Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires and keep Mr. Trump from stumbling further into war with Iran . ”
|
From the Left
The left generally supports the deal as a marginal improvement on NAFTA and a win for organized labor.
“While this measure has some things not to like, it has others that are worthy. The USMCA would do away with a back-channel dispute resolution mechanism that corporations have used to demand concessions from the member governments. And the pact includes significant provisions on e-commerce, which was in its infancy when NAFTA was passed, as well as protections for U.S. copyright holders. The simple truth is that NAFTA has been a success, so a modest update is not a bad thing. Critics point to job losses in manufacturing since it went into effect. But most of the losses were from technological change or trade with countries like China… While not perfect, and leaving out some crucial areas like climate change, the USMCA is worth passing.”
Editorial Board, USA Today
“The most important improvement — the one for which workers’ advocates fought for hardest — is the facility-specific labor enforcement measures, because without those, the improved labor standards mean nothing. For the first time in any trade agreement, tariffs and fines can be imposed against specific products produced in facilities that are determined to deny workers collective-bargaining rights. If there are repeated violations, goods can be blocked at the border…
“The AFL-CIO has vehemently opposed almost every significant trade deal since NAFTA, but after playing an active role in the USMCA negotiations and forcing labor standards and enforcement improvements in Trump’s 2018 deal, they told their members, ‘We have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support.’”
Jared Bernstein, Washington Post
“Democrats seem to have secured other important concessions in the deal. The original USMCA was widely considered a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies because it guaranteed the makers of expensive biologic drugs 10 years of protection from cheaper competition. That provision, which could have made it harder for the U.S. to lower its own drug costs, is out. The new agreement also adds more enforcement on environmental rules. The deal isn’t perfect: Nancy Pelosi failed to remove protections for internet companies that could make it more difficult for the U.S. to amend its own laws…
“But, at first glance, it looks like an improvement over both the original-recipe NAFTA and the first draft of the USMCA, and it could help set better standards for America’s future trade deals.”
Jordan Weissmann, Slate
Critics, however, contend that “The United States International Trade Commission predicts the measures will succeed in the narrow purpose of shifting work to the United States, but only at a high cost: Consumers will pay more for new vehicles, resulting in fewer sales, and economic growth will suffer. There is a broader threat, too. Shifting work to Mexico has allowed American car companies to reduce costs, and to compete more effectively with foreign producers. Without NAFTA, there might be even fewer car-making jobs in the United States today. And as a result of the changes, there may be fewer in the future…
“The best argument for passage is prophylactic. President Trump has threatened to abandon NAFTA in the absence of a new deal, and the changes are less important than the part that would stay the same: a free-trade area for most goods encompassing the three largest nations of North America.”
Editorial Board, New York Times
“Just what would the USMCA do for the economy in 2020? Not much, it turns out… One of the two big economic projections on the deal, performed by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), estimated it would add 176,000 jobs to the economy over the next six years. For context, that's about as many jobs as we add in any single month of decent economic growth…
“The USMCA will add 51,000 new jobs to manufacturing, mining, and farming over its first six years of operation. For context, those three industries employ something in the vicinity of 14 million people. That's an increase of less than one percent — and not even in 2020, but spread out over six years. Similarly, employment in the auto sector would increase by about three percent over the deal's first six years. The idea that such minute changes will lead to meaningful differences that workers in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin would see and feel in their lives and communities before November 2020 seems like a stretch.”
Jeff Spross, The Week
“By declaring that the United States will respond with airstrikes to any attacks on American targets or assets, Mr. Trump is drawing a bright red line that Iran cannot cross. And yet, Iran relies on a network of proxy actors from Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Must they all respect Mr. Trump’s red line? There are plenty of hotheads in those proxy forces that will be incensed by the assassination, the same way young men with weapons and minimal discipline often are… Mr. Trump can’t keep an entire region from crossing his red line, making violent conflict all the more likely if the president holds to it… “It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind Mr. Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires and keep Mr. Trump from stumbling further into war with Iran.”
Editorial Board, New York Times
|
www.theflipside.io
| 2center
|
FH1G0OGhTs3XJged
|
||
elections
|
American Spectator
| 22
|
http://spectator.org/another-worst-week-ever/
|
Another Worst Week Ever
|
Ross Kaminsky, Brandon J. Weichert, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Scott Mckay, William Murchison, Greg Jones, Debra J. Saunders
|
The past week has seen such a sustained assault on Donald Trump ’ s presidential ambitions by almost the entire “ mainstream media ” and by Donald Trump himself that the most remarkable takeaway is how utterly unpalatable Hillary Clinton must be to the majority of Americans for Mr. Trump still to be within spitting distance for an election just over a month away .
But there ’ s spitting distance , and then there ’ s spitting distance . Over the past week , Mr. Trump ’ s betting odds have plunged , in large part due to his own behavior both during and after the first presidential debate , from over 30 percent to about 20 percent . When Mr. Trump is focused and on message , 30 percent is too low . When he is as he ’ s been for the past week , 20 percent is too high .
Over the weekend , Mr. Trump suggested that Hillary Clinton may not be “ loyal to Bill. ” I assume he has no evidence for the assertion , but that ’ s not the point . The questions about Mr. Trump in the minds of undecided voters relate to his psychological fitness to be president . The way a non-politician proves his fitness is to focus on issues that the American people care about and issues that the American people think a president should care about . Hillary Clinton ’ s marriage isn ’ t one of those things , especially coming from a man who famously cheated on his first wife .
This follows days of ridiculous tweeting about a former Miss Universe . Again , the issue isn ’ t what Trump said or did 20 years ago , and it isn ’ t about whether Mrs. Trump did enough homework on Alicia Machado ’ s history . The issue is that Mr. Trump spent more than 10 percent of the remaining days of his presidential campaign taking Mrs. Clinton ’ s bait and , to put it gently , raising doubts about his claim that his temperament is one of his most important assets . Saturday Night Live encapsulated it perfectly showing Hillary Clinton ( Kate McKinnon ) reeling in Donald Trump ( Alec Baldwin ) who seems to bite on any shiny object cast his way .
For many Americans , however , “ let Trump be Trump ” is the mantra of the season . Indeed , when it comes to those undecided voters who remain the focus of both the Trump and Clinton campaigns , the fact that they are undecided even after learning so much about Donald Trump ’ s personality means that they are looking desperately for other information to determine how they ’ ll vote .
Over the past few days the media has been working hard to give them that information in the most anti-Trump ways imaginable beginning with Saturday ’ s front page New York Times story in which the newspaper , perhaps in violation of federal law , published excerpts from Donald Trump ’ s 1995 tax return from three pages ( first page of his federal return and first page of two state returns ) they claim were recently mailed to them .
The return shows a $ 916 million loss resulting in a tax-loss carry-forward which the reporters helpfully speculate “ would have been large enough to wipe out more than $ 50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years . ”
This in turn has led some Democrats such as Colorado ’ s Congresswoman Diana DeGette ( D-Denver ) to claim on Fox News that Trump in fact didn ’ t pay taxes for 18 years .
In case Americans don ’ t care about or can ’ t relate to the tax complexities of a billionaire real estate developer , the Times writers offered a more relatable hypothetical : “ The $ 916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $ 50,000 to $ 100,000 he was paid for each episode of ‘ The Apprentice , ’ or the roughly $ 45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos . ”
And in case you still didn ’ t hate Trump for avoiding taxes while you were paying yours , these partisan journalists added , “ Ordinary investors in the new company , meanwhile , saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $ 35.50 , while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump ’ s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar . ”
Apparently N.Y. Times reporters are angling for jobs as Clinton speechwriters .
A few weeks ago , Dean Baquet , the Times ’ executive editor , said he would be willing to risk jail to publish Donald Trump ’ s tax returns . Let ’ s hope he gets to walk the talk . Perp walk , that is .
Trump responded , by tweet of course , “ I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them . # failing @ nytimes. ” It ’ s not much of a response but it ’ s one of the few good ones Trump has given the authenticity of the tax return being verified by Trump ’ s former accountant . Even better would be “ Look how I turned around my business after those difficult years . I ’ ll do the same for the country after the massive losses of the Obama years that Hillary Clinton would just continue . ”
In a Sunday interview on CNN , Susanne Craig , the Times reporter who received the information , offered a “ no comment ” when asked if she had more of Trump ’ s tax records as well as when asked if she knew the source of the documents . I suppose that ’ s what you say when your newspaper may have committed a federal crime . More importantly for today , Craig said that “ whether or not ( Trump ) has paid taxes… is an incredibly important issue . ”
But the Times reporter and the liberal bobbleheads across the media and Donald Trump are all missing the point : Trump ’ s primary risk is not how much tax he ’ s paid in recent years , though if it were known that he paid zero federal income tax for two decades it would certainly hurt him with some voters .
The bigger risk is that the characterization of Trump as “ smart ” ( to use his word ) or “ a genius ” ( to use his surrogates ’ talking points ) is incongruous with how most Americans react to someone losing nearly a billion dollars in a single year .
If I were the Clinton campaign , I ’ d ask , “ Just how smart does someone have to be to lose $ 916 million in a single year ? Is this the kind of ‘ genius ’ you want managing the federal government ? I mean , imagine how smart he ’ d feel if he lost $ 1 trillion . He ’ d stick other people with that loss , too. ” You know it ’ s coming , Donald . Just get ready . Perhaps with my suggestion above .
If you ’ re an undecided voter , the media can try to influence your vote by eroding your remaining positive opinion of Donald Trump through disclosing his business travails . They can also try to make you feel uncomfortable associating with Trump supporters which they do with occasional articles about the Trump faithful being uneducated knuckle-dragging white trash .
But that description is a compliment compared to Saturday ’ s offering from the Washington Post entitled “ Finally . Someone who thinks like me. ” Even with my decades-long cynicism regarding the bias in print media newsrooms , this one is a shocker : the Trump supporter profiled in the article is a hyper-medicated chain-smoking woman , a former railroad worker ( fired for running a train through a red signal ) living in a town that ’ s 90-percent white , who believes not only that Barack Obama is a Muslim but also “ like so many she had gotten to know online through social media… that he was likely gay , that Michelle Obama could be a man , and that the Obama children were possibly kidnapped from a family now searching for them . ”
Do you want to cast a vote for the same person she would vote for ? The Post is betting you don ’ t .
And if they can ’ t poison Trump based on his business record or his supporters , the media will make themselves the news in their crusade to elect Hillary Clinton .
On Friday , for the first time in its 34-year history , USA Today urged its readers not to vote for Donald Trump , calling him “ unfit for the presidency. ” For what it ’ s worth , they did not ask the weary travelers perusing the paper over cups of cheap coffee and stale danishes at motels across the country to vote for Hillary Clinton .
A few weeks earlier , the Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton , their first recommendation of a Democrat “ since before World War II. ” More recently it was the Cincinnati Enquirer ( first Democrat endorsement “ for almost a century ” ) , the San Diego Union Tribune ( first Democrat in the 148-years the paper has been in business ) , and the Arizona Republic ( first Democrat since the paper “ began publication in 1890 ” ) .
To be fair , other than with the liberal USA Today , these were not easy decisions for relatively conservative editorial boards , especially knowing that endorsing a Democrat would cost them readership , as it has . Nevertheless , their actions complete the anti-Trump media blitz of the past week . On television and in print , “ journalists ” are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump .
After Mr. Trump ’ s self-inflicted wounds following the Democratic National Convention — with much salt rubbed in by opponents , pundits , and reporters — one would be forgiven for having exhaled a deep breath when he escaped with a semblance of an intact campaign . After all , you might have reasonably thought , there ’ s no way he could have a worse stretch than that one .
And yet , he just did , and at a much worse time as early voting begins across the country . It started with too-familiar self-inflicted wounds : Picking a fight with people he should ignore , late-night tweets demonstrating a lack of discipline if not outright narcissism , and in every way undoing the great progress he had made through most of September in getting millions of Americans to consider whether he may indeed be made of presidential timber .
The media was gleeful with all the material Trump was giving them and all the time they could help him waste , but as we get closer to the election it ’ s not enough for them . What Trump now faces is a media onslaught that makes of all Trump ’ s previous observations of media bias look like wild understatements . Purloined tax returns , guilt-by-association of the worst possible type , and editorials saying “ this guy is so bad that we ’ re doing something we ’ ve never done before. ” It has to have an impact , and it is having one .
And yet , even though Donald Trump can ’ t control the media , if he can control himself he still stands a chance , albeit a diminishing one , of preventing the tremendous harm that will come from four more years of Progressive regulation , taxation , judicial appointments , and assault on the rule of law that would be the hallmarks of a Hillary Clinton presidency .
|
The past week has seen such a sustained assault on Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions by almost the entire “mainstream media” and by Donald Trump himself that the most remarkable takeaway is how utterly unpalatable Hillary Clinton must be to the majority of Americans for Mr. Trump still to be within spitting distance for an election just over a month away.
But there’s spitting distance, and then there’s spitting distance. Over the past week, Mr. Trump’s betting odds have plunged, in large part due to his own behavior both during and after the first presidential debate, from over 30 percent to about 20 percent. When Mr. Trump is focused and on message, 30 percent is too low. When he is as he’s been for the past week, 20 percent is too high.
Over the weekend, Mr. Trump suggested that Hillary Clinton may not be “loyal to Bill.” I assume he has no evidence for the assertion, but that’s not the point. The questions about Mr. Trump in the minds of undecided voters relate to his psychological fitness to be president. The way a non-politician proves his fitness is to focus on issues that the American people care about and issues that the American people think a president should care about. Hillary Clinton’s marriage isn’t one of those things, especially coming from a man who famously cheated on his first wife.
This follows days of ridiculous tweeting about a former Miss Universe. Again, the issue isn’t what Trump said or did 20 years ago, and it isn’t about whether Mrs. Trump did enough homework on Alicia Machado’s history. The issue is that Mr. Trump spent more than 10 percent of the remaining days of his presidential campaign taking Mrs. Clinton’s bait and, to put it gently, raising doubts about his claim that his temperament is one of his most important assets. Saturday Night Live encapsulated it perfectly showing Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) reeling in Donald Trump (Alec Baldwin) who seems to bite on any shiny object cast his way.
For many Americans, however, “let Trump be Trump” is the mantra of the season. Indeed, when it comes to those undecided voters who remain the focus of both the Trump and Clinton campaigns, the fact that they are undecided even after learning so much about Donald Trump’s personality means that they are looking desperately for other information to determine how they’ll vote.
Over the past few days the media has been working hard to give them that information in the most anti-Trump ways imaginable beginning with Saturday’s front page New York Times story in which the newspaper, perhaps in violation of federal law, published excerpts from Donald Trump’s 1995 tax return from three pages (first page of his federal return and first page of two state returns) they claim were recently mailed to them.
The return shows a $916 million loss resulting in a tax-loss carry-forward which the reporters helpfully speculate “would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.”
This in turn has led some Democrats such as Colorado’s Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Denver) to claim on Fox News that Trump in fact didn’t pay taxes for 18 years.
In case Americans don’t care about or can’t relate to the tax complexities of a billionaire real estate developer, the Times writers offered a more relatable hypothetical: “The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of ‘The Apprentice,’ or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos.”
And in case you still didn’t hate Trump for avoiding taxes while you were paying yours, these partisan journalists added, “Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.”
Apparently N.Y. Times reporters are angling for jobs as Clinton speechwriters.
A few weeks ago, Dean Baquet, the Times’ executive editor, said he would be willing to risk jail to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns. Let’s hope he gets to walk the talk. Perp walk, that is.
Trump responded, by tweet of course, “I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes.” It’s not much of a response but it’s one of the few good ones Trump has given the authenticity of the tax return being verified by Trump’s former accountant. Even better would be “Look how I turned around my business after those difficult years. I’ll do the same for the country after the massive losses of the Obama years that Hillary Clinton would just continue.”
In a Sunday interview on CNN, Susanne Craig, the Times reporter who received the information, offered a “no comment” when asked if she had more of Trump’s tax records as well as when asked if she knew the source of the documents. I suppose that’s what you say when your newspaper may have committed a federal crime. More importantly for today, Craig said that “whether or not (Trump) has paid taxes… is an incredibly important issue.”
But the Times reporter and the liberal bobbleheads across the media and Donald Trump are all missing the point: Trump’s primary risk is not how much tax he’s paid in recent years, though if it were known that he paid zero federal income tax for two decades it would certainly hurt him with some voters.
The bigger risk is that the characterization of Trump as “smart” (to use his word) or “a genius” (to use his surrogates’ talking points) is incongruous with how most Americans react to someone losing nearly a billion dollars in a single year.
If I were the Clinton campaign, I’d ask, “Just how smart does someone have to be to lose $916 million in a single year? Is this the kind of ‘genius’ you want managing the federal government? I mean, imagine how smart he’d feel if he lost $1 trillion. He’d stick other people with that loss, too.” You know it’s coming, Donald. Just get ready. Perhaps with my suggestion above.
If you’re an undecided voter, the media can try to influence your vote by eroding your remaining positive opinion of Donald Trump through disclosing his business travails. They can also try to make you feel uncomfortable associating with Trump supporters which they do with occasional articles about the Trump faithful being uneducated knuckle-dragging white trash.
But that description is a compliment compared to Saturday’s offering from the Washington Post entitled “Finally. Someone who thinks like me.” Even with my decades-long cynicism regarding the bias in print media newsrooms, this one is a shocker: the Trump supporter profiled in the article is a hyper-medicated chain-smoking woman, a former railroad worker (fired for running a train through a red signal) living in a town that’s 90-percent white, who believes not only that Barack Obama is a Muslim but also “like so many she had gotten to know online through social media… that he was likely gay, that Michelle Obama could be a man, and that the Obama children were possibly kidnapped from a family now searching for them.”
I kid you not.
Do you want to cast a vote for the same person she would vote for? The Post is betting you don’t.
And if they can’t poison Trump based on his business record or his supporters, the media will make themselves the news in their crusade to elect Hillary Clinton.
On Friday, for the first time in its 34-year history, USA Today urged its readers not to vote for Donald Trump, calling him “unfit for the presidency.” For what it’s worth, they did not ask the weary travelers perusing the paper over cups of cheap coffee and stale danishes at motels across the country to vote for Hillary Clinton.
A few weeks earlier, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton, their first recommendation of a Democrat “since before World War II.” More recently it was the Cincinnati Enquirer (first Democrat endorsement “for almost a century”), the San Diego Union Tribune (first Democrat in the 148-years the paper has been in business), and the Arizona Republic (first Democrat since the paper “began publication in 1890”).
To be fair, other than with the liberal USA Today, these were not easy decisions for relatively conservative editorial boards, especially knowing that endorsing a Democrat would cost them readership, as it has. Nevertheless, their actions complete the anti-Trump media blitz of the past week. On television and in print, “journalists” are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.
After Mr. Trump’s self-inflicted wounds following the Democratic National Convention — with much salt rubbed in by opponents, pundits, and reporters — one would be forgiven for having exhaled a deep breath when he escaped with a semblance of an intact campaign. After all, you might have reasonably thought, there’s no way he could have a worse stretch than that one.
And yet, he just did, and at a much worse time as early voting begins across the country. It started with too-familiar self-inflicted wounds: Picking a fight with people he should ignore, late-night tweets demonstrating a lack of discipline if not outright narcissism, and in every way undoing the great progress he had made through most of September in getting millions of Americans to consider whether he may indeed be made of presidential timber.
The media was gleeful with all the material Trump was giving them and all the time they could help him waste, but as we get closer to the election it’s not enough for them. What Trump now faces is a media onslaught that makes of all Trump’s previous observations of media bias look like wild understatements. Purloined tax returns, guilt-by-association of the worst possible type, and editorials saying “this guy is so bad that we’re doing something we’ve never done before.” It has to have an impact, and it is having one.
And yet, even though Donald Trump can’t control the media, if he can control himself he still stands a chance, albeit a diminishing one, of preventing the tremendous harm that will come from four more years of Progressive regulation, taxation, judicial appointments, and assault on the rule of law that would be the hallmarks of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
|
www.spectator.org
| 1right
|
BpdA494NPblGPCVH
|
|
campaign_finance
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/26/366906481/judge-rules-fewer-political-groups-can-keep-their-donors-secret
|
Judge Rules Fewer Political Groups Can Keep Their Donors Secret
|
2014-11-26
|
Lauren Hodges
|
Judge Rules Fewer Political Groups Can Keep Their Donors Secret
A U.S. district court judge awarded a victory to campaign finance reform advocates on Tuesday when she ruled the Federal Election Commission was too loosely enforcing a campaign finance regulation passed in 2007 , allowing some big-money donors to remain anonymous .
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act required the identification of contributors giving $ 1,000 or more to fund `` issue ads '' near Election Day . But since it was enacted , only a few of those contributors have been revealed , because the FEC ruled those disclosures were n't required for ads supporting specific candidates . The Los Angeles Times reported the details of the ruling :
`` The decision concerns a type of issue ads that became ubiquitous in recent elections . Typically , the ads suggest that voters call a senator or congressman and give an opinion about something . When those ads mention a candidate and are run close to elections , they 're known as 'electioneering ' communications , and the amount of spending has to be reported . ''
Rep. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . ) , along with reform advocacy groups Campaign Legal Center , Public Citizen and Democracy 21 , sued the FEC in 2011 to overturn the 2007 regulation . The Associated Press reported that Democracy 21 's president , Fred Werthiemer claimed the FEC allowed loopholes in the regulation to fund federal elections with `` dark money . ''
Van Hollen called Judge Amy Berman Jackson 's Tuesday decision `` a victory for democracy . '' His partners in the lawsuit also hailed the ruling .
`` We are seeing a full-throated endorsement of disclosure by the lower courts , '' said Tara Malloy with the Campaign Legal Center . `` We are enjoying the victory , though I am sure the fight will continue . ''
Conservative groups that attempted to intervene in the case have voiced their disappointment . Thomas Kirby , an attorney who represents the Center for Individual Freedom , told The Washington Post that `` the ruling created an upside-down world in which greater burdens are imposed on those who merely refer to a candidate than on those who expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate . ''
In Tuesday 's decision , Jackson ruled that the FEC `` overstepped '' when it wrote the 2007 regulation into the campaign finance laws . That regulation , among other cases , led to the victory of the 2010 Citizens United case in the Supreme Court , which allowed nonprofits to hide their funding sources .
That decision essentially deleted the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Act . The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that over $ 140 million of the so-called `` dark money '' was spent in the 2014 election . Bloomberg 's Businessweek reports that tens of thousands of TV ads run this year by GOP fundraising operation Crossroad GPS , founded by former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove , `` helped Republicans win control of the Senate . ''
Jackson 's decision that the regulation was `` arbitrary , capricious and contrary to law '' recalled an original report by the Sunlight Foundation in January . The report stated that Crossroads GPS violated election laws by failing to register itself as a political group instead of a nonprofit , social-welfare operation — a distinction that came with a huge impact .
`` In recent years , the group Crossroads GPS has spent tens of millions on political ads fueled by anonymous donors . Registering as a political group would have forced the nonprofit to begin naming its big-time benefactors . Crossroads has also become a model for hundreds of other committees that during the last election cycle pumped more than $ 300 million into the campaign — an estimate that is undoubtedly low because of the lack of disclosure required of these organizations . ''
It was also noted in the judge 's ruling that the FEC reported their findings in 2007 at 5:05 p.m. before a weekend — what 's known in the news industry as a `` Friday night news dump '' because people are believed to be paying the least attention to the news during that portion of the week .
The FEC now has the option of either appealing Jackson 's decision or change its regulations . The six members are evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and likely will have a difficult time agreeing on a course of action .
FEC Chairman Lee Goodman told The Washington Post , `` I 've always said that I 'm open to judicial guidance on this issue , and now we 'll have to study the court 's opinion to determine exactly what obligation the FEC has in response . ''
|
Judge Rules Fewer Political Groups Can Keep Their Donors Secret
Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP
A U.S. district court judge awarded a victory to campaign finance reform advocates on Tuesday when she ruled the Federal Election Commission was too loosely enforcing a campaign finance regulation passed in 2007, allowing some big-money donors to remain anonymous.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act required the identification of contributors giving $1,000 or more to fund "issue ads" near Election Day. But since it was enacted, only a few of those contributors have been revealed, because the FEC ruled those disclosures weren't required for ads supporting specific candidates. The Los Angeles Times reported the details of the ruling:
"The decision concerns a type of issue ads that became ubiquitous in recent elections. Typically, the ads suggest that voters call a senator or congressman and give an opinion about something. When those ads mention a candidate and are run close to elections, they're known as 'electioneering' communications, and the amount of spending has to be reported."
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), along with reform advocacy groups Campaign Legal Center, Public Citizen and Democracy 21, sued the FEC in 2011 to overturn the 2007 regulation. The Associated Press reported that Democracy 21's president, Fred Werthiemer claimed the FEC allowed loopholes in the regulation to fund federal elections with "dark money."
Van Hollen called Judge Amy Berman Jackson's Tuesday decision "a victory for democracy." His partners in the lawsuit also hailed the ruling.
"We are seeing a full-throated endorsement of disclosure by the lower courts," said Tara Malloy with the Campaign Legal Center. "We are enjoying the victory, though I am sure the fight will continue."
Conservative groups that attempted to intervene in the case have voiced their disappointment. Thomas Kirby, an attorney who represents the Center for Individual Freedom, told The Washington Post that "the ruling created an upside-down world in which greater burdens are imposed on those who merely refer to a candidate than on those who expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate."
In Tuesday's decision, Jackson ruled that the FEC "overstepped" when it wrote the 2007 regulation into the campaign finance laws. That regulation, among other cases, led to the victory of the 2010 Citizens United case in the Supreme Court, which allowed nonprofits to hide their funding sources.
That decision essentially deleted the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Act. The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that over $140 million of the so-called "dark money" was spent in the 2014 election. Bloomberg's Businessweek reports that tens of thousands of TV ads run this year by GOP fundraising operation Crossroad GPS, founded by former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove, "helped Republicans win control of the Senate."
Jackson's decision that the regulation was "arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law" recalled an original report by the Sunlight Foundation in January. The report stated that Crossroads GPS violated election laws by failing to register itself as a political group instead of a nonprofit, social-welfare operation — a distinction that came with a huge impact.
"In recent years, the group Crossroads GPS has spent tens of millions on political ads fueled by anonymous donors. Registering as a political group would have forced the nonprofit to begin naming its big-time benefactors. Crossroads has also become a model for hundreds of other committees that during the last election cycle pumped more than $300 million into the campaign — an estimate that is undoubtedly low because of the lack of disclosure required of these organizations."
It was also noted in the judge's ruling that the FEC reported their findings in 2007 at 5:05 p.m. before a weekend — what's known in the news industry as a "Friday night news dump" because people are believed to be paying the least attention to the news during that portion of the week.
The FEC now has the option of either appealing Jackson's decision or change its regulations. The six members are evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and likely will have a difficult time agreeing on a course of action.
FEC Chairman Lee Goodman told The Washington Post, "I've always said that I'm open to judicial guidance on this issue, and now we'll have to study the court's opinion to determine exactly what obligation the FEC has in response."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
OpaFHRlnMswWkl0P
|
food
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2020/0416/No-we-re-not-running-out-of-food.-It-just-looks-that-way
|
No, we’re not running out of food. It just looks that way.
|
2020-04-16
|
Michael Hopkins
|
“ I think we ’ re overreacting , ” says Chris Mejia-Argueta at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . “ I am very certain we ’ re not going to run out of food . ”
In the food industry , a rapid adjustment to this unprecedented shift in demand is underway . And while some items are in short supply , the prospect of an overall shortage of food is far-fetched , say industry experts . Sure , shoppers may have to substitute brands and food items . But there is still plenty of food to go around , and logistical bottlenecks are easing .
As restaurants shut their doors to help slow the spread of COVID-19 , Americans have been shopping more for groceries and eating at home . Everyone has seen the empty supermarket shelves , particularly during the first week of state-ordered lockdowns . Those scenes , coupled with recent reports of dumped crops and milk , have jolted shoppers who fret about food supplies going forward .
Mountains of rotting squash in Florida . Midwest dairy farmers pouring milk down the drain . A South Dakota pork processing plant ordered to shut down after 400 employees tested positive for coronavirus .
Then there are the empty supermarket shelves where the flour and yeast – and toilet paper – used to be . It ’ s enough to make a shopper worry if there ’ s enough food to go around .
“ I think the entire American public is getting a lesson in the supply chain , ” says Mike Troy , editorial director of Progressive Grocer . “ I bet they wish they weren ’ t . ”
They might especially wish they weren ’ t if they knew , say food supply experts , that the lessons they ’ re getting are likely wrong .
“ I think we ’ re overreacting , ” says Chris Mejia-Argueta , director of the Food and Retail Operations Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , referring to reports of disruptions to the food industry . “ I am very certain we ’ re not going to run out of food . ”
Still , he understands why people may feel anxious if they don ’ t grasp exactly how the food supply chain is adapting to meet the crisis and simply see headlines about rotting vegetables and shuttered slaughterhouses . “ It ’ s human nature to worry about things that are a mystery to us , ” he says . The “ black box ” aspect of the food system “ creates uncertainty . And uncertainty leads to hoarding and fear . ”
Those feelings were on display last week in a Massachusetts supermarket where a woman wearing a face mask rooted at the back of near-empty shelves of dried beans . She rolled her cart down the aisle , then scooped up a couple dozen cans of black beans , pintos , kidneys .
Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff Food supply chain expert Chris Mejia Argueta , director of the Food and Retail Operations Lab at MIT , poses by his home , on April 7 , 2020 , in Cambridge , Massachusetts . He says better understanding of the supply chain can help prevent hoarding .
“ Emergency beans , ” she told an onlooker . “ Can ’ t have enough . ... Or maybe this is too much ? ” She moved as though to put some back , but then thought better of it , and shrugged . “ Nah . Could be last chance . ”
To reduce such uncertainty , says Mr. Mejia-Argueta , “ we have to remember that the episodes we ’ re hearing about are local , and expected . ”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration insists there are no nationwide shortages of food , though inventories may run low in grocery stores before restocking . “ Food production and manufacturing are widely dispersed throughout the U.S. and there are currently no widespread disruptions reported in the supply chain , ” it reported last month .
None of which means that grocery shopping will feel normal any time soon . Hoarding should fade as at-home stockpiles have been built . But shoppers may still need to substitute , says Mr. Mejia-Argueta . When a favorite Italian pasta is absent , a store brand will have to do . Instead of Cheerios , we ’ ll eat oatmeal . Substitution helps the supply chain by spreading demand more evenly across a store ’ s stock .
Grocery retailers and the supply chain as a whole are busy adapting , too . They are figuring out how shoppers respond to variable supplies of items and how much they need to stock and to put on display . And , by knowing in advance what ’ s available from their suppliers , they can use promotions to nudge shoppers to choose some products over others , “ without us even knowing it , ” says Mr. Mejia-Argueta .
Before the pandemic , 54 % of U.S. food dollars were spent on meals away from home . Now suppliers are scrambling to redirect food from restaurants and food service to retailers for at-home eating , a sudden and unprecedented shift in consumption .
Take bacon , for example . Doug Baker , an executive at FMI , the food industry association , points out that “ the 20 pounds of bacon intended for food service may be repackaged under a store brand in 1 pound consumer packages. ” But that doesn ’ t happen overnight .
Likewise , logistics resources are being diverted into food transport . “ One of the hardest parts now is how to move cargo from its source to where people need it , ” says Mr. Mejia-Argueta . “ More truckers are needed , so truckers are being diverted into the food supply system from other sectors that are momentarily quiet. ” Trucks that used to carry auto parts might now be hauling flour .
As a supply-chain scientist , Mr. Mejia-Argueta has looked at what could happen to severely disrupt food production and distribution . The main risks would come from panic purchasing and hoarding , workforce shortages due to illness , and a disaster-case economic crisis .
Evidence of every one of those worst-case scenarios is already present , but not to any extent deemed threatening .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
“ I would tell people , to be honest , that you don ’ t need to worry . The supply chain will be resilient and robust enough to manage this without any issue . We will find a way , ” he says .
|
“I think we’re overreacting,” says Chris Mejia-Argueta at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I am very certain we’re not going to run out of food.”
In the food industry, a rapid adjustment to this unprecedented shift in demand is underway. And while some items are in short supply, the prospect of an overall shortage of food is far-fetched, say industry experts. Sure, shoppers may have to substitute brands and food items. But there is still plenty of food to go around, and logistical bottlenecks are easing.
As restaurants shut their doors to help slow the spread of COVID-19, Americans have been shopping more for groceries and eating at home. Everyone has seen the empty supermarket shelves, particularly during the first week of state-ordered lockdowns. Those scenes, coupled with recent reports of dumped crops and milk, have jolted shoppers who fret about food supplies going forward.
Mountains of rotting squash in Florida. Midwest dairy farmers pouring milk down the drain. A South Dakota pork processing plant ordered to shut down after 400 employees tested positive for coronavirus.
Then there are the empty supermarket shelves where the flour and yeast – and toilet paper – used to be. It’s enough to make a shopper worry if there’s enough food to go around.
“I think the entire American public is getting a lesson in the supply chain,” says Mike Troy, editorial director of Progressive Grocer. “I bet they wish they weren’t.”
Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.
They might especially wish they weren’t if they knew, say food supply experts, that the lessons they’re getting are likely wrong.
“I think we’re overreacting,” says Chris Mejia-Argueta, director of the Food and Retail Operations Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, referring to reports of disruptions to the food industry. “I am very certain we’re not going to run out of food.”
Still, he understands why people may feel anxious if they don’t grasp exactly how the food supply chain is adapting to meet the crisis and simply see headlines about rotting vegetables and shuttered slaughterhouses. “It’s human nature to worry about things that are a mystery to us,” he says. The “black box” aspect of the food system “creates uncertainty. And uncertainty leads to hoarding and fear.”
Those feelings were on display last week in a Massachusetts supermarket where a woman wearing a face mask rooted at the back of near-empty shelves of dried beans. She rolled her cart down the aisle, then scooped up a couple dozen cans of black beans, pintos, kidneys.
Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff Food supply chain expert Chris Mejia Argueta, director of the Food and Retail Operations Lab at MIT, poses by his home, on April 7, 2020, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He says better understanding of the supply chain can help prevent hoarding.
“Emergency beans,” she told an onlooker. “Can’t have enough. ... Or maybe this is too much?” She moved as though to put some back, but then thought better of it, and shrugged. “Nah. Could be last chance.”
To reduce such uncertainty, says Mr. Mejia-Argueta, “we have to remember that the episodes we’re hearing about are local, and expected.”
Stockpiles and substitutions
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration insists there are no nationwide shortages of food, though inventories may run low in grocery stores before restocking. “Food production and manufacturing are widely dispersed throughout the U.S. and there are currently no widespread disruptions reported in the supply chain,” it reported last month.
None of which means that grocery shopping will feel normal any time soon. Hoarding should fade as at-home stockpiles have been built. But shoppers may still need to substitute, says Mr. Mejia-Argueta. When a favorite Italian pasta is absent, a store brand will have to do. Instead of Cheerios, we’ll eat oatmeal. Substitution helps the supply chain by spreading demand more evenly across a store’s stock.
Grocery retailers and the supply chain as a whole are busy adapting, too. They are figuring out how shoppers respond to variable supplies of items and how much they need to stock and to put on display. And, by knowing in advance what’s available from their suppliers, they can use promotions to nudge shoppers to choose some products over others, “without us even knowing it,” says Mr. Mejia-Argueta.
Before the pandemic, 54% of U.S. food dollars were spent on meals away from home. Now suppliers are scrambling to redirect food from restaurants and food service to retailers for at-home eating, a sudden and unprecedented shift in consumption.
From auto parts to flour cargoes
Take bacon, for example. Doug Baker, an executive at FMI, the food industry association, points out that “the 20 pounds of bacon intended for food service may be repackaged under a store brand in 1 pound consumer packages.” But that doesn’t happen overnight.
Likewise, logistics resources are being diverted into food transport. “One of the hardest parts now is how to move cargo from its source to where people need it,” says Mr. Mejia-Argueta. “More truckers are needed, so truckers are being diverted into the food supply system from other sectors that are momentarily quiet.” Trucks that used to carry auto parts might now be hauling flour.
As a supply-chain scientist, Mr. Mejia-Argueta has looked at what could happen to severely disrupt food production and distribution. The main risks would come from panic purchasing and hoarding, workforce shortages due to illness, and a disaster-case economic crisis.
Evidence of every one of those worst-case scenarios is already present, but not to any extent deemed threatening.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
“I would tell people, to be honest, that you don’t need to worry. The supply chain will be resilient and robust enough to manage this without any issue. We will find a way,” he says.
Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
2mCE8mczAObVsJs6
|
banking_and_finance
|
Newsmax - News
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/greece-eu-default-economy/2015/07/01/id/652972/
|
Greece's Tsipras Urges Rejection of Bailout Deal
|
2015-07-01
|
A defiant Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras urged Greeks on Wednesday to reject an international bailout deal , wrecking any prospect of repairing broken relations with EU partners before a referendum on Sunday that may decide Greece 's future in Europe .
Less than 24 hours after he wrote a conciliatory letter to creditors asking for a new bailout that would accept many of their terms , Tsipras abruptly switched back into combative mode in a television address .
Greece was being `` blackmailed , '' he said , quashing talk that he might delay the vote , call it off or urge Greeks to vote yes .
The remarks added to the frantic and at times surreal atmosphere of recent days in which acrimonious messages from the leftist government have alternated with late-night offers of concessions to restart negotiations .
A day after Greece became the first advanced economy to default on debt to the IMF , long lines at cash machines provided a stark visual symbol of the pressure on Tsipras , who came to power in January vowing to end austerity and protect the poor .
`` A 'No ' vote is a decisive step toward a better agreement that we aim to sign right after Sunday 's result , '' he said , rejecting repeated warnings from European partners that the referendum would effectively be a vote on whether Greece stays in the euro or returns to the drachma .
European Council President Donald Tusk retorted in a tweet : `` Europe wants to help Greece . But can not help anyone against their own will . Let 's wait for the results of the Greek referendum . ''
Euro zone finance ministers held an hour-long conference call to discuss the previous night 's offer from Tsipras , but were adamant that no further discussions would be held until after the Sunday vote . The head of the currency zone ministers ' Eurogroup , Jeroen Dijsselbloem , said he saw `` little chance '' of progress after Tsipras ' latest comments .
Global financial markets have reacted remarkably calmly to the widely anticipated Greek default , strengthening the hand of hardline euro zone partners who say Athens can not use the threat of contagion to weaker European sovereigns as a bargaining chip .
In his overnight letter to creditors , seen by Reuters , Tsipras agreed to accept most of their demands for taxes and pension cuts and asked for a new 29 billion euro ( $ 32.21 billion ) loan to cover all debt service payments in the next two years .
However even if negotiations do restart after the referendum , Germany and others made clear that any talks on a new program would have to start from scratch with different conditions .
The exasperated tone to public comments of European leaders exhausted by the chaotic turnarounds of the past few days offered little hope of a breakthrough .
Tsipras has suggested he would step aside if Greeks vote yes in Sunday 's referendum , and many other euro zone countries have made little secret that they see no point in negotiating with him before then .
`` This government has done nothing since it came into office , '' German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in a speech in the lower house of parliament in which he accused Athens of repeatedly reneging on its commitments .
`` You ca n't in all honesty expect us to talk with them in a situation like this , '' he said .
French Finance Minister Michel Sapin , among Greece 's strongest sympathizers in the euro zone , told RTL radio : `` The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible ... But it 's dreadfully complicated . ''
On the third day of a bank closure , the costs of the capital controls were biting deeper , with long lines forming at many ATMs and limited amounts of cash being doled out to pensioners . Even with a withdrawal limit of only 60 euros a day , there were signs of banknote shortages , with bankers saying 50-euro and 20-euro notes were running low .
Kiki Rizopoulou , a 79 year-old pensioner from Lamia in central Greece had to travel to Athens to collect her pension , spending 20 euros of the 120 euros she was allowed to take out .
`` I already have to pay back 50 euros that I owe . It 's embarrassing , '' she said .
An opinion poll showed opposition to the bailout in the lead but also that the gap had narrowed significantly as the bank closure and capital controls began to bite . But the hardship facing pensioners added to the pressure facing Tsipras , who has indicated he will resign if he loses the referendum .
Europe 's top human rights watchdog criticized the haste with which the vote had been arranged but posters from the ruling Syriza party calling for a `` No '' vote started to appear in central Athens . The center-right opposition also ran television spots mocking previous comments from the government that capital controls would never be imposed .
The Tsipras letter contained only a single sketchy reference to labor market reform , which was one of the creditors ' key demands to make the Greek economy more competitive , and no mention at all of frozen privatizations , another bugbear .
`` The new framework will be legislated in autumn 2015 , '' it said without saying what measures it contained . Tsipras ' leftist government wants to restore collective bargaining rights scrapped under previous bailout-driven reforms , and opposes a demand to make collective layoffs easier in the private sector .
Tsipras did agree to implement immediately a range of measures recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to make it easier to do business and open up closed business sectors .
In the letter , he asked to keep a discount on value added tax for Greek islands , stretch out defense spending cuts and delay the phasing out of an income supplement to poorer pensioners .
European financial markets remained strikingly calm in the light of the upcoming referendum , the IMF default and heightened concerns about the risk of Athens sliding out the euro .
The lack of panic or contagion to other euro markets stood in marked contrast to 2011 , when the Greek crisis was perceived as a threat to the future of the single currency .
And this lack of overspill has emboldened the more hawkish of Greece 's sovereign creditors , including those in Berlin , who insist Greece had been effectively ringfenced by a host of financial buffers and its fate would not undermine the integrity of the euro in the same way it did four years ago .
French Finance Minister Michel Sapin , who has been Greece 's strongest sympathizer in the euro zone , told RTL radio : `` The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible ... But it 's dreadfully complicated . ''
The ECB 's policymaking governing council was to meet in Frankfurt to decide whether to maintain , increase or curtail emergency lending that is keeping Greek banks afloat despite a wave of deposit withdrawals and the state 's default .
Germany 's Bundesbank was leading hawks who argue that the ECB can not go on providing funds through the Greek central bank as before to lenders that are backed by an insolvent sovereign .
One possible move would be to increase the `` haircut '' charged on Greek government bonds presented as collateral for funds in light of the IMF default .
A poll by the ProRata institute published in the Efimerida ton Syntakton newspaper showed 54 percent of those planning to vote would oppose the bailout against 33 percent in favor .
However a breakdown of results between those polled before and after Sunday 's decision to close the banks and impose capital controls showed the gap narrowing .
Of those polled before the announcement of the bank closures , 57 percent said they would vote `` No '' against 30 percent who would vote `` Yes . ''
However among those polled after , the `` No '' camp fell to 46 percent against 37 percent for `` Yes . ''
|
A defiant Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras urged Greeks on Wednesday to reject an international bailout deal, wrecking any prospect of repairing broken relations with EU partners before a referendum on Sunday that may decide Greece's future in Europe.
Less than 24 hours after he wrote a conciliatory letter to creditors asking for a new bailout that would accept many of their terms, Tsipras abruptly switched back into combative mode in a television address.
Greece was being "blackmailed," he said, quashing talk that he might delay the vote, call it off or urge Greeks to vote yes.
The remarks added to the frantic and at times surreal atmosphere of recent days in which acrimonious messages from the leftist government have alternated with late-night offers of concessions to restart negotiations.
A day after Greece became the first advanced economy to default on debt to the IMF, long lines at cash machines provided a stark visual symbol of the pressure on Tsipras, who came to power in January vowing to end austerity and protect the poor.
"A 'No' vote is a decisive step toward a better agreement that we aim to sign right after Sunday's result," he said, rejecting repeated warnings from European partners that the referendum would effectively be a vote on whether Greece stays in the euro or returns to the drachma.
European Council President Donald Tusk retorted in a tweet: "Europe wants to help Greece. But cannot help anyone against their own will. Let's wait for the results of the Greek referendum."
Euro zone finance ministers held an hour-long conference call to discuss the previous night's offer from Tsipras, but were adamant that no further discussions would be held until after the Sunday vote. The head of the currency zone ministers' Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, said he saw "little chance" of progress after Tsipras' latest comments.
Global financial markets have reacted remarkably calmly to the widely anticipated Greek default, strengthening the hand of hardline euro zone partners who say Athens cannot use the threat of contagion to weaker European sovereigns as a bargaining chip.
In his overnight letter to creditors, seen by Reuters, Tsipras agreed to accept most of their demands for taxes and pension cuts and asked for a new 29 billion euro ($32.21 billion) loan to cover all debt service payments in the next two years.
However even if negotiations do restart after the referendum, Germany and others made clear that any talks on a new program would have to start from scratch with different conditions.
The exasperated tone to public comments of European leaders exhausted by the chaotic turnarounds of the past few days offered little hope of a breakthrough.
Tsipras has suggested he would step aside if Greeks vote yes in Sunday's referendum, and many other euro zone countries have made little secret that they see no point in negotiating with him before then.
"This government has done nothing since it came into office," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in a speech in the lower house of parliament in which he accused Athens of repeatedly reneging on its commitments.
"You can't in all honesty expect us to talk with them in a situation like this," he said.
French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, among Greece's strongest sympathizers in the euro zone, told RTL radio: "The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible... But it's dreadfully complicated."
PENSIONERS SUFFERING
On the third day of a bank closure, the costs of the capital controls were biting deeper, with long lines forming at many ATMs and limited amounts of cash being doled out to pensioners. Even with a withdrawal limit of only 60 euros a day, there were signs of banknote shortages, with bankers saying 50-euro and 20-euro notes were running low.
Kiki Rizopoulou, a 79 year-old pensioner from Lamia in central Greece had to travel to Athens to collect her pension, spending 20 euros of the 120 euros she was allowed to take out.
"I already have to pay back 50 euros that I owe. It's embarrassing," she said.
An opinion poll showed opposition to the bailout in the lead but also that the gap had narrowed significantly as the bank closure and capital controls began to bite. But the hardship facing pensioners added to the pressure facing Tsipras, who has indicated he will resign if he loses the referendum.
Europe's top human rights watchdog criticized the haste with which the vote had been arranged but posters from the ruling Syriza party calling for a "No" vote started to appear in central Athens. The center-right opposition also ran television spots mocking previous comments from the government that capital controls would never be imposed.
The Tsipras letter contained only a single sketchy reference to labor market reform, which was one of the creditors' key demands to make the Greek economy more competitive, and no mention at all of frozen privatizations, another bugbear.
"The new framework will be legislated in autumn 2015," it said without saying what measures it contained. Tsipras' leftist government wants to restore collective bargaining rights scrapped under previous bailout-driven reforms, and opposes a demand to make collective layoffs easier in the private sector.
Tsipras did agree to implement immediately a range of measures recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to make it easier to do business and open up closed business sectors.
In the letter, he asked to keep a discount on value added tax for Greek islands, stretch out defense spending cuts and delay the phasing out of an income supplement to poorer pensioners.
European financial markets remained strikingly calm in the light of the upcoming referendum, the IMF default and heightened concerns about the risk of Athens sliding out the euro.
The lack of panic or contagion to other euro markets stood in marked contrast to 2011, when the Greek crisis was perceived as a threat to the future of the single currency.
And this lack of overspill has emboldened the more hawkish of Greece's sovereign creditors, including those in Berlin, who insist Greece had been effectively ringfenced by a host of financial buffers and its fate would not undermine the integrity of the euro in the same way it did four years ago.
French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, who has been Greece's strongest sympathizer in the euro zone, told RTL radio: "The aim is to find an agreement before the referendum if possible... But it's dreadfully complicated."
The ECB's policymaking governing council was to meet in Frankfurt to decide whether to maintain, increase or curtail emergency lending that is keeping Greek banks afloat despite a wave of deposit withdrawals and the state's default.
Germany's Bundesbank was leading hawks who argue that the ECB cannot go on providing funds through the Greek central bank as before to lenders that are backed by an insolvent sovereign.
One possible move would be to increase the "haircut" charged on Greek government bonds presented as collateral for funds in light of the IMF default.
A poll by the ProRata institute published in the Efimerida ton Syntakton newspaper showed 54 percent of those planning to vote would oppose the bailout against 33 percent in favor.
However a breakdown of results between those polled before and after Sunday's decision to close the banks and impose capital controls showed the gap narrowing.
Of those polled before the announcement of the bank closures, 57 percent said they would vote "No" against 30 percent who would vote "Yes."
However among those polled after, the "No" camp fell to 46 percent against 37 percent for "Yes."
© 2020 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
aWyO9RsyDx4dZfdL
|
|
economic_policy
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/21/republicans-seek-probe-reports-faked-jobs-data/
|
Republicans seek probe of reports of faked jobs data
|
2013-11-21
|
Top House Republicans are demanding are seeking an investigation into new reports that the Census Bureau manipulated surveys that showed a steep drop in the U.S. unemployment rate shortly before the 2012 presidential election , even as the bureau said a key suspect in the matter left the bureau more than two years ago .
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa , California Republican , sent an angry letter to the bureau this week demanding that it investigate a “ shocking ” report in the New York Post that field worker Julius Buckmon and other unnamed bureau employees faked figures that were used in the monthly unemployment report , resulting in a dramatic and puzzling plunge in the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent just before last year ’ s presidential election .
However , the bureau said that Mr. Buckmon left the agency in August 2011 , long before the election , apparently because of questionable procedures that he used in gathering data when he worked at the bureau ’ s Philadelphia field office . Since the bureau has more than 7,000 field representatives like Mr. Buckmon , it would be close to impossible for one employee to have a significant effect on the overall report , the Census Bureau said in a statement Tuesday .
“ We have no reason to believe this isn ’ t an isolated incident , ” she said , adding that she could not discuss Mr. Buckmon ’ s specific reasons for leaving because of privacy laws . “ This was an employee who was willfully disobeying Census procedures and disobeying the law . ”
The spokesperson said that when the bureau discovers inappropriate activity , the matter is referred to the Department of Labor ’ s inspector general . The field representative would be subject to disciplinary action if the IG finds any wrongdoing , including termination , the publication Business Insider reported .
Asked about the reports at his White House press briefing Tuesday , spokesman Jay Carney called the Post story “ obviously misleading. ” The original New York Post story , which set off Mr. Issa ’ s inquiry , cited what it called a “ knowledgeable source ” who claimed that the data manipulation “ escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today . ”
The Post ’ s anonymous source said that an unusual and headline-grabbing jobs report in September 2012 , which came out just before the election when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared to be closing in on President Obama in a very close contest , was “ faked ” to produce the dramatic reported decline in the unemployment to under 8 percent for the first time since the recession .
Former General Electric chairman Jack Welch and many Republicans at the time questioned whether the numbers had been manipulated in light of the weak job growth reported by businesses in a separate survey by the department .
The Post story , which cited confidential documents dating from 2010 , said Mr. Buckmon and other census employees were pressured by their supervisors to fudge surveys to fill in data gaps when they did not get the 90 percent response rate sought by the Department of Labor in compiling its monthly household survey , from which it derives the unemployment rate .
The Post story triggered a letter to the bureau from Mr. Issa demanding information about Mr. Buckmon , including his e-mails , his list of supervisors and any material related to a government investigation of Mr. Buckmon ’ s actions after he left the agency . Mr. Issa asked for the requested information by Dec. 3 .
“ Since the bureau relies on the American public for its data , it is important that the Census Bureau cooperate with all investigations into this matter , ” Mr. Issa wrote . “ Any erosion of trust by the Census Bureau would have an immediate impact on other important census surveys , such as the American Community Survey , or the planning and implementation of the 2020 decennial census . ”
|
Top House Republicans are demanding are seeking an investigation into new reports that the Census Bureau manipulated surveys that showed a steep drop in the U.S. unemployment rate shortly before the 2012 presidential election, even as the bureau said a key suspect in the matter left the bureau more than two years ago.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, California Republican, sent an angry letter to the bureau this week demanding that it investigate a “shocking” report in the New York Post that field worker Julius Buckmon and other unnamed bureau employees faked figures that were used in the monthly unemployment report, resulting in a dramatic and puzzling plunge in the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent just before last year’s presidential election.
However, the bureau said that Mr. Buckmon left the agency in August 2011, long before the election, apparently because of questionable procedures that he used in gathering data when he worked at the bureau’s Philadelphia field office. Since the bureau has more than 7,000 field representatives like Mr. Buckmon, it would be close to impossible for one employee to have a significant effect on the overall report, the Census Bureau said in a statement Tuesday.
“We have no reason to believe this isn’t an isolated incident,” she said, adding that she could not discuss Mr. Buckmon’s specific reasons for leaving because of privacy laws. “This was an employee who was willfully disobeying Census procedures and disobeying the law.”
The spokesperson said that when the bureau discovers inappropriate activity, the matter is referred to the Department of Labor’s inspector general. The field representative would be subject to disciplinary action if the IG finds any wrongdoing, including termination, the publication Business Insider reported.
Asked about the reports at his White House press briefing Tuesday, spokesman Jay Carney called the Post story “obviously misleading.” The original New York Post story, which set off Mr. Issa’s inquiry, cited what it called a “knowledgeable source” who claimed that the data manipulation “escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.”
The Post’s anonymous source said that an unusual and headline-grabbing jobs report in September 2012, which came out just before the election when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared to be closing in on President Obama in a very close contest, was “faked” to produce the dramatic reported decline in the unemployment to under 8 percent for the first time since the recession.
Former General Electric chairman Jack Welch and many Republicans at the time questioned whether the numbers had been manipulated in light of the weak job growth reported by businesses in a separate survey by the department.
The Post story, which cited confidential documents dating from 2010, said Mr. Buckmon and other census employees were pressured by their supervisors to fudge surveys to fill in data gaps when they did not get the 90 percent response rate sought by the Department of Labor in compiling its monthly household survey, from which it derives the unemployment rate.
The Post story triggered a letter to the bureau from Mr. Issa demanding information about Mr. Buckmon, including his e-mails, his list of supervisors and any material related to a government investigation of Mr. Buckmon’s actions after he left the agency. Mr. Issa asked for the requested information by Dec. 3.
“Since the bureau relies on the American public for its data, it is important that the Census Bureau cooperate with all investigations into this matter,” Mr. Issa wrote. “Any erosion of trust by the Census Bureau would have an immediate impact on other important census surveys, such as the American Community Survey, or the planning and implementation of the 2020 decennial census.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
yPA0wdxRsBcTKs3j
|
|
fbi
|
Mother Jones
| 00
|
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/07/house-republicans-partisan-theater-trump-fbi-peter-strzok/
|
Republicans Stage Partisan Showdown Against FBI Agent Peter Strzok
|
Dan Friedman, David Corn, Molly Schwartz, Inae Oh, Matt Cohen, Abigail Weinberg, David Beard, Fritz Zimmermann, Carol Schaeffer
|
Republicans finally got their chance Thursday to publicly question senior FBI agent Peter Strzok about his politically charged text messages with Lisa Page , a former FBI attorney he was personally involved with . It did not go exactly as the lawmakers hoped .
If the House GOP ’ s goal in grilling Strzok at length was to distract from the ongoing investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia and the president ’ s conspicuously pro-Kremlin behavior—including his recent suggestions that the US might withdraw from NATO—then Thursday ’ s hearing was a success . But the showdown also cost Republicans : They were forced to let Strzok openly defend himself for the first time . And their own eagerness to continue a purely partisan attack on special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation was on glaring display .
At the joint hearing of the House Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform committees , GOP members mostly spent their time leveling accusations of extreme bias against Strzok , who played a key role in the bureau ’ s investigations into Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a email and allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia . They read aloud Strzok ’ s text messages to Page , and forced him to read some aloud too . But those texts have long been public and widely discussed in the media . What was new Wednesday was that Strzok had the chance to explain them , and he made the most of it .
Strzok was able to explain why he sent the famous text in which he told Page that “ we ’ ll stop ” Trump from becoming president . He said the text was a response to events that included “ Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero , and my presumption based on that horrible , disgusting behavior that the American people would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States. ” ( Strzok was referring to Trump ’ s attacks on Khizr Khan , who famously criticized Trump at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 ; his son , Captain Humayun Khan , was killed in Iraq in 2004 . )
Strzok continued : “ I can assure you , Mr. Chairman , that at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took . He added that the committee did not need to rely on his word , due the multiple layers agents involved in investigative decisions . “ They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them , ” he said . “ That is who we are as the FBI . ”
Strozk also told the panels that the “ we ” he ’ d referred to in the text about “ stopping ” Trump was not the FBI , as Republicans have asserted , but American voters . His forceful remarks did not appease his critics , but they served to deflate the anti-Trump partisan narrative about him that his critics constructed over months while he remained silent . His statement in defense of himself and the FBI drew applause from some hearing attendees .
Strzok had used his opening statement at the hearing to make an obvious but overlooked point : If he wanted to “ stop ” Trump ’ s election , he could have leaked information on the Trump campaign ’ s extensive contacts with Russia . But “ the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind , ” Strzok said . That made for an interesting contrast : As Democratic lawmakers noted , senior FBI officials in 2016 believed that agents in the FBI ’ s New York bureau were leaking information intended to damage Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign . The Justice Department ’ s Inspector General concluded this year that concerns about leaks from that FBI field office influenced former FBI Director James Comey ’ s possibly fateful decision to make public that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton ’ s emails just ahead of Election Day .
Strzok , citing advice from FBI lawyers , declined to detail his work on the Trump-Russia investigation . But he managed to highlight the significance of the Trump campaign ’ s alleged actions . “ If there were people within the campaign who were colluding or working with the government of Russia , then there is very little that is more important for … the FBI [ to ] get to the bottom of , ” he said . Strozk also expressed concern that Russia succeeded in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election by “ putting their finger on the scale ” of American public opinion .
Democrats used the hearing to highlight Republican efforts to hinder the investigation into Trump . When Republicans threatened to hold Strzok in contempt of Congress for failing to answer some questions about the Russia probe , Democrats responded by forcing a joint committee vote aimed at subpoenaing former White House advisor Steve Bannon , who earlier this year refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee . Republicans voted down that effort . Notably , Rep. Trey Gowdy ( R-SC ) appeared less than eager on this front : He said “ pass ” during the roll call vote .
Democrats also used the hearing to point out that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte and Gowdy previously justified their refusal to look into Trump ’ s ties to Russia by asserting they wanted to avoid interfering with Mueller ’ s investigation .
Rep. Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) , the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee , noted that Goodlatte said last year that “ until Mr. Mueller ’ s investigation is complete , it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues. ” Goodlatte has also claimed that his committee “ would never intrude on an active criminal investigation , ” Nadler pointed out . But Nadler said that was belied by the fact that the Republicans , during an 11-hour private interview earlier in the week , asked Strzok more than 200 questions about the special counsel ’ s investigation , including about the FBI ’ s use of confidential sources .
“ Are we no longer going to wait until special counsel Mueller concludes his work , Mr. Chairman ? ” Nadler asked , adding : “ Or perhaps the rules of this joint investigation , such as they are , operate differently now that we are approaching the midterm elections and special counsel Mueller is closing in on the President ’ s close associates . ”
|
Republicans finally got their chance Thursday to publicly question senior FBI agent Peter Strzok about his politically charged text messages with Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney he was personally involved with. It did not go exactly as the lawmakers hoped.
If the House GOP’s goal in grilling Strzok at length was to distract from the ongoing investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia and the president’s conspicuously pro-Kremlin behavior—including his recent suggestions that the US might withdraw from NATO—then Thursday’s hearing was a success. But the showdown also cost Republicans: They were forced to let Strzok openly defend himself for the first time. And their own eagerness to continue a purely partisan attack on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was on glaring display.
At the joint hearing of the House Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform committees, GOP members mostly spent their time leveling accusations of extreme bias against Strzok, who played a key role in the bureau’s investigations into Hillary Clinton’s use of a email and allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. They read aloud Strzok’s text messages to Page, and forced him to read some aloud too. But those texts have long been public and widely discussed in the media. What was new Wednesday was that Strzok had the chance to explain them, and he made the most of it.
Strzok was able to explain why he sent the famous text in which he told Page that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president. He said the text was a response to events that included “Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American people would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States.” (Strzok was referring to Trump’s attacks on Khizr Khan, who famously criticized Trump at the Democratic National Convention in 2016; his son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004.)
Strzok continued: “I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took. He added that the committee did not need to rely on his word, due the multiple layers agents involved in investigative decisions. “They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them,” he said. “That is who we are as the FBI.”
Strozk also told the panels that the “we” he’d referred to in the text about “stopping” Trump was not the FBI, as Republicans have asserted, but American voters. His forceful remarks did not appease his critics, but they served to deflate the anti-Trump partisan narrative about him that his critics constructed over months while he remained silent. His statement in defense of himself and the FBI drew applause from some hearing attendees.
Strzok had used his opening statement at the hearing to make an obvious but overlooked point: If he wanted to “stop” Trump’s election, he could have leaked information on the Trump campaign’s extensive contacts with Russia. But “the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind,” Strzok said. That made for an interesting contrast: As Democratic lawmakers noted, senior FBI officials in 2016 believed that agents in the FBI’s New York bureau were leaking information intended to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Justice Department’s Inspector General concluded this year that concerns about leaks from that FBI field office influenced former FBI Director James Comey’s possibly fateful decision to make public that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails just ahead of Election Day.
Strzok, citing advice from FBI lawyers, declined to detail his work on the Trump-Russia investigation. But he managed to highlight the significance of the Trump campaign’s alleged actions. “If there were people within the campaign who were colluding or working with the government of Russia, then there is very little that is more important for … the FBI [to] get to the bottom of,” he said. Strozk also expressed concern that Russia succeeded in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election by “putting their finger on the scale” of American public opinion.
Democrats used the hearing to highlight Republican efforts to hinder the investigation into Trump. When Republicans threatened to hold Strzok in contempt of Congress for failing to answer some questions about the Russia probe, Democrats responded by forcing a joint committee vote aimed at subpoenaing former White House advisor Steve Bannon, who earlier this year refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee. Republicans voted down that effort. Notably, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) appeared less than eager on this front: He said “pass” during the roll call vote.
Democrats also used the hearing to point out that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte and Gowdy previously justified their refusal to look into Trump’s ties to Russia by asserting they wanted to avoid interfering with Mueller’s investigation.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, noted that Goodlatte said last year that “until Mr. Mueller’s investigation is complete, it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues.” Goodlatte has also claimed that his committee “would never intrude on an active criminal investigation,” Nadler pointed out. But Nadler said that was belied by the fact that the Republicans, during an 11-hour private interview earlier in the week, asked Strzok more than 200 questions about the special counsel’s investigation, including about the FBI’s use of confidential sources.
“Are we no longer going to wait until special counsel Mueller concludes his work, Mr. Chairman?” Nadler asked, adding: “Or perhaps the rules of this joint investigation, such as they are, operate differently now that we are approaching the midterm elections and special counsel Mueller is closing in on the President’s close associates.”
|
www.motherjones.com
| 0left
|
mOqO620orh70CqMf
|
|
israel
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/politics/israel-elections-benjamin-netanyahu-obama/index.html
|
Obama, Netanyahu spat seeps into Israeli election
|
2015-03-13
|
Jeremy Diamond, Elise Labott
|
Washington ( CNN ) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face voters on Tuesday , just two weeks after he took a major political gamble by giving a controversial speech to the U.S. Congress against the Obama administration 's wishes .
The White House , clearly angered by an address criticizing its Iran deal-making , denied Netanyahu an Oval Office meeting during the visit . The reason , according to an official statement , was to `` avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country . ''
Snubbing an Israeli prime minister , though , can influence Israeli voters as much as giving him a West Wing photo-op . And with U.S.-Israel tensions at a peak , many in Washington see telltale signs of an effort to oust a leader standing in the way of the Obama administration 's Middle East policies .
`` This election cycle in Israel fits the hallmark of an American administration that seeks to influence the outcome , '' said David Weinberg , a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has studied American influence in Israeli elections .
The White House denied it was attempting to influence the Israeli elections by rebuffing Netanyahu and pointed to the well-circulated statement on why the prime minister was n't offered a meeting : `` As a matter of long-standing practice and principle , we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections . ''
But such visits -- or the lack thereof -- have historically been one of the diplomatic weapons U.S. administrations have deployed to sway the Israeli public .
Less than a month before the 1996 Israeli elections , President Bill Clinton organized the signing of an anti-terror pact before the cameras with Shimon Peres , the Labor Party prime minister whom Netanyahu ended up defeating for his first term in office . In 1999 , Clinton similarly pursued what some call `` snub diplomacy '' when his administration denied Netanyahu meetings amidst a tight race with Labor 's Ehud Barak , to whom Netanyahu ultimately lost .
The state of the `` special relationship '' with the United States is of crucial importance to Israeli voters , who see America as their closest and most important ally . So in risking a rupture with the White House , Netanyahu is also risking a break with Israeli voters .
`` Traditionally , the Israeli public has been very sensitive to how the relationship is going and how well the Israeli leadership is managing that relationship , '' said Daniel Kurtzer , a former U.S. ambassador to Israel .
JUST WATCHED Netanyahu rails against Iran nuclear deal - in 100 seconds Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Netanyahu rails against Iran nuclear deal - in 100 seconds 01:26
But Netanyahu 's move to address Congress on Iran , a top concern for the Israeli public , was also seen as a bid to boost his electoral appeal by reinforcing that he is a leader on the world stage and will do everything he can to protect Israel . When Republican House Speaker John Boehner extended the invitation to Netanyahu , many jumped on the House leader for helping the prime minister politically . This week , footage of Netanyahu being warmly received on Capitol Hill made it into a campaign ad .
The partisan nature of the invitation and that it was done without White House coordination -- Boehner is a chief Obama rival and disagrees emphatically with his Iran policy -- heightened Democratic pique over Netanyahu 's appearance .
Previous presidents have bristled at the hawkish , unflinching posture -- especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- that Netanyahu and other Likud party leaders have often struck . But the current antagonism , exacerbated by the speech , has become particularly personal .
Obama himself dismissed Netanyahu 's speech as `` theater '' and slammed his Israeli counterpart for offering `` nothing new . '' And a host of officials offered further criticism , including National Security Adviser Susan Rice , who called Netanyahu 's address `` destructive '' to the U.S-Israeli relationship .
Netanyahu 's allies deny a political motive to the speech and have maintained that the hit to U.S.-Israeli ties was necessary because of the existential danger posed by Iran and fears that negotiations on its nuclear program would lead to a disastrous agreement as they reach a key deadline .
Former State Department official Aaron David Miller said the Obama administration is now sending `` certain unmistakable signals '' that Netanyahu is n't the right prime minister to manage the U.S.-Israel relationship .
Miller witnessed the sending of similar signals in 1996 as one of the top officials coordinating Arab-Israeli negotiations in the Clinton administration .
`` We clearly had our favorites and we wanted Peres to win , '' Miller recounted .
It has n't just been Netanyahu whom U.S. presidents have opposed . In the run-up to the 1992 Israeli elections that eventually saw Labor 's Yitzhak Rabin elected , George H.W . Bush tied up American loan guarantees to punish the right-wing Israeli government and pressure it to change its policy on settlements .
`` [ The idea ] that we do n't intercede in Israeli politics is as foolish an assumption as that they do n't interfere in ours , '' Miller said .
One of many developments seen as souring the Obama-Netanyahu relationship was the widespread accusation that the prime minister all but endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in his campaign to unseat Obama in 2012 .
But just as Netanyahu -- if he indeed tried -- was unsuccessful in swaying that election , American presidents have also come up short .
There 's no clear indication right now that Netanyahu will be hurt by the U.S.-Israel row come Election Day . Netanyahu 's party saw a modest boost in one poll after Netanyahu 's speech to Congress . Several polls in recent days , however , suggest leading opposition party Zionist Union is gaining momentum in the wake of Netanyahu 's American saga . And the large number of undecideds and polling see-sawing throughout the race leave the final result very much in question .
Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog has been taking every opportunity to use Netanyahu 's frayed ties with the U.S. administration against him .
`` The painful truth is that after all the applause , Netanyahu is alone and Israel is isolated , '' Herzog said after Netanyahu 's speech to Congress .
But there are other issues -- such as economic woes and questions about Israel 's security -- that are also spelling trouble for Netanyahu .
And for all those alienated from Netanyahu 's Likud party by the breach with the United States , there are many in Israel who could reward him for it . Israelis have been mistrustful of Obama and have disliked many of his Middle East positions . Some believe being seen as standing up to the U.S. president will work in the prime minister 's favor .
`` I think the people of Israel understand that the prime minister is representing our needs , '' said Danny Danon , a Likud Knesset member . `` I do n't think criticism from the administration will affect them . ''
And while Netanyahu faces condemnation from the Obama administration and top Democratic officials , he 's also enjoying widespread praise from Republicans . The White House may have panned Netanyahu 's speech , but on Capitol Hill , the prime minister got standing ovations reminiscent of State of the Union addresses .
Zalman Shoval , a former ambassador to the U.S. and Netanyahu confidant , said the lack of uniform condemnation and public wariness about Obama could cancel out any loss of support due to U.S.-Israel tensions .
`` It 's very difficult to gauge how much of an influence any sort of statement or implication or whatever insinuation can really have on the election battle here , '' he said .
Several Israeli lawmakers -- on both sides of the aisle -- doubted whether the Obama administration was actively trying to influence the election .
A skeptical Danon was joined by Labor 's Nachman Shai . He said that U.S. officials had simply `` reacted and responded '' to the `` unprecedented '' nature of Netanyahu 's visit .
Erel Margalit , another Labor Knesset member , agreed . `` The administration responded to what was a frontal attack on its strategy in a way that was unprecedented . ''
He added , however , `` Let 's distinguish between two things : What they want in their heart and what they 're doing . ''
Obama 's unpopularity is part of the reason Netanyahu 's opponents on the left are careful not to play up any White House role in the elections . And Netanyahu and his allies are cautious not to reinforce the notion of a rift or go on the offensive against an administration they hope to mend relations with if Netanyahu is reelected .
The Netanyahu campaign would n't comment on whether the White House was trying to unseat the prime minister . But in the media , the candidate has lashed out at a `` worldwide effort '' to remove him from office .
Aides explained his remarks as referring to a campaign aiming to change the government . One Netanyahu campaign official said money was coming from `` every corner of the Earth . ''
That effort 's being led by V15 , a grassroots progressive movement with Obama campaign field director Jeremy Bird as a leading consultant .
JUST WATCHED Some Israelis rally for political change Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Some Israelis rally for political change 02:08
Bird is just the latest in a long line of American political operatives and pollsters who have traveled across the ocean to help Israeli politicians .
Democratic consultants James Carville and Stanley Greenberg helped Barak in 1999 , and Democratic veteran Paul Begala ( who is also a CNN analyst ) is now aiding Herzog . On the Republican side , digital strategist Vincent Harris , who now works for Sen. Rand Paul , signed up to help Netanyahu 's campaign this year .
Prominent Republican donors have also offered him support , perhaps no one more so than Sheldon Adelson . Adelson , the American casino magnate who spent more than $ 200 million backing Republicans in the 2012 presidential election , launched an Israeli newspaper , `` Israel Today , '' that vocally supports Netanyahu .
Distributed in the street and at train stations , the newspaper is free and has become the most-read in Israel .
Adelson was also present as Netanyahu delivered his address to Congress . His support is yet another reason some Democrats in Washington are less than fond of the prime minister .
While the Obama administration may not be leading an overt effort to undermine Netanyahu , Miller , the former State Department official , said there 's no doubt `` corks will be popping at the White House and State Department if Netanyahu loses . ''
|
Washington (CNN) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face voters on Tuesday, just two weeks after he took a major political gamble by giving a controversial speech to the U.S. Congress against the Obama administration's wishes.
The White House, clearly angered by an address criticizing its Iran deal-making, denied Netanyahu an Oval Office meeting during the visit. The reason, according to an official statement, was to "avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country."
Snubbing an Israeli prime minister, though, can influence Israeli voters as much as giving him a West Wing photo-op. And with U.S.-Israel tensions at a peak, many in Washington see telltale signs of an effort to oust a leader standing in the way of the Obama administration's Middle East policies.
"This election cycle in Israel fits the hallmark of an American administration that seeks to influence the outcome," said David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has studied American influence in Israeli elections.
The White House denied it was attempting to influence the Israeli elections by rebuffing Netanyahu and pointed to the well-circulated statement on why the prime minister wasn't offered a meeting: "As a matter of long-standing practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections."
U.S. snubs Netanayhu before vote, again
But such visits -- or the lack thereof -- have historically been one of the diplomatic weapons U.S. administrations have deployed to sway the Israeli public.
Less than a month before the 1996 Israeli elections, President Bill Clinton organized the signing of an anti-terror pact before the cameras with Shimon Peres, the Labor Party prime minister whom Netanyahu ended up defeating for his first term in office. In 1999, Clinton similarly pursued what some call "snub diplomacy" when his administration denied Netanyahu meetings amidst a tight race with Labor's Ehud Barak, to whom Netanyahu ultimately lost.
The state of the "special relationship" with the United States is of crucial importance to Israeli voters, who see America as their closest and most important ally. So in risking a rupture with the White House, Netanyahu is also risking a break with Israeli voters.
"Traditionally, the Israeli public has been very sensitive to how the relationship is going and how well the Israeli leadership is managing that relationship," said Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel.
JUST WATCHED Netanyahu rails against Iran nuclear deal - in 100 seconds Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Netanyahu rails against Iran nuclear deal - in 100 seconds 01:26
But Netanyahu's move to address Congress on Iran, a top concern for the Israeli public, was also seen as a bid to boost his electoral appeal by reinforcing that he is a leader on the world stage and will do everything he can to protect Israel. When Republican House Speaker John Boehner extended the invitation to Netanyahu, many jumped on the House leader for helping the prime minister politically. This week, footage of Netanyahu being warmly received on Capitol Hill made it into a campaign ad.
The partisan nature of the invitation and that it was done without White House coordination -- Boehner is a chief Obama rival and disagrees emphatically with his Iran policy -- heightened Democratic pique over Netanyahu's appearance.
A dispute gets personal
Previous presidents have bristled at the hawkish, unflinching posture -- especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- that Netanyahu and other Likud party leaders have often struck. But the current antagonism, exacerbated by the speech, has become particularly personal.
Obama himself dismissed Netanyahu's speech as "theater" and slammed his Israeli counterpart for offering "nothing new." And a host of officials offered further criticism, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who called Netanyahu's address "destructive" to the U.S-Israeli relationship.
Netanyahu's allies deny a political motive to the speech and have maintained that the hit to U.S.-Israeli ties was necessary because of the existential danger posed by Iran and fears that negotiations on its nuclear program would lead to a disastrous agreement as they reach a key deadline.
Former State Department official Aaron David Miller said the Obama administration is now sending "certain unmistakable signals" that Netanyahu isn't the right prime minister to manage the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Miller witnessed the sending of similar signals in 1996 as one of the top officials coordinating Arab-Israeli negotiations in the Clinton administration.
'We wanted Peres to win'
"We clearly had our favorites and we wanted Peres to win," Miller recounted.
It hasn't just been Netanyahu whom U.S. presidents have opposed. In the run-up to the 1992 Israeli elections that eventually saw Labor's Yitzhak Rabin elected, George H.W. Bush tied up American loan guarantees to punish the right-wing Israeli government and pressure it to change its policy on settlements.
"[The idea] that we don't intercede in Israeli politics is as foolish an assumption as that they don't interfere in ours," Miller said.
One of many developments seen as souring the Obama-Netanyahu relationship was the widespread accusation that the prime minister all but endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in his campaign to unseat Obama in 2012.
But just as Netanyahu -- if he indeed tried -- was unsuccessful in swaying that election, American presidents have also come up short.
There's no clear indication right now that Netanyahu will be hurt by the U.S.-Israel row come Election Day. Netanyahu's party saw a modest boost in one poll after Netanyahu's speech to Congress. Several polls in recent days, however, suggest leading opposition party Zionist Union is gaining momentum in the wake of Netanyahu's American saga. And the large number of undecideds and polling see-sawing throughout the race leave the final result very much in question.
Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog has been taking every opportunity to use Netanyahu's frayed ties with the U.S. administration against him.
'Israel is isolated'
"The painful truth is that after all the applause, Netanyahu is alone and Israel is isolated," Herzog said after Netanyahu's speech to Congress.
But there are other issues -- such as economic woes and questions about Israel's security -- that are also spelling trouble for Netanyahu.
And for all those alienated from Netanyahu's Likud party by the breach with the United States, there are many in Israel who could reward him for it. Israelis have been mistrustful of Obama and have disliked many of his Middle East positions. Some believe being seen as standing up to the U.S. president will work in the prime minister's favor.
"I think the people of Israel understand that the prime minister is representing our needs," said Danny Danon, a Likud Knesset member. "I don't think criticism from the administration will affect them."
And while Netanyahu faces condemnation from the Obama administration and top Democratic officials, he's also enjoying widespread praise from Republicans. The White House may have panned Netanyahu's speech, but on Capitol Hill, the prime minister got standing ovations reminiscent of State of the Union addresses.
Zalman Shoval, a former ambassador to the U.S. and Netanyahu confidant, said the lack of uniform condemnation and public wariness about Obama could cancel out any loss of support due to U.S.-Israel tensions.
"It's very difficult to gauge how much of an influence any sort of statement or implication or whatever insinuation can really have on the election battle here," he said.
Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks Defining moments in Middle East peace talks – Every president in the past 50 years has tried to broker peace in the Middle East, including when President Jimmy Carter ushered the historic Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on March 26, 1979. Here's a look at other recent attempts for peace: Hide Caption 1 of 6 Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks 2010 | Obama – President Barack Obama walks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, left, and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, at the White House on September 1, 2010. Hide Caption 2 of 6 Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks 2007 | Bush – Then-President George W. Bush walks with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, left, and Palestinian President Abbas on November 27, 2007, during the Annapolis Conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland. The peace conference was attended by 16 Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, Israel and the Palestinians. A joint statement was the only thing agreed upon under heavy American pressure and by avoiding specific reference to any of the core issues. Hide Caption 3 of 6 Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks 2000 | Clinton – Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, left, with the then-President Bill Clinton and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat pose for a photograph on July 21, 2000, at Camp David, in Maryland. The Camp David Summit was an effort to resolve the issues of the 52-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict including the status of Jerusalem, the borders and nature of a Palestinian state, and the future of Jewish settlers and Palestinian refugees. The Summit ended without an agreement. Hide Caption 4 of 6 Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks 1993 | Clinton – President Clinton stands between then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzahk Rabin, left, and Yasser Arafat at the White House on September 13, 1993. Rabin and Arafat shook hands for the first time after Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed a historic agreement on Palestinian autonomy in the occupied territories. The peace process faltered after Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist on November 4, 1995. Hide Caption 5 of 6 Photos: Defining moments in Middle East peace talks 1979 | Carter – Then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, left, shakes hands with then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in the garden of Camp David on September 6, 1978. With the help of then-President Jimmy Carter, the Camp David Accords became the groundbreaking first-ever peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Hide Caption 6 of 6
Several Israeli lawmakers -- on both sides of the aisle -- doubted whether the Obama administration was actively trying to influence the election.
An unprecedented visit
A skeptical Danon was joined by Labor's Nachman Shai. He said that U.S. officials had simply "reacted and responded" to the "unprecedented" nature of Netanyahu's visit.
Erel Margalit, another Labor Knesset member, agreed. "The administration responded to what was a frontal attack on its strategy in a way that was unprecedented."
He added, however, "Let's distinguish between two things: What they want in their heart and what they're doing."
Obama's unpopularity is part of the reason Netanyahu's opponents on the left are careful not to play up any White House role in the elections. And Netanyahu and his allies are cautious not to reinforce the notion of a rift or go on the offensive against an administration they hope to mend relations with if Netanyahu is reelected.
The Netanyahu campaign wouldn't comment on whether the White House was trying to unseat the prime minister. But in the media, the candidate has lashed out at a "worldwide effort" to remove him from office.
Aides explained his remarks as referring to a campaign aiming to change the government. One Netanyahu campaign official said money was coming from "every corner of the Earth."
American consults show up in Israel
That effort's being led by V15, a grassroots progressive movement with Obama campaign field director Jeremy Bird as a leading consultant.
JUST WATCHED Some Israelis rally for political change Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Some Israelis rally for political change 02:08
Bird is just the latest in a long line of American political operatives and pollsters who have traveled across the ocean to help Israeli politicians.
Democratic consultants James Carville and Stanley Greenberg helped Barak in 1999, and Democratic veteran Paul Begala (who is also a CNN analyst) is now aiding Herzog. On the Republican side, digital strategist Vincent Harris, who now works for Sen. Rand Paul, signed up to help Netanyahu's campaign this year.
Prominent Republican donors have also offered him support, perhaps no one more so than Sheldon Adelson. Adelson, the American casino magnate who spent more than $200 million backing Republicans in the 2012 presidential election, launched an Israeli newspaper, "Israel Today," that vocally supports Netanyahu.
Distributed in the street and at train stations, the newspaper is free and has become the most-read in Israel.
Adelson was also present as Netanyahu delivered his address to Congress. His support is yet another reason some Democrats in Washington are less than fond of the prime minister.
While the Obama administration may not be leading an overt effort to undermine Netanyahu, Miller, the former State Department official, said there's no doubt "corks will be popping at the White House and State Department if Netanyahu loses."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
Y10XlNVrk5acd26Y
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html?hpt=po_t1
|
Senate to start votes on gun bill
|
2013-04-17
|
Ted Barrett, Tom Cohen
|
Story highlights President Obama says gun law foes `` willfully lied ''
Major components of Obama 's gun proposals fail to win Senate approval
Supporters of new gun laws blame the defeats on NRA influence in Congress
In a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws , the U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a compromise plan to expand background checks on firearms sales as well as a proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault weapons .
The votes were on a series of amendments to a broad package of gun laws pushed by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre in December .
However , fierce opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association led a backlash by conservative Republicans and a few Democrats from pro-gun states that doomed key proposals in the gun package , even after they had been watered down to try to satisfy opponents .
After the votes , Obama angrily criticized the NRA and senators who voted against the expanded background checks for rejecting a compromise he said was supported by a strong majority of Americans .
`` Instead of supporting this compromise , the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill , '' Obama told White House reporters .
JUST WATCHED Obama angry about gun bill failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama angry about gun bill failure 01:43
JUST WATCHED The risky politics of gun control Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The risky politics of gun control 01:24
JUST WATCHED Soto : Disappointed in our Senate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Soto : Disappointed in our Senate 02:22
Noting polls that showed 90 % support for such a measure , Obama called it a `` pretty shameful day for Washington '' and wondered of Congress : `` Who are we here to represent ? ''
He was flanked by relatives of gun violence victims as well as former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , a gun owner who was disabled in a shooting attack and supported Obama 's proposals .
A statement by Giffords and her husband , former astronaut Mark Kelly , said the Senate had `` ignored the will of the American people , '' adding that those senators who voted against the expanded background checks chose to `` obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby , instead of their constituents . ''
To Erica Lafferty , the daughter of the principal of the Newtown , Connecticut , school who was killed along with 20 first-graders and five other educators in the December attack , the vote amounted to inaction in the face of a national tragedy .
`` The next time there 's a mass shooting and they 're asked what they did to prevent it , they 're going to have to say nothing , '' she said .
On the other side , the NRA 's Chris Cox called the expanded background check proposal `` misguided , '' saying it would not reduce violent crime `` or keep our kids safe in their schools . ''
The broader gun package still under consideration by the Senate includes tougher laws on gun trafficking and straw purchases , and steps to devise ways to improve safety in schools .
As originally proposed , with a provision to expand background checks , it would have been the most significant gun legislation before Congress in almost two decades .
Due to early opposition to the background check provision , Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania worked out a compromise that was less comprehensive than what Obama wanted but still gained the president 's support .
The Manchin-Toomey plan would have expanded background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all Internet sales , while continuing to exempt most sales between family members and friends .
Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides , all the amendments considered Wednesday required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber , meaning Democrats and their independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push through the Manchin-Toomey proposal .
The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with four Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise . With the outcome obvious , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nevada , cast a `` no '' vote to secure the ability to bring the measure up again .
Meanwhile , four Democrats from pro-gun states voted with most Republicans in opposition .
When the result was announced by Vice President Joe Biden , who presided over the chamber for the vote , two women in the gallery of spectators shouted `` shame on you '' at the senators .
`` They are an embarrassment to this country that they do n't have any compassion or care for people who have been taken brutally from their families , '' said one of them , Patricia Maisch , who grabbed the gun magazine from the attacker who shot Giffords and several other people in Tucson in January 2011 .
On the proposal by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to update a 1994 ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004 , the vote was 40-60 , showing opposition by several Democrats as well as the chamber 's Republican minority .
Obama had pushed for Congress to include both the expanded background checks provision and the weapons ban in any gun package . In recent weeks , he and the White House focused their efforts on winning support for the Manchin-Toomey compromise .
However , the NRA promised political retribution against supporters of tougher gun laws , and it called the expanded background checks a first step toward a national gun registry and government confiscation of firearms .
Obama called that claim misinformation , noting the Manchin-Toomey proposal prohibited such a registry . He said the tactics of the NRA galvanized a vocal minority of gun owners against the legislation , which caused some senators to flinch .
`` They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment , '' Obama said . `` And obviously a lot of Republicans had that fear , but Democrats had that fear , too . And so they caved to the pressure . And they started looking for an excuse , any excuse to vote 'no . ' ''
Reid earlier warned Republicans that the strong majority of Americans who support expanded background checks wo n't forget votes against the Manchin-Toomey compromise .
`` The American people ... have a long , long memory , '' he said .
Meanwhile , an alternative package of gun proposal that reflected the NRA position also was defeated .
Offerd by conservative Republicans , the alternative plan introduced Wednesday after weeks of hearings and debate on Democratic proposals lacked any expansion of background checks but called for more funding to better enforce the existing system .
A sponsor of the Republican alternative , Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , said it would target the gun violence problem in a way that the Democratic proposal before the Senate would not .
In response , Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Leahy , D-Vermont , called the GOP 's last-minute proposal a `` weak and counterproductive alternative . ''
Other proposed amendments defeated Wednesday included a plan by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to make state concealed weapons permits acceptable throughout the country. , as well as a proposal by Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey to limit the number of rounds in ammunition magazines .
Any legislation passed by the Senate would then go to the Republican-led House . So far , House Speaker John Boehner has stopped short of promising a vote on whatever the Senate sends over .
|
Story highlights President Obama says gun law foes "willfully lied"
Major components of Obama's gun proposals fail to win Senate approval
Supporters of new gun laws blame the defeats on NRA influence in Congress
Polls show most Americans support expanded background checks
In a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a compromise plan to expand background checks on firearms sales as well as a proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault weapons.
The votes were on a series of amendments to a broad package of gun laws pushed by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre in December.
However, fierce opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association led a backlash by conservative Republicans and a few Democrats from pro-gun states that doomed key proposals in the gun package, even after they had been watered down to try to satisfy opponents.
After the votes, Obama angrily criticized the NRA and senators who voted against the expanded background checks for rejecting a compromise he said was supported by a strong majority of Americans.
"Instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama told White House reporters.
JUST WATCHED Obama angry about gun bill failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama angry about gun bill failure 01:43
JUST WATCHED The risky politics of gun control Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The risky politics of gun control 01:24
JUST WATCHED Soto: Disappointed in our Senate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Soto: Disappointed in our Senate 02:22
Noting polls that showed 90% support for such a measure, Obama called it a "pretty shameful day for Washington" and wondered of Congress: "Who are we here to represent?"
He was flanked by relatives of gun violence victims as well as former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a gun owner who was disabled in a shooting attack and supported Obama's proposals.
A statement by Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, said the Senate had "ignored the will of the American people," adding that those senators who voted against the expanded background checks chose to "obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby, instead of their constituents."
To Erica Lafferty, the daughter of the principal of the Newtown, Connecticut, school who was killed along with 20 first-graders and five other educators in the December attack, the vote amounted to inaction in the face of a national tragedy.
"The next time there's a mass shooting and they're asked what they did to prevent it, they're going to have to say nothing," she said.
On the other side, the NRA's Chris Cox called the expanded background check proposal "misguided," saying it would not reduce violent crime "or keep our kids safe in their schools."
The broader gun package still under consideration by the Senate includes tougher laws on gun trafficking and straw purchases, and steps to devise ways to improve safety in schools.
As originally proposed, with a provision to expand background checks, it would have been the most significant gun legislation before Congress in almost two decades.
Due to early opposition to the background check provision, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania worked out a compromise that was less comprehensive than what Obama wanted but still gained the president's support.
The Manchin-Toomey plan would have expanded background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all Internet sales, while continuing to exempt most sales between family members and friends.
Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides, all the amendments considered Wednesday required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber, meaning Democrats and their independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push through the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with four Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise. With the outcome obvious, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cast a "no" vote to secure the ability to bring the measure up again.
Meanwhile, four Democrats from pro-gun states voted with most Republicans in opposition.
When the result was announced by Vice President Joe Biden, who presided over the chamber for the vote, two women in the gallery of spectators shouted "shame on you" at the senators.
"They are an embarrassment to this country that they don't have any compassion or care for people who have been taken brutally from their families," said one of them, Patricia Maisch, who grabbed the gun magazine from the attacker who shot Giffords and several other people in Tucson in January 2011.
On the proposal by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to update a 1994 ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004, the vote was 40-60, showing opposition by several Democrats as well as the chamber's Republican minority.
Obama had pushed for Congress to include both the expanded background checks provision and the weapons ban in any gun package. In recent weeks, he and the White House focused their efforts on winning support for the Manchin-Toomey compromise.
However, the NRA promised political retribution against supporters of tougher gun laws, and it called the expanded background checks a first step toward a national gun registry and government confiscation of firearms.
Obama called that claim misinformation, noting the Manchin-Toomey proposal prohibited such a registry. He said the tactics of the NRA galvanized a vocal minority of gun owners against the legislation, which caused some senators to flinch.
"They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment," Obama said. "And obviously a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure. And they started looking for an excuse, any excuse to vote 'no.'"
Reid earlier warned Republicans that the strong majority of Americans who support expanded background checks won't forget votes against the Manchin-Toomey compromise.
"The American people ... have a long, long memory," he said.
Meanwhile, an alternative package of gun proposal that reflected the NRA position also was defeated.
Offerd by conservative Republicans, the alternative plan introduced Wednesday after weeks of hearings and debate on Democratic proposals lacked any expansion of background checks but called for more funding to better enforce the existing system.
A sponsor of the Republican alternative, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said it would target the gun violence problem in a way that the Democratic proposal before the Senate would not.
In response, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, called the GOP's last-minute proposal a "weak and counterproductive alternative."
Other proposed amendments defeated Wednesday included a plan by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to make state concealed weapons permits acceptable throughout the country., as well as a proposal by Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey to limit the number of rounds in ammunition magazines.
Any legislation passed by the Senate would then go to the Republican-led House. So far, House Speaker John Boehner has stopped short of promising a vote on whatever the Senate sends over.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
5MDVv8sezpgWSXZ9
|
religion_and_faith
|
Daily Beast
| 00
|
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-vaticans-charity-spent-millions-on-elton-johns-rocketman-biopic
|
How the Vatican Spent Millions on Elton John’s Biopic
|
2019-12-13
|
Barbie Latza Nadeau
|
ROME–Just when you thought the Vatican ‘ s image problem couldn ’ t get any worse , what with endemic clerical child abuse and a near bankrupt American arm of the church , it does . A new report pulls back the red velvet curtain on a bizarre new tidbit about the Vatican ‘ s other dirty little secret : its finances .
The latest twist started to unravel in October when Pope Francis ordered Swiss Guard gendarmes to raid the Holy See ’ s Financial Information Authority ( AIF ) office inside Vatican City , carrying out boxes of papers and computer hard drives . They tacked up what amounted to a “ Wanted Dead or Alive ” sign on the Vatican ’ s fortified gates to keep out the administrators while they started sifting through reams of curious expenditures in the Vatican ’ s financial books .
They came up with quite a few surprises about the way money donated for the poor was being used , including some dubious real estate interests , connections to an even more dubious Maltese financier , and investments in movies that , good or bad , don ’ t exactly square with church doctrine .
One of the more peculiar items on the spreadsheet was property on Sloane Avenue in London . It included luxury apartments in a former Harrods warehouse . The Vatican press office said at the time further investigations would be “ carried out over time . ”
Among the latest of those investigations is a tie to the Centurion Global Fund based in Malta , which has proven itself to be a hotbed of corruption . The Maltese prime minister is currently spending most of his time blockaded in his office in Valletta while angry protesters demand he resign over his alleged ties to the assassination of anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia two years ago .
“ While investing in mainstream entertainment is hardly sinful , the great contradiction is that the Catholic Church preaches to the devout that homosexuality is a sin . ”
At least two-thirds of the Centurion Global Fund ’ s capital assets are fed by the Vatican Secretariat of State , under which the Vatican financial authority operated , according to documents seen by Corriere Della Sera newspaper in Italy . The fund is run by Enrico Crasso , a 71-year-old Italian with a Swiss fiscal address who also runs Sogenel Holding , referred to as a “ reference point ” for key financial transactions for the Vatican Bank .
Crasso ’ s office walls are lined with personal letters signed by various Vatican secretaries of state and he has even been awarded a gold medal of merit from the pope . He alone decides how the Vatican money–about $ 78 million–entrusted to him through the Malta fund is spent to get the highest return .
The documents seen by Corriere Della Sera list his recent investments with the church ’ s money . Among them are around $ 2.2 million in a company called Italian Independent , run by Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli ’ s flamboyant grandson Lapo Elkann , who was arrested in New York in 2017 for faking his own kidnapping , allegedly to pay off a drug debt owed to a male escort .
Another $ 11 million went to an Italian businessman named Enrico Preziosi , who is an entrepreneur who owns the Genoa soccer team and who was caught up in a little legal trouble in the early 2000s for manipulating the price of soccer players to falsify accounting . He was fined around $ 15,000 and banned from soccer for four months .
“ Investigations are in progress . ” — The Vatican Press Office
But the most curious item on the report to come out so far is a $ 4.5 million expenditure recorded in February of this year related to finance for the 2019 films Men in Black : International and Elton John ’ s rather steamy biopic Rocketman , which portrays the entertainer ’ s drug problems and is the first studio movie to portray gay sex between men in an authentic way .
While investing in mainstream entertainment is hardly sinful , the great contradiction is that the Catholic Church preaches to the devout that homosexuality is a sin .
The ███ reached out to Crasso in both his Swiss and Maltese offices and was told that he did not wish to comment at this time .
The Vatican press office has issued a statement that sheds very little light on the matter . “ Investigations are in progress , and lines of enquiry which may help clarify the position of the Holy See with respect to the aforementioned funds and any others , are currently being examined by the Vatican judiciary , in collaboration with the competent authorities , ” the statement reads .
The money that feeds the Centurion Fund reportedly comes from investments made by the pope ’ s “ Peter ’ s Pence ” charity , which is fed by global dioceses that collect the money specifically for the poor on one given day of the year , often the last Sunday in June which is close to the feast days of saints Peter and Paul .
Peter ’ s Pence is not part of a local church ’ s Sunday collection basket , but a separate collection earmarked specifically for the papal fund . According to the charity ’ s website , the money is supposed to be channeled directly to the poor .
“ The Peter ’ s Pence collection is a gesture of solidarity , ” the site states . “ Through it , every member of the faithful can participate in the Pope ’ s activity . It is an activity that supports the most needy and ecclesial communities in difficulty who approach the Apostolic See for help . ”
Wednesday , the Wall Street Journal reported that the fund , which brings in more than $ 55 million annually and is worth about $ 700 million to date , is also spent on filling the gaps in the Vatican ’ s internal administrative budget . The paper alleges that just 10 percent is spent on charitable works , according to documentation it obtained .
Whether the pope knows the intricate details about where the money goes that he entrusts to his charity is unclear . But when he was asked about the growing financial scandal related to Peter ’ s Pence on a papal flight last month , the pontiff did little to clear it up .
“ When the money from Peter ’ s Pence arrives , what do I do ? I put it in a drawer ? No , ” he said . “ This is bad administration . I try to make an investment and when I need to give , when there is a need , throughout the year , the money is taken and that capital does not devalue , it stays the same or it increases a bit. ” Or , it goes to Elton John ’ s biopic .
|
ROME–Just when you thought the Vatican‘s image problem couldn’t get any worse, what with endemic clerical child abuse and a near bankrupt American arm of the church, it does. A new report pulls back the red velvet curtain on a bizarre new tidbit about the Vatican‘s other dirty little secret: its finances.
The latest twist started to unravel in October when Pope Francis ordered Swiss Guard gendarmes to raid the Holy See’s Financial Information Authority (AIF) office inside Vatican City, carrying out boxes of papers and computer hard drives. They tacked up what amounted to a “Wanted Dead or Alive” sign on the Vatican’s fortified gates to keep out the administrators while they started sifting through reams of curious expenditures in the Vatican’s financial books.
They came up with quite a few surprises about the way money donated for the poor was being used, including some dubious real estate interests, connections to an even more dubious Maltese financier, and investments in movies that, good or bad, don’t exactly square with church doctrine.
One of the more peculiar items on the spreadsheet was property on Sloane Avenue in London. It included luxury apartments in a former Harrods warehouse. The Vatican press office said at the time further investigations would be “carried out over time.”
Among the latest of those investigations is a tie to the Centurion Global Fund based in Malta, which has proven itself to be a hotbed of corruption. The Maltese prime minister is currently spending most of his time blockaded in his office in Valletta while angry protesters demand he resign over his alleged ties to the assassination of anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia two years ago.
“ While investing in mainstream entertainment is hardly sinful, the great contradiction is that the Catholic Church preaches to the devout that homosexuality is a sin. ”
At least two-thirds of the Centurion Global Fund’s capital assets are fed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, under which the Vatican financial authority operated, according to documents seen by Corriere Della Sera newspaper in Italy. The fund is run by Enrico Crasso, a 71-year-old Italian with a Swiss fiscal address who also runs Sogenel Holding, referred to as a “reference point” for key financial transactions for the Vatican Bank.
Crasso’s office walls are lined with personal letters signed by various Vatican secretaries of state and he has even been awarded a gold medal of merit from the pope. He alone decides how the Vatican money–about $78 million–entrusted to him through the Malta fund is spent to get the highest return.
The documents seen by Corriere Della Sera list his recent investments with the church’s money. Among them are around $2.2 million in a company called Italian Independent, run by Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli’s flamboyant grandson Lapo Elkann, who was arrested in New York in 2017 for faking his own kidnapping, allegedly to pay off a drug debt owed to a male escort.
Another $11 million went to an Italian businessman named Enrico Preziosi, who is an entrepreneur who owns the Genoa soccer team and who was caught up in a little legal trouble in the early 2000s for manipulating the price of soccer players to falsify accounting. He was fined around $15,000 and banned from soccer for four months.
“ Investigations are in progress. ” — The Vatican Press Office
But the most curious item on the report to come out so far is a $4.5 million expenditure recorded in February of this year related to finance for the 2019 films Men in Black: International and Elton John’s rather steamy biopic Rocketman, which portrays the entertainer’s drug problems and is the first studio movie to portray gay sex between men in an authentic way.
While investing in mainstream entertainment is hardly sinful, the great contradiction is that the Catholic Church preaches to the devout that homosexuality is a sin.
The Daily Beast reached out to Crasso in both his Swiss and Maltese offices and was told that he did not wish to comment at this time.
The Vatican press office has issued a statement that sheds very little light on the matter. “Investigations are in progress, and lines of enquiry which may help clarify the position of the Holy See with respect to the aforementioned funds and any others, are currently being examined by the Vatican judiciary, in collaboration with the competent authorities,” the statement reads.
The money that feeds the Centurion Fund reportedly comes from investments made by the pope’s “Peter’s Pence” charity, which is fed by global dioceses that collect the money specifically for the poor on one given day of the year, often the last Sunday in June which is close to the feast days of saints Peter and Paul.
Peter’s Pence is not part of a local church’s Sunday collection basket, but a separate collection earmarked specifically for the papal fund. According to the charity’s website, the money is supposed to be channeled directly to the poor.
“The Peter’s Pence collection is a gesture of solidarity,” the site states. “Through it, every member of the faithful can participate in the Pope’s activity. It is an activity that supports the most needy and ecclesial communities in difficulty who approach the Apostolic See for help.”
Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the fund, which brings in more than $55 million annually and is worth about $700 million to date, is also spent on filling the gaps in the Vatican’s internal administrative budget. The paper alleges that just 10 percent is spent on charitable works, according to documentation it obtained.
Whether the pope knows the intricate details about where the money goes that he entrusts to his charity is unclear. But when he was asked about the growing financial scandal related to Peter’s Pence on a papal flight last month, the pontiff did little to clear it up.
“When the money from Peter’s Pence arrives, what do I do? I put it in a drawer? No,” he said. “This is bad administration. I try to make an investment and when I need to give, when there is a need, throughout the year, the money is taken and that capital does not devalue, it stays the same or it increases a bit.” Or, it goes to Elton John’s biopic.
|
www.thedailybeast.com
| 0left
|
6cXljJIOd2aR0eIt
|
sports
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354985-limbaugh-trumps-comments-on-nfl-starting-to-make-me-nervous
|
Limbaugh breaks with Trump: He shouldn't be allowed to tell NFL players not to kneel
|
2017-10-11
|
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday voiced concerns about President Trump 's comments on NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem to protest racial injustice , saying Trump should not have the power to dictate who can kneel during the anthem .
`` There ’ s a part of this story that ’ s starting to make me nervous , and it ’ s this : I am very uncomfortable with the president of the United States being able to dictate the behavior and power of anybody . That ’ s not where this should be coming from , '' Limbaugh said on his show .
Limbaugh said he believed Trump 's motives were `` pure , '' but he argued that the president 's actions were unhelpful in the broader debate on players kneeling .
`` Trump is continually tweeting — I know what he ’ s doing , and I understand why he ’ s doing it , and his motives are pure ; don ’ t misunderstand . But I don ’ t think that it is useful or helpful for any employee anywhere to be forced to do something because the government says they must , '' he continued .
`` We don ’ t want the president being able to demand anybody that he ’ s unhappy with behave in a way he requires , '' Limbaugh added .
Limbaugh 's comments come after the president said on Wednesday that `` it is about time '' NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is `` demanding '' players stand for the national anthem after the NFL chief said in a statement that he believed that everyone should stand during the anthem .
It is about time that Roger Goodell of the NFL is finally demanding that all players STAND for our great National Anthem-RESPECT OUR COUNTRY — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 11 , 2017
However , the NFL issued a statement later saying Trump 's tweet was not accurate .
`` Commentary this morning about the Commissioner 's position on the anthem is not accurate , '' the statement read .
“ The NFL is doing the hard work of trying to move from protest to progress , working to bring people together . ''
|
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday voiced concerns about President Trump's comments on NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem to protest racial injustice, saying Trump should not have the power to dictate who can kneel during the anthem.
"There’s a part of this story that’s starting to make me nervous, and it’s this: I am very uncomfortable with the president of the United States being able to dictate the behavior and power of anybody. That’s not where this should be coming from," Limbaugh said on his show.
Limbaugh said he believed Trump's motives were "pure," but he argued that the president's actions were unhelpful in the broader debate on players kneeling.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Trump is continually tweeting — I know what he’s doing, and I understand why he’s doing it, and his motives are pure; don’t misunderstand. But I don’t think that it is useful or helpful for any employee anywhere to be forced to do something because the government says they must," he continued.
"We don’t want the president being able to demand anybody that he’s unhappy with behave in a way he requires," Limbaugh added.
Limbaugh's comments come after the president said on Wednesday that "it is about time" NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is "demanding" players stand for the national anthem after the NFL chief said in a statement that he believed that everyone should stand during the anthem.
It is about time that Roger Goodell of the NFL is finally demanding that all players STAND for our great National Anthem-RESPECT OUR COUNTRY — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2017
However, the NFL issued a statement later saying Trump's tweet was not accurate.
"Commentary this morning about the Commissioner's position on the anthem is not accurate," the statement read.
“The NFL is doing the hard work of trying to move from protest to progress, working to bring people together."
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
Hw6WGTnYLh9Z1LK0
|
|
justice_department
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-IRS-Political-Groups/2013/11/26/id/538880?ns_mail_uid=33678863&ns_mail_job=1547884_11272013&promo_code=15C10-1
|
Obama's IRS Moves to Close Down Political Speech of Nonprofits
|
2013-11-26
|
Todd Beamon
|
Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
|
Urgent:
Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Urgent:
Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
The Obama administration moved on Tuesday to rein in the use of tax-exempt groups for political campaigning.The effort is an attempt to reduce the role of such loosely regulated yet influential super PACS as Crossroads GPS, which was co-founded by GOP political strategist Karl Rove, and Priorities USA, which ran searing ads against rivals of President Barack Obama to support his re-election last year.The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department proposed new rules that they said would prohibit such groups from using "candidate-related political activity" like running advertisements, registering voters or distributing campaign literature as activities that qualify them to be tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations."This proposed guidance is a first critical step toward creating clear-cut definitions of political activity by tax-exempt social welfare organizations," said Mark Mazur, the Treasury's assistant secretary for tax policy. "We are committed to getting this right before issuing final guidance that may affect a broad group of organizations."It will take time to work through the regulatory process and carefully consider all public feedback as we strive to ensure that the standards for tax-exemption are clear and can be applied consistently," Mazur said.The rules would become final after a lengthy comment period, the federal agencies said, giving the super PACS ample time to raise millions of dollars from anonymous donors before next year's congressional elections.Conservative groups bitterly attacked the proposed rules, charging that they represented yet another attack on free speech by the Obama White House."This is a feeble attempt by the Obama administration to justify its own wrongdoing with the IRS targeting of conservative and tea party groups,” Jay Sekulow, a lawyer representing more than three dozen of the groups in a federal lawsuit against the tax agency, told The New York Times.The lawsuit stemmed from the IRS' monitoring of tea party, conservative, and religious groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. A Treasury Department inspector general disclosed in May that the agency was doing the special screenings for those groups seeking 501(c)(4) status.The status allows such organizations to keep their donors private.The IRS screening had occurred between 2010 and through the 2012 presidential election. During the period, IRS agents had placed groups with words like "tea party and "patriot" in their names on a "be on the lookout" — or BOLO — list for additional screening of its applications for the tax-exempt status.“Unfortunately, it appears that the same bureaucrats that attempted to suppress the speech of conservative groups in recent years has now put together new rules that apply to (c)4 groups but do not apply to liberal groups like labor unions,” Nick Ryan, founder of the American Future Fund, told the Times.The organization spent at least $25 million on political advertising last year, according to the Times.“I wish I could say I am surprised,” Ryan added, “but I am not."As 501(c)(4) organizations, the groups can raise millions of dollars to influence elections.They can, however, also be small-scale tea party groups — many had contended that the were singled out by the IRS.House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp questioned the White House's decision."There continues to be an ongoing investigation, with many documents yet to be uncovered, into how the IRS systematically targeted and abused conservative-leaning groups," the Michigan Republican said. "This smacks of the administration trying to shut down potential critics."In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision lifted the limits on donations by labor unions and companies to 501(c)(4) groups. This allowed Crossroads, the largest of them, to raise large sums outside the limits that apply to candidates' campaigns and traditional party committees."Enormous abuses have taken place under the current rules, which have allowed groups largely devoted to campaign activities to operate as nonprofit groups in order to keep secret the donors funding their campaign activities," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which advocates limits on money in politics.Under current rules, "social welfare" groups may conduct some political work as long as it does not remain their primary activity. The proposed rules would block such activities as running ads that "expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party" as fulfilling their tax-exempt mission.In addition, spots that simply mention a politician in urging a certain way to vote — for instance — could not be run 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary.The rules also would limit voter drives and voter registration efforts and the distribution of literature.According to the federal agencies, the new rules seek to solidify the current regulations, which are confusing and prone to abuse."Depending on the details, this could be dramatic," Marcus Owens, a former chief of the IRS’ exempt organizations division, told the Times.Treasury and the IRS do not yet have a proposal about what specific proportion of a 501(c)(4) group's activities must promote social welfare and are soliciting input. Essentially, they do not have a recommendation as to what percentage of a group's time and money can be spent on politics.Representatives of both Crossroads and Priorities USA declined to comment to the Times on the proposed rules. The groups, however, are expected to weigh as the process moves forward.Any changes to the regulations likely would not affect the 2014 elections because of legal challenges, but the rule changes could shape the next presidential election, said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance attorney and former head of enforcement for the Federal Election Commission."Brightening what are now blurred lines — what is political activity — is not only useful but necessary to have some kind of clarity to a vehicle that has been used to the tune of millions and millions of dollars," he said.But Gross cautioned that "this is a long and winding road before anything is in ink."The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
Vt5dCZsAjsn1Y43x
|
white_house
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/obama-expected-to-nominate-us-attorney-loretta-lynch-as-next-attorney-general/
|
Obama to nominate US Attorney Loretta Lynch to replace Holder as AG
|
2014-11-08
|
President Obama has chosen Loretta Lynch , the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn , N.Y. , as his nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder -- ending widespread speculation over who might fill Holder 's shoes and teeing up a nomination debate potentially during the lame-duck session .
Though several Republicans had wanted to wait to consider any successor until the new Congress is seated , the president plans to announce his pick on Saturday .
`` Ms. Lynch is a strong , independent prosecutor who has twice led one of the most important U.S. Attorney 's offices in the country , '' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement . `` She will succeed Eric Holder , whose tenure has been marked by historic gains in the areas of criminal justice reform and civil rights enforcement . ''
Lynch , 55 , is a Harvard Law School graduate and popular prosecutor who is currently serving her second stint as U.S. attorney for Eastern New York , which covers Brooklyn , Queens , Staten Island and Long Island .
She was appointed by Obama in 2010 . If confirmed to fill Holder 's post , she would be the first black female attorney general .
It was unclear how the nomination will be greeted by Republicans on Capitol Hill , who were often at odds with Holder over the course of his tenure . The party won a majority in the Senate on Tuesday , but will not take control until January .
It was also unclear if the Senate might wait on a vote until then .
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , who presumably will become the majority leader in the next session , issued a statement Friday night urging the Senate to wait until January to vote on the nomination .
`` Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate , '' he said . `` And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order . ''
Annmarie McAvoy , an attorney and former federal prosecutor who worked directly under Lynch during her first tenure as U.S. Attorney from 1999-2001 , said , “ She ’ s got a good reputation …she ’ s done some great work in her office . She ’ s not one to put her head in the sand . She ’ s hasn ’ t been afraid to go after corruption , things like that , against Republicans and Democrats . ”
She described Lynch as well liked , respected and not likely to cause a stir politically . “ I have not heard anything controversial about her – at all , ” McAvoy told Foxnews.com .
“ When you meet her she is very sweet and she is very personable , she is very bright . She handles herself beautifully , but she doesn ’ t shy away from controversy . ”
Lynch grew up in Durham , North Carolina , the middle of three children . Her mother was a school librarian , her father a Baptist minister .
After Harvard , Lynch served as a federal prosecutor in New York ’ s Eastern District , receiving several key promotions over eight years until President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Attorney in 1998 . After leaving that office in 2001 , Lynch went into private practice specializing in commercial litigation , white collar criminal defense and corporate compliance issues before Obama appointed her in 2010 to return to her current post .
“ President Barack Obama has chosen a great New Yorker as the country ’ s highest-ranking law enforcement official , ” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted Friday after news of the nomination .
In her time as U.S. Attorney , Lynch has made a name for herself in a number of high-profile convictions , including a thwarted Al Qaeda-sanctioned plot to attack the New York subway system , and pursuing the head of a Mexican drug cartel for 12 murders . She also heads the government ’ s prosecution of Rep. Michael Grimm , R-N.Y. , who has been charged with tax evasion but won re-election Tuesday night .
There have been no indications thus far if Lynch ’ s nomination will be as dramatic as other Obama picks .
Sen. Charles Grassley , R-Iowa , who is currently the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- which must approve Obama ’ s nominee -- appeared welcoming in his comments Friday night .
“ Being selected to serve as our nation ’ s top law enforcement officer is both a tremendous honor and responsibility . As we move forward with the confirmation process , I have every confidence that Ms. Lynch will receive a very fair , but thorough , vetting by the Judiciary Committee , ” he said in a statement. “ I look forward to learning more about her , how she will interact with Congress , and how she proposes to lead the department . ”
Reports throughout the week suggested that Lynch was not an Obama insider so she doesn ’ t bring the baggage carried by other potential administration nominees .
“ Unlike Eric Holder , who was very close to the president – in a way , too close – she doesn ’ t really have any relationship with President Obama , ” said Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers . “ I think that bodes well for her . ”
Lynch is reportedly close to Holder , however , having served on his Attorney General ’ s Advisory Committee of U.S . Attorneys ( AGAC ) , a 20-member body that provides counsel to Holder on policy .
Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , who sits on the Judiciary Committee , has already indicated that he is unhappy Obama is making the nomination now , instead of during the new session , when Republicans will have the majority in both chambers . “ Democrat senators who just lost their seats should n't confirm ( a ) new Attorney General , ” he tweeted on Friday . “ ( They ) should be vetted by ( the ) new Congress . ”
|
President Obama has chosen Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, N.Y., as his nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder -- ending widespread speculation over who might fill Holder's shoes and teeing up a nomination debate potentially during the lame-duck session.
Though several Republicans had wanted to wait to consider any successor until the new Congress is seated, the president plans to announce his pick on Saturday.
"Ms. Lynch is a strong, independent prosecutor who has twice led one of the most important U.S. Attorney's offices in the country," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. "She will succeed Eric Holder, whose tenure has been marked by historic gains in the areas of criminal justice reform and civil rights enforcement."
Lynch, 55, is a Harvard Law School graduate and popular prosecutor who is currently serving her second stint as U.S. attorney for Eastern New York, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Long Island.
She was appointed by Obama in 2010. If confirmed to fill Holder's post, she would be the first black female attorney general.
It was unclear how the nomination will be greeted by Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were often at odds with Holder over the course of his tenure. The party won a majority in the Senate on Tuesday, but will not take control until January.
It was also unclear if the Senate might wait on a vote until then.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who presumably will become the majority leader in the next session, issued a statement Friday night urging the Senate to wait until January to vote on the nomination.
"Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate," he said. "And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order."
Annmarie McAvoy, an attorney and former federal prosecutor who worked directly under Lynch during her first tenure as U.S. Attorney from 1999-2001, said, “She’s got a good reputation …she’s done some great work in her office. She’s not one to put her head in the sand. She’s hasn’t been afraid to go after corruption, things like that, against Republicans and Democrats.”
She described Lynch as well liked, respected and not likely to cause a stir politically. “I have not heard anything controversial about her – at all,” McAvoy told Foxnews.com.
“When you meet her she is very sweet and she is very personable, she is very bright. She handles herself beautifully, but she doesn’t shy away from controversy.”
Lynch grew up in Durham, North Carolina, the middle of three children. Her mother was a school librarian, her father a Baptist minister.
After Harvard, Lynch served as a federal prosecutor in New York’s Eastern District, receiving several key promotions over eight years until President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Attorney in 1998. After leaving that office in 2001, Lynch went into private practice specializing in commercial litigation, white collar criminal defense and corporate compliance issues before Obama appointed her in 2010 to return to her current post.
“President Barack Obama has chosen a great New Yorker as the country’s highest-ranking law enforcement official,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted Friday after news of the nomination.
In her time as U.S. Attorney, Lynch has made a name for herself in a number of high-profile convictions, including a thwarted Al Qaeda-sanctioned plot to attack the New York subway system, and pursuing the head of a Mexican drug cartel for 12 murders. She also heads the government’s prosecution of Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., who has been charged with tax evasion but won re-election Tuesday night.
There have been no indications thus far if Lynch’s nomination will be as dramatic as other Obama picks.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is currently the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- which must approve Obama’s nominee -- appeared welcoming in his comments Friday night.
“Being selected to serve as our nation’s top law enforcement officer is both a tremendous honor and responsibility. As we move forward with the confirmation process, I have every confidence that Ms. Lynch will receive a very fair, but thorough, vetting by the Judiciary Committee,” he said in a statement.“I look forward to learning more about her, how she will interact with Congress, and how she proposes to lead the department.”
Reports throughout the week suggested that Lynch was not an Obama insider so she doesn’t bring the baggage carried by other potential administration nominees.
“Unlike Eric Holder, who was very close to the president – in a way, too close – she doesn’t really have any relationship with President Obama,” said Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers. “I think that bodes well for her.”
Lynch is reportedly close to Holder, however, having served on his Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC), a 20-member body that provides counsel to Holder on policy.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, has already indicated that he is unhappy Obama is making the nomination now, instead of during the new session, when Republicans will have the majority in both chambers. “Democrat senators who just lost their seats shouldn't confirm (a) new Attorney General,” he tweeted on Friday. “(They) should be vetted by (the) new Congress.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
QTD3nmbTzEfIGeca
|
|
politics
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/21/604326245/barbara-bush-remembered-in-her-own-never-minced-words
|
Barbara Bush Remembered In Her Own, Never-Minced, Words
|
2018-04-21
|
Audrey Mcnamara
|
Unlike her trademark three-strand pearl necklace , Barbara Bush was known for her authenticity .
The former first lady to President George H.W . Bush , and mother of President George W. Bush , died this week at the age of 92 . Her funeral is Saturday , and those eulogizing her might not have to look far for inspiration — to her own words .
Bush spoke bluntly and unapologetically throughout her life . When asked to deliver the 1990 commencement address at Wellesley College , one of the Seven Sisters , 150 graduates protested the choice . The students argued her recognition was based solely on the achievements of her husband — not the Wellesley Way .
Mrs. Bush 's response : `` No big deal . Even I was 20 once . ''
( Barbara Bush herself attended another Seven Sister , Smith College in Northampton , Mass . She dropped out of school shortly before marrying then navy pilot George H.W . upon his safe return in World War II . )
The rest is a history chronicled by blunt talk and biting one-liners that inspired some and irritated others . Here are just a select few :
`` He leads by example . I lead by denying some things . And I am the enforcer , there 's no question about it . Do I like that role ? No . Would I rather he had done it ? Yes . ''
2 . On why she wrote a book after her husband lost the 1992 election
`` There are other people out there that are very qualified , and we 've had enough Bushes . ''
`` Avoid this crowd like the plague . And if they quote you , make damn sure they heard you . ''
— Advice to Hillary Clinton on talking to reporters , Aug 24 , 1992
— When asked what she thinks about Donald Trump , CNN interview Feb 5 2016
7 . On not watching coverage leading up to the Iraq war
`` But why should we hear about body bags , and deaths , and how many , what day it 's going to happen , and how many this and what do you suppose ? Or , I mean , it 's , it 's not relevant . So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that ? And watch him suffer . ''
—To Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America , March 18 , 2003
`` What I 'm hearing , which is sort of scary , is they all want to stay in Texas . Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality . And so many of the people in the arena here , you know , were underprivileged anyway , so this is working very well for them . ''
9 . On the criticism from a pundit that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life
`` Raising five boys is a handful , trust me . Raising George Walker was not easy . ''
`` Who knows ? Somewhere out there in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow my footsteps and preside over the White House as the president 's spouse . And I wish him well . ''
`` I married the first man I ever kissed . When I tell this to my children , they just about throw up . ''
12 . She and George H.W . Bush were married 73 years . How did that sustain ?
`` One of the reasons I made the most important decision of my life , to marry George Bush , is because he made me laugh . ''
`` Find the joy in life , because as Ferris Bueller said on his day off , 'Life moves pretty fast ; and if you do n't stop and look around once in a while , you 're going to miss it . ' ''
-- Wellesley commencement , 1990 . Bueller was released four years earlier and was a cult hit at the time
`` At the end of your life , you will never regret not having passed one more test , not winning one more verdict , or not closing one more deal . You will regret time not spent with a husband , a friend , a child or a parent . ''
|
Barbara Bush Remembered In Her Own, Never-Minced, Words
Enlarge this image Scott Olson/Getty Images Scott Olson/Getty Images
Unlike her trademark three-strand pearl necklace, Barbara Bush was known for her authenticity.
The former first lady to President George H.W. Bush, and mother of President George W. Bush, died this week at the age of 92. Her funeral is Saturday, and those eulogizing her might not have to look far for inspiration — to her own words.
Bush spoke bluntly and unapologetically throughout her life. When asked to deliver the 1990 commencement address at Wellesley College, one of the Seven Sisters, 150 graduates protested the choice. The students argued her recognition was based solely on the achievements of her husband — not the Wellesley Way.
Mrs. Bush's response: "No big deal. Even I was 20 once."
(Barbara Bush herself attended another Seven Sister, Smith College in Northampton, Mass. She dropped out of school shortly before marrying then navy pilot George H.W. upon his safe return in World War II.)
The rest is a history chronicled by blunt talk and biting one-liners that inspired some and irritated others. Here are just a select few:
1. The enforcer
"He leads by example. I lead by denying some things. And I am the enforcer, there's no question about it. Do I like that role? No. Would I rather he had done it? Yes."
— C-SPAN interview Oct 29 2013
2. On why she wrote a book after her husband lost the 1992 election
"Well because my husband couldn't keep a job."
— Interview with Larry King 1994
3. 'Enough of the Bushes'
"There are other people out there that are very qualified, and we've had enough Bushes."
— NBC's Today Show April 25, 2013
4. On talking to reporters
"Avoid this crowd like the plague. And if they quote you, make damn sure they heard you."
— Advice to Hillary Clinton on talking to reporters, Aug 24, 1992
5. On Trump
"I don't think about him at all."
— When asked what she thinks about Donald Trump, CNN interview Feb 5 2016
6. On Geraldine Ferraro, Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1984
"I can't say it, but it rhymes with 'rich.'"
— Oct. 15, 1984
7. On not watching coverage leading up to the Iraq war
"But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this and what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer."
—To Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America, March 18, 2003
8. On Katrina refugees staying in the Houston Astrodome
"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."
— Sept. 5, 2005
9. On the criticism from a pundit that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life
"Raising five boys is a handful, trust me. Raising George Walker was not easy."
— On Fox
10. On women in the White House
"Who knows? Somewhere out there in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow my footsteps and preside over the White House as the president's spouse. And I wish him well."
-- Wellesley commencement, 1990
11. On finding love
"I married the first man I ever kissed. When I tell this to my children, they just about throw up."
It wouldn't be the last...
12. She and George H.W. Bush were married 73 years. How did that sustain?
"One of the reasons I made the most important decision of my life, to marry George Bush, is because he made me laugh."
— Wellesley commencement, 1990
13. Invoking Ferris Bueller
"Find the joy in life, because as Ferris Bueller said on his day off, 'Life moves pretty fast; and if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you're going to miss it.'"
-- Wellesley commencement, 1990. Bueller was released four years earlier and was a cult hit at the time
14. On last regrets
"At the end of your life, you will never regret not having passed one more test, not winning one more verdict, or not closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a friend, a child or a parent."
— At the Wellesley commencement speech 1990
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
CVAJJ20LamXd9kI7
|
white_house
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/29/trump-nra-investigations-1291447
|
Trump demands NRA 'get its act together quickly' amid internal turmoil
|
2019-04-29
|
Caitlin Oprysko
|
President Donald Trump chastised the National Rifle Association on Monday over infighting that has roiled the gun-rights group , demanding the association “ get its act together quickly ” as it stares down a probe launched by the state of New York last weekend .
“ The NRA is under siege by Cuomo and the New York State A.G. , who are illegally using the State ’ s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization , & others , ” Trump wrote in a tweet , referring to New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo . “ It must get its act together quickly , stop the internal fighting , & get back to GREATNESS - FAST ! ”
The NRA did not immediately return a message seeking comment .
Trump ’ s directive comes on the heels of a chaotic weekend for the gun-rights group that saw its president ousted by its chief executive after a power struggle and lengthy report alleging self-dealing within the association . That report also prompted an investigation by New York ’ s attorney general into its tax-exempt status .
On Saturday , the NRA also announced onstage during its annual conference that association President Oliver North would step down , a development that came days after CEO Wayne LaPierre accused North of attempting to extort him into stepping down .
Playbook PM Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what 's driving the afternoon in Washington . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
The group already faced questions about the strength of its finances and accusations of financial misconduct , but an investigation published about a week before the conference revived those questions , triggering a new wave of complaints .
In the 2018 midterm elections , the NRA was outspent by gun control groups for the first time , and despite pouring money into efforts to elect Trump , he has expressed opposition to several action items that the group has advocated for .
The NRA was also wrapped up in special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation . Hours before Trump addressed the group ’ s conference on Friday , Maria Butina , an admitted Russian agent , was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her attempts to infiltrate conservative groups , including the NRA , to promote Russia ’ s interests in the 2016 election .
Trump did not elaborate on his accusation that Cuomo and state Attorney General Tish James ’ targeting of the group was illegal nor did he provide evidence to back up his claim . But in a follow-up tweet he blasted his home state , which has been a reliable legal challenger to many of his policies , and urged the NRA to move its charter outside the state and therefore outside of James ’ purview .
“ People are fleeing New York State because of high taxes and yes , even oppression of sorts . They didn ’ t even put up a fight against SALT - could have won , ” he claimed . “ So much litigation . The NRA should leave and fight from the outside of this very difficult to deal with ( unfair ) State ! ”
|
Despite the NRA pouring money into efforts to elect him, President Donald Trump has expressed opposition to several action items that the group has advocated for. | Scott Olson/Getty Images White House Trump demands NRA 'get its act together quickly' amid internal turmoil
President Donald Trump chastised the National Rifle Association on Monday over infighting that has roiled the gun-rights group, demanding the association “get its act together quickly” as it stares down a probe launched by the state of New York last weekend.
“The NRA is under siege by Cuomo and the New York State A.G., who are illegally using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization, & others,” Trump wrote in a tweet, referring to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. “It must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, & get back to GREATNESS - FAST!”
Story Continued Below
The NRA did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Trump’s directive comes on the heels of a chaotic weekend for the gun-rights group that saw its president ousted by its chief executive after a power struggle and lengthy report alleging self-dealing within the association. That report also prompted an investigation by New York’s attorney general into its tax-exempt status.
On Saturday, the NRA also announced onstage during its annual conference that association President Oliver North would step down, a development that came days after CEO Wayne LaPierre accused North of attempting to extort him into stepping down.
Playbook PM Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The group already faced questions about the strength of its finances and accusations of financial misconduct, but an investigation published about a week before the conference revived those questions, triggering a new wave of complaints.
In the 2018 midterm elections, the NRA was outspent by gun control groups for the first time, and despite pouring money into efforts to elect Trump, he has expressed opposition to several action items that the group has advocated for.
The NRA was also wrapped up in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Hours before Trump addressed the group’s conference on Friday, Maria Butina, an admitted Russian agent, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her attempts to infiltrate conservative groups, including the NRA, to promote Russia’s interests in the 2016 election.
Trump did not elaborate on his accusation that Cuomo and state Attorney General Tish James’ targeting of the group was illegal nor did he provide evidence to back up his claim. But in a follow-up tweet he blasted his home state, which has been a reliable legal challenger to many of his policies, and urged the NRA to move its charter outside the state and therefore outside of James’ purview.
“People are fleeing New York State because of high taxes and yes, even oppression of sorts. They didn’t even put up a fight against SALT - could have won,” he claimed. “So much litigation. The NRA should leave and fight from the outside of this very difficult to deal with (unfair) State!”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
gQkyG5RfoHfHrlgB
|
middle_east
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/04/06/white-house-democrats-criticizing-iran-deal-are-principled-but-republicans-are-trying-to-kill-a-deal-n1981429
|
White House: Democrats Criticizing Iran Deal Are "Principled" But Republicans Are Trying to Sabatoge
|
2015-04-06
|
Katie Pavlich, Beth Baumann, Leah Barkoukis, "Cortney OBrien"
|
As negotiations between the United States and Iran continue over the terror regime 's nuclear program , the White House is arguing any criticism about Congress not being involved in negotiations is coming from Republicans with political motives .
But a closer look at members of Congress criticizing the White House deal with the Iranians shows it is n't just Republicans who are concerned about being frozen out of the process . A number of Democrats have also voiced their concerns . In fact , Democrats in the Senate are so skeptical of the White House refusal to involve Congress that Republican Bob Corker may have enough votes to override a deal should the President sign one at the end of June .
Regardless of bipartisan opposition , the White House is pinning opposition and criticism of the current deal and process on Republicans . The administration is painting Republican concerns as illegitimate while at the same time entertaining the same concerns of `` principled '' Democrats .
`` My view is that there are a number of members of Congress that have considered this in a principled way . And those are members of Congress with whom we can have legitimate conversations about our efforts to try and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon , '' Earnest said Monday afternoon . `` There are a substantial number of members of Congress , all of them Republicans as far as I can tell , who have engaged in an effort to just undermine the talks from the very beginning . ''
Earnest once again slammed Senator Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) and other Republicans who sent a letter directly to Iran 's Ayatollah last month explaining how any deal reached by the White House without Congress will be temporary .
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system . Thus , we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress .
First , under our Constitution , while the president negotiates international agreements , Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them . In the case of a treaty , the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote . A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate ( which , because of procedural rules , effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate ) . Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement .
Second , the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics . For example , the president may serve only two 4-year terms , whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms . As applied today , for instance , President Obama will leave office in January 2017 , while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades .
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei . The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time .
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress .
A deal is expected by the end of June after talks were extended last week . Guy has all of the details about what the deal looks like at this point and where talks may end up in coming months .
|
As negotiations between the United States and Iran continue over the terror regime's nuclear program, the White House is arguing any criticism about Congress not being involved in negotiations is coming from Republicans with political motives.
But a closer look at members of Congress criticizing the White House deal with the Iranians shows it isn't just Republicans who are concerned about being frozen out of the process. A number of Democrats have also voiced their concerns. In fact, Democrats in the Senate are so skeptical of the White House refusal to involve Congress that Republican Bob Corker may have enough votes to override a deal should the President sign one at the end of June.
Regardless of bipartisan opposition, the White House is pinning opposition and criticism of the current deal and process on Republicans. The administration is painting Republican concerns as illegitimate while at the same time entertaining the same concerns of "principled" Democrats.
"My view is that there are a number of members of Congress that have considered this in a principled way. And those are members of Congress with whom we can have legitimate conversations about our efforts to try and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Earnest said Monday afternoon. "There are a substantial number of members of Congress, all of them Republicans as far as I can tell, who have engaged in an effort to just undermine the talks from the very beginning."
Earnest once again slammed Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and other Republicans who sent a letter directly to Iran's Ayatollah last month explaining how any deal reached by the White House without Congress will be temporary.
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
A deal is expected by the end of June after talks were extended last week. Guy has all of the details about what the deal looks like at this point and where talks may end up in coming months.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
VD2a4AGEyyrRidUy
|
campaign_finance
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0304/Sen.-Robert-Menendez-faces-new-questions-on-ties-to-big-donor?nav=99-csm_subcategory-leadStory
|
Sen. Robert Menendez faces new questions on ties to big donor
|
2013-03-04
|
Husna Haq
|
More trouble is looming for Sen. Robert Menendez ( D ) of New Jersey : According to an Associated Press investigation , the embattled New Jersey Democrat sponsored legislation that , if passed , would have aided one of his biggest donor 's investment in a natural gas vehicle conversion company .
The report , published Monday , stated that Senator Menendez sponsored a bill to give tax credits and grants to truck and heavy vehicle fleets that converted to natural gas . The bill could have benefited Salomon Melgen , the Florida eye doctor whose close relationship with Menendez has spurred a Senate ethics investigation . Dr. Melgen is an investor and member of the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp. , which designs , manufactures , and sells products to convert diesel- and gas-fuel vehicles to natural gas .
Menendez ’ s backing of the natural-gas bill marks another convergence of interest between the politician and a major donor and is a thorn for the senator . But political watchers in New Jersey say the bill sponsorship is one part of a larger clean-energy agenda from the senator , who has a history of supporting environmental causes . As such , it is unlikely this latest allegation represents a conflict of interest , says Brigid Harrison , a political scientist at Montclair State University , who predicts that Menendez will survive the latest storm .
“ I ’ m still not convinced ... that this kind of behavior reaches to the status where it becomes enormously problematic in voters ’ minds , ” says Professor Harrison . “ I ’ m not seeing any illegality or conflict of interest here . ”
The bill-sponsorship revelation revives the larger issue of the senator ’ s relationship with Melgen , with recent reports suggesting that Menendez was providing political favors for Melgen in exchange for campaign support .
Menendez used Melgen ’ s private jet for two personal trips to the Dominican Republic in 2010 , flights that were not reimbursed until three years later , when news reports called the senator ’ s conduct into question .
Menendez also intervened in a Medicare billing dispute between Melgen and federal authorities , as well as a port security contract , allegedly in order to protect the interests of his friend and donor , according to news reports . The allegations are compounded by a $ 700,000 donation Melgen made to Majority PAC , a `` super political-action committee '' created to elect Senate Democrats that ultimately made a $ 582,500 contribution to Menendez ’ s 2012 reelection campaign , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
Menendez has vehemently denied all allegations of impropriety , including any allegations of conflict-of-interest stemming from this latest report . His office did not respond to calls regarding his sponsorship of the natural gas bill .
According to the AP report , Menendez joined Senate majority leader Harry Reid ( D ) and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch ( R ) as a key backer of the natural gas bill . Soon after , Melgen joined the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp. , which makes technology to perform such conversions . Though his investment in the company is confidential under US Securities and Exchange Commission rules , the company required a minimum investment of $ 51,500 , according to the AP .
Ultimately , the bill didn ’ t get enough votes to make it out of the Senate . However , while it was under consideration , a consultant for Gaseous Fuel Systems spent $ 220,000 lobbying Menendez and other congressional officials , according to interviews and Senate records as reported by the AP .
“ There is no evidence that Menendez offered direct help or intervened on behalf of the company or Melgen , ” the AP said in its report . “ Instead , the connection between the two men ’ s interests in natural gas is the latest example of the close symmetry between the senator … and his millionaire backer . ”
Evidence of “ close symmetry ” in this latest development , say analysts , is not enough to topple Menendez .
“ Menendez has been involved in clean-energy technology for a long time , ” says Ross Baker , a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick , N.J. “ In light of Melgen 's apparently limited and distant role in GFS , I think it is more of a coincidence than anything more sinister . I think it is as likely that Menendez got Melgen interested in converting truck fleets to natural gas as it was the other way around . ”
Other clean-energy initiatives the senator has supported include co-sponsoring legislation aimed at jump-starting offshore wind energy , extending solar energy tax credits , and creating block grants to spur green-energy projects .
Menendez recently reintroduced the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act and Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act , legislation he originally introduced in the 112th Congress to end tax subsidies for the “ Big 5 ” oil companies .
“ It isn ’ t that this came out of the blue , it ’ s part of a larger cohesive agenda ... to deal with energy issues the country is facing , ” says Harrison of Montclair State University . “ His record is an accurate reflection of his policy concerns , and this is one part of that . ”
And though the AP report singled out Menendez , the senator isn ’ t alone in supporting the natural gas bill – or in sharing a passion with supporters for similar causes . In fact , the House version of the natural gas legislation had 181 co-sponsors .
The natural gas industry spends hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying members of Congress , including Menendez and his staff . “ They are not alone in being lobbied , ” says Harrison .
Menendez ’ s ethics controversy has had an impact on his poll numbers , and this latest development may further damage the senator ’ s image .
A Quinnipiac University poll found Menendez ’ s approval ratings plummeted 15 percentage points between January and February , as news reports emerged about his relationship with Melgen . His approval rating dropped form 51 percent in mid-January to 36 percent in mid-February . The same poll found only 28 percent of New Jersey voters said the senator was “ honest and trustworthy . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
“ I don ’ t think these microbial issues that deal with campaign finance and sponsorship of legislation are enough to make a difference in most voter 's minds in this state , ” says Harrison .
|
More trouble is looming for Sen. Robert Menendez (D) of New Jersey: According to an Associated Press investigation, the embattled New Jersey Democrat sponsored legislation that, if passed, would have aided one of his biggest donor's investment in a natural gas vehicle conversion company.
The report, published Monday, stated that Senator Menendez sponsored a bill to give tax credits and grants to truck and heavy vehicle fleets that converted to natural gas. The bill could have benefited Salomon Melgen, the Florida eye doctor whose close relationship with Menendez has spurred a Senate ethics investigation. Dr. Melgen is an investor and member of the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp., which designs, manufactures, and sells products to convert diesel- and gas-fuel vehicles to natural gas.
Menendez’s backing of the natural-gas bill marks another convergence of interest between the politician and a major donor and is a thorn for the senator. But political watchers in New Jersey say the bill sponsorship is one part of a larger clean-energy agenda from the senator, who has a history of supporting environmental causes. As such, it is unlikely this latest allegation represents a conflict of interest, says Brigid Harrison, a political scientist at Montclair State University, who predicts that Menendez will survive the latest storm.
“I’m still not convinced ... that this kind of behavior reaches to the status where it becomes enormously problematic in voters’ minds,” says Professor Harrison. “I’m not seeing any illegality or conflict of interest here.”
The bill-sponsorship revelation revives the larger issue of the senator’s relationship with Melgen, with recent reports suggesting that Menendez was providing political favors for Melgen in exchange for campaign support.
Menendez used Melgen’s private jet for two personal trips to the Dominican Republic in 2010, flights that were not reimbursed until three years later, when news reports called the senator’s conduct into question.
Menendez also intervened in a Medicare billing dispute between Melgen and federal authorities, as well as a port security contract, allegedly in order to protect the interests of his friend and donor, according to news reports. The allegations are compounded by a $700,000 donation Melgen made to Majority PAC, a "super political-action committee" created to elect Senate Democrats that ultimately made a $582,500 contribution to Menendez’s 2012 reelection campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Menendez has vehemently denied all allegations of impropriety, including any allegations of conflict-of-interest stemming from this latest report. His office did not respond to calls regarding his sponsorship of the natural gas bill.
According to the AP report, Menendez joined Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) as a key backer of the natural gas bill. Soon after, Melgen joined the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp., which makes technology to perform such conversions. Though his investment in the company is confidential under US Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the company required a minimum investment of $51,500, according to the AP.
Ultimately, the bill didn’t get enough votes to make it out of the Senate. However, while it was under consideration, a consultant for Gaseous Fuel Systems spent $220,000 lobbying Menendez and other congressional officials, according to interviews and Senate records as reported by the AP.
“There is no evidence that Menendez offered direct help or intervened on behalf of the company or Melgen,” the AP said in its report. “Instead, the connection between the two men’s interests in natural gas is the latest example of the close symmetry between the senator … and his millionaire backer.”
Evidence of “close symmetry” in this latest development, say analysts, is not enough to topple Menendez.
“Menendez has been involved in clean-energy technology for a long time,” says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. “In light of Melgen's apparently limited and distant role in GFS, I think it is more of a coincidence than anything more sinister. I think it is as likely that Menendez got Melgen interested in converting truck fleets to natural gas as it was the other way around.”
Other clean-energy initiatives the senator has supported include co-sponsoring legislation aimed at jump-starting offshore wind energy, extending solar energy tax credits, and creating block grants to spur green-energy projects.
Menendez recently reintroduced the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act and Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, legislation he originally introduced in the 112th Congress to end tax subsidies for the “Big 5” oil companies.
“It isn’t that this came out of the blue, it’s part of a larger cohesive agenda ... to deal with energy issues the country is facing,” says Harrison of Montclair State University. “His record is an accurate reflection of his policy concerns, and this is one part of that.”
And though the AP report singled out Menendez, the senator isn’t alone in supporting the natural gas bill – or in sharing a passion with supporters for similar causes. In fact, the House version of the natural gas legislation had 181 co-sponsors.
The natural gas industry spends hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying members of Congress, including Menendez and his staff. “They are not alone in being lobbied,” says Harrison.
Menendez’s ethics controversy has had an impact on his poll numbers, and this latest development may further damage the senator’s image.
A Quinnipiac University poll found Menendez’s approval ratings plummeted 15 percentage points between January and February, as news reports emerged about his relationship with Melgen. His approval rating dropped form 51 percent in mid-January to 36 percent in mid-February. The same poll found only 28 percent of New Jersey voters said the senator was “honest and trustworthy.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
But Menendez does not face voters again until 2018.
“I don’t think these microbial issues that deal with campaign finance and sponsorship of legislation are enough to make a difference in most voter's minds in this state,” says Harrison.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
VfB9DL1L50wWZjU8
|
nsa
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-McCain-NSA-surveillance-ISIS/2015/05/07/id/643210/
|
John McCain: NSA Phone Surveillance Program Is Necessary
|
2015-05-07
|
Sandy Fitzgerald
|
Sen. John McCain said Thursday he is worried about a court 's ruling Thursday against the National Security Agency 's phone records collection program , as he believes the United States needs to have the ability to monitor communications . `` It is clear that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had known about the communications , '' the Arizona Republican , who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee , told Fox News . `` We have to have that capability . `` Earlier in the day , a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that the bulk collection of Americans ' phone records by the government exceeds what Congress has allowed.The panel permitted the National Security Agency program to continue temporarily as it exists , and urged Congress to better define where the boundaries exist.McCain said it 's important to preserve privacy and not overstep , and `` from time to time the government has done that , '' but still there should be a balance . `` We have to understand this threat , and people seem to have forgotten 9/11 , '' the senator said . `` People do n't understand there are thousands of young people all over the world who are motivated by this radical brand of Islam , which is our enemy . `` McCain pointed out that the Islamic State ( ISIS ) is recruiting people through the Internet . `` It is clear as long as ISIS continues to be perceived as proceeding , they are going to be attracting young men ... who want to go over and fight , '' said McCain . `` Throughout Europe , they have had hundreds of and thousands fighting for them . In the fighting in Iraq , the best fighters for ISIS were foreigners . So look , it is a huge challenge because of the penetration and ability of social media to bring and motivate young people to commit acts of terror and/or flock to Syria or Iraq to fight . Then they come back [ here ] . `` McCain also spoke about a government waste report he has presented with Sen. Tom Coburn , R-Oklahoma , that reveals some of the largest spending problems , including $ 15,000 for the EPA to study emissions from backyard barbecues ; $ 30,000 for Vermont puppet shows , and more.But those pale to the billions that are wasted in the Pentagon , said McCain , where overspending is `` our highest priority to eliminate . ''
At the Pentagon , `` we have duplicated staff , and we have staffs that are four and five times larger than they were during the Vietnam War , '' said McCain . `` We have to get rid of the duplicate ways in the Pentagon and get rid of sequestration because it is destroying our ability to fund the nation . ''
|
Sen. John McCain said Thursday he is worried about a court's ruling Thursday against the National Security Agency's phone records collection program , as he believes the United States needs to have the ability to monitor communications."It is clear that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had known about the communications," the Arizona Republican, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Fox News. "We have to have that capability."Earlier in the day, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that the bulk collection of Americans' phone records by the government exceeds what Congress has allowed.The panel permitted the National Security Agency program to continue temporarily as it exists, and urged Congress to better define where the boundaries exist.McCain said it's important to preserve privacy and not overstep, and "from time to time the government has done that," but still there should be a balance."We have to understand this threat, and people seem to have forgotten 9/11," the senator said. "People don't understand there are thousands of young people all over the world who are motivated by this radical brand of Islam, which is our enemy."McCain pointed out that the Islamic State (ISIS) is recruiting people through the Internet."It is clear as long as ISIS continues to be perceived as proceeding, they are going to be attracting young men ... who want to go over and fight," said McCain."Throughout Europe, they have had hundreds of and thousands fighting for them. In the fighting in Iraq, the best fighters for ISIS were foreigners. So look, it is a huge challenge because of the penetration and ability of social media to bring and motivate young people to commit acts of terror and/or flock to Syria or Iraq to fight. Then they come back [here]."McCain also spoke about a government waste report he has presented with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that reveals some of the largest spending problems, including $15,000 for the EPA to study emissions from backyard barbecues; $30,000 for Vermont puppet shows, and more.But those pale to the billions that are wasted in the Pentagon, said McCain, where overspending is "our highest priority to eliminate."
At the Pentagon, "we have duplicated staff, and we have staffs that are four and five times larger than they were during the Vietnam War," said McCain. "We have to get rid of the duplicate ways in the Pentagon and get rid of sequestration because it is destroying our ability to fund the nation."
Watch the video here.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
6ex6RFDeMbebBo34
|
middle_east
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/14/191543189/u-s-says-syria-crossed-red-line-now-what
|
U.S. Says Syria Crossed 'Red Line'; Now What?
|
2013-06-14
|
Eyder Peralta
|
On Thursday , the United States revealed that it now has `` high confidence '' that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against rebel forces .
This is a significant development because President Obama has often said that such a finding would cross a `` red line '' in the civil war that has killed at least 93,000 .
The big , looming question today is : Now what ? We 'll keep trying to answer that question throughout the day . But we 'll start with a rundown of the latest developments :
-- Small Arms ? : During a press conference with reporters on Thursday , Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes would not give details as to the type of `` military support '' the United States would now provide rebels .
Quoting `` American officials , '' The New York Times reports today that the Obama administration has decided to supply the rebels with `` small arms and ammunition . '' For now , the Times reports , the administration has not decided whether it will supply rebels with antitank weapons . The paper adds that anti-aircraft weapons are `` not under consideration . ''
-- Less Than Expected : NPR 's Deborah Amos , who has been covering the conflict , tells Morning Edition that for the rebels , the new U.S. position is `` less than expected . ''
The rebels have been asking for heavy weaponry that could take on the kind of fire power Bashar Assad has .
`` For them it 's an incremental shift , '' Deb said . They are much more focused on the upcoming battle for Aleppo .
-- U.K. Support : Rhodes also said the United States would begin to work with the international community . Today , British Prime Minister David Cameron said they share the `` candid assessment '' by the United States .
`` I think it , rightly , puts back center stage the question , the very difficult question to answer but nonetheless one we have got to address : what are we going to do about the fact that in our world today there is a dictatorial and brutal leader who is using chemical weapons under our noses against his own people . ''
-- Questioning Intelligence : U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he opposes military aid to the rebels . Not only that , but he cast some doubt on the U.S. intelligence assessment that found the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons .
`` The validity of any information on the alleged use of chemical weapons can not be ensured without convincing evidence of the chain-of-custody , '' Ban said , while calling for the on-the-ground investigation to continue .
-- The Question Of Russia : Russia has been Assad 's most ardent supporter — on several occasions thwarting attempts by the United Nations to step into the situation . As The Telegraph reports , the Kremlin has maintained there should be no foreign intervention in Syria .
The paper reports that MP Alexei Pushkov , the chairman of the Russian State Duma 's international affairs committee , was unconvinced by the evidence of chemical weapons use . Pushkov said on Twitter , according to The Telegraph :
`` Information about the use by Assad of chemical weapons has been fabricated in the same place as the lies about ( Saddam ) Hussein 's weapons of mass destruction ... Obama is taking the same path as George Bush . `` Why would Assad use ' a small quantity ' of sarin against the fighters ? What would be the point ? ! In order to give a reason for outside intervention ? There 's no logic in that . ''
-- Diplomacy Still An Option : NPR 's Michele Kelemen reports that Secretary of State John Kerry has not given up on Russia . Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Obama are set to meet next week .
NPR 's Deb Amos adds that this announcement by the United States comes just after the rebels suffered a significant defeat in the city of Qusair . Some worried , Deb said , that such a victory would embolden the Assad regime to walk away from the peace talks they had agreed to .
`` This announcement appears to be an attempt to recalibrate the balance of power on the ground , but still in the service of a negotiated settlement , '' she said .
-- A No Fly Zone : The Wall Street Journal reports that among the options for the United States is setting up a no-fly zone over Syria . The paper says :
`` Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria , military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border . `` To do that , the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom , according to U.S . officials . ''
-- 'Caravan Of Lies ' : Reuters reports that the Syrian Foreign Ministry called the White House statement about the use of chemical weapons a `` caravan of lies . '' The ministry also said the decision by the United States to provide military support for the rebeles reveals a `` flagrant double standard '' when it comes to how it deals with terrorism .
|
U.S. Says Syria Crossed 'Red Line'; Now What?
(This post was last updated at 1:31 p.m. ET.)
Enlarge this image toggle caption Dimitar Dilkoff /AFP/Getty Images Dimitar Dilkoff /AFP/Getty Images
On Thursday, the United States revealed that it now has "high confidence" that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against rebel forces.
This is a significant development because President Obama has often said that such a finding would cross a "red line" in the civil war that has killed at least 93,000.
The big, looming question today is: Now what? We'll keep trying to answer that question throughout the day. But we'll start with a rundown of the latest developments:
-- Small Arms?: During a press conference with reporters on Thursday, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes would not give details as to the type of "military support" the United States would now provide rebels.
Quoting "American officials," The New York Times reports today that the Obama administration has decided to supply the rebels with "small arms and ammunition." For now, the Times reports, the administration has not decided whether it will supply rebels with antitank weapons. The paper adds that anti-aircraft weapons are "not under consideration."
NPR's Deb Amos On Morning Edition Listen
-- Less Than Expected: NPR's Deborah Amos, who has been covering the conflict, tells Morning Edition that for the rebels, the new U.S. position is "less than expected."
The rebels have been asking for heavy weaponry that could take on the kind of fire power Bashar Assad has.
"For them it's an incremental shift," Deb said. They are much more focused on the upcoming battle for Aleppo.
-- U.K. Support: Rhodes also said the United States would begin to work with the international community. Today, British Prime Minister David Cameron said they share the "candid assessment" by the United States.
Cameron tells the paper:
"I think it, rightly, puts back center stage the question, the very difficult question to answer but nonetheless one we have got to address: what are we going to do about the fact that in our world today there is a dictatorial and brutal leader who is using chemical weapons under our noses against his own people."
-- Questioning Intelligence: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he opposes military aid to the rebels. Not only that, but he cast some doubt on the U.S. intelligence assessment that found the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons.
"The validity of any information on the alleged use of chemical weapons cannot be ensured without convincing evidence of the chain-of-custody," Ban said, while calling for the on-the-ground investigation to continue.
We've added a separate post on this issue.
-- The Question Of Russia: Russia has been Assad's most ardent supporter — on several occasions thwarting attempts by the United Nations to step into the situation. As The Telegraph reports, the Kremlin has maintained there should be no foreign intervention in Syria.
The paper reports that MP Alexei Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian State Duma's international affairs committee, was unconvinced by the evidence of chemical weapons use. Pushkov said on Twitter, according to The Telegraph:
NPR's Michele Kelemen On Morning Edition Listen
"Information about the use by Assad of chemical weapons has been fabricated in the same place as the lies about (Saddam) Hussein's weapons of mass destruction... Obama is taking the same path as George Bush. "Why would Assad use 'a small quantity' of sarin against the fighters? What would be the point?! In order to give a reason for outside intervention? There's no logic in that."
-- Diplomacy Still An Option: NPR's Michele Kelemen reports that Secretary of State John Kerry has not given up on Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Obama are set to meet next week.
NPR's Deb Amos adds that this announcement by the United States comes just after the rebels suffered a significant defeat in the city of Qusair. Some worried, Deb said, that such a victory would embolden the Assad regime to walk away from the peace talks they had agreed to.
"This announcement appears to be an attempt to recalibrate the balance of power on the ground, but still in the service of a negotiated settlement," she said.
-- A No Fly Zone: The Wall Street Journal reports that among the options for the United States is setting up a no-fly zone over Syria. The paper says:
"Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border. "To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials."
-- 'Caravan Of Lies': Reuters reports that the Syrian Foreign Ministry called the White House statement about the use of chemical weapons a "caravan of lies." The ministry also said the decision by the United States to provide military support for the rebeles reveals a "flagrant double standard" when it comes to how it deals with terrorism.
The Assad regime calls the rebels terrorists.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
KLfSxAx6SCjv9bNf
|
us_congress
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-shutdown/congress-to-vote-thursday-for-funding-bill-to-avoid-government-shutdown-idUSKBN1F71DO
|
Congress to vote Thursday for funding bill to avoid government shutdown
|
2018-01-19
|
Richard Cowan
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Legislation to stave off an imminent federal government shutdown encountered obstacles in the U.S. Senate late on Thursday , despite the passage of a month-long funding bill by the House of Representatives hours earlier .
Without the injection of new money , no matter how temporary , scores of federal agencies across the United States will be forced to shut starting at midnight Friday , when existing funds expire .
The Republican-controlled House approved funding through Feb. 16 on a mostly partisan vote of 230-197 , sending the stopgap bill to the Senate for consideration as President Donald Trump pushed hard for a measure to sign before Friday ’ s deadline .
However , a mix of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate who oppose the House bill for varying reasons left the legislation on the verge of defeat .
A bitter fight broke out on the Senate floor shortly after the House passage and was expected to continue on Friday .
That fueled speculation that Washington would either be thrown into shutdown mode or Congress would merely pass a very short spending bill - possibly for no more than a few days - to give lawmakers more time to negotiate .
Hovering over the government funding fight are November ’ s congressional elections , in which one-third of the 100-member Senate and all 435 House seats are up for grabs as Republicans battle to keep control of both chambers .
Complicating the effort was a demand by Democrats to attach an immigration measure to the funding bill to protect a large group of young , undocumented immigrants , known as “ Dreamers . ”
Trump has meanwhile continued to push to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico that many lawmakers do not want as part of any immigration deal .
With that as a backdrop , Republican and Democratic leaders were already casting blame on each other for a shutdown that was still not a certainty .
“ Senator Schumer , do not shut down the federal government ... It is risky . It is reckless . And it is wrong , ” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement , referring to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer .
Senator Patrick Leahy , the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee , issued a statement accusing Republicans of angling for a shutdown .
“ President Trump wants to shut down the government over his cynical and misbegotten ‘ big beautiful wall , ’ which will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers , NOT Mexico , ” Leahy said .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Democrats were aiming to “ hold the entire country hostage ” by demanding that a “ non-imminent problem ” related to immigration be resolved immediately .
Democrats want to put the Dreamers , a group of people brought into the U.S. illegally as children , onto a pathway to citizenship and protect them from deportation .
House Speaker Paul Ryan ( R-WI ) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) ( R ) arrive at a news conference with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill in Washington , U.S. , January 18 , 2018 . ███/Yuri Gripas
Trump said in September he was ending former President Barack Obama ’ s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program shielding around 700,000 Dreamers , who are mostly from Mexico and Central America . Trump set a March 5 deadline for Congress to write legislation to protect them .
However , Democrats have argued that an average of 122 Dreamers a day have been losing their DACA protections since September , leaving them in limbo .
Schumer , responding to McConnell , said : “ We all know what the problem is . It ’ s complete disarray on the Republican side , ” referring to conflicting immigration demands floated over the past several months by the Trump administration .
McConnell has said he would not take up an immigration bill until it was clear what Trump would sign . The president rejected a bipartisan Senate compromise last week after saying he would support one in theory .
Instead of passing a month-long patch to government spending , Schumer proposed a “ very short-term ” bill to keep the government running , which he said could spark a deal over the next few days on immigration and overall spending levels through Sept. 30 , the end of this fiscal year .
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin , who is leading the fight on behalf of Dreamers , met a teary-eyed group of the youngsters in his offices as the Senate wrapped up its work for the night .
He later told reporters that a high-level bipartisan meeting earlier on Thursday had showed signs of promise .
Durbin said the negotiators “ finally started talking about real issues , Dream Act citizenship and border security in more specific terms . ”
House passage came only after conservatives secured a promise from Ryan that he would soon advance some type of legislation to bolster U.S. military readiness , satisfying their desire for increased defense spending , said Republican Representative Mark Meadows , head of the House Freedom Caucus .
The 2018 fiscal year began on Oct. 1 . Congress ’ inability to agree on overall funding levels has meant that the government has been operating on a series of temporary measures that mainly kept spending at the previous year ’ s levels .
Besides extending government funding for a month to give negotiators more time to work on a longer deal , the House ’ s temporary spending bill would extend the Children ’ s Health Insurance Program ( CHIP ) for low-income families for six years .
Republicans inserted the measure in a move partly to lure Democratic support .
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Legislation to stave off an imminent federal government shutdown encountered obstacles in the U.S. Senate late on Thursday, despite the passage of a month-long funding bill by the House of Representatives hours earlier.
Without the injection of new money, no matter how temporary, scores of federal agencies across the United States will be forced to shut starting at midnight Friday, when existing funds expire.
The Republican-controlled House approved funding through Feb. 16 on a mostly partisan vote of 230-197, sending the stopgap bill to the Senate for consideration as President Donald Trump pushed hard for a measure to sign before Friday’s deadline.
However, a mix of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate who oppose the House bill for varying reasons left the legislation on the verge of defeat.
A bitter fight broke out on the Senate floor shortly after the House passage and was expected to continue on Friday.
That fueled speculation that Washington would either be thrown into shutdown mode or Congress would merely pass a very short spending bill - possibly for no more than a few days - to give lawmakers more time to negotiate.
Hovering over the government funding fight are November’s congressional elections, in which one-third of the 100-member Senate and all 435 House seats are up for grabs as Republicans battle to keep control of both chambers.
Complicating the effort was a demand by Democrats to attach an immigration measure to the funding bill to protect a large group of young, undocumented immigrants, known as “Dreamers.”
Trump has meanwhile continued to push to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico that many lawmakers do not want as part of any immigration deal.
‘RISKY, RECKLESS’
With that as a backdrop, Republican and Democratic leaders were already casting blame on each other for a shutdown that was still not a certainty.
“Senator Schumer, do not shut down the federal government ... It is risky. It is reckless. And it is wrong,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, referring to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.
Senator Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued a statement accusing Republicans of angling for a shutdown.
“President Trump wants to shut down the government over his cynical and misbegotten ‘big beautiful wall,’ which will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, NOT Mexico,” Leahy said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Democrats were aiming to “hold the entire country hostage” by demanding that a “non-imminent problem” related to immigration be resolved immediately.
Democrats want to put the Dreamers, a group of people brought into the U.S. illegally as children, onto a pathway to citizenship and protect them from deportation.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) (R) arrive at a news conference with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 18, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Trump said in September he was ending former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program shielding around 700,000 Dreamers, who are mostly from Mexico and Central America. Trump set a March 5 deadline for Congress to write legislation to protect them.
However, Democrats have argued that an average of 122 Dreamers a day have been losing their DACA protections since September, leaving them in limbo.
Schumer, responding to McConnell, said: “We all know what the problem is. It’s complete disarray on the Republican side,” referring to conflicting immigration demands floated over the past several months by the Trump administration.
McConnell has said he would not take up an immigration bill until it was clear what Trump would sign. The president rejected a bipartisan Senate compromise last week after saying he would support one in theory.
TEARY-EYED DREAMERS
Instead of passing a month-long patch to government spending, Schumer proposed a “very short-term” bill to keep the government running, which he said could spark a deal over the next few days on immigration and overall spending levels through Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year.
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who is leading the fight on behalf of Dreamers, met a teary-eyed group of the youngsters in his offices as the Senate wrapped up its work for the night.
He later told reporters that a high-level bipartisan meeting earlier on Thursday had showed signs of promise.
Durbin said the negotiators “finally started talking about real issues, Dream Act citizenship and border security in more specific terms.”
Slideshow (13 Images)
House passage came only after conservatives secured a promise from Ryan that he would soon advance some type of legislation to bolster U.S. military readiness, satisfying their desire for increased defense spending, said Republican Representative Mark Meadows, head of the House Freedom Caucus.
The 2018 fiscal year began on Oct. 1. Congress’ inability to agree on overall funding levels has meant that the government has been operating on a series of temporary measures that mainly kept spending at the previous year’s levels.
Besides extending government funding for a month to give negotiators more time to work on a longer deal, the House’s temporary spending bill would extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for low-income families for six years.
Republicans inserted the measure in a move partly to lure Democratic support.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
MeODZe3iNCC2t809
|
us_house
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/14/house-dems-mount-holder-defense-as-republicans-pursue-contempt-vote/
|
Holder agrees to give Issa internal emails on Fast and Furious, offers to meet
|
2012-06-14
|
Mike Levine
|
Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday agreed to make what he called `` an extraordinary accommodation '' to Republicans investigating the botched `` Operation Fast and Furious '' by turning over department emails he has long insisted deal with internal deliberations and should be protected .
Holder is trying to head off a push by House Republicans to hold him in contempt of Congress for allegedly `` stonewalling '' their investigation . And he offered to personally brief the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Rep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif. , in the next few days .
`` We believe that this briefing , and the documents we are prepared to provide ... will fully address the remaining concerns identified in the recent letters to me from you and House leadership , '' Holder said in a letter to Issa . `` The department 's willingness to provide these materials is a serious , good faith effort to bring this matter to an amicable resolution . ''
Issa 's office said in an early response that Holder 's letter `` only seems to indicate a willingness to offer a selective telling '' of key events and that the chairman is still asking the Justice Department to explain `` how it is prepared to alter its opposition to producing subpoenaed documents ''
Earlier Thursday , Holder 's allies on the committee mounted their own aggressive defense of the attorney general , circulating a memo to House Democrats that calls the Republican argument for contempt , laid out in a contempt citation last month , `` irresponsible , unprecedented , and contrary to the rule of law . ''
For more than a year , Republicans have been leading an investigation into `` Fast and Furious , '' which was launched in Arizona in late 2009 by Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives officials , with help from the U.S. attorney 's office there . The operation 's targets bought nearly 2,000 weapons over several months . But for reasons that are still in dispute , most of the weapons sold were never followed , and high-powered weapons tied to the investigation ended up at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States , including the December 2010 murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry .
Late last year , Issa issued a subpoena to Holder , and the Justice Department subsequently identified more than 80,000 documents responsive to it .
However , the department has turned over about 7,600 documents and insisted those not turned over include traditionally protected deliberative material , legally protected grand jury material and other investigative material relating to ongoing cases .
In recent days , Issa narrowed his demands to focus on correspondence between department officials after they sent a now-retracted letter to Congress on Feb. 4 , 2011 . In that letter , the department inaccurately insisted : `` ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico . ''
Issa says the documents he wants are `` critically important '' because , among other things , they could show whether top officials were `` surprised or were already aware '' about `` gunwalking '' in `` Fast and Furious '' when confronted with evidence contradicting the Feb. 4 letter . And the documents could further detail how the department handled officials who were negligent .
In his letter Thursday , Holder said he appreciates Issa 's `` narrowed '' request for information , calling it `` an important step forward '' and noting the department has `` repeatedly expressed concern that the production of ( certain ) materials would undermine the integrity and independence of ( its ) core law enforcement operations . ''
Holder said he is willing to turn over documents that , `` while outside the scope of the committee 's interest in the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious , '' show how his department 's `` understanding '' of the facts `` evolved throughout 2011 '' and how the Feb. 4 , 2011 , letter came to be withdrawn .
But in his letter , Holder insisted department leaders drafted the inaccurate letter based on assertions from others that the allegations being made were `` categorically false . ''
He also insisted , `` The record in this matter reflects that until allegations about the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious were made public , department leadership was unaware of those tactics . ''
Republicans scheduled the contempt vote against Holder for June 20 after accusing him of failing to comply with the subpoena and turn over tens of thousands of still-undisclosed documents . The measure , if it remains on the agenda , would be voted on at the committee level and would still have to be approved by the full House .
In the memo circulated Thursday , Democrats said , `` Holding the attorney general in contempt of Congress for protecting these documents is an extreme and blatant abuse of the congressional contempt power and undermines the credibility of the committee . ''
But a spokeswoman for Issa took issue with that assessment , saying , `` The only credibility that has been undermined is that of Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department who issued a false denial of reckless conduct . ''
Nevertheless , House Democrats also took aim more broadly at the Republicans ' investigation of `` Operation Fast and Furious , '' saying it `` has been characterized by a series of unsubstantiated allegations against the Obama administration that later turned out to be inaccurate . ''
`` Rather than conducting this investigation in an even-handed manner , the committee has politicized this inquiry by systematically refusing to investigate gunwalking operations during the Bush administration and by disregarding clear evidence that contradicts ( their ) political narrative , '' the Democrats ' memo states .
One of the `` most significant flaws of the investigation , '' according to the memo , is Issa 's refusal to hold a public hearing with former ATF head Ken Melson , who told congressional investigators in July 2011 that he never informed senior Justice Department officials about the tactics of `` Fast and Furious '' because he did n't know them himself .
In addition , the memo states , Issa has refused multiple requests for the committee to hear from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey , who could discuss `` the origination and evolution of gunwalking operations '' dating back to 2006 .
In late 2007 , Mukasey was sent a memo noting that the `` first-ever attempt '' to have a `` controlled delivery '' of weapons smuggled into Mexico was `` unsuccessful '' in tracking the weapons , but ATF would still like to `` expand the possibility '' of such cases with Mexico . It 's unclear if Mukasey ever saw the memo .
The spokeswoman for Issa , Becca Watkins , said the Democrats ' criticism is based on a `` fundamental misunderstanding '' about the facts of the case and the Justice Department 's `` failure to comply '' with the subpoena .
As for the contempt vote scheduled for Wednesday , the Democrats ' memo said negotiations could last into next week , and `` it is important for committee members to be fully prepared in the event that negotiations are unsuccessful . ''
In his letter Thursday , Holder told Issa that `` as the chairman only you have the authority to bind the committee , '' and therefore a meeting between the two `` is required both to assure that there are no misunderstandings about this matter and to confirm that the elements of the proposal we are making will be deemed sufficient to render the process of contempt unnecessary . ''
|
Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday agreed to make what he called "an extraordinary accommodation" to Republicans investigating the botched "Operation Fast and Furious" by turning over department emails he has long insisted deal with internal deliberations and should be protected.
Holder is trying to head off a push by House Republicans to hold him in contempt of Congress for allegedly "stonewalling" their investigation. And he offered to personally brief the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in the next few days.
"We believe that this briefing, and the documents we are prepared to provide ... will fully address the remaining concerns identified in the recent letters to me from you and House leadership," Holder said in a letter to Issa. "The department's willingness to provide these materials is a serious, good faith effort to bring this matter to an amicable resolution."
Issa's office said in an early response that Holder's letter "only seems to indicate a willingness to offer a selective telling" of key events and that the chairman is still asking the Justice Department to explain "how it is prepared to alter its opposition to producing subpoenaed documents"
Earlier Thursday, Holder's allies on the committee mounted their own aggressive defense of the attorney general, circulating a memo to House Democrats that calls the Republican argument for contempt, laid out in a contempt citation last month, "irresponsible, unprecedented, and contrary to the rule of law."
More On This...
For more than a year, Republicans have been leading an investigation into "Fast and Furious," which was launched in Arizona in late 2009 by Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives officials, with help from the U.S. attorney's office there. The operation's targets bought nearly 2,000 weapons over several months. But for reasons that are still in dispute, most of the weapons sold were never followed, and high-powered weapons tied to the investigation ended up at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States, including the December 2010 murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Late last year, Issa issued a subpoena to Holder, and the Justice Department subsequently identified more than 80,000 documents responsive to it.
However, the department has turned over about 7,600 documents and insisted those not turned over include traditionally protected deliberative material, legally protected grand jury material and other investigative material relating to ongoing cases.
In recent days, Issa narrowed his demands to focus on correspondence between department officials after they sent a now-retracted letter to Congress on Feb. 4, 2011. In that letter, the department inaccurately insisted: "ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."
Issa says the documents he wants are "critically important" because, among other things, they could show whether top officials were "surprised or were already aware" about "gunwalking" in "Fast and Furious" when confronted with evidence contradicting the Feb. 4 letter. And the documents could further detail how the department handled officials who were negligent.
In his letter Thursday, Holder said he appreciates Issa's "narrowed" request for information, calling it "an important step forward" and noting the department has "repeatedly expressed concern that the production of (certain) materials would undermine the integrity and independence of (its) core law enforcement operations."
Holder said he is willing to turn over documents that, "while outside the scope of the committee's interest in the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious," show how his department's "understanding" of the facts "evolved throughout 2011" and how the Feb. 4, 2011, letter came to be withdrawn.
But in his letter, Holder insisted department leaders drafted the inaccurate letter based on assertions from others that the allegations being made were "categorically false."
He also insisted, "The record in this matter reflects that until allegations about the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious were made public, department leadership was unaware of those tactics."
Republicans scheduled the contempt vote against Holder for June 20 after accusing him of failing to comply with the subpoena and turn over tens of thousands of still-undisclosed documents. The measure, if it remains on the agenda, would be voted on at the committee level and would still have to be approved by the full House.
In the memo circulated Thursday, Democrats said, "Holding the attorney general in contempt of Congress for protecting these documents is an extreme and blatant abuse of the congressional contempt power and undermines the credibility of the committee."
But a spokeswoman for Issa took issue with that assessment, saying, "The only credibility that has been undermined is that of Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department who issued a false denial of reckless conduct."
Nevertheless, House Democrats also took aim more broadly at the Republicans' investigation of "Operation Fast and Furious," saying it "has been characterized by a series of unsubstantiated allegations against the Obama administration that later turned out to be inaccurate."
"Rather than conducting this investigation in an even-handed manner, the committee has politicized this inquiry by systematically refusing to investigate gunwalking operations during the Bush administration and by disregarding clear evidence that contradicts (their) political narrative," the Democrats' memo states.
One of the "most significant flaws of the investigation," according to the memo, is Issa's refusal to hold a public hearing with former ATF head Ken Melson, who told congressional investigators in July 2011 that he never informed senior Justice Department officials about the tactics of "Fast and Furious" because he didn't know them himself.
In addition, the memo states, Issa has refused multiple requests for the committee to hear from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who could discuss "the origination and evolution of gunwalking operations" dating back to 2006.
In late 2007, Mukasey was sent a memo noting that the "first-ever attempt" to have a "controlled delivery" of weapons smuggled into Mexico was "unsuccessful" in tracking the weapons, but ATF would still like to "expand the possibility" of such cases with Mexico. It's unclear if Mukasey ever saw the memo.
The spokeswoman for Issa, Becca Watkins, said the Democrats' criticism is based on a "fundamental misunderstanding" about the facts of the case and the Justice Department's "failure to comply" with the subpoena.
"These opinions are unsubstantiated and without merit," she said.
As for the contempt vote scheduled for Wednesday, the Democrats' memo said negotiations could last into next week, and "it is important for committee members to be fully prepared in the event that negotiations are unsuccessful."
In his letter Thursday, Holder told Issa that "as the chairman only you have the authority to bind the committee," and therefore a meeting between the two "is required both to assure that there are no misunderstandings about this matter and to confirm that the elements of the proposal we are making will be deemed sufficient to render the process of contempt unnecessary."
Holder proposed meeting by Monday.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
2Aj2FHiYzTRL25pP
|
violence_in_america
|
Washington Post
| 00
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/plain-talk-about-police-race-is-not-enough/
|
Plain talk about police and race is not enough
|
2020-06-03
|
Jennifer Rubin, Opinion Writer
|
Now that is religious , moral leadership . Gregory was joined by other religious leaders — from the president of the Southern Baptist Convention to the Episcopal Diocese to Jewish organizations — who also denounced the violent assault on peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights .
Meanwhile , criticism of the police response to protests took a different tone . In Atlanta , six police officers were charged with aggravated assault . In New York , Gov . Andrew Cuomo ( D ) excoriated the performance of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York Police Department . “ I am disappointed and outraged at what happened in New York City last night , ” Cuomo said of the failure to halt looting . He continued , “ New York City has said they don ’ t want or need the national guard . . . . [ The NYPD ] is the largest police department in the United States of America . Use 38,000 people and protect property . Use the police , protect property and people . Look at the videos . It was a disgrace . I believe that. ” Cuomo drilled down on de Blasio : “ I believe the mayor underestimates the scope of the problem . I think he underestimates the duration of the problem and I don ’ t think they ’ ve used enough police to address the situation because it ’ s inarguable , but that it was not addressed last night. ” ( Cuomo has previously implored his state ’ s attorney general to review police abuse that was visible to anyone watching coverage . )
House and Senate Republicans , on the other hand , were mute or supportive of Trump with only a few exceptions ( e.g . South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott , Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse ) . The straight talk was left to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) , Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and a parade of outraged Democrats . One of the most powerful was Sen. Tammy Duckworth ( D-Ill. ) , who introduced her police reform bill and bashed Trump ( “ draft-dodging , wannabe tinpot dictator ” ) for using the military against Americans :
When I was in Iraq , we flew Black Hawks in the fight against Al-Qaeda to protect our troops . In Donald Trump 's America , those same helicopters are being used to intimidate peaceful protesters in our own nation ’ s capital instead . https : //t.co/wLS3gE6qw6 — Tammy Duckworth ( @ SenDuckworth ) June 2 , 2020
Remarkably , former president George W. Bush issued a statement on George Floyd ’ s killing . While not mentioning the current president at all , he did implicitly rebuke his approach . “ Those who set out to silence those voices [ expressing outrage over Floyd ] do not understand the meaning of America — or how it becomes a better place. ” He called for Americans to listen to those who have been aggrieved and to demonstrate compassion , empathy and seek “ a peace rooted in justice. ” Bush in due time should fully embrace that message and support Biden ’ s candidacy ; Trump is plainly incapable of helping unite the country as Bush envisions .
However welcome , the straight talk and moral leadership from Democrats , religious leaders and a former Republican president are not sufficient . So long as Republicans control the White House and Senate , no positive change will come about . So long as hundreds of political appointees mutely follow this president ’ s directives , they remain facilitators of violence and racial animosity .
Until Trump is gone , he may resort to increasingly extreme displays of force . The healing begins only when Trump and his enablers are banished from positions of power .
|
Now that is religious, moral leadership. Gregory was joined by other religious leaders — from the president of the Southern Baptist Convention to the Episcopal Diocese to Jewish organizations — who also denounced the violent assault on peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.
AD
AD
Meanwhile, criticism of the police response to protests took a different tone. In Atlanta, six police officers were charged with aggravated assault. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) excoriated the performance of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York Police Department. “I am disappointed and outraged at what happened in New York City last night,” Cuomo said of the failure to halt looting. He continued, “New York City has said they don’t want or need the national guard . . . . [The NYPD] is the largest police department in the United States of America. Use 38,000 people and protect property. Use the police, protect property and people. Look at the videos. It was a disgrace. I believe that.” Cuomo drilled down on de Blasio: “I believe the mayor underestimates the scope of the problem. I think he underestimates the duration of the problem and I don’t think they’ve used enough police to address the situation because it’s inarguable, but that it was not addressed last night.” (Cuomo has previously implored his state’s attorney general to review police abuse that was visible to anyone watching coverage.)
House and Senate Republicans, on the other hand, were mute or supportive of Trump with only a few exceptions (e.g. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse). The straight talk was left to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a parade of outraged Democrats. One of the most powerful was Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who introduced her police reform bill and bashed Trump (“draft-dodging, wannabe tinpot dictator”) for using the military against Americans:
When I was in Iraq, we flew Black Hawks in the fight against Al-Qaeda to protect our troops. In Donald Trump's America, those same helicopters are being used to intimidate peaceful protesters in our own nation’s capital instead. https://t.co/wLS3gE6qw6 — Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) June 2, 2020
Remarkably, former president George W. Bush issued a statement on George Floyd’s killing. While not mentioning the current president at all, he did implicitly rebuke his approach. “Those who set out to silence those voices [expressing outrage over Floyd] do not understand the meaning of America — or how it becomes a better place.” He called for Americans to listen to those who have been aggrieved and to demonstrate compassion, empathy and seek “a peace rooted in justice.” Bush in due time should fully embrace that message and support Biden’s candidacy; Trump is plainly incapable of helping unite the country as Bush envisions.
AD
AD
However welcome, the straight talk and moral leadership from Democrats, religious leaders and a former Republican president are not sufficient. So long as Republicans control the White House and Senate, no positive change will come about. So long as hundreds of political appointees mutely follow this president’s directives, they remain facilitators of violence and racial animosity.
Until Trump is gone, he may resort to increasingly extreme displays of force. The healing begins only when Trump and his enablers are banished from positions of power.
Read more:
AD
|
www.washingtonpost.com
| 0left
|
JsVEqgCxw6BEJObE
|
taxes
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/obamacare-makes-first-contact-with-many-on-tax-day/
|
Obamacare Makes First Contact With Many on Tax Day
|
2013-04-15
|
Chris Stirewalt, In July Of
|
-- The estimated cost of compliance to American taxpayers in 2010 , including tax preparation fees , hours worked and other costs , according to the IRS .
It ’ s D-Day for President Obama ’ s health law as millions of American tax filers face the deadline for reporting their status under Obama ’ s new entitlement program and their vulnerability to new taxes used to fund it .
Americans have been paying the biggest new taxes associated with the law since the beginning of the year : a .9 percent income tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income , both for top earners .
While the estimated cost of those taxes is $ 318 billon over the next decade , like this year ’ s other big tax hike , the 48 percent jump in the payroll tax rate for all workers , they occur automatically and don ’ t create sticker shock except for those who count every penny in every paycheck .
Americans are also already living with two other costly tax increases in the law .
Those facing huge medical bills were previously able to deduct any expenses above 7.5 percent of their annual income . That ’ s now 10 percent . This is a relatively small number of people , mostly with serious illnesses , and the pinch won ’ t come until they file their taxes next year .
The other change is a new cap on health savings accounts , now set at $ 2,500 . But consumers already got that word during the enrollment period for their health plans at the end of last year . Many will pay higher taxes , but in small sums mostly . ( The point of this regulation was more to discourage cash-based purchases of medical services and products and drive people into more expensive , comprehensive insurance plans to help insurance companies cover costs under the law . )
But today is the day when the compliance curve of the president ’ s law really starts to get steeper .
The Supreme Court ruled last year that whatever Obama and congressional Democrats called the penalty under the law for not having insurance , it is still a tax . And one can see why , since the initial point of contact for the uninsured with the law comes through the IRS .
The government will be using the tax returns due today to decide who will receive an estimated $ 25 billion in new insurance subsidies next year .
Enrollment in the new entitlement program is set to begin on Oct. 1 . The complex process of enrollment looks to be an even more daunting task than tax preparation . And with many states functioning differently and delays piling up , it could be a real goat rope .
But whatever comes out and whenever it goes into place , the tax returns due today will provide the initial basis for how one ’ s relationship with the government and health insurance functions .
Those making up to 400 percent of federal poverty levels -- $ 43,560 for an individual and $ 89,400 for a family of four in 2011 , according to the Kaiser Family Foundation – will be eligible for the new benefit .
The government will know from the tax forms due today how many Americans fall into that category . The government will still be working from estimates on how many of those folks in the subsidy zone don ’ t have insurance , but these forms will define the universe of those who may be eligible .
Then those individuals in the subsidy zone without insurance will have to decide whether to sign up for the program or face a fine .
By Tax Day 2015 all American taxpayers will have to provide proof of insurance to the IRS , so today starts the clock for those without insurance to either comply or face the penalty -- $ 95 for 2014 , $ 325 for 2015 and $ 695 for 2016 .
The purpose of the “ mandate ” in Obama ’ s law is to start herding people into the re-regulated insurance market , and Tax Day 2013 is the start of that great health insurance cattle drive .
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for ███ , and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com . Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http : live.foxnews.com .
|
“$168 billion”
-- The estimated cost of compliance to American taxpayers in 2010, including tax preparation fees, hours worked and other costs, according to the IRS.
It’s D-Day for President Obama’s health law as millions of American tax filers face the deadline for reporting their status under Obama’s new entitlement program and their vulnerability to new taxes used to fund it.
Americans have been paying the biggest new taxes associated with the law since the beginning of the year: a .9 percent income tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, both for top earners.
While the estimated cost of those taxes is $318 billon over the next decade, like this year’s other big tax hike, the 48 percent jump in the payroll tax rate for all workers, they occur automatically and don’t create sticker shock except for those who count every penny in every paycheck.
Americans are also already living with two other costly tax increases in the law.
Those facing huge medical bills were previously able to deduct any expenses above 7.5 percent of their annual income. That’s now 10 percent. This is a relatively small number of people, mostly with serious illnesses, and the pinch won’t come until they file their taxes next year.
The other change is a new cap on health savings accounts, now set at $2,500. But consumers already got that word during the enrollment period for their health plans at the end of last year. Many will pay higher taxes, but in small sums mostly. (The point of this regulation was more to discourage cash-based purchases of medical services and products and drive people into more expensive, comprehensive insurance plans to help insurance companies cover costs under the law.)
But today is the day when the compliance curve of the president’s law really starts to get steeper.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that whatever Obama and congressional Democrats called the penalty under the law for not having insurance, it is still a tax. And one can see why, since the initial point of contact for the uninsured with the law comes through the IRS.
The government will be using the tax returns due today to decide who will receive an estimated $25 billion in new insurance subsidies next year.
Enrollment in the new entitlement program is set to begin on Oct. 1. The complex process of enrollment looks to be an even more daunting task than tax preparation. And with many states functioning differently and delays piling up, it could be a real goat rope.
But whatever comes out and whenever it goes into place, the tax returns due today will provide the initial basis for how one’s relationship with the government and health insurance functions.
Those making up to 400 percent of federal poverty levels -- $43,560 for an individual and $89,400 for a family of four in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation – will be eligible for the new benefit.
The government will know from the tax forms due today how many Americans fall into that category. The government will still be working from estimates on how many of those folks in the subsidy zone don’t have insurance, but these forms will define the universe of those who may be eligible.
Then those individuals in the subsidy zone without insurance will have to decide whether to sign up for the program or face a fine.
By Tax Day 2015 all American taxpayers will have to provide proof of insurance to the IRS, so today starts the clock for those without insurance to either comply or face the penalty -- $95 for 2014, $325 for 2015 and $695 for 2016.
The purpose of the “mandate” in Obama’s law is to start herding people into the re-regulated insurance market, and Tax Day 2013 is the start of that great health insurance cattle drive.
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http:live.foxnews.com.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
moIQyyD0RvBaj9fq
|
healthcare
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/9/obama-defends-health-law-delays/
|
Obama defends health law delays
|
2013-08-09
|
Tom Howell Jr.
|
President Obama on Friday defended his signature health care law and lambasted Republican-led threats to dismantle the reforms , a public attempt to navigate his recent decision to delay one of the law ’ s key mandates and wave off a burgeoning threat to shut down the government over the controversial law .
“ The one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don ’ t have health care , ” he said in a White House press conference before his family leaves for vacation on Martha ’ s Vineyard , Mass .
“ There ’ s not even a pretense now that they ’ re going to replace it with something better , ” he added .
Mr. Obama was responding to critics of his July 2 decision to delay the law ’ s “ employer mandate , ” which requires employers of 50 or more full-time workers to provide health coverage or pay fines , without offering relief to everyday Americans subject to the law ’ s “ individual mandate ” to purchase insurance .
He said the decision was based on business leaders ’ concerns about the reporting requirements tied to the mandate . Normally , he said , he would approach Republican leaders and say they need to tweak the law .
“ But we ’ re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to quote-unquote Obamacare , ” he told reporters .
Republican aides laughed off the president ’ s assertions in a battery of Twitter messages .
The Republican-led House , they said , was more than willing to pass a bill that codified the employer-mandate delay into law .
Mr. Obama also downplayed a movement promoted by conservative groups and outspoken Republican Sens . Mike Lee of Utah , Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida to strike down any spending deals this September that include funding for the president ’ s health care law .
Mr. Obama said Americans have no patience for a government shutdown and that “ common sense will prevail . ”
“ We ’ ll see what happens , ” he said . “ We ’ ve got a couple months . ”
|
President Obama on Friday defended his signature health care law and lambasted Republican-led threats to dismantle the reforms, a public attempt to navigate his recent decision to delay one of the law’s key mandates and wave off a burgeoning threat to shut down the government over the controversial law.
“The one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don’t have health care,” he said in a White House press conference before his family leaves for vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.
“There’s not even a pretense now that they’re going to replace it with something better,” he added.
Mr. Obama was responding to critics of his July 2 decision to delay the law’s “employer mandate,” which requires employers of 50 or more full-time workers to provide health coverage or pay fines, without offering relief to everyday Americans subject to the law’s “individual mandate” to purchase insurance.
He said the decision was based on business leaders’ concerns about the reporting requirements tied to the mandate. Normally, he said, he would approach Republican leaders and say they need to tweak the law.
“But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to quote-unquote Obamacare,” he told reporters.
Republican aides laughed off the president’s assertions in a battery of Twitter messages.
The Republican-led House, they said, was more than willing to pass a bill that codified the employer-mandate delay into law.
Mr. Obama also downplayed a movement promoted by conservative groups and outspoken Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida to strike down any spending deals this September that include funding for the president’s health care law.
Mr. Obama said Americans have no patience for a government shutdown and that “common sense will prevail.”
“We’ll see what happens,” he said. “We’ve got a couple months.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
hMETh6T9guoHNLP2
|
us_constitution
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/16/opinion/navarrette-immigration-not-impeachable-offense/index.html?hpt=op_t1
|
OPINION: Chill out; it's not an impeachable offense
|
2014-11-16
|
Ruben Navarrette, Cnn Contributor
|
( CNN ) -- Like misery , failure loves company . Look at the immigration debate and how both liberals and conservatives -- and elected officials in both parties -- bungle it .
President Barack Obama has failed on immigration policy . But now that he appears to be poised to take executive action to fix some of what 's broken with the country 's immigration system , Republicans in Congress sound like they 're about to overreact and join him in that failure .
Conservatives love to stir their flock by pushing the narrative that Obama is a staunch supporter of `` amnesty '' and that the President has always been in lockstep with immigration reform advocates .
That 's fiction . It 's been a rocky relationship . That 's because Obama belongs to that wing of the Democratic Party that has n't been interested in legalizing the undocumented and creating more competition in the job market for U.S. workers .
Obama broke his campaign promise to make reform a top issue and eroded trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement by expanding 100-fold the program known as Secure Communities , which ropes local police into enforcing federal immigration law . He tried to fend off critics who wanted him to slow deportations by claiming that he did n't have the power to act `` as a king , '' only to later flip-flop and do just that during his 2012 re-election campaign when he unveiled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) .
Obama deported a record 2 million people in five years , divided hundreds of thousands of families , failed to deal effectively with thousands of child refugees who streamed across the U.S.-Mexico border last summer and then broke another promise when he said he would take executive action on immigration before the midterm elections but blinked .
Now , according to news reports that look like a trial balloon from the White House , Obama might , as early as this week , take unilateral action to offer several million illegal immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation and perhaps even give some of them work permits .
If it materializes , I 'll be proved wrong . A few months ago , I said this would never happen and now it looks like it might .
Options include some common sense items : Eliminating Secure Communities ; broadening DACA by eliminating restrictions on how old applicants can be and when they had to have arrived ; restating that the enforcement priority should be to remove violent criminals and not housekeepers and students ; and expanding visa programs for immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens .
But it 's the final item on the list that could really upset the apple cart : deferred action for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents , which could result in as many as 4 million to 5 million people getting a temporary reprieve from deportation . When those undocumented college students known as DREAMers first argued for special treatment , the claim was based on the simple idea that they were brought here as children and thus did n't intentionally choose to break the law .
Fair enough . But the same thing ca n't be said of their parents , who did intentionally break the law . Now what ? Is there a new argument ?
Besides , if Obama offers deferred action to parents , it will validate what conservatives have always insisted about how the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can be used to keep their parents from being deported .
That has never been the case . Parents get deported all the time , and their U.S.-citizen kids either go with them or stay on this side of the border and get put in foster care . Republicans have been wrong all along . Now , if he goes too far , Obama could prove them right .
If the President follows through on the proposed course of action , both sides will need to calm down .
Those on the left should hold their applause . By ending the deportation juggernaut , the President would merely be putting out a fire that he started . Besides , this is just a temporary reprieve that would require the undocumented to surrender to law enforcement officials , get fingerprinted and all the rest . And it could all be revoked by the next president .
Finally , this is not what Obama promised way back when -- that he would work aggressively with Congress to pass legislation that would permanently improve the lives of millions . This is n't reform . It 's `` reform lite . ''
Yet at the same time , those on the right need to rein in their scorn . In the post 9/11 era , conservatives should n't need a reminder of something they 've been telling us for years : how sweeping can be the executive power of the president . As head of the executive branch , Obama naturally has the power to set priorities for the enforcement of immigration law .
Republicans have no trouble deflecting criticism by reminding Latino voters that Obama is in charge of deportations . So , instead of threatening the suicidal tantrums of a government shutdown or impeachment , conservatives should pipe down and let him be in charge of deportations . That does n't just mean deciding who goes but also who stays .
Besides , Republicans like to talk tough about illegal immigration and the need to uphold the `` rule of law '' but that slogan would mean more coming from them if they did n't always run away from enforcing those laws that target the root of illegal immigration : U.S. employers who hire the undocumented , many of whom contribute to the re-election campaigns of Republican lawmakers .
What Obama has in mind is n't some kindhearted miracle or the coming of the apocalypse . It 's just a legitimate exercise of the power that any president would have under the Constitution and our system of government .
I know that is n't sexy , or inspiring , or inflammatory . It wo n't help the parties fundraise . But it does have the advantage of being true .
|
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Follow him on Twitter: @rubennavarrette. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- Like misery, failure loves company. Look at the immigration debate and how both liberals and conservatives -- and elected officials in both parties -- bungle it.
President Barack Obama has failed on immigration policy. But now that he appears to be poised to take executive action to fix some of what's broken with the country's immigration system, Republicans in Congress sound like they're about to overreact and join him in that failure.
Conservatives love to stir their flock by pushing the narrative that Obama is a staunch supporter of "amnesty" and that the President has always been in lockstep with immigration reform advocates.
That's fiction. It's been a rocky relationship. That's because Obama belongs to that wing of the Democratic Party that hasn't been interested in legalizing the undocumented and creating more competition in the job market for U.S. workers.
Obama broke his campaign promise to make reform a top issue and eroded trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement by expanding 100-fold the program known as Secure Communities, which ropes local police into enforcing federal immigration law. He tried to fend off critics who wanted him to slow deportations by claiming that he didn't have the power to act "as a king," only to later flip-flop and do just that during his 2012 re-election campaign when he unveiled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
Obama deported a record 2 million people in five years, divided hundreds of thousands of families, failed to deal effectively with thousands of child refugees who streamed across the U.S.-Mexico border last summer and then broke another promise when he said he would take executive action on immigration before the midterm elections but blinked.
Now, according to news reports that look like a trial balloon from the White House, Obama might, as early as this week, take unilateral action to offer several million illegal immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation and perhaps even give some of them work permits.
If it materializes, I'll be proved wrong. A few months ago, I said this would never happen and now it looks like it might.
Options include some common sense items: Eliminating Secure Communities; broadening DACA by eliminating restrictions on how old applicants can be and when they had to have arrived; restating that the enforcement priority should be to remove violent criminals and not housekeepers and students; and expanding visa programs for immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens.
But it's the final item on the list that could really upset the apple cart: deferred action for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, which could result in as many as 4 million to 5 million people getting a temporary reprieve from deportation. When those undocumented college students known as DREAMers first argued for special treatment, the claim was based on the simple idea that they were brought here as children and thus didn't intentionally choose to break the law.
Fair enough. But the same thing can't be said of their parents, who did intentionally break the law. Now what? Is there a new argument?
Besides, if Obama offers deferred action to parents, it will validate what conservatives have always insisted about how the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can be used to keep their parents from being deported.
That has never been the case. Parents get deported all the time, and their U.S.-citizen kids either go with them or stay on this side of the border and get put in foster care. Republicans have been wrong all along. Now, if he goes too far, Obama could prove them right.
If the President follows through on the proposed course of action, both sides will need to calm down.
Those on the left should hold their applause. By ending the deportation juggernaut, the President would merely be putting out a fire that he started. Besides, this is just a temporary reprieve that would require the undocumented to surrender to law enforcement officials, get fingerprinted and all the rest. And it could all be revoked by the next president.
Finally, this is not what Obama promised way back when -- that he would work aggressively with Congress to pass legislation that would permanently improve the lives of millions. This isn't reform. It's "reform lite."
Yet at the same time, those on the right need to rein in their scorn. In the post 9/11 era, conservatives shouldn't need a reminder of something they've been telling us for years: how sweeping can be the executive power of the president. As head of the executive branch, Obama naturally has the power to set priorities for the enforcement of immigration law.
Republicans have no trouble deflecting criticism by reminding Latino voters that Obama is in charge of deportations. So, instead of threatening the suicidal tantrums of a government shutdown or impeachment, conservatives should pipe down and let him be in charge of deportations. That doesn't just mean deciding who goes but also who stays.
Besides, Republicans like to talk tough about illegal immigration and the need to uphold the "rule of law" but that slogan would mean more coming from them if they didn't always run away from enforcing those laws that target the root of illegal immigration: U.S. employers who hire the undocumented, many of whom contribute to the re-election campaigns of Republican lawmakers.
What Obama has in mind isn't some kindhearted miracle or the coming of the apocalypse. It's just a legitimate exercise of the power that any president would have under the Constitution and our system of government.
I know that isn't sexy, or inspiring, or inflammatory. It won't help the parties fundraise. But it does have the advantage of being true.
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
RXfRVBlzwXvw491M
|
immigration
|
Breitbart News
| 22
|
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/report-immigrant-households-using-welfare-at-vastly-higher-rate-than-native-born-households/
|
Report: Immigrant Households Using Welfare at Vastly Higher Rate than Native-Born Households
|
2015-09-02
|
Caroline May
|
Immigrant-headed households in the U.S. use welfare at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts and that trend holds true for both new and long-time immigrant residents , according to a new study .
According to a report released Wednesday from the Center for Immigration Studies , 51 percent of immigrant-headed households ( both legal and illegal ) reported using at least one welfare program during the year in 2012 . Thirty-percent of native-headed households meanwhile used at least one welfare program .
The CIS report analyzed welfare data from the Census Bureau ’ s Survey of Income and Program Participation ( SIPP ) . Included in the center ’ s definition of welfare is Medicaid , cash , food , and housing programs .
“ If immigration is supposed to benefit the country , then immigrant welfare use should be much lower than native use , ” Steven Camarota the CIS ’ s Director of Research and the report ’ s author said . “ However two decades after welfare reform tried to curtail immigrant welfare use , immigrant households are using most programs at higher rates than natives . ”
Camarota noted that the skill and education level of many current immigrants is contributing to their welfare use .
“ The low-skill level of many immigrants means that although most work , many also access welfare programs . If we continue to allow large numbers of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country , then immigrant welfare use will remain high , ” he added .
While welfare use among both new and old immigrants is high — with 48 percent of immigrants in the U.S. for more than 20 years reporting welfare use — the rates vary based on region of origin .
In 2012 , 73 percent of immigrant-headed households from Central America and Mexico reported using one of more welfare program . Households from the Caribbean used welfare at a rate of 51 percent , African immigrants were at 48 percent , South America at 41 percent , East Asia 32 percent , Europe 26 percent , South Asia 17 percent .
The report further highlights that while immigrant-headed households use welfare at a higher rate than natives they also pay taxes at a lower rate .
“ On average , immigrant-headed households had tax liability in income and payroll taxes in 2012 that was about 11 percent less than native households , or about 89 cents for every dollar native households pay , based on Census Bureau data . Immigrant households have lower average incomes ( from all sources ) than native households and are a good deal larger , giving them more tax deductions . As a result , their average income tax liability is less than native households , ” the report reads
|
Immigrant-headed households in the U.S. use welfare at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts and that trend holds true for both new and long-time immigrant residents, according to a new study.
According to a report released Wednesday from the Center for Immigration Studies, 51 percent of immigrant-headed households (both legal and illegal) reported using at least one welfare program during the year in 2012. Thirty-percent of native-headed households meanwhile used at least one welfare program.
The CIS report analyzed welfare data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Included in the center’s definition of welfare is Medicaid, cash, food, and housing programs.
“If immigration is supposed to benefit the country, then immigrant welfare use should be much lower than native use,” Steven Camarota the CIS’s Director of Research and the report’s author said. “However two decades after welfare reform tried to curtail immigrant welfare use, immigrant households are using most programs at higher rates than natives.”
Camarota noted that the skill and education level of many current immigrants is contributing to their welfare use.
“The low-skill level of many immigrants means that although most work, many also access welfare programs. If we continue to allow large numbers of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, then immigrant welfare use will remain high,” he added.
While welfare use among both new and old immigrants is high — with 48 percent of immigrants in the U.S. for more than 20 years reporting welfare use — the rates vary based on region of origin.
In 2012, 73 percent of immigrant-headed households from Central America and Mexico reported using one of more welfare program. Households from the Caribbean used welfare at a rate of 51 percent, African immigrants were at 48 percent, South America at 41 percent, East Asia 32 percent, Europe 26 percent, South Asia 17 percent.
The report further highlights that while immigrant-headed households use welfare at a higher rate than natives they also pay taxes at a lower rate.
“On average, immigrant-headed households had tax liability in income and payroll taxes in 2012 that was about 11 percent less than native households, or about 89 cents for every dollar native households pay, based on Census Bureau data. Immigrant households have lower average incomes (from all sources) than native households and are a good deal larger, giving them more tax deductions. As a result, their average income tax liability is less than native households,” the report reads
Other findings in the CIS report include:
|
www.breitbart.com
| 1right
|
RJAYfrZwA9sqyJ28
|
justice_department
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rod-rosenstein-defends-justice-department-handling-of-mueller-report-11555021002
|
Rod Rosenstein Defends Justice Department Handling of Mueller Report
|
Sadie Gurman, Sadie.Gurman Wsj.Com
|
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Justice Department ’ s handling of the special counsel ’ s still-secret report , saying Attorney General William Barr is “ being as forthcoming as he can ” about his process for redacting and releasing the roughly 400-page document .
In his first interview since the conclusion of the special counsel ’ s investigation , Mr. Rosenstein beat back suggestions that Mr. Barr is trying to mislead the public by releasing only a four-page summary of Robert Mueller ’ s investigation . The attorney general in that letter said the Mueller probe found President Trump and his campaign didn ’ t conspire with Russian interference in the 2016 election but reached no conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice . With the absence of a recommendation , Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein determined Mr. Trump ’ s actions weren ’ t criminal .
Democrats have demanded access to the full report , which Mr. Barr said he would release , likely next week , after blacking out portions for sensitive information .
“ He ’ s being as forthcoming as he can , and so this notion that he ’ s trying to mislead people , I think is just completely bizarre , ” Mr. Rosenstein said .
Mr. Barr is under intense pressure to quickly produce the edited report amid concerns from Democrats that the attorney general , a longtime advocate of executive-branch authority , is seeking to protect the president from politically damaging information the report may contain . Their worries were heightened after reports that some investigators on Mr. Mueller ’ s team had told associates in recent days that they believe the report is more critical of Mr. Trump on the obstruction issue than Mr. Barr indicated in his summary . Mr. Rosenstein wouldn ’ t say why Mr. Mueller rendered no conclusion on that critical question .
“ It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said , ‘ I ’ m not going to give you the report , ’ ” Mr. Rosenstein said . “ What he said is , ‘ Look , it ’ s going to take a while to process the report . In the meantime , people really want to know what ’ s in it . I ’ m going to give you the top-line conclusions. ’ That ’ s all he was trying to do . ”
Mr. Rosenstein , Mr. Barr , their top advisers and a member of Mr. Mueller ’ s team have been involved in reviewing the report for material related to intelligence sources , continuing investigations , grand-jury matters and the privacy of individuals not charged with crimes . Mr. Rosenstein wouldn ’ t say how it was going , only that the public should have “ tremendous confidence ” in Mr. Barr .
The rare interview in Mr. Rosenstein ’ s fourth-floor office at the Justice Department came in his waning days on the job , with the special counsel investigation he oversaw now complete and Mr. Trump ’ s nominee to replace him , Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen , awaiting confirmation by the Senate . After nearly 30 years in the department , Mr. Rosenstein , 54 years old , said he doesn ’ t know what he will do next , only that he hopes to start a new job at the end of the summer .
His remarks came one day after Mr. Barr said he would form a team to examine the origins of a 2016 counterintelligence investigation that conducted what he termed as “ spying ” on people associated with the Trump campaign , a characterization Democrats and some former Justice Department officials , including fired Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey , found disturbing .
Speaking at a conference in San Francisco on Thursday , Mr. Comey said , “ When I hear that kind of language used , it ’ s concerning , because the FBI and Department of Justice conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance . I have never thought of that as spying . ”
It isn ’ t known whether Mr. Barr ’ s review will examine any of Mr. Rosenstein ’ s actions , namely that he approved an application to ask a court to grant continued surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page , who had long been on the radar of U.S. counterintelligence for his communications with Russians .
Mr. Rosenstein wouldn ’ t comment on Mr. Barr ’ s inquiry of that counterintelligence probe , but he said generally that he is open to objective scrutiny and stands by his approval of the renewal .
Mr. Rosenstein has been under an unusually intense spotlight as the No . 2 Justice Department official , largely because of his decision to appoint Mr. Mueller early in his tenure , which drew repeated swipes from Mr. Trump and concerns among some of the president ’ s advisers that he would move to fire the deputy attorney general . Mr. Rosenstein said he has stayed on the job at Mr. Barr ’ s request , adding , “ for me , it ’ s a real privilege . ”
Early on , at Mr. Trump ’ s request , Mr. Rosenstein wrote a memo that the White House initially cited as grounds for firing Mr. Comey . On Thursday , he said he stands by the memo and has few regrets about his time in office .
“ If you put something in writing , put your name on it and be prepared to stand behind it , ” he said . “ That ’ s been a theme of my career . ”
|
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Justice Department’s handling of the special counsel’s still-secret report, saying Attorney General William Barr is “being as forthcoming as he can” about his process for redacting and releasing the roughly 400-page document.
In his first interview since the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation, Mr. Rosenstein beat back suggestions that Mr. Barr is trying to mislead the public by releasing only a four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s investigation. The attorney general in that letter said the Mueller probe found President Trump and his campaign didn’t conspire with Russian interference in the 2016 election but reached no conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. With the absence of a recommendation, Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein determined Mr. Trump’s actions weren’t criminal.
Democrats have demanded access to the full report, which Mr. Barr said he would release, likely next week, after blacking out portions for sensitive information.
“He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre,” Mr. Rosenstein said.
Mr. Barr is under intense pressure to quickly produce the edited report amid concerns from Democrats that the attorney general, a longtime advocate of executive-branch authority, is seeking to protect the president from politically damaging information the report may contain. Their worries were heightened after reports that some investigators on Mr. Mueller’s team had told associates in recent days that they believe the report is more critical of Mr. Trump on the obstruction issue than Mr. Barr indicated in his summary. Mr. Rosenstein wouldn’t say why Mr. Mueller rendered no conclusion on that critical question.
Special counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report on the Russia investigation to Attorney General William Barr, but many of the details of that report may never be known to the public. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday explains why. Photo: Getty/AP
“It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, ‘I’m not going to give you the report,’ ” Mr. Rosenstein said. “What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do.”
Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Barr, their top advisers and a member of Mr. Mueller’s team have been involved in reviewing the report for material related to intelligence sources, continuing investigations, grand-jury matters and the privacy of individuals not charged with crimes. Mr. Rosenstein wouldn’t say how it was going, only that the public should have “tremendous confidence” in Mr. Barr.
The rare interview in Mr. Rosenstein’s fourth-floor office at the Justice Department came in his waning days on the job, with the special counsel investigation he oversaw now complete and Mr. Trump’s nominee to replace him, Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen, awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After nearly 30 years in the department, Mr. Rosenstein, 54 years old, said he doesn’t know what he will do next, only that he hopes to start a new job at the end of the summer.
His remarks came one day after Mr. Barr said he would form a team to examine the origins of a 2016 counterintelligence investigation that conducted what he termed as “spying” on people associated with the Trump campaign, a characterization Democrats and some former Justice Department officials, including fired Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, found disturbing.
Speaking at a conference in San Francisco on Thursday, Mr. Comey said, “When I hear that kind of language used, it’s concerning, because the FBI and Department of Justice conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance. I have never thought of that as spying.”
It isn’t known whether Mr. Barr’s review will examine any of Mr. Rosenstein’s actions, namely that he approved an application to ask a court to grant continued surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had long been on the radar of U.S. counterintelligence for his communications with Russians.
Mr. Rosenstein wouldn’t comment on Mr. Barr’s inquiry of that counterintelligence probe, but he said generally that he is open to objective scrutiny and stands by his approval of the renewal.
Mr. Rosenstein has been under an unusually intense spotlight as the No. 2 Justice Department official, largely because of his decision to appoint Mr. Mueller early in his tenure, which drew repeated swipes from Mr. Trump and concerns among some of the president’s advisers that he would move to fire the deputy attorney general. Mr. Rosenstein said he has stayed on the job at Mr. Barr’s request, adding, “for me, it’s a real privilege.”
Early on, at Mr. Trump’s request, Mr. Rosenstein wrote a memo that the White House initially cited as grounds for firing Mr. Comey. On Thursday, he said he stands by the memo and has few regrets about his time in office.
“If you put something in writing, put your name on it and be prepared to stand behind it,” he said. “That’s been a theme of my career.”
—Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this article.
Write to Sadie Gurman at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
kft7Wp38fru6J1Vd
|
|
coronavirus
|
Axios
| 11
|
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-unemployment-claims-job-losses-layoffs-d7b464a8-8db0-42a6-bb9b-01b9053a88a1.html
|
The coronavirus jobs apocalypse is here
|
Dion Rabouin
|
The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits jumped to its highest level in two years for the week ending March 14 , but that was nothing compared to the absolutely historic wave of job losses economists see coming .
The state of play : Goldman Sachs predicts that more than 2 million Americans will file for unemployment claims by next week , pointing to `` an unprecedented surge in layoffs this week . ''
The upcoming March 15-21 period is expected to see `` the largest increase in initial jobless claims and the highest level on record . ''
If Goldman 's economic forecasters are right , the number of Americans filing initial claims for unemployment benefits next week will more than triple the all-time high of 695,000 set in October 1982 , and nearly four times the number seen at the peak of the Great Recession .
The numbers are expected to be so bad the Trump administration has asked states to hold off on releasing them before Thursday , according to a Wall Street Journal report , citing an email from a U.S. Labor Department official .
Data : U.S. Employment and Training Administration via Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ; Chart : Andrew Witherspoon/███
The big picture : Thursday 's jobless claims report is likely `` only the tip of the iceberg : These numbers do not account for the surge of new claims from overwhelmed [ unemployment ] websites from coast to coast , '' Andrew Stettner , senior fellow at the Century Foundation and an expert on unemployment , told CBSNews .
To wit , New York , home to 463,000 workers in the food and hospitality sector as of 2018 , saw a 17,000 net decline in unemployment filings last week .
One level deeper : Based on anecdotes from a wide range of business contacts , Goldman 's economic research team foresees `` an unprecedented decline in revenues across many industries . ''
`` Consumer spending on sports and entertainment , hotels , restaurants , and public transportation in particular have already dropped dramatically . ''
Another perspective : Analysts at Bank of America Global Research expect a slower jobs drip , with the U.S. economy losing 1 million jobs a month .
`` We expect a total of approximately 3.5 million jobs will be lost , '' BofA strategists said in a note to clients before the release of the Labor Department 's initial jobless claims report .
They see the unemployment rate rising to 6.3 % , hitting the leisure & hospitality and retail industries the hardest .
`` These sectors have a high share of hourly workers - about 80 % for the former and 70 % for the latter . And these workers struggle to work from home . This means they are vulnerable to a reduction in hours worked and likely outright job cuts . ''
Go deeper : The coronavirus economic pain in the U.S. has begun
|
The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits jumped to its highest level in two years for the week ending March 14, but that was nothing compared to the absolutely historic wave of job losses economists see coming.
The state of play: Goldman Sachs predicts that more than 2 million Americans will file for unemployment claims by next week, pointing to "an unprecedented surge in layoffs this week."
The upcoming March 15-21 period is expected to see "the largest increase in initial jobless claims and the highest level on record."
If Goldman's economic forecasters are right, the number of Americans filing initial claims for unemployment benefits next week will more than triple the all-time high of 695,000 set in October 1982, and nearly four times the number seen at the peak of the Great Recession.
The numbers are expected to be so bad the Trump administration has asked states to hold off on releasing them before Thursday, according to a Wall Street Journal report, citing an email from a U.S. Labor Department official.
Data: U.S. Employment and Training Administration via Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios
The big picture: Thursday's jobless claims report is likely "only the tip of the iceberg: These numbers do not account for the surge of new claims from overwhelmed [unemployment] websites from coast to coast," Andrew Stettner, senior fellow at the Century Foundation and an expert on unemployment, told CBSNews.
To wit, New York, home to 463,000 workers in the food and hospitality sector as of 2018, saw a 17,000 net decline in unemployment filings last week.
One level deeper: Based on anecdotes from a wide range of business contacts, Goldman's economic research team foresees "an unprecedented decline in revenues across many industries."
"Consumer spending on sports and entertainment, hotels, restaurants, and public transportation in particular have already dropped dramatically."
Another perspective: Analysts at Bank of America Global Research expect a slower jobs drip, with the U.S. economy losing 1 million jobs a month.
"We expect a total of approximately 3.5 million jobs will be lost," BofA strategists said in a note to clients before the release of the Labor Department's initial jobless claims report.
They see the unemployment rate rising to 6.3%, hitting the leisure & hospitality and retail industries the hardest.
"These sectors have a high share of hourly workers - about 80% for the former and 70% for the latter. And these workers struggle to work from home. This means they are vulnerable to a reduction in hours worked and likely outright job cuts."
Go deeper: The coronavirus economic pain in the U.S. has begun
|
www.axios.com
| 2center
|
n0kQ9J7WjbDcPYkk
|
|
elections
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/07/27/analysis-folksy-impeached-president-endorses-scandalplagued-disliked-wife-n2198515
|
Folksy, Impeached President Endorses Scandal-Plagued, Disliked Wife
|
2016-07-27
|
Guy Benson, Leah Barkoukis, "Cortney OBrien", Timothy Meads
|
The DNC 's Tuesday agenda featured exactly one major primetime headliner : Former President Bill Clinton , who set out to build an emotionally-rooted case on behalf of his wife , whom their party had nominated for the presidency hours earlier . In 2012 , I remember sitting in the arena rafters in Charlotte , watching with helpless frustration and dismay as our 42nd president articulated the most compelling ( if fact-challenged ) argument for Barack Obama 's re-election that I 'd seen to date . He was masterful , weaving a plausible-sounding story in which Republicans were ridiculed as howling partisans , blinded by resentful and unrealistic expectations of his tale 's heroic protagonist . He went full policy wonk at times , somehow pulling it off . He made people believe that Obama and company were the adults trying to fix awful inherited problems , while the GOP shrieked in nihilistic protest . I recall the sinking , intuitive feeling that the race -- which was absolutely losable for Obama at that point -- had shifted with one speech . I awarded him a B+ in my postgame analysis , which was wishful thinking . The thrust of Clinton 's argument went largely unrefuted for weeks , with the glorious and fleeting exception of that first presidential debate in Denver . Bill Clinton really did help Obama win . Period . And Romney knew it , as evidenced by this memorable one-liner from his pre-election Alfred E. Smith dinner comedy routine . The best jokes have at least a kernel of truth to them :
`` Campaigns can be grueling , exhausting . President Obama and I are each very lucky to have one person who is always in our corner , someone who we can lean on , and someone who is a comforting presence , without whom we would n't be able to go another day . I have my beautiful wife , Ann ; he has Bill Clinton . ''
Tonight , Bill Clinton strode into the spotlight once again , this time to work his magic on behalf of his wife . He did well , I think , but did n't alter the trajectory of the race . That 's not to say that Hillary wo n't get a boost out of Philadelphia ; she very probably will , as Trump did after Cleveland . But that was not a lightning strike address . It was n't even the best speech of the first half of the convention . Still , it was pretty clear what he was trying to do . Before the big address , Megyn Kelly asked me if I thought Bill would seek to rescue Hillary 's drowning honesty numbers , which are deservedly and truly awful . My reply :
. @ guypbenson : “ ... can [ @ billclinton ] do anything to help rehabilitate her trustworthiness numbers ? I don ’ t think he can. ” # KellyFile — Megyn Kelly ( @ megynkelly ) July 27 , 2016
He did n't really even try . Instead , he set to work chipping away at her personal favorability gap , which is also a serious problem :
Reality check : Hillary Clinton 's unfavorable ratings -- CNN 55 % , Gallup 57 % , CBS 56 % . — Stuart Rothenberg ( @ StuPolitics ) July 27 , 2016
Clinton painted a portrait of a technocratic workhorse ( committees ! task forces ! ) who genuinely cares about people , and has channeled those sentiments into a lifetime of tireless public service . That was the whole point of his at times meandering reminiscences about their early life together . And putting a human face on a woman seen by many as power-hungry and calculating is precisely why he devoted quite a lot of time to describing Hillary as a mother . ( I do n't think talking about Hillary 's water breaking was simply tossed in casually ) . Along the same lines , Chelsea will undoubtedly lay the `` grandma '' color on thick on Thursday night . The former president traced his timeline up into the present day -- skipping certain unhelpful bits , like the year 1998 -- and adorning Hillary 's tenure at the State Department with the most impressive-sounding `` achievement '' language he could summon . His only partisan shots were a brief jab about mocking the disabled , and the suggestion that everything at the RNC last week was `` made up . '' In fairness , he is something of an expert on the subject of making things up . He did n't need to go uber-partisan , as he did four years ago , because his objectives were different this time . Bill Clinton can read a poll as well as anyone else ; he knows that most people already dislike Donald Trump . This was about boosting Hillary 's very slight and narrowing favorability advantage , not trying to drive Trump 's stratospheric unfavorability numbers any higher . His wife , he said , is serious and committed . The real deal . Believe him , he 's witnessed it for decades firsthand .
Was the speech welcomed rapturously in the hall ? Yes . They love him here . Did it play well on television ? I bet it did . It helped her . Was it a game-changing performance that 's likely to permanently alter people 's perceptions of Hillary Clinton ? I doubt it . She is still the same flawed , unlikable , dishonest , ethically-unfit candidate she was this morning . And if rumors and vows are to be believed , more embarrassments and ethical imbroglios may lie ahead for her . Bill Clinton has n't lost his touch as a marvelous political communicator , but there 's only so much he could work with here . His effort was admirable and solid nonetheless . But I suspect it did n't deliver the memorable political juice that his 2012 outing did .
|
PHILADELPHIA - It was fine.
The DNC's Tuesday agenda featured exactly one major primetime headliner: Former President Bill Clinton, who set out to build an emotionally-rooted case on behalf of his wife, whom their party had nominated for the presidency hours earlier. In 2012, I remember sitting in the arena rafters in Charlotte, watching with helpless frustration and dismay as our 42nd president articulated the most compelling (if fact-challenged) argument for Barack Obama's re-election that I'd seen to date. He was masterful, weaving a plausible-sounding story in which Republicans were ridiculed as howling partisans, blinded by resentful and unrealistic expectations of his tale's heroic protagonist. He went full policy wonk at times, somehow pulling it off. He made people believe that Obama and company were the adults trying to fix awful inherited problems, while the GOP shrieked in nihilistic protest. I recall the sinking, intuitive feeling that the race -- which was absolutely losable for Obama at that point -- had shifted with one speech. I awarded him a B+ in my postgame analysis, which was wishful thinking. The thrust of Clinton's argument went largely unrefuted for weeks, with the glorious and fleeting exception of that first presidential debate in Denver. Bill Clinton really did help Obama win. Period. And Romney knew it, as evidenced by this memorable one-liner from his pre-election Alfred E. Smith dinner comedy routine. The best jokes have at least a kernel of truth to them:
"Campaigns can be grueling, exhausting. President Obama and I are each very lucky to have one person who is always in our corner, someone who we can lean on, and someone who is a comforting presence, without whom we wouldn't be able to go another day. I have my beautiful wife, Ann; he has Bill Clinton."
Tonight, Bill Clinton strode into the spotlight once again, this time to work his magic on behalf of his wife. He did well, I think, but didn't alter the trajectory of the race. That's not to say that Hillary won't get a boost out of Philadelphia; she very probably will, as Trump did after Cleveland. But that was not a lightning strike address. It wasn't even the best speech of the first half of the convention. Still, it was pretty clear what he was trying to do. Before the big address, Megyn Kelly asked me if I thought Bill would seek to rescue Hillary's drowning honesty numbers, which are deservedly and truly awful. My reply:
.@guypbenson: “...can [@billclinton] do anything to help rehabilitate her trustworthiness numbers? I don’t think he can.” #KellyFile — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) July 27, 2016
He didn't really even try. Instead, he set to work chipping away at her personal favorability gap, which is also a serious problem:
Reality check: Hillary Clinton's unfavorable ratings -- CNN 55%, Gallup 57%, CBS 56%. — Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics) July 27, 2016
Clinton painted a portrait of a technocratic workhorse (committees! task forces!) who genuinely cares about people, and has channeled those sentiments into a lifetime of tireless public service. That was the whole point of his at times meandering reminiscences about their early life together. And putting a human face on a woman seen by many as power-hungry and calculating is precisely why he devoted quite a lot of time to describing Hillary as a mother. (I don't think talking about Hillary's water breaking was simply tossed in casually). Along the same lines, Chelsea will undoubtedly lay the "grandma" color on thick on Thursday night. The former president traced his timeline up into the present day -- skipping certain unhelpful bits, like the year 1998 -- and adorning Hillary's tenure at the State Department with the most impressive-sounding "achievement" language he could summon. His only partisan shots were a brief jab about mocking the disabled, and the suggestion that everything at the RNC last week was "made up." In fairness, he is something of an expert on the subject of making things up. He didn't need to go uber-partisan, as he did four years ago, because his objectives were different this time. Bill Clinton can read a poll as well as anyone else; he knows that most people already dislike Donald Trump. This was about boosting Hillary's very slight and narrowing favorability advantage, not trying to drive Trump's stratospheric unfavorability numbers any higher. His wife, he said, is serious and committed. The real deal. Believe him, he's witnessed it for decades firsthand.
Was the speech welcomed rapturously in the hall? Yes. They love him here. Did it play well on television? I bet it did. It helped her. Was it a game-changing performance that's likely to permanently alter people's perceptions of Hillary Clinton? I doubt it. She is still the same flawed, unlikable, dishonest, ethically-unfit candidate she was this morning. And if rumors and vows are to be believed, more embarrassments and ethical imbroglios may lie ahead for her. Bill Clinton hasn't lost his touch as a marvelous political communicator, but there's only so much he could work with here. His effort was admirable and solid nonetheless. But I suspect it didn't deliver the memorable political juice that his 2012 outing did.
Onward, to day three.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
mTyfTftf1uoafkUH
|
isis
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/08/25/isis-captures-n1882902
|
Confirmed: Another Military Base in Syria Falls to ISIS
|
2014-08-25
|
Daniel Doherty, Matt Vespa, Reagan Mccarthy, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas
|
The Tabqa airforce base , which was previously the Assad regime ’ s lone garrison in the northern region of Syria , has fallen to ISIS rebels , according to the Associated Press :
Islamic State fighters captured a major military air base in northeastern Syria on Sunday , eliminating the last government-held outpost in a province otherwise dominated by the jihadi group , activists and state media said . Tabqa airfield -- home to several warplane squadrons , helicopters , tanks , artillery , and ammunition bunkers -- is the third military base in the area to fall to the extremists since last month . Those victories are part of the Islamic State group 's aggressive push to consolidate its hold on northern and eastern provinces , while also expanding the boundaries of its self-styled caliphate straddling the Syria-Iraq border .
ISIS ' raison d'etre is to establish an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East ; and in order to accomplish this , they have committed unspeakable war crimes to consolidate power . The fall of Tabqa , therefore , was no different :
The group 's trademark brutality was on full display after those victories . They killed army commanders and pro-government militiamen , decapitating them before putting their bodies and heads on display . The Observatory reported similar acts following the fall of Tabqa Sunday . In the neighboring province of Deir el-Zour , Islamic State fighters also have overwhelmed outposts held by Syrian rebels , systematically picking off towns and villages one by one through force and intimidation .
This victory is no doubt a symbolic and strategic one for ISIS , although it seems ISIS forces didn ’ t get everything they wanted :
The warplanes from the base had already been taken to other locations before ISIS took control , the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported . It said ISIS fighters were seen carrying the heads of Syrian regime soldiers . Both sides were reported to have suffered heavy losses in the battle for the base .
Meanwhile , this latest development intensifies the debate about whether the U.S. should extend its airstrike campaign across the Iraqi border into Syria . President Obama , for his part , has n't yet made up his mind on this score -- but has n't fully ruled out the possibility , either .
President Obama is considering U.S. airstrikes in Syria against militants of the Islamic State , the White House said Friday . “ We ’ re not going to be restricted by borders , ” said Ben Rhodes , a national security adviser to the president . “ We ’ re actively considering what ’ s going to be necessary to deal with that threat. ” The bombing of targets in Syria would mark a significant expansion of Mr. Obama ’ s three-week-old air war against the Islamic State , which has been limited to targets of the militant group in northern Iraq . The U.S. has conducted nearly 100 airstrikes against the militants in Iraq since Aug. 8 , and some lawmakers have warned the White House against “ mission creep . ”
“ Mission creep ” is indeed a cause for concern for this administration . But if the airstrikes could maybe make a significant difference on the ground ( as they seemingly did in Iraq ) such measures should at least be seriously debated .
|
The Tabqa airforce base, which was previously the Assad regime’s lone garrison in the northern region of Syria, has fallen to ISIS rebels, according to the Associated Press:
Islamic State fighters captured a major military air base in northeastern Syria on Sunday, eliminating the last government-held outpost in a province otherwise dominated by the jihadi group, activists and state media said. Tabqa airfield -- home to several warplane squadrons, helicopters, tanks, artillery, and ammunition bunkers -- is the third military base in the area to fall to the extremists since last month. Those victories are part of the Islamic State group's aggressive push to consolidate its hold on northern and eastern provinces, while also expanding the boundaries of its self-styled caliphate straddling the Syria-Iraq border.
ISIS' raison d'etre is to establish an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East; and in order to accomplish this, they have committed unspeakable war crimes to consolidate power. The fall of Tabqa, therefore, was no different:
The group's trademark brutality was on full display after those victories. They killed army commanders and pro-government militiamen, decapitating them before putting their bodies and heads on display. The Observatory reported similar acts following the fall of Tabqa Sunday. In the neighboring province of Deir el-Zour, Islamic State fighters also have overwhelmed outposts held by Syrian rebels, systematically picking off towns and villages one by one through force and intimidation.
This victory is no doubt a symbolic and strategic one for ISIS, although it seems ISIS forces didn’t get everything they wanted:
The warplanes from the base had already been taken to other locations before ISIS took control, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. It said ISIS fighters were seen carrying the heads of Syrian regime soldiers. Both sides were reported to have suffered heavy losses in the battle for the base.
Meanwhile, this latest development intensifies the debate about whether the U.S. should extend its airstrike campaign across the Iraqi border into Syria. President Obama, for his part, hasn't yet made up his mind on this score -- but hasn't fully ruled out the possibility, either.
President Obama is considering U.S. airstrikes in Syria against militants of the Islamic State, the White House said Friday. “We’re not going to be restricted by borders,” said Ben Rhodes, a national security adviser to the president. “We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary to deal with that threat.” The bombing of targets in Syria would mark a significant expansion of Mr. Obama’s three-week-old air war against the Islamic State, which has been limited to targets of the militant group in northern Iraq. The U.S. has conducted nearly 100 airstrikes against the militants in Iraq since Aug. 8, and some lawmakers have warned the White House against “mission creep.”
“Mission creep” is indeed a cause for concern for this administration. But if the airstrikes could maybe make a significant difference on the ground (as they seemingly did in Iraq) such measures should at least be seriously debated.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
reDkkRKlmRw7geGh
|
nsa
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-keith-alexander-92669.html
|
NSA chief defends dual cyber, intel roles
|
2013-06-12
|
Burgess Everett
|
Alexander said on Capitol Hill that the two roles shouldn ’ t be divorced . | John Shinkle/███ NSA director defends surveillance
Controversial surveillance practices that spilled into public view through a series of dramatic leaks last week have helped to avert “ dozens of terrorist events ” in recent years , National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander told a Senate committee Wednesday .
However , the longer the NSA director spoke before the Senate Appropriations Committee , the less clear it became just which surveillance programs he was crediting for those successes .
His answer came in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-Vt. ) about call-tracking surveillance conducted under Patriot Act Section 215 .
Alexander said it was difficult to segregate information obtained under that provision from another practice disclosed by leak last week : a system that gathers bulk data from internet providers , e-mail services and social media sites . That system is aimed at foreigners outside the United States , though it sometimes data from Americans or foreigners on U.S. soil is swept in as well .
“ These authorities complement each other . The reality is , they work together , ” said Alexander .
It was also not clear whether Alexander was attributing the prevention of dozens of terrorist events to the phone-call tracking program or to the use of Section 215 more generally . Beyond the mass collection of phone records revealed last week , that provision can be used to acquire a variety of business records .
“ Clearly , this authority is being used for something more than phone records , ” Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-Ill. ) said .
However , Alexander made it clear there are limits to the NSA ’ s surveillance
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) asked whether it was true that the NSA had the ability to tap into Americans ’ phone calls and electronic communications .
“ False . I know of no way to do that , ” Alexander responded .
The NSA chief , who is also a four-star Army general who oversees the U.S. Cyber Command , said he is pressing to declassify information on how often the information has been useful . “ I ’ m pushing for that , ” he said . “ We do want to get this right and it has to be vetted across the community so what we give you , you know , is accurate . ”
Leahy complained that the intelligence community has been dismissive of past congressional efforts to rein in the practices .
The “ intelligence community has told us we obviously don ’ t have the ability as simple senators to know things as well as you do , ” Leahy said , paraphrasing what he ’ s been told about NSA ’ s programs as : “ Congress shouldn ’ t tinker with it at all . We should simply trust you . ”
The Senate hearing was called to address efforts to protect Americans from cyber attacks , but it took less than an hour for senators to turn their focus to the question of government surveillance .
At the outset of the session , Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski ( D-Md . ) encouraged her colleagues to put off questions about the hot surveillance issues to other hearings to take place in the future . Multiple times she interrupted their questions of Alexander about domestic surveillance to plead with them to put off questions on the phone records programs .
“ In the last several days , many intelligence issues have been in the press…I understand that these are issues that are very much on the public ’ s mind and members of the Senate , ” Mikulski said . “ That ’ s not today . That ’ s for another day . ”
However , Mikulski was clearly sensitive to suggestions she was trying to steer the hearing away from the surveillance issues that have dominated the news in recent days . She publicly took exception to a BuzzFeed reporter ’ s tweet saying Mikulski was “ trying hard ” to keep other senators from delving into the data mining issue
” There is no attempt here to muzzle — stifle any senator from asking any line of question , ” Mikulski insisted .
While he wasn ’ t immediately asked about the revelations of phone-call tracking and Web surveillance aimed at foreigners , Alexander used part of his opening statement to defend his workforce as respectful of privacy .
|
Alexander said on Capitol Hill that the two roles shouldn’t be divorced. | John Shinkle/POLITICO NSA director defends surveillance
Controversial surveillance practices that spilled into public view through a series of dramatic leaks last week have helped to avert “dozens of terrorist events” in recent years, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander told a Senate committee Wednesday.
However, the longer the NSA director spoke before the Senate Appropriations Committee, the less clear it became just which surveillance programs he was crediting for those successes.
Story Continued Below
His answer came in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) about call-tracking surveillance conducted under Patriot Act Section 215.
( PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)
Alexander said it was difficult to segregate information obtained under that provision from another practice disclosed by leak last week: a system that gathers bulk data from internet providers, e-mail services and social media sites. That system is aimed at foreigners outside the United States, though it sometimes data from Americans or foreigners on U.S. soil is swept in as well.
“These authorities complement each other. The reality is, they work together,” said Alexander.
It was also not clear whether Alexander was attributing the prevention of dozens of terrorist events to the phone-call tracking program or to the use of Section 215 more generally. Beyond the mass collection of phone records revealed last week, that provision can be used to acquire a variety of business records.
“Clearly, this authority is being used for something more than phone records,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.
However, Alexander made it clear there are limits to the NSA’s surveillance
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked whether it was true that the NSA had the ability to tap into Americans’ phone calls and electronic communications.
“False. I know of no way to do that,” Alexander responded.
The NSA chief, who is also a four-star Army general who oversees the U.S. Cyber Command, said he is pressing to declassify information on how often the information has been useful. “I’m pushing for that,” he said. “We do want to get this right and it has to be vetted across the community so what we give you, you know, is accurate.”
Leahy complained that the intelligence community has been dismissive of past congressional efforts to rein in the practices.
The “intelligence community has told us we obviously don’t have the ability as simple senators to know things as well as you do,” Leahy said, paraphrasing what he’s been told about NSA’s programs as: “Congress shouldn’t tinker with it at all. We should simply trust you.”
The Senate hearing was called to address efforts to protect Americans from cyber attacks, but it took less than an hour for senators to turn their focus to the question of government surveillance.
At the outset of the session, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) encouraged her colleagues to put off questions about the hot surveillance issues to other hearings to take place in the future. Multiple times she interrupted their questions of Alexander about domestic surveillance to plead with them to put off questions on the phone records programs.
“In the last several days, many intelligence issues have been in the press…I understand that these are issues that are very much on the public’s mind and members of the Senate,” Mikulski said. “That’s not today. That’s for another day.”
However, Mikulski was clearly sensitive to suggestions she was trying to steer the hearing away from the surveillance issues that have dominated the news in recent days. She publicly took exception to a BuzzFeed reporter’s tweet saying Mikulski was “trying hard” to keep other senators from delving into the data mining issue
”There is no attempt here to muzzle — stifle any senator from asking any line of question,” Mikulski insisted.
While he wasn’t immediately asked about the revelations of phone-call tracking and Web surveillance aimed at foreigners, Alexander used part of his opening statement to defend his workforce as respectful of privacy.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
yOyaS4kERudGU27R
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/22/smith-wesson-stop-selling-guns-california-due-micr/
|
Smith & Wesson to stop selling guns in California due to microstamping law
|
2014-01-22
|
Emily Miller
|
Smith & Wesson announced it will stop selling its handguns in California rather than manufacture them to comply with the new microstamping law . The other publicly traded firearms manufacturer in the U.S. , Sturm , Ruger , also said this month that it will stop new sales to California .
The announcement late Wednesday came a week after the National Shooting Sports Foundation ( NSSF ) , the trade association for firearms manufacturers , filed suit against California for requiring that all new semi-automatic pistols that are not already on the state ’ s approved gun roster have the microstamping technology .
Microstamping is a patented process that , in theory , would have a unique code on the tip of a gun ’ s firing pin that would engrave that information on the casing when fired .
Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney said , “ As our products fall off the roster due to California ’ s interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act , we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations . ”
Mr. Debney added that he encourages the public to “ support the NSSF ’ s lawsuit and other efforts to stop microstamping , before it impacts your constitutional rights. ” The law was passed in 2007 but did not go into effect until May 2013 .
The company reported that all M & P pistols ( other than the M & P Shield ) will fall off the roster by August because of performance enhancements , which will make them subject to the microstamping regulation . The M & P9c has already been taken off the list , and several more M & P models will be unavailable for Californians to purchase by the end of January .
SEE ALSO : MILLER : Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama ’ s radical , gun-control aims
Smith & Wesson will continue to sell revolvers , bolt action rifles and its newly-launched Shield and SDVE pistols in California .
The District of Columbia is the only other place in the country that has mandated microstamping . It was supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1 , but the city council passed an emergency measure in December to postpone it until 2016 .
A spokesman for Phil Mendelson , the city council chairman who wrote the D.C. law , told me that , “ The decision to delay was made recently in order to piggyback on the California program and create more of a market for gun manufacturers . ”
In other words , there were no manufacturers willing to stick this unproven contraption on their firearms , which meant no new ones could be sold in the city .
While that would fit with the District ’ s anti-gun agenda , the politicians are clever enough to know that banning all new guns would just help the plaintiffs in the Heller II case that is challenging all the registrations laws written in 2009 .
Microstamping is simply a ban on guns . California and D.C. will have a short period to enjoy their gun grab until the courts rule that this dictate violates the Second Amendment .
Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The ███ and author of “ Emily Gets Her Gun ” ( Regnery , 2013 ) .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Smith & Wesson announced it will stop selling its handguns in California rather than manufacture them to comply with the new microstamping law. The other publicly traded firearms manufacturer in the U.S., Sturm, Ruger, also said this month that it will stop new sales to California.
The announcement late Wednesday came a week after the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, filed suit against California for requiring that all new semi-automatic pistols that are not already on the state’s approved gun roster have the microstamping technology.
Microstamping is a patented process that, in theory, would have a unique code on the tip of a gun’s firing pin that would engrave that information on the casing when fired.
Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney said, “As our products fall off the roster due to California’s interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act, we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations.”
Mr. Debney added that he encourages the public to “support the NSSF’s lawsuit and other efforts to stop microstamping, before it impacts your constitutional rights.” The law was passed in 2007 but did not go into effect until May 2013.
The company reported that all M&P pistols (other than the M&P Shield) will fall off the roster by August because of performance enhancements, which will make them subject to the microstamping regulation. The M&P9c has already been taken off the list, and several more M&P models will be unavailable for Californians to purchase by the end of January.
SEE ALSO: MILLER: Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims
Smith & Wesson will continue to sell revolvers, bolt action rifles and its newly-launched Shield and SDVE pistols in California.
The District of Columbia is the only other place in the country that has mandated microstamping. It was supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1, but the city council passed an emergency measure in December to postpone it until 2016.
A spokesman for Phil Mendelson, the city council chairman who wrote the D.C. law, told me that, “The decision to delay was made recently in order to piggyback on the California program and create more of a market for gun manufacturers.”
In other words, there were no manufacturers willing to stick this unproven contraption on their firearms, which meant no new ones could be sold in the city.
While that would fit with the District’s anti-gun agenda, the politicians are clever enough to know that banning all new guns would just help the plaintiffs in the Heller II case that is challenging all the registrations laws written in 2009.
Microstamping is simply a ban on guns. California and D.C. will have a short period to enjoy their gun grab until the courts rule that this dictate violates the Second Amendment.
Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of “Emily Gets Her Gun” (Regnery, 2013).
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
mFjbq5xE2iqziXMQ
|
north_korea
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/13/north-korea-praises-donald-trumps-enthusiasm-after/
|
North Korea praises Trump's 'enthusiasm' after historic summit
|
2018-06-13
|
Dave Boyer
|
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is praising President Trump ’ s “ realistic ” approach to negotiations with Pyongyang , North Korea ’ s leading state-run newspaper reported Wednesday after the landmark summit between the two leaders .
Mr. Kim “ highly praised the president ’ s will and enthusiasm to resolve matters in a realistic way through dialogue and negotiations , away from the hostility-woven past , ” the newspaper Rodong Sinmun reported in extensive coverage of the summit .
The paper also reported that Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump “ gladly accepted each other ’ s invitation ” to visit Pyongyang and Washington , respectively , in follow-up meetings from the denuclearization summit .
At their meeting in Singapore , Mr. Kim pledged the “ complete denuclearization ” of the Korean Peninsula , although the agreement lacks details of how that could be achieved .
The coverage in the state-run paper , including 33 images of Mr. Trump , Mr. Kim and others at the summit , praised the “ will of the top leaders of the two countries to put an end to the extreme hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S . ”
According to a summary in NK News , the coverage in North Korea highlighted Mr. Trump ’ s promise to end joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises , but didn ’ t mention Mr. Kim ’ s promise to destroy a major missile-engine test site in North Korea .
Mr. Trump , who returned to the White House Wednesday morning , said as a result of the summit , “ everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office . ”
“ There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea , ” he tweeted . “ Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience . North Korea has great potential for the future ! ”
“ This is truly delusional , ” tweeted Sen. Chris Van Hollen , Maryland Democrat . “ It [ North Korea ] has same arsenal today as 48 hours ago . Does he really think his big photo-op ended the [ North Korea ‘ s ] nuclear program ? Hope does not equal reality . ”
|
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is praising President Trump’s “realistic” approach to negotiations with Pyongyang, North Korea’s leading state-run newspaper reported Wednesday after the landmark summit between the two leaders.
Mr. Kim “highly praised the president’s will and enthusiasm to resolve matters in a realistic way through dialogue and negotiations, away from the hostility-woven past,” the newspaper Rodong Sinmun reported in extensive coverage of the summit.
The paper also reported that Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump “gladly accepted each other’s invitation” to visit Pyongyang and Washington, respectively, in follow-up meetings from the denuclearization summit.
At their meeting in Singapore, Mr. Kim pledged the “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula, although the agreement lacks details of how that could be achieved.
The coverage in the state-run paper, including 33 images of Mr. Trump, Mr. Kim and others at the summit, praised the “will of the top leaders of the two countries to put an end to the extreme hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S.”
According to a summary in NK News, the coverage in North Korea highlighted Mr. Trump’s promise to end joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises, but didn’t mention Mr. Kim’s promise to destroy a major missile-engine test site in North Korea.
Mr. Trump, who returned to the White House Wednesday morning, said as a result of the summit, “everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office.”
“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea,” he tweeted. “Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!”
Democrats are scoffing at the president’s assessment.
“This is truly delusional,” tweeted Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat. “It [North Korea] has same arsenal today as 48 hours ago. Does he really think his big photo-op ended the [North Korea‘s] nuclear program? Hope does not equal reality.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
EREGkN3pRjMKIwJB
|
sexual_misconduct
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567588841/speaker-ryan-on-sexual-harassment-we-are-having-a-watershed-moment-in-this-count
|
Speaker Ryan On Sexual Harassment: 'We Are Having A Watershed Moment In This Country' Listen· 7:55
|
2017-11-30
|
Jessica Taylor
|
Speaker Ryan On Sexual Harassment : 'We Are Having A Watershed Moment In This Country '
House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wis. , says the rash of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations coming to light could end up being a `` watershed moment '' in changing the culture — including on Capitol Hill — that has covered them up far too long .
`` We are having a watershed moment in this country . I think this is a defining moment in this country . And I think it needs to be a defining moment in this country , '' Ryan told Morning Edition 's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Capitol Hill on Thursday .
Politics Listen : House Speaker Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans In 'Morning Edition ' Interview Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans Listen · 7:02 7:02
`` I think we 're all horrified at these stories we 've been seeing unfold in the last few weeks . I think we 're all realizing that sexual harassment in America is absolutely pervasive and it 's got to go and we need to end it , '' Ryan continued . `` And nowhere more is this important to set a standard and an example than elected officials . We should be held to a high standard . ''
Politicians in both parties have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent weeks . On Thursday , Ryan called for Rep. John Conyers , D-Mich. , to resign after a former aide made public her allegations of sexual harassment against the veteran lawmaker . House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , also called on Conyers to step down . The Michigan Democrat has been hospitalized for stress .
Another accuser also came forward on Thursday against Sen. Al Franken , D-Minn. , alleging that he groped her during a 2003 photo opportunity , bringing his total accusers to five women who say the senator groped or forcibly kissed them in recent weeks . The Senate Ethics Committee confirms it has launched an initial inquiry into the allegations against Franken .
Meanwhile , Republicans are continuing to grapple with Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore , who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault when they were teens and he was in his 30s . Several women say he pursued them romantically , and one woman said he had sexually assaulted her when she was 14 .
President Trump himself was accused of sexual assault by several women during the 2016 campaign , allegations he continues to deny . And in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape that surfaced just ahead of the election Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women . According to reports , Trump has now begun to privately assert that tape was a fake , despite acknowledging its veracity last year .
Inskeep asked Ryan about the differences between the allegations against Moore — which the House speaker reiterated he believed were `` very , very credible '' — and the accusations against Trump .
The speaker said he was `` focused on Congress '' because that 's where Moore wants to go . `` My job here as speaker of the House is to help make sure that Congress is an institution that we 're proud of and that 's what I 'm focused on , '' he said .
Asked again about the differences , Ryan said , `` I have n't spent my time reviewing the difference in these two cases . ''
Ryan admitted , `` It 's no secret that [ Trump ] and I have had our differences of opinions , '' but he underscored they still align on policy issues and goals .
`` What I see is a president who is fighting for the things that I 'm fighting for . I see a president who 's fighting for an agenda that will make a positive difference in people 's lives , '' Ryan said . `` Is this president unconventional ? No two ways about it . He 's very unconventional . But if we make good by the American people by actually improving their lives and fixing problems and finding solutions that are bothering them ? That 's a good thing . ''
All these recent political allegations are in addition to women coming forward with stories of sexual assault against high-profile Hollywood moguls such as Harvey Weinstein and journalists like NBC 's Matt Lauer , CBS ' Charlie Rose and top NPR executives as well .
Ryan told NPR that , as a father , the issue is a personal one for him as he has watched the swirl of scandal over the past few weeks .
`` I want my daughter to grow up in a country — she 's 15 years old — where she is empowered and respected . Wherever she goes , wherever she works , and whatever she does . And I think nowhere should that be more obvious and apparent than working here on Capitol Hill , '' Ryan said .
`` So I think here in Congress we should set ourselves to standards that we expect of other people , '' the House speaker added . `` We should set high standards for ourselves , so that we can be role models and set examples , and clearly people have been falling short of that , and I think we always have to endeavor to do a better job on that . ''
Congress has recently passed legislation to adopt mandatory training on harassment and discrimination for lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees . In a news conference on Thursday , Ryan applauded the legislation but also said , `` This is an important step , but it 's one step . ''
|
Speaker Ryan On Sexual Harassment: 'We Are Having A Watershed Moment In This Country'
NPR YouTube
Updated at 8:15 p.m. ET
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., says the rash of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations coming to light could end up being a "watershed moment" in changing the culture — including on Capitol Hill — that has covered them up far too long.
"We are having a watershed moment in this country. I think this is a defining moment in this country. And I think it needs to be a defining moment in this country," Ryan told Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Capitol Hill on Thursday.
Politics Listen: House Speaker Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans In 'Morning Edition' Interview Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans Listen · 7:02 7:02
"I think we're all horrified at these stories we've been seeing unfold in the last few weeks. I think we're all realizing that sexual harassment in America is absolutely pervasive and it's got to go and we need to end it," Ryan continued. "And nowhere more is this important to set a standard and an example than elected officials. We should be held to a high standard."
Politicians in both parties have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent weeks. On Thursday, Ryan called for Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., to resign after a former aide made public her allegations of sexual harassment against the veteran lawmaker. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also called on Conyers to step down. The Michigan Democrat has been hospitalized for stress.
Another accuser also came forward on Thursday against Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., alleging that he groped her during a 2003 photo opportunity, bringing his total accusers to five women who say the senator groped or forcibly kissed them in recent weeks. The Senate Ethics Committee confirms it has launched an initial inquiry into the allegations against Franken.
NPR via YouTube
Meanwhile, Republicans are continuing to grapple with Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault when they were teens and he was in his 30s. Several women say he pursued them romantically, and one woman said he had sexually assaulted her when she was 14.
President Trump himself was accused of sexual assault by several women during the 2016 campaign, allegations he continues to deny. And in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape that surfaced just ahead of the election Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women. According to reports, Trump has now begun to privately assert that tape was a fake, despite acknowledging its veracity last year.
Inskeep asked Ryan about the differences between the allegations against Moore — which the House speaker reiterated he believed were "very, very credible" — and the accusations against Trump.
The speaker said he was "focused on Congress" because that's where Moore wants to go. "My job here as speaker of the House is to help make sure that Congress is an institution that we're proud of and that's what I'm focused on," he said.
Asked again about the differences, Ryan said, "I haven't spent my time reviewing the difference in these two cases."
Ryan admitted, "It's no secret that [Trump] and I have had our differences of opinions," but he underscored they still align on policy issues and goals.
"What I see is a president who is fighting for the things that I'm fighting for. I see a president who's fighting for an agenda that will make a positive difference in people's lives," Ryan said. "Is this president unconventional? No two ways about it. He's very unconventional. But if we make good by the American people by actually improving their lives and fixing problems and finding solutions that are bothering them? That's a good thing."
All these recent political allegations are in addition to women coming forward with stories of sexual assault against high-profile Hollywood moguls such as Harvey Weinstein and journalists like NBC's Matt Lauer, CBS' Charlie Rose and top NPR executives as well.
Ryan told NPR that, as a father, the issue is a personal one for him as he has watched the swirl of scandal over the past few weeks.
"I want my daughter to grow up in a country — she's 15 years old — where she is empowered and respected. Wherever she goes, wherever she works, and whatever she does. And I think nowhere should that be more obvious and apparent than working here on Capitol Hill," Ryan said.
"So I think here in Congress we should set ourselves to standards that we expect of other people," the House speaker added. "We should set high standards for ourselves, so that we can be role models and set examples, and clearly people have been falling short of that, and I think we always have to endeavor to do a better job on that."
Congress has recently passed legislation to adopt mandatory training on harassment and discrimination for lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees. In a news conference on Thursday, Ryan applauded the legislation but also said, "This is an important step, but it's one step."
Steve Inskeep's interview with Speaker Paul Ryan will air on Morning Edition on Friday. Morning Edition senior editor Miranda Kennedy and producer Jacob Pinter contributed to this report.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
WFyg3go542v1PSGx
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/28/trump-nra-crowd-you-came-through-me/
|
Trump to NRA: ‘You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you’
|
2017-04-28
|
David Sherfinski
|
ATLANTA — President Trump on Friday became the first sitting U.S. president since Ronald Reagan to speak at the NRA ’ s annual convention , pledging to “ come through ” for gun-rights activists like they did for him last year .
“ You came through for me , and I am going to come through for you , ” Mr. Trump said at the NRA lobbying arm ’ s 2017 “ Leadership Forum . ”
“ The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end , ” he said . “ You have a true friend and champion in the White House . ”
The gun-rights group endorsed Mr. Trump at its convention last May in Louisville , Kentucky , and was one of his biggest outside boosters in the 2016 presidential campaign .
“ You ’ re my friends , believe me , ” he said . “ To the NRA , I can proudly say I will never , ever let you down . ”
He talked up his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court , Justice Neil Gorsuch , as well as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke ’ s reversal of an Obama-era ban on lead ammunition on certain federal lands , as examples of actions he ’ s taken thus far that are friendly to gun rights advocates .
“ I promised that if elected , I would nominate a justice who would be faithful and loyal to the Constitution , ” he said . “ I kept my promise , and with your help , our brand-new justice , and he is really something very special , Neil Gorsuch , sits on the bench of the United States Supreme Court . ”
He also said his administration has worked to restore the “ rule of law ” and said it will always stand with “ the incredible men and women of law enforcement . ”
Mr. Trump also vowed once again to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall , though the White House recently backed off demands to include money for the wall in a government funding showdown with Congress this week .
“ We need the wall , ” he said . “ It ’ s a wall in certain areas . Obviously , where you have these massive physical structures you don ’ t need , and we have certain big rivers … but we need a wall , and we ’ re going to get that wall . ”
As he approaches the 100th day of his administration , Mr. Trump also fondly recalled Election Night 2016 and some of the states he unexpectedly won .
“ What fun that was — November 8 , ” he said . “ Wasn ’ t that a great evening ? ”
He said Republicans have a tremendous disadvantage in the Electoral College system .
“ Not gon na forget that evening , ” he said . “ Big sports fans said that was the most exciting event they ’ ve ever seen . That includes Super Bowls , and World Series , and boxing matches . ”
He warned that the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee could be “ Pocahontas , ” his nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts due to her claims of Indian heritage that have been questioned .
“ And she is not big for the NRA — that I can tell you , ” he said .
The president was scheduled to speak later in the day at a reception on behalf of Karen Handel , the Republican candidate running to fill Georgia ’ s Atlanta-area 6th congressional district seat formerly held by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price .
He gave Ms. Handel a shout-out in the speech and reminded attendees a runoff election will take place on June 20 .
“ She ’ s totally for the NRA and she ’ s totally for the Second Amendment , so get out and vote , ” he said .
Ms. Handel faces Democrat Jon Ossoff , who Mr. Trump said would “ raise your taxes to the sky ” and “ destroy your health care . ”
The NRA ’ s annual meeting was supposed to draw some 80,000 attendees , and many were ready to give Mr. Trump solid marks thus far .
“ Normally , whatever he says , I agree with , ” said Rosemary Pereira , 75 , a retiree from Florida . “ To me , he doesn ’ t say anything wrong . He ’ s just doing the right thing . ”
|
ATLANTA — President Trump on Friday became the first sitting U.S. president since Ronald Reagan to speak at the NRA’s annual convention, pledging to “come through” for gun-rights activists like they did for him last year.
“You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you,” Mr. Trump said at the NRA lobbying arm’s 2017 “Leadership Forum.”
“The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end,” he said. “You have a true friend and champion in the White House.”
The gun-rights group endorsed Mr. Trump at its convention last May in Louisville, Kentucky, and was one of his biggest outside boosters in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“You’re my friends, believe me,” he said. “To the NRA, I can proudly say I will never, ever let you down.”
He talked up his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, as well as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on lead ammunition on certain federal lands, as examples of actions he’s taken thus far that are friendly to gun rights advocates.
“I promised that if elected, I would nominate a justice who would be faithful and loyal to the Constitution,” he said. “I kept my promise, and with your help, our brand-new justice, and he is really something very special, Neil Gorsuch, sits on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.”
He also said his administration has worked to restore the “rule of law” and said it will always stand with “the incredible men and women of law enforcement.”
Mr. Trump also vowed once again to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, though the White House recently backed off demands to include money for the wall in a government funding showdown with Congress this week.
“We need the wall,” he said. “It’s a wall in certain areas. Obviously, where you have these massive physical structures you don’t need, and we have certain big rivers … but we need a wall, and we’re going to get that wall.”
As he approaches the 100th day of his administration, Mr. Trump also fondly recalled Election Night 2016 and some of the states he unexpectedly won.
“What fun that was — November 8,” he said. “Wasn’t that a great evening?”
He said Republicans have a tremendous disadvantage in the Electoral College system.
“Not gonna forget that evening,” he said. “Big sports fans said that was the most exciting event they’ve ever seen. That includes Super Bowls, and World Series, and boxing matches.”
He warned that the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee could be “Pocahontas,” his nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts due to her claims of Indian heritage that have been questioned.
“And she is not big for the NRA — that I can tell you,” he said.
The president was scheduled to speak later in the day at a reception on behalf of Karen Handel, the Republican candidate running to fill Georgia’s Atlanta-area 6th congressional district seat formerly held by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.
He gave Ms. Handel a shout-out in the speech and reminded attendees a runoff election will take place on June 20.
“She’s totally for the NRA and she’s totally for the Second Amendment, so get out and vote,” he said.
Ms. Handel faces Democrat Jon Ossoff, who Mr. Trump said would “raise your taxes to the sky” and “destroy your health care.”
The NRA’s annual meeting was supposed to draw some 80,000 attendees, and many were ready to give Mr. Trump solid marks thus far.
“Normally, whatever he says, I agree with,” said Rosemary Pereira, 75, a retiree from Florida. “To me, he doesn’t say anything wrong. He’s just doing the right thing.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
UXJFp1fAkqHTnx8Q
|
homeland_security
|
CBS News
| 00
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-investigation-wife-tashfeen-malik-facebook-radical-postings/
|
U.S. missed "red flags" with San Bernardino shooter
|
As investigators focus on what or who motivated San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife , Tashfeen Malik , to open fire at the Inland Regional Center , a report about Malik 's comments on social media before she moved to the U.S. is raising questions about how thoroughly she was vetted .
Law enforcement sources confirmed to ███ that Malik made radical postings on Facebook as far back as 2012 -- the year before she married Farook and moved to the U.S. , reports ███ correspondent Carter Evans . According to a report in the New York Times , Malik spoke openly on social media about her support for violent jihad and said she wanted to be a part of it . But none of these postings were discovered when Malik applied for a U.S. K-1 fiancé visa .
`` If you 're going to start doing a deeper dive into somebody and looking at their social media postings or other things , you really want to focus your effort on the high-risk traveler , the person that you 're really worried about being a threat to the United States , '' said James Carafano , national security expert and vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation . `` The question is , how do you identify them ? ''
Malik was not identified as a threat despite being interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and vetted by five different government agencies that checked her name and picture against a terror watch list and ran her fingerprints against two databases .
`` This is a case where , in retrospect , we know that this is a person that had lots of red lights and red flags . How come they did n't stand out as a high risk traveler ? That 's a really , really good question , '' Carafano said .
Over the weekend , dive teams from the FBI and local police finished searching the bottom of a muddy lake three miles from the site where the couple opened fire and killed 14 people . They pulled multiple objects from the water , but it is unknown if they recovered a computer hard drive that Farook and Malik may have discarded in the lake before they were killed in a shootout with police .
Investigators hope to search that hard drive for information on potential connections between the couple and foreign terror groups .
They also continue to question Enrique Marquez , Farook 's friend who we know purchased the two semi-automatic rifles that were used in the attack . It is likely that Marquez will be charged with something once authorities finish speaking with him , but so far sources tell ███ he has waived his rights and is being very cooperative .
|
As investigators focus on what or who motivated San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, to open fire at the Inland Regional Center, a report about Malik's comments on social media before she moved to the U.S. is raising questions about how thoroughly she was vetted.
Law enforcement sources confirmed to CBS News that Malik made radical postings on Facebook as far back as 2012 -- the year before she married Farook and moved to the U.S., reports CBS News correspondent Carter Evans. According to a report in the New York Times, Malik spoke openly on social media about her support for violent jihad and said she wanted to be a part of it. But none of these postings were discovered when Malik applied for a U.S. K-1 fiancé visa.
"If you're going to start doing a deeper dive into somebody and looking at their social media postings or other things, you really want to focus your effort on the high-risk traveler, the person that you're really worried about being a threat to the United States," said James Carafano, national security expert and vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. "The question is, how do you identify them?"
Malik was not identified as a threat despite being interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and vetted by five different government agencies that checked her name and picture against a terror watch list and ran her fingerprints against two databases.
"This is a case where, in retrospect, we know that this is a person that had lots of red lights and red flags. How come they didn't stand out as a high risk traveler? That's a really, really good question," Carafano said.
Divers pull objects from lake in San Bernardino investigation
Over the weekend, dive teams from the FBI and local police finished searching the bottom of a muddy lake three miles from the site where the couple opened fire and killed 14 people. They pulled multiple objects from the water, but it is unknown if they recovered a computer hard drive that Farook and Malik may have discarded in the lake before they were killed in a shootout with police.
Investigators hope to search that hard drive for information on potential connections between the couple and foreign terror groups.
They also continue to question Enrique Marquez, Farook's friend who we know purchased the two semi-automatic rifles that were used in the attack. It is likely that Marquez will be charged with something once authorities finish speaking with him, but so far sources tell CBS News he has waived his rights and is being very cooperative.
|
www.cbsnews.com
| 0left
|
Ht0n4HE5rF9CcP3J
|
||
elections
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/485879-trump-criticizes-sessions-after-alabama-senate-primary-heads-to-a
|
Trump criticizes Sessions after Alabama Senate primary heads to a runoff
|
2020-03-04
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpFeehery : Mulvaney fit for Northern Ireland post Press : Bernie Sanders has already won ███ 's Morning Report - Can Trump , Congress agree on coronavirus package ? MORE criticized Republican Alabama Senate candidate Jeff Sessions Jefferson ( Jeff ) Beauregard SessionsTrump : Government will start withholding funds from sanctuary cities after court ruling ███ 's Campaign Report : Biden riding wave of momentum after stunning Super Tuesday Trump criticizes Sessions after Alabama Senate primary heads to a runoff MORE early Wednesday , asserting that his former attorney general didn ’ t win the state 's GOP primary outright because of what Trump described as Sessions 's lack of “ wisdom or courage ” in his handling of the Russia investigation .
“ This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesn ’ t have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt , ” Trump tweeted , just hours after news broke that Tuesday ’ s Senate primary in Alabama would advance to a runoff between Sessions and former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville .
“ Recuses himself on FIRST DAY in office , and the Mueller Scam begins ! ” Trump added .
Trump ’ s critical tweet about Sessions suggests the president may seek to boost Tuberville in the runoff election . Trump has thus far stayed out of the race , though a source familiar with the situation told ███ last month that Trump could support Sessions ’ s opponent if the race advanced to a runoff . Still , Wednesday 's tweet did not contain an explicit endorsement of Tuberville .
Trump repeatedly and publicly eviscerated Sessions for his decision to recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller Robert ( Bob ) Swan MuellerCNN 's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition ' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting ███ 's 12:30 Report : New Hampshire fallout MORE ’ s investigation into Russian interference during his tenure as attorney general .
Sessions , who was the first senator to endorse Trump 's White House bid and served as a surrogate on his 2016 campaign , recused himself from any investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election in March 2017 , after coming under scrutiny for his contacts with the Russian ambassador while a senator .
Sessions resigned at Trump ’ s request the day after the 2018 midterm elections , capping a tumultuous stint atop the Justice Department . William Barr William Pelham BarrDOJ warns companies against price fixing during coronavirus Consumer brand group calls on Barr to protect from price gouging due to coronavirus Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight MORE has since replaced his .
Sessions was a veteran of the Senate before joining the Trump administration , having held an Alabama seat for 20 years .
He announced his Alabama Senate campaign last November and , like the other candidates in the race , has embraced Trump and worked to convince voters that he supports the president , who remains very popular among Republican voters .
Sessions and Tuberville were running neck and neck after polls closed Tuesday night — Sessions held 31.6 percent of the vote and Tuberville 33.4 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting .
Both candidates will compete for the Republican nomination in the March 31 runoff , and the winner will face Sen. Doug Jones in the November election . Jones is considered the most vulnerable Democratic senators facing reelection in 2020 .
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpFeehery: Mulvaney fit for Northern Ireland post Press: Bernie Sanders has already won The Hill's Morning Report - Can Trump, Congress agree on coronavirus package? MORE criticized Republican Alabama Senate candidate Jeff Sessions Jefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsTrump: Government will start withholding funds from sanctuary cities after court ruling The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden riding wave of momentum after stunning Super Tuesday Trump criticizes Sessions after Alabama Senate primary heads to a runoff MORE early Wednesday, asserting that his former attorney general didn’t win the state's GOP primary outright because of what Trump described as Sessions's lack of “wisdom or courage” in his handling of the Russia investigation.
“This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesn’t have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt,” Trump tweeted, just hours after news broke that Tuesday’s Senate primary in Alabama would advance to a runoff between Sessions and former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville.
“Recuses himself on FIRST DAY in office, and the Mueller Scam begins!” Trump added.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump’s critical tweet about Sessions suggests the president may seek to boost Tuberville in the runoff election. Trump has thus far stayed out of the race, though a source familiar with the situation told The Hill last month that Trump could support Sessions’s opponent if the race advanced to a runoff. Still, Wednesday's tweet did not contain an explicit endorsement of Tuberville.
Trump repeatedly and publicly eviscerated Sessions for his decision to recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) Swan MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE’s investigation into Russian interference during his tenure as attorney general.
Sessions, who was the first senator to endorse Trump's White House bid and served as a surrogate on his 2016 campaign, recused himself from any investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election in March 2017, after coming under scrutiny for his contacts with the Russian ambassador while a senator.
Sessions resigned at Trump’s request the day after the 2018 midterm elections, capping a tumultuous stint atop the Justice Department. William Barr William Pelham BarrDOJ warns companies against price fixing during coronavirus Consumer brand group calls on Barr to protect from price gouging due to coronavirus Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight MORE has since replaced his.
Sessions was a veteran of the Senate before joining the Trump administration, having held an Alabama seat for 20 years.
ADVERTISEMENT
He announced his Alabama Senate campaign last November and, like the other candidates in the race, has embraced Trump and worked to convince voters that he supports the president, who remains very popular among Republican voters.
Sessions and Tuberville were running neck and neck after polls closed Tuesday night — Sessions held 31.6 percent of the vote and Tuberville 33.4 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting.
Both candidates will compete for the Republican nomination in the March 31 runoff, and the winner will face Sen. Doug Jones in the November election. Jones is considered the most vulnerable Democratic senators facing reelection in 2020.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
CtaLR1wsZMWSEShe
|
|
white_house
|
Reuters
| 11
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1A10Q9
|
Trump lawyer defends Don Jr. meeting, says Secret Service allowed it
|
2017-07-17
|
Arshad Mohammed
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - The U.S. Secret Service on Sunday denied a suggestion from President Donald Trump ’ s personal lawyer that it had vetted a meeting between the president ’ s son and Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign .
Donald Trump Jr. has acknowledged that he met in New York with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after he was told she might have damaging information about his father ’ s rival , Democrat Hillary Clinton .
“ Well , I wonder why the Secret Service , if this was nefarious , why the Secret Service allowed these people in . The president had Secret Service protection at that point , and that raised a question with me , ” Jay Sekulow , a member of the president ’ s legal team , said on Sunday on the ABC news program “ This Week . ”
In an emailed response to questions about Sekulow ’ s comments , Secret Service spokesman Mason Brayman said the younger Trump was not under Secret Service protection at the time of the meeting , which included Trump ’ s son and two senior campaign officials .
“ Donald Trump , Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June , 2016 . Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time , ” the statement said .
According to emails released by Trump Jr. last week , he eagerly agreed to meet Veselnitskaya , who he was told was a Russian government lawyer . Veselnitskaya has said she is a private lawyer and denies having Kremlin ties .
On Friday , NBC News reported that a lobbyist who was once a Soviet counter-intelligence officer participated in the meeting , which was also attended by Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , and the president ’ s former campaign manager , Paul Manafort .
The meeting appears to be the most tangible evidence of a connection between Trump ’ s election campaign and Russia , a subject that has prompted investigations by congressional committees and a federal special counsel .
Moscow has denied any interference and the president and Trump Jr. have denied any collusion .
Sekulow ’ s comments about the Secret Service drew quick criticism , including from Frances Townsend , who advised former Republican President George W. Bush on homeland security .
“ Ok let ’ s try to deflect blame & throw those in @ SecretService who protect @ POTUS @ realDonaldTrump @ FLOTUS & family under the bus , ” she said on Twitter .
The Secret Service ’ s mission is to provide physical protection for the U.S. president . The agency also protects major presidential candidates . But its role in vetting people who meet with a U.S. president or candidates is limited to ensuring physical safety .
Trump himself has said he was unaware of the meeting between his son and the Russian lawyer until a few days ago .
“ The president was not aware about this meeting , did not participate in this meeting , ” Sekulow told the CBS program “ Face the Nation . ”
Sekulow added that Trump was not aware of any meetings between his campaign staff and Russians .
A federal special counsel and several congressional panels are investigating allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to hurt Clinton and help Trump . They are also investigating potential connections between Russian officials and the Trump campaign .
Senator Mark Warner , the top Democrat on one of the panels investigating the matter , the Senate Intelligence Committee , told CNN : “ The level of credibility from the senior level of this administration really is suspect . ”
Warner said he wanted to hear from everyone who attended the June 2016 meeting .
“ Whether we will be able to get the Russian nationals to come over and testify is an open question , ( but ) those people that our committee has jurisdiction over , the Americans , I sure as heck want to talk to all of them , ” Warner said .
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Secret Service on Sunday denied a suggestion from President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer that it had vetted a meeting between the president’s son and Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign.
Donald Trump Jr. has acknowledged that he met in New York with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after he was told she might have damaging information about his father’s rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
“Well, I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in. The president had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me,” Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team, said on Sunday on the ABC news program “This Week.”
In an emailed response to questions about Sekulow’s comments, Secret Service spokesman Mason Brayman said the younger Trump was not under Secret Service protection at the time of the meeting, which included Trump’s son and two senior campaign officials.
“Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time,” the statement said.
According to emails released by Trump Jr. last week, he eagerly agreed to meet Veselnitskaya, who he was told was a Russian government lawyer. Veselnitskaya has said she is a private lawyer and denies having Kremlin ties.
On Friday, NBC News reported that a lobbyist who was once a Soviet counter-intelligence officer participated in the meeting, which was also attended by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the president’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.
The meeting appears to be the most tangible evidence of a connection between Trump’s election campaign and Russia, a subject that has prompted investigations by congressional committees and a federal special counsel.
Moscow has denied any interference and the president and Trump Jr. have denied any collusion.
FILE PHOTO: Donald Trump Jr. speaks at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio U.S. July 19, 2016. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni/File photo
Sekulow’s comments about the Secret Service drew quick criticism, including from Frances Townsend, who advised former Republican President George W. Bush on homeland security.
“Ok let’s try to deflect blame & throw those in @SecretService who protect @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @FLOTUS & family under the bus,” she said on Twitter.
The Secret Service’s mission is to provide physical protection for the U.S. president. The agency also protects major presidential candidates. But its role in vetting people who meet with a U.S. president or candidates is limited to ensuring physical safety.
LAWYER: TRUMP UNAWARE OF MEETING
Trump himself has said he was unaware of the meeting between his son and the Russian lawyer until a few days ago.
“The president was not aware about this meeting, did not participate in this meeting,” Sekulow told the CBS program “Face the Nation.”
Sekulow added that Trump was not aware of any meetings between his campaign staff and Russians.
A federal special counsel and several congressional panels are investigating allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. They are also investigating potential connections between Russian officials and the Trump campaign.
Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on one of the panels investigating the matter, the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN: “The level of credibility from the senior level of this administration really is suspect.”
FILE PHOTO: Donald Trump (L) talks with his son Donald Trump Jr. (R) after his debate against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, U.S. September 26, 2016. REUTERS/Joe Raedle/POOL/File Photo
Warner said he wanted to hear from everyone who attended the June 2016 meeting.
“Whether we will be able to get the Russian nationals to come over and testify is an open question, (but) those people that our committee has jurisdiction over, the Americans, I sure as heck want to talk to all of them,” Warner said.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
5kB08tgvInMvSK9I
|
education
|
Yahoo! The 360
| 11
|
https://news.yahoo.com/should-colleges-bring-students-back-to-campus-in-the-fall-160705569.html
|
Should colleges bring students back to campus in the fall?
|
2020-05-23
|
Mike Bebernes
|
“ The 360 ” shows you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories and debates .
In March , millions of college students saw their worlds upended by the coronavirus pandemic . Fears of spreading the virus forced America ’ s universities to hastily shut down in-person instruction and transition to an ad hoc system of distance learning . With the spring semester ending for many , all eyes have shifted to whether colleges will welcome students back to their campuses in the fall .
There are more than 4,000 higher-education institutions in the U.S. Each is developing its own plans for the fall semester . It ’ s impossible to know what the state of the pandemic will be in August and September , when the school year typically starts . With students , parents and faculty members eager to know what the coming semester will look like , schools don ’ t have the luxury of waiting a couple of months to make their decisions .
About two-thirds of colleges are planning for in-person instruction in the fall , according to a database kept by the Chronicle of Higher Education . That doesn ’ t mean things will be back to normal . A return to school could mean staggered class schedules , no large lectures , and a variety of public health measures interwoven into campus life . Several schools , including the University of South Carolina and Notre Dame , have adjusted the academic calendar so the fall semester will end before Thanksgiving , possibly ahead of an expected winter resurgence on the virus .
Other universities have decided to keep campuses closed in the fall . The California State University system , the nation ’ s largest collection of colleges , will conduct its semester entirely online . Many of the country ’ s most prestigious private universities are considering a range of scenarios that may include a hybrid of online and in-person instruction .
The idea of bringing thousands of students and faculty together on college campuses in the fall has raised significant concern among some epidemiologists . Universities are particularly problematic when it comes to transmission of viruses because of the number of people who filter in and out on a daily basis and the social lives of many college students , some argue . If the virus does prove to be seasonal , low case counts over the summer could provide a false sense of security that may lead to a devastating outbreak if another wave hits near the end of the year .
Distance learning will likely be much more worthwhile in the fall , others say , after schools have had several months to build their programs to replace the hastily thrown together plans they rolled out in March .
Though they acknowledge the potential risks , advocates for bringing students back say a variety of steps can be taken to limit virus transmission . Even a significantly modified version of campus life may be preferable to distance learning , which many students and faculty members have expressed dissatisfaction with . The shift to online education has led many students to consider taking a year off — and educators fear some may never come back .
For some colleges , the decision may be largely financial . Some schools could permanently close if forced to go without income from tuition , events , housing and other on-campus revenue streams for another semester .
Others say there is not a one-size-fits-all policy that could be applied to the country ’ s incredibly diverse collection of colleges . The decision to open campus may depend on location , nature of the student body , university resources , local laws and a long list of other factors .
Most schools that are planning to hold in-person classes in the fall are simultaneously developing backup plans in case coronavirus cases don ’ t drop over the next few months . The nation 's ability to contain the pandemic and monitor future outbreaks will likely play a major role in whether those contingencies prove necessary .
The benefits of in-person education outweigh the risks if the right protocols are in place
“ Colleges and universities have a lot of work to do if they want to welcome students back on campus this fall . But in-person instruction , and the benefits that accompany student life in institutions across the United States , are essential parts of the higher-learning experience . It ’ s an effort well worth making. ” — Lanhee J. Chen and Vanila M. Singh , Washington Post
|
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.
What’s happening
In March, millions of college students saw their worlds upended by the coronavirus pandemic. Fears of spreading the virus forced America’s universities to hastily shut down in-person instruction and transition to an ad hoc system of distance learning. With the spring semester ending for many, all eyes have shifted to whether colleges will welcome students back to their campuses in the fall.
There are more than 4,000 higher-education institutions in the U.S. Each is developing its own plans for the fall semester. It’s impossible to know what the state of the pandemic will be in August and September, when the school year typically starts. With students, parents and faculty members eager to know what the coming semester will look like, schools don’t have the luxury of waiting a couple of months to make their decisions.
About two-thirds of colleges are planning for in-person instruction in the fall, according to a database kept by the Chronicle of Higher Education. That doesn’t mean things will be back to normal. A return to school could mean staggered class schedules, no large lectures, and a variety of public health measures interwoven into campus life. Several schools, including the University of South Carolina and Notre Dame, have adjusted the academic calendar so the fall semester will end before Thanksgiving, possibly ahead of an expected winter resurgence on the virus.
Other universities have decided to keep campuses closed in the fall. The California State University system, the nation’s largest collection of colleges, will conduct its semester entirely online. Many of the country’s most prestigious private universities are considering a range of scenarios that may include a hybrid of online and in-person instruction.
Why there’s debate
The idea of bringing thousands of students and faculty together on college campuses in the fall has raised significant concern among some epidemiologists. Universities are particularly problematic when it comes to transmission of viruses because of the number of people who filter in and out on a daily basis and the social lives of many college students, some argue. If the virus does prove to be seasonal, low case counts over the summer could provide a false sense of security that may lead to a devastating outbreak if another wave hits near the end of the year.
Distance learning will likely be much more worthwhile in the fall, others say, after schools have had several months to build their programs to replace the hastily thrown together plans they rolled out in March.
Though they acknowledge the potential risks, advocates for bringing students back say a variety of steps can be taken to limit virus transmission. Even a significantly modified version of campus life may be preferable to distance learning, which many students and faculty members have expressed dissatisfaction with. The shift to online education has led many students to consider taking a year off — and educators fear some may never come back.
For some colleges, the decision may be largely financial. Some schools could permanently close if forced to go without income from tuition, events, housing and other on-campus revenue streams for another semester.
Others say there is not a one-size-fits-all policy that could be applied to the country’s incredibly diverse collection of colleges. The decision to open campus may depend on location, nature of the student body, university resources, local laws and a long list of other factors.
What’s next
Most schools that are planning to hold in-person classes in the fall are simultaneously developing backup plans in case coronavirus cases don’t drop over the next few months. The nation's ability to contain the pandemic and monitor future outbreaks will likely play a major role in whether those contingencies prove necessary.
Perspectives
The benefits of in-person education outweigh the risks if the right protocols are in place
“Colleges and universities have a lot of work to do if they want to welcome students back on campus this fall. But in-person instruction, and the benefits that accompany student life in institutions across the United States, are essential parts of the higher-learning experience. It’s an effort well worth making.” — Lanhee J. Chen and Vanila M. Singh, Washington Post
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 2center
|
cvXnLZrlJDjRw7bW
|
north_korea
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/04/us-working-diplomatic-channels-to-resolve-n-korea-standoff-amid-shows-strength/
|
US working diplomatic channels to resolve N. Korea standoff, amid shows of strength
|
2013-04-04
|
As the Pentagon flies B-2 bombers over the Korean Peninsula and strengthens its missile-defense posture in the region , U.S. officials are steadily working the diplomatic channels around North Korea -- in a bid to dial down tensions before things get `` hotter . ''
Analysts largely consider the biggest threat from North Korea 's daily provocations to be the possibility the regime could go too far in needling South Korea , prompting a military response that drags the U.S. and other allies into a broad conflict . Some have described that scenario as an `` accidental '' war -- meaning diplomacy is key in preventing that outcome .
Newly minted Secretary of State John Kerry is dabbling in several agenda items including trying to unfreeze Middle East peace talks , but is planning a round of meetings with North Korea 's neighbors next week . He 's also held talks with South Korean and Chinese officials in recent days .
Analysts say urging South Korea to show restraint while urging China to pressure Pyongyang should be at the top of the agenda .
The State Department confirmed Thursday that Kerry had a phone call on Wednesday with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi to discuss North Korea as well as Kerry 's upcoming visit to the region . Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said China 's role in pressuring North Korea has been the subject of `` intense conversations '' between Kerry and his Chinese counterparts .
She added : `` It will be a central focus of the secretary 's diplomacy when he 's in Beijing , to see what more we can do to get the attention of the leadership in the DPRK . '' DPRK stands for the Democratic People 's Republic of Korea , commonly known as North Korea .
Kerry plans to visit Beijing on April 13 as part of a tour across the Middle East and Asia . He 'll be in Seoul , South Korea , on April 12 and Tokyo , Japan , on April 14 .
Nuland described the visit as `` very timely '' and one that will give Kerry an `` opportunity '' to address North Korea 's threats . Kerry earlier this week met with South Korean Foreign Affairs Minister Yun Byung-se in Washington .
The latest development out of North Korea has been indications the regime is moving its mid-range missile launchers -- possibly signaling a looming test . South Korea claimed the North moved a missile to the east coast , shortly after North Korea claimed the military had been cleared to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S .
The State Department has indicated it will not engage North Korea directly until it makes serious moves to come into compliance with international obligations . Kerry suggested Tuesday that U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies is ready to engage when North Korea gets `` serious about trying to resolve this issue . ''
Until then , North Korea 's ally -- China -- is seen as perhaps the best avenue for affecting North Korea 's behavior . Nuland said Thursday that the U.S. has enjoyed `` good unity '' with both China and Russia on North Korea , citing recent sanctions passed on the U.N. Security Council .
Diplomacy may be getting a second look as a way to dial down tensions after the Obama administration reportedly hit pause on its high-profile show-of-force strategy .
In recent days , the U.S. has flown B-52 and B-2 bombers , as well as F-22 jets , over the region . The Pentagon moved two guided-missile destroyers to waters off the Korean Peninsula , and is positioning other missile-defense assets in the region .
But The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration is pulling back on the demonstrations , out of concern that it could lead to `` miscalculations '' by the North Koreans .
Nuland stressed Thursday that the brinkmanship can be walked back .
`` This does not need to get hotter , '' she said . `` We can change course here if the DPRK will begin to come back into compliance with its international obligations , will begin to cool things down . ''
Earlier this week , White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. is in `` close contact '' with Seoul and Tokyo and is `` regularly reaching out to Beijing and Moscow to encourage them to do more to restrain the North Koreans . ''
He said it 's `` not a mystery '' that China has influence over North Korea , and the U.S. is urging China to use that position to help change course .
`` That is also true of our interactions with the Russians , '' he said . `` This is a broad diplomatic effort that includes coordination with our allies in Japan and the Republic of Korea as well as with China and Russia and others . ''
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Tuesday also called new Chinese Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan and discussed North Korea 's pursuit of nuclear weapons .
Gordon Chang , author of `` Nuclear Showdown : North Korea Takes on the World , '' told Fox News it 's important for the U.S. to `` reassure '' South Korea with the shows of strength . But he also urged more tough talk with China .
Jim Walsh , an international security analyst and research associate with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 's Security Studies Program , said the reassurances have to be `` strong '' but not so over the top `` that the other side freaks out and does something stupid . ''
He said the U.S. should continue talking to the Chinese and `` trying to lower the temperature on this so people do n't mess up . ''
|
As the Pentagon flies B-2 bombers over the Korean Peninsula and strengthens its missile-defense posture in the region, U.S. officials are steadily working the diplomatic channels around North Korea -- in a bid to dial down tensions before things get "hotter."
Analysts largely consider the biggest threat from North Korea's daily provocations to be the possibility the regime could go too far in needling South Korea, prompting a military response that drags the U.S. and other allies into a broad conflict. Some have described that scenario as an "accidental" war -- meaning diplomacy is key in preventing that outcome.
Newly minted Secretary of State John Kerry is dabbling in several agenda items including trying to unfreeze Middle East peace talks, but is planning a round of meetings with North Korea's neighbors next week. He's also held talks with South Korean and Chinese officials in recent days.
Analysts say urging South Korea to show restraint while urging China to pressure Pyongyang should be at the top of the agenda.
The State Department confirmed Thursday that Kerry had a phone call on Wednesday with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi to discuss North Korea as well as Kerry's upcoming visit to the region. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said China's role in pressuring North Korea has been the subject of "intense conversations" between Kerry and his Chinese counterparts.
She added: "It will be a central focus of the secretary's diplomacy when he's in Beijing, to see what more we can do to get the attention of the leadership in the DPRK." DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, commonly known as North Korea.
Kerry plans to visit Beijing on April 13 as part of a tour across the Middle East and Asia. He'll be in Seoul, South Korea, on April 12 and Tokyo, Japan, on April 14.
Nuland described the visit as "very timely" and one that will give Kerry an "opportunity" to address North Korea's threats. Kerry earlier this week met with South Korean Foreign Affairs Minister Yun Byung-se in Washington.
The latest development out of North Korea has been indications the regime is moving its mid-range missile launchers -- possibly signaling a looming test. South Korea claimed the North moved a missile to the east coast, shortly after North Korea claimed the military had been cleared to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S.
The State Department has indicated it will not engage North Korea directly until it makes serious moves to come into compliance with international obligations. Kerry suggested Tuesday that U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies is ready to engage when North Korea gets "serious about trying to resolve this issue."
Until then, North Korea's ally -- China -- is seen as perhaps the best avenue for affecting North Korea's behavior. Nuland said Thursday that the U.S. has enjoyed "good unity" with both China and Russia on North Korea, citing recent sanctions passed on the U.N. Security Council.
Diplomacy may be getting a second look as a way to dial down tensions after the Obama administration reportedly hit pause on its high-profile show-of-force strategy.
In recent days, the U.S. has flown B-52 and B-2 bombers, as well as F-22 jets, over the region. The Pentagon moved two guided-missile destroyers to waters off the Korean Peninsula, and is positioning other missile-defense assets in the region.
But The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration is pulling back on the demonstrations, out of concern that it could lead to "miscalculations" by the North Koreans.
Nuland stressed Thursday that the brinkmanship can be walked back.
"This does not need to get hotter," she said. "We can change course here if the DPRK will begin to come back into compliance with its international obligations, will begin to cool things down."
Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. is in "close contact" with Seoul and Tokyo and is "regularly reaching out to Beijing and Moscow to encourage them to do more to restrain the North Koreans."
He said it's "not a mystery" that China has influence over North Korea, and the U.S. is urging China to use that position to help change course.
"That is also true of our interactions with the Russians," he said. "This is a broad diplomatic effort that includes coordination with our allies in Japan and the Republic of Korea as well as with China and Russia and others."
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Tuesday also called new Chinese Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan and discussed North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Gordon Chang, author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World," told Fox News it's important for the U.S. to "reassure" South Korea with the shows of strength. But he also urged more tough talk with China.
Jim Walsh, an international security analyst and research associate with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies Program, said the reassurances have to be "strong" but not so over the top "that the other side freaks out and does something stupid."
He said the U.S. should continue talking to the Chinese and "trying to lower the temperature on this so people don't mess up."
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
hsSfiqxEvff9rPsT
|
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/hillary-clintons-quiet-support-will-carry-iowa-ex-governor-predicts.html?_r=0
|
Hillary Clinton’s Quiet Support Will Carry Iowa, Ex-Governor Predicts
|
2016-02-01
|
Michael D. Shear
|
Mr. Vilsack once thought his smarts about Iowa could catapult him to the presidency . But his 2008 bid for the White House quickly fizzled , and he endorsed Mrs. Clinton .
His efforts to deliver his state for her failed when Mrs. Clinton ran into Mr. Obama ’ s Iowa juggernaut .
Now , Mr. Vilsack is heading into his final year at the Agriculture Department , where he helped negotiate the 2014 farm bill , a nearly $ 1 trillion measure that had sparked four years of partisan fighting over farm subsidies and support for the food stamp program for the poor .
Mr. Vilsack was also central in pushing for passage of the Healthy , Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 .
The law mandated the use of whole grains , vegetables and fruits at schools and required that students select at least one portion of fruits or vegetables at every lunch .
He has also pushed for the use of biofuels . This past month , Mr. Vilsack joined Ray Mabus , the secretary of the Navy , as the guided-missile destroyer William P. Lawrence was filled with biofuel made from beef fat . He called it an “ extraordinary experience ” and said it is an example of the “ series of partnerships that has extended the reach of the U.S.D.A . ”
Mr. Vilsack is a low-key , soft-spoken man , and his job overseeing the nation ’ s farmers has largely kept him out of the spotlight . The exception came early in his second year in the job , in what he acknowledges was the low point in his career .
Reacting to a video that showed seemingly racist comments from Shirley Sherrod , an Agriculture Department official in Georgia , Mr. Vilsack quickly fired her . He was forced to publicly apologize to Ms. Sherrod days later when it became clear that the video had been heavily edited by the operators of a conservative website . In fact , the full video showed Ms. Sherrod offering a lesson in racial tolerance and compassion .
|
Mr. Vilsack once thought his smarts about Iowa could catapult him to the presidency. But his 2008 bid for the White House quickly fizzled, and he endorsed Mrs. Clinton.
His efforts to deliver his state for her failed when Mrs. Clinton ran into Mr. Obama’s Iowa juggernaut.
Now, Mr. Vilsack is heading into his final year at the Agriculture Department, where he helped negotiate the 2014 farm bill, a nearly $1 trillion measure that had sparked four years of partisan fighting over farm subsidies and support for the food stamp program for the poor.
Mr. Vilsack was also central in pushing for passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010.
The law mandated the use of whole grains, vegetables and fruits at schools and required that students select at least one portion of fruits or vegetables at every lunch.
He has also pushed for the use of biofuels. This past month, Mr. Vilsack joined Ray Mabus, the secretary of the Navy, as the guided-missile destroyer William P. Lawrence was filled with biofuel made from beef fat. He called it an “extraordinary experience” and said it is an example of the “series of partnerships that has extended the reach of the U.S.D.A.”
Mr. Vilsack is a low-key, soft-spoken man, and his job overseeing the nation’s farmers has largely kept him out of the spotlight. The exception came early in his second year in the job, in what he acknowledges was the low point in his career.
Reacting to a video that showed seemingly racist comments from Shirley Sherrod, an Agriculture Department official in Georgia, Mr. Vilsack quickly fired her. He was forced to publicly apologize to Ms. Sherrod days later when it became clear that the video had been heavily edited by the operators of a conservative website. In fact, the full video showed Ms. Sherrod offering a lesson in racial tolerance and compassion.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
yTjDxT30Nbu787n1
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/21/433520431/jeb-bush-is-suddenly-attacking-trump-heres-why-that-matters
|
Jeb Bush Is Suddenly Attacking Trump. Here's Why That Matters
|
2015-08-21
|
Jessica Taylor
|
Jeb Bush Is Suddenly Attacking Trump . Here 's Why That Matters
Jeb Bush is n't pulling punches anymore when it comes to Donald Trump .
The former Florida governor has delicately danced around the billionaire businessman in the 2016 presidential primary so far . But the gloves came off this week when Bush called out Trump as a closet Democrat . He was trying to stunt Trump 's rise while attempting to recover his own political mojo .
`` What Jeb is desperately trying to do is find his swagger right now , '' GOP strategist Ford O'Connell said . `` The knock against Jeb is that he 's low voltage and not willing to fight . The best way to shake those perceptions it to engage against the person who is in the media on a 24/7 loop . ''
It 's a change from Bush 's approach to this point . He has n't lobbed many direct attacks at Trump other than delicately condemning his criticism of Arizona Sen. John McCain 's war service and his attacks against Fox News ' Megyn Kelly .
Even in this month 's first debate , Bush swatted down a story that he had allegedly called Trump a `` buffoon '' and a `` clown , '' saying only that Trump 's language had been `` divisive . '' Trump called Bush `` a true gentleman . ''
The detente ended this week . So far , most of the top-tier candidates have avoided directly attacking Trump , treating him with kid gloves so as not to anger the part of the GOP base to which Trump appeals .
In other words , the very voters they need when , they hope , Trump fades .
In split-screen New Hampshire town halls this week , Bush and Trump volleyed attacks on each other . Bush took his most pointed jabs at the current front-runner , underscoring Trump 's past history as a Democrat and the liberal positions he used to hold .
`` Mr. Trump does n't have a proven conservative record , '' Bush said , according to the Washington Post . `` He was a Democrat longer in the last decade than he was a Republican . He has given more money to Democrats than he 's given to Republicans . ''
Bush went on to attack Trump over his hard-line immigration proposal , arguing it was not just `` vitriolic '' but would have a massive price tag .
`` Hundreds of billions of dollars of costs to implement his plans is not a conservative plan , '' Bush said . `` This is going to be my pitch : Let 's support someone who you do n't have to guess where he stands because he 's consistent , because he 's been governor , he 's consistently had the views that he has . ''
Over the next few days , Bush continued the hits on social media .
But Trump , never one to miss a moment to retaliate , did n't pull his punches , either . At his own town hall Wednesday , Trump blasted Bush as an unelectable `` low-energy person . ''
`` You know what 's happening to Jeb 's crowd just down the street ? They 're sleeping ! '' Trump said to applause .
Since then , Trump has also ramped up his attacks against Bush on Twitter .
The move to more hot rhetoric may have tripped Bush up , though . Consider his use of the phrase `` anchor babies . '' While immigration reform is something Bush is passionate about — and has even written a book about — he 's often criticized within the GOP as too liberal on the issue . Instead , a more combative Bush appeared to use the loaded phrase for the first time .
He was left struggling to defend his use of it . It may have been a signal that the attack-dog crouch he 's taking is still one that is n't completely comfortable to Bush , who earlier said he wanted to campaign `` joyfully . ''
Other candidates have embraced hitting Trump . Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul went after him forcefully in the debate , though his punch — that Trump was hedging his bets to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the presidency — did n't appear to land .
Other candidates like Ohio Gov . John Kasich demurred . In the earlier GOP debate that night , former Texas Gov . Rick Perry and businesswoman Carly Fiorina also jabbed at Trump .
Bush , though , needs to close the floodgates . He 's dropped in national polls as Trump has risen . And , in New Hampshire , where Bush once led , Trump and even newcomer Kasich have seen surges .
Cullen , a former New Hampshire GOP chairman , said the change in tone and tactics was a smart move for Bush , one that could help him in the Granite State .
`` I think it 's good politics for Jeb , '' said Fergus Cullen , a former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman . `` There 's 25 percent of the Republicans who are entertained by Donald Trump . But there 's 60 percent of the party who say they wo n't vote for him under any circumstances . Those are n't Jeb Bush 's people to begin with . He 's trying to appeal to the other 60 percent by being the adult in the room and trying to govern . ''
O'Connell agreed . He pointed out that even if this new approach is one that 's uncomfortable for Bush , it 's necessary .
`` In a lot of elections , being the studious one would have worked , '' he said , `` but Trump has flipped the script . ''
|
Jeb Bush Is Suddenly Attacking Trump. Here's Why That Matters
Enlarge this image toggle caption Andrew Harnik/AP Andrew Harnik/AP
Jeb Bush isn't pulling punches anymore when it comes to Donald Trump.
The former Florida governor has delicately danced around the billionaire businessman in the 2016 presidential primary so far. But the gloves came off this week when Bush called out Trump as a closet Democrat. He was trying to stunt Trump's rise while attempting to recover his own political mojo.
"What Jeb is desperately trying to do is find his swagger right now," GOP strategist Ford O'Connell said. "The knock against Jeb is that he's low voltage and not willing to fight. The best way to shake those perceptions it to engage against the person who is in the media on a 24/7 loop."
It's a change from Bush's approach to this point. He hasn't lobbed many direct attacks at Trump other than delicately condemning his criticism of Arizona Sen. John McCain's war service and his attacks against Fox News' Megyn Kelly.
Even in this month's first debate, Bush swatted down a story that he had allegedly called Trump a "buffoon" and a "clown," saying only that Trump's language had been "divisive." Trump called Bush "a true gentleman."
The detente ended this week. So far, most of the top-tier candidates have avoided directly attacking Trump, treating him with kid gloves so as not to anger the part of the GOP base to which Trump appeals.
In other words, the very voters they need when, they hope, Trump fades.
In split-screen New Hampshire town halls this week, Bush and Trump volleyed attacks on each other. Bush took his most pointed jabs at the current front-runner, underscoring Trump's past history as a Democrat and the liberal positions he used to hold.
"Mr. Trump doesn't have a proven conservative record," Bush said, according to the Washington Post. "He was a Democrat longer in the last decade than he was a Republican. He has given more money to Democrats than he's given to Republicans."
Bush went on to attack Trump over his hard-line immigration proposal, arguing it was not just "vitriolic" but would have a massive price tag.
"Hundreds of billions of dollars of costs to implement his plans is not a conservative plan," Bush said. "This is going to be my pitch: Let's support someone who you don't have to guess where he stands because he's consistent, because he's been governor, he's consistently had the views that he has."
Over the next few days, Bush continued the hits on social media.
But Trump, never one to miss a moment to retaliate, didn't pull his punches, either. At his own town hall Wednesday, Trump blasted Bush as an unelectable "low-energy person."
"You know what's happening to Jeb's crowd just down the street? They're sleeping!" Trump said to applause.
Since then, Trump has also ramped up his attacks against Bush on Twitter.
The move to more hot rhetoric may have tripped Bush up, though. Consider his use of the phrase "anchor babies." While immigration reform is something Bush is passionate about — and has even written a book about — he's often criticized within the GOP as too liberal on the issue. Instead, a more combative Bush appeared to use the loaded phrase for the first time.
He was left struggling to defend his use of it. It may have been a signal that the attack-dog crouch he's taking is still one that isn't completely comfortable to Bush, who earlier said he wanted to campaign "joyfully."
Other candidates have embraced hitting Trump. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul went after him forcefully in the debate, though his punch — that Trump was hedging his bets to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the presidency — didn't appear to land.
Other candidates like Ohio Gov. John Kasich demurred. In the earlier GOP debate that night, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businesswoman Carly Fiorina also jabbed at Trump.
Bush, though, needs to close the floodgates. He's dropped in national polls as Trump has risen. And, in New Hampshire, where Bush once led, Trump and even newcomer Kasich have seen surges.
Cullen, a former New Hampshire GOP chairman, said the change in tone and tactics was a smart move for Bush, one that could help him in the Granite State.
"I think it's good politics for Jeb," said Fergus Cullen, a former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman. "There's 25 percent of the Republicans who are entertained by Donald Trump. But there's 60 percent of the party who say they won't vote for him under any circumstances. Those aren't Jeb Bush's people to begin with. He's trying to appeal to the other 60 percent by being the adult in the room and trying to govern."
O'Connell agreed. He pointed out that even if this new approach is one that's uncomfortable for Bush, it's necessary.
"In a lot of elections, being the studious one would have worked," he said, "but Trump has flipped the script."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
uecnmOXsGJW3kAOC
|
justice
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/03/mueller-memo-paul-manafort-rosenstein-russia-collusion-investigation-scope
|
Memo shows Mueller explicitly tasked with Manafort-Russia collusion claims
|
2018-04-03
|
Deputy general Rod Rosenstein also authorized investigation of former Trump campaign chair ’ s financial dealings in Ukraine
The deputy attorney general , Rod Rosenstein , explicitly authorized special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate allegations that the former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort colluded with the Russian government , according to a court filing made late on Monday night .
Mueller ’ s prosecutors included that detail in a memo defending the scope of their investigation , which so far has resulted in criminal charges against 19 people and three Russian companies .
Manafort , who led the Trump campaign for several months in 2016 , is one of four aides charged in the Mueller investigation . Former national security adviser Michael Flynn , Manafort ’ s deputy , Rick Gates , and the foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos have entered plea deals .
Manafort has challenged Mueller ’ s authority and asked a judge to dismiss an indictment charging him with crimes including money laundering conspiracy and false statements .
He said Mueller , who was assigned to investigate potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign , overstepped his bounds by charging him for conduct that occurred years before the 2016 election .
But in their new filing , prosecutors revealed that Rosenstein – who appointed Mueller after the attorney general , Jeff Sessions , recused himself , over contacts with Russians during the election campaign – wrote a memo last August that outlined the scope of Mueller ’ s appointment .
The memo , which remains redacted in parts , said that Mueller was empowered to investigate allegations that Manafort “ committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials ” to interfere with the presidential election .
None of the charges Manafort faces alleges coordination with the Kremlin , and Manafort ’ s attorneys had used that point to argue that Mueller exceeded his authority by accusing him of financial crimes and acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Ukrainian interests .
But Monday ’ s filing appears to undercut that argument . In addition to authorizing the Russia collusion investigation of Manafort , Rosenstein also authorized Mueller to investigate any crimes related to payments Manafort received from the Ukrainian government under former president Viktor Yanukovych .
FBI questions Ted Malloch , Trump campaign figure and Farage ally Read more
The description largely outlines the charges against Manafort , which mostly relate to allegations he conspired to launder tens of millions of dollars received from Ukrainian political consulting including his work on Yanukovych ’ s behalf . Manafort has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing related to Russian election interference .
Prosecutors say in their court filing that given their mandate to investigate links between Trump associates and Russia , it was appropriate to investigate Manafort for ties to Russia-backed politicians and oligarchs .
“ It would also naturally look into any interactions they may have had before and during the campaign to plumb motives and opportunities to coordinate and to expose possible channels for surreptitious communications , ” they wrote . “ And prosecutors would naturally follow the money trail from Manafort ’ s Ukrainian consulting activities . ”
|
Deputy general Rod Rosenstein also authorized investigation of former Trump campaign chair’s financial dealings in Ukraine
This article is more than 1 year old
This article is more than 1 year old
The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, explicitly authorized special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate allegations that the former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort colluded with the Russian government, according to a court filing made late on Monday night.
Trump-Russia investigation: the key questions answered Read more
Mueller’s prosecutors included that detail in a memo defending the scope of their investigation, which so far has resulted in criminal charges against 19 people and three Russian companies.
Manafort, who led the Trump campaign for several months in 2016, is one of four aides charged in the Mueller investigation. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, and the foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos have entered plea deals.
Manafort has challenged Mueller’s authority and asked a judge to dismiss an indictment charging him with crimes including money laundering conspiracy and false statements.
He said Mueller, who was assigned to investigate potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, overstepped his bounds by charging him for conduct that occurred years before the 2016 election.
Profile Who is Paul Manafort? Show Hide Paul Manafort served for five months as chairman of the Trump campaign, resigning in August 2016 after past payments he had received for work in the former Soviet bloc came to light. Investigators are believed to be scrutinizing Manafort's contacts with Russians during the campaign, including an offer by Manafort to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in July 2016 to provide "private briefings" on the US presidential race. Manafort, 68, was charged on 30 October with multiple federal felonies unconnected with his campaign duties. The charges included money laundering, tax fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors accuse Manafort of using shell companies and tax havens to launder tens of millions of dollars in payments from Kremlin-backed political parties in Ukraine and other employers. Manafort pleaded not guilty to the charges. Manafort brought deep political experience to the Trump campaign. He had helped incumbent president Gerald Ford beat back a challenge for the nomination by Ronald Reagan at the 1976 Republican national convention and later built a lobbying business in Washington that specialised in unsavory clients around the world. Read more about Manafort’s career here. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP
But in their new filing, prosecutors revealed that Rosenstein – who appointed Mueller after the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself, over contacts with Russians during the election campaign – wrote a memo last August that outlined the scope of Mueller’s appointment.
The memo, which remains redacted in parts, said that Mueller was empowered to investigate allegations that Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials” to interfere with the presidential election.
None of the charges Manafort faces alleges coordination with the Kremlin, and Manafort’s attorneys had used that point to argue that Mueller exceeded his authority by accusing him of financial crimes and acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Ukrainian interests.
But Monday’s filing appears to undercut that argument. In addition to authorizing the Russia collusion investigation of Manafort, Rosenstein also authorized Mueller to investigate any crimes related to payments Manafort received from the Ukrainian government under former president Viktor Yanukovych.
FBI questions Ted Malloch, Trump campaign figure and Farage ally Read more
The description largely outlines the charges against Manafort, which mostly relate to allegations he conspired to launder tens of millions of dollars received from Ukrainian political consulting including his work on Yanukovych’s behalf. Manafort has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing related to Russian election interference.
Prosecutors say in their court filing that given their mandate to investigate links between Trump associates and Russia, it was appropriate to investigate Manafort for ties to Russia-backed politicians and oligarchs.
“It would also naturally look into any interactions they may have had before and during the campaign to plumb motives and opportunities to coordinate and to expose possible channels for surreptitious communications,” they wrote. “And prosecutors would naturally follow the money trail from Manafort’s Ukrainian consulting activities.”
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
9i3AWEx4M53c9eSI
|
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/24/163576660/obama-romney-tweak-each-other-in-swing-states
|
Obama, Romney Tweak Each Other In Swing States
|
2012-10-24
|
Frank James
|
With 13 days left until the Nov. 6 election , President Obama and his Republican challenger , Mitt Romney , both included trips to Iowa and Nevada on their schedules . Each tried to fire up his supporters and cast doubts about the other to gain an advantage in a race that appears essentially tied .
At rallies in Davenport , Iowa , and Denver , both swing states where the election is fluid , Obama trotted out attack lines he 's used in recent days against the former Massachusetts governor .
The president included one of his latest jibes against Romney : that his opponent must have `` Romnesia '' because he seemingly forgets his past positions .
OBAMA : `` I want to go over the symptoms with you , Davenport , because I do n't want you to catch it . ( Cheers . ) I do n't — I — I do n't want it to spread . If you say you wo n't give a big tax cut to the wealthy but you 're caught on video promising your tax cut would include the top 1 percent , then you might have `` Romnesia . '' If you talk about how much you love teachers during a debate , but just a few weeks ago you said we should n't hire anymore teachers because they wo n't grow the economy , you probably have `` Romnesia . ''
Obama also tried to counter Romney 's charge that he lacks a second-term agenda by pointing voters to a plan his campaign made public this week .
In Reno , Nev. , a state that was hit harder than most by the housing market collapse , Romney stayed with his main economic argument as to why he should be elected president instead of Obama .
ROMNEY : `` I — I was just a few days ago speaking with a — a man . As I recall , he was in his 50s . And he said that the job he used to have was at $ 25 an hour plus benefits . But the job he has now is $ 9 an hour without benefits . And he said , you know , I 'm showing up on the employment rolls , but my life has changed dramatically . `` And we 've seen this across the entire country , and that 's in part because the president does n't understand what it takes to get this economy going . He does n't have a plan to get jobs for Americans . I do , and that 's why I 'm going to win . '' ( Cheers , applause . )
Obama has consistently led Romney in state polls in Nevada though his lead has generally been within the margin of error . Likewise , several Iowa polls have given the president a slight lead or show the race as tied .
On Obama 's schedule Wednesday was a trip to Burbank , Calif. , for a taping of the Tonight show with Jay Leno and a stop in Nevada where Romney had been earlier in the day .
The president 's travels at midweek were part of a 48-hour campaign blitz meant to fire up his voters . Besides Iowa and Colorado , the president was scheduled to hit Florida , Ohio and Virginia with a stopover in Chicago where he hoped to set an example for others by voting early .
For his part , Romney had Iowa on his Wednesday schedule as well while his running mate , Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin , was in Cleveland delivering a speech on upward mobility .
Meanwhile , Obama campaign officials on Wednesday tried to undo a minor but gratuitous mess they created by changing their minds and releasing a transcript of Obama 's interview with Des Moines Register executives , part of the president 's effort to seek the endorsement of that newspaper 's editorial board .
The president gave the interview on the condition that it would be off-the-record . A similar interview with Romney was done on-the-record .
The Romney campaign had a bigger mess to deal with : continued fallout from a comment by Richard Mourdock , a Republican candidate in Indiana running for U.S. Senate . Mourdock , who is backed by the Tea Party , caused a ruckus by saying during a debate Tuesday that pregnancies caused by rapes are `` intended '' by God .
Romney 's campaign distanced itself from Mourdock 's statement , but there were calls for the Republican nominee to take further action because he appears in an ad endorsing Mourdock .
Then there was Donald Trump . The reality show star , real-estate developer and celebrity birther on Wednesday offered $ 5 million to the charity of Obama 's choice if the president makes public his college transcript and U.S. passport .
White House and Obama campaign spokespeople indicated they would n't be taking up Trump on his offer .
|
Obama, Romney Tweak Each Other In Swing States
toggle caption Ed Andrieski/AP
With 13 days left until the Nov. 6 election, President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, both included trips to Iowa and Nevada on their schedules. Each tried to fire up his supporters and cast doubts about the other to gain an advantage in a race that appears essentially tied.
At rallies in Davenport, Iowa, and Denver, both swing states where the election is fluid, Obama trotted out attack lines he's used in recent days against the former Massachusetts governor.
The president included one of his latest jibes against Romney: that his opponent must have "Romnesia" because he seemingly forgets his past positions.
OBAMA: "I want to go over the symptoms with you, Davenport, because I don't want you to catch it. (Cheers.) I don't — I — I don't want it to spread. If you say you won't give a big tax cut to the wealthy but you're caught on video promising your tax cut would include the top 1 percent, then you might have "Romnesia." If you talk about how much you love teachers during a debate, but just a few weeks ago you said we shouldn't hire anymore teachers because they won't grow the economy, you probably have "Romnesia."
Obama also tried to counter Romney's charge that he lacks a second-term agenda by pointing voters to a plan his campaign made public this week.
In Reno, Nev., a state that was hit harder than most by the housing market collapse, Romney stayed with his main economic argument as to why he should be elected president instead of Obama.
ROMNEY: "I — I was just a few days ago speaking with a — a man. As I recall, he was in his 50s. And he said that the job he used to have was at $25 an hour plus benefits. But the job he has now is $9 an hour without benefits. And he said, you know, I'm showing up on the employment rolls, but my life has changed dramatically. "And we've seen this across the entire country, and that's in part because the president doesn't understand what it takes to get this economy going. He doesn't have a plan to get jobs for Americans. I do, and that's why I'm going to win." (Cheers, applause.)
Enlarge this image toggle caption Cathleen Allison/AP Cathleen Allison/AP
Obama has consistently led Romney in state polls in Nevada though his lead has generally been within the margin of error. Likewise, several Iowa polls have given the president a slight lead or show the race as tied.
On Obama's schedule Wednesday was a trip to Burbank, Calif., for a taping of the Tonight show with Jay Leno and a stop in Nevada where Romney had been earlier in the day.
The president's travels at midweek were part of a 48-hour campaign blitz meant to fire up his voters. Besides Iowa and Colorado, the president was scheduled to hit Florida, Ohio and Virginia with a stopover in Chicago where he hoped to set an example for others by voting early.
For his part, Romney had Iowa on his Wednesday schedule as well while his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, was in Cleveland delivering a speech on upward mobility.
Meanwhile, Obama campaign officials on Wednesday tried to undo a minor but gratuitous mess they created by changing their minds and releasing a transcript of Obama's interview with Des Moines Register executives, part of the president's effort to seek the endorsement of that newspaper's editorial board.
The president gave the interview on the condition that it would be off-the-record. A similar interview with Romney was done on-the-record.
The Romney campaign had a bigger mess to deal with: continued fallout from a comment by Richard Mourdock, a Republican candidate in Indiana running for U.S. Senate. Mourdock, who is backed by the Tea Party, caused a ruckus by saying during a debate Tuesday that pregnancies caused by rapes are "intended" by God.
Romney's campaign distanced itself from Mourdock's statement, but there were calls for the Republican nominee to take further action because he appears in an ad endorsing Mourdock.
Then there was Donald Trump. The reality show star, real-estate developer and celebrity birther on Wednesday offered $5 million to the charity of Obama's choice if the president makes public his college transcript and U.S. passport.
White House and Obama campaign spokespeople indicated they wouldn't be taking up Trump on his offer.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
CcgcmFibNlhGpv8O
|
immigration
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/immigration-reform-95980.html?hp=t1_3
|
Immigration reform's No. 1 enemy: Time
|
2013-08-28
|
Jake Sherman, Carrie Budoff Brown
|
A new challenge confronts immigration reform proponents : the debt ceiling . Immigration reform 's No . 1 enemy
Immigration reform advocates have a new enemy : the congressional calendar .
Fall ’ s fiscal fights have lined up in a way that could delay immigration reform until 2014 , multiple senior House Republican leadership aides tell ███ , imperiling the effort ’ s prospects before the midterm elections .
The mid-October debt ceiling deadline — an earlier-than-expected target laid out Monday by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew — is changing the House GOP leadership ’ s plans to pass immigration bills that month .
“ If we have to deal with the debt limit earlier , it doesn ’ t change the overall dynamics of the debate , but — just in terms of timing — it might make it harder to find time for immigration bills in October , ” one House Republican leadership aide said .
That ’ s not the only scheduling challenge . There are fewer than 40 congressional working days until the end of 2013 — the unofficial deadline for passing immigration reform — and they ’ ll present some of the most politically challenging votes for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle . It will be difficult to add immigration reform to the list , senior aides say .
Government funding runs dry on Sept. 30 . The nine days the House is in session that month will be crowded with the debate over the continuing resolution to keep the government operating . The GOP leadership will have to reconcile the screams from conservatives who want to use the bill to defund Obamacare with their own desire to avoid a government shutdown . Of course , anything the House approves would need to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate , which will ignore attempts to weaken the law .
Immigration reform isn ’ t certain to die if it slips into 2014 , some in GOP leadership say . But major progress must be made in 2013 as it would be too difficult for the House to chart a course in 2014 , an election year .
At a fundraiser in Idaho on Monday , Speaker John Boehner predicted a “ whale of a fight ” over the debt ceiling . That skirmish will surface in October . The House is in session for 14 days during that month , but there is certain to be a good deal of debate over passing a bill that would extend the nation ’ s borrowing authority .
GOP leadership is mulling its initial negotiating position , which is sure to include some changes to entitlements , energy policy and the health care law . Boehner ’ s leadership team also seems open to discussing ways to soften the blow of the sequester in October , which would add yet another explosive issue to the mix .
The White House refuses to negotiate with Republicans over the debt limit , leaving little clarity on how the standoff gets resolved — and when .
“ Congress has already authorized funding , committed us to make expenditures , ” Lew told CNBC Tuesday . “ We ’ re now in the place where the only question is will we pay the bills that the United States has incurred . The only way to do that is for Congress to act — for it to act quickly . ”
A senior administration official said Tuesday that the increasingly crowded fall calendar was why Obama pressed the House to deal with immigration before the August recess . But the Republican leaders need to make time for it , the official said , and they should want to do it sooner rather than later because the pressure from the president and others isn ’ t going to let up .
But the scarce legislative days and the fiscal battles will be welcome to some House Republicans squeamish about voting on immigration reform . There is little support for passing the kind of comprehensive bill approved by the Senate . But even the piecemeal approach being pushed by the House leadership has its fair share of skeptics in the GOP conference .
November could provide a window for immigration reform — but two dynamics may interfere .
The debt-ceiling deadline could slip to November if tax receipts come in stronger than expected . If Congress votes on the debt ceiling during the eight-day November session , the Republican leadership is skeptical that it would be easy to turn around and vote on even a pared-back version of immigration reform .
The will just won ’ t be there , some aides say . A similar situation played out earlier this year , when Boehner delayed in January a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief because it came too soon after the tough vote when Congress raised taxes to resolve the fiscal cliff .
December will likely bring another government funding debate . The current plan for September is to pass a continuing resolution that lasts until Dec. 15 , setting up another year-end spending fight . The House is scheduled to be in session for just eight days in December before leaving for the holidays .
Frank Sharry , executive director of America ’ s Voice , said the new debt limit deadline “ is likely to push consideration of immigration to the latter part of October at the earliest . ”
But Sharry and Angela Kelley , vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress , said the House won ’ t be able to use the fiscal fights as an excuse .
“ There are some in leadership who are going to look for any reason not to act , ” Kelley said . “ There will be a space where this issue is going to have to move . It ’ s not going to go away because other matters . ”
|
A new challenge confronts immigration reform proponents: the debt ceiling. Immigration reform's No. 1 enemy
Immigration reform advocates have a new enemy: the congressional calendar.
Fall’s fiscal fights have lined up in a way that could delay immigration reform until 2014, multiple senior House Republican leadership aides tell POLITICO, imperiling the effort’s prospects before the midterm elections.
Story Continued Below
The mid-October debt ceiling deadline — an earlier-than-expected target laid out Monday by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew — is changing the House GOP leadership’s plans to pass immigration bills that month.
“If we have to deal with the debt limit earlier, it doesn’t change the overall dynamics of the debate, but — just in terms of timing — it might make it harder to find time for immigration bills in October,” one House Republican leadership aide said.
( PHOTOS: 10 wild immigration quotes)
That’s not the only scheduling challenge. There are fewer than 40 congressional working days until the end of 2013 — the unofficial deadline for passing immigration reform — and they’ll present some of the most politically challenging votes for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. It will be difficult to add immigration reform to the list, senior aides say.
Government funding runs dry on Sept. 30. The nine days the House is in session that month will be crowded with the debate over the continuing resolution to keep the government operating. The GOP leadership will have to reconcile the screams from conservatives who want to use the bill to defund Obamacare with their own desire to avoid a government shutdown. Of course, anything the House approves would need to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, which will ignore attempts to weaken the law.
Immigration reform isn’t certain to die if it slips into 2014, some in GOP leadership say. But major progress must be made in 2013 as it would be too difficult for the House to chart a course in 2014, an election year.
( CARTOONS: Matt Wuerker on immigration)
At a fundraiser in Idaho on Monday, Speaker John Boehner predicted a “whale of a fight” over the debt ceiling. That skirmish will surface in October. The House is in session for 14 days during that month, but there is certain to be a good deal of debate over passing a bill that would extend the nation’s borrowing authority.
GOP leadership is mulling its initial negotiating position, which is sure to include some changes to entitlements, energy policy and the health care law. Boehner’s leadership team also seems open to discussing ways to soften the blow of the sequester in October, which would add yet another explosive issue to the mix.
The White House refuses to negotiate with Republicans over the debt limit, leaving little clarity on how the standoff gets resolved — and when.
( Also on POLITICO: Janet Napolitano hits Congress on immigration)
“Congress has already authorized funding, committed us to make expenditures,” Lew told CNBC Tuesday. “We’re now in the place where the only question is will we pay the bills that the United States has incurred. The only way to do that is for Congress to act — for it to act quickly.”
A senior administration official said Tuesday that the increasingly crowded fall calendar was why Obama pressed the House to deal with immigration before the August recess. But the Republican leaders need to make time for it, the official said, and they should want to do it sooner rather than later because the pressure from the president and others isn’t going to let up.
But the scarce legislative days and the fiscal battles will be welcome to some House Republicans squeamish about voting on immigration reform. There is little support for passing the kind of comprehensive bill approved by the Senate. But even the piecemeal approach being pushed by the House leadership has its fair share of skeptics in the GOP conference.
( Also on POLITICO: Reince Priebus: Self-deportation remarks ‘horrific’)
November could provide a window for immigration reform — but two dynamics may interfere.
The debt-ceiling deadline could slip to November if tax receipts come in stronger than expected. If Congress votes on the debt ceiling during the eight-day November session, the Republican leadership is skeptical that it would be easy to turn around and vote on even a pared-back version of immigration reform.
The will just won’t be there, some aides say. A similar situation played out earlier this year, when Boehner delayed in January a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief because it came too soon after the tough vote when Congress raised taxes to resolve the fiscal cliff.
December will likely bring another government funding debate. The current plan for September is to pass a continuing resolution that lasts until Dec. 15, setting up another year-end spending fight. The House is scheduled to be in session for just eight days in December before leaving for the holidays.
( Also on POLITICO: Anti-immigration-reform’s laid-back summer)
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said the new debt limit deadline “is likely to push consideration of immigration to the latter part of October at the earliest.”
But Sharry and Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, said the House won’t be able to use the fiscal fights as an excuse.
“There are some in leadership who are going to look for any reason not to act,” Kelley said. “There will be a space where this issue is going to have to move. It’s not going to go away because other matters.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
VXs1brj03KMtsUGN
|
world
|
Nicholas Kristof
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/opinion/iran-united-states-conflict.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
|
OPINION: Trump and Iran May Be on a Collision Course, and It Could Get Scarier
|
2019-06-19
|
Both the nuclear production and the attacks on tankers underscore the way Trump ’ s retreat from diplomacy has made the world more perilous . But they both are measured provocations : If you want to damage a tanker , you put the limpet mine below the water line rather than above it , and Iran ’ s violations of the Iran pact won ’ t put it close to a bomb soon .
Trump described the damage to the tankers as “ very minor , ” and he seems to recognize the danger of escalation . But he has sent an additional 2,500 U.S. troops to the region , and there have been calls for striking Iran . If the U.S. does , then of course Iran will respond .
Brett McGurk , a national security expert and former presidential envoy , warned that given the failure of the administration ’ s Iran policy so far , “ Trump may soon be boxed in : Either back down or resort to military tools . ”
It ’ s troubling that the administration is also conflating Shiite Iran with the Sunni Taliban . Members of Congress fear that this is meant to give Trump legal cover to attack Iran under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda and its offshoots .
Reflecting the administration ’ s propensity to inhabit a fantasyland , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has offered a ridiculous 12-point plan that essentially called for Iran to roll over and surrender .
I was in Paris over the weekend for the annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission , and it ’ s sad to see how distrustful our allies have become toward America . Instead of forcing Iran into submission , Washington ’ s incompetent bullying of Europe and Asia to join Iran sanctions has managed to antagonize our oldest friends , push Iran back toward a nuclear path and increase the risk of war .
There are few good options now , but an international force to protect tankers might help , along with secret diplomacy to see if the nuclear deal can be patched up in a way that both sides can accept . I doubt it , but it ’ s worth trying .
|
Both the nuclear production and the attacks on tankers underscore the way Trump’s retreat from diplomacy has made the world more perilous. But they both are measured provocations: If you want to damage a tanker, you put the limpet mine below the water line rather than above it, and Iran’s violations of the Iran pact won’t put it close to a bomb soon.
Trump described the damage to the tankers as “very minor,” and he seems to recognize the danger of escalation. But he has sent an additional 2,500 U.S. troops to the region, and there have been calls for striking Iran. If the U.S. does, then of course Iran will respond.
Brett McGurk, a national security expert and former presidential envoy, warned that given the failure of the administration’s Iran policy so far, “Trump may soon be boxed in: Either back down or resort to military tools.”
It’s troubling that the administration is also conflating Shiite Iran with the Sunni Taliban. Members of Congress fear that this is meant to give Trump legal cover to attack Iran under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda and its offshoots.
Reflecting the administration’s propensity to inhabit a fantasyland, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has offered a ridiculous 12-point plan that essentially called for Iran to roll over and surrender.
I was in Paris over the weekend for the annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission, and it’s sad to see how distrustful our allies have become toward America. Instead of forcing Iran into submission, Washington’s incompetent bullying of Europe and Asia to join Iran sanctions has managed to antagonize our oldest friends, push Iran back toward a nuclear path and increase the risk of war.
There are few good options now, but an international force to protect tankers might help, along with secret diplomacy to see if the nuclear deal can be patched up in a way that both sides can accept. I doubt it, but it’s worth trying.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
0V5JWohSMVRaTPxm
|
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/colorado-house-approves-new-gun-control-measures-despite-strong-resistance/
|
Colorado House approves new gun control measures despite strong resistance
|
2013-02-19
|
Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday , during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings .
The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans , who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close .
The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms , and eight for shotguns . Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill , but the proposal passed 34-31 .
`` Enough is enough . I 'm sick and tired of bloodshed , '' said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields , a sponsor of the bill and representative of the district where the shootings at an Aurora theater happened last summer . Fields ' son was also fatally shot in 2005 .
Republicans argued that the proposals restrict Second Amendment rights and wo n't prevent mass shootings like the ones in Aurora and a Connecticut elementary school .
`` This bill will never keep evil people from doing evil things , '' said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg .
The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases , including those between private sellers and firearms bought online .
Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums , and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks . Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure , which passed on a 33-32 vote .
Democratic Rep. Ed Vigil , who represents rural southern Colorado , voted against the four bills , saying his decision was rooted in the state 's rugged history .
`` This is part of our heritage . This is part of what it took to settle this land . I can not turn my back on that , '' he said .
But even though a few Democrats joined Republicans in voting no for the bills , the Democrats ' 37-28 advantage in the House gave them enough leeway .
The Senate still needs to consider the proposals . Democrats will need to be more unified in their support there because their advantage is only 20-15 . That means Republicans need only three Democrats to join them to defeat the bills .
House lawmakers began debating the bills Friday . Lawmakers debated for 12 hours before giving initial approval to the bills , setting up the final recorded votes Monday . During the debate Friday , Vice President Joe Biden called four Democrats , including two in moderate districts , to solidify support for the measures .
Democratic Rep. Dominick Moreno , who represents a district in suburban Denver , was among the four lawmakers . He said Biden `` emphasized the importance of Colorado 's role in shaping national policy around this issue . ''
Castle Rock Republican Rep. Carole Murray brought up Biden 's calls during Monday 's debate , saying she did n't appreciate `` East-coast politicians '' trying to influence Colorado legislators .
Democratic Gov . John Hickenlooper supports the expanded background checks , and thinks gun buyers should pay for them . He also said he may support limits on the size of magazines , if lawmakers agree to a number between 15 and 20 . He said he has n't decided whether to support banning concealed firearms on campuses and stadiums .
Republicans say students should have the right to defend themselves .
`` Do not disarm our young adults in general and our young women in particular on our college campuses in the name of a gun-free zone , '' Republican Rep. Jim Wilson said .
The gun debate highlights a fundamental philosophical difference between many Democrats and Republicans .
`` I resent the implication that unless we all arm ourselves we will not be adequately protected , '' said Dickey Lee Hullinghorst , the Democrats ' leader in the House .
Republican Rep. Christ Holbert became emotional while explaining his opposition to the bills . He said he understood Fields cares about the bills , because of her district and because her son was shot and killed in 2005 .
`` But I care passionately about the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state , and the oath that we have taken , '' Holbert said .
|
Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings.
The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.
The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31.
"Enough is enough. I'm sick and tired of bloodshed," said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, a sponsor of the bill and representative of the district where the shootings at an Aurora theater happened last summer. Fields' son was also fatally shot in 2005.
Republicans argued that the proposals restrict Second Amendment rights and won't prevent mass shootings like the ones in Aurora and a Connecticut elementary school.
"This bill will never keep evil people from doing evil things," said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.
The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online.
Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks. Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure, which passed on a 33-32 vote.
Democratic Rep. Ed Vigil, who represents rural southern Colorado, voted against the four bills, saying his decision was rooted in the state's rugged history.
"This is part of our heritage. This is part of what it took to settle this land. I cannot turn my back on that," he said.
But even though a few Democrats joined Republicans in voting no for the bills, the Democrats' 37-28 advantage in the House gave them enough leeway.
The Senate still needs to consider the proposals. Democrats will need to be more unified in their support there because their advantage is only 20-15. That means Republicans need only three Democrats to join them to defeat the bills.
House lawmakers began debating the bills Friday. Lawmakers debated for 12 hours before giving initial approval to the bills, setting up the final recorded votes Monday. During the debate Friday, Vice President Joe Biden called four Democrats, including two in moderate districts, to solidify support for the measures.
Democratic Rep. Dominick Moreno, who represents a district in suburban Denver, was among the four lawmakers. He said Biden "emphasized the importance of Colorado's role in shaping national policy around this issue."
Castle Rock Republican Rep. Carole Murray brought up Biden's calls during Monday's debate, saying she didn't appreciate "East-coast politicians" trying to influence Colorado legislators.
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper supports the expanded background checks, and thinks gun buyers should pay for them. He also said he may support limits on the size of magazines, if lawmakers agree to a number between 15 and 20. He said he hasn't decided whether to support banning concealed firearms on campuses and stadiums.
Republicans say students should have the right to defend themselves.
"Do not disarm our young adults in general and our young women in particular on our college campuses in the name of a gun-free zone," Republican Rep. Jim Wilson said.
The gun debate highlights a fundamental philosophical difference between many Democrats and Republicans.
"I resent the implication that unless we all arm ourselves we will not be adequately protected," said Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, the Democrats' leader in the House.
Republican Rep. Christ Holbert became emotional while explaining his opposition to the bills. He said he understood Fields cares about the bills, because of her district and because her son was shot and killed in 2005.
"But I care passionately about the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, and the oath that we have taken," Holbert said.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
UhR0NWD83MqdNoBO
|
|
general_news
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/retailers-vie-for-black-friday-dollars-1480071604
|
Retailers Vie for Black Friday Dollars
|
Suzanne Kapner, Sarah Nassauer, Suzanne.Kapner Dowjones.Com, Sarah.Nassauer Wsj.Com
|
Retailers dangled hefty discounts in their stores—after offering earlier deals on their websites—as they waged a high-stakes battle with Amazon.com Inc. AMZN -1.40 % and other rivals to capture as much spending as they could during the Black Friday shopping spree .
Shoppers arrived in the predawn hours Friday , following millions of Americans who left family Thanksgiving gatherings Thursday to visit malls and shopping centers . They scooped up flat-screen Samsung televisions , Hatchimals toys and other gifts that retailers have been promoting for days—but often had their smartphones in hand to check prices .
“ So far , the most encouraging trend we are seeing is that while door-busters continue to be important , once guests are there , they are shopping multiple categories , ” Target Corp. TGT 0.21 % chief Brian Cornell said late Thursday .
For brick-and-mortar retailers , the challenge is to draw more shoppers into their stores on a chaotic day often marred by long lines and crowded parking lots .
Last year , more people shopped online than in stores during the Thanksgiving weekend , according to the National Retail Federation .
On Friday morning , Macy ’ s Inc. CEO Terry Lundgren said he was seeing more opportunity to grow sales as a whole this holiday season , compared with last year when online gains came at the expense of physical stores . “ This year , there is more opportunity to grow the pie , ” Mr. Lundgren said . “ Last year , when business was challenging , the pie was being divided in more ways . ”
RetailNext Inc. , which collects data through analytics software it provides to retailers , said online sales increased 14 % on Thanksgiving compared with the same day a year ago , while sales at brick-and-mortar stores fell nearly 18 % . RetailNext attributed the drop in sales at physical stores to fewer stores opening on Thanksgiving .
Marshal Cohen , retail analyst at NPD , said he saw evidence that Thanksgiving openings and online deals were stealing business from Black Friday . “ In the 40 years I ’ ve studied Black Friday , I ’ ve never seen the crowds this soft on Friday morning ; parking wasn ’ t an issue , and lines were shorter than any weekend in October , ” he wrote .
By 5:30 a.m. Friday the crowds had thinned at the sprawling Gateway Center in Brooklyn , N.Y. , with employees appearing to outnumber shoppers at several stores . “ I don ’ t miss the crazy , ” said Christine Aguirre , a 37-year-old office manager , as she pushed a cart filled with two televisions and other goods at a Target on Friday morning . “ It ’ s better now ; it used to be so packed . ”
Although more people are doing holiday shopping online and know that the same deals or better can be found there , many Black Friday shoppers said they still wanted to try on clothes , shoes or household items .
“ I know you can get the deals online , but I don ’ t think you get the gratification , ” said Tara Christy , 34 , who drove nearly two hours with her cousin to shop in Kansas City . By 9 a.m. the crowds had died down .
Retail CEOs credited a stronger economy and pent-up demand following the presidential election for helping drive traffic to stores . “ With the election earlier in the month , things were soft , ” Kohl ’ s Corp. chief Kevin Mansell said . “ That put a lot of pressure on this weekend . It looks like results will come in equal or better to our expectations . ”
The executives cited strong sales of smartwatches and other electronics such as videogame systems and TVs . Coats and other winter goods got a lift from a cold snap that hit the East Coast just before this year ’ s Thanksgiving , said Jerry Storch , the CEO of Hudson ’ s Bay Co. , which owns Saks Fifth Avenue and Lord & Taylor .
But it was the sharply discounted goods that were the big draw . J.C. Penney sold out of 200,000 pairs of diamond stud earrings priced at $ 20 each .
Even though the chain doesn ’ t make money on that item , shoppers purchase other goods while in the store , “ so you come out ahead , ” said Penney chief Marvin Ellison .
While some shoppers said they hit the stores out of tradition , many consumers said they were largely focused on grabbing deeply discounted items . Some shoppers said they went to brick-and-mortar stores because they weren ’ t confident they could get door-busters online , even though they were offered .
“ I try online every year , but it just hasn ’ t worked ; you can ’ t access everything online , ” said Betty Rasmus , 63 , who arrived at Best Buy in Spring , Texas , at 4:45 a.m. and was the first in line , aiming to buy a 55-inch Sharp television for $ 250 , about half price , as well as two laptops .
Black Friday is no longer a one-day event . Promotions are increasingly spread throughout November , as traditional retailers try to match online rivals such as Amazon . They have been linking their stores and websites more closely and are finding ways to capitalize on the rise in mobile shopping .
Amazon said Friday that Thanksgiving was becoming one of the biggest mobile shopping days on the site , with orders exceeding both Thanksgiving and Cyber Monday last year . Wal-Mart said mobile orders accounted for 60 % of its Black Friday event sales that were purchased online .
Others used their smartphones to avoid the stores altogether . James Seatter , 24 , purchased a vacuum cleaner on his phone from Amazon and gifts for his father on BrooksBrothers.com . He plans to continue his online shopping Monday . “ I don ’ t want to fight with someone over a toaster oven at Wal-Mart , ” he said .
—Sharon Terlep , Bradley Olson and Annie Gasparro contributed to this article .
|
Retailers dangled hefty discounts in their stores—after offering earlier deals on their websites—as they waged a high-stakes battle with Amazon.com Inc. AMZN -1.40% and other rivals to capture as much spending as they could during the Black Friday shopping spree.
Shoppers arrived in the predawn hours Friday, following millions of Americans who left family Thanksgiving gatherings Thursday to visit malls and shopping centers. They scooped up flat-screen Samsung televisions, Hatchimals toys and other gifts that retailers have been promoting for days—but often had their smartphones in hand to check prices.
“So far, the most encouraging trend we are seeing is that while door-busters continue to be important, once guests are there, they are shopping multiple categories,” Target Corp. TGT 0.21% chief Brian Cornell said late Thursday.
For brick-and-mortar retailers, the challenge is to draw more shoppers into their stores on a chaotic day often marred by long lines and crowded parking lots.
Last year, more people shopped online than in stores during the Thanksgiving weekend, according to the National Retail Federation.
On Friday morning, Macy’s Inc. CEO Terry Lundgren said he was seeing more opportunity to grow sales as a whole this holiday season, compared with last year when online gains came at the expense of physical stores. “This year, there is more opportunity to grow the pie,” Mr. Lundgren said. “Last year, when business was challenging, the pie was being divided in more ways.”
RetailNext Inc., which collects data through analytics software it provides to retailers, said online sales increased 14% on Thanksgiving compared with the same day a year ago, while sales at brick-and-mortar stores fell nearly 18%. RetailNext attributed the drop in sales at physical stores to fewer stores opening on Thanksgiving.
Marshal Cohen, retail analyst at NPD, said he saw evidence that Thanksgiving openings and online deals were stealing business from Black Friday. “In the 40 years I’ve studied Black Friday, I’ve never seen the crowds this soft on Friday morning; parking wasn’t an issue, and lines were shorter than any weekend in October,” he wrote.
By 5:30 a.m. Friday the crowds had thinned at the sprawling Gateway Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., with employees appearing to outnumber shoppers at several stores. “I don’t miss the crazy,” said Christine Aguirre, a 37-year-old office manager, as she pushed a cart filled with two televisions and other goods at a Target on Friday morning. “It’s better now; it used to be so packed.”
Small Business Saturday, nestled between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, puts the spotlight on the nation's 28 million shops along Main Street. Maria Contreras-Sweet, administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration explains the vital role small businesses play in local communities and how companies like Uber and American Express are providing incentives for consumers to shop small. Photo: iStock
Although more people are doing holiday shopping online and know that the same deals or better can be found there, many Black Friday shoppers said they still wanted to try on clothes, shoes or household items.
“I know you can get the deals online, but I don’t think you get the gratification,” said Tara Christy, 34, who drove nearly two hours with her cousin to shop in Kansas City. By 9 a.m. the crowds had died down.
Retail CEOs credited a stronger economy and pent-up demand following the presidential election for helping drive traffic to stores. “With the election earlier in the month, things were soft,” Kohl’s Corp. chief Kevin Mansell said. “That put a lot of pressure on this weekend. It looks like results will come in equal or better to our expectations.”
The executives cited strong sales of smartwatches and other electronics such as videogame systems and TVs. Coats and other winter goods got a lift from a cold snap that hit the East Coast just before this year’s Thanksgiving, said Jerry Storch, the CEO of Hudson’s Bay Co., which owns Saks Fifth Avenue and Lord & Taylor.
But it was the sharply discounted goods that were the big draw. J.C. Penney sold out of 200,000 pairs of diamond stud earrings priced at $20 each.
Even though the chain doesn’t make money on that item, shoppers purchase other goods while in the store, “so you come out ahead,” said Penney chief Marvin Ellison.
While some shoppers said they hit the stores out of tradition, many consumers said they were largely focused on grabbing deeply discounted items. Some shoppers said they went to brick-and-mortar stores because they weren’t confident they could get door-busters online, even though they were offered.
“I try online every year, but it just hasn’t worked; you can’t access everything online,” said Betty Rasmus, 63, who arrived at Best Buy in Spring, Texas, at 4:45 a.m. and was the first in line, aiming to buy a 55-inch Sharp television for $250, about half price, as well as two laptops.
Black Friday is no longer a one-day event. Promotions are increasingly spread throughout November, as traditional retailers try to match online rivals such as Amazon. They have been linking their stores and websites more closely and are finding ways to capitalize on the rise in mobile shopping.
Amazon said Friday that Thanksgiving was becoming one of the biggest mobile shopping days on the site, with orders exceeding both Thanksgiving and Cyber Monday last year. Wal-Mart said mobile orders accounted for 60% of its Black Friday event sales that were purchased online.
Others used their smartphones to avoid the stores altogether. James Seatter, 24, purchased a vacuum cleaner on his phone from Amazon and gifts for his father on BrooksBrothers.com. He plans to continue his online shopping Monday. “I don’t want to fight with someone over a toaster oven at Wal-Mart,” he said.
—Sharon Terlep, Bradley Olson and Annie Gasparro contributed to this article.
Write to Suzanne Kapner at [email protected] and Sarah Nassauer at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
HYPhiDVYqT7CjaIX
|
|
russia
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/paul-manafort-to-plead-guilty-as-part-plea-deal-with-special-counsel.html
|
Paul Manafort pleads guilty, agrees to cooperate in deal with Mueller team
|
2018-09-14
|
Jake Gibson, Law Enforcement, Intelligence Issues.
|
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pleaded guilty in federal court Friday as part of a plea agreement that involves cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and allows him to avoid a second trial .
“ I plead guilty , '' Manafort , 69 , told U.S. District Judge Amy Berman in Washington .
Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told the judge that Manafort 's deal includes a cooperation agreement with prosecutors , who are investigating whether any Trump associates played a role in Russia 's meddling in the 2016 election . That could include interviews with prosecutors and testifying in court .
A defense attorney for Manafort told Fox News the deal includes `` full cooperation . ''
But the president 's team downplayed the significance of Manafort 's plea .
“ Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign , '' Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in a statement to Fox News . `` The reason : the president did nothing wrong . ''
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday that Manafort 's decision is `` totally unrelated '' to the president .
Manafort , in a trial set to begin Sept. 24 , had been facing seven counts of foreign lobbying violations and witness tampering in federal court in Washington .
In August , in a separate trial in Virginia , a federal jury found Manafort guilty on eight counts of federal tax and banking crimes .
Manafort faces up to 10 years on these charges in Washington . He still faces sentencing for his guilty verdict in Virginia .
As part of this agreement , Manafort has forfeited multiple bank accounts and several properties in New York . However , he will keep his properties in Florida and Virginia , where his family live .
Manafort attorney Kevin Downing told reporters after the court hearing it was a “ tough day ” for his client , “ who has accepted responsibility. ” He said Manafort “ wanted to make sure that his family was able to remain safe and live a good life . ”
The case was brought by Mueller 's team , which is probing potential crimes related to the 2016 election . But Manafort has not been charged with anything related to the campaign .
In August , Manafort ’ s bank and tax fraud conviction made him the first campaign associate of Trump found guilty by a jury as part of Mueller ’ s probe .
“ I feel very badly for Paul Manafort , ” Trump told reporters after the August verdict , adding that it had `` nothing to do with Russian collusion . '' The president has called Mueller 's probe a `` witch hunt . ''
Trump also said he had “ such respect ” for Manafort and called him a “ brave man. ” In comments interpreted to mean he was open to pardoning Manafort , Trump commended Manafort , saying he “ refused to break ” and “ make up stories in order to get a deal . ”
In the Virginia trial , prosecutors said Manafort hid income earned from political work overseas from the IRS while fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans . Manafort had pleaded not guilty to all counts .
The prosecution ’ s star witness , Rick Gates – Manafort ’ s former business partner who struck a plea deal to cooperate with the government -- testified during the trial that he and Manafort committed bank and tax fraud together .
Downing , Manafort 's attorney , suggested after the guilty verdict in August that Manafort was open to striking a deal before the second trial .
“ He is evaluating all of his options at this point , ” Downing said of Manafort .
|
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pleaded guilty in federal court Friday as part of a plea agreement that involves cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and allows him to avoid a second trial.
“I plead guilty," Manafort, 69, told U.S. District Judge Amy Berman in Washington.
Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told the judge that Manafort's deal includes a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, who are investigating whether any Trump associates played a role in Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. That could include interviews with prosecutors and testifying in court.
A defense attorney for Manafort told Fox News the deal includes "full cooperation."
But the president's team downplayed the significance of Manafort's plea.
“Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in a statement to Fox News. "The reason: the president did nothing wrong."
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday that Manafort's decision is "totally unrelated" to the president.
Manafort, in a trial set to begin Sept. 24, had been facing seven counts of foreign lobbying violations and witness tampering in federal court in Washington.
In August, in a separate trial in Virginia, a federal jury found Manafort guilty on eight counts of federal tax and banking crimes.
Manafort faces up to 10 years on these charges in Washington. He still faces sentencing for his guilty verdict in Virginia.
As part of this agreement, Manafort has forfeited multiple bank accounts and several properties in New York. However, he will keep his properties in Florida and Virginia, where his family live.
Manafort attorney Kevin Downing told reporters after the court hearing it was a “tough day” for his client, “who has accepted responsibility.” He said Manafort “wanted to make sure that his family was able to remain safe and live a good life.”
The case was brought by Mueller's team, which is probing potential crimes related to the 2016 election. But Manafort has not been charged with anything related to the campaign.
In August, Manafort’s bank and tax fraud conviction made him the first campaign associate of Trump found guilty by a jury as part of Mueller’s probe.
“I feel very badly for Paul Manafort,” Trump told reporters after the August verdict, adding that it had "nothing to do with Russian collusion." The president has called Mueller's probe a "witch hunt."
Trump also said he had “such respect” for Manafort and called him a “brave man.” In comments interpreted to mean he was open to pardoning Manafort, Trump commended Manafort, saying he “refused to break” and “make up stories in order to get a deal.”
In the Virginia trial, prosecutors said Manafort hid income earned from political work overseas from the IRS while fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans. Manafort had pleaded not guilty to all counts.
The prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates – Manafort’s former business partner who struck a plea deal to cooperate with the government -- testified during the trial that he and Manafort committed bank and tax fraud together.
Downing, Manafort's attorney, suggested after the guilty verdict in August that Manafort was open to striking a deal before the second trial.
“He is evaluating all of his options at this point,” Downing said of Manafort.
Fox News' Catherine Herridge, John Roberts and NuNu Japaridze contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
oeyivMZw5e0aZuwk
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-staying-in-race-224126
|
Sanders signals the end is near
|
2016-06-09
|
Nick Gass
|
poster= '' http : //v.███.com/images/1155968404/201606/3811/1155968404_4933109260001_4933107659001-vs.jpg ? pubId=1155968404 '' Sanders signals the end is near After meeting with Obama , Sanders gives strongest sign yet that he will soon bow out . But he 's going to compete in D.C. primary first .
Bernie Sanders on Thursday gave the strongest signals yet that he will soon bow out of the presidential race , telling reporters after meeting with President Barack Obama that he will ally himself with Hillary Clinton in the fight against Donald Trump .
The Vermont senator declared that he will stay in the race for the Democratic nomination until next Tuesday 's District of Columbia primary and said he wants to see whether the final vote count in California shows a tighter result . He also is planning to go forward with a big rally in Washington , D.C. , on Thursday night .
After spending an hour meeting with Obama in the Oval Office , Sanders acknowledged that he would work with Clinton , who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee , to defeat Trump in the general election . Delivering remarks prepared before his sit-down with the president , Sanders ticked through a list of his priorities , promising to take those issues to the convention in Philadelphia next month .
`` Donald Trump would clearly , to my mind and I think the majority of Americans , be a disaster as president of the United States . It is unbelievable to me , and I say this in all sincerity , that the Republican Party would have a candidate for president who in the year 2016 makes bigotry and discrimination the cornerstone of his campaign . In my view , the American people will not vote for or tolerate a candidate who insults Mexicans and Latinos , who insults Muslims , who insults African-Americans and women , '' Sanders said . `` Needless to say , I am going to do everything in my power , and I will work as hard as I can , to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States . ''
Sanders continued , `` I will of course , be competing in the D.C. primary , which will be held next Tuesday . ''
`` This is the last primary of the Democratic nominating process . The major point that I will be making to the citizens of the District of Columbia is that I am strongly in favor of D.C. statehood , '' he said , noting that Vermont has roughly the same population as the nation 's capital but does not have the same representation . He also said he looks forward to the final count from Tuesday 's primary in California , anticipating a closer result .
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla 's office said the vote tally from Tuesday 's primary will not be made official until the middle of next month .
`` July 15 is when we certify all the vote . All the counties have until July 8 to send us their official votes , '' a spokesman from Padilla 's office told ███ .
For months , Sanders has pointed to his superior performance against Trump in hypothetical general-election matchup polls , expressing a belief that if he were to overcome Clinton 's superdelegate advantage , he would be the safer bet in November .
As Clinton continued to distance herself from Sanders in the delegate count , her allies in the Senate pivoted from telling their colleague to wind down operations in March to more recently urging the media and fellow Democrats to give him time and space to leave on his own accord .
`` I think we should be a little graceful , '' Vice President Joe Biden told CNN on Wednesday on Capitol Hill .
Beginning his remarks Thursday , Sanders thanked both Obama and Biden `` for the degree of impartiality they established during the course of this entire process . ''
Sanders , who began his campaign last April outside the Capitol encircled by a gathering of media , found himself Thursday just miles down the road and faced with a crush of reporters . The senator said he spoke `` briefly to Secretary Clinton '' on Tuesday night , congratulating her `` on her very strong campaign . '' And he said he will soon be sitting down with the former secretary of state as she readies for an epic battle with Trump .
`` I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent , '' Sanders concluded , before rushing away from reporters back into the White House .
Less than two hours later , Clinton 's campaign trumpeted Obama 's endorsement in a video that was taped on Tuesday . Meanwhile , Sanders was to meet with Biden at his Naval Observatory residence later in the afternoon .
`` I think you could describe the conversation as a friendly conversation that was focused on the future . Part of that future conversation was about the importance of the upcoming general election , '' White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday . `` You 've heard the president say on a number of occasions how important it is to him personally that he be succeeded in office by a president who is committed to building on the remarkable progress that our country has made over the last seven and a half years . ''
|
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201606/3811/1155968404_4933109260001_4933107659001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" Sanders signals the end is near After meeting with Obama, Sanders gives strongest sign yet that he will soon bow out. But he's going to compete in D.C. primary first.
Bernie Sanders on Thursday gave the strongest signals yet that he will soon bow out of the presidential race, telling reporters after meeting with President Barack Obama that he will ally himself with Hillary Clinton in the fight against Donald Trump.
But he's not quite ready to go yet.
Story Continued Below
The Vermont senator declared that he will stay in the race for the Democratic nomination until next Tuesday's District of Columbia primary and said he wants to see whether the final vote count in California shows a tighter result. He also is planning to go forward with a big rally in Washington, D.C., on Thursday night.
After spending an hour meeting with Obama in the Oval Office, Sanders acknowledged that he would work with Clinton, who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, to defeat Trump in the general election. Delivering remarks prepared before his sit-down with the president, Sanders ticked through a list of his priorities, promising to take those issues to the convention in Philadelphia next month.
"Donald Trump would clearly, to my mind and I think the majority of Americans, be a disaster as president of the United States. It is unbelievable to me, and I say this in all sincerity, that the Republican Party would have a candidate for president who in the year 2016 makes bigotry and discrimination the cornerstone of his campaign. In my view, the American people will not vote for or tolerate a candidate who insults Mexicans and Latinos, who insults Muslims, who insults African-Americans and women," Sanders said. "Needless to say, I am going to do everything in my power, and I will work as hard as I can, to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States."
Sanders continued, "I will of course, be competing in the D.C. primary, which will be held next Tuesday."
"This is the last primary of the Democratic nominating process. The major point that I will be making to the citizens of the District of Columbia is that I am strongly in favor of D.C. statehood," he said, noting that Vermont has roughly the same population as the nation's capital but does not have the same representation. He also said he looks forward to the final count from Tuesday's primary in California, anticipating a closer result.
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla's office said the vote tally from Tuesday's primary will not be made official until the middle of next month.
"July 15 is when we certify all the vote. All the counties have until July 8 to send us their official votes," a spokesman from Padilla's office told POLITICO.
For months, Sanders has pointed to his superior performance against Trump in hypothetical general-election matchup polls, expressing a belief that if he were to overcome Clinton's superdelegate advantage, he would be the safer bet in November.
As Clinton continued to distance herself from Sanders in the delegate count, her allies in the Senate pivoted from telling their colleague to wind down operations in March to more recently urging the media and fellow Democrats to give him time and space to leave on his own accord.
"I think we should be a little graceful," Vice President Joe Biden told CNN on Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
Beginning his remarks Thursday, Sanders thanked both Obama and Biden "for the degree of impartiality they established during the course of this entire process."
Sanders, who began his campaign last April outside the Capitol encircled by a gathering of media, found himself Thursday just miles down the road and faced with a crush of reporters. The senator said he spoke "briefly to Secretary Clinton" on Tuesday night, congratulating her "on her very strong campaign." And he said he will soon be sitting down with the former secretary of state as she readies for an epic battle with Trump.
"I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent," Sanders concluded, before rushing away from reporters back into the White House.
Less than two hours later, Clinton's campaign trumpeted Obama's endorsement in a video that was taped on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Sanders was to meet with Biden at his Naval Observatory residence later in the afternoon.
"I think you could describe the conversation as a friendly conversation that was focused on the future. Part of that future conversation was about the importance of the upcoming general election," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. "You've heard the president say on a number of occasions how important it is to him personally that he be succeeded in office by a president who is committed to building on the remarkable progress that our country has made over the last seven and a half years."
Dan Spinelli contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
o78pmcGHeK2zhl4g
|
violence_in_america
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests/george-floyd-to-be-buried-tuesday-as-global-anti-racism-protests-spread-idUSKBN23G1JQ
|
George Floyd to be buried Tuesday as global anti-racism protests spread
|
2020-06-10
|
Jennifer Hiller
|
HOUSTON ( ███ ) - George Floyd , a black man whose death under the knee of a white police officer roused worldwide protests against racial injustice , was memorialized at his funeral on Tuesday as “ an ordinary brother ” transformed by fate into the “ cornerstone of a movement . ”
During a four-hour service broadcast live on every major U.S. television network from a church in Floyd ’ s boyhood home of Houston , family members , clergy and politicians exhorted Americans to turn grief and outrage at his death into a moment of reckoning for the nation .
The funeral followed two weeks of protests ignited by graphic video footage of Floyd , 46 , handcuffed and lying face down on a Minneapolis street while an officer kneels into the back of his neck for nearly nine minutes . The video shows Floyd gasping for air as he cries out , “ Mama , ” and groans , “ Please , I can ’ t breathe , ” before falling silent and still .
The officer , Derek Chauvin , 44 , has since been charged with second-degree murder and three other officers with aiding and abetting Floyd ’ s May 25 death . All were dismissed from the department a day after the incident .
Floyd ’ s dying words have become a rallying cry for hundreds of thousands of protesters around the globe who have since taken to the streets , undaunted by the coronavirus pandemic , demanding justice for Floyd and an end to mistreatment of minorities by U.S. law enforcement .
“ I can breathe . And as long as I ’ m breathing , justice will be served , ” Floyd ’ s niece Brooklyn Williams declared in a eulogy that drew applause from mourners inside the Fountain of Praise Church . “ This is not just a murder but a hate crime . ”
Williams was one of several relatives and friends who addressed the service , remembering Floyd as a loving , larger-than-life personality . The memorial was punctuated by gospel music and a video montage of shared memories of the man affectionately known as “ Big Floyd . ”
His younger brother , Terrence Floyd , spoke about awakening in the middle of the night in recent days traumatized by the memory of seeing his older sibling calling out for their mother as he lay dying .
His older brother , Philonise , sobbing in grief , told mourners , “ George was my personal superman . ”
Civil rights activist the Rev . Al Sharpton called Floyd “ an ordinary brother ” who grew up in a housing project but left behind a legacy of greatness despite rejections in jobs and sports that prevented him from achieving all that he once aspired to become .
“ God took the rejected stone and made him the cornerstone of a movement that is going to change the whole wide world , ” Sharpton said , invoking a biblical parable from the New Testament .
Sharpton said the Floyd family would lead a march on Washington being organized for Aug. 28 to mark the 57th anniversary of the 1963 “ I Have a Dream ” speech given from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. , who was assassinated in 1968 .
Some 2,500 people attended the funeral , after more than 6,000 people filed past Floyd ’ s open casket on Monday .
Two columns of uniformed Houston police officers saluted the golden casket as it was wheeled from the hearse into the church before the service . A horse-drawn carriage later bore the coffin on its last mile to the cemetery in Pearland , Texas , where Floyd was buried in a private ceremony .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate in the Nov. 3 election , addressed the funeral service via a video recording , lamenting that “ too many black Americans wake up knowing that they could lose their life in the course of just living their life . ”
“ We must not turn away . We can not leave this moment thinking we can once again turn away from racism , ” he said .
A man raises his hand in solidarity as the coffin of George Floyd , whose death in Minneapolis police custody has sparked nationwide protests against racial inequality , is seen in a horse-drawn carriage as it enters the Houston Memorial Gardens cemetery in Pearland , Texas , U.S. , June 9 , 2020 . ███/Adrees Latif
Two voter registration tables were set up outside the church .
Among those in attendance were loved ones of several other black men killed by white police or white civilians .
The mother of Eric Garner , the New York man who died in a police chokehold in 2014 , was present , as was the family of Ahmaud Arbery , a 25-year-old Georgia man who was shot and killed in February while jogging . Three white men were charged in his death .
Fallout from Floyd ’ s death , and reaction to a spate of arson and looting that accompanied some of the otherwise mostly peaceful protests , also plunged President Donald Trump into one of the biggest crises of his tenure .
Hundreds of protesters packed Seattle ’ s city hall late Tuesday night , chanting demands for the resignation of the mayor and the defunding the police force .
Days after Seattle ’ s mayor and police chief promised a month-long moratorium on tear gas , the department used it again on protesters overnight Sunday , bringing severe criticism .
A Republican , Trump repeatedly threatened to order the military onto the streets to quell protests , focusing on restoring order while saying little about the U.S. racial wounds at the root of the upheavals .
For Special Report : How union , Supreme Court shield Minneapolis cops -
For Before the court : A united front takes aim at qualified immunity :
|
HOUSTON (Reuters) - George Floyd, a black man whose death under the knee of a white police officer roused worldwide protests against racial injustice, was memorialized at his funeral on Tuesday as “an ordinary brother” transformed by fate into the “cornerstone of a movement.”
During a four-hour service broadcast live on every major U.S. television network from a church in Floyd’s boyhood home of Houston, family members, clergy and politicians exhorted Americans to turn grief and outrage at his death into a moment of reckoning for the nation.
The funeral followed two weeks of protests ignited by graphic video footage of Floyd, 46, handcuffed and lying face down on a Minneapolis street while an officer kneels into the back of his neck for nearly nine minutes. The video shows Floyd gasping for air as he cries out, “Mama,” and groans, “Please, I can’t breathe,” before falling silent and still.
The officer, Derek Chauvin, 44, has since been charged with second-degree murder and three other officers with aiding and abetting Floyd’s May 25 death. All were dismissed from the department a day after the incident.
Floyd’s dying words have become a rallying cry for hundreds of thousands of protesters around the globe who have since taken to the streets, undaunted by the coronavirus pandemic, demanding justice for Floyd and an end to mistreatment of minorities by U.S. law enforcement.
“I can breathe. And as long as I’m breathing, justice will be served,” Floyd’s niece Brooklyn Williams declared in a eulogy that drew applause from mourners inside the Fountain of Praise Church. “This is not just a murder but a hate crime.”
‘BIG FLOYD’
Williams was one of several relatives and friends who addressed the service, remembering Floyd as a loving, larger-than-life personality. The memorial was punctuated by gospel music and a video montage of shared memories of the man affectionately known as “Big Floyd.”
His younger brother, Terrence Floyd, spoke about awakening in the middle of the night in recent days traumatized by the memory of seeing his older sibling calling out for their mother as he lay dying.
His older brother, Philonise, sobbing in grief, told mourners, “George was my personal superman.”
Civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton called Floyd “an ordinary brother” who grew up in a housing project but left behind a legacy of greatness despite rejections in jobs and sports that prevented him from achieving all that he once aspired to become.
“God took the rejected stone and made him the cornerstone of a movement that is going to change the whole wide world,” Sharpton said, invoking a biblical parable from the New Testament.
Sharpton said the Floyd family would lead a march on Washington being organized for Aug. 28 to mark the 57th anniversary of the 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech given from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated in 1968.
‘HOME-GOING CELEBRATION’
Some 2,500 people attended the funeral, after more than 6,000 people filed past Floyd’s open casket on Monday.
Two columns of uniformed Houston police officers saluted the golden casket as it was wheeled from the hearse into the church before the service. A horse-drawn carriage later bore the coffin on its last mile to the cemetery in Pearland, Texas, where Floyd was buried in a private ceremony.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate in the Nov. 3 election, addressed the funeral service via a video recording, lamenting that “too many black Americans wake up knowing that they could lose their life in the course of just living their life.”
“We must not turn away. We cannot leave this moment thinking we can once again turn away from racism,” he said.
A man raises his hand in solidarity as the coffin of George Floyd, whose death in Minneapolis police custody has sparked nationwide protests against racial inequality, is seen in a horse-drawn carriage as it enters the Houston Memorial Gardens cemetery in Pearland, Texas, U.S., June 9, 2020. REUTERS/Adrees Latif
Two voter registration tables were set up outside the church.
MOURNING FAMILIES
Among those in attendance were loved ones of several other black men killed by white police or white civilians.
The mother of Eric Garner, the New York man who died in a police chokehold in 2014, was present, as was the family of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Georgia man who was shot and killed in February while jogging. Three white men were charged in his death.
Fallout from Floyd’s death, and reaction to a spate of arson and looting that accompanied some of the otherwise mostly peaceful protests, also plunged President Donald Trump into one of the biggest crises of his tenure.
Hundreds of protesters packed Seattle’s city hall late Tuesday night, chanting demands for the resignation of the mayor and the defunding the police force.
Days after Seattle’s mayor and police chief promised a month-long moratorium on tear gas, the department used it again on protesters overnight Sunday, bringing severe criticism.
A Republican, Trump repeatedly threatened to order the military onto the streets to quell protests, focusing on restoring order while saying little about the U.S. racial wounds at the root of the upheavals.
For Special Report: How union, Supreme Court shield Minneapolis cops -
here
Slideshow (29 Images)
For Before the court: A united front takes aim at qualified immunity:
here
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
UDrM4n1boDroTRam
|
us_congress
|
ABC News
| 00
|
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/why-congress-wont-let-60-chimps-retire/
|
Why Congress Won’t Let 60 Chimps Retire
|
Nicki Rossoll
|
They have spent their lives in research facilities , been injected with miserable diseases , and used by National Institutes of Health scientists to research new medicines , but now , after being designated by the NIH as `` permanently ineligible for biomedical research , '' 60 chimpanzees , slated for retirement , are unable to be moved to a special sanctuary because of congressional inaction .
At issue is an obscure piece of legislation , The Chimp Act , which puts a cap on the amount of money the NIH can spend , from its appropriated budget , on the care of NIH owned or supported chimpanzees housed in sanctuaries .
Currently , there are 60 chimpanzees slated to move from the New Iberia Research Center , in Lafayette , La. , to Chimp Haven in Keithville , La. , this spring . In addition , this law also means trouble for the 100 chimpanzees currently housed in Chimp Haven , designated as retired .
`` We have hit this wall , and we need this fixed , or else come mid- to end-November , we will not be able to pay Chimp Haven to take care of these animals , '' said Dr. Kathy Hudson , NIH Deputy Director for Science , Outreach and Policy . `` Scientifically , ethically and economically that is a bad idea . ''
That wall Hudson is talking about is a $ 30 million spending limit , enacted under a law in 2000 that legally obligates the NIH to only spend that much of its appropriated funds on the sanctuary care for these chimpanzees .
These 60 chimps that have been designated to head into retirement are not alone . There are many more waiting behind them , since the Institute of Medicine advised the NIH to retire all of its biomedical research chimps , in favor of better , less expensive models for medical research . However , 50 chimpanzees will be placed on retainer in case they are needed for crucial medical studies that could be performed no other way .
There is wide bipartisan support for amending the law , but somehow , the permission slip got lost during the mess that was the government shutdown .
Wednesday , Senator Tom Harkin , D , Iowa , Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee and Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor , Health and Human Services , Education , and Related Agencies , will get the ball rolling in his committee , by introducing The CHIMP Act Amendments of 2013 ( S. 1561 ) , a bipartisan bill that the Committee will consider at an executive session .
`` The National Institutes of Health has made a worthy and important decision to scale back the use of chimpanzees in medical research . Current law limits NIH 's ability to use its existing funds to provide care to its chimpanzees already housed in sanctuaries , in addition to carrying out the important goal of moving the chimps current living in research labs . We have an obligation to provide care for animals that have directly contributed to our medical knowledge , and it is absolutely urgent that Congress act to remove this funding limitation now and for the future , '' the senator said in a statement to ███ .
Hudson has faith that this issue will be resolved quickly by Congress .
`` This is really an issue where there is no divide , it would be impossible to find someone who did n't support the NIH in taking care of these animals that have contributed greatly to biomedical research , '' Hudson said . `` We are very grateful to the members and staff that have contributed to this bill and think it will move quickly through house and senate . ''
Harkin also expressed his hope for a quick bipartisan movement to ensure the chimps enjoy the sunset of their lives . `` Moving these chimps to sanctuary care is not only the right thing to do , but doing so would also be more cost-efficient for NIH and for taxpayers . I hope that Democrats and Republicans can work together to ensure that NIH can use resources it already has on hand to ensure these chimps ' well-being now and in the future , '' he said in a statement to ███ .
Hudson agreed and explained that it is more cost effective to care for the chimps that are not being used in research in the sanctuary . `` We 're not breeding these animals , and they are an aging population . It will be more economical to have these animals there ; overtime these costs will go down . ''
|
Karen Su/Getty Images
They have spent their lives in research facilities, been injected with miserable diseases, and used by National Institutes of Health scientists to research new medicines, but now, after being designated by the NIH as "permanently ineligible for biomedical research," 60 chimpanzees, slated for retirement, are unable to be moved to a special sanctuary because of congressional inaction.
At issue is an obscure piece of legislation, The Chimp Act, which puts a cap on the amount of money the NIH can spend, from its appropriated budget, on the care of NIH owned or supported chimpanzees housed in sanctuaries.
Currently, there are 60 chimpanzees slated to move from the New Iberia Research Center, in Lafayette, La., to Chimp Haven in Keithville, La., this spring. In addition, this law also means trouble for the 100 chimpanzees currently housed in Chimp Haven, designated as retired.
"We have hit this wall, and we need this fixed, or else come mid- to end-November, we will not be able to pay Chimp Haven to take care of these animals," said Dr. Kathy Hudson, NIH Deputy Director for Science, Outreach and Policy. "Scientifically, ethically and economically that is a bad idea."
That wall Hudson is talking about is a $30 million spending limit, enacted under a law in 2000 that legally obligates the NIH to only spend that much of its appropriated funds on the sanctuary care for these chimpanzees.
These 60 chimps that have been designated to head into retirement are not alone. There are many more waiting behind them, since the Institute of Medicine advised the NIH to retire all of its biomedical research chimps, in favor of better, less expensive models for medical research. However, 50 chimpanzees will be placed on retainer in case they are needed for crucial medical studies that could be performed no other way.
There is wide bipartisan support for amending the law, but somehow, the permission slip got lost during the mess that was the government shutdown.
Wednesday, Senator Tom Harkin, D, Iowa, Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee and Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, will get the ball rolling in his committee, by introducing The CHIMP Act Amendments of 2013 (S. 1561), a bipartisan bill that the Committee will consider at an executive session.
"The National Institutes of Health has made a worthy and important decision to scale back the use of chimpanzees in medical research. Current law limits NIH's ability to use its existing funds to provide care to its chimpanzees already housed in sanctuaries, in addition to carrying out the important goal of moving the chimps current living in research labs. We have an obligation to provide care for animals that have directly contributed to our medical knowledge, and it is absolutely urgent that Congress act to remove this funding limitation now and for the future," the senator said in a statement to ABC News.
Hudson has faith that this issue will be resolved quickly by Congress.
"This is really an issue where there is no divide, it would be impossible to find someone who didn't support the NIH in taking care of these animals that have contributed greatly to biomedical research," Hudson said. "We are very grateful to the members and staff that have contributed to this bill and think it will move quickly through house and senate."
Harkin also expressed his hope for a quick bipartisan movement to ensure the chimps enjoy the sunset of their lives. "Moving these chimps to sanctuary care is not only the right thing to do, but doing so would also be more cost-efficient for NIH and for taxpayers. I hope that Democrats and Republicans can work together to ensure that NIH can use resources it already has on hand to ensure these chimps' well-being now and in the future," he said in a statement to ABC News.
Hudson agreed and explained that it is more cost effective to care for the chimps that are not being used in research in the sanctuary. "We're not breeding these animals, and they are an aging population. It will be more economical to have these animals there; overtime these costs will go down."
|
www.abcnews.go.com
| 0left
|
mw1rxKnTEWoEY5W5
|
|
media_bias
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/05/23/elon-musk-rants-against-media-on-twitter-proposes-website-to-rate-journalists.html
|
Elon Musk rants against media on Twitter, proposes website to rate journalists
|
2018-05-23
|
Elizabeth Zwirz
|
Tesla CEO Elon Musk aired his frustration with the media on Wednesday , issuing a series of tweets calling out the “ hypocrisy of big media companies ” before floating the idea of starting a website which would allow the public to rate journalists .
“ The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth , but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie , is why the public no longer respects them , ” Musk started out by tweeting .
Musk went on to claim that “ journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired . ”
“ Tricky situation , as Tesla doesn ’ t advertise , but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world ’ s biggest advertisers , ” he said .
ELON MUSK CONFIRMS TESLA MODEL 3 HAS A BRAKING ISSUE , SAYS A FIX IS IN THE WORKS
And to one Twitter user who commented on the CEO ’ s remarks , Musk replied “ the media has earned this mistrust . But maybe there is a solution . ”
Musk also talked about creating a site , possibly called Pravda , where people “ can rate the core truth of any article ” and keep track of the credibility of a journalist or news outlet . He also created a poll , asking followers to choose whether the website was a good idea .
Pravda was the name of a Communist newspaper in the former Soviet Union .
Musk ’ s company has been the recipient of recent backlash due to a number of crashes involving the company ’ s vehicles .
TESLA THAT CRASHED INTO TRUCK WAS ON AUTOPILOT , DRIVER SAYS
During one incident in Utah this month , the driver of a Tesla that crashed into a truck at 60 mph told police that she had the vehicle ’ s autopilot feature turned on .
Musk reacted at the time , tweeting that it was “ super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage . ”
During Wednesday ’ s comments , Musk also responded to individual reporters , including one who retweeted Musk ’ s comment and drew a comparison to President Trump .
In response to a reporter who said Musk was continuing “ his slow transformation into a media-baiting Trump figure screaming irrationally about fake news , ” the Tesla CEO replied , “ Thought you ’ d say that . Anytime anyone criticizes the media , the media shrieks “ You ’ re just like Trump !
ELON MUSK SHOWS OFF INCREDIBLE SPACEX HUMAN TRANSPORT POD ON INSTAGRAM , TWITTER
“ Why do you think he got elected in the first place ? ” Musk continued . “ Because no one believes you any more . You lost your credibility a long time ago . ”
To another journalist , who wrote that “ blaming the messenger is the hot new thing everyone ’ s doing , ” Musk replied , “ Oh hey another sanctimonious media person who thinks he ’ s above criticism . ”
“ Try being truthful & the public will believe you again , ” Musk said .
Tesla did not immediately respond to ███ ’ request for comment .
|
Tesla CEO Elon Musk aired his frustration with the media on Wednesday, issuing a series of tweets calling out the “hypocrisy of big media companies” before floating the idea of starting a website which would allow the public to rate journalists.
“The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth, but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie, is why the public no longer respects them,” Musk started out by tweeting.
Musk went on to claim that “journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired.”
“Tricky situation, as Tesla doesn’t advertise, but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world’s biggest advertisers,” he said.
ELON MUSK CONFIRMS TESLA MODEL 3 HAS A BRAKING ISSUE, SAYS A FIX IS IN THE WORKS
And to one Twitter user who commented on the CEO’s remarks, Musk replied “the media has earned this mistrust. But maybe there is a solution.”
Musk also talked about creating a site, possibly called Pravda, where people “can rate the core truth of any article” and keep track of the credibility of a journalist or news outlet. He also created a poll, asking followers to choose whether the website was a good idea.
Pravda was the name of a Communist newspaper in the former Soviet Union.
Musk’s company has been the recipient of recent backlash due to a number of crashes involving the company’s vehicles.
TESLA THAT CRASHED INTO TRUCK WAS ON AUTOPILOT, DRIVER SAYS
During one incident in Utah this month, the driver of a Tesla that crashed into a truck at 60 mph told police that she had the vehicle’s autopilot feature turned on.
Musk reacted at the time, tweeting that it was “super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage.”
During Wednesday’s comments, Musk also responded to individual reporters, including one who retweeted Musk’s comment and drew a comparison to President Trump.
In response to a reporter who said Musk was continuing “his slow transformation into a media-baiting Trump figure screaming irrationally about fake news,” the Tesla CEO replied, “Thought you’d say that. Anytime anyone criticizes the media, the media shrieks “You’re just like Trump!
ELON MUSK SHOWS OFF INCREDIBLE SPACEX HUMAN TRANSPORT POD ON INSTAGRAM, TWITTER
“Why do you think he got elected in the first place?” Musk continued. “Because no one believes you any more. You lost your credibility a long time ago.”
To another journalist, who wrote that “blaming the messenger is the hot new thing everyone’s doing,” Musk replied, “Oh hey another sanctimonious media person who thinks he’s above criticism.”
“Try being truthful & the public will believe you again,” Musk said.
Tesla did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
Fox News’ Nicole Darrah contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
TQbrHzVO3aoJJAYP
|
republican_party
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/31/voter-purges-republicans-2020-elections-trump
|
Voter purges: are Republicans trying to rig the 2020 election?
|
2019-12-31
|
Sam Levine
|
Controversies in Wisconsin and Georgia show how the mass removal of voters from the rolls has become a key part of the fight to win
The final weeks of December may have been dominated by news of Donald Trump ’ s impeachment , but another development with potentially serious implications for the 2020 election – and the future of American democracy – attracted less global attention .
It took place not in the halls of Congress but hundreds of miles away , in Wisconsin . This was where a conservative advocacy group convinced a circuit court judge to order the state to remove more than 230,000 people removed from the state ’ s voter rolls . Wisconsin was already considered a crucial swing state in 2020 – bearing in mind that Donald Trump won the state by fewer than 23,000 votes in 2016 . More than half of the voters at risk of being purged lived in areas that favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump that year , according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel .
Top Trump adviser : Republicans have 'always ' relied on voter suppression Read more
A week later , one of Trump ’ s reelection advisers was caught on tape telling a Wisconsin Republicans that the party has “ traditionally ” relied on voter suppression . “ Traditionally it ’ s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places . Let ’ s start protecting our voters . We know where they are , ” the adviser , Justin Clark , said in audio obtained by the Associated Press . “ Let ’ s start playing offense a little bit . That ’ s what you ’ re going to see in 2020 . It ’ s going to be a much bigger program , a much more aggressive program , a much better-funded program . ”
There was now even less doubt that the Republicans intended to rely on both encouraging , and discouraging , voters as a key part of their 2020 election strategy .
Wisconsin wasn ’ t the only state where removing voters from the rolls en-masse came under scrutiny . The same week , in Georgia , the state voted to remove more than 300,000 people from the rolls . 120,000 of those people were removed because they hadn ’ t voted since 2012 and also failed to respond to multiple notices from the state asking them to confirm their address . The removals drew national outcry in a state that has been at the epicenter of accusations of voter suppression .
In 2017 the then secretary of state , Brian Kemp , removed more 500,000 from voter rolls and a month before the Gubernatorial election in 2018 he held up registrations of 53,000 under the state ’ s “ exact match ” law where a misplaced hyphen or comma in a voter registration record could mean more obstacles for someone to vote . Brian Kemp stood in that election and defeated Stacy Abrams by just 55,000 votes . Abrams later called Kemp a “ remarkable architect of voter suppression ” .
The controversies in Wisconsin and Georgia underscore how the mass removal of voters from the rolls – often called voter purging – has moved to the center of the polarized fight over voting rights in the United States . Although there is a consensus that purging , done carefully , is a useful tool to keep voting rolls accurate and remove people who move and die , there is growing alarm over how aggressively it is being used to penalize people , essentially , for not voting .
Overall , at least 17 million people have been removed from the voter rolls since the 2016 election , an uptick from the number of voters who were removed between 2006 and 2008 , according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice . Although it ’ s not known how many of those removals were legitimate , the increase comes even as the number of Americans who move has dropped to historic lows .
“ Folks who benefit from having fewer people participate are constantly looking for new ways to suppress turnout , ” said Stuart Naifeh , an attorney at Demos who was involved in a high-profile voter purge case at the United States supreme court last year . Voter purges “ is one that seems to have become more popular . ”
Purging is not new – federal law has required it for more than two decades – but there is a new awareness of how purges can remove eligible voters from the rolls and target populations that move a lot : the young , the poor and people who live in cities , all groups that tend to favor Democrats .
“ It ’ s only bad when it ’ s done poorly . When it captures people who are still in the state or who are still eligible voters and shouldn ’ t be removed , ” said David Becker , the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research , who works with states cleaning their voter rolls .
Myrna Pérez , director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice , pointed out that there used to be an important tool to keep voting jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination from “ bad ” purges : the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act . Until 2013 , if a state covered by the law wanted to make a change in its purge process , it would have to show the federal government that it wasn ’ t to the detriment of minority voters .
The oversight helped prevent both discriminatory purge practices and allowed states to catch errors in their methodology , Perez said . But it was lifted in 2013 when the supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act . When the law was still in full effect , Pérez said , “ it had the effect of stalling and stopping intentional and accidental sloppiness . ”
Another legal blow came in 2018 , when the supreme court ruled in favor of a controversial way of carrying out purges .
Folks who benefit from having fewer people participate are constantly looking for new ways to suppress turnout Stuart Naifeh
The case involved Larry Harmon , a software engineer in Ohio , who sued the state when he discovered in 2015 that , after sitting out several elections , he was unable to vote on a marijuana initiative because he had been purged . If someone misses a federal election in Ohio , the state sends them a postcard asking them to confirm their address . If they don ’ t respond to the postcard and fail to vote in two more consecutive elections , they are removed from the rolls . Voting rights groups call the Ohio rule the “ use it or lose it ” law .
Harmon argued that he was being punished for not voting , which is prohibited by federal law . And critics said that linking one ’ s ability to stay on the voter rolls to one ’ s ability to vote can discriminate against people who face more obstacles getting to the polls , such as those who can ’ t get childcare or time off from work . But in a 5-4 ruling , the supreme court said the process was legal because Harmon wasn ’ t removed solely for not voting – he had also received the postcard .
The ruling “ opened the floodgates ” to aggressive voter purging , said Kathy Culliton-Gonzalez , a voting rights attorney .
Mailers and postcards are a controversial way of asking voters to confirm their voter registration . In 2018 , states reported sending more than 21 million address confirmation notices and only around 20 % of them were returned , according to federal data . The fact that so few people return the postcards signals that they ’ re not really a reliable way of assessing whether people have moved , voting advocates argue .
But voter purges are more than just a question of lapsed bureaucracy , they are now emerging as a new political battleground .
In Ohio , for instance , Democrats and Republicans have overseen voter purges for two decades , but recently , the practice seems to have clearly benefited Republicans . Voters in Democratic neighborhoods in the state ’ s three largest counties were struck from the rolls at nearly twice the rate as voters in Republican ones , according to a 2016 Reuters analysis . In largely African American neighborhoods in Cincinnati , over 10 % of voters were purged , compared to just 4 % in the suburbs .
Earlier this year , Ohio purged 158,000 voters from its rolls using that process , according to an analysis by the Columbus Dispatch . The removals came even after activists in the state discovered around 40,000 errors on the list of voters set to be purged . Oklahoma , which employs a similar purge process to Ohio and Georgia , also removed more than 88,000 inactive voters from its rolls in April .
Even so , there has been some recent successes in stopping unfair purges . Earlier this year , voting groups successfully blocked an Indiana law that would have allowed the state to cancel a voter registration if they had information the voter moved , but without giving the voter a chance to confirm that . Civil rights groups also stopped Texas from cancelling voter registrations of nearly 100,000 people it accused of being non-citizens based on faulty data .
In Wisconsin , election officials have declined to move ahead with the purge while an appeal is pending . The Wisconsin Democratic party has also pledged to contact voters and urge them to re-register ( the state allows people to register online , through their local clerk , or at the polls on election day . )
Do black people vote ? The racist lie rooted in the American psyche | Rashawn Ray Read more
And in Georgia , there has been another victory – of sorts . Earlier this month , Brad Raffensperger , Georgia ’ s top election official , announced he made a mistake . Days after his office scrubbed 300,000 people from its voter rolls , he revealed 22,000 of them had been incorrectly removed . The voters should have been given several more months to confirm their voter registration .
Raffensperger said he was reactivating their voter registrations to give them more time . “ We are proactively taking additional steps to prevent any confusion come the day of the election , ” he said in a statement .
Some crucial protections against bad voter purging also remain in place . Federal law prohibits states from systematically cleaning their rolls within 90 days of a federal election and says the systems state develop to remove people from the rolls must be “ non-discriminatory . ”
It is clear that next year ’ s election is already becoming an epic battle to try and preserve the voting rights of millions of voters . The lessons from the 2016 election should sound a cautionary tale .
As Professor Carol Anderson , author of One Person , No Vote , a history of voting suppression in the US , writing in ███ , said : “ The 21st century is littered with the bodies of black votes . In 2016 , pummeled by voter suppression in more than 30 states , the black voter turnout plummeted by seven percentage points . For the GOP , that was an effective kill rate . For America , it was a lethal assault on democracy . ”
|
Controversies in Wisconsin and Georgia show how the mass removal of voters from the rolls has become a key part of the fight to win
The final weeks of December may have been dominated by news of Donald Trump’s impeachment, but another development with potentially serious implications for the 2020 election – and the future of American democracy – attracted less global attention.
It took place not in the halls of Congress but hundreds of miles away, in Wisconsin. This was where a conservative advocacy group convinced a circuit court judge to order the state to remove more than 230,000 people removed from the state’s voter rolls. Wisconsin was already considered a crucial swing state in 2020 – bearing in mind that Donald Trump won the state by fewer than 23,000 votes in 2016. More than half of the voters at risk of being purged lived in areas that favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump that year, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Top Trump adviser: Republicans have 'always' relied on voter suppression Read more
A week later, one of Trump’s reelection advisers was caught on tape telling a Wisconsin Republicans that the party has “traditionally” relied on voter suppression. “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places. Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are,” the adviser, Justin Clark, said in audio obtained by the Associated Press. “Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
There was now even less doubt that the Republicans intended to rely on both encouraging, and discouraging, voters as a key part of their 2020 election strategy.
Wisconsin wasn’t the only state where removing voters from the rolls en-masse came under scrutiny. The same week, in Georgia, the state voted to remove more than 300,000 people from the rolls. 120,000 of those people were removed because they hadn’t voted since 2012 and also failed to respond to multiple notices from the state asking them to confirm their address. The removals drew national outcry in a state that has been at the epicenter of accusations of voter suppression.
In 2017 the then secretary of state, Brian Kemp, removed more 500,000 from voter rolls and a month before the Gubernatorial election in 2018 he held up registrations of 53,000 under the state’s “exact match” law where a misplaced hyphen or comma in a voter registration record could mean more obstacles for someone to vote. Brian Kemp stood in that election and defeated Stacy Abrams by just 55,000 votes. Abrams later called Kemp a “remarkable architect of voter suppression”.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest A view of the Election Night event for Brian Kemp at the Classic Center on November 6, 2018 in Athens, Georgia. Brian Kemp defeated Stacy Abrams by just 55,000 votes. Photograph: Kevin C Cox/Getty Images
The controversies in Wisconsin and Georgia underscore how the mass removal of voters from the rolls – often called voter purging – has moved to the center of the polarized fight over voting rights in the United States. Although there is a consensus that purging, done carefully, is a useful tool to keep voting rolls accurate and remove people who move and die, there is growing alarm over how aggressively it is being used to penalize people, essentially, for not voting.
Overall, at least 17 million people have been removed from the voter rolls since the 2016 election, an uptick from the number of voters who were removed between 2006 and 2008, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice. Although it’s not known how many of those removals were legitimate, the increase comes even as the number of Americans who move has dropped to historic lows.
“Folks who benefit from having fewer people participate are constantly looking for new ways to suppress turnout,” said Stuart Naifeh, an attorney at Demos who was involved in a high-profile voter purge case at the United States supreme court last year. Voter purges “is one that seems to have become more popular.”
Purging is not new – federal law has required it for more than two decades – but there is a new awareness of how purges can remove eligible voters from the rolls and target populations that move a lot: the young, the poor and people who live in cities, all groups that tend to favor Democrats.
“It’s only bad when it’s done poorly. When it captures people who are still in the state or who are still eligible voters and shouldn’t be removed,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, who works with states cleaning their voter rolls.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Purging is not new, but there is a new awareness of how purges can remove eligible voters from the rolls. Photograph: Joshua Lott/Getty Images
Myrna Pérez, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed out that there used to be an important tool to keep voting jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination from “bad” purges: the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Until 2013, if a state covered by the law wanted to make a change in its purge process, it would have to show the federal government that it wasn’t to the detriment of minority voters.
The oversight helped prevent both discriminatory purge practices and allowed states to catch errors in their methodology, Perez said. But it was lifted in 2013 when the supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act. When the law was still in full effect, Pérez said, “it had the effect of stalling and stopping intentional and accidental sloppiness.”
Another legal blow came in 2018, when the supreme court ruled in favor of a controversial way of carrying out purges.
Folks who benefit from having fewer people participate are constantly looking for new ways to suppress turnout Stuart Naifeh
The case involved Larry Harmon, a software engineer in Ohio, who sued the state when he discovered in 2015 that, after sitting out several elections, he was unable to vote on a marijuana initiative because he had been purged. If someone misses a federal election in Ohio, the state sends them a postcard asking them to confirm their address. If they don’t respond to the postcard and fail to vote in two more consecutive elections, they are removed from the rolls. Voting rights groups call the Ohio rule the “use it or lose it” law.
Harmon argued that he was being punished for not voting, which is prohibited by federal law. And critics said that linking one’s ability to stay on the voter rolls to one’s ability to vote can discriminate against people who face more obstacles getting to the polls, such as those who can’t get childcare or time off from work. But in a 5-4 ruling, the supreme court said the process was legal because Harmon wasn’t removed solely for not voting – he had also received the postcard.
The ruling “opened the floodgates” to aggressive voter purging, said Kathy Culliton-Gonzalez, a voting rights attorney.
Mailers and postcards are a controversial way of asking voters to confirm their voter registration. In 2018, states reported sending more than 21 million address confirmation notices and only around 20% of them were returned, according to federal data. The fact that so few people return the postcards signals that they’re not really a reliable way of assessing whether people have moved, voting advocates argue.
But voter purges are more than just a question of lapsed bureaucracy, they are now emerging as a new political battleground.
In Ohio, for instance, Democrats and Republicans have overseen voter purges for two decades, but recently, the practice seems to have clearly benefited Republicans. Voters in Democratic neighborhoods in the state’s three largest counties were struck from the rolls at nearly twice the rate as voters in Republican ones, according to a 2016 Reuters analysis. In largely African American neighborhoods in Cincinnati, over 10% of voters were purged, compared to just 4% in the suburbs.
Earlier this year, Ohio purged 158,000 voters from its rolls using that process, according to an analysis by the Columbus Dispatch. The removals came even after activists in the state discovered around 40,000 errors on the list of voters set to be purged. Oklahoma, which employs a similar purge process to Ohio and Georgia, also removed more than 88,000 inactive voters from its rolls in April.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Over-The-Rhine neighborhood in Cincinnati, Ohio. Earlier this year, Ohio purged 158,000 voters from its rolls. Photograph: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Even so, there has been some recent successes in stopping unfair purges. Earlier this year, voting groups successfully blocked an Indiana law that would have allowed the state to cancel a voter registration if they had information the voter moved, but without giving the voter a chance to confirm that. Civil rights groups also stopped Texas from cancelling voter registrations of nearly 100,000 people it accused of being non-citizens based on faulty data.
In Wisconsin, election officials have declined to move ahead with the purge while an appeal is pending. The Wisconsin Democratic party has also pledged to contact voters and urge them to re-register (the state allows people to register online, through their local clerk, or at the polls on election day.)
Do black people vote? The racist lie rooted in the American psyche | Rashawn Ray Read more
And in Georgia, there has been another victory – of sorts. Earlier this month, Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s top election official, announced he made a mistake. Days after his office scrubbed 300,000 people from its voter rolls, he revealed 22,000 of them had been incorrectly removed. The voters should have been given several more months to confirm their voter registration.
Raffensperger said he was reactivating their voter registrations to give them more time. “We are proactively taking additional steps to prevent any confusion come the day of the election,” he said in a statement.
Some crucial protections against bad voter purging also remain in place. Federal law prohibits states from systematically cleaning their rolls within 90 days of a federal election and says the systems state develop to remove people from the rolls must be “non-discriminatory.”
It is clear that next year’s election is already becoming an epic battle to try and preserve the voting rights of millions of voters. The lessons from the 2016 election should sound a cautionary tale.
As Professor Carol Anderson, author of One Person, No Vote, a history of voting suppression in the US, writing in the Guardian, said: “The 21st century is littered with the bodies of black votes. In 2016, pummeled by voter suppression in more than 30 states, the black voter turnout plummeted by seven percentage points. For the GOP, that was an effective kill rate. For America, it was a lethal assault on democracy.”
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
upEEwrtUCfSXWs2O
|
politics
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/04/state-union-donald-trumps-agenda-faces-stiff-political-headwinds/2703469002/
|
State of the Union: Politically wounded from the shutdown, Trump faces a tough time with his agenda
|
2019-02-04
|
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump hinted last week that one theme of his State of the Union address on Tuesday will be unity .
Trump will deliver his call for harmony in a new era of divided government and at a time when he has been weakened politically by a just-ended government shutdown – the longest in U.S. history – and by other factors that , according to a recent Associated Press poll , have driven his approval rating to near the lowest of his presidency .
House Democrats are back in power and spoiling for a fight . ( See `` government shutdown . '' ) Senate Republicans are restless and suddenly willing to stand up to their commander-in-chief . ( See `` Syria . '' ) Special counsel Robert Mueller is still investigating possible Russian coordination with his presidential campaign and still issuing indictments . ( See `` Roger Stone . '' )
Going against such powerful headwinds , it will be hard for Trump to accomplish much of anything in the coming year , no matter what agenda he lays out in his State of the Union address , political analysts say .
“ There are some very bitter feelings from both sides about what has happened with the government shutdown , ” said Ron Bonjean , a GOP strategist with close ties to Republicans on Capitol Hill . “ That is going to likely hurt the chances for getting major pieces of legislation done this year . ”
Trump will march into the House chamber , where he will deliver his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night , as a severely wounded president – one who at times tries the patience of even some members of his own party , said Michael Steele , former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a frequent Trump critic .
“ The concern is a wounded president tested by a newly minted speaker of the House , Nancy Pelosi , ” Steele said . “ Folks are not very excited about the potential of what could come from the president standing before the nation , sort of drawing some bromides and egging on the Democrats . ”
In Congress , many Republicans lament the damage inflicted by the 35-day government shutdown – triggered by Trump ’ s demand for billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border – and openly worry that it will impede their ability to get anything done .
“ It ’ s not been a promising start – let ’ s be honest , ” said Sen . Rob Portman , R-Ohio . “ We ’ ve been in a fight , and it ’ s been over an issue that caused harm to the economy and to the country . But I think we can get beyond it now . ”
More : The government shutdown is finally over . Here 's a look back at the big moments
Pelosi , who regained the speaker ’ s gavel in January , has indicated that while Democrats will fight Trump on policies they consider bad for the country , they are open to working with him on issues such as infrastructure and lowering prescription-drug prices .
But Scott Jennings , a Republican strategist and political commentator , said he has low expectations for what is possible over the next two years . In some ways , that has more to do with the Democrats than Trump , he said .
“ The fact is , they don ’ t want to give him a win on anything because their activists and donors would go nuts if Pelosi helps Trump achieve anything , ” said Jennings , who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and is a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky .
“ What good does it do Nancy Pelosi to help Donald Trump appear to be a president who can operate and govern in divided government ? ” Jennings asked . “ It is in her and her party ’ s best interest to make Trump look lost , to make government look broken and to deprive the country of meaningful progress on issues like immigration . The shutdown fiasco tells me the Democrats want political wins more than policy concessions . ”
Next year ’ s presidential election and congressional races further complicate the prospects for any substantive legislative agenda , Bonjean said .
“ If you look at what ’ s working against Congress and the White House , time is not on their side here in a 2020 election cycle , ” he said . “ Both sides are burning valuable time that they could use to be working on other issues that matter to them , whether it ’ s health care , transportation funding , technology policy – a vast variety of issues . ”
Yet the focus right now remains on border security . A bipartisan congressional committee has just two weeks to negotiate a deal to secure the southern border or risk another government shutdown on Feb. 15 , when current funding will lapse .
Border security may be important to Trump ’ s base , “ but it ’ s also stymieing the efforts of everyone trying to get their legislative agendas through now , ” Bonjean said .
If Trump and Congress need a template for how to get things done after a nasty partisan confrontation , they could look to the example set in the mid-1990s by President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich .
A bitter budget battle between the Democratic president and the Republican House speaker led to a 21-day government shutdown , the longest ever before the recent one broke that record . Yet , when it was over , Clinton and the GOP Congress still managed to pass several pieces of major legislation , including welfare reform and a health insurance modernization bill .
“ People wouldn ’ t have thought the Gingrich Republican Congress and the Clinton White House would have gotten a lot done , ” said Dan Meyer , who was Gingrich ’ s chief of staff at the time . “ And yet , indeed , they both had an interest in getting a lot done . ”
More : Will there be another government shutdown ? Trump says maybe but many lawmakers say no way
Steele takes issue with the argument that Democrats are looking to deny Trump legislative victories just to hurt his re-election campaign .
“ I don ’ t buy this idea that Democrats are going to be obstructionists the way Republicans were during ( Barack ) Obama ’ s term and at every turn realize that ‘ we have no incentive to help this president , ’ ” he said . “ I don ’ t get that sense . Because the Democrats also will also have to show they can deliver something . The country in 18 months is not just going to turn ( the presidency ) over to them just because they decide they don ’ t like Donald Trump . ( Democrats ) get the political reality of their current position as well . ”
Trump makes things harder on himself , Steele said , because he doesn ’ t trust the advice of people “ who are much smarter than he is and won ’ t allow those people to help him define success. ” He often makes things worse by going on Twitter and undermining his own message , Steele said .
“ It ’ s not just policy shortcomings , ” Steele said . “ It ’ s not just staffing shortcomings . It ’ s not just his incredibly disturbing bromance with Vladimir Putin or anyone who is considered a strongman . It ’ s not just his inability to stay off Twitter crack . It ’ s a combination of all of these things that are self-inflicted wounds . ”
More : How Donald Trump 's relationship with Nancy Pelosi changes everything in Washington
More : Donald Trump accepts Nancy Pelosi 's offer to deliver State of the Union at the Capitol on Feb. 5 .
|
Michael Collins
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump hinted last week that one theme of his State of the Union address on Tuesday will be unity.
The current state of his presidency: turbulence and uncertainty.
Trump will deliver his call for harmony in a new era of divided government and at a time when he has been weakened politically by a just-ended government shutdown – the longest in U.S. history – and by other factors that, according to a recent Associated Press poll, have driven his approval rating to near the lowest of his presidency.
House Democrats are back in power and spoiling for a fight. (See "government shutdown.") Senate Republicans are restless and suddenly willing to stand up to their commander-in-chief. (See "Syria.") Special counsel Robert Mueller is still investigating possible Russian coordination with his presidential campaign and still issuing indictments. (See "Roger Stone.")
Going against such powerful headwinds, it will be hard for Trump to accomplish much of anything in the coming year, no matter what agenda he lays out in his State of the Union address, political analysts say.
“There are some very bitter feelings from both sides about what has happened with the government shutdown,” said Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist with close ties to Republicans on Capitol Hill. “That is going to likely hurt the chances for getting major pieces of legislation done this year.”
Trump will march into the House chamber, where he will deliver his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, as a severely wounded president – one who at times tries the patience of even some members of his own party, said Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a frequent Trump critic.
“The concern is a wounded president tested by a newly minted speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,” Steele said. “Folks are not very excited about the potential of what could come from the president standing before the nation, sort of drawing some bromides and egging on the Democrats.”
Moving past the shutdown
In Congress, many Republicans lament the damage inflicted by the 35-day government shutdown – triggered by Trump’s demand for billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border – and openly worry that it will impede their ability to get anything done.
“It’s not been a promising start – let’s be honest,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. “We’ve been in a fight, and it’s been over an issue that caused harm to the economy and to the country. But I think we can get beyond it now.”
More:The government shutdown is finally over. Here's a look back at the big moments
Pelosi, who regained the speaker’s gavel in January, has indicated that while Democrats will fight Trump on policies they consider bad for the country, they are open to working with him on issues such as infrastructure and lowering prescription-drug prices.
But Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist and political commentator, said he has low expectations for what is possible over the next two years. In some ways, that has more to do with the Democrats than Trump, he said.
“The fact is, they don’t want to give him a win on anything because their activists and donors would go nuts if Pelosi helps Trump achieve anything,” said Jennings, who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and is a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
“What good does it do Nancy Pelosi to help Donald Trump appear to be a president who can operate and govern in divided government?” Jennings asked. “It is in her and her party’s best interest to make Trump look lost, to make government look broken and to deprive the country of meaningful progress on issues like immigration. The shutdown fiasco tells me the Democrats want political wins more than policy concessions.”
2020 complicates the agenda
Next year’s presidential election and congressional races further complicate the prospects for any substantive legislative agenda, Bonjean said.
“If you look at what’s working against Congress and the White House, time is not on their side here in a 2020 election cycle,” he said. “Both sides are burning valuable time that they could use to be working on other issues that matter to them, whether it’s health care, transportation funding, technology policy – a vast variety of issues.”
Yet the focus right now remains on border security. A bipartisan congressional committee has just two weeks to negotiate a deal to secure the southern border or risk another government shutdown on Feb. 15, when current funding will lapse.
Border security may be important to Trump’s base, “but it’s also stymieing the efforts of everyone trying to get their legislative agendas through now,” Bonjean said.
Clinton-Gingrich template
If Trump and Congress need a template for how to get things done after a nasty partisan confrontation, they could look to the example set in the mid-1990s by President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
A bitter budget battle between the Democratic president and the Republican House speaker led to a 21-day government shutdown, the longest ever before the recent one broke that record. Yet, when it was over, Clinton and the GOP Congress still managed to pass several pieces of major legislation, including welfare reform and a health insurance modernization bill.
“People wouldn’t have thought the Gingrich Republican Congress and the Clinton White House would have gotten a lot done,” said Dan Meyer, who was Gingrich’s chief of staff at the time. “And yet, indeed, they both had an interest in getting a lot done.”
More:Will there be another government shutdown? Trump says maybe but many lawmakers say no way
Steele takes issue with the argument that Democrats are looking to deny Trump legislative victories just to hurt his re-election campaign.
“I don’t buy this idea that Democrats are going to be obstructionists the way Republicans were during (Barack) Obama’s term and at every turn realize that ‘we have no incentive to help this president,’” he said. “I don’t get that sense. Because the Democrats also will also have to show they can deliver something. The country in 18 months is not just going to turn (the presidency) over to them just because they decide they don’t like Donald Trump. (Democrats) get the political reality of their current position as well.”
Trump makes things harder on himself, Steele said, because he doesn’t trust the advice of people “who are much smarter than he is and won’t allow those people to help him define success.” He often makes things worse by going on Twitter and undermining his own message, Steele said.
“It’s not just policy shortcomings,” Steele said. “It’s not just staffing shortcomings. It’s not just his incredibly disturbing bromance with Vladimir Putin or anyone who is considered a strongman. It’s not just his inability to stay off Twitter crack. It’s a combination of all of these things that are self-inflicted wounds.”
Contributing: Eliza Collins
More:How Donald Trump's relationship with Nancy Pelosi changes everything in Washington
More:Donald Trump accepts Nancy Pelosi's offer to deliver State of the Union at the Capitol on Feb. 5.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
L6uLh22HB03D9jeZ
|
|
violence_in_america
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/politics/clinton-trump-shooting-reaction.html?ref=politics
|
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Strike Different Tones After Dallas Shooting
|
2016-07-09
|
Amy Chozick
|
The ambush that left five police officers dead at a protest in Dallas on Thursday has altered the contours of the presidential campaign , with Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump canceling political events on Friday and striking different tones about the killings .
Mr. Trump called the episode “ an attack on our country , ” and Mrs. Clinton used it as evidence of the need for “ more love and kindness . ”
“ We must stand in solidarity with law enforcement , which we must remember is the force between civilization and total chaos , ” Mr. Trump said in a video statement that his campaign released to TV networks on Friday evening .
He also alluded to the two black men , Alton B . Sterling in Baton Rouge , La. , and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights , Minn. , who were killed by white police officers this week .
“ Every American has the right to live in safety and peace , ” Mr. Trump said . “ We will make America safe again . ”
In an interview with CNN , Mrs. Clinton praised the Dallas officers and called the attack “ an absolutely horrific event . ”
She promptly brought the conversation back to the shootings of Mr. Castile and Mr. Sterling , which were recorded in graphic videos that reignited outrage and debate over the treatment of black men by white police officers .
“ We ’ ve got to do everything possible to support our police and to support innocent Americans who have encounters with police , ” Mrs. Clinton said . She vowed to fight “ systemic racism ” in police departments and to better train law enforcement officials and integrate them into the communities they serve .
She also called on white Americans to empathize with African-Americans who live in fear of clashes with the police . “ We ’ re the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries that are coming from our African-American fellow citizens , ” Mrs. Clinton said .
On Friday morning , Mrs. Clinton offered condolences to the families of the police officers killed in Dallas .
“ I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters , for their families and all who serve with them , ” Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter .
She postponed a rally with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Scranton , Pa. , that had been scheduled for Friday . But she did address the shootings of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile , and the Dallas attacks , at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia , where emotions were raw on Friday afternoon .
|
The ambush that left five police officers dead at a protest in Dallas on Thursday has altered the contours of the presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump canceling political events on Friday and striking different tones about the killings.
Mr. Trump called the episode “an attack on our country,” and Mrs. Clinton used it as evidence of the need for “more love and kindness.”
“We must stand in solidarity with law enforcement, which we must remember is the force between civilization and total chaos,” Mr. Trump said in a video statement that his campaign released to TV networks on Friday evening.
He also alluded to the two black men, Alton B. Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minn., who were killed by white police officers this week.
“Every American has the right to live in safety and peace,” Mr. Trump said. “We will make America safe again.”
In an interview with CNN, Mrs. Clinton praised the Dallas officers and called the attack “an absolutely horrific event.”
She promptly brought the conversation back to the shootings of Mr. Castile and Mr. Sterling, which were recorded in graphic videos that reignited outrage and debate over the treatment of black men by white police officers.
“We’ve got to do everything possible to support our police and to support innocent Americans who have encounters with police,” Mrs. Clinton said. She vowed to fight “systemic racism” in police departments and to better train law enforcement officials and integrate them into the communities they serve.
She also called on white Americans to empathize with African-Americans who live in fear of clashes with the police. “We’re the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries that are coming from our African-American fellow citizens,” Mrs. Clinton said.
On Friday morning, Mrs. Clinton offered condolences to the families of the police officers killed in Dallas.
“I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families and all who serve with them,” Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter.
She postponed a rally with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Scranton, Pa., that had been scheduled for Friday. But she did address the shootings of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile, and the Dallas attacks, at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, where emotions were raw on Friday afternoon.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
fs2OVadg5Cg9GXCr
|
middle_east
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/world/africa/libya-benghazi-blast/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
|
Benghazi hit by blast on anniversary of U.S. Consulate attack
|
2013-09-11
|
Laura Smith-Spark
|
Story highlights Official says the powerful explosion was caused by a car bomb -- state media
The blast hit central Benghazi on the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Consulate
The explosion damaged a Foreign Ministry building and a bank branch , a witness says
The Central Bank of Libya says one of its security guards was slightly injured
A car bomb exploded outside a Foreign Ministry building in the Libyan city of Benghazi Wednesday , state media said , on the anniversary of an assault on the U.S. Consulate there that killed four Americans , including Ambassador Christopher Stevens .
The blast did not cause any casualties but blew away large parts of the building 's facade , said Col. Abdullah Al Zaydi , spokesman for the Joint Security Task Force in Benghazi , according to Libya 's state news agency , LANA .
Al Zaydi said the explosion was very powerful and destroyed the vehicle used for the bombing , which contained a large quantity of explosives , the news agency said .
The blast also damaged a branch of the Central Bank of Libya and slightly injured one of its security guards , the bank said .
The branch director , Abdel Qader Mohammed , said the explosion caused `` material damage '' to the building , but its computer systems were not affected .
JUST WATCHED Video wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Video wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack 04:54
JUST WATCHED Paying the political price for Benghazi Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Paying the political price for Benghazi 02:53
Benghazi resident Sami Berriwen told CNN he heard the blast in the eastern city at about 7 a.m .
Berriwen , a university student , said that if the explosion had happened just an hour later , the street would have been full of people . He said most Benghazi residents walk the street to get to school and to work , but because it was early , no one was out yet .
Berriwen said he saw a fire truck but no casualties or ambulances at the scene .
Diplomatic missions and security officials have repeatedly been the targets of attacks in Benghazi , leading most Westerners to leave .
In January , gunmen targeted the car of the Italian consul general in Benghazi , but no one was injured . Bomb attacks also occurred last year on a U.N. convoy , as well as on a convoy carrying the British ambassador . In November , unknown gunmen assassinated the city 's temporary security director .
Other towns and cities , including the capital , Tripoli , have also seen frequent attacks .
In recent days , scores of U.S. Marines were moved closer to Libya to help beef up security before of the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the first anniversary of the attack on the Benghazi consulate .
Two U.S. officials told CNN on Monday that 250 combat-ready Marines had moved from their base in Moron , Spain , to the U.S. naval installation at Sigonella , Italy . That would enable them to reach Tripoli in three to four hours in the event of a crisis .
Other U.S. forces are helping boost security at various embassies in the region , since the period around September 11 is seen as a time of greater threat to U.S. interests .
The attack at the Benghazi compound has been a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the administration and Republicans , who accuse it of not bolstering security before the attack , of botching the response to it and of misleading the public for political gain before the November 2012 election .
A report by the U.N. secretary-general on the U.N. Support Mission in Libya , released this month , highlights the continuing security concerns and political polarization in Libya following the overthrow of strongman leader Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 .
The status of the revolutionary fighters who helped to oust Gadhafi remains unclear , the process of transitional justice is almost stalled , the country 's borders are leaky and there are many unsecured weapons , adding to the instability , it said .
`` The continuing volatile security situation in Libya in general , and in the eastern and southern parts of the country in particular , is a source of grave concern , '' it said .
`` Targeted political assassinations , criminal activity and attacks and threats against the diplomatic community continue to plague the country , including Tripoli . The protection of the civilian population and the enforcement of law need to be reaffirmed as a national priority . ''
|
Story highlights Official says the powerful explosion was caused by a car bomb -- state media
The blast hit central Benghazi on the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Consulate
The explosion damaged a Foreign Ministry building and a bank branch, a witness says
The Central Bank of Libya says one of its security guards was slightly injured
A car bomb exploded outside a Foreign Ministry building in the Libyan city of Benghazi Wednesday, state media said, on the anniversary of an assault on the U.S. Consulate there that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The blast did not cause any casualties but blew away large parts of the building's facade, said Col. Abdullah Al Zaydi, spokesman for the Joint Security Task Force in Benghazi, according to Libya's state news agency, LANA.
Al Zaydi said the explosion was very powerful and destroyed the vehicle used for the bombing, which contained a large quantity of explosives, the news agency said.
The blast also damaged a branch of the Central Bank of Libya and slightly injured one of its security guards, the bank said.
The branch director, Abdel Qader Mohammed, said the explosion caused "material damage" to the building, but its computer systems were not affected.
JUST WATCHED Video wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Video wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack 04:54
JUST WATCHED Paying the political price for Benghazi Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Paying the political price for Benghazi 02:53
Benghazi resident Sami Berriwen told CNN he heard the blast in the eastern city at about 7 a.m.
Berriwen, a university student, said that if the explosion had happened just an hour later, the street would have been full of people. He said most Benghazi residents walk the street to get to school and to work, but because it was early, no one was out yet.
Berriwen said he saw a fire truck but no casualties or ambulances at the scene.
Diplomatic missions and security officials have repeatedly been the targets of attacks in Benghazi, leading most Westerners to leave.
In January, gunmen targeted the car of the Italian consul general in Benghazi, but no one was injured. Bomb attacks also occurred last year on a U.N. convoy, as well as on a convoy carrying the British ambassador. In November, unknown gunmen assassinated the city's temporary security director.
Other towns and cities, including the capital, Tripoli, have also seen frequent attacks.
In recent days, scores of U.S. Marines were moved closer to Libya to help beef up security before of the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the first anniversary of the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
Two U.S. officials told CNN on Monday that 250 combat-ready Marines had moved from their base in Moron, Spain, to the U.S. naval installation at Sigonella, Italy. That would enable them to reach Tripoli in three to four hours in the event of a crisis.
Other U.S. forces are helping boost security at various embassies in the region, since the period around September 11 is seen as a time of greater threat to U.S. interests.
The attack at the Benghazi compound has been a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the administration and Republicans, who accuse it of not bolstering security before the attack, of botching the response to it and of misleading the public for political gain before the November 2012 election.
A report by the U.N. secretary-general on the U.N. Support Mission in Libya, released this month, highlights the continuing security concerns and political polarization in Libya following the overthrow of strongman leader Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.
The status of the revolutionary fighters who helped to oust Gadhafi remains unclear, the process of transitional justice is almost stalled, the country's borders are leaky and there are many unsecured weapons, adding to the instability, it said.
"The continuing volatile security situation in Libya in general, and in the eastern and southern parts of the country in particular, is a source of grave concern," it said.
"Targeted political assassinations, criminal activity and attacks and threats against the diplomatic community continue to plague the country, including Tripoli. The protection of the civilian population and the enforcement of law need to be reaffirmed as a national priority."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
AExSHV76FFrg9uUa
|
treasury
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/10/donald-trumps-tax-returns-top-democrat-richard-neal-issues-subpoenas/1168834001/
|
Top Democrat subpoenas Treasury over Donald Trump's tax returns
|
2019-05-10
|
WASHINGTON – House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal escalated the fight over President Donald Trump 's tax returns Friday afternoon when he issued subpoenas for the documents to Department of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) Commissioner Charles Rettig .
The Treasury Department had previously rejected Neal 's request for six years of the president 's tax returns .
`` While I do not take this step lightly , I believe this action gives us the best opportunity to succeed and obtain the requested material , '' Neal said in a statement . `` I sincerely hope that the Treasury Department will furnish the requested material in the next week so the committee can quickly begin its work . ”
On Monday , Mnuchin rejected Neal ’ s request for the president ’ s tax returns in a letter .
`` In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice , I have determined that the Committee 's request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose , and pursuant to section 6103 , the Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information , '' Mnuchin wrote .
Neal made the original request for Trump 's 2013-2018 tax returns to the IRS , which is part of the Treasury Department . He invoked a law allowing a select few members of Congress to review individual tax returns for legislative purposes and cited legislative proposals and oversight related to federal tax laws as his basis for the request .
It was the first such demand for a sitting president ’ s tax information in 45 years .
Neal also demanded copies of tax returns for Trump 's trust and for his golf club in Bedminster , New Jersey .
The subpoena comes as part of a broader effort from Congress to obtain documents and bring administration officials and allies in for questioning .
On Wednesday , the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. to answer more questions .
Earlier that day , Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress over his refusal to hand over an unredacted copy of Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's report on the Russian interference in the 2016 election .
|
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal escalated the fight over President Donald Trump's tax returns Friday afternoon when he issued subpoenas for the documents to Department of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Charles Rettig.
The Treasury Department had previously rejected Neal's request for six years of the president's tax returns.
"While I do not take this step lightly, I believe this action gives us the best opportunity to succeed and obtain the requested material," Neal said in a statement. "I sincerely hope that the Treasury Department will furnish the requested material in the next week so the committee can quickly begin its work.”
On Monday, Mnuchin rejected Neal’s request for the president’s tax returns in a letter.
"In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, I have determined that the Committee's request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and pursuant to section 6103, the Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information," Mnuchin wrote.
Neal made the original request for Trump's 2013-2018 tax returns to the IRS, which is part of the Treasury Department. He invoked a law allowing a select few members of Congress to review individual tax returns for legislative purposes and cited legislative proposals and oversight related to federal tax laws as his basis for the request.
It was the first such demand for a sitting president’s tax information in 45 years.
Neal also demanded copies of tax returns for Trump's trust and for his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The subpoena comes as part of a broader effort from Congress to obtain documents and bring administration officials and allies in for questioning.
On Wednesday, the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. to answer more questions.
Earlier that day, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress over his refusal to hand over an unredacted copy of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Read more:Download the USA TODAY app
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
bOnczI5sqChlycbt
|
|
elections
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/abc-poll-battleground-states/2016/09/11/id/747666/
|
Trump-Clinton Race Virtual Deadlock in Four Battleground States
|
2016-09-11
|
Eric Mack
|
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat in four battleground states , a sign the race is still anyone ’ s to win , according to four new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls conducted this week .
Arizona , Georgia , Nevada and New Hampshire ’ s recent results are all within the margin of error .
“ As we enter the final lap of this very unconventional election , it would not be surprising if the electoral map in the end has new contours , '' Lee Miringoff , director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion , told NBC News . `` Any of these four states could awaken a fault line in what is looking more and more like a shake-up election with more states being up for grabs . ”
Here are the particulars for each of the four battleground polls conducted Sept. 6-8 :
• Arizona , a state the GOP has carried in the presidential election since 2000 , favored Trump by one point 42-41 among likely voters ( 649 polled via landline and cellphone with a +/- 3.8-point margin of error ) .
• Georgia , which has been a GOP stronghold since 1996 , had Trump leading Clinton by three points 46-43 ( 625 likely voters +/- 3.9-point margin ) .
• Nevada , which President Barack Obama won in the past two elections , had Clinton up one point 45-44 ( 627 likely voters +/- 3.9-point margin ) .
• New Hampshire , which Obama has also won in the past two elections , revealed that Clinton was up one point 42-41 ( 737 likely voters +/- 3.6-point margin ) .
The race is similarly tight in each poll when third-party candidates , Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party ’ s Jill Stein , were included in the interviews and surveys .
• Arizona : Trump ( 40 percent ) , Clinton ( 38 ) , Johnson ( 12 ) and Stein ( 3 ) .
• Georgia : Trump ( 44 ) , Clinton ( 42 ) , Johnson ( 10 ) and Stein is not on the ballot .
• Nevada : Trump ( 42 ) , Clinton ( 41 ) , Johnson ( 8 ) and Stein ( 3 ) .
• New Hampshire : Clinton ( 39 ) , Trump ( 37 ) , Johnson ( 15 ) and Stein ( 3 ) .
The NBC News report also referenced the down-ballot Senate races being led by the respective Republicans , including former presidential candidate John McCain who is up 19 points 57-38 .
|
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat in four battleground states, a sign the race is still anyone’s to win, according to four new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls conducted this week.
Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and New Hampshire’s recent results are all within the margin of error.
“As we enter the final lap of this very unconventional election, it would not be surprising if the electoral map in the end has new contours," Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, told NBC News. "Any of these four states could awaken a fault line in what is looking more and more like a shake-up election with more states being up for grabs.”
Here are the particulars for each of the four battleground polls conducted Sept. 6-8:
• Arizona, a state the GOP has carried in the presidential election since 2000, favored Trump by one point 42-41 among likely voters (649 polled via landline and cellphone with a +/- 3.8-point margin of error).
• Georgia, which has been a GOP stronghold since 1996, had Trump leading Clinton by three points 46-43 (625 likely voters +/- 3.9-point margin).
• Nevada, which President Barack Obama won in the past two elections, had Clinton up one point 45-44 (627 likely voters +/- 3.9-point margin).
• New Hampshire, which Obama has also won in the past two elections, revealed that Clinton was up one point 42-41 (737 likely voters +/- 3.6-point margin).
The race is similarly tight in each poll when third-party candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein, were included in the interviews and surveys.
• Arizona: Trump (40 percent), Clinton (38), Johnson (12) and Stein (3).
• Georgia: Trump (44), Clinton (42), Johnson (10) and Stein is not on the ballot.
• Nevada: Trump (42), Clinton (41), Johnson (8) and Stein (3).
• New Hampshire: Clinton (39), Trump (37), Johnson (15) and Stein (3).
The NBC News report also referenced the down-ballot Senate races being led by the respective Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain who is up 19 points 57-38.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
kPHINHKuOMQRTvMR
|
us_house
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/bolton-impeachment-testify/2019/10/30/id/939457/
|
Impeachment Committees Ask Bolton to Testify
|
2019-10-30
|
House investigators are summoning former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in their impeachment inquiry , deepening their reach into the White House as the probe accelerates toward a potential vote to remove the president .
But Bolton 's lawyer , Charles Cooper , says Bolton will not appear without a subpoena .
Democrat lawmakers want to hear next week from Bolton , the hawkish former adviser who openly sparred over the administration 's approach to Ukraine , in particular President Donald Trump 's reliance on his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani for a back-channel operation . Bolton once derided Giuliani 's work as a `` drug deal '' and said he wanted no part of it , according to previous testimony .
The Democrats are also calling John Eisenberg , the lawyer for the NSC who fielded an Army officer 's concerns over Trump 's phone call with the Ukraine president , and Michel Ellis , another security council official , according to a person familiar with the invitation and granted anonymity to discuss it .
The rush of possible new witnesses comes as the House prepares to take its first official vote Thursday on the process ahead . That includes public hearings in a matter of weeks and the possibility of drafting articles of impeachment against the president .
The White House has urged officials not to testify in the impeachment proceedings , and it 's not guaranteed that those called will appear for depositions , even if they receive subpoenas as previous witnesses have .
Bolton 's former deputy , Charles Kupperman , has filed a lawsuit in federal court asking a judge to resolve the question of whether he can be forced to testify since he was a close and frequent adviser to the president . Any ruling in that case could presumably have an impact on whether Bolton will testify .
Trump and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill say the entire impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and are unpersuaded by the House resolution formally setting out next steps .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the format for the impeachment probe denies Trump the `` most basic rights of due process . ''
Now in its second month , the investigation is focused on Trump 's July phone call with Ukraine when he asked President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Democrats and a potential 2020 political rival , Joe Biden , as the White House was withholding military aid Ukraine relies on for its defenses . Democrats contend Trump was proposing a quid-pro-quo arrangement .
On Wednesday , the Democrat and Republican House lawmakers heard fresh testimony about the Trump administration 's unusual back channels to Ukraine .
Two State Department Ukraine experts offered new accounts of Trump 's reliance on Giuliani rather than career diplomats to engage with the East European ally , a struggling democracy facing aggression from Russia .
Foreign Service officer Christopher Anderson testified that Bolton cautioned him that Giuliani `` was a key voice with the president on Ukraine '' and could complicate U.S. goals for the country .
Another Foreign Service officer , Catherine Croft , said that during her time at Trump 's National Security Council , she received `` multiple '' phone calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston — a former top Republican lawmaker once in line to become House speaker — telling her the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch , should be fired .
`` It was not clear to me at the time — or now — at whose direction or at whose expense Mr. Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch , '' she said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press .
Livingston characterized Yovanovitch as an `` 'Obama holdover ' and associated with George Soros , '' she said , referring to the American financier who is often the subject of conservative criticism in the U.S. and Europe .
Most Democrats are expected to support the formal impeachment investigation resolution Thursday , even if they do n't back impeachment itself , saying they are in favor of opening the process with more formal procedures .
Public hearings are expected to begin in mid-November , a matter of weeks . Democrats are eager to hear from some top witnesses who have already provided compelling testimony behind closed doors , including diplomat William Taylor , a top ambassador in Ukraine , and Alexander Vindman , the Army officer who testified Tuesday that he twice reported to superiors , including Eisenberg , his concerns about Trump 's actions toward Ukraine .
Vindman is willing to testify publicly , according to a person familiar with the situation and granted anonymity Wednesday to discuss it .
On Thursday , the investigators are to hear from Tim Morrison , a former top GOP aide on Capitol Hill , who served at Trump 's National Security Council and was among those likely monitoring the president 's call with Ukraine .
At Trump 's hotel in Washington , during a fundraiser for House Republicans and lengthy dinner afterward with GOP leaders , the president indicated he was prepared for the fight ahead , said those familiar with the private gatherings Tuesday night .
`` He 's a tough guy , '' said Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana , the GOP whip .
Both career diplomats testifying Wednesday had served as top aides to the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine , Kurt Volker , who was the first to testify in the impeachment inquiry and whose cache of text messages provided key insight into Trump 's demands on the new Ukraine president .
Croft , who testified for nearly five hours , described being told at an administration meeting that security funds for Ukraine were being put on hold `` at the direction of the president , '' corroborating other accounts that have been provided to investigators .
In his opening statement , Anderson traced his unease with developments that he felt threatened to set back relations between the U.S. and Ukraine .
He told investigators that senior White House officials blocked an effort by the State Department to release a November 2018 statement condemning Russia 's attack on Ukrainian military vessels .
Both witnesses were instructed by the administration to not testify but appeared in response to subpoenas from the House , according to a statement from their attorney Mark MacDougall .
The lawyer told lawmakers that neither of his clients is the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry and that he would object to any questions aimed at identifying that person .
|
House investigators are summoning former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in their impeachment inquiry, deepening their reach into the White House as the probe accelerates toward a potential vote to remove the president.
But Bolton's lawyer, Charles Cooper, says Bolton will not appear without a subpoena.
Democrat lawmakers want to hear next week from Bolton, the hawkish former adviser who openly sparred over the administration's approach to Ukraine, in particular President Donald Trump's reliance on his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani for a back-channel operation. Bolton once derided Giuliani's work as a "drug deal" and said he wanted no part of it, according to previous testimony.
The Democrats are also calling John Eisenberg, the lawyer for the NSC who fielded an Army officer's concerns over Trump's phone call with the Ukraine president, and Michel Ellis, another security council official, according to a person familiar with the invitation and granted anonymity to discuss it.
The rush of possible new witnesses comes as the House prepares to take its first official vote Thursday on the process ahead. That includes public hearings in a matter of weeks and the possibility of drafting articles of impeachment against the president.
The White House has urged officials not to testify in the impeachment proceedings, and it's not guaranteed that those called will appear for depositions, even if they receive subpoenas as previous witnesses have.
Bolton's former deputy, Charles Kupperman, has filed a lawsuit in federal court asking a judge to resolve the question of whether he can be forced to testify since he was a close and frequent adviser to the president. Any ruling in that case could presumably have an impact on whether Bolton will testify.
Trump and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill say the entire impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and are unpersuaded by the House resolution formally setting out next steps.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the format for the impeachment probe denies Trump the "most basic rights of due process."
Now in its second month, the investigation is focused on Trump's July phone call with Ukraine when he asked President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Democrats and a potential 2020 political rival, Joe Biden, as the White House was withholding military aid Ukraine relies on for its defenses. Democrats contend Trump was proposing a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
On Wednesday, the Democrat and Republican House lawmakers heard fresh testimony about the Trump administration's unusual back channels to Ukraine.
Two State Department Ukraine experts offered new accounts of Trump's reliance on Giuliani rather than career diplomats to engage with the East European ally, a struggling democracy facing aggression from Russia.
Foreign Service officer Christopher Anderson testified that Bolton cautioned him that Giuliani "was a key voice with the president on Ukraine" and could complicate U.S. goals for the country.
Another Foreign Service officer, Catherine Croft, said that during her time at Trump's National Security Council, she received "multiple" phone calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston — a former top Republican lawmaker once in line to become House speaker — telling her the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, should be fired.
"It was not clear to me at the time — or now — at whose direction or at whose expense Mr. Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch," she said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press.
Livingston characterized Yovanovitch as an "'Obama holdover' and associated with George Soros," she said, referring to the American financier who is often the subject of conservative criticism in the U.S. and Europe.
Most Democrats are expected to support the formal impeachment investigation resolution Thursday, even if they don't back impeachment itself, saying they are in favor of opening the process with more formal procedures.
Public hearings are expected to begin in mid-November, a matter of weeks. Democrats are eager to hear from some top witnesses who have already provided compelling testimony behind closed doors, including diplomat William Taylor, a top ambassador in Ukraine, and Alexander Vindman, the Army officer who testified Tuesday that he twice reported to superiors, including Eisenberg, his concerns about Trump's actions toward Ukraine.
Vindman is willing to testify publicly, according to a person familiar with the situation and granted anonymity Wednesday to discuss it.
On Thursday, the investigators are to hear from Tim Morrison, a former top GOP aide on Capitol Hill, who served at Trump's National Security Council and was among those likely monitoring the president's call with Ukraine.
At Trump's hotel in Washington, during a fundraiser for House Republicans and lengthy dinner afterward with GOP leaders, the president indicated he was prepared for the fight ahead, said those familiar with the private gatherings Tuesday night.
"He's a tough guy," said Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the GOP whip.
Both career diplomats testifying Wednesday had served as top aides to the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who was the first to testify in the impeachment inquiry and whose cache of text messages provided key insight into Trump's demands on the new Ukraine president.
Croft, who testified for nearly five hours, described being told at an administration meeting that security funds for Ukraine were being put on hold "at the direction of the president," corroborating other accounts that have been provided to investigators.
In his opening statement, Anderson traced his unease with developments that he felt threatened to set back relations between the U.S. and Ukraine.
He told investigators that senior White House officials blocked an effort by the State Department to release a November 2018 statement condemning Russia's attack on Ukrainian military vessels.
Both witnesses were instructed by the administration to not testify but appeared in response to subpoenas from the House, according to a statement from their attorney Mark MacDougall.
The lawyer told lawmakers that neither of his clients is the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry and that he would object to any questions aimed at identifying that person.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
0cDhSYiNruRZjxUx
|
|
abortion
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0626/Filibuster-broken-but-Texas-abortion-law-fails-to-pass?nav=89-csm_category-topStories
|
Filibuster broken, but Texas abortion law fails to pass
|
2013-06-26
|
Chris Thomlinson, Jim Vertuno
|
Despite barely beating a midnight deadline , hundreds of jeering protesters helped stop Texas lawmakers from passing one of the toughest abortion measures in the country .
As the protesters raised the noise to deafening levels in the Texas Senate chamber late Tuesday , Republicans scrambled to gather their colleagues at the podium for a stroke-of-midnight vote .
`` Get them out ! '' Sen. Donna Campbell shouted to a security guard , pointing to the thundering crowd in the gallery overhead that had already been screaming for more than 10 minutes .
`` Time is running out , '' Campbell pleaded . `` I want them out of here ! ''
It did n't work . The noise never stopped and despite barely beating the midnight end-of-session deadline with a vote to pass the bill , Lt. Gov . David Dewhurst said the chaos in the chamber prevented him from formally signing it before the deadline passed , effectively killing it .
Dewhurst denounced the protesters as an `` unruly mob . '' Democrats who urged them on called the outburst democracy in action .
In either point of view , a raucous crowd of chanting , singing , shouting demonstrators effectively took over the Texas Capitol and blocked a bill that abortion rights groups warned would close most abortion clinics in the state .
`` They were asking for their voices to be heard , '' said Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth , who spent nearly 11 hours trying to filibuster the bill before the outburst . `` The results speak for themselves . ''
Initially , Republicans insisted the vote started before the midnight deadline and passed the bill that Democrats spent the day trying to kill . But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place Wednesday , and then were changed to read Tuesday , senators retreated into a private meeting to reach a conclusion .
At 3 a.m. , Dewhurst emerged from the meeting still insisting the 19-10 vote was in time , but said , `` with all the ruckus and noise going on , I could n't sign the bill '' and declared it dead .
He denounced the more than 400 protesters who staged what they called `` a people 's filibuster '' from 11:45 p.m. to well past midnight . He denied mishandling the debate .
`` I did n't lose control ( of the chamber ) . We had an unruly mob , '' Dewhurst said . He even hinted that Gov . Rick Perry may immediately call another 30-day special session , adding : `` It 's over . It 's been fun . But see you soon . ''
Many of the protesters had flocked to the normally quiet Capitol to support Davis , who gained national attention and a mention from President Barack Obama 's campaign Twitter account . Her Twitter following went from 1,200 in the morning to more than 20,000 by Tuesday night .
`` My back hurts . I do n't have a lot of words left , '' Davis said when it was over and she was showered with cheers by activists who stayed at the Capitol to see her . `` It shows the determination and spirit of Texas women . ''
Davis ' mission was cut short . Lt. Gov . David Dewhurst halted the filibuster after determining Davis had strayed off the topic when she talked about a sonogram bill passed in 2011 and how the new abortion restrictions only compounded the anti-abortion laws in Texas . Democrats immediately appealed the decision and set off a heated debate over rules . At one point , Austin Democratic Sen. Kirk Watson appeared to be positioning himself to launch a new filibuster on Dewhurst 's decision .
But Davis ' effort ultimately helped Democrats earn a rare victory in a Legislature dominated by Republicans for more than a decade .
`` It 's a bad bill , '' said Sen. Watson , leader of the Senate Democrats .
The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers . Also , doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles — a tall order in rural communities .
If signed into law , the measures would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas , a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long with 26 million people . A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion if the law passed . The law 's provision that abortions be performed at surgical centers means only five of Texas ' 42 abortion clinics are currently designated to remain in operation .
Republicans and anti-abortion groups insisted their goal was to improve women 's health care , but also acknowledged wanting clinics to close .
`` If this passes , abortion would be virtually banned in the state of Texas , and many women could be forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures , '' said Cecile Richards , president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of the late former Texas governor Ann Richards .
The showdown came after Davis had slogged her way through about 11 hours of speaking while Senate Republicans — and several House members — watched and listened for any slipup that would allow them to end the filibuster and call a vote .
Democrats chose Davis , of Fort Worth , to lead the effort because of her background ; she had her first child as a teenager and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School .
Rules stipulated she remain standing , not lean on her desk or take any breaks — even for meals or to use the bathroom . But she also was required to stay on topic , and Republicans pointed out a mistake and later protested again when another lawmaker helped her with a back brace .
Lawmakers can vote to end a filibuster after three sustained points of order . As tension mounted over Davis ' speech and the dwindling clock , Campbell , a first-term lawmaker from New Braunfels , made the call on the third violation , sparking nearly two hours of debate on how to handle it .
After much back and forth and senators shouting over each other , the Republican majority forced a vote to end the filibuster minutes before midnight , sparking the raucous response from protesters .
Senate security and several Department of Public Safety state troopers tried to quiet the crowd but were simply outnumbered and had no hope of stopping the outburst .
Sen. Dan Patrick , R-Houston , blamed the confusion surrounding the final vote on the demonstrators and Democratic senators who urged them on .
`` Had that not happened , everyone would have known , '' what was happening , Patrick said .
Standing next to him was Sen. Juan `` Chuy '' Hinojosa , a Democrat .
`` This is democracy , '' Hinojosa said . `` They have a right to speak . ''
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
|
Despite barely beating a midnight deadline, hundreds of jeering protesters helped stop Texas lawmakers from passing one of the toughest abortion measures in the country.
As the protesters raised the noise to deafening levels in the Texas Senate chamber late Tuesday, Republicans scrambled to gather their colleagues at the podium for a stroke-of-midnight vote.
"Get them out!" Sen. Donna Campbell shouted to a security guard, pointing to the thundering crowd in the gallery overhead that had already been screaming for more than 10 minutes.
"Time is running out," Campbell pleaded. "I want them out of here!"
It didn't work. The noise never stopped and despite barely beating the midnight end-of-session deadline with a vote to pass the bill, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said the chaos in the chamber prevented him from formally signing it before the deadline passed, effectively killing it.
Dewhurst denounced the protesters as an "unruly mob." Democrats who urged them on called the outburst democracy in action.
In either point of view, a raucous crowd of chanting, singing, shouting demonstrators effectively took over the Texas Capitol and blocked a bill that abortion rights groups warned would close most abortion clinics in the state.
"They were asking for their voices to be heard," said Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, who spent nearly 11 hours trying to filibuster the bill before the outburst. "The results speak for themselves."
The final outcome took several hours to sort out.
Initially, Republicans insisted the vote started before the midnight deadline and passed the bill that Democrats spent the day trying to kill. But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place Wednesday, and then were changed to read Tuesday, senators retreated into a private meeting to reach a conclusion.
At 3 a.m., Dewhurst emerged from the meeting still insisting the 19-10 vote was in time, but said, "with all the ruckus and noise going on, I couldn't sign the bill" and declared it dead.
He denounced the more than 400 protesters who staged what they called "a people's filibuster" from 11:45 p.m. to well past midnight. He denied mishandling the debate.
"I didn't lose control (of the chamber). We had an unruly mob," Dewhurst said. He even hinted that Gov. Rick Perry may immediately call another 30-day special session, adding: "It's over. It's been fun. But see you soon."
Many of the protesters had flocked to the normally quiet Capitol to support Davis, who gained national attention and a mention from President Barack Obama's campaign Twitter account. Her Twitter following went from 1,200 in the morning to more than 20,000 by Tuesday night.
"My back hurts. I don't have a lot of words left," Davis said when it was over and she was showered with cheers by activists who stayed at the Capitol to see her. "It shows the determination and spirit of Texas women."
Davis' mission was cut short. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst halted the filibuster after determining Davis had strayed off the topic when she talked about a sonogram bill passed in 2011 and how the new abortion restrictions only compounded the anti-abortion laws in Texas. Democrats immediately appealed the decision and set off a heated debate over rules. At one point, Austin Democratic Sen. Kirk Watson appeared to be positioning himself to launch a new filibuster on Dewhurst's decision.
But Davis' effort ultimately helped Democrats earn a rare victory in a Legislature dominated by Republicans for more than a decade.
"It's a bad bill," said Sen. Watson, leader of the Senate Democrats.
The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers. Also, doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles — a tall order in rural communities.
If signed into law, the measures would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas, a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long with 26 million people. A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion if the law passed. The law's provision that abortions be performed at surgical centers means only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics are currently designated to remain in operation.
Republicans and anti-abortion groups insisted their goal was to improve women's health care, but also acknowledged wanting clinics to close.
"If this passes, abortion would be virtually banned in the state of Texas, and many women could be forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of the late former Texas governor Ann Richards.
The showdown came after Davis had slogged her way through about 11 hours of speaking while Senate Republicans — and several House members — watched and listened for any slipup that would allow them to end the filibuster and call a vote.
Democrats chose Davis, of Fort Worth, to lead the effort because of her background; she had her first child as a teenager and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School.
Rules stipulated she remain standing, not lean on her desk or take any breaks — even for meals or to use the bathroom. But she also was required to stay on topic, and Republicans pointed out a mistake and later protested again when another lawmaker helped her with a back brace.
Lawmakers can vote to end a filibuster after three sustained points of order. As tension mounted over Davis' speech and the dwindling clock, Campbell, a first-term lawmaker from New Braunfels, made the call on the third violation, sparking nearly two hours of debate on how to handle it.
After much back and forth and senators shouting over each other, the Republican majority forced a vote to end the filibuster minutes before midnight, sparking the raucous response from protesters.
Senate security and several Department of Public Safety state troopers tried to quiet the crowd but were simply outnumbered and had no hope of stopping the outburst.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, blamed the confusion surrounding the final vote on the demonstrators and Democratic senators who urged them on.
"Had that not happened, everyone would have known," what was happening, Patrick said.
Standing next to him was Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, a Democrat.
"This is democracy," Hinojosa said. "They have a right to speak."
___
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Follow Jim Vertuno on Twitter: http://twitter.com/JimVertuno .
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cltomlinson
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
miJvgvy17ANSLP1o
|
voting_rights_and_voter_fraud
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/434309-gop-legislators-clamp-down-on-voter-initiatives
|
GOP legislators clamping down on voter initiatives
|
2019-03-17
|
In November , 64 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing former felons to regain their right to vote . Three weeks later , a Republican state representative introduced legislation that would require constitutional amendments to earn 67 percent of the vote to pass .
In Missouri , voters passed measures to raise the minimum wage , legalize medical marijuana and take legislative redistricting out of the hands of legislators . A month later , state House Republicans introduced a bill to nearly double the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot .
In Idaho , 60 percent of voters approved an initiative to expand Medicaid to cover low-income residents . Last week , a Republican state senator introduced legislation to increase both the number and geographic spread of signatures required to qualify an initiative .
Republican legislators in states across the country have introduced dozens of bills that would make significant changes to the initiative and referendum process , tightening rules and raising requirements after their voters approved progressive proposals that legislators opposed or refused to take up .
Critics of the proposals say they are a Republican end run around the direct democracy process , meant to stifle popular progressive policies before they get to the ballot .
“ This is , combined with what we saw after the success of many of these ballot initiatives in 2018 , state legislatures undermining the will of the people , ” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo , who runs the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center . “ Rather than listen to the will of the people , elected officials are undermining the will of the people . ”
Conservative groups such as the Republican State Leadership Committee and the American Legislative Exchange Council have advocated for tightening ballot rules .
And some Democrats have supported similar measures in states such as Oregon and Washington , where low signature requirements have led to crowded ballots .
Fields said her group was watching about 90 bills around the country that would tighten ballot access .
The nonpartisan political website Ballotpedia is tracking about 140 pieces of legislation introduced in 31 states related to ballot measures , though some of those bills would loosen requirements .
Some of the Republicans behind this year ’ s bills say they are necessary to curb the influence of big-money groups that increasingly fund some of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns across the country .
In Arizona , voters rejected an initiative that would have required the state to generate 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources , which made the ballot with the help of millions of dollars from California billionaire Tom Steyer .
After that measure , state Sen. Vince Leach ( R ) introduced a bill regulating who could collect signatures for a ballot initiative and giving counties more time to inspect signatures once they have been turned in .
“ It ’ s pretty clear to see that over the last six years , we ’ ve had any number of initiatives that have started from outside of the state of Arizona , ” Leach said in an interview . “ We need to protect one of the most precious things we have , and that ’ s the ability to go to the ballot and vote . ”
Leach said he does not oppose the initiative process but that the legislature has a responsibility to guard the rights of its own citizens to determine the state ’ s direction .
“ The citizens have a right to initiate laws and not only initiate laws but veto laws we pass . All that ’ s good . My effort is not to slow that down . I don ’ t want to take that opportunity or that responsibility away from the people , ” Leach said . “ It just needs to be fine-tuned . ”
Other legislators said easy access to the ballot has led to a raft of ill-considered public policy that does not face the same scrutiny as legislation reviewed and scored by trained legal analysts .
In Arkansas , the state constitution now runs more than 100 pages , thanks in part to a bevy of recent voter-approved amendments .
“ In the last seven elections , we ’ ve actually changed our constitution 20 times . We ’ re averaging three changes every other year , ” said Mat Pitsch , a Republican state senator in Arkansas . “ Things that normally are voted on by elected representatives were making their way through constitutional ballot measures . ”
Pitsch authored a bill that would increase penalties on those who forge signatures on petitions and shift responsibility for approving measures for the ballot from the state attorney general to the state board of elections . Arkansas Gov . Asa Hutchinson ( R ) signed his bill earlier this year .
Some liberal states are also considering changes that would take power away from voters . In California , the legislature will debate a bill to allow some local governments to issue bonds without a popular vote ; currently , those governments must ask voters for approval before issuing the bonds .
The tradition of direct democracy in America is older than the Republic itself .
Massachusetts held its first statewide referendum in 1778 . Most states that allow citizens to place legislation on the ballot adopted the practice during the Progressive Era in the early 1900s , in part to fight the influence of major corporations in the timber , railroad and oil industries .
Today , 27 states and the District of Columbia allow some form of direct democracy , either through citizen-initiated propositions and constitutional amendments or through ballot measures authored by the legislature that then go to voters for approval or rejection .
Conservative groups , especially anti-tax organizations , used ballot measures to limit states ’ abilities to levy new taxes in the last several decades , beginning with California ’ s Proposition 13 , which passed in 1978 .
More recently , liberal groups have increasingly turned to ballot measures to raise the minimum wage , expand health care coverage and protect union rights — especially in states where Republicans won control of legislatures after the 2010 midterm elections .
Ballot measures have become a booming political business . Supporters and opponents spent more than $ 1 billion on propositions put before voters in each of the last three even-numbered election years . Several propositions in California generated nearly $ 100 million in spending in 2018 .
|
In November, 64 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing former felons to regain their right to vote. Three weeks later, a Republican state representative introduced legislation that would require constitutional amendments to earn 67 percent of the vote to pass.
In Missouri, voters passed measures to raise the minimum wage, legalize medical marijuana and take legislative redistricting out of the hands of legislators. A month later, state House Republicans introduced a bill to nearly double the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.
In Idaho, 60 percent of voters approved an initiative to expand Medicaid to cover low-income residents. Last week, a Republican state senator introduced legislation to increase both the number and geographic spread of signatures required to qualify an initiative.
Republican legislators in states across the country have introduced dozens of bills that would make significant changes to the initiative and referendum process, tightening rules and raising requirements after their voters approved progressive proposals that legislators opposed or refused to take up.
ADVERTISEMENT
Critics of the proposals say they are a Republican end run around the direct democracy process, meant to stifle popular progressive policies before they get to the ballot.
“This is, combined with what we saw after the success of many of these ballot initiatives in 2018, state legislatures undermining the will of the people,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, who runs the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. “ Rather than listen to the will of the people, elected officials are undermining the will of the people.”
Conservative groups such as the Republican State Leadership Committee and the American Legislative Exchange Council have advocated for tightening ballot rules.
And some Democrats have supported similar measures in states such as Oregon and Washington, where low signature requirements have led to crowded ballots.
Fields said her group was watching about 90 bills around the country that would tighten ballot access.
The nonpartisan political website Ballotpedia is tracking about 140 pieces of legislation introduced in 31 states related to ballot measures, though some of those bills would loosen requirements.
Some of the Republicans behind this year’s bills say they are necessary to curb the influence of big-money groups that increasingly fund some of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns across the country.
In Arizona, voters rejected an initiative that would have required the state to generate 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources, which made the ballot with the help of millions of dollars from California billionaire Tom Steyer.
After that measure, state Sen. Vince Leach (R) introduced a bill regulating who could collect signatures for a ballot initiative and giving counties more time to inspect signatures once they have been turned in.
“ It’s pretty clear to see that over the last six years, we’ve had any number of initiatives that have started from outside of the state of Arizona,” Leach said in an interview. “We need to protect one of the most precious things we have, and that’s the ability to go to the ballot and vote.”
Leach said he does not oppose the initiative process but that the legislature has a responsibility to guard the rights of its own citizens to determine the state’s direction.
“The citizens have a right to initiate laws and not only initiate laws but veto laws we pass. All that’s good. My effort is not to slow that down. I don’t want to take that opportunity or that responsibility away from the people,” Leach said. “It just needs to be fine-tuned.”
Other legislators said easy access to the ballot has led to a raft of ill-considered public policy that does not face the same scrutiny as legislation reviewed and scored by trained legal analysts.
In Arkansas, the state constitution now runs more than 100 pages, thanks in part to a bevy of recent voter-approved amendments.
“In the last seven elections, we’ve actually changed our constitution 20 times. We’re averaging three changes every other year,” said Mat Pitsch, a Republican state senator in Arkansas. “Things that normally are voted on by elected representatives were making their way through constitutional ballot measures.”
Pitsch authored a bill that would increase penalties on those who forge signatures on petitions and shift responsibility for approving measures for the ballot from the state attorney general to the state board of elections. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed his bill earlier this year.
Some liberal states are also considering changes that would take power away from voters. In California, the legislature will debate a bill to allow some local governments to issue bonds without a popular vote; currently, those governments must ask voters for approval before issuing the bonds.
ADVERTISEMENT
The tradition of direct democracy in America is older than the Republic itself.
Massachusetts held its first statewide referendum in 1778. Most states that allow citizens to place legislation on the ballot adopted the practice during the Progressive Era in the early 1900s, in part to fight the influence of major corporations in the timber, railroad and oil industries.
Today, 27 states and the District of Columbia allow some form of direct democracy, either through citizen-initiated propositions and constitutional amendments or through ballot measures authored by the legislature that then go to voters for approval or rejection.
Conservative groups, especially anti-tax organizations, used ballot measures to limit states’ abilities to levy new taxes in the last several decades, beginning with California’s Proposition 13, which passed in 1978.
More recently, liberal groups have increasingly turned to ballot measures to raise the minimum wage, expand health care coverage and protect union rights — especially in states where Republicans won control of legislatures after the 2010 midterm elections.
Ballot measures have become a booming political business. Supporters and opponents spent more than $1 billion on propositions put before voters in each of the last three even-numbered election years. Several propositions in California generated nearly $100 million in spending in 2018.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
QJHAGOdZB3XtAXwQ
|
|
energy
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/1023/America-s-natural-gas-revolution-isn-t-all-it-s-fracked-up-to-be
|
America's natural gas revolution isn't all it's 'fracked' up to be
|
2013-10-23
|
Richard Heinberg
|
Americans are being subjected to a massive public relations assault attempting to persuade them that “ fracking ” for natural gas and oil is the key to America ’ s energy future and that this change will free them forever from the bondage of oil imports .
What has really changed is the nation ’ s energy conversation . Until recently , it was about how the United States should reduce its dependency on climate-changing fossil fuels . Now the “ conversation ” has become a harangue about the energy , jobs , and tax revenues the industry insists will flow from fracking and how these outweigh environmental concerns .
The data do not adequately support these claims . Though the fracking revolution is only a few years old , it ’ s already losing steam . There are several reasons why .
Fracking , or hydraulic fracturing , is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from low-permeability ( usually shale ) rock formations that don ’ t yield to conventional technologies . In the process , water , sand , and various chemicals are injected into shale rock at high pressure to open fractures in the rock and release gas or oil .
A few years ago , fracking for shale gas or tight oil was still novel and confined to small regions , but now tens of thousands of wells have been drilled . Millions of Americans have personal experience with the noise , truck traffic , fumes , and local political turmoil that seem inevitably to follow in fracking ’ s wake . Hundreds of anti-fracking citizen groups have formed , public sentiment seems to be turning , and communities have begun seeking bans or moratoriums on the practice .
Environmental problems can ’ t be swept under the carpet any longer . The image of a home-owner lighting his tap water on fire in Josh Fox ’ s documentary film “ Gasland ” has become a cliché ; still , for a while the natural gas industry successfully argued that adverse effects from fracking on water , air , soil , wildlife , livestock , and human health are negligible .
Industry-funded studies declared the practice safe , and the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to back them up . Drilling companies tended to target economically depressed regions , where poverty forced most townsfolk to take whatever short-term jobs and production royalties were offered . Meanwhile , citizens who have suffered ill health effects or property damage that they link to fracking were led to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to receive settlement payoffs ( including two children ages 7 and 10 who have been given lifetime bans from speaking about fracking ) .
But the bad news just keeps leaking , like methane through a bad well casing . Former Mobil Oil vice president , Louis W. Allstadt , who spent his career running oil production operations and company mergers , now speaks on behalf of anti-fracking resistance groups . He points to studies revealing that compromised casings ( and resulting instances of water contamination ) are far more common than the industry claims .
Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times has uncovered documents suggesting that the EPA has ignored evidence of environmental harms from fracking , choosing not to publicize or act on data collected by its own staff .
Wayne County , Pa. , activists are currently celebrating the cancellation of 1,500 drilling leases covering 100,000 acres of land . New York State ’ s moratorium on fracking remains in effect , despite massive industry efforts to end it . Meanwhile the Colorado city of Longmont has voted to ban fracking altogether , and the State of Colorado is suing the city in an attempt to overturn the ban .
But fracking has another problem that is even bigger than environmental and health problems or shifting public opinion , though less publicized : Its production potential seems to have been oversold .
Everyone who pays attention to energy issues has heard that America has a hundred years or more of natural gas thanks to the application of fracking to shale reservoirs , and that the US is on track to outproduce Saudi Arabia now that oil is flowing from fracked fields in North Dakota and Texas . To most , the news at first sounded hopeful and reassuring . Yet as actual production numbers accumulate , it appears that claims made for fracking were simply too good to be true .
It turns out there are only a few geological formations in the US from which shale gas is being produced . In virtually all of them , except the Marcellus ( in Pennsylvania and West Virginia ) , studies such as one from the Post Carbon Institute show that production rates have plateaued or are in decline .
Why so soon ? A major challenge bedeviling drillers is the high variability within shale . Each tight oil or shale gas-bearing geologic formation tends to be characterized by a small core area ( usually a few counties ) where production is profitable and plentiful , surrounded by a much larger region where per-well production rates are lower to start with and drop fast – often falling 60 percent during the first year .
Given the expense of horizontal drilling and fracking , it ’ s hard to make money in noncore areas unless oil and gas prices are stratospheric . As the “ sweet spots ” get drilled to capacity , producers are being forced to the fringes , taking on more debt because sales of product don ’ t cover operating expenses .
With decline rates so high , promised production volumes are turning out to be more hype than reality . America ’ s hundred years of natural gas , heralded by President Obama as a national energy game changer , is based on unrealistic estimates – the amount of gas the Energy Information Administration says is “ technically recoverable. ” But this quantity includes resources that will never be produced for economic reasons . Some estimate that shale gas and tight oil production will top out and start to decline before 2020 .
In August , Shell took a $ 2 billion write-down on its liquids-rich shale assets in North America . While no details were released , it ’ s likely the company was simply acknowledging the unprofitability of leases in noncore regions . It could be that the oil industry itself is starting to learn that the shale revolution just ain ’ t all it was fracked up to be .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
It is highly important that we return America ’ s energy focus to the most critical imperative of our time – the necessary and inevitable transition away from our current dependence on fossil fuels .
Richard Heinberg is senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of 11 books , most recently “ Snake Oil : How Fracking ’ s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future . ”
|
Americans are being subjected to a massive public relations assault attempting to persuade them that “fracking” for natural gas and oil is the key to America’s energy future and that this change will free them forever from the bondage of oil imports.
What has really changed is the nation’s energy conversation. Until recently, it was about how the United States should reduce its dependency on climate-changing fossil fuels. Now the “conversation” has become a harangue about the energy, jobs, and tax revenues the industry insists will flow from fracking and how these outweigh environmental concerns.
The data do not adequately support these claims. Though the fracking revolution is only a few years old, it’s already losing steam. There are several reasons why.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from low-permeability (usually shale) rock formations that don’t yield to conventional technologies. In the process, water, sand, and various chemicals are injected into shale rock at high pressure to open fractures in the rock and release gas or oil.
A few years ago, fracking for shale gas or tight oil was still novel and confined to small regions, but now tens of thousands of wells have been drilled. Millions of Americans have personal experience with the noise, truck traffic, fumes, and local political turmoil that seem inevitably to follow in fracking’s wake. Hundreds of anti-fracking citizen groups have formed, public sentiment seems to be turning, and communities have begun seeking bans or moratoriums on the practice.
Environmental problems can’t be swept under the carpet any longer. The image of a home-owner lighting his tap water on fire in Josh Fox’s documentary film “Gasland” has become a cliché; still, for a while the natural gas industry successfully argued that adverse effects from fracking on water, air, soil, wildlife, livestock, and human health are negligible.
Industry-funded studies declared the practice safe, and the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to back them up. Drilling companies tended to target economically depressed regions, where poverty forced most townsfolk to take whatever short-term jobs and production royalties were offered. Meanwhile, citizens who have suffered ill health effects or property damage that they link to fracking were led to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to receive settlement payoffs (including two children ages 7 and 10 who have been given lifetime bans from speaking about fracking).
But the bad news just keeps leaking, like methane through a bad well casing. Former Mobil Oil vice president, Louis W. Allstadt, who spent his career running oil production operations and company mergers, now speaks on behalf of anti-fracking resistance groups. He points to studies revealing that compromised casings (and resulting instances of water contamination) are far more common than the industry claims.
Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times has uncovered documents suggesting that the EPA has ignored evidence of environmental harms from fracking, choosing not to publicize or act on data collected by its own staff.
Wayne County, Pa., activists are currently celebrating the cancellation of 1,500 drilling leases covering 100,000 acres of land. New York State’s moratorium on fracking remains in effect, despite massive industry efforts to end it. Meanwhile the Colorado city of Longmont has voted to ban fracking altogether, and the State of Colorado is suing the city in an attempt to overturn the ban.
But fracking has another problem that is even bigger than environmental and health problems or shifting public opinion, though less publicized: Its production potential seems to have been oversold.
Everyone who pays attention to energy issues has heard that America has a hundred years or more of natural gas thanks to the application of fracking to shale reservoirs, and that the US is on track to outproduce Saudi Arabia now that oil is flowing from fracked fields in North Dakota and Texas. To most, the news at first sounded hopeful and reassuring. Yet as actual production numbers accumulate, it appears that claims made for fracking were simply too good to be true.
It turns out there are only a few geological formations in the US from which shale gas is being produced. In virtually all of them, except the Marcellus (in Pennsylvania and West Virginia), studies such as one from the Post Carbon Institute show that production rates have plateaued or are in decline.
Why so soon? A major challenge bedeviling drillers is the high variability within shale. Each tight oil or shale gas-bearing geologic formation tends to be characterized by a small core area (usually a few counties) where production is profitable and plentiful, surrounded by a much larger region where per-well production rates are lower to start with and drop fast – often falling 60 percent during the first year.
Given the expense of horizontal drilling and fracking, it’s hard to make money in noncore areas unless oil and gas prices are stratospheric. As the “sweet spots” get drilled to capacity, producers are being forced to the fringes, taking on more debt because sales of product don’t cover operating expenses.
With decline rates so high, promised production volumes are turning out to be more hype than reality. America’s hundred years of natural gas, heralded by President Obama as a national energy game changer, is based on unrealistic estimates – the amount of gas the Energy Information Administration says is “technically recoverable.” But this quantity includes resources that will never be produced for economic reasons. Some estimate that shale gas and tight oil production will top out and start to decline before 2020.
In August, Shell took a $2 billion write-down on its liquids-rich shale assets in North America. While no details were released, it’s likely the company was simply acknowledging the unprofitability of leases in noncore regions. It could be that the oil industry itself is starting to learn that the shale revolution just ain’t all it was fracked up to be.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
It is highly important that we return America’s energy focus to the most critical imperative of our time – the necessary and inevitable transition away from our current dependence on fossil fuels.
Richard Heinberg is senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of 11 books, most recently “Snake Oil: How Fracking’s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
fERDw4zcpzxEhfVR
|
national_security
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/us-russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-pompeo/index.html
|
Pompeo announces suspension of nuclear arms treaty with Russia
|
2019-02-01
|
Nicole Gaouette, Jennifer Hansler
|
Washington ( CNN ) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Friday that the US is suspending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , a key pact with Russia that has been a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War .
`` For years , Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without remorse , '' Pompeo said , speaking from the State Department . `` Russia 's violations put millions of Europeans and Americans at greater risk . ''
`` It is our duty to respond appropriately , '' Pompeo said , adding that the US had provided `` ample time '' for Russia to return to compliance .
The long-expected suspension , which has raised concerns about a renewed arms race with Moscow and put European allies on edge , goes into effect on Saturday . Pompeo 's announcement starts a 180-day clock to complete withdrawal unless Russia returns to compliance with the 1987 agreement .
President Donald Trump and his senior officials had been signaling for months that they were ready to pull out of the INF treaty , which the US accuses Moscow of violating since 2014 .
`` The United States has fully adhered to the INF Treaty for more than 30 years , but we will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions , '' Trump said in a statement Friday . `` We can not be the only country in the world unilaterally bound by this treaty , or any other . ''
Later , at the White House , the President hinted to reporters that he 'd be open to negotiations on a new treaty but did not mention Russia by name -- the only other signatory to the pact .
`` I hope that you 're able to get everybody in a big and beautiful room and do a new treaty that would be much better , but certainly I would like to see that , '' Trump said , according to pool reports . `` But you have to have everybody adhere to it and you have a certain side that almost pretends it does n't exist . '
`` So unless we 're going to have something we all agree to we ca n't be put at the disadvantage of going by a treaty , limiting what we do , when somebody else does n't go by that treaty , '' Trump said .
While Russia and the US are the only two parties to the treaty , but it significantly affects European security .
The ground-based nuclear tipped cruise missiles covered by the bilateral agreement can fly between 310 to 3,100 miles , making them a threat to Europe , where officials have unanimously backed the US decision , even as they consider their next steps and admit having little to no optimism that the treaty can be saved .
In a statement , NATO said America 's allies `` fully support '' the US decision because of Russia 's threat to Euro-Atlantic security and its refusal to provide any credible response or take any steps towards full and verifiable compliance .
NATO urged Russia to use the next six months to `` return to full and verifiable compliance to preserve the INF Treaty . ''
JUST WATCHED Top Kremlin official : We are not that threatening Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Top Kremlin official : We are not that threatening 02:21
`` We are heading into a direction we have not been in in 40 years : no arms control limits or rules that we are both following , and that is very dangerous , '' said Lynn Rusten , a senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the National Security Council during the Obama administration who is now a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative .
US officials and lawmakers have expressed concern that the treaty is allowing China to gain a military advantage , as Beijing is not bound by the INF treaty 's limits on intermediate range missiles that currently constrain the US .
Trump appeared to confirm this in his Friday remarks to reporters , saying , `` first of all you have to add countries '' to the treaty .
But a senior US administration official denied Beijing is a factor .
`` There 's a lot of discussion about China , '' this official said , briefing reporters on the suspension . `` It is a reality that China is unconstrained , it is a reality they have more than 1,000 of these weapons , but for the United States this has nothing to do with China . This is solely about Russia 's violation of this treaty . ''
`` We simply can not tolerate this kind of abuse of arms control , '' the official said .
Russia has consistently denied being in violation of the treaty , and on Thursday , Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said talks with the US had n't yielded progress .
`` Unfortunately , there is no progress . The US position remains rather tough and ultimatum-like , '' Ryabkov said , according to Russian state media outlet TASS .
`` We told the US side that it is impossible to hold dialogue in the conditions of attempted blackmailing of Russia , '' he added .
Senior US administration officials countered Thursday by laying out Russia 's repeated efforts to get the US to agree to dissolve the treaty and years of American effort to get Russia to comply , including 35 diplomatic engagements ranging from the highest political levels to technical talks .
`` We have , unfortunately , very little to show for it , '' said a US official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity , stressing that `` the onus is on Russia . ''
`` Russia continues to deny its violations ... Russia will have this chance . If they are truly interested in preserving this treaty , this is their final chance , '' the official continued . `` It would be in Russia 's best interests to return to full and verifiable compliance . ''
This official noted the `` remarkable unity '' among the US and its European allies , but European officials say they 're concerned about the treaty dissolving and say they will use the six-month window to urge Russia to comply .
`` It is clear to us that Russia has violated this treaty and that 's why we need to speak to Russia , '' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference in Berlin on Friday , shortly before the US announced its intention to suspend the treaty .
Germany will `` do everything we can '' to use the six-month deadline after the termination to hold further talks with Russia , Merkel said .
European officials discussing the fallout in the coming months point to a possible increase in Russian cyber activities , including its influence campaigns , Russia is likely to use the US withdrawal as an excuse to deploy systems elsewhere and the certainty of finger-pointing , as Moscow works to assign blame .
`` Russia will feel more legitimized to continue what it 's doing now , but also increasing some of its efforts on missile technology and deploying them , '' said a European official .
A second European official said that `` they will threaten , they will try to divide NATO , they 'll do anything but stay quiet . '' The Russians will likely argue that `` this is about the US and the US trying to destabilize the international order , '' this official said , stressing that Europe has been united in its stance , alongside the US , that Russia has been violating the treaty .
`` The bigger picture is what kind of sign you 're sending out , what message you 're sending , '' said a third European official . `` For us , this treaty was extremely important for our security . What are we looking at instead '' if it is scrapped , the official asked .
|
Washington (CNN) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Friday that the US is suspending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a key pact with Russia that has been a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War.
"For years, Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without remorse," Pompeo said, speaking from the State Department. "Russia's violations put millions of Europeans and Americans at greater risk."
"It is our duty to respond appropriately," Pompeo said, adding that the US had provided "ample time" for Russia to return to compliance.
The long-expected suspension, which has raised concerns about a renewed arms race with Moscow and put European allies on edge, goes into effect on Saturday. Pompeo's announcement starts a 180-day clock to complete withdrawal unless Russia returns to compliance with the 1987 agreement.
President Donald Trump and his senior officials had been signaling for months that they were ready to pull out of the INF treaty, which the US accuses Moscow of violating since 2014.
'Full support'
"The United States has fully adhered to the INF Treaty for more than 30 years, but we will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions," Trump said in a statement Friday. "We cannot be the only country in the world unilaterally bound by this treaty, or any other."
Later, at the White House, the President hinted to reporters that he'd be open to negotiations on a new treaty but did not mention Russia by name -- the only other signatory to the pact.
"I hope that you're able to get everybody in a big and beautiful room and do a new treaty that would be much better, but certainly I would like to see that," Trump said, according to pool reports. "But you have to have everybody adhere to it and you have a certain side that almost pretends it doesn't exist.'
"So unless we're going to have something we all agree to we can't be put at the disadvantage of going by a treaty, limiting what we do, when somebody else doesn't go by that treaty," Trump said.
While Russia and the US are the only two parties to the treaty, but it significantly affects European security.
The ground-based nuclear tipped cruise missiles covered by the bilateral agreement can fly between 310 to 3,100 miles, making them a threat to Europe, where officials have unanimously backed the US decision, even as they consider their next steps and admit having little to no optimism that the treaty can be saved.
In a statement, NATO said America's allies "fully support" the US decision because of Russia's threat to Euro-Atlantic security and its refusal to provide any credible response or take any steps towards full and verifiable compliance.
NATO urged Russia to use the next six months to "return to full and verifiable compliance to preserve the INF Treaty."
Arms control experts sound the alarm
JUST WATCHED Top Kremlin official: We are not that threatening Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Top Kremlin official: We are not that threatening 02:21
"We are heading into a direction we have not been in in 40 years: no arms control limits or rules that we are both following, and that is very dangerous," said Lynn Rusten, a senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the National Security Council during the Obama administration who is now a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
US officials and lawmakers have expressed concern that the treaty is allowing China to gain a military advantage, as Beijing is not bound by the INF treaty's limits on intermediate range missiles that currently constrain the US.
Trump appeared to confirm this in his Friday remarks to reporters, saying, "first of all you have to add countries" to the treaty.
But a senior US administration official denied Beijing is a factor.
"There's a lot of discussion about China," this official said, briefing reporters on the suspension. "It is a reality that China is unconstrained, it is a reality they have more than 1,000 of these weapons, but for the United States this has nothing to do with China. This is solely about Russia's violation of this treaty."
"We simply cannot tolerate this kind of abuse of arms control," the official said.
Russian denials
Russia has consistently denied being in violation of the treaty, and on Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said talks with the US hadn't yielded progress.
"Unfortunately, there is no progress. The US position remains rather tough and ultimatum-like," Ryabkov said, according to Russian state media outlet TASS.
"We told the US side that it is impossible to hold dialogue in the conditions of attempted blackmailing of Russia," he added.
Senior US administration officials countered Thursday by laying out Russia's repeated efforts to get the US to agree to dissolve the treaty and years of American effort to get Russia to comply, including 35 diplomatic engagements ranging from the highest political levels to technical talks.
"We have, unfortunately, very little to show for it," said a US official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, stressing that "the onus is on Russia."
"Russia continues to deny its violations ... Russia will have this chance. If they are truly interested in preserving this treaty, this is their final chance," the official continued. "It would be in Russia's best interests to return to full and verifiable compliance."
This official noted the "remarkable unity" among the US and its European allies, but European officials say they're concerned about the treaty dissolving and say they will use the six-month window to urge Russia to comply.
"It is clear to us that Russia has violated this treaty and that's why we need to speak to Russia,'' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference in Berlin on Friday, shortly before the US announced its intention to suspend the treaty.
Germany will ''do everything we can'' to use the six-month deadline after the termination to hold further talks with Russia, Merkel said.
'What are we looking at instead?'
European officials discussing the fallout in the coming months point to a possible increase in Russian cyber activities, including its influence campaigns, Russia is likely to use the US withdrawal as an excuse to deploy systems elsewhere and the certainty of finger-pointing, as Moscow works to assign blame.
"Russia will feel more legitimized to continue what it's doing now, but also increasing some of its efforts on missile technology and deploying them," said a European official.
A second European official said that "they will threaten, they will try to divide NATO, they'll do anything but stay quiet." The Russians will likely argue that "this is about the US and the US trying to destabilize the international order," this official said, stressing that Europe has been united in its stance, alongside the US, that Russia has been violating the treaty.
"The bigger picture is what kind of sign you're sending out, what message you're sending," said a third European official. "For us, this treaty was extremely important for our security. What are we looking at instead" if it is scrapped, the official asked.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
HS8ZH7meVv922vtd
|
national_security
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe
|
Barr testifies 'spying did occur' on Trump campaign, amid reported review of informant's role
|
Brooke Singman
|
Attorney General Bill Barr testified Wednesday that he believes `` spying did occur '' on the Trump campaign in 2016 , as he vowed to review the conduct of the FBI 's original Russia probe -- and the focus of a related internal review shifted to the role of a key FBI informant .
`` I think spying did occur . The question is whether it was adequately predicated . … I think it ’ s my obligation . Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane , '' he testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee , while noting that `` spying on a political campaign is a big deal . ''
BARR VOWS MUELLER REPORT RELEASE 'WITHIN A WEEK , ' AS DEMS RIP 'UNACCEPTABLE ' HANDLING AT HEATED HEARING
The comments follow a new report that the Justice Department ’ s internal watchdog also is scrutinizing the role of an FBI informant who contacted members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election , as part of a broader review of the early stages of the Russia investigation . The New York Times reported that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into informant Stefan Halper ’ s work during the Russia probe , as well as his work with the FBI prior to the start of that probe .
BARR REVEALS HE IS REVIEWING 'CONDUCT ' OF FBI 'S ORIGINAL RUSSIA PROBE
Halper , an American professor who reportedly is deeply connected with British and American intelligence agencies , has been widely reported as a confidential source for the FBI during the bureau ’ s original investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election . That official counterintelligence operation was opened by then-senior agent Peter Strzok , who has since been fired from the bureau .
During the 2016 campaign , Halper contacted several members of the Trump campaign , including former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former aide Carter Page . Page also was the subject of several Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) warrants during the campaign -- which is an issue at the heart of the IG 's investigation . Republicans , including President Trump , have alleged misconduct in the bureau and Justice Department ’ s handling of those FISA warrants .
`` It was an illegal investigation . ... Everything about it was crooked , '' Trump told reporters on Wednesday , describing it as an attempted `` coup '' and reiterating his interest in digging into the probe 's origins . `` There is a hunger for that to happen . ''
The Times , in its report , noted that Halper also contacted former Trump campaign aide Sam Clovis . It is unclear whether Halper had the FBI ’ s permission to contact Clovis , according to the report .
Horowitz , more broadly , is probing alleged wrongdoing related to the issuance of FISA warrants to surveil Page during the election . During a prior hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday , Barr testified that Horowitz ’ s investigation is expected to be complete by May or June .
While vowing to release Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's now-completed Russia report in a matter of days , Barr also announced Tuesday that he was reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation at the FBI and the Justice Department , amid mounting calls for scrutiny of the probe 's beginnings from Trump and prominent congressional Republicans .
“ More generally , I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all of the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016 , ” Barr told the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday .
BARR ASSEMBLES 'TEAM ' TO LOOK INTO COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION ON TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016 , OFFICIAL SAYS
Also on Tuesday , Fox News reported that a source said Barr had assembled a “ team ” to investigate the origins of the bureau ’ s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign .
On Wednesday , Barr testified that he has n't technically `` set up a team '' but has colleagues helping him as he reviews the case .
`` This is not launching an investigation of the FBI , '' he stressed . `` Frankly , to the extent there were issues at the FBI , I do not view it as a problem of the FBI . I think it was probably a failure of the group of leaders—the upper echelons of the FBI . I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I am very pleased Director Chris Wray is there . ''
He added , `` If it becomes necessary to look over former officials , I expect to rely on Chris and work with him . I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused and I think that ’ s one of the principal roles of the attorney general . ''
The FBI ’ s 2016 counterintelligence investigation , formally opened by Strzok , began with a “ paucity ” of evidence , according to former FBI counsel Lisa Page , with whom Strzok was romantically involved . During a closed-door congressional interview , Page admitted that the FBI “ knew so little ” about whether allegations against the Trump campaign were “ true or not true ” at the time they opened the probe , adding that they had just “ a paucity of evidence because we [ were ] just starting down the path ” of vetting allegations .
Page also said in her interview that it was “ entirely common ” that the FBI would begin an investigation with just a “ small amount of evidence . ”
Barr ’ s team will also review the FISA warrants issued against Carter Page . The issuance of the FISA warrants relied , in part , on the unverified anti-Trump dossier authored by ex-British Intelligence Agent Christopher Steele , who worked on behalf of Fusion GPS—a firm paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through law firm Perkins Coie to do opposition research against the Trump campaign . In the dossier , Steele accused Page of conspiring with Russians . Page was not charged with any wrongdoing in either the FBI ’ s Russia probe or Mueller ’ s .
Fox News exclusively obtained internal FBI text messages last month showing that just nine days before the FBI applied for the Page FISA warrant , bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had `` continued concerns '' about the `` possible bias '' of a source pivotal to the application .
Barr ’ s review could also dovetail with the work U.S. Attorney John Huber has been doing . In 2017 , former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to review not only alleged surveillance abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI but also the handling of the probe into the Clinton Foundation and other matters .
The day following Barr ’ s release of his summary of the Mueller report , Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , said his panel also would investigate alleged FISA abuses at the start of the Russia investigation and called on Barr to appoint a new special counsel to investigate “ the other side of the story. ” Graham has been calling for a second special counsel since 2017 to investigate “ whether or not a counterintelligence investigation was opened as a back door to spy on the Trump campaign . ”
Also , House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes , R-Calif. , said over the weekend he was preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week regarding alleged misconduct by DOJ and FBI officials during the Trump-Russia investigation . It is unclear whom Nunes will refer for investigation , and what the process at the Justice Department might be .
When asked Tuesday about Nunes ’ referrals , Barr said he hasn ’ t seen them yet , but , “ Obviously , if there is a predicate for investigation , it will be conducted . ”
|
Attorney General Bill Barr testified Wednesday that he believes "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016, as he vowed to review the conduct of the FBI's original Russia probe -- and the focus of a related internal review shifted to the role of a key FBI informant.
"I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. … I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane," he testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, while noting that "spying on a political campaign is a big deal."
BARR VOWS MUELLER REPORT RELEASE 'WITHIN A WEEK,' AS DEMS RIP 'UNACCEPTABLE' HANDLING AT HEATED HEARING
The comments follow a new report that the Justice Department’s internal watchdog also is scrutinizing the role of an FBI informant who contacted members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, as part of a broader review of the early stages of the Russia investigation. The New York Times reported that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into informant Stefan Halper’s work during the Russia probe, as well as his work with the FBI prior to the start of that probe.
BARR REVEALS HE IS REVIEWING 'CONDUCT' OF FBI'S ORIGINAL RUSSIA PROBE
Halper, an American professor who reportedly is deeply connected with British and American intelligence agencies, has been widely reported as a confidential source for the FBI during the bureau’s original investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That official counterintelligence operation was opened by then-senior agent Peter Strzok, who has since been fired from the bureau.
During the 2016 campaign, Halper contacted several members of the Trump campaign, including former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former aide Carter Page. Page also was the subject of several Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants during the campaign -- which is an issue at the heart of the IG's investigation. Republicans, including President Trump, have alleged misconduct in the bureau and Justice Department’s handling of those FISA warrants.
"It was an illegal investigation. ... Everything about it was crooked," Trump told reporters on Wednesday, describing it as an attempted "coup" and reiterating his interest in digging into the probe's origins. "There is a hunger for that to happen."
The Times, in its report, noted that Halper also contacted former Trump campaign aide Sam Clovis. It is unclear whether Halper had the FBI’s permission to contact Clovis, according to the report.
Horowitz, more broadly, is probing alleged wrongdoing related to the issuance of FISA warrants to surveil Page during the election. During a prior hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Barr testified that Horowitz’s investigation is expected to be complete by May or June.
While vowing to release Special Counsel Robert Mueller's now-completed Russia report in a matter of days, Barr also announced Tuesday that he was reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation at the FBI and the Justice Department, amid mounting calls for scrutiny of the probe's beginnings from Trump and prominent congressional Republicans.
“More generally, I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all of the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016,” Barr told the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday.
BARR ASSEMBLES 'TEAM' TO LOOK INTO COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION ON TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016, OFFICIAL SAYS
Also on Tuesday, Fox News reported that a source said Barr had assembled a “team” to investigate the origins of the bureau’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.
On Wednesday, Barr testified that he hasn't technically "set up a team" but has colleagues helping him as he reviews the case.
"This is not launching an investigation of the FBI," he stressed. "Frankly, to the extent there were issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem of the FBI. I think it was probably a failure of the group of leaders—the upper echelons of the FBI. I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I am very pleased Director Chris Wray is there."
He added, "If it becomes necessary to look over former officials, I expect to rely on Chris and work with him. I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused and I think that’s one of the principal roles of the attorney general."
The FBI’s 2016 counterintelligence investigation, formally opened by Strzok, began with a “paucity” of evidence, according to former FBI counsel Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was romantically involved. During a closed-door congressional interview, Page admitted that the FBI “knew so little” about whether allegations against the Trump campaign were “true or not true” at the time they opened the probe, adding that they had just “a paucity of evidence because we [were] just starting down the path” of vetting allegations.
Page also said in her interview that it was “entirely common” that the FBI would begin an investigation with just a “small amount of evidence.”
Barr’s team will also review the FISA warrants issued against Carter Page. The issuance of the FISA warrants relied, in part, on the unverified anti-Trump dossier authored by ex-British Intelligence Agent Christopher Steele, who worked on behalf of Fusion GPS—a firm paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through law firm Perkins Coie to do opposition research against the Trump campaign. In the dossier, Steele accused Page of conspiring with Russians. Page was not charged with any wrongdoing in either the FBI’s Russia probe or Mueller’s.
Fox News exclusively obtained internal FBI text messages last month showing that just nine days before the FBI applied for the Page FISA warrant, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application.
Barr’s review could also dovetail with the work U.S. Attorney John Huber has been doing. In 2017, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to review not only alleged surveillance abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI but also the handling of the probe into the Clinton Foundation and other matters.
The day following Barr’s release of his summary of the Mueller report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said his panel also would investigate alleged FISA abuses at the start of the Russia investigation and called on Barr to appoint a new special counsel to investigate “the other side of the story.” Graham has been calling for a second special counsel since 2017 to investigate “whether or not a counterintelligence investigation was opened as a back door to spy on the Trump campaign.”
Also, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said over the weekend he was preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week regarding alleged misconduct by DOJ and FBI officials during the Trump-Russia investigation. It is unclear whom Nunes will refer for investigation, and what the process at the Justice Department might be.
When asked Tuesday about Nunes’ referrals, Barr said he hasn’t seen them yet, but, “Obviously, if there is a predicate for investigation, it will be conducted.”
Fox News’ Gregg Re and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
VneMx6Vy6hXJ5BQs
|
|
us_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/21/paul-ryans-demands-include-non-starter/
|
Paul Ryan's demands include non-starter
|
2015-10-21
|
Tom Howell Jr., Anjali Shastry
|
An influential Republican conservative said at least one of Rep. Paul Ryan ’ s demands for becoming House speaker is a “ non-starter ” as the GOP gathered Wednesday morning to figure out if enough members can unite behind the young star .
Current Speaker John A. Boehner , who is retiring , told lawmakers the GOP will hold an internal vote next Wednesday to select their replacement , and then the whole House will vote Thursday to confirm Congress ’ s top constitutional office .
Mr. Ryan had said he would only take the speaker ’ s job if Congress eliminated the power to oust the speaker mid-session — something Rep. Raul Labrador , Idaho Republican , said would undermine the checks and balances that have been in the system since Thomas Jefferson first wrote the parliamentary rule book .
“ That ’ s something that ’ s in the Jefferson ’ s rules . This is something that if it ’ s good enough for Jefferson , it ’ s got to be good enough for Paul Ryan , ” Mr. Labrador said .
Known as the motion to vacate the chair , the parliamentary maneuver in question is a way for insurgents to topple their chief — similar to a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems .
Such a motion was part of the trouble faced by Mr. Boehner , who is retiring amid intense dissatisfaction from conservative Republicans .
SEE ALSO : Paul Ryan to run for speaker if House Republicans will rally behind him
The House GOP has been struggling to fill his shoes , with general consensus that Mr. Ryan is the best man for the job . The Wisconsin Republican , however , has been reluctant , first saying he didn ’ t want to spend the time away from his children that being speaker requires , and then saying he could do important work in his current job as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee .
But facing overwhelming calls , Mr. Ryan has reconsidered . On Tuesday he said he would take the job if his colleagues unite behind him and if they agree to drop the ability to force the ouster of the speaker .
It ’ s unclear whether he can earn the 218 votes needed to win the speakership from Republicans , with grumblings from some members who emerged from Wednesday morning ’ s meeting .
“ I don ’ t think the speakership is a 9 to 5 job , ” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp , Kansas Republican .
Those from several of the influential conservative caucuses said they are asking Mr. Ryan to meet with them Wednesday so he can make his case , and they can ask him questions .
One of those , the House Freedom Caucus , has officially backed Rep. Daniel Webster , Florida Republican , in the speaker ’ s race , and members said that position hasn ’ t changed — though they are willing to listen to Mr. Ryan ’ s pitch .
“ We ’ ve been consistent — it ’ s all about policy and rules and rule changes to make sure the members have an equal place in terms of potential legislative priorities , ” said Rep. Mark Meadows , the North Carolina Republican who offered the motion to vacate the chair that brought Mr. Boehner ’ s situation to a head .
|
An influential Republican conservative said at least one of Rep. Paul Ryan’s demands for becoming House speaker is a “non-starter” as the GOP gathered Wednesday morning to figure out if enough members can unite behind the young star.
Current Speaker John A. Boehner, who is retiring, told lawmakers the GOP will hold an internal vote next Wednesday to select their replacement, and then the whole House will vote Thursday to confirm Congress’s top constitutional office.
Mr. Ryan had said he would only take the speaker’s job if Congress eliminated the power to oust the speaker mid-session — something Rep. Raul Labrador, Idaho Republican, said would undermine the checks and balances that have been in the system since Thomas Jefferson first wrote the parliamentary rule book.
“That’s something that’s in the Jefferson’s rules. This is something that if it’s good enough for Jefferson, it’s got to be good enough for Paul Ryan,” Mr. Labrador said.
Known as the motion to vacate the chair, the parliamentary maneuver in question is a way for insurgents to topple their chief — similar to a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems.
Such a motion was part of the trouble faced by Mr. Boehner, who is retiring amid intense dissatisfaction from conservative Republicans.
SEE ALSO: Paul Ryan to run for speaker if House Republicans will rally behind him
The House GOP has been struggling to fill his shoes, with general consensus that Mr. Ryan is the best man for the job. The Wisconsin Republican, however, has been reluctant, first saying he didn’t want to spend the time away from his children that being speaker requires, and then saying he could do important work in his current job as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
But facing overwhelming calls, Mr. Ryan has reconsidered. On Tuesday he said he would take the job if his colleagues unite behind him and if they agree to drop the ability to force the ouster of the speaker.
It’s unclear whether he can earn the 218 votes needed to win the speakership from Republicans, with grumblings from some members who emerged from Wednesday morning’s meeting.
“I don’t think the speakership is a 9 to 5 job,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Kansas Republican.
Those from several of the influential conservative caucuses said they are asking Mr. Ryan to meet with them Wednesday so he can make his case, and they can ask him questions.
One of those, the House Freedom Caucus, has officially backed Rep. Daniel Webster, Florida Republican, in the speaker’s race, and members said that position hasn’t changed — though they are willing to listen to Mr. Ryan’s pitch.
“We’ve been consistent — it’s all about policy and rules and rule changes to make sure the members have an equal place in terms of potential legislative priorities,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, the North Carolina Republican who offered the motion to vacate the chair that brought Mr. Boehner’s situation to a head.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
0cunhl7Y6ZJ6p2NT
|
media_bias
|
Media Matters
| 00
|
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/03/05/mainstream-media-figures-adopt-trump-s-narrative-house-judiciary-committee-investigation-him-fishing/223056
|
Mainstream media figures adopt Trump’s narrative that House Judiciary Committee investigation into him is a “fishing expedition”
|
2019-03-05
|
Mainstream media figures are discussing the House Judiciary Committee document requests -- which the committee sent to 81 figures and entities connected to President Donald Trump and his administration -- within the framework of the White House ’ s narrative that the move is a “ fishing expedition . ”
On March 4 , the Judiciary Committee issued a press release announcing an investigation “ into the alleged obstruction of justice , public corruption , and other abuses of power by President Trump , his associates , and members of his Administration. ” As committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) explained , “ Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core function of the House Judiciary Committee . We have seen the damage done to our democratic institutions in the two years that the Congress refused to conduct responsible oversight . Congress must provide a check on abuses of power . ”
Both Trump and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders have responded to the request by denouncing it as a “ fishing expedition. ” And many mainstream media figures are -- unwittingly or otherwise -- adopting the same narrative , in some cases even using the same language as Trump and his top flack by calling the investigation a “ fishing expedition ” and in other cases advancing the narrative that the document requests are an “ overreach . ”
To be clear , Congress has extremely broad investigative authority , with the Supreme Court repeatedly ruling that investigatory powers are central to the legislative branch ’ s function . And the individuals and entities that are receiving the requests were selected for a reason . As HuffPost noted , “ The letters piggyback off the preexisting investigations being run by Robert Mueller ’ s special counsel office as well as federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. ” The letters also “ inform recipients that , in the interest of speeding up the process , they can limit their production to documents they already turned over in response to those investigations. ” And there is ample evidence that the president and many of his associates are deeply corrupt , warranting a large-scale investigation .
The public is also in favor of investigating Trump . A March 5 Quinnipiac University poll found that 64 percent of Americans think Trump committed crimes before becoming president , and 45 percent believe he has committed crimes while president . And by a 58-35 margin , Americans think Congress should investigate former Trump lawyer “ Michael Cohen 's claims about President Trump 's unethical and illegal behavior . ”
As The Washington Post ’ s Greg Sargent noted , those findings are contrary to the mainstream media narrative currently forming around the investigation :
New Quinnipiac poll : Trump approval : 38-55 Committed crimes before becoming president : 64-24 Committed crimes while president : 45-43 Believe Cohen over Trump : 50-35 Congress should investigate Cohen claims : 58-35 This is so RISKY ! ! ! https : //t.co/u4QTtApKAS — Greg Sargent ( @ ThePlumLineGS ) March 5 , 2019
Here are some examples of mainstream media figures and outlets acting as stenographers for the Trump administration ’ s pushback to the investigation :
CNN political analyst David Gregory said of the various investigations of Trump , “ I do think the president is potentially strengthened by all of this , by it being overly broad , by looking like Democrats are simply after the president . ”
CNN political analyst Rachael Bade said on New Day , “ This is so expansive and so broad that it just -- it raises questions of what are they going to do , where are they going to go , and does this actually hurt their own investigation because they are asking for so much ? ”
CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota told Rep. Lou Correa ( D-CA ) , who serves on the Judiciary Committee , that “ the debate is oversight or overreach , and do you really need documents from 81 people and entities to get to the bottom of something ? ”
CNN anchor Erica Hill called some of the document requests “ somewhat dramatic ” and asked her guest , “ Do they risk , perhaps , in some instances going too far on this ? ”
While discussing the document requests on MSNBC , Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said , “ There is a real , if you ’ re a Democrat , concern about overreach . ”
MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell adopted the White House ’ s frame , asking Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-HI ) whether Democrats are “ going too far ? Are they getting into the realm where they ’ re going to give the president a lot of ammunition to play the victim ? ”
NBC and MSNBC Senior Politics Editor Beth Fouhy said , “ I ’ m very puzzled by the politics of this , ” adding , “ We were assured when Democrats took the control of the House that they were not going to do a quote-unquote ‘ fishing expedition ’ to bring Trump down , that their investigations would be very targeted , very focused -- they wanted to do the work of the American people . … I can understand the reason to go after 81 people from the legal perspective , I don ’ t see it from the political perspective ; this looks like it ’ s a fishing expedition . It ’ s certainly something that Fox News and the president ’ s supporters can define as a fishing expedition . ”
Los Angeles Times opinion writer Michael McGough published an op-ed with the headline “ House Democrats are going on a Trump fishing expedition , ” arguing that the “ timing of Nadler ’ s announcement raises the question of whether the Democrats already have concluded that Mueller won ’ t deliver the goods ” and that “ will play into arguments by Trump supporters that Democrats are moving the goal posts . ”
CNN senior political commentator David Axelrod wrote on Twitter , “ Maybe I ’ m missing something , but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet , serial ones is that , however legitimate the areas of inquiry , the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the ‘ witch-hunt ’ meme . ”
The Washington Post ’ s write-up of the document requests included the line “ The extensive scope could bolster claims by Trump and Republicans that congressional Democrats are seeking to undermine the president and cripple his 2020 reelection effort rather than conduct a disciplined , fact-finding inquiry . ”
Cydney Hargis and Alex Walker contributed research to this post .
|
Mainstream media figures are discussing the House Judiciary Committee document requests -- which the committee sent to 81 figures and entities connected to President Donald Trump and his administration -- within the framework of the White House’s narrative that the move is a “fishing expedition.”
On March 4, the Judiciary Committee issued a press release announcing an investigation “into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.” As committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explained, “Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core function of the House Judiciary Committee. We have seen the damage done to our democratic institutions in the two years that the Congress refused to conduct responsible oversight. Congress must provide a check on abuses of power.”
Both Trump and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders have responded to the request by denouncing it as a “fishing expedition.” And many mainstream media figures are -- unwittingly or otherwise -- adopting the same narrative, in some cases even using the same language as Trump and his top flack by calling the investigation a “fishing expedition” and in other cases advancing the narrative that the document requests are an “overreach.”
To be clear, Congress has extremely broad investigative authority, with the Supreme Court repeatedly ruling that investigatory powers are central to the legislative branch’s function. And the individuals and entities that are receiving the requests were selected for a reason. As HuffPost noted, “The letters piggyback off the preexisting investigations being run by Robert Mueller’s special counsel office as well as federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.” The letters also “inform recipients that, in the interest of speeding up the process, they can limit their production to documents they already turned over in response to those investigations.” And there is ample evidence that the president and many of his associates are deeply corrupt, warranting a large-scale investigation.
The public is also in favor of investigating Trump. A March 5 Quinnipiac University poll found that 64 percent of Americans think Trump committed crimes before becoming president, and 45 percent believe he has committed crimes while president. And by a 58-35 margin, Americans think Congress should investigate former Trump lawyer “Michael Cohen's claims about President Trump's unethical and illegal behavior.”
As The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted, those findings are contrary to the mainstream media narrative currently forming around the investigation:
New Quinnipiac poll: Trump approval: 38-55 Committed crimes before becoming president: 64-24 Committed crimes while president: 45-43 Believe Cohen over Trump: 50-35 Congress should investigate Cohen claims: 58-35 This is so RISKY!!!https://t.co/u4QTtApKAS — Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) March 5, 2019
Here are some examples of mainstream media figures and outlets acting as stenographers for the Trump administration’s pushback to the investigation:
CNN political analyst David Gregory said of the various investigations of Trump, “I do think the president is potentially strengthened by all of this, by it being overly broad, by looking like Democrats are simply after the president.”
CNN political analyst Rachael Bade said on New Day, “This is so expansive and so broad that it just -- it raises questions of what are they going to do, where are they going to go, and does this actually hurt their own investigation because they are asking for so much?”
CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota told Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA), who serves on the Judiciary Committee, that “the debate is oversight or overreach, and do you really need documents from 81 people and entities to get to the bottom of something?”
CNN anchor Erica Hill called some of the document requests “somewhat dramatic” and asked her guest, “Do they risk, perhaps, in some instances going too far on this?”
While discussing the document requests on MSNBC, Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, “There is a real, if you’re a Democrat, concern about overreach.”
MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell adopted the White House’s frame, asking Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) whether Democrats are “going too far? Are they getting into the realm where they’re going to give the president a lot of ammunition to play the victim?”
NBC and MSNBC Senior Politics Editor Beth Fouhy said, “I’m very puzzled by the politics of this,” adding, “We were assured when Democrats took the control of the House that they were not going to do a quote-unquote ‘fishing expedition’ to bring Trump down, that their investigations would be very targeted, very focused -- they wanted to do the work of the American people. … I can understand the reason to go after 81 people from the legal perspective, I don’t see it from the political perspective; this looks like it’s a fishing expedition. It’s certainly something that Fox News and the president’s supporters can define as a fishing expedition.”
Los Angeles Times opinion writer Michael McGough published an op-ed with the headline “House Democrats are going on a Trump fishing expedition,” arguing that the “timing of Nadler’s announcement raises the question of whether the Democrats already have concluded that Mueller won’t deliver the goods” and that “will play into arguments by Trump supporters that Democrats are moving the goal posts.”
CNN senior political commentator David Axelrod wrote on Twitter, “Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the ‘witch-hunt’ meme.”
The Washington Post’s write-up of the document requests included the line “The extensive scope could bolster claims by Trump and Republicans that congressional Democrats are seeking to undermine the president and cripple his 2020 reelection effort rather than conduct a disciplined, fact-finding inquiry.”
Cydney Hargis and Alex Walker contributed research to this post.
|
www.mediamatters.org
| 0left
|
mHJR9T4umHz2wwa7
|
|
elections
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
|
Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds
|
2017-01-26
|
Rowan Scarborough
|
Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8 , an approximation far short of President Trump ’ s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud .
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk , Virginia , has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting , and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump ’ s assertion .
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities , a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November . He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton , who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump .
Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes .
“ Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton ’ s margin ? Yes , ” Mr. Richman wrote . “ Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton ? Not at all . ”
Still , the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have .
Mr. Trump ’ s unverified accusation to congressional leaders this week , as reported by The Washington Post , has sent the issue skyward .
He apparently was referring to all types of fraud , such as the “ dead ” voting or multiple votes from the same person . But the thrust of his estimate appears to be that illegal immigrants and noncitizens carried the popular vote .
He returned to the issue Thursday in Philadelphia , where he spoke to congressional Republicans mapping this year ’ s legislative calendar .
“ We also need to keep the ballot box safe from illegal voting , ” the president said . “ And , believe me , you take a look at what ’ s registering , folks . Take a look at what ’ s registering . We are going to protect the integrity of the ballot box , and we are going to defend the votes of the American citizen , so important . ”
The mainstream media reacted to Mr. Trump ’ s assertion with derision . Liberal pundits said there is no evidence of fraud .
CNN ’ s Jake Tapper called it “ a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence . And there is a reason they are providing no evidence — there is no evidence . It is not true . ”
Esquire.com said , “ The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump ’ s presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won . ”
But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence — that noncitizen voting is illegal and , thus , fraud . They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud .
“ Most voters are never asked for voter ID , so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here , there is no voter fraud , ” said Tom Fitton , who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch . “ If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally , with 1.13 million voting for Democrats . ”
“ A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue , ” Mr. Fitton said . “ It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals . Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions ? The jig is up . ”
There does not appear to be any concerted postelection effort by states to take on the daunting task of checking voter rolls and ballots to verify citizenship . In some states , no ID is required to register and vote .
In the absence of detailed accounting , the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling .
Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll : the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey . Every two years , a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov .
Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status : A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted .
Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman , Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers , did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens , about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election . Using other measuring tools , they said , the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million .
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2012 that there are 22 million noncitizens in the country . The group comprises illegal immigrants and people in the U.S. legally on a visa or permanent resident green card . Of this 22 million , 20 million were 18 or older , the U.S. voting age requirement .
Conservatives have long suspected that Democrats are tacitly encouraging illegal immigrants to vote . Liberal leaders have created “ sanctuary cities ” across the nation that refuse to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities .
President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race .
“ Many of the millennials , Dreamers , undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting , ” he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel . “ ‘ So if I vote , will Immigration know where I live ? Will they come for my family and deport us ? ’ ”
“ Not true , and the reason is , first of all , when you vote , you are a citizen yourself , ” Mr. Obama said . “ And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating , etc . The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential . ”
Some conservatives interpreted Mr. Obama ’ s answer as a go-ahead signal , with his questionable assertion that voter rolls are off limits to federal investigators .
The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manger John Podesta ’ s emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote . He said immigrants should obtain driver ’ s licenses and then attest at a polling place that they are U.S. citizens .
|
Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.
Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.
“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”
Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.
PHOTOS: Pack your bags: Stars who vowed to leave America if Trump won
Mr. Trump’s unverified accusation to congressional leaders this week, as reported by The Washington Post, has sent the issue skyward.
He apparently was referring to all types of fraud, such as the “dead” voting or multiple votes from the same person. But the thrust of his estimate appears to be that illegal immigrants and noncitizens carried the popular vote.
He returned to the issue Thursday in Philadelphia, where he spoke to congressional Republicans mapping this year’s legislative calendar.
“We also need to keep the ballot box safe from illegal voting,” the president said. “And, believe me, you take a look at what’s registering, folks. Take a look at what’s registering. We are going to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and we are going to defend the votes of the American citizen, so important.”
The mainstream media reacted to Mr. Trump’s assertion with derision. Liberal pundits said there is no evidence of fraud.
CNN’s Jake Tapper called it “a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence. And there is a reason they are providing no evidence — there is no evidence. It is not true.”
Esquire.com said, “The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump’s presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won.”
But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence — that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud.
“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”
“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”
There does not appear to be any concerted postelection effort by states to take on the daunting task of checking voter rolls and ballots to verify citizenship. In some states, no ID is required to register and vote.
In the absence of detailed accounting, the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling.
Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov.
Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted.
Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2012 that there are 22 million noncitizens in the country. The group comprises illegal immigrants and people in the U.S. legally on a visa or permanent resident green card. Of this 22 million, 20 million were 18 or older, the U.S. voting age requirement.
Conservatives have long suspected that Democrats are tacitly encouraging illegal immigrants to vote. Liberal leaders have created “sanctuary cities” across the nation that refuse to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities.
President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race.
“Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting,” he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. “‘So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?’”
“Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself,” Mr. Obama said. “And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”
Some conservatives interpreted Mr. Obama’s answer as a go-ahead signal, with his questionable assertion that voter rolls are off limits to federal investigators.
The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manger John Podesta’s emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote. He said immigrants should obtain driver’s licenses and then attest at a polling place that they are U.S. citizens.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
CDmJih2F9gR9dlMC
|
elections
|
ABC News
| 00
|
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/obama-says-mitt-romney-would-make-things-worse-for-middle-class/
|
Obama Says Mitt Romney Would ‘Make Things Worse for Middle Class’
|
Mary Bruce
|
With Mitt Romney poised to accept the Republican nomination this week , President Obama today accused his rival of backing policies that would `` make things worse for the middle class . ''
In an in interview with The Associated Press , the president told the Associated Press that `` we are n't where we need to be , '' as far as the economic recovery goes , but said his opponent 's ideas offer `` no prospect for long-term opportunity '' for Americans striving to enter the middle class .
`` If they saw Governor Romney offering serious proposals that offered some sort of concrete ways in which middle-class families would be helped , then I could understand them thinking about that choice , '' Obama told the AP . `` But that 's not what 's happening . ''
In a wide-ranging interview , the president sought to align Romney with the `` extreme positions '' of House Republicans .
`` I ca n't speak to Governor Romney 's motivations , '' Obama said . `` What I can say is that he has signed up for positions , extreme positions , that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken . And whether he actually believes in those or not , I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he 's talked about . ''
Among those `` extreme positions , '' Obama said , was that Romney `` would not stand in the way '' if Congress presented him with the items in the GOP party platform that would `` entirely roll back women 's control over their reproductive health . ''
Republican leaders adopted a party platform that opposes abortion but does not specifically mention cases of rape or incest as possible exceptions . The issue of abortion was at the forefront of the debate this week after Rep. Todd Akin , a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri , said that pregnancy is `` rare '' in cases of `` legitimate rape '' because the `` female body has a way to try to shut that whole thing down . ''
Romney has said that his administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape .
Looking ahead to the presidential debates , Obama complimented Romney as a `` capable debater '' but said his arguments are based on false accusations .
`` The challenge he may end up having is the fact that some of the core arguments he 's making against me just are n't based on facts , '' he said .
On the stump and on the airwaves , Romney has been accusing the president of gutting welfare reform by dropping the work requirement , something the Obama campaign has said is `` blatantly false . ''
`` If that 's the central premise or the central argument that you 're making and it 's based on something that 's just not true , it will be , I think , a little bit tougher to defend face-to-face in a debate , '' Obama said .
In response to the interview , the Romney campaign said `` the American people know they are n't better off than they were four years ago . ''
`` Too many middle-class families are going to sleep each night worried about the future . This may be the best President Obama can do , but it 's not the best America can do . The Romney-Ryan plan for a stronger middle class will jump start our economy and create 12 million new jobs - and most importantly , give Americans hope for a better future , '' a Romney spokesman said in a written statement .
|
With Mitt Romney poised to accept the Republican nomination this week, President Obama today accused his rival of backing policies that would "make things worse for the middle class."
In an in interview with The Associated Press, the president told the Associated Press that "we aren't where we need to be," as far as the economic recovery goes, but said his opponent's ideas offer "no prospect for long-term opportunity" for Americans striving to enter the middle class.
"If they saw Governor Romney offering serious proposals that offered some sort of concrete ways in which middle-class families would be helped, then I could understand them thinking about that choice," Obama told the AP. "But that's not what's happening."
In a wide-ranging interview, the president sought to align Romney with the "extreme positions" of House Republicans.
"I can't speak to Governor Romney's motivations," Obama said. "What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he's talked about."
Among those "extreme positions," Obama said, was that Romney "would not stand in the way" if Congress presented him with the items in the GOP party platform that would "entirely roll back women's control over their reproductive health."
Republican leaders adopted a party platform that opposes abortion but does not specifically mention cases of rape or incest as possible exceptions. The issue of abortion was at the forefront of the debate this week after Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, said that pregnancy is "rare" in cases of "legitimate rape" because the "female body has a way to try to shut that whole thing down."
Romney has said that his administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.
Looking ahead to the presidential debates, Obama complimented Romney as a "capable debater" but said his arguments are based on false accusations.
"The challenge he may end up having is the fact that some of the core arguments he's making against me just aren't based on facts," he said.
On the stump and on the airwaves, Romney has been accusing the president of gutting welfare reform by dropping the work requirement, something the Obama campaign has said is "blatantly false."
"If that's the central premise or the central argument that you're making and it's based on something that's just not true, it will be, I think, a little bit tougher to defend face-to-face in a debate," Obama said.
In response to the interview, the Romney campaign said "the American people know they aren't better off than they were four years ago."
"Too many middle-class families are going to sleep each night worried about the future. This may be the best President Obama can do, but it's not the best America can do. The Romney-Ryan plan for a stronger middle class will jump start our economy and create 12 million new jobs - and most importantly, give Americans hope for a better future," a Romney spokesman said in a written statement.
|
www.abcnews.go.com
| 0left
|
WclMf8OREAKYQlkH
|
|
white_house
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/trump-state-of-the-union-speech-preview.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/politics
|
Some Supporters Fear Trump Will Lose Hard Edge in State of Union Speech
|
2018-01-29
|
Michael D. Shear, Julie Hirschfeld Davis
|
Instead , they say , it will be “ optimistic , ” though officials caution that the ultimate delivery of the speech — and whether it follows the script that will scroll through the teleprompter — is up to Mr. Trump .
Newt Gingrich , the former Republican House speaker who has advised Mr. Trump , said the president was shifting gears , eager to promote the booming economy and the enactment of his tax plan without combative language that could muddy his message .
“ They ’ re moving a little bit from ‘ Trump the fighter ’ to ‘ Trump the winner , ’ ” Mr. Gingrich said Monday . “ There ’ s more of a sense of , ‘ Look , I ’ m the president of the United States . I don ’ t need to pick a fight . ’ ”
While some of Mr. Trump ’ s advisers will pine for a darker and more strident tone from the president , White House officials say they are aiming for a more inclusive speech — in tone if not in substance . In addition to Mr. Miller , the speech has been put together with Vince Haley , another speechwriter , and Rob Porter , the president ’ s staff secretary , who coordinated input from other parts of the government .
At the White House and among Republicans on Capitol Hill , there is a keen awareness that Mr. Trump benefits from extraordinarily low expectations of his ability to stay on message and deliver a coherent speech , given his tendency to ramble off script and insert divisive notes , insulting asides and mystifying non sequiturs that almost always overshadow the topic at hand .
Given that , officials believe , the president will be judged a success in many quarters as long as he reads faithfully from his script , resisting the urge to respond to perceived slights or settle scores and instead sticking to a positive message that can resonate with a wide swath of Americans .
“ The president is looking forward to the midterm elections in November and his own election in 2020 , ” said Corey Stewart , a Tea Party Trump backer from Virginia who is running for Senate in the state . “ He knows that he ’ s going to have to get his base out , but also expand it by talking about non-red meat issues . ”
|
Instead, they say, it will be “optimistic,” though officials caution that the ultimate delivery of the speech — and whether it follows the script that will scroll through the teleprompter — is up to Mr. Trump.
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker who has advised Mr. Trump, said the president was shifting gears, eager to promote the booming economy and the enactment of his tax plan without combative language that could muddy his message.
“They’re moving a little bit from ‘Trump the fighter’ to ‘Trump the winner,’” Mr. Gingrich said Monday. “There’s more of a sense of, ‘Look, I’m the president of the United States. I don’t need to pick a fight.’”
While some of Mr. Trump’s advisers will pine for a darker and more strident tone from the president, White House officials say they are aiming for a more inclusive speech — in tone if not in substance. In addition to Mr. Miller, the speech has been put together with Vince Haley, another speechwriter, and Rob Porter, the president’s staff secretary, who coordinated input from other parts of the government.
At the White House and among Republicans on Capitol Hill, there is a keen awareness that Mr. Trump benefits from extraordinarily low expectations of his ability to stay on message and deliver a coherent speech, given his tendency to ramble off script and insert divisive notes, insulting asides and mystifying non sequiturs that almost always overshadow the topic at hand.
Given that, officials believe, the president will be judged a success in many quarters as long as he reads faithfully from his script, resisting the urge to respond to perceived slights or settle scores and instead sticking to a positive message that can resonate with a wide swath of Americans.
“The president is looking forward to the midterm elections in November and his own election in 2020,” said Corey Stewart, a Tea Party Trump backer from Virginia who is running for Senate in the state. “He knows that he’s going to have to get his base out, but also expand it by talking about non-red meat issues.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
8MN1t2ZGQipckIre
|
facts_and_fact_checking
|
Daily Beast
| 00
|
https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-tell-ex-nfl-star-to-stop-saying-his-weed-can-cure-coronavirus?ref=home
|
Feds Tell Ex-NFL Star to Stop Saying His Weed Can Cure Coronavirus
|
2020-04-01
|
Lachlan Markay
|
The federal government is warning a former National Football League player 's company to stop advertising his medicinal cannabis products as treatments for the novel coronavirus .
The Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration sent a warning letter to that effect on Tuesday to the Las Vegas headquarters of Neuro XPF , which is owned by former NFL offensive tackle Kyle Turley . Turley insists that CBD , a popular non-psychoactive cannabis derivative , can cure the coronavirus .
In fact , Neuro XPF had an entire page of its website , headlined “ CRUSH CORONA , ” devoted to those claims . “ Your best defense against the COVID-19 blitz starts with a strong immune system , ” the page claimed , and “ a growing body of scientific evidence shows that CBD can help keep your immune system at the top of its game . ”
“ We want everyone to take CBD and take advantage of its potential to help prepare your body to fight a coronavirus infection , ” Neuro XPF said . “ So , we ’ re making all of our products more affordable . ”
Those claims quickly drew the ire of federal regulators that have cracked down of late on advertisements and scams hawking medically dubious coronavirus treatments .
“ FDA is taking urgent measures to protect consumers from certain products that , without approval or authorization by FDA , claim to mitigate , prevent , treat , diagnose , or cure COVID-19 in people , ” the agencies ’ joint letter advised . “ We request that you take immediate action to cease the sale of such unapproved and unauthorized products for the mitigation , prevention , treatment , diagnosis , or cure of COVID-19 . ”
A failure to comply , the agencies warned , “ may result in legal action , including , without limitation , seizure and injunction . ”
It appears that Turley ’ s company did , in the end , comply . The CRUSH CORONA page , which was active as late as March 29 , has since been taken down . The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
In his own public communications , Turley , a first-round 1998 NFL draft pick who spent much of his career with the Saints before retiring in 2007 , is adamant that his products are a coronavirus panacea . “ CBD CAN PREVENT AND CURE THE CORONA VIRUS ! ” he tweeted last month . He also insists that the drug cured his wife ’ s skin cancer .
Turley has spurned colleagues in the recreational and medicinal cannabis industry who have criticized him for his outlandish claims about the products ’ medical benefits . Critics are “ scared to say too much because we don ’ t want the government , we don ’ t want the man , to start coming down on us , ” he told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday .
“ Well guess what ? ” he added . “ I was a first round draft pick , I made millions of dollars , god saved my life through this plant and I live in America . So get used to it ... And I ’ m going to continue to spread his word . ”
|
The federal government is warning a former National Football League player's company to stop advertising his medicinal cannabis products as treatments for the novel coronavirus.
The Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration sent a warning letter to that effect on Tuesday to the Las Vegas headquarters of Neuro XPF, which is owned by former NFL offensive tackle Kyle Turley. Turley insists that CBD, a popular non-psychoactive cannabis derivative, can cure the coronavirus.
In fact, Neuro XPF had an entire page of its website, headlined “CRUSH CORONA,” devoted to those claims. “Your best defense against the COVID-19 blitz starts with a strong immune system,” the page claimed, and “a growing body of scientific evidence shows that CBD can help keep your immune system at the top of its game.”
“We want everyone to take CBD and take advantage of its potential to help prepare your body to fight a coronavirus infection,” Neuro XPF said. “So, we’re making all of our products more affordable.”
Those claims quickly drew the ire of federal regulators that have cracked down of late on advertisements and scams hawking medically dubious coronavirus treatments.
“FDA is taking urgent measures to protect consumers from certain products that, without approval or authorization by FDA, claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-19 in people,” the agencies’ joint letter advised. “We request that you take immediate action to cease the sale of such unapproved and unauthorized products for the mitigation, prevention, treatment, diagnosis, or cure of COVID-19.”
A failure to comply, the agencies warned, “may result in legal action, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction.”
It appears that Turley’s company did, in the end, comply. The CRUSH CORONA page, which was active as late as March 29, has since been taken down. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In his own public communications, Turley, a first-round 1998 NFL draft pick who spent much of his career with the Saints before retiring in 2007, is adamant that his products are a coronavirus panacea. “CBD CAN PREVENT AND CURE THE CORONA VIRUS!” he tweeted last month. He also insists that the drug cured his wife’s skin cancer.
Turley has spurned colleagues in the recreational and medicinal cannabis industry who have criticized him for his outlandish claims about the products’ medical benefits. Critics are “scared to say too much because we don’t want the government, we don’t want the man, to start coming down on us,” he told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday.
“Well guess what?” he added. “I was a first round draft pick, I made millions of dollars, god saved my life through this plant and I live in America. So get used to it...And I’m going to continue to spread his word.”
|
www.thedailybeast.com
| 0left
|
zLuodwdFSgdFxxrH
|
coronavirus
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487154-trump-announces-executive-actions-to-curb-coronavirus-outbreak-in-oval
|
Trump restricts travel from Europe to fight spread of coronavirus
|
2020-03-11
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpThe Hill 's Morning Report - Trump shifts his tone on coronavirus Senators balance coronavirus action with risks to health Coronavirus adds new element to rising US-Iran tensions MORE on Wednesday said the U.S. would restrict travel from Europe for the next 30 days and use executive orders to offer financial relief to individuals and small businesses in his most extensive steps to date to address the crisis of the coronavirus .
Trump said the extraordinary restrictions would not apply to Great Britain , which formally left the European Union at the end of January . Ireland is also exempt from the restrictions , according to a proclamation later issued by the White House .
Trump , in just his second Oval Office address since taking office , sought to assure a worried nation about the spread of the virus , which has infected more than 1,000 Americans and killed more than 30 thus far .
The president used the sober 11 minute address to detail the new travel restrictions and targeted economic relief for small businesses and individuals impacted by the virus , while calling on Congress for further action on payroll tax relief and benefits for hourly workers .
“ We are at a critical time in the fight against the virus , ” Trump said , reading from prepared remarks. “ We made a lifesaving move with early action on China . Now we must take the same action with Europe . ”
“ I will never hesitate to take any steps to protect the lives , health and safety of the American people . I will always put the wellbeing of America first , ” Trump said .
The virus has presented a unique challenge for Trump , who has proven immune to scandals and statements that would likely have doomed other presidencies .
Trump struck a measured tone after facing days of criticism from Democrats and former government officials that he was not taking the outbreak seriously enough . He urged the public to wash their hands and stay home if they were feeling ill and projected confidence that the U.S. was well prepared for the situation .
But the president has in the past delivered serious and thoughtful scripted remarks after national tragedies and critical moments , only to revert back to partisan swipes and Twitter attacks .
Trump urged Americans to “ put partisanship aside ” and come together as “ one family , ” a plea that may be difficult to accept from a president who last week labeled the governor of Washington a “ snake . ”
And the White House was forced to walk back his initial remarks about the extent of travel restrictions on Europe , underscoring the dysfunction that has engulfed the administration for much of Trump ’ s presidency .
Trump touted his decision last month to curb travel to the United States from China , South Korea and Iran , and he argued Europe increased its own exposure to the virus by failing to do the same .
“ The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hot spots , ” he said . “ As a result , a number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travel from Europe . ”
Trump said that the new travel restrictions will be put in place Friday at midnight and that there would be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screening .
A proclamation later issued by the White House says that the restriction does not apply to U.S. citizens and their immediate family members . The ban applies to foreign nationals who have been physically present in European countries that are part of the Schengen Area during the 14 days before their attempted entry into the U.S. Ireland is one of five European Union member countries that are not part of the Schengen zone .
The president indicated in his address that the restrictions would apply to trade and cargo coming from Europe , in addition to people but the White House later clarified that the proclamation by definition only applies to people and that goods would be allowed into the country while people transporting goods would not .
The president did not explain why the restrictions would not apply to the U.K. , which currently has over 400 confirmed cases of the coronavirus . This is more than other European countries subject to the ban , but far lower than the numbers reported by Italy , France , Spain and Germany .
Trump has come under criticism for his handling of the coronavirus thus far , particularly from Democrats for contradicting top health officials and repeatedly downplaying the severity of the outbreak . He argued as recently as two weeks ago that the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. would soon be “ close to zero . ”
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) earlier Wednesday declared the coronavirus a pandemic and the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged over 1,400 points , closing in a bear market .
The number of American citizens confirmed to have the coronavirus , referred to as COVID-19 , topped 1,000 overnight Tuesday , and there have been over 30 deaths in the U.S. as a result of infections of the disease .
Trump on Wednesday maintained that the risk to average Americans remains “ very , very low , ” even as public health officials have increasingly warned of the spread of the virus and told the public to expect changes in their daily lives .
But he also cast the battle against the virus as being above politics , and said all Americans needed to work on the issue together .
“ Each of us has a role to play in defeating this virus , ” he said .
He called on the country to “ put politics aside ” in order to chart a path forward together on the response to the virus .
Doing so may be difficult given the high tensions in Washington .
Trump was impeached by the House in December and his trial concluded in February .
During the coronavirus outbreak , he has at times criticized members of the other party . He described Washington Gov . Jay Inslee Jay Robert InsleeStates lead , unevenly , on coronavirus response Washington state to close restaurants and bars over coronavirus Washington , DC imposes new restrictions on bars , restaurants to combat coronavirus MORE as a snake just last week during a trip to the CDC over Inslee 's criticism of his administration 's response .
Trump in his address avoided alarmist language , telling viewers that the situation did not amount to a “ financial crisis . ”
“ This is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world , ” he said .
Still , the president laid out multiple executive actions aimed at boosting a sagging economy and calm nervous investors . Trump said he would direct the Small Business Administration to provide capital to firms affected by the coronavirus and instruct the Treasury Department to defer tax payments for three months without interest or penalties for specific individuals and businesses adversely impacted by the virus .
Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to extend relief to workers worried about missing a paycheck if they are feeling ill or put into quarantine . The request is likely to be well received among Democrats who have pushed for paid sick leave for hourly workers .
The president also urged Congress to consider a payroll tax cut . Trump on Tuesday pitched Congress on a payroll tax holiday through the end of the year , but the proposal has been received coolly in Capitol Hill .
If the president ’ s goal was to calm uneasy investors , he initially appeared to be unsuccessful . U.S. stock futures dipped immediately following the remarks amid concerns about impact additional travel restrictions could have on global trade .
The Democrat-controlled House is prepared to vote Thursday on its own emergency legislation on Thursday that includes provisions to expand unemployment insurance , extend paid sick leave and make sure children from low-income families don ’ t miss meals as a result of school closures .
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump shifts his tone on coronavirus Senators balance coronavirus action with risks to health Coronavirus adds new element to rising US-Iran tensions MORE on Wednesday said the U.S. would restrict travel from Europe for the next 30 days and use executive orders to offer financial relief to individuals and small businesses in his most extensive steps to date to address the crisis of the coronavirus.
Trump said the extraordinary restrictions would not apply to Great Britain, which formally left the European Union at the end of January. Ireland is also exempt from the restrictions, according to a proclamation later issued by the White House.
Trump, in just his second Oval Office address since taking office, sought to assure a worried nation about the spread of the virus, which has infected more than 1,000 Americans and killed more than 30 thus far.
The president used the sober 11 minute address to detail the new travel restrictions and targeted economic relief for small businesses and individuals impacted by the virus, while calling on Congress for further action on payroll tax relief and benefits for hourly workers.
“We are at a critical time in the fight against the virus,” Trump said, reading from prepared remarks.“We made a lifesaving move with early action on China. Now we must take the same action with Europe.”
“I will never hesitate to take any steps to protect the lives, health and safety of the American people. I will always put the wellbeing of America first,” Trump said.
The virus has presented a unique challenge for Trump, who has proven immune to scandals and statements that would likely have doomed other presidencies.
Trump struck a measured tone after facing days of criticism from Democrats and former government officials that he was not taking the outbreak seriously enough. He urged the public to wash their hands and stay home if they were feeling ill and projected confidence that the U.S. was well prepared for the situation.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the president has in the past delivered serious and thoughtful scripted remarks after national tragedies and critical moments, only to revert back to partisan swipes and Twitter attacks.
Trump urged Americans to “put partisanship aside” and come together as “one family,” a plea that may be difficult to accept from a president who last week labeled the governor of Washington a “snake.”
And the White House was forced to walk back his initial remarks about the extent of travel restrictions on Europe, underscoring the dysfunction that has engulfed the administration for much of Trump’s presidency.
Trump touted his decision last month to curb travel to the United States from China, South Korea and Iran, and he argued Europe increased its own exposure to the virus by failing to do the same.
“The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hot spots,” he said. “As a result, a number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travel from Europe.”
Trump said that the new travel restrictions will be put in place Friday at midnight and that there would be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screening.
A proclamation later issued by the White House says that the restriction does not apply to U.S. citizens and their immediate family members. The ban applies to foreign nationals who have been physically present in European countries that are part of the Schengen Area during the 14 days before their attempted entry into the U.S. Ireland is one of five European Union member countries that are not part of the Schengen zone.
The president indicated in his address that the restrictions would apply to trade and cargo coming from Europe, in addition to people but the White House later clarified that the proclamation by definition only applies to people and that goods would be allowed into the country while people transporting goods would not.
The president did not explain why the restrictions would not apply to the U.K., which currently has over 400 confirmed cases of the coronavirus. This is more than other European countries subject to the ban, but far lower than the numbers reported by Italy, France, Spain and Germany.
Trump has come under criticism for his handling of the coronavirus thus far, particularly from Democrats for contradicting top health officials and repeatedly downplaying the severity of the outbreak. He argued as recently as two weeks ago that the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. would soon be “close to zero.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) earlier Wednesday declared the coronavirus a pandemic and the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged over 1,400 points, closing in a bear market.
The number of American citizens confirmed to have the coronavirus, referred to as COVID-19, topped 1,000 overnight Tuesday, and there have been over 30 deaths in the U.S. as a result of infections of the disease.
Trump on Wednesday maintained that the risk to average Americans remains “very, very low,” even as public health officials have increasingly warned of the spread of the virus and told the public to expect changes in their daily lives.
But he also cast the battle against the virus as being above politics, and said all Americans needed to work on the issue together.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Each of us has a role to play in defeating this virus,” he said.
He called on the country to “put politics aside” in order to chart a path forward together on the response to the virus.
Doing so may be difficult given the high tensions in Washington.
Trump was impeached by the House in December and his trial concluded in February.
During the coronavirus outbreak, he has at times criticized members of the other party. He described Washington Gov. Jay Inslee Jay Robert InsleeStates lead, unevenly, on coronavirus response Washington state to close restaurants and bars over coronavirus Washington, DC imposes new restrictions on bars, restaurants to combat coronavirus MORE as a snake just last week during a trip to the CDC over Inslee's criticism of his administration's response.
Trump in his address avoided alarmist language, telling viewers that the situation did not amount to a “financial crisis.”
“This is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world,” he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Still, the president laid out multiple executive actions aimed at boosting a sagging economy and calm nervous investors. Trump said he would direct the Small Business Administration to provide capital to firms affected by the coronavirus and instruct the Treasury Department to defer tax payments for three months without interest or penalties for specific individuals and businesses adversely impacted by the virus.
Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to extend relief to workers worried about missing a paycheck if they are feeling ill or put into quarantine. The request is likely to be well received among Democrats who have pushed for paid sick leave for hourly workers.
The president also urged Congress to consider a payroll tax cut. Trump on Tuesday pitched Congress on a payroll tax holiday through the end of the year, but the proposal has been received coolly in Capitol Hill.
If the president’s goal was to calm uneasy investors, he initially appeared to be unsuccessful. U.S. stock futures dipped immediately following the remarks amid concerns about impact additional travel restrictions could have on global trade.
The Democrat-controlled House is prepared to vote Thursday on its own emergency legislation on Thursday that includes provisions to expand unemployment insurance, extend paid sick leave and make sure children from low-income families don’t miss meals as a result of school closures.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
hSlkJm1ESNiSw9u6
|
|
europe
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-eu-warns-citizens-prepare-for-worst
|
No-deal Brexit: EU warns its citizens to prepare for the worst
|
2018-07-19
|
Daniel Boffey, Jennifer Rankin
|
The EU ’ s chief negotiator , Michel Barnier , has welcomed Dominic Raab to Brussels with a thinly veiled critique of Theresa May ’ s Chequers plan and a 13-week deadline in which to solve the problem of the Irish border .
Appearing with Barnier for the first time in the Belgian capital , the new Brexit secretary , clutching a copy of the UK ’ s recently published Brexit white paper , called for more “ vim , vigour and energy ” in the troubled negotiations .
The former Foreign Office lawyer told reporters he was “ looking forward to intensifying , heating up , the negotiations ” , after stepping into the role following the resignation of David Davis over the paper , which sets out how the UK is in effect seeking to stay in the single market for goods by following a raft of EU laws .
The differing priorities between the two negotiators were clearly evident , however , as they stepped out in front of reporters together at the European commission headquarters .
Tory MP casts doubt on claim pairing breach was honest mistake as row escalates - Politics live Read more
While Raab conceded there were some “ gaps ” in the withdrawal agreement that needed to be filled , Barnier emphasised the “ urgency ” of finding a solution for the most thorny issue in that deal : avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland .
Barnier told reporters : “ We have a lot of work to do with our teams . There are , as you know , 13 weeks left , before the October European council . In this time , short time , we have two things to do . We must finalise the withdrawal agreement and we are not yet there on governance .
“ We must also prepare a political declaration on our future relationship . On the withdrawal agreement it is a matter of urgency to agree to a legally applicable backstop on Ireland and northern Ireland . We need an all-weather insurance policy . ”
He added : “ On the future relationship , the EU proposed in March an unprecedented partnership not only in economic and trade where we want an ambitious free trade agreement that respects the integrity of the market but also on internal and external security , where a close partnership between us means more important than ever given the geopolitical context .
“ Our challenge will be to find common ground between the fundamental principles that define the EU and the UK positions . That is all for now , more is to come . Stay tuned . ”
The two men took part in a short discussion on the UK ’ s white paper before dining together at the British embassy in Brussels .
Barnier gave Raab the book Going to the Mountain by Nelson Mandela ’ s grandson , Ndaba Mandela , as a gift .
Raab , in turn , gave the former French minister a copy of Isaiah Berlin ’ s The Hedgehog and the Fox . The philosopher ’ s most popular essay explores the difference between thinkers who view the world through a single defining idea and those who base their world view on experience .
It is understood Raab also insisted to Barnier that the Brexit talks should continue throughout the summer , despite the offer of a two-week break from the European commission .
Following his first talks with Barnier , the new cabinet minister made it clear he would be spending more time in Brussels than Davis , who spent only four hours in face-to-face negotiations with his counterpart .
Raab said : “ We had a very good , constructive conversation . We talked about the progress we ’ ve made on the withdrawal agreement . It was also an opportunity to present the white paper on the future relationship we want with the EU .
“ We ’ ve only got 12 weeks really left to nail down the details of the agreement , so I set out our proposals , and offered to meet with Michel Barnier throughout the summer to intensify negotiations , to get some energy , get some drive and get some heat on them to make sure we can conclude this agreement in good time . I ’ m sure in good faith , if that energy and that ambition is reciprocated , as I ’ m confident it will be , we will get there . ”
Asked if a no-deal scenario was more likely after cabinet resignations , Raab declined to directly respond but said domestic battles would not undermine his role .
He said : “ I think as you get closer to the line , the preparations need to be intensified. “ We ’ re going to be increasing the preparations for no deal , but we ’ re focused above all on the negotiations to get the best deal . ”
The meeting came as the EU issued a warning to member states in a 16-page document on the risks of a no-deal Brexit . It notes the impact of a no-deal scenario would be “ very real ” for citizens , and leaves open the possibility of a visa requirement for Britons travelling to the continent after Brexit should a deal not be in place ..
A senior EU diplomat said the “ very volatile ” political situation in London and the lack of progress in the talks in Brussels on key issues had led many to believe that the risk of a no-deal scenario had increased in recent weeks .
“ Contingency planning for the worst possible outcome is not a sign of mistrust in the negotiations , ” the paper says . “ The commission is devoting very significant resources and committing great efforts to achieve an agreement . This remains our goal . However , the outcome of negotiations can not be predicted . ”
Brexit : Raab and Barnier to meet as EU steps up no-deal warnings Read more
The UK government also appeared to be stepping up warnings about the possibility of no deal , by asking up to 250,000 small businesses who export to the EU to prepare to make a customs declaration . The idea is intended to be one of a series of public warnings issued over the summer about the possible impact of a no-deal scenario on the UK economy .
Barnier will discuss Brexit with European affairs ministers from the EU27 on Friday . An official said there would be a lot of questions on the white paper , which was “ detailed but still unclear to a certain extent ” .
Stressing the unpredictability of British politics , the senior EU official said they might as well “ read the entrails of animals ” to know what is happening .
|
The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has welcomed Dominic Raab to Brussels with a thinly veiled critique of Theresa May’s Chequers plan and a 13-week deadline in which to solve the problem of the Irish border.
Appearing with Barnier for the first time in the Belgian capital, the new Brexit secretary, clutching a copy of the UK’s recently published Brexit white paper, called for more “vim, vigour and energy” in the troubled negotiations.
The former Foreign Office lawyer told reporters he was “looking forward to intensifying, heating up, the negotiations”, after stepping into the role following the resignation of David Davis over the paper, which sets out how the UK is in effect seeking to stay in the single market for goods by following a raft of EU laws.
The differing priorities between the two negotiators were clearly evident, however, as they stepped out in front of reporters together at the European commission headquarters.
Tory MP casts doubt on claim pairing breach was honest mistake as row escalates - Politics live Read more
While Raab conceded there were some “gaps” in the withdrawal agreement that needed to be filled, Barnier emphasised the “urgency” of finding a solution for the most thorny issue in that deal: avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Barnier told reporters: “We have a lot of work to do with our teams. There are, as you know, 13 weeks left, before the October European council. In this time, short time, we have two things to do. We must finalise the withdrawal agreement and we are not yet there on governance.
“We must also prepare a political declaration on our future relationship. On the withdrawal agreement it is a matter of urgency to agree to a legally applicable backstop on Ireland and northern Ireland. We need an all-weather insurance policy.”
He added: “On the future relationship, the EU proposed in March an unprecedented partnership not only in economic and trade where we want an ambitious free trade agreement that respects the integrity of the market but also on internal and external security, where a close partnership between us means more important than ever given the geopolitical context.
“Our challenge will be to find common ground between the fundamental principles that define the EU and the UK positions. That is all for now, more is to come. Stay tuned.”
The two men took part in a short discussion on the UK’s white paper before dining together at the British embassy in Brussels.
Barnier gave Raab the book Going to the Mountain by Nelson Mandela’s grandson, Ndaba Mandela, as a gift.
Raab, in turn, gave the former French minister a copy of Isaiah Berlin’s The Hedgehog and the Fox. The philosopher’s most popular essay explores the difference between thinkers who view the world through a single defining idea and those who base their world view on experience.
It is understood Raab also insisted to Barnier that the Brexit talks should continue throughout the summer, despite the offer of a two-week break from the European commission.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The meeting in Brussels on Thursday. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/AFP/Getty Images
Following his first talks with Barnier, the new cabinet minister made it clear he would be spending more time in Brussels than Davis, who spent only four hours in face-to-face negotiations with his counterpart.
Raab said: “We had a very good, constructive conversation. We talked about the progress we’ve made on the withdrawal agreement. It was also an opportunity to present the white paper on the future relationship we want with the EU.
“We’ve only got 12 weeks really left to nail down the details of the agreement, so I set out our proposals, and offered to meet with Michel Barnier throughout the summer to intensify negotiations, to get some energy, get some drive and get some heat on them to make sure we can conclude this agreement in good time. I’m sure in good faith, if that energy and that ambition is reciprocated, as I’m confident it will be, we will get there.”
Asked if a no-deal scenario was more likely after cabinet resignations, Raab declined to directly respond but said domestic battles would not undermine his role.
He said: “I think as you get closer to the line, the preparations need to be intensified.“We’re going to be increasing the preparations for no deal, but we’re focused above all on the negotiations to get the best deal.”
The meeting came as the EU issued a warning to member states in a 16-page document on the risks of a no-deal Brexit. It notes the impact of a no-deal scenario would be “very real” for citizens, and leaves open the possibility of a visa requirement for Britons travelling to the continent after Brexit should a deal not be in place..
A senior EU diplomat said the “very volatile” political situation in London and the lack of progress in the talks in Brussels on key issues had led many to believe that the risk of a no-deal scenario had increased in recent weeks.
“Contingency planning for the worst possible outcome is not a sign of mistrust in the negotiations,” the paper says. “The commission is devoting very significant resources and committing great efforts to achieve an agreement. This remains our goal. However, the outcome of negotiations cannot be predicted.”
Brexit: Raab and Barnier to meet as EU steps up no-deal warnings Read more
The UK government also appeared to be stepping up warnings about the possibility of no deal, by asking up to 250,000 small businesses who export to the EU to prepare to make a customs declaration. The idea is intended to be one of a series of public warnings issued over the summer about the possible impact of a no-deal scenario on the UK economy.
Barnier will discuss Brexit with European affairs ministers from the EU27 on Friday. An official said there would be a lot of questions on the white paper, which was “detailed but still unclear to a certain extent”.
Stressing the unpredictability of British politics, the senior EU official said they might as well “read the entrails of animals” to know what is happening.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
HMbXXVCTvP7XbIZz
|
us_congress
|
Guest Writer - Left
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/mitch-mcconnell-nancy-pelosi-legislation-standoff/index.html
|
OPINION: McConnell's blockade of House legislation is about to face its toughest test
|
2019-06-18
|
Analysis Ronald Brownstein
|
( CNN ) In the struggle between Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Democratic-controlled House , the immovable object may finally have met an irresistible force .
McConnell has been the immovable object : He 's frustrated House Democrats by systematically blocking Senate votes so far on the lengthening list of bills they have passed , from gun control to additional protections for patients with preexisting health problems .
But McConnell 's blockade faces a new challenge as the House turns to a series of bills meant to fight foreign interference in the 2020 election . Those measures , aimed at defending fundamental American institutions from foreign subversion , may be tougher for the Kentucky Republican to portray as partisan overreach than the bills the House has passed so far . And that could make them an irresistible force that strains his overall strategy of preventing action on any House legislation .
`` It could be the thing that has the public home in on where the problem is , where the obstruction is , '' says Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland , a leading author of the House election security agenda . `` The public , and I understand that , they paint everything with a broad brush and they say Washington is dysfunctional . Here 's a case study that they are going to be very interested in , that shows ... the problem is not with Washington , the problem is not broadly with Congress , the problem is with Mitch McConnell , who will not bring any of these things to the Senate floor . ''
McConnell 's decision to methodically bar consideration of any of the House priorities already looms as a defining gamble in the GOP 's effort to maintain its Senate majority in next year 's election . He has leaned into his role as obstacle , portraying a Republican-controlled Senate as the last line of defense against a Democratic `` socialist agenda '' and calling himself the `` Grim Reaper '' for their legislative plans .
`` I am indeed the 'Grim Reaper ' when it comes to the socialist agenda that they have been ginning up over the House with overwhelming Democratic support , and sending it over to America , '' he declared in an interview on Fox News Channel last week . `` Things that would turn us into a country we have never been . '' McConnell 's campaign is even providing contributors with T-shirts featuring a tombstone for `` socialism '' on the front and a similar quote underscoring his determination to block the House agenda on the back .
The electoral impact of McConnell 's strategy will likely be determined by which side successfully defines the agenda he is obstructing .
`` He talks about that almost every opportunity he can , '' says Josh Holmes , McConnell 's former chief of staff . `` Being in opposition to health care plans that end private health insurance or environmental deals that basically shut down your electricity provider is something that he 's pretty comfortable with . ''
But neither single-payer health care nor the Green New Deal , which Republicans are confident they can paint as unprecedented government intrusion into the economy , is likely to reach a vote on the House floor , much less pass the chamber , before 2020 .
Instead , the legislation the House has passed this year -- and that McConnell is blocking -- has focused more on expressions of social values and bread-and-butter economic concerns , like buttressing the Affordable Care Act and confronting high prescription drug costs . Many of these measures enjoy preponderant support from the public in polls .
nearly three-fourths of Americans said they supported legal status for those young people . The House , for instance , in early June passed legislation that provides legal status for potentially millions of `` Dreamers , '' young people brought to the country illegally as children . In a Fox News poll released Sunday , nearly three-fourths of Americans said they supported legal status for those young people .
dilute the Affordable Care Act 's protections for patients with preexisting medical problems . In April Also in May , the House passed legislation to block regulatory actions by the Trump administration that woulddilute the Affordable Care Act 's protections for patients with preexisting medical problems . In April polling by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation , about two-thirds of Americans said it was important that health insurers be required to sell coverage to consumers with preexisting health conditions and be prevented from charging them more .
Other House-passed measures this year include the Violence Against Women Act , legislation promoting greater gender equity in pay and comprehensive legislation to expand voting rights and impose new ethics guidelines on Washington . Senior Democratic House aides are confident that by the 2020 election , they will also pass legislation creating a nationwide $ 15 minimum wage , expanding the subsidies for families to purchase health insurance through the ACA 's exchanges , updating the Voting Rights Act and combating the rising costs of prescription drugs .
The strong public support for most of these ideas has Democrats cautiously optimistic that their challengers next year can portray incumbent Republican senators as part of a `` do-nothing Senate '' blocking action on important concerns .
`` When your occupation is to vote every day down the line against things that matter to voters ... sure , we are going to make those a significant issue , '' says J.B. Poersch , president of Senate Majority PAC , a leading Democratic super PAC .
Democrats have been frustrated so far by their inability to create more pressure on McConnell to take up any of the House-passed bills ; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a news conference last week where she brandished a chart showing `` McConnell 's graveyard '' of bills that he had blocked , complete with miniature tombstones .
Holmes , now president of a Washington communications firm , says House Democrats today face the same unforgiving equation Republicans did in 2013-14 . During that congressional session , the GOP-controlled House passed a series of conservative priorities , only to see them systematically blocked by the Democratic majority led by then-Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada . Despite loud complaints , House Republicans could never generate enough pressure on Reid to force him to allow votes on the GOP plans .
McConnell feels politically secure bottling up the House priorities , Holmes says , `` for the same reason Harry Reid did n't feel particularly moved by the fact that ( then-Speaker ) John Boehner had moved every conservative bill dealing with the economy or social issues possible . The priorities of Nancy Pelosi are not the priorities of Mitch McConnell , period . And he 's very comfortable with that . ''
Election security , though , could be an issue that causes at least some GOP senators to question McConnell 's blockade . Sarbanes , who chaired the House Democrats ' Democracy Reform Task Force , says the party plans to pass by August `` a suite '' of bills to safeguard the 2020 election against foreign interference .
Those bills will include some measures already included in the House 's omnibus political overhaul legislation , HR 1 , that would provide states with more money to harden voting systems against possible foreign intrusion and mandate that the Department of Homeland Security develop a strategy for resisting such attacks .
The House also plans to pass new measures requiring campaigns to notify federal law enforcement officials if they are approached by foreign operatives with damaging information on their opponents , as well as provisions barring campaigns from sharing internal information with foreign officials , mandating more disclosure of foreign ad purchases on digital platforms and clarifying that it is illegal to work with foreigners to influence an American election .
`` We may not get every single piece of this package onto the floor and passed and directed to the Senate before August but we want to get a good critical mass of these important measures in place , '' Sarbanes says .
Polls have shown broad public support for further action to resist interference by Russia or other foreign actors in the 2020 election . A Monmouth University poll last month found that 60 % of Americans believe the government is not doing enough to guard against such interference ; a survey by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin for the bipartisan advocacy group Law Works Action found that more than 4 in 5 Americans support a requirement that political campaigns notify law enforcement officials of foreign offers of assistance .
McConnell , as noted above , has felt comfortable blocking debate on other House-passed legislation with comparably lopsided levels of public support . But House Democrats are hopeful that more Senate Republicans will demand that he allow action on these issues because the public is likely to see them as less partisan .
`` I think it 's going to be a very difficult place for him to be , opposing these things that are supposed to protect the fundamental principles of our democracy , '' Sarbanes says . `` This is about ... protecting ourselves from foreign interference , having confidence that our elections are being carried out in a free and fair and uninfluenced way . It 's baseline stuff ; it 's Founding Fathers kind of principles here . If you stand in the way of measures that are designed to safeguard these principles , I think you are standing in the way of American democracy or at least not respecting it . ''
McConnell has n't yet definitively closed the door on election security legislation . He 's committed to a full Senate briefing later this month from intelligence officials on the possible risks .
`` I would suspect that has a huge amount of influence about what ultimately the Senate does in this space , '' says Holmes .
But all signals from McConnell suggest he 's unlikely to accept almost any new federal initiatives on election security . Last week , Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia to force a vote on a `` duty to report '' bill , which many Republicans consider an effort to embarrass President Donald Trump . McConnell shrugged off Trump 's comments , which drew widespread condemnation in both parties , that `` you might want to listen '' to a foreign government offering dirt on a 2020 opponent . And Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri , a member of the GOP leadership , has publicly declared that McConnell is unlikely to allow any election security bill to reach the floor , whatever the House does next .
That opposition reflects both McConnell 's long-standing resistance to federal influence over any aspect of election activity ( he 's long been the leading opponent of campaign finance regulation ) and his reluctance to take actions that provoke Trump . But it risks allowing Democrats to make election security a powerful symbol for the wider wall McConnell has constructed against the legislation passing the House .
In a sign of what may be ahead , the Texas Democratic Party on Monday , for instance , chastised Republican Sen. John Cornyn , who 's up for reelection next year , for joining the Republican opposition to Warner 's legislation on disclosing foreign contacts . `` If Cornyn is unwilling to legislate , what exactly is he in Washington for ? '' Abhi Rahman , the party 's communications director , said in a statement .
The ordinarily taciturn McConnell has enthusiastically accepted the persona of the `` Grim Reaper '' for House priorities . The question is whether the Senate leader is embracing that identity to a point that helps Democrats entomb the GOP Senate majority in 2020 .
|
(CNN) In the struggle between Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Democratic-controlled House, the immovable object may finally have met an irresistible force.
McConnell has been the immovable object: He's frustrated House Democrats by systematically blocking Senate votes so far on the lengthening list of bills they have passed, from gun control to additional protections for patients with preexisting health problems.
But McConnell's blockade faces a new challenge as the House turns to a series of bills meant to fight foreign interference in the 2020 election . Those measures, aimed at defending fundamental American institutions from foreign subversion, may be tougher for the Kentucky Republican to portray as partisan overreach than the bills the House has passed so far. And that could make them an irresistible force that strains his overall strategy of preventing action on any House legislation.
"It could be the thing that has the public home in on where the problem is, where the obstruction is," says Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, a leading author of the House election security agenda. "The public, and I understand that, they paint everything with a broad brush and they say Washington is dysfunctional. Here's a case study that they are going to be very interested in, that shows ... the problem is not with Washington, the problem is not broadly with Congress, the problem is with Mitch McConnell, who will not bring any of these things to the Senate floor."
McConnell's decision to methodically bar consideration of any of the House priorities already looms as a defining gamble in the GOP's effort to maintain its Senate majority in next year's election. He has leaned into his role as obstacle, portraying a Republican-controlled Senate as the last line of defense against a Democratic "socialist agenda" and calling himself the "Grim Reaper" for their legislative plans.
"I am indeed the 'Grim Reaper' when it comes to the socialist agenda that they have been ginning up over the House with overwhelming Democratic support, and sending it over to America," he declared in an interview on Fox News Channel last week. "Things that would turn us into a country we have never been." McConnell's campaign is even providing contributors with T-shirts featuring a tombstone for "socialism" on the front and a similar quote underscoring his determination to block the House agenda on the back.
The electoral impact of McConnell's strategy will likely be determined by which side successfully defines the agenda he is obstructing.
"He talks about that almost every opportunity he can," says Josh Holmes, McConnell's former chief of staff. "Being in opposition to health care plans that end private health insurance or environmental deals that basically shut down your electricity provider is something that he's pretty comfortable with."
But neither single-payer health care nor the Green New Deal, which Republicans are confident they can paint as unprecedented government intrusion into the economy, is likely to reach a vote on the House floor, much less pass the chamber, before 2020.
Instead, the legislation the House has passed this year -- and that McConnell is blocking -- has focused more on expressions of social values and bread-and-butter economic concerns, like buttressing the Affordable Care Act and confronting high prescription drug costs. Many of these measures enjoy preponderant support from the public in polls.
Popular legislation stalled
nearly three-fourths of Americans said they supported legal status for those young people. The House, for instance, in early June passed legislation that provides legal status for potentially millions of "Dreamers," young people brought to the country illegally as children. In a Fox News poll released Sunday,nearly three-fourths of Americans said they supported legal status for those young people.
dilute the Affordable Care Act's protections for patients with preexisting medical problems. In April Also in May, the House passed legislation to block regulatory actions by the Trump administration that woulddilute the Affordable Care Act's protections for patients with preexisting medical problems. In April polling by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation , about two-thirds of Americans said it was important that health insurers be required to sell coverage to consumers with preexisting health conditions and be prevented from charging them more.
Other House-passed measures this year include the Violence Against Women Act, legislation promoting greater gender equity in pay and comprehensive legislation to expand voting rights and impose new ethics guidelines on Washington. Senior Democratic House aides are confident that by the 2020 election, they will also pass legislation creating a nationwide $15 minimum wage, expanding the subsidies for families to purchase health insurance through the ACA's exchanges, updating the Voting Rights Act and combating the rising costs of prescription drugs.
The strong public support for most of these ideas has Democrats cautiously optimistic that their challengers next year can portray incumbent Republican senators as part of a "do-nothing Senate" blocking action on important concerns.
"When your occupation is to vote every day down the line against things that matter to voters ... sure, we are going to make those a significant issue," says J.B. Poersch, president of Senate Majority PAC, a leading Democratic super PAC.
Democrats have been frustrated so far by their inability to create more pressure on McConnell to take up any of the House-passed bills; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a news conference last week where she brandished a chart showing "McConnell's graveyard" of bills that he had blocked, complete with miniature tombstones.
Holmes, now president of a Washington communications firm, says House Democrats today face the same unforgiving equation Republicans did in 2013-14. During that congressional session, the GOP-controlled House passed a series of conservative priorities, only to see them systematically blocked by the Democratic majority led by then-Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. Despite loud complaints, House Republicans could never generate enough pressure on Reid to force him to allow votes on the GOP plans.
McConnell feels politically secure bottling up the House priorities, Holmes says, "for the same reason Harry Reid didn't feel particularly moved by the fact that (then-Speaker) John Boehner had moved every conservative bill dealing with the economy or social issues possible. The priorities of Nancy Pelosi are not the priorities of Mitch McConnell, period. And he's very comfortable with that."
Election security measures
Election security, though, could be an issue that causes at least some GOP senators to question McConnell's blockade. Sarbanes, who chaired the House Democrats' Democracy Reform Task Force, says the party plans to pass by August "a suite" of bills to safeguard the 2020 election against foreign interference.
Those bills will include some measures already included in the House's omnibus political overhaul legislation, HR 1, that would provide states with more money to harden voting systems against possible foreign intrusion and mandate that the Department of Homeland Security develop a strategy for resisting such attacks.
The House also plans to pass new measures requiring campaigns to notify federal law enforcement officials if they are approached by foreign operatives with damaging information on their opponents, as well as provisions barring campaigns from sharing internal information with foreign officials, mandating more disclosure of foreign ad purchases on digital platforms and clarifying that it is illegal to work with foreigners to influence an American election.
"We may not get every single piece of this package onto the floor and passed and directed to the Senate before August but we want to get a good critical mass of these important measures in place," Sarbanes says.
Polls have shown broad public support for further action to resist interference by Russia or other foreign actors in the 2020 election. A Monmouth University poll last month found that 60% of Americans believe the government is not doing enough to guard against such interference; a survey by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin for the bipartisan advocacy group Law Works Action found that more than 4 in 5 Americans support a requirement that political campaigns notify law enforcement officials of foreign offers of assistance.
McConnell, as noted above, has felt comfortable blocking debate on other House-passed legislation with comparably lopsided levels of public support. But House Democrats are hopeful that more Senate Republicans will demand that he allow action on these issues because the public is likely to see them as less partisan.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult place for him to be, opposing these things that are supposed to protect the fundamental principles of our democracy," Sarbanes says. "This is about ... protecting ourselves from foreign interference, having confidence that our elections are being carried out in a free and fair and uninfluenced way. It's baseline stuff; it's Founding Fathers kind of principles here. If you stand in the way of measures that are designed to safeguard these principles, I think you are standing in the way of American democracy or at least not respecting it."
McConnell hasn't yet definitively closed the door on election security legislation. He's committed to a full Senate briefing later this month from intelligence officials on the possible risks.
"I would suspect that has a huge amount of influence about what ultimately the Senate does in this space," says Holmes.
But all signals from McConnell suggest he's unlikely to accept almost any new federal initiatives on election security. Last week, Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia to force a vote on a "duty to report" bill, which many Republicans consider an effort to embarrass President Donald Trump. McConnell shrugged off Trump's comments , which drew widespread condemnation in both parties, that "you might want to listen" to a foreign government offering dirt on a 2020 opponent. And Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the GOP leadership, has publicly declared that McConnell is unlikely to allow any election security bill to reach the floor, whatever the House does next.
That opposition reflects both McConnell's long-standing resistance to federal influence over any aspect of election activity (he's long been the leading opponent of campaign finance regulation) and his reluctance to take actions that provoke Trump. But it risks allowing Democrats to make election security a powerful symbol for the wider wall McConnell has constructed against the legislation passing the House.
In a sign of what may be ahead, the Texas Democratic Party on Monday, for instance, chastised Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who's up for reelection next year, for joining the Republican opposition to Warner's legislation on disclosing foreign contacts. "If Cornyn is unwilling to legislate, what exactly is he in Washington for?" Abhi Rahman, the party's communications director, said in a statement.
The ordinarily taciturn McConnell has enthusiastically accepted the persona of the "Grim Reaper" for House priorities. The question is whether the Senate leader is embracing that identity to a point that helps Democrats entomb the GOP Senate majority in 2020.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
E3pjJKLtto4iAeMZ
|
elections
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/will-the-2020-census-ask-about-us-citizenship-it-s/
|
Are you a U.S. citizen?
|
2019-05-16
|
Deborah Simmons
|
This burning question was put to the Supreme Court : Will the 2020 census ask whether a respondent is a U.S. citizen ?
The answer to that simple question can help distinguish who lives in the United States vs. who is a citizen of the United States .
The difference is important for different reasons , some of which are purely political , some solely economic and some of both . And regardless where you fall on the political spectrum — and whether you are a citizen or a resident — the question must be asked , and answered truthfully .
There ’ s a fear factor , though . There ’ s a fear that asking about citizenship might create an “ undercount . ”
What an undercount might undermine is how political rhetoric — not necessarily facts — underscore federal , state and local spending policies and programs .
Now , let ’ s be real . You can claim residency in a state or a city but live in another , as members of Congress do . You also can claim residency in a city or county to put your child in a school nearer your place of employment . You also can claim residency in a city to get tax breaks for employment or real estate .
Seeking someone ’ s citizenship status doesn ’ t , by itself , determine whether someone is a resident of a state .
Consider , too , that mainland U.S. cities and states open wide their arms when wicked hurricanes strike such U.S. territories as Puerto Rico and Guam . Are they U.S. citizens ? ( The answer is yes . )
And when it comes to political expediency , suffice it to say that sanctuary cities don ’ t want to distinguish between citizens and residents . No underdogs , no shakedown rhetoric .
In case you do not know or forgot , the Constitution mandates a census , so it ’ s one of those cans Congress can not kick down the road until , say , after the 2020 elections , because they don ’ t like the current president . Even House Wonder Woman Nancy Pelosi lacks the power to out box the Constitution .
In a recent survey by Hill-HarrisX , 6 in 10 registered voters said ask the question even if it results in fewer responses ; 65 % of whites , 53 % of blacks and 53 % of Hispanics favored the question .
Also , 81 % of Republicans , 54 % of independents and 49 % of Democrats backed asking the citizenship question .
Or look at it this way : 67 % of men and 54 % of women said pose the question .
Now , fortunately , the Supreme Court doesn ’ t use polls as a weather vane to determine which way the winds of justice should blow on any given issue . That ’ s what politicians do — election year or not .
If politicians on Capitol Hill want to change to Constitution , then they should ask the people . In fact , they must seek the people ’ s permission .
However , the Supreme Court needs no such nod to permit such a simple census question that seeks such a simple yes-or-no response .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
This burning question was put to the Supreme Court: Will the 2020 census ask whether a respondent is a U.S. citizen?
The answer to that simple question can help distinguish who lives in the United States vs. who is a citizen of the United States.
The difference is important for different reasons, some of which are purely political, some solely economic and some of both. And regardless where you fall on the political spectrum — and whether you are a citizen or a resident — the question must be asked, and answered truthfully.
There’s a fear factor, though. There’s a fear that asking about citizenship might create an “undercount.”
What an undercount might undermine is how political rhetoric — not necessarily facts — underscore federal, state and local spending policies and programs.
Now, let’s be real. You can claim residency in a state or a city but live in another, as members of Congress do. You also can claim residency in a city or county to put your child in a school nearer your place of employment. You also can claim residency in a city to get tax breaks for employment or real estate.
Seeking someone’s citizenship status doesn’t, by itself, determine whether someone is a resident of a state.
Consider, too, that mainland U.S. cities and states open wide their arms when wicked hurricanes strike such U.S. territories as Puerto Rico and Guam. Are they U.S. citizens? (The answer is yes.)
And when it comes to political expediency, suffice it to say that sanctuary cities don’t want to distinguish between citizens and residents. No underdogs, no shakedown rhetoric.
In case you do not know or forgot, the Constitution mandates a census, so it’s one of those cans Congress cannot kick down the road until, say, after the 2020 elections, because they don’t like the current president. Even House Wonder Woman Nancy Pelosi lacks the power to out box the Constitution.
Plus, Americans have said bring on the burning question.
In a recent survey by Hill-HarrisX, 6 in 10 registered voters said ask the question even if it results in fewer responses; 65% of whites, 53% of blacks and 53% of Hispanics favored the question.
Also, 81% of Republicans, 54% of independents and 49% of Democrats backed asking the citizenship question.
Or look at it this way: 67% of men and 54% of women said pose the question.
Now, fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn’t use polls as a weather vane to determine which way the winds of justice should blow on any given issue. That’s what politicians do — election year or not.
If politicians on Capitol Hill want to change to Constitution, then they should ask the people. In fact, they must seek the people’s permission.
However, the Supreme Court needs no such nod to permit such a simple census question that seeks such a simple yes-or-no response.
• Deborah Simmons can be contacted at [email protected]
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
QUGw10Jz4UcIno1V
|
federal_budget
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/13/politics/obama-house-gop/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
House GOP warily meets with Obama
|
2013-03-13
|
Deirdre Walsh, Rachel Streitfeld
|
Story highlights House Republicans , President Obama still far apart on budget priorities , GOP leaders say
`` He did himself some good , '' Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says
Obama offered `` just a bunch of platitudes , '' Georgia congressman says
Some in the Republican caucus think Obama should have reached out long ago
President Barack Obama entered the conference room in the Capitol basement to a standing ovation , but after nearly an hour and a half of discussion with House Republicans , there was little evidence that the meeting -- part of the White House 's `` charm offensive '' on Capitol Hill -- did much to change the partisan gulf between the president and his chief adversaries .
At a news conference after the meeting , House Speaker John Boehner thanked the president for coming but also noted the challenges remaining on a host of issues , especially ones related to reducing the deficit .
`` We know how there are some very real differences between our two parties ( on issues like ) jobs , balancing the budget and what do we do to get economy moving again , '' Boehner said . `` Republicans want to balance the budget . The President does n't . Republicans want to solve our long term debt problem . The President does n't . We want to unlock our energy resources to put more Americans back to work . The President does n't . ''
The speaker added , `` But having said that , today was a good start and I hope that these kinds of discussions can continue . ''
Republicans ' top priority -- tackling federal spending and reining in record deficits -- came up early in the Republican conference meeting . Oklahoma Rep. Jim Lankford asked the first question , pressing the president to explain why he would n't join House Republicans in their effort to balance the budget in a decade .
Obama , according to several Republicans , explained that he did n't share that priority , an answer that many emphasized as they left the meeting .
Georgia Rep. Paul Broun , a conservative who is running for the Senate , mentioned that exchange as he left , telling reporters , `` basically his whole talk was just a bunch of platitudes and no substance to it . ''
`` He thought what was more important was that deficits fall below growth as a percentage of GDP -- certainly a laudable goal , but I think the federal government , like any business or any family , needs to work towards a balanced budget , '' Rep. Tom Cotton , R-Arkansas , said afterward .
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor gave a blunt assessment about the divide on fiscal issues , suggesting it could carry over to other issues .
`` If the president wants to let our unwillingness to raise taxes get in the way , then we 're not gon na be able to set differences aside and focus on what we agree on , '' Cantor told reporters at the GOP leaders ' news conference .
When Lankford raised fiscal issues during the meeting , he also pointed out that the president 's other meeting on Wednesday was with his political arm , Organizing for Action . Word of that meeting rankled many GOP members who suggested Obama was more concerned with political goals than working across the aisle .
`` We know the president is going to speak before Organizing for Action tonight , '' Rep. Greg Walden , R-Oregon , who leads the House Republicans ' campaign arm , told reporters as he left the meeting . `` We know he 's made it clear that taking out the House is his big priority , and we know he 's been on the never-ending campaign tour up to this point , so there 's a trust factor . ''
Mindful of the House GOP undercurrent that Obama is chiefly focused on scoring political points , one source inside the meeting said the president addressed those concerns directly at the end of the meeting .
This source told CNN that the president told GOP members that if he were only focused on the midterms , he would not be pushing immigration reform because that 's not necessarily helpful for some members of his party . He said he would not push for entitlement reform because a lot of Democrats do n't agree and are nervous about tackling such a politically explosive issue .
He told them that he runs the country , that he wants it to succeed and that he looks around the room and sees other people who love their country . Obama said they have a moment and should seize it , according to this source .
But Walden did say the session helped build some trust , and it was a good opportunity to raise a wide spectrum of issues . He mentioned Israel as one area where both parties found some common ground .
Exiting the conference , House Budget Committee Chairman and former Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan ( R-Wisconsin ) said of the president : `` He did himself some good . ''
Several members in the meeting said it helped open a dialogue but lamented that the session was only the second time the president had traveled up Pennsylvania Avenue to talk to House Republicans since he was elected .
`` The president does n't spend a lot of time working with members of Congress . He does n't have to -- he 's president of the United States -- but I think it 's made his job a lot more difficult , and it 's made our task a lot more difficult because there 's very little communication , '' Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart said after the meeting .
Cotton described the president 's demeanor in the meeting as `` affable '' and said the various members who asked questions were `` very cordial and respectful . ''
According to multiple GOP sources , conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington screened questions in advance and called on members after the president made opening remarks .
Rep. Michael Grimm of New York said the event had been peppered with occasional lighter moments such as speculation after word got around the room that the new pope was about to be announced .
`` Anyone who thinks this president is anything but affable and pleasant when he 's speaking with group is just simply wrong . They have n't met him , '' said Grimm . But he added he was waiting to see if the president would follow up his outreach with some bipartisan action .
Obama fielded some tense questions during the meeting . Michigan Rep. Candice Miller told reporters she was not satisfied with the president 's response to her complaint that the White House had suspended public tours after forced spending cuts went into effect . Republicans have charged that the closures were politically motivated , but Obama said Wednesday the decision had been made by the Secret Service .
|
Story highlights House Republicans, President Obama still far apart on budget priorities, GOP leaders say
"He did himself some good," Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says
Obama offered "just a bunch of platitudes," Georgia congressman says
Some in the Republican caucus think Obama should have reached out long ago
President Barack Obama entered the conference room in the Capitol basement to a standing ovation, but after nearly an hour and a half of discussion with House Republicans, there was little evidence that the meeting -- part of the White House's "charm offensive" on Capitol Hill -- did much to change the partisan gulf between the president and his chief adversaries.
At a news conference after the meeting, House Speaker John Boehner thanked the president for coming but also noted the challenges remaining on a host of issues, especially ones related to reducing the deficit.
"We know how there are some very real differences between our two parties (on issues like) jobs, balancing the budget and what do we do to get economy moving again," Boehner said. "Republicans want to balance the budget. The President doesn't. Republicans want to solve our long term debt problem. The President doesn't. We want to unlock our energy resources to put more Americans back to work. The President doesn't."
The speaker added, "But having said that, today was a good start and I hope that these kinds of discussions can continue."
Republicans' top priority -- tackling federal spending and reining in record deficits -- came up early in the Republican conference meeting. Oklahoma Rep. Jim Lankford asked the first question, pressing the president to explain why he wouldn't join House Republicans in their effort to balance the budget in a decade.
Obama, according to several Republicans, explained that he didn't share that priority, an answer that many emphasized as they left the meeting.
Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, a conservative who is running for the Senate, mentioned that exchange as he left, telling reporters, "basically his whole talk was just a bunch of platitudes and no substance to it."
"He thought what was more important was that deficits fall below growth as a percentage of GDP -- certainly a laudable goal, but I think the federal government, like any business or any family, needs to work towards a balanced budget," Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, said afterward.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor gave a blunt assessment about the divide on fiscal issues, suggesting it could carry over to other issues.
"If the president wants to let our unwillingness to raise taxes get in the way, then we're not gonna be able to set differences aside and focus on what we agree on," Cantor told reporters at the GOP leaders' news conference.
When Lankford raised fiscal issues during the meeting, he also pointed out that the president's other meeting on Wednesday was with his political arm, Organizing for Action. Word of that meeting rankled many GOP members who suggested Obama was more concerned with political goals than working across the aisle.
"We know the president is going to speak before Organizing for Action tonight," Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, who leads the House Republicans' campaign arm, told reporters as he left the meeting. "We know he's made it clear that taking out the House is his big priority, and we know he's been on the never-ending campaign tour up to this point, so there's a trust factor."
Mindful of the House GOP undercurrent that Obama is chiefly focused on scoring political points, one source inside the meeting said the president addressed those concerns directly at the end of the meeting.
This source told CNN that the president told GOP members that if he were only focused on the midterms, he would not be pushing immigration reform because that's not necessarily helpful for some members of his party. He said he would not push for entitlement reform because a lot of Democrats don't agree and are nervous about tackling such a politically explosive issue.
He told them that he runs the country, that he wants it to succeed and that he looks around the room and sees other people who love their country. Obama said they have a moment and should seize it, according to this source.
But Walden did say the session helped build some trust, and it was a good opportunity to raise a wide spectrum of issues. He mentioned Israel as one area where both parties found some common ground.
Exiting the conference, House Budget Committee Chairman and former Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said of the president: "He did himself some good."
Several members in the meeting said it helped open a dialogue but lamented that the session was only the second time the president had traveled up Pennsylvania Avenue to talk to House Republicans since he was elected.
"The president doesn't spend a lot of time working with members of Congress. He doesn't have to -- he's president of the United States -- but I think it's made his job a lot more difficult, and it's made our task a lot more difficult because there's very little communication," Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart said after the meeting.
Cotton described the president's demeanor in the meeting as "affable" and said the various members who asked questions were "very cordial and respectful."
According to multiple GOP sources, conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington screened questions in advance and called on members after the president made opening remarks.
Rep. Michael Grimm of New York said the event had been peppered with occasional lighter moments such as speculation after word got around the room that the new pope was about to be announced.
"Anyone who thinks this president is anything but affable and pleasant when he's speaking with group is just simply wrong. They haven't met him," said Grimm. But he added he was waiting to see if the president would follow up his outreach with some bipartisan action.
Obama fielded some tense questions during the meeting. Michigan Rep. Candice Miller told reporters she was not satisfied with the president's response to her complaint that the White House had suspended public tours after forced spending cuts went into effect. Republicans have charged that the closures were politically motivated, but Obama said Wednesday the decision had been made by the Secret Service.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
eJYH9a57zxJZH0Sr
|
great_britain
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261
|
Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule
|
Boris Johnson 's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful , the Supreme Court has ruled .
Judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to the Brexit deadline on 31 October .
The PM , who has faced calls to resign , said he `` profoundly disagreed '' with the ruling but would `` respect '' it .
The Labour conference finished early following the ruling and MPs are returning to Westminster ready for Parliament to reconvene on Wednesday .
A senior government official said the prime minister spoke to the Queen after the Supreme Court ruling , but would not reveal the details of the conversation .
It comes after the court ruled it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason `` let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks '' .
Mr Johnson , who returns to London from New York on Wednesday , also chaired a 30-minute phone call with his cabinet .
A source told the BBC that the Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg said to other cabinet ministers on the call that the action by the court had amounted to a `` constitutional coup '' .
The prime minister insisted he wanted to outline his government 's policies in a Queen 's Speech on 14 October , and to do that , Parliament must be prorogued and a new session started .
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary .
During a speech in New York , the PM said he `` refused to be deterred '' from getting on with `` an exciting and dynamic domestic agenda '' , and to do that he would need a Queen 's Speech .
The court ruling does not prevent him from proroguing again in order to hold one , as long as it does not stop Parliament carrying out its duties `` without reasonable justification '' .
A No 10 source said the Supreme Court had `` made a serious mistake in extending its reach to these political matters '' , and had `` made it clear that its reasons [ were ] connected to the Parliamentary disputes over , and timetable for '' Brexit .
But Supreme Court president Lady Hale emphasised in the ruling that the case was `` not about when and on what terms '' the UK left the EU - it was about the decision to suspend Parliament .
Delivering the justices ' conclusions , she said : `` The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification . ''
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect .
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return `` in light of the explicit judgement '' , and he had `` instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare ... for the resumption of business '' from 11:30 BST on Wednesday .
He said prime minister 's questions would not go ahead , but there would be `` full scope '' for urgent questions , ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates .
Short of the inscrutable Lady Hale , with the giant diamond spider on her lapel , declaring Boris Johnson to be Pinocchio , this judgement is just about as bad for the government as it gets .
Mr Johnson is , as is abundantly clear , prepared to run a general election campaign that pits Parliament against the people . And so what , according to that view of the world , if that includes the judges as part of the establishment standing in his way ?
But there is a difference between being ruthless and reckless .
And the scope and strength of this judgement can not just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in .
Reacting to the ruling , Mr Johnson said it was an `` unusual judgement '' , adding : `` The prerogative of prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge .
`` There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country from coming out of the EU and we have a Parliament that is unable to be prorogued and does n't want to have an election . I think it is time we took things forward . ''
The PM said getting a deal was `` not made much easier with these sort of things in Parliament or the courts '' , but insisted the UK would still leave on 31 October .
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday , but brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he could return to Westminster .
He told cheering delegates : `` Tomorrow Parliament will return . The government will be held to account for what it has done . Boris Johnson has been found to have misled the country . This unelected prime minister should now resign . ''
Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament , not the courts .
But the justices disagreed , unanimously deciding it was `` justiciable '' , and there was `` no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power '' .
The court also criticised the length of the suspension , with Lady Hale saying it was `` impossible for us to conclude , on the evidence which has been put before us , that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks '' .
A spokesperson from the Attorney General 's office said the government had acted in `` good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional '' .
`` These are complex matters on which senior and distinguished lawyers have disagreed , '' a statement said .
`` The Divisional Court led by the Lord Chief Justice agreed unanimously with the government 's legal position , as did the Outer House in Scotland .
`` We are disappointed that in the end the Supreme Court took a different view . We respect the judgment of the Supreme Court . ''
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution , Parliament , at a time of national crisis .
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny , but the damage is done , he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification .
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament .
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons .
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges , through the mechanism of judicial review , stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful .
Be you ever so mighty , the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister .
Unprecedented , extraordinary , ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today 's ruling .
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller , the second from the government .
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court 's decision that the prorogation was `` purely political '' and not a matter for the courts .
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland 's Court of Session that the prorogation was `` unlawful '' and had been used to `` stymie '' Parliament .
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller 's appeal and against the government 's .
Speaking outside the court , Mrs Miller said the ruling `` speaks volumes '' .
`` This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow . MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account , '' she added .
The SNP 's Joanna Cherry , who led the Scottish case , called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling .
`` The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament , his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen , was unlawful , '' she said .
`` His position is untenable and he should have the guts , for once , to do the decent thing and resign . ''
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him `` no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party '' .
`` No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again . ''
Mr Johnson was backed by US President Donald Trump at a joint press conference at the United Nations in New York .
`` I 'll tell you , I know him well , he 's not going anywhere , '' said Mr Trump , after a US reporter quizzed the prime minister on whether he was going to resign .
But reaction at home was far more negative . Scotland 's First Minister , the SNP 's Nicola Sturgeon , said the ruling was the most significant constitutional judgement in her lifetime , and it would be `` unthinkable '' for Mr Johnson to remain in office .
Wales ' First Minister , Labour 's Mark Drakeford , said the court 's decision had been a `` victory for the rule of law '' and the PM had `` tried to play fast and loose with our constitution '' .
In Northern Ireland , the leader of the DUP , Arlene Foster , said the ruling must be respected , while Sinn Fein 's vice president , Michelle O'Neill , said Mr Johnson should resign .
Other figures have taken to Twitter to support the court 's decision , including former Tory minister Amber Rudd , who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government 's approach to Brexit .
The leader of The Brexit Party , Nigel Farage , said Mr Johnson must , `` as a matter of honour '' , offer his resignation to MPs in Parliament on Wednesday .
The decision to prorogue Parliament had been a `` disaster '' , he added , and there must be a general election `` before very long because Parliament and the government have ceased to function '' .
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve , who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension , said he was `` not surprised '' by the judgement because of the `` gross misbehaviour by the prime minister '' .
He told the BBC 's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was `` delighted '' the Supreme Court had `` stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks '' .
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court 's decision was `` the worst possible outcome for our democracy '' and `` an absolute disgrace '' .
He told the same programme : `` What we 've got is a Parliament that 's completely out of step with sentiment of the country . ''
Fellow Tory MP and chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group Steve Baker said the ruling was an `` earthquake moment '' .
He described the Commons as a `` rotten Parliament '' facing a `` crisis '' , and called for a general election so a government with a majority could move forward .
Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen , carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister .
And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October .
MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences .
But unlike prorogation , a recess must be agreed by a vote , and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson 's Brexit plans .
The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons , especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline .
Despite only sitting for a week , they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September .
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court 's decision ?
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Supreme Court ruling on Parliament suspension
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to the Brexit deadline on 31 October.
The PM, who has faced calls to resign, said he "profoundly disagreed" with the ruling but would "respect" it.
The Labour conference finished early following the ruling and MPs are returning to Westminster ready for Parliament to reconvene on Wednesday.
A senior government official said the prime minister spoke to the Queen after the Supreme Court ruling, but would not reveal the details of the conversation.
It comes after the court ruled it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason "let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
Mr Johnson, who returns to London from New York on Wednesday, also chaired a 30-minute phone call with his cabinet.
A source told the BBC that the Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg said to other cabinet ministers on the call that the action by the court had amounted to a "constitutional coup".
'Undeterred'
The prime minister insisted he wanted to outline his government's policies in a Queen's Speech on 14 October, and to do that, Parliament must be prorogued and a new session started.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary.
During a speech in New York, the PM said he "refused to be deterred" from getting on with "an exciting and dynamic domestic agenda", and to do that he would need a Queen's Speech.
The court ruling does not prevent him from proroguing again in order to hold one, as long as it does not stop Parliament carrying out its duties "without reasonable justification".
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Boris Johnson: "This is a verdict that we will respect"
A No 10 source said the Supreme Court had "made a serious mistake in extending its reach to these political matters", and had "made it clear that its reasons [were] connected to the Parliamentary disputes over, and timetable for" Brexit.
But Supreme Court president Lady Hale emphasised in the ruling that the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU - it was about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Delivering the justices' conclusions, she said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
He said prime minister's questions would not go ahead, but there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.
Where does this leave Boris Johnson?
Short of the inscrutable Lady Hale, with the giant diamond spider on her lapel, declaring Boris Johnson to be Pinocchio, this judgement is just about as bad for the government as it gets.
Mr Johnson is, as is abundantly clear, prepared to run a general election campaign that pits Parliament against the people. And so what, according to that view of the world, if that includes the judges as part of the establishment standing in his way?
But there is a difference between being ruthless and reckless.
And the scope and strength of this judgement cannot just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in.
Read more from Laura's blog here.
Reacting to the ruling, Mr Johnson said it was an "unusual judgement", adding: "The prerogative of prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge.
"There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country from coming out of the EU and we have a Parliament that is unable to be prorogued and doesn't want to have an election. I think it is time we took things forward."
The PM said getting a deal was "not made much easier with these sort of things in Parliament or the courts", but insisted the UK would still leave on 31 October.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Speaker John Bercow says the Commons will sit on Wednesday
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he could return to Westminster.
He told cheering delegates: "Tomorrow Parliament will return. The government will be held to account for what it has done. Boris Johnson has been found to have misled the country. This unelected prime minister should now resign."
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Corbyn: "The PM should now resign."
Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.
But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".
The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
A spokesperson from the Attorney General's office said the government had acted in "good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional".
"These are complex matters on which senior and distinguished lawyers have disagreed," a statement said.
"The Divisional Court led by the Lord Chief Justice agreed unanimously with the government's legal position, as did the Outer House in Scotland.
"We are disappointed that in the end the Supreme Court took a different view. We respect the judgment of the Supreme Court."
The damage is done
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.
Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.
Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.
What was the court considering?
Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption Gina Miller led campaigners against the suspension of Parliament
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.
How did those involved in the case react?
Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption The SNP's Joanna Cherry said the PM's position was "untenable"
Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".
"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.
"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.
"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him "no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party".
"No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again."
What about other politicians?
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump: Boris Johnson "is not going anywhere"
Mr Johnson was backed by US President Donald Trump at a joint press conference at the United Nations in New York.
"I'll tell you, I know him well, he's not going anywhere," said Mr Trump, after a US reporter quizzed the prime minister on whether he was going to resign.
But reaction at home was far more negative. Scotland's First Minister, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon, said the ruling was the most significant constitutional judgement in her lifetime, and it would be "unthinkable" for Mr Johnson to remain in office.
Wales' First Minister, Labour's Mark Drakeford, said the court's decision had been a "victory for the rule of law" and the PM had "tried to play fast and loose with our constitution".
In Northern Ireland, the leader of the DUP, Arlene Foster, said the ruling must be respected, while Sinn Fein's vice president, Michelle O'Neill, said Mr Johnson should resign.
Other figures have taken to Twitter to support the court's decision, including former Tory minister Amber Rudd, who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government's approach to Brexit.
The leader of The Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said Mr Johnson must, "as a matter of honour", offer his resignation to MPs in Parliament on Wednesday.
The decision to prorogue Parliament had been a "disaster", he added, and there must be a general election "before very long because Parliament and the government have ceased to function".
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Dominic Grieve said it was "perfectly obvious that the reason for suspending Parliament was bogus"
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".
He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country."
Fellow Tory MP and chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group Steve Baker said the ruling was an "earthquake moment".
He described the Commons as a "rotten Parliament" facing a "crisis", and called for a general election so a government with a majority could move forward.
What happened before Parliament was suspended?
Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.
And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.
MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.
But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.
The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.
Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?
Use this form to ask your question:
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
d4RAGXRoIkvOYmea
|
||
world
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/08/18/kofi-annan-united-nations-secretary-general/1030360002/
|
Ex-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Nobel Peace Prize winner, dies at 80
|
2018-08-18
|
Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan died Saturday , his foundation confirmed . He was 80 .
The Kofi Annan Foundation announced Annan died of a `` short illness , '' but did not specify the ailment .
`` Kofi Annan was a global statesman and a deeply committed internationalist who fought throughout his life for a fairer and more peaceful world , '' read a statement posted to Annan 's Twitter account . `` During his distinguished career and leadership of the United Nations he was an ardent champion of peace , sustainable development , human rights and the rule of law . ''
Annan , from Ghana , started at the UN in 1962 , rising through the ranks to secretary-general from 1997 to 2006 . He received the 2001 Nobel Prize for Peace , which he shared with the organization .
During his tenure as secretary-general , Annan presided over some of the worst failures and scandals at the world body , one of its most turbulent periods since its founding in 1945 . Challenges from the outset forced him to spend much of his time struggling to restore its tarnished reputation .
His enduring moral prestige remained largely undented , however , both through charisma and by virtue of having negotiated with most of the powers in the world .
When he departed from the United Nations , he left behind a global organization far more aggressively engaged in peacekeeping and fighting poverty , setting the framework for the U.N. ’ s 21st-century response to mass atrocities and its emphasis on human rights and development .
He served as chairman the Kofi Annan Foundation and a group founded by Nelson Mandela called The Elders , a group of international leaders working for `` peace and human rights '' that includes ex-president Jimmy Carter and former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon .
`` The Elders are shocked and deeply saddened at the passing of their dear friend and colleague Kofi Annan , who was the globally admired and respected Chair of The Elders , '' the group said in a statement .
|
Sean Rossman
USA TODAY
Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan died Saturday, his foundation confirmed. He was 80.
The Kofi Annan Foundation announced Annan died of a "short illness," but did not specify the ailment.
"Kofi Annan was a global statesman and a deeply committed internationalist who fought throughout his life for a fairer and more peaceful world," read a statement posted to Annan's Twitter account. "During his distinguished career and leadership of the United Nations he was an ardent champion of peace, sustainable development, human rights and the rule of law."
Annan, from Ghana, started at the UN in 1962, rising through the ranks to secretary-general from 1997 to 2006. He received the 2001 Nobel Prize for Peace, which he shared with the organization.
During his tenure as secretary-general, Annan presided over some of the worst failures and scandals at the world body, one of its most turbulent periods since its founding in 1945. Challenges from the outset forced him to spend much of his time struggling to restore its tarnished reputation.
His enduring moral prestige remained largely undented, however, both through charisma and by virtue of having negotiated with most of the powers in the world.
When he departed from the United Nations, he left behind a global organization far more aggressively engaged in peacekeeping and fighting poverty, setting the framework for the U.N.’s 21st-century response to mass atrocities and its emphasis on human rights and development.
He served as chairman the Kofi Annan Foundation and a group founded by Nelson Mandela called The Elders, a group of international leaders working for "peace and human rights" that includes ex-president Jimmy Carter and former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
"The Elders are shocked and deeply saddened at the passing of their dear friend and colleague Kofi Annan, who was the globally admired and respected Chair of The Elders," the group said in a statement.
Contributing: Associated Press
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
ItmViVaFxSiJruLO
|
|
foreign_policy
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/23/lyons-obamas-foreign-policy-fantasy/
|
Opinion: Obama's foreign-policy "flexibility" fantasy shows weakness
|
2014-04-23
|
James A. Lyons
|
The administration Kabuki dance we ’ re witnessing featuring U.S. refusal to provide nonlethal support equipment for Ukraine is President Obama displaying the new “ flexibility ” he promised Vladimir Putin he would have after his re-election . In short , it is capitulation .
The administration is trying to make the case that by showing restraint , Mr. Obma will encourage Mr. Putin , the Russian president , to be more willing to negotiate . The mind boggles . What ’ s taking place in Ukraine has far-reaching implications for the United States and our allies in both Europe and the Far East .
The apparent lack of support from NATO ’ s political leadership to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty is clearly tied to its dependence on Russia for more than 30 percent of their energy requirements . This compromised position was accepted based on the assumption that European security after the Cold War could be guaranteed ( with reduced defense budgets ) by engaging Russia , not confronting it .
This now appears to be a costly error , since it has been known for some time that NATO ’ s engagement policies have not required Russia ’ s reciprocity . However , one positive outcome of the current crisis should be an unmistakable wake-up call for NATO , as its credibility is clearly being challenged .
The administration ’ s rationale for not providing nonlethal equipment , such as night-vision devices , body armor , medical kits , uniforms , boots and military socks to the “ victim ” is that it could be perceived by Russia as “ destabilizing ” and as a “ force-multiplier , ” and , therefore , too provocative . This is nonsense . Russia has deployed 40,000 fully equipped , modernized troops backed up by tanks , aircraft and helicopters , plus paid KGB goon squads that are creating havoc in Eastern Ukraine .
Mr. Obama responds by debating whether to provide what amounts to humanitarian aid because he doesn ’ t want to encourage Ukraine ’ s leadership to take more aggressive action to protect its sovereignty . With this type of convoluted thinking , we ’ d better hope that this administration and its national security team never gets us into a war that requires real leadership .
What is behind such thinking ? Is Mr. Obama concerned that Mr. Putin will somehow scuttle his precious P5+1 ( the five permanent members of the United Nations — the U.S. , Russia , China , Great Britain and France — plus Germany ) negotiations with Iran over its nuclear-weapons program ? We can only hope that Mr. Putin would take such an action , as those negotiations are nothing but a sham . According to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper , Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in about two weeks , once the order is given .
Symptomatic of the Ukraine crisis , no matter where you look , the United States is seen as being in retreat . The stability that America brought to the global strategic equation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama administration , principally by the unilateral disarmament of our military forces .
The Ukraine situation is far from being resolved . China is flexing its military muscle in the Far East . The Middle East remains in chaos . Iran ’ s nuclear-weapons capability is almost a certainty . With the unpredictability of North Korea , why would the Obama administration at this time make the shocking announcement of deep cuts to the U.S. nuclear forces , four years ahead of the 2010 New START treaty schedule ?
Our most secure deterrent , our strategic ballistic-missile submarines , will be reduced by 28 percent by having the capability of 56 launch strikes disabled . Thirty B-52 strategic bombers will be converted to conventional use , which represents a 38 percent reduction in capability , and 50 missiles will be removed from our underground silos , which is the most vulnerable leg of the triad .
With every nuclear power in the world modernizing its strategic forces , particularly Russia and China , plus the known fact that Russia has been cheating on existing treaties , making such a dramatic force-reduction announcement now is more than troubling .
The Obama administration is taking the United States down a course that will put us in an absolute nuclear inferiority position with regard to Russia and perhaps China . It is jeopardizing our national security .
With the United States ’ strategic policy adrift , Mr. Putin is controlling events in the Ukraine . With basically no opposition , he will certainly seek more opportunities . In the Far East , we can anticipate that China , seeing our basic inability to respond to the Ukraine crisis , will seize the opportunity to absorb some low-hanging fruit in the South China Sea , most likely contested Philippine islands .
What will it take to make Congress exercise its constitutional responsibilities and maintain its legitimacy by acting in the best interest of the United States ? We are being challenged , and we can not afford to continue to embrace a fantasy foreign policy .
James A. Lyons , U.S. Navy retired admiral , was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The administration Kabuki dance we’re witnessing featuring U.S. refusal to provide nonlethal support equipment for Ukraine is President Obama displaying the new “flexibility” he promised Vladimir Putin he would have after his re-election. In short, it is capitulation.
The administration is trying to make the case that by showing restraint, Mr. Obma will encourage Mr. Putin, the Russian president, to be more willing to negotiate. The mind boggles. What’s taking place in Ukraine has far-reaching implications for the United States and our allies in both Europe and the Far East.
The apparent lack of support from NATO’s political leadership to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty is clearly tied to its dependence on Russia for more than 30 percent of their energy requirements. This compromised position was accepted based on the assumption that European security after the Cold War could be guaranteed (with reduced defense budgets) by engaging Russia, not confronting it.
This now appears to be a costly error, since it has been known for some time that NATO’s engagement policies have not required Russia’s reciprocity. However, one positive outcome of the current crisis should be an unmistakable wake-up call for NATO, as its credibility is clearly being challenged.
The administration’s rationale for not providing nonlethal equipment, such as night-vision devices, body armor, medical kits, uniforms, boots and military socks to the “victim” is that it could be perceived by Russia as “destabilizing” and as a “force-multiplier,” and, therefore, too provocative. This is nonsense. Russia has deployed 40,000 fully equipped, modernized troops backed up by tanks, aircraft and helicopters, plus paid KGB goon squads that are creating havoc in Eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Obama responds by debating whether to provide what amounts to humanitarian aid because he doesn’t want to encourage Ukraine’s leadership to take more aggressive action to protect its sovereignty. With this type of convoluted thinking, we’d better hope that this administration and its national security team never gets us into a war that requires real leadership.
What is behind such thinking? Is Mr. Obama concerned that Mr. Putin will somehow scuttle his precious P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Great Britain and France — plus Germany) negotiations with Iran over its nuclear-weapons program? We can only hope that Mr. Putin would take such an action, as those negotiations are nothing but a sham. According to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in about two weeks, once the order is given.
Symptomatic of the Ukraine crisis, no matter where you look, the United States is seen as being in retreat. The stability that America brought to the global strategic equation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama administration, principally by the unilateral disarmament of our military forces.
The Ukraine situation is far from being resolved. China is flexing its military muscle in the Far East. The Middle East remains in chaos. Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability is almost a certainty. With the unpredictability of North Korea, why would the Obama administration at this time make the shocking announcement of deep cuts to the U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of the 2010 New START treaty schedule?
Our most secure deterrent, our strategic ballistic-missile submarines, will be reduced by 28 percent by having the capability of 56 launch strikes disabled. Thirty B-52 strategic bombers will be converted to conventional use, which represents a 38 percent reduction in capability, and 50 missiles will be removed from our underground silos, which is the most vulnerable leg of the triad.
With every nuclear power in the world modernizing its strategic forces, particularly Russia and China, plus the known fact that Russia has been cheating on existing treaties, making such a dramatic force-reduction announcement now is more than troubling.
The Obama administration is taking the United States down a course that will put us in an absolute nuclear inferiority position with regard to Russia and perhaps China. It is jeopardizing our national security.
With the United States’ strategic policy adrift, Mr. Putin is controlling events in the Ukraine. With basically no opposition, he will certainly seek more opportunities. In the Far East, we can anticipate that China, seeing our basic inability to respond to the Ukraine crisis, will seize the opportunity to absorb some low-hanging fruit in the South China Sea, most likely contested Philippine islands.
What will it take to make Congress exercise its constitutional responsibilities and maintain its legitimacy by acting in the best interest of the United States? We are being challenged, and we cannot afford to continue to embrace a fantasy foreign policy.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
1rVZNku8y095Hbog
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.