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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
immigration
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/15/21257361/heroes-act-coronavirus-bill-immigrants
|
Immigrants were largely overlooked in the US’s coronavirus response. The latest relief bill aims to fix that.
|
2020-05-15
|
Nicole Narea, Emily Stewart, Terry Nguyen, Dylan Scott, Katelyn Burns, Alex Ward, Sara Morrison
|
House Democrats ’ $ 3 trillion coronavirus relief package aims to address some people left out of previous bills , including unauthorized immigrants who have been critical to the US ’ s response to the pandemic but have not been eligible for stimulus funds .
The bill , known as the Heroes Act , would shield unauthorized immigrants working in essential fields from deportation and make them eligible for federal stimulus funds as well as clear the way for more foreign health care workers to help fight coronavirus in the US . It would also deliver additional health care benefits to immigrants who are eligible for Medicaid and require immigration authorities to release people from immigration detention where possible .
The bill makes significant strides toward closing the gap in relief for immigrant communities during the pandemic . But it includes one notable omission : It does nothing to help refugees at a time when resettlement efforts have come to a standstill and refugees who have recently arrived in the US aren ’ t eligible for federal stimulus checks .
The bill is facing opposition within both parties . Republicans are not convinced that another aid package is warranted after the $ 2.2 trillion CARES Act signed in late March , and progressive Democrats are pushing for even more aid . The bill , therefore , isn ’ t likely to pass the House , but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still planning to move forward with a vote as early as Friday , according to Politico . Even if it fails , it could be a starting point for future negotiations over coronavirus relief .
The bill would issue coronavirus stimulus checks to unauthorized immigrants and their families , who are currently excluded from such relief under the CARES Act . They would become eligible for the first round of stimulus checks , which the government started sending out in April , as well as a proposed second round of checks , which would amount to up to $ 1,200 for each tax filer and each of their dependents , depending on household income .
The CARES Act gave most taxpayers up to $ 1,200 and $ 500 for each of their children under the age of 17 . But even if they pay taxes , unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for the stimulus checks . Neither is anyone else in their household , including their spouses and children , even if their spouses and children are US citizens .
The CARES Act excludes those in households with people of mixed-immigration status , where some tax filers or their children may use what ’ s called an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ( ITIN ) . An estimated 16.7 million people live in mixed-status households nationwide , including 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens .
The IRS issues ITINs to unauthorized immigrants so they can pay taxes , even though they don ’ t have a Social Security number . If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — no one in the household qualifies for the stimulus checks unless one spouse served in the military in 2019 .
Immigrant advocacy groups have challenged the CARES Act on the basis that it unlawfully discriminates against US citizens who have unauthorized immigrant family members .
The bill would require US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review all the files of detained immigrants and release all those who aren ’ t subject to mandatory detention and don ’ t pose a risk to public safety or national security . Alternatively , the agency could explore comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention .
That could include requiring them to wear ankle bracelet monitors or entering them into programs like the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program . Under that program , which Trump ended in June 2017 , families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for their court hearings .
The bill also exacts new standards for immigration detention . Detainees would have to be provided with free and unlimited soap as well as phone and video calls so they can communicate with their family members and attorneys , who are not allowed to visit most detention centers in person during the pandemic .
Only after an outcry from immigrant advocates did ICE recently institute national policies encouraging social distancing in its facilities and provide soap , hand sanitizer , cleaning supplies , and personal protective equipment . The agency has also been releasing detainees who are medically vulnerable to Covid-19 , but there are still almost 30,000 immigrants in detention across more than 130 private and state-run detention facilities nationwide . As of May 14 , 943 detainees tested positive for the virus .
There is , therefore , a national advocacy push for the administration to alter its enforcement priorities to release all detainees or at least those who haven ’ t committed serious crimes ; while immigrant advocates campaign for their release even in the best of times , their message has become even more urgent amid the outbreak .
These immigrants have been accused of civil immigration violations , such as overstaying a visa or residing in the US without authorization , and they have been detained while they wait for the outcome of their deportation cases . Some may well be allowed to remain in the US eventually , depending on what an immigration judge decides .
The federal government has significant discretion to determine who it subjects to this kind of civil detention . Toward the end of Barack Obama ’ s presidency , he prioritized only those immigrants who had a record of committing serious crimes , releasing others into the interior of the US . But President Donald Trump , by contrast , has sought to detain any unauthorized immigrants anywhere in the US — even amid the pandemic .
3 ) Shielding essential workers from deportation and opening up opportunities for some unauthorized immigrants
Under the bill , essential workers would be shielded from deportation and offered employment authorization during the pandemic , and employers in critical industries would not be penalized for hiring unauthorized immigrants .
Americans have relied on low-wage workers to keep essential services running during the pandemic , from harvesting and delivering food to cleaning public spaces . But many of these workers who lack legal immigration status have done so without receiving any financial assistance from the federal government .
Unauthorized immigrants make up about a quarter of farmworkers and 8 percent of the service sector and production workers . Many don ’ t have any choice but to continue working despite public health warnings to stay home because they aren ’ t eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks . The Heroes Act would at least give them some financial safety net and relieve them of fear of deportation .
4 ) Making it easier for foreign medical professionals to fight coronavirus
The bill would speed up the processing of visas and green cards for medical professionals . Anyone seeking to practice medicine , conduct medical research , or pursue education or training to combat Covid-19 could be approved for a visa on an expedited basis . Consulates that are closed for regular business abroad would have to conduct visa interviews over teleconference or grant an emergency visa appointment in person . Foreign physicians who have already completed residency programs in the US could also get green cards more quickly .
Once they ’ re approved for a visa or green card , medical professionals would have more flexibility to go where they ’ re needed under the bill . Those on H-1B visas for skilled workers would be able to transfer to other hospital systems and offer telemedicine services without having to apply for a new visa under the bill . Medical students will also be able to transfer their rotations within their host institution and may be compensated for their work during the pandemic . They could also do work outside of that approved program if it relates to fighting Covid-19 .
Foreign doctors have long faced barriers to practicing in the US . Despite being willing to contribute to the country ’ s coronavirus response , many have been unable to do so , either because they have been shut out of American residency programs or because the immigration system stands in their way .
Hospitals across the country are facing staffing shortages . New York City has asked former medical workers to come out of retirement to deal with the increased patient load . So has the Veterans Affairs medical system , which already has about 44,000 medical vacancies that it has been struggling to fill amid a competitive market . Washington , DC , has even been recruiting volunteers without any medical training .
The US was projected to face a shortage of doctors even before the pandemic hit : The Association of American Medical Colleges had estimated the shortage could reach 46,900 to 121,900 physicians by 2032 . And in rural areas , particularly in states like Mississippi and Arkansas , doctors were already in short supply . The US health system relies heavily on immigrants , who make up 17 percent of all health care workers and more than one in four doctors .
The bill would allow unauthorized immigrants without health care coverage to qualify for no-cost testing , treatment , and vaccines related to coronavirus .
Under the CARES Act , several categories of immigrants have been excluded from such benefits : green card holders who have lived in the US for less than five years , immigrants who have been granted Temporary Protected Status , and young , unauthorized immigrants who have been allowed to live and work in the US under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
US Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that it won ’ t consider the use of free testing services when evaluating whether immigrants will likely end up relying on public benefits under the “ public charge ” rule , which went into effect in February . That rule gives immigration officials much more leeway to turn away those applying to enter the US , extend their visa , or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card if it is deemed they would likely use public services now or in the future .
The agency also said it won ’ t weigh Covid-19 treatment or preventive care , such as a vaccine if it is eventually developed , under the rule — even if those services are covered under Medicaid .
Every day at ███ , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives . Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding . ███ ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn . Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires . Please consider making a contribution to ███ today .
|
House Democrats’ $3 trillion coronavirus relief package aims to address some people left out of previous bills, including unauthorized immigrants who have been critical to the US’s response to the pandemic but have not been eligible for stimulus funds.
The bill, known as the Heroes Act, would shield unauthorized immigrants working in essential fields from deportation and make them eligible for federal stimulus funds as well as clear the way for more foreign health care workers to help fight coronavirus in the US. It would also deliver additional health care benefits to immigrants who are eligible for Medicaid and require immigration authorities to release people from immigration detention where possible.
The bill makes significant strides toward closing the gap in relief for immigrant communities during the pandemic. But it includes one notable omission: It does nothing to help refugees at a time when resettlement efforts have come to a standstill and refugees who have recently arrived in the US aren’t eligible for federal stimulus checks.
The bill is facing opposition within both parties. Republicans are not convinced that another aid package is warranted after the $2.2 trillion CARES Act signed in late March, and progressive Democrats are pushing for even more aid. The bill, therefore, isn’t likely to pass the House, but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still planning to move forward with a vote as early as Friday, according to Politico. Even if it fails, it could be a starting point for future negotiations over coronavirus relief.
Here are five provisions the bill makes for immigrants:
1) Cash payments to immigrants and their families
The bill would issue coronavirus stimulus checks to unauthorized immigrants and their families, who are currently excluded from such relief under the CARES Act. They would become eligible for the first round of stimulus checks, which the government started sending out in April, as well as a proposed second round of checks, which would amount to up to $1,200 for each tax filer and each of their dependents, depending on household income.
The CARES Act gave most taxpayers up to $1,200 and $500 for each of their children under the age of 17. But even if they pay taxes, unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for the stimulus checks. Neither is anyone else in their household, including their spouses and children, even if their spouses and children are US citizens.
The CARES Act excludes those in households with people of mixed-immigration status, where some tax filers or their children may use what’s called an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). An estimated 16.7 million people live in mixed-status households nationwide, including 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens.
The IRS issues ITINs to unauthorized immigrants so they can pay taxes, even though they don’t have a Social Security number. If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — no one in the household qualifies for the stimulus checks unless one spouse served in the military in 2019.
Immigrant advocacy groups have challenged the CARES Act on the basis that it unlawfully discriminates against US citizens who have unauthorized immigrant family members.
2) Releasing low-risk immigrants from ICE detention
The bill would require US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review all the files of detained immigrants and release all those who aren’t subject to mandatory detention and don’t pose a risk to public safety or national security. Alternatively, the agency could explore comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention.
That could include requiring them to wear ankle bracelet monitors or entering them into programs like the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program. Under that program, which Trump ended in June 2017, families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for their court hearings.
The bill also exacts new standards for immigration detention. Detainees would have to be provided with free and unlimited soap as well as phone and video calls so they can communicate with their family members and attorneys, who are not allowed to visit most detention centers in person during the pandemic.
Only after an outcry from immigrant advocates did ICE recently institute national policies encouraging social distancing in its facilities and provide soap, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, and personal protective equipment. The agency has also been releasing detainees who are medically vulnerable to Covid-19, but there are still almost 30,000 immigrants in detention across more than 130 private and state-run detention facilities nationwide. As of May 14, 943 detainees tested positive for the virus.
There is, therefore, a national advocacy push for the administration to alter its enforcement priorities to release all detainees or at least those who haven’t committed serious crimes; while immigrant advocates campaign for their release even in the best of times, their message has become even more urgent amid the outbreak.
These immigrants have been accused of civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa or residing in the US without authorization, and they have been detained while they wait for the outcome of their deportation cases. Some may well be allowed to remain in the US eventually, depending on what an immigration judge decides.
The federal government has significant discretion to determine who it subjects to this kind of civil detention. Toward the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, he prioritized only those immigrants who had a record of committing serious crimes, releasing others into the interior of the US. But President Donald Trump, by contrast, has sought to detain any unauthorized immigrants anywhere in the US — even amid the pandemic.
3) Shielding essential workers from deportation and opening up opportunities for some unauthorized immigrants
Under the bill, essential workers would be shielded from deportation and offered employment authorization during the pandemic, and employers in critical industries would not be penalized for hiring unauthorized immigrants.
Americans have relied on low-wage workers to keep essential services running during the pandemic, from harvesting and delivering food to cleaning public spaces. But many of these workers who lack legal immigration status have done so without receiving any financial assistance from the federal government.
Unauthorized immigrants make up about a quarter of farmworkers and 8 percent of the service sector and production workers. Many don’t have any choice but to continue working despite public health warnings to stay home because they aren’t eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks. The Heroes Act would at least give them some financial safety net and relieve them of fear of deportation.
4) Making it easier for foreign medical professionals to fight coronavirus
The bill would speed up the processing of visas and green cards for medical professionals. Anyone seeking to practice medicine, conduct medical research, or pursue education or training to combat Covid-19 could be approved for a visa on an expedited basis. Consulates that are closed for regular business abroad would have to conduct visa interviews over teleconference or grant an emergency visa appointment in person. Foreign physicians who have already completed residency programs in the US could also get green cards more quickly.
Once they’re approved for a visa or green card, medical professionals would have more flexibility to go where they’re needed under the bill. Those on H-1B visas for skilled workers would be able to transfer to other hospital systems and offer telemedicine services without having to apply for a new visa under the bill. Medical students will also be able to transfer their rotations within their host institution and may be compensated for their work during the pandemic. They could also do work outside of that approved program if it relates to fighting Covid-19.
Foreign doctors have long faced barriers to practicing in the US. Despite being willing to contribute to the country’s coronavirus response, many have been unable to do so, either because they have been shut out of American residency programs or because the immigration system stands in their way.
Hospitals across the country are facing staffing shortages. New York City has asked former medical workers to come out of retirement to deal with the increased patient load. So has the Veterans Affairs medical system, which already has about 44,000 medical vacancies that it has been struggling to fill amid a competitive market. Washington, DC, has even been recruiting volunteers without any medical training.
The US was projected to face a shortage of doctors even before the pandemic hit: The Association of American Medical Colleges had estimated the shortage could reach 46,900 to 121,900 physicians by 2032. And in rural areas, particularly in states like Mississippi and Arkansas, doctors were already in short supply. The US health system relies heavily on immigrants, who make up 17 percent of all health care workers and more than one in four doctors.
5) Health benefits for immigrants regardless of status
The bill would allow unauthorized immigrants without health care coverage to qualify for no-cost testing, treatment, and vaccines related to coronavirus.
Under the CARES Act, several categories of immigrants have been excluded from such benefits: green card holders who have lived in the US for less than five years, immigrants who have been granted Temporary Protected Status, and young, unauthorized immigrants who have been allowed to live and work in the US under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that it won’t consider the use of free testing services when evaluating whether immigrants will likely end up relying on public benefits under the “public charge” rule, which went into effect in February. That rule gives immigration officials much more leeway to turn away those applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card if it is deemed they would likely use public services now or in the future.
The agency also said it won’t weigh Covid-19 treatment or preventive care, such as a vaccine if it is eventually developed, under the rule — even if those services are covered under Medicaid.
Support Vox’s explanatory journalism
Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
78G0X9Qnae73lqkl
|
polarization
|
Vox
| 00
|
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization
|
Something is breaking American politics, but it's not social media
|
2017-04-12
|
Ezra Klein, Jen Kirby, Tara Golshan, Alex Ward, Nicole Narea, Emily Todd Vanderwerff, David Roberts
|
Here ’ s something everyone knows : Social media is driving American politics into a ditch of partisanship . Political junkies log on and cocoon themselves in a bubble of friendly punditry , appealing fake news , and outrageous acts from the other side . Every retweet and every like is another moment of identity confirmation , another high five to our friends , another reminder that we ’ re right and they ’ re wrong .
The result is , well , this ugly mess — President Donald Trump , red and blue Americas , polls showing we fear and hate the other party more than ever before , conspiracy theories growing like weeds , a polity where agreement is impossible and everyone is angry . Damn you , Facebook ! Curse you , Twitter ! ( Instagram , you ’ re cool . )
But what if this obvious analysis is wrong ? What if social media isn ’ t driving rising polarization in American politics ?
That ’ s the conclusion of a new paper by Levi Boxell , Matthew Gentzkow , and Jesse Shapiro . Their study , released recently through the National Bureau of Economic Research , tests the conventional wisdom about polarization on social media nine ways from Sunday and finds that it ’ s wrong , or at least badly incomplete .
Their approach is simple . Using data from the American National Election Survey , they compare the most web-savvy voters ( the young , where 80 percent used social media in 2012 ) and the least web-savvy voters ( the old , where fewer than 20 percent used social media in 2012 ) on nine different tests of political polarization . The measures cover everything from feelings about political parties to ideological consistency to straight-ticket voting , and the data shows how polarization changed among these groups between 1996 and 2012 .
The results ? On fully eight of the nine measures , “ polarization increases more for the old than the young. ” If Facebook is the problem , then how come the problem is worst among those who don ’ t use Facebook ?
To be thorough , Boxell , Gentzkow , and Shapiro also construct panels based on internet access and find much the same thing — polarization is accelerating fastest among those using the internet the least :
Does this mean the internet isn ’ t making us more polarized ? Not necessarily . The young are becoming more polarized , and it ’ s possible social media is part of the reason . But given that older Americans who don ’ t use social media are polarizing faster than younger Americans who do , it ’ s clear that this is about more than whom you follow on Twitter .
“ Something has to explain the rising polarization of older Americans , ” says Gentzkow , an economist at Stanford . “ We don ’ t argue against the view that social media is important . It ’ s just not the whole picture . ”
I asked Gentzkow what he thinks might be part of the fuller picture . “ I have two main hypotheses , ” he replied . “ One is stuff that has nothing to do with media at all but is structural , like increasing income inequality . The second is non-digital media , and cable TV and talk radio in particular . ”
The latter piece makes particular sense if you think about the fact that older Americans make up the base of both the cable and talk radio audiences . More than a third of talk radio listeners are over age 65 , and half of Fox News ’ s audience is over age 68 . As bad as getting your news from Facebook can be , it ’ s often far better than relying on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh .
The authors ’ data only goes until 2012 , so it can ’ t tell us much about the 2016 election . But even though Trump ’ s use of Twitter was remarkable , my guess is the main way it mattered was by setting the agenda for more traditional news outlets , particularly cable news and talk radio . Remember , it was seniors — only 6 percent of whom use Twitter — who pushed Trump to the White House . He won 53 percent of voters ages 65 and over , but only 37 percent of voters ages 29 and younger . Trump is the Twitter-using president , not the president chosen by Twitter ’ s users .
Social media is new , it is transformative , and it is certainly changing American politics . But it ’ s not the only force at play , nor even the main one . And while it ’ s hard for news junkies ( myself included ) to remember , most people ’ s media feeds tilt more toward baby pictures , wedding announcements , and funny videos than political punditry . Those of us who follow lots of politicians and politicized news sources are outliers , and we shouldn ’ t extrapolate too much from our weird experience .
Whatever is tearing our politics apart is deeper and more universal than the digital filter bubbles that get so much attention — and it seems to be most powerful among the people least likely to get their news from social media .
|
Here’s something everyone knows: Social media is driving American politics into a ditch of partisanship. Political junkies log on and cocoon themselves in a bubble of friendly punditry, appealing fake news, and outrageous acts from the other side. Every retweet and every like is another moment of identity confirmation, another high five to our friends, another reminder that we’re right and they’re wrong.
The result is, well, this ugly mess — President Donald Trump, red and blue Americas, polls showing we fear and hate the other party more than ever before, conspiracy theories growing like weeds, a polity where agreement is impossible and everyone is angry. Damn you, Facebook! Curse you, Twitter! (Instagram, you’re cool.)
But what if this obvious analysis is wrong? What if social media isn’t driving rising polarization in American politics?
That’s the conclusion of a new paper by Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse Shapiro. Their study, released recently through the National Bureau of Economic Research, tests the conventional wisdom about polarization on social media nine ways from Sunday and finds that it’s wrong, or at least badly incomplete.
Their approach is simple. Using data from the American National Election Survey, they compare the most web-savvy voters (the young, where 80 percent used social media in 2012) and the least web-savvy voters (the old, where fewer than 20 percent used social media in 2012) on nine different tests of political polarization. The measures cover everything from feelings about political parties to ideological consistency to straight-ticket voting, and the data shows how polarization changed among these groups between 1996 and 2012.
The results? On fully eight of the nine measures, “polarization increases more for the old than the young.” If Facebook is the problem, then how come the problem is worst among those who don’t use Facebook?
To be thorough, Boxell, Gentzkow, and Shapiro also construct panels based on internet access and find much the same thing — polarization is accelerating fastest among those using the internet the least:
Does this mean the internet isn’t making us more polarized? Not necessarily. The young are becoming more polarized, and it’s possible social media is part of the reason. But given that older Americans who don’t use social media are polarizing faster than younger Americans who do, it’s clear that this is about more than whom you follow on Twitter.
“Something has to explain the rising polarization of older Americans,” says Gentzkow, an economist at Stanford. “We don’t argue against the view that social media is important. It’s just not the whole picture.”
I asked Gentzkow what he thinks might be part of the fuller picture. “I have two main hypotheses,” he replied. “One is stuff that has nothing to do with media at all but is structural, like increasing income inequality. The second is non-digital media, and cable TV and talk radio in particular.”
The latter piece makes particular sense if you think about the fact that older Americans make up the base of both the cable and talk radio audiences. More than a third of talk radio listeners are over age 65, and half of Fox News’s audience is over age 68. As bad as getting your news from Facebook can be, it’s often far better than relying on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
The authors’ data only goes until 2012, so it can’t tell us much about the 2016 election. But even though Trump’s use of Twitter was remarkable, my guess is the main way it mattered was by setting the agenda for more traditional news outlets, particularly cable news and talk radio. Remember, it was seniors — only 6 percent of whom use Twitter — who pushed Trump to the White House. He won 53 percent of voters ages 65 and over, but only 37 percent of voters ages 29 and younger. Trump is the Twitter-using president, not the president chosen by Twitter’s users.
Social media is new, it is transformative, and it is certainly changing American politics. But it’s not the only force at play, nor even the main one. And while it’s hard for news junkies (myself included) to remember, most people’s media feeds tilt more toward baby pictures, wedding announcements, and funny videos than political punditry. Those of us who follow lots of politicians and politicized news sources are outliers, and we shouldn’t extrapolate too much from our weird experience.
Whatever is tearing our politics apart is deeper and more universal than the digital filter bubbles that get so much attention — and it seems to be most powerful among the people least likely to get their news from social media.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
uxioM8BbXHGrFVSE
|
abortion
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://spectator.org/infanticide-makes-a-comeback/
|
OPINION: Infanticide Makes a Comeback
|
Wesley J. Smith
|
It ’ s not that Democrats support infanticide : They just aren ’ t against it . What other conclusion can one reach when 44 out of 47 Senate Democrats blocked the Senate from voting on a bill requiring that any baby who survives an abortion — in other words , a baby who was born — must be brought to a hospital for care and treated with “ the same degree of professional skill , care , and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age . ”
Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection ( a ) , shall be punished… for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being .
Good grief , who could object to that ? At least six want-to-be presidents — Kamala Harris , Bernie Sanders , Kirsten Gillibrand , Amy Klobuchar , Cory Booker , and Elizabeth Warren — did . That ’ s stunning .
We have been here before . During the height of the eugenics movement in the 1920s and 30s , activists sought to “ improve ” the human herd by preventing the so-called “ unfit ” from being born — generally through involuntary sterilization of those considered eugenically incorrect . Appallingly , some 60,000 people were involuntarily sterilized under color of law in the United States during the first half of the 20th century .
Some famous advocates wanted to go even further , advocating the killing of babies who did not pass eugenics muster . For example , in his splendid history of the eugenics movement , War Against the Weak , Edwin Black reports that birth control advocate and social Darwinist Margaret Sanger , proudly spouted “ the extreme eugenic view that human ‘ weeds ’ should be ‘ exterminated. ’ ” Bizarrely , so did Helen Keller — as if the fact that her disabilities weren ’ t congenital would have protected her once the slaughter of the “ defectives ” began .
Systematic infanticide was never legalized in the United States . But in Germany , doctors killed tens of thousands of disabled babies between 1939-1945 . It is important to note that Hitler did not force medical personnel to kill disabled babies ( although doctors and midwives were required legally to report their births ) . Rather , doctors who committed infanticide did so willingly , believing that their killing was a “ healing treatment ” for the child , the family , and the Reich .
After the war , infanticide was scorned universally as evil . But now , that moral consensus has frayed . Indeed , one could say that infanticide is making a comeback .
One need only look at the world ’ s foremost medical and bioethics journals to see the trendline . Princeton University ’ s bioethics professor Peter Singer became famous by claiming that newborn babies are killable because they have not yet developed the cognitive capacities to be considered a “ person. ” He wrote in Rethinking Life and Death , “ Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person. ” In other words , to Singer , a newborn infant is the moral equivalent of a mackerel .
In a 2010 Harvard symposium on abortion and infanticide , Singer tied infanticide to the legality of abortion : “ The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances.… If we accept abortion , we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life . ”
In another world and time , Singer ’ s advocacy would make him an intellectual outcast . Instead , far from being a fringe character , Singer is invited to present at seminars , symposia , and philosophy association conventions throughout the world . He is often quoted respectfully in the mainstream media , including frequently in New York Times , where he is also a recurring contributor .
Singer is far from alone . A few years ago , the Journal of Medical Ethics published an advocacy article entitled , “ After-Birth Abortion : Why Should the Baby Live ? ” Consider the following quotes that the editors of one of the world ’ s most prestigious bioethics journals considered worthy of respectful dissemination :
“ The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus , that is , neither can be considered a ‘ person ’ in a morally relevant sense . ”
“ In spite of the oxymoron in the expression , we propose to call this practice ‘ after-birth ’ abortion , ’ rather than ‘ infanticide , ’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than that of a child . ”
“ We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be . ”
“ Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life . ”
The authors also claim that killing healthy and able-bodied babies should be allowable because , “ we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving up her child for adoption. ” The mind boggles .
Alas , infanticide has gone beyond mere advocacy in the modern world . For decades , China turned a blind eye to chronic female infanticide that resulted from its odious “ one child policy , ” recently abandoned because it led to a catastrophic demographic imbalance between males and females . India has also seen a problem with sex-selection “ after-birth abortions . ”
The Netherlands has embraced wartime Germany ’ s scorned policy of allowing babies born with terminal illnesses and serious disabilities to be subjected to homicide by doctors . And , it is done under color of law under a bureaucratic checklist known as “ The Groningen Protocol , ” which permits doctors to lethally inject infants under three scenarios :
The baby has no chance of survival ( a circumstance that is sometimes misdiagnosed ) ; The baby “ may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectations for their future are very grim ” ; The baby does “ not depend on technology for physiologic stability ” but has “ suffering [ that ] is severe , sustained , and can not be alleviated . ”
Thus , Dutch doctors not only speed up dying babies ’ deaths , but also kill those with serious disabilities who do not need intensive care . Showing the dark currents that are flowing in favor of infanticide , the Groningen Protocol was published with all due respect in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Some politicians and advocates are slightly less blatant , arguing in support of what could be called infanticide-by-neglect . The most well-known recent example was Virginia Governor Ralph Northam ( D-VA ) , who falsely ( according to a study published by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute ) claimed that late-term abortions are restricted to “ cases where there may be severe deformities , there may be a fetus that ’ s non-viable. ” And if such babies are born alive , Northam was asked in a radio interview . He stated coldly :
So , in this particular example , if a mother is in labor , I can tell you exactly what would happen . The infant would be delivered . The infant would be kept comfortable . The infant would be resuscitated if that ’ s what the mother and the family desired , and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother .
Think about this . The Governor of Virginia endorsed the moral equivalent of the Roman Empire ’ s ancient practice of exposing disabled infants on hills — except that instead of leaving the baby in the weeds to be consumed by animals , the child would be left to die unattended in a bassinette . Awful .
The recent open and notorious support for infanticide by society ’ s most powerful voices forces us to support , reject , or be openly indifferent to the sanctity of human life . If there is moral accountability in creation , we had better be very careful about what we do next . History will judge us most harshly if we turn a blind eye to the killing of the most weak , defenseless , and innocent among us .
Award winning author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute ’ s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council . His most recent book is Culture of Death : The Age of “ Do Harm ” Medicine .
|
It’s not that Democrats support infanticide: They just aren’t against it. What other conclusion can one reach when 44 out of 47 Senate Democrats blocked the Senate from voting on a bill requiring that any baby who survives an abortion — in other words, a baby who was born — must be brought to a hospital for care and treated with “the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
The bill also would have outlawed infanticide:
Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished… for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
Good grief, who could object to that? At least six want-to-be presidents — Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren — did. That’s stunning.
We have been here before. During the height of the eugenics movement in the 1920s and 30s, activists sought to “improve” the human herd by preventing the so-called “unfit” from being born — generally through involuntary sterilization of those considered eugenically incorrect. Appallingly, some 60,000 people were involuntarily sterilized under color of law in the United States during the first half of the 20th century.
Some famous advocates wanted to go even further, advocating the killing of babies who did not pass eugenics muster. For example, in his splendid history of the eugenics movement, War Against the Weak, Edwin Black reports that birth control advocate and social Darwinist Margaret Sanger, proudly spouted “the extreme eugenic view that human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’” Bizarrely, so did Helen Keller — as if the fact that her disabilities weren’t congenital would have protected her once the slaughter of the “defectives” began.
Systematic infanticide was never legalized in the United States. But in Germany, doctors killed tens of thousands of disabled babies between 1939-1945. It is important to note that Hitler did not force medical personnel to kill disabled babies (although doctors and midwives were required legally to report their births). Rather, doctors who committed infanticide did so willingly, believing that their killing was a “healing treatment” for the child, the family, and the Reich.
After the war, infanticide was scorned universally as evil. But now, that moral consensus has frayed. Indeed, one could say that infanticide is making a comeback.
One need only look at the world’s foremost medical and bioethics journals to see the trendline. Princeton University’s bioethics professor Peter Singer became famous by claiming that newborn babies are killable because they have not yet developed the cognitive capacities to be considered a “person.” He wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, “Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.” In other words, to Singer, a newborn infant is the moral equivalent of a mackerel.
In a 2010 Harvard symposium on abortion and infanticide, Singer tied infanticide to the legality of abortion: “The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances.… If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.”
In another world and time, Singer’s advocacy would make him an intellectual outcast. Instead, far from being a fringe character, Singer is invited to present at seminars, symposia, and philosophy association conventions throughout the world. He is often quoted respectfully in the mainstream media, including frequently in New York Times, where he is also a recurring contributor.
Singer is far from alone. A few years ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an advocacy article entitled, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” Consider the following quotes that the editors of one of the world’s most prestigious bioethics journals considered worthy of respectful dissemination:
“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”
“In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth’ abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than that of a child.”
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be.”
“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
The authors also claim that killing healthy and able-bodied babies should be allowable because, “we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving up her child for adoption.” The mind boggles.
Alas, infanticide has gone beyond mere advocacy in the modern world. For decades, China turned a blind eye to chronic female infanticide that resulted from its odious “one child policy,” recently abandoned because it led to a catastrophic demographic imbalance between males and females. India has also seen a problem with sex-selection “after-birth abortions.”
The Netherlands has embraced wartime Germany’s scorned policy of allowing babies born with terminal illnesses and serious disabilities to be subjected to homicide by doctors. And, it is done under color of law under a bureaucratic checklist known as “The Groningen Protocol,” which permits doctors to lethally inject infants under three scenarios:
The baby has no chance of survival (a circumstance that is sometimes misdiagnosed); The baby “may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectations for their future are very grim”; The baby does “not depend on technology for physiologic stability” but has “suffering [that] is severe, sustained, and cannot be alleviated.”
Thus, Dutch doctors not only speed up dying babies’ deaths, but also kill those with serious disabilities who do not need intensive care. Showing the dark currents that are flowing in favor of infanticide, the Groningen Protocol was published with all due respect in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Some politicians and advocates are slightly less blatant, arguing in support of what could be called infanticide-by-neglect. The most well-known recent example was Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA), who falsely (according to a study published by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute) claimed that late-term abortions are restricted to “cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.” And if such babies are born alive, Northam was asked in a radio interview. He stated coldly:
So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
Think about this. The Governor of Virginia endorsed the moral equivalent of the Roman Empire’s ancient practice of exposing disabled infants on hills — except that instead of leaving the baby in the weeds to be consumed by animals, the child would be left to die unattended in a bassinette. Awful.
The recent open and notorious support for infanticide by society’s most powerful voices forces us to support, reject, or be openly indifferent to the sanctity of human life. If there is moral accountability in creation, we had better be very careful about what we do next. History will judge us most harshly if we turn a blind eye to the killing of the most weak, defenseless, and innocent among us.
Award winning author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council. His most recent book is Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine.
|
www.spectator.org
| 1right
|
rdysUmfwy54OpOgB
|
|
elections
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/bill-clinton-democration-convention-speech-hillary-clinton
|
Bill Clinton makes powerful case for Hillary in personal speech at the DNC
|
2016-07-27
|
Dan Roberts, Sabrina Siddiqui
|
Former president ’ s speech caps historic night in which Hillary Clinton is formally nominated by a Democratic party seeking to move on from division
Hillary Clinton ’ s historic moment finally arrived on Tuesday night , accompanied by an intensely personal speech from her husband Bill , that sought to recast her image as a symbol of the political establishment .
“ She ’ s the best darn change-maker I ever met in my life , ” insisted the former president , recalling decades of Hillary Clinton ’ s work as a social radical . “ This woman has never been satisfied with the status quo in anything . ”
On a night when she became the first woman to be nominated by a major party to run for the White House , Hillary Clinton fully embraced the historic significance of the occasion .
She joined the party by live satellite link from New York to the accompanying sound of breaking glass , disrupting a black and white montage of the 44 male presidents of the United States who have gone before her .
“ I can ’ t believe we just put the biggest crack in that glass ceiling yet , ” said Clinton . “ If there are any little girls out there who stayed up late to watch , can I just say , I may become the first woman president but one of you is next . ”
Amid a growing populist challenge from Republican Donald Trump and scenes of revolt from some Bernie Sanders supporters , her husband ’ s powerfully persuasive speech may go some way to restoring momentum to the campaign .
“ Hillary will make us stronger together , ” he said . “ You know it , because she spent a lifetime doing it . I hope you will do it . I hope you will elect her . Those of us who have more yesterdays than tomorrows tend to think more about our children and grandchildren . ”
The speech capped a pivotal day for the party , as it sought to move on from scenes of division , and capitalise on Clinton ’ s symbolic breakthrough .
She will address the crowd directly on Thursday in a formal acceptance of the nomination but for now , speeches first from Michelle Obama and now from Bill Clinton have done the most to counter a much darker vision of America presented by Republican candidate Donald Trump .
“ If she wins she ’ s coming back for you to take you along on the ride for America ’ s future , ” said former president Clinton as he recalled campaigning with coalminers in West Virginia and urged to the party to do more to create more new jobs in the US economy .
It was almost the only overtly political message of his own . In contrast with past speeches , where the former president has risked overshadowing the campaign , this one sounded more like the personal speeches made by the wives of male candidates .
In an azure blue tie that picked out the colours of the arena , and with his hands shaking slightly , Clinton delivered a highly personal account of their courtship and marriage that seemed at times to be an attempt to make America fall in love with the girl he first met in the spring of 1971 .
Skipping over the awkward moments in a very public , and at times visibly flawed , marriage , Clinton instead said : “ I married my best friend , ” recalling two failed proposal attempts and then describing when Clinton ’ s water broke during her pregnancy with Chelsea – undoubtedly a first in a speech about a US presidential candidate .
“ The first time I saw her was in a class on political and civil rights … [ she had ] big blond hair , big glasses , wore no makeup and exuded a sense that I found magnetic , ” said a clearly infatuated and somewhat awed Clinton . “ I knew I might be starting something I couldn ’ t stop . ”
After spending nearly an hour describing her political and personal accomplishments he turned only briefly to her opponent . And he issued a direct challenge to the two-dimensional “ cartoon ” image of his wife which had been painted by her political foes .
“ How does this square with what you heard at the Republican convention ? One is real , the other is made up , ” said Bill . “ You just have to decide which is which my fellow Americans … Good for you , because earlier today you nominated the real one . ”
The well-received speech , seeking to rewrite the accepted wisdom about her candidacy , may help galvanise the campaign in much the same way Bill Clinton helped revive Barack Obama ’ s listless 2012 effort .
But the space was created by another reconcilation between competing Democrats earlier in the evening .
Bernie Sanders left the arena with his head held high on Tuesday . In contrast to the chaotic scenes of protest from his supporters that marred attempts at unity on day one , the room largely came together for the historic night , with few boos at all .
The healing was helped by fresh opportunities for the Sanders campaign to celebrate its success and vow to continue its fight for more radical social reform . “ Because this is a movement fuelled by love it can never be stopped or defeated , ” said Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as she formally proposed Sanders for the nomination .
Shortly before calling for a suspension of the rules to move directly to the nomination of his former rival , Sanders appeared emotional as he listened to his tearful brother Larry announce delegates from the Democrats Abroad primary .
The pageant of democracy hid some controversy too . A small group of Sanders supporters staged a sit-in of the media centre , largely in protest at the party ’ s use of superdelegates to bolster Clinton ’ s margin of victory in states where Sanders won the most votes .
Clinton was at home watching events from her New York state home in Chappaqua , but her daughter Chelsea was on hand in a venue packed with rising female stars from the Democratic party and wider US society .
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright , herself a noted breaker of glass ceilings , received one of the warmest welcomes of the evening for a commanding speech that listed Clinton ’ s foreign affairs experience . Trump , she claimed , “ has already done damage just by running for president ” .
Oscar winner Meryl Streep signed off the night by asking : “ What does it take to be the first female anything ? It takes grit and it takes grace . ”
Placing Clinton in a lineage of great American women from Rosa Parks and Amelia Earhart to Harriet Tubman and Eleanor Roosevelt , she told the delegates : “ You people have made history and you ’ re gon na make history again in November because Hillary Clinton will be our first woman president … she ’ ll be the first but she won ’ t be the last . ”
Lena Dunham , creator and star of the HBO series Girls , led a series of celebrity endorsements that joined the dots between Clinton ’ s breaking of glass ceilings and Trump ’ s dismissive comments about women .
“ According to Donald Trump , my body is probably like , a two , ” she began . “ His rhetoric about women takes us back to a time when we were meant to be beautiful and silent . ”
“ Donald Trump is not making America great again ; he is making America hate again , ” added fellow actor America Ferrera , from the TV series Ugly Betty .
California senator Barbara Boxer emerged on stage to the soundtrack from Rocky , Philadelphia ’ s de facto theme tune . “ Are you ready to elect the very first woman president of these United States of America ? ” “ Yes ! ” came a reply that sounded less hesitant than usual , as confidence among Democrats grows .
Some of the most powerful political messaging came via prepared video footage that interspersed live speakers with clips of Trump : exposing his lack of respect for women , or damning him with his own words as he described pregnancy as an irritant for employers .
There were also the first hints of the national security issues , which are likely to be a big feature of the latter part of week . Republicans watching on television have criticised the Philadelphia convention for ignoring pressing safety issues , in a stadium devoid of the usual flags that tend to dominate US political sets .
Survivors of the 9/11 attack on New York paid moving testimony to the support they received from Clinton as a local senator . “ When New York needed her , she was there , ” said Lauren Manning , a burns victim whose emotional speech provided some of the most powerful character testimony yet .
Others tried a lighter tack in the campaign ’ s conscious effort to try to humanise a candidate still regarded as aloof and chilly by some Americans .
Kentucky secretary of state Alison Lundergan Grimes began the night recalling that the soon-to-be nominee loves lifestyle TV “ and can devour buffalo wings ” . Barbara Mikulski said Clinton would fight for “ macaroni and cheese ” issues , boasting again of her taste for down-to-earth food .
There were echoes of a similar attempt to add colour to the larger-than-life media image of Trump at last week ’ s Republican convention , as both campaigns grapple with the historically low favourability ratings of both candidates . But while Trump was pictured as a ruthless winner by his business associates , Clinton surrogates queued up to claim she was a people person – the opposite of the public stereotype .
|
Former president’s speech caps historic night in which Hillary Clinton is formally nominated by a Democratic party seeking to move on from division
Hillary Clinton’s historic moment finally arrived on Tuesday night, accompanied by an intensely personal speech from her husband Bill, that sought to recast her image as a symbol of the political establishment.
“She’s the best darn change-maker I ever met in my life,” insisted the former president, recalling decades of Hillary Clinton’s work as a social radical. “This woman has never been satisfied with the status quo in anything.”
On a night when she became the first woman to be nominated by a major party to run for the White House, Hillary Clinton fully embraced the historic significance of the occasion.
She joined the party by live satellite link from New York to the accompanying sound of breaking glass, disrupting a black and white montage of the 44 male presidents of the United States who have gone before her.
“I can’t believe we just put the biggest crack in that glass ceiling yet,” said Clinton. “If there are any little girls out there who stayed up late to watch, can I just say, I may become the first woman president but one of you is next.”
Amid a growing populist challenge from Republican Donald Trump and scenes of revolt from some Bernie Sanders supporters, her husband’s powerfully persuasive speech may go some way to restoring momentum to the campaign.
“Hillary will make us stronger together,” he said. “You know it, because she spent a lifetime doing it. I hope you will do it. I hope you will elect her. Those of us who have more yesterdays than tomorrows tend to think more about our children and grandchildren.”
The speech capped a pivotal day for the party, as it sought to move on from scenes of division, and capitalise on Clinton’s symbolic breakthrough.
She will address the crowd directly on Thursday in a formal acceptance of the nomination but for now, speeches first from Michelle Obama and now from Bill Clinton have done the most to counter a much darker vision of America presented by Republican candidate Donald Trump.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Delegates react as Hillary Clinton appears live via satellite at the conclusion of the second day of the Democratic national convention. Photograph: Justin Lane/EPA
“If she wins she’s coming back for you to take you along on the ride for America’s future,” said former president Clinton as he recalled campaigning with coalminers in West Virginia and urged to the party to do more to create more new jobs in the US economy.
It was almost the only overtly political message of his own. In contrast with past speeches, where the former president has risked overshadowing the campaign, this one sounded more like the personal speeches made by the wives of male candidates.
In an azure blue tie that picked out the colours of the arena, and with his hands shaking slightly, Clinton delivered a highly personal account of their courtship and marriage that seemed at times to be an attempt to make America fall in love with the girl he first met in the spring of 1971.
Skipping over the awkward moments in a very public, and at times visibly flawed, marriage, Clinton instead said: “I married my best friend,” recalling two failed proposal attempts and then describing when Clinton’s water broke during her pregnancy with Chelsea – undoubtedly a first in a speech about a US presidential candidate.
“The first time I saw her was in a class on political and civil rights … [she had] big blond hair, big glasses, wore no makeup and exuded a sense that I found magnetic,” said a clearly infatuated and somewhat awed Clinton. “I knew I might be starting something I couldn’t stop.”
After spending nearly an hour describing her political and personal accomplishments he turned only briefly to her opponent. And he issued a direct challenge to the two-dimensional “cartoon” image of his wife which had been painted by her political foes.
“How does this square with what you heard at the Republican convention? One is real, the other is made up,” said Bill. “You just have to decide which is which my fellow Americans … Good for you, because earlier today you nominated the real one.”
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Chelsea Clinton and husband Marc Mezvinsky smile as Hillary Clinton appears on screen live during the second day of the convention. Photograph: Mark J Terrill/AP
The well-received speech, seeking to rewrite the accepted wisdom about her candidacy, may help galvanise the campaign in much the same way Bill Clinton helped revive Barack Obama’s listless 2012 effort.
But the space was created by another reconcilation between competing Democrats earlier in the evening.
Bernie Sanders left the arena with his head held high on Tuesday. In contrast to the chaotic scenes of protest from his supporters that marred attempts at unity on day one, the room largely came together for the historic night, with few boos at all.
The healing was helped by fresh opportunities for the Sanders campaign to celebrate its success and vow to continue its fight for more radical social reform. “Because this is a movement fuelled by love it can never be stopped or defeated,” said Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as she formally proposed Sanders for the nomination.
Shortly before calling for a suspension of the rules to move directly to the nomination of his former rival, Sanders appeared emotional as he listened to his tearful brother Larry announce delegates from the Democrats Abroad primary.
The pageant of democracy hid some controversy too. A small group of Sanders supporters staged a sit-in of the media centre, largely in protest at the party’s use of superdelegates to bolster Clinton’s margin of victory in states where Sanders won the most votes.
Clinton was at home watching events from her New York state home in Chappaqua, but her daughter Chelsea was on hand in a venue packed with rising female stars from the Democratic party and wider US society.
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, herself a noted breaker of glass ceilings, received one of the warmest welcomes of the evening for a commanding speech that listed Clinton’s foreign affairs experience. Trump, she claimed, “has already done damage just by running for president”.
Oscar winner Meryl Streep signed off the night by asking: “What does it take to be the first female anything? It takes grit and it takes grace.”
Placing Clinton in a lineage of great American women from Rosa Parks and Amelia Earhart to Harriet Tubman and Eleanor Roosevelt, she told the delegates: “You people have made history and you’re gonna make history again in November because Hillary Clinton will be our first woman president … she’ll be the first but she won’t be the last.”
Lena Dunham, creator and star of the HBO series Girls, led a series of celebrity endorsements that joined the dots between Clinton’s breaking of glass ceilings and Trump’s dismissive comments about women.
“According to Donald Trump, my body is probably like, a two,” she began. “His rhetoric about women takes us back to a time when we were meant to be beautiful and silent.”
“Donald Trump is not making America great again; he is making America hate again,” added fellow actor America Ferrera, from the TV series Ugly Betty.
California senator Barbara Boxer emerged on stage to the soundtrack from Rocky, Philadelphia’s de facto theme tune. “Are you ready to elect the very first woman president of these United States of America?” “Yes!” came a reply that sounded less hesitant than usual, as confidence among Democrats grows.
Some of the most powerful political messaging came via prepared video footage that interspersed live speakers with clips of Trump: exposing his lack of respect for women, or damning him with his own words as he described pregnancy as an irritant for employers.
There were also the first hints of the national security issues, which are likely to be a big feature of the latter part of week. Republicans watching on television have criticised the Philadelphia convention for ignoring pressing safety issues, in a stadium devoid of the usual flags that tend to dominate US political sets.
Survivors of the 9/11 attack on New York paid moving testimony to the support they received from Clinton as a local senator. “When New York needed her, she was there,” said Lauren Manning, a burns victim whose emotional speech provided some of the most powerful character testimony yet.
Others tried a lighter tack in the campaign’s conscious effort to try to humanise a candidate still regarded as aloof and chilly by some Americans.
Kentucky secretary of state Alison Lundergan Grimes began the night recalling that the soon-to-be nominee loves lifestyle TV “and can devour buffalo wings”. Barbara Mikulski said Clinton would fight for “macaroni and cheese” issues, boasting again of her taste for down-to-earth food.
There were echoes of a similar attempt to add colour to the larger-than-life media image of Trump at last week’s Republican convention, as both campaigns grapple with the historically low favourability ratings of both candidates. But while Trump was pictured as a ruthless winner by his business associates, Clinton surrogates queued up to claim she was a people person – the opposite of the public stereotype.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
IOkTrUSxlX03Uf7M
|
us_house
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/26/paul_ryan_caves_to_the_wingnuts_hes_already_looking_like_a_hostage_of_the_insanity_caucus/
|
Paul Ryan caves to the wingnuts: He’s already looking like a hostage of the insanity caucus
|
2015-10-26
|
Gary Legum
|
Paul Ryan is ready to step into the maelstrom . On Wednesday , his colleagues will likely elect the boyish wonk to be the Speaker of the House , possibly the most thankless job in Washington behind Dan Snyder ’ s therapist . But he gets a bigger office , so that ’ s exciting .
Much ink was spilled over the conditions Ryan demanded of the Republican caucus before he would agree to run for the speakership . Those included the endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus , that group of 40 or so far-right representatives who have turned the chamber from a semi-functional body into something Jigsaw might have dreamed up if he had a political science degree .
It turned out Ryan ’ s requirement was more of a suggestion . The HFC called his bluff , with a majority agreeing to support him but not give him the unanimous endorsement he had sought . He folded quickly anyway because , hey , bigger office .
So now that he has established a precedent for folding early , it ’ s fair to wonder how Ryan is going to deal with this list of insane demands for the next Speaker that the HFC put out back before Kevin McCarthy took himself out of the running by putting his foot in his mouth and chewing it off at the ankle . Taken together , the changes the HFC wants would make the House even more dysfunctional than it is now , a state that some might not believe possible .
The New York Times has entertaining translations of all 21 questions the HFC put forth . Having deposed RINO squish John Boehner , the radicals are obviously flexing their muscles , trying to weaken the speakership and decentralize the position ’ s power as part of some misbegotten plan to push through much of their pet agenda . Because when you can ’ t get your policies enacted through persuasion and compromise with your opposition in both parties , brute force and whining is the way to go .
Take question number 13 , which reads : Would you attach significant structural entitlement reforms included in the FY 2016 budget resolution , such as welfare reform , and significant process changes , such as legislation establishing an automatic continuing resolution and the Default Prevention Act , to legislation that would raise the debt limit and not schedule the consideration of another vehicle that contains a debt limit increase ? The Times translates this as asking “ to hold the debt limit hostage until we prevail on other issues. ” In other words , the HFC would like Ryan ( or some other theoretical future speaker ) to commit to defaulting on the government ’ s debt in just a couple of weeks unless they can get the Senate Democrats and the White House to negotiate on the conservative wet dream of eviscerating Medicare , Medicaid , Social Security , and who knows what else . You know , the same approach they tried two years ago that led to a sixteen-day government shutdown and got the far right precisely nothing that it wanted .
Or question 4 : Will you oppose proposals to amend conference rules to punish members for procedural votes ? In other words , as the Times puts it , “ Can we continue to buck the leadership without retribution ? ” These 40 people want to stick to their positions no matter how much of a headache they create for their leadership , the opposition party , their colleagues in the Senate , the White House , the American people , the world ’ s economy ( in case of a debt default ) , pretty much the entire universe in general . And when they do , they would really like it if they could not have to endure any consequences that might affect their re-election chances or their delicate feelings , the poor snowflakes .
This state of affairs is partly a result of the weakening of the speakership overseen by Boehner . Having pushed to eliminate earmarks , those budget items destined for a particular representative ’ s district that past speakers used as leverage to keep recalcitrant caucus members in line , Republican leadership now has fewer ways to force members to vote in favor of anything from party initiatives to basic functions like funding the government . The few pressure points still open – committee assignments , party money directed to election campaigns – are in the HFC ’ s crosshairs . If they push the Republican leadership on this list , those will be the next to go .
Ryan has reportedly already agreed to abide by the “ Hastert Rule ” ( number seven on the list ) and promised the HFC he would “ devolve power to the membership , ” resulting in an even more decentralized Republican caucus than the one that for the last few years couldn ’ t find water if it fell out of a boat . It ’ s unclear if he has promised to consider any of the HFC ’ s other demands . However , the fact that he caved so quickly on his own demand for a unanimous endorsement does not bode well . If Ryan ’ s compromise with himself to hold the Speaker ’ s gavel involves allowing the right wing to continue running wild and wreaking havoc , his tenure will be even rockier and worse for the country than Boehner ’ s has been .
|
Paul Ryan is ready to step into the maelstrom. On Wednesday, his colleagues will likely elect the boyish wonk to be the Speaker of the House, possibly the most thankless job in Washington behind Dan Snyder’s therapist. But he gets a bigger office, so that’s exciting.
Much ink was spilled over the conditions Ryan demanded of the Republican caucus before he would agree to run for the speakership. Those included the endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus, that group of 40 or so far-right representatives who have turned the chamber from a semi-functional body into something Jigsaw might have dreamed up if he had a political science degree.
Advertisement:
It turned out Ryan’s requirement was more of a suggestion. The HFC called his bluff, with a majority agreeing to support him but not give him the unanimous endorsement he had sought. He folded quickly anyway because, hey, bigger office.
So now that he has established a precedent for folding early, it’s fair to wonder how Ryan is going to deal with this list of insane demands for the next Speaker that the HFC put out back before Kevin McCarthy took himself out of the running by putting his foot in his mouth and chewing it off at the ankle. Taken together, the changes the HFC wants would make the House even more dysfunctional than it is now, a state that some might not believe possible.
The New York Times has entertaining translations of all 21 questions the HFC put forth. Having deposed RINO squish John Boehner, the radicals are obviously flexing their muscles, trying to weaken the speakership and decentralize the position’s power as part of some misbegotten plan to push through much of their pet agenda. Because when you can’t get your policies enacted through persuasion and compromise with your opposition in both parties, brute force and whining is the way to go.
Advertisement:
Take question number 13, which reads: Would you attach significant structural entitlement reforms included in the FY 2016 budget resolution, such as welfare reform, and significant process changes, such as legislation establishing an automatic continuing resolution and the Default Prevention Act, to legislation that would raise the debt limit and not schedule the consideration of another vehicle that contains a debt limit increase? The Times translates this as asking “to hold the debt limit hostage until we prevail on other issues.” In other words, the HFC would like Ryan (or some other theoretical future speaker) to commit to defaulting on the government’s debt in just a couple of weeks unless they can get the Senate Democrats and the White House to negotiate on the conservative wet dream of eviscerating Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and who knows what else. You know, the same approach they tried two years ago that led to a sixteen-day government shutdown and got the far right precisely nothing that it wanted.
Or question 4: Will you oppose proposals to amend conference rules to punish members for procedural votes? In other words, as the Times puts it, “Can we continue to buck the leadership without retribution?” These 40 people want to stick to their positions no matter how much of a headache they create for their leadership, the opposition party, their colleagues in the Senate, the White House, the American people, the world’s economy (in case of a debt default), pretty much the entire universe in general. And when they do, they would really like it if they could not have to endure any consequences that might affect their re-election chances or their delicate feelings, the poor snowflakes.
This state of affairs is partly a result of the weakening of the speakership overseen by Boehner. Having pushed to eliminate earmarks, those budget items destined for a particular representative’s district that past speakers used as leverage to keep recalcitrant caucus members in line, Republican leadership now has fewer ways to force members to vote in favor of anything from party initiatives to basic functions like funding the government. The few pressure points still open – committee assignments, party money directed to election campaigns – are in the HFC’s crosshairs. If they push the Republican leadership on this list, those will be the next to go.
Advertisement:
Ryan has reportedly already agreed to abide by the “Hastert Rule” (number seven on the list) and promised the HFC he would “devolve power to the membership,” resulting in an even more decentralized Republican caucus than the one that for the last few years couldn’t find water if it fell out of a boat. It’s unclear if he has promised to consider any of the HFC’s other demands. However, the fact that he caved so quickly on his own demand for a unanimous endorsement does not bode well. If Ryan’s compromise with himself to hold the Speaker’s gavel involves allowing the right wing to continue running wild and wreaking havoc, his tenure will be even rockier and worse for the country than Boehner’s has been.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
QXaFNSDfKgptzGDP
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/joe-biden-iowa-2020-1295275
|
How Joe Biden went from flop to front-runner in Iowa
|
2019-05-01
|
Natasha Korecki, Michael Grunwald
|
Joe Biden makes a last-ditch plea for support in Dubuque on the day of the Iowa caucuses in 2008 . He did not fare well . | Mark Hirsch/AP Photo 2020 elections How Joe Biden went from flop to front-runner in Iowa The former veep failed to crack 1 percent in the 2008 caucuses . But that result didn ’ t accurately capture the depth of his support .
As Iowa caucus night neared in 2008 , Joe Biden was outspent , outstaffed and up against tough competition : the historic candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards .
But Biden had consistently attracted solid crowds to his events in the run-up . An impressive number of state legislators had endorsed him . His team felt they had held their own , and entered the evening feeling cautiously optimistic .
Then he got creamed . Biden ended up capturing less than one percent of state delegate equivalents — 0.9 percent , precisely . He dropped out of the race later that evening .
Statistically , it was an ignominious early-state defeat for the veteran senator , and one that might not seem to bode well for his third try at the White House in 2020 .
Except Biden has led in nearly every Iowa poll to date since last summer .
One reason for the dramatic turnabout is the stature gained from his two terms as Barack Obama ’ s loyal vice president . But as Biden makes his first official visit to the state this week as a candidate , his Iowa supporters have another explanation for his seeming turn of fortune : his 2008 caucus results were deeply misleading , and failed to reflect his actual appeal on the ground .
███ Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time .
They contend that Biden ’ s weak fifthth place finish that year — behind New Mexico Gov . Bill Richardson but ahead of Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd — came as a result of historic forces beyond his control . And they point to caucus rules that they say distorted Biden ’ s true popularity at the time .
“ The narrative that he got one percent of the vote is not an accurate narrative , ” said Kevin McCarthy , a former Iowa House majority leader who served as Biden ’ s 2008 state chair .
Supporters like McCarthy concede that , given the timing and the field Biden was up against , he never stood a chance of winning . Obama , vying to be the first African-American president , suddenly caught fire , animating a younger electorate as he packed larger and larger venues . Clinton , the former first lady and New York senator , was running to be first woman president . Edwards , John Kerry ’ s 2004 running mate , attracted wide audiences with a message about economic disparity .
“ Keep in mind that in 2008 , you had John Edwards running for the second time and he had nearly defeated John Kerry . You had Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton making these historic runs , ” said Ann Selzer , president of Selzer and Co. who conducts the highly respected Iowa Poll . “ So you had a field that was a little bit of a different ball of wax then . ”
All three had robust operations , making TV buys and deploying staffers statewide to move supporters to caucuses . Biden ’ s support , meanwhile , was static , drawing mainly from white voters and in older , Catholic pockets of the state .
“ There were these mega-three campaigns that blotted out the sun in terms of polling , messaging and organization , ” McCarthy said .
Even so , no one predicted the turnout tidal wave that hit on caucus night .
“ I had a projection of how many people would be at my caucus location , and I thought it would be 120 . In the end , 400 people showed up . I just thought : ‘ forget it . Throw everything out the window , ’ ” said Jim Mowrer , who headed veterans outreach in Iowa for Biden ’ s 2008 campaign and helped in field organizing . “ We were operating under the traditional playbook where we thought we were looking at the normal numbers . Things just changed . The playbook was rewritten . ”
That scene played out again and again across the state , where an unprecedented number of Democrats flooded the caucuses , largely propelled by Obama ’ s historic candidacy .
“ [ Biden ] was respected . People liked him . He generated crowds and enthusiasm . It just wasn ’ t his time , ” says Randy Black , chair of the Iowa Wing Ding Democratic fundraising dinner . “ People were so captivated by Obama . ”
According to caucus rules , if a candidate doesn ’ t have 15 percent support of caucusgoers in an individual precinct , that candidate is deemed non-viable — and the candidate ’ s supporters then move to a different candidate who meets the viability threshold .
Merle Gaber of Dubuque listens to a presentation by Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden during a rally on the day of Iowa ’ s 2008 caucuses . | Mark Hirsch/AP Photo
Both McCarthy and Mowrer said in their precincts , Biden had respectable levels of support but fell just short of meeting the 15 percent marker . It was that phenomenon , repeated across the state , that ultimately led to his 0.9 percent delegate count , they said .
“ We were one single human being short of being viable in my precinct , ” says McCarthy , who lives outside of Des Moines . “ If you don ’ t get 15 percent , you get zero . ”
Biden ’ s position is decidedly different this year . He ’ s no longer a veteran small-state senator , but rather Obama ’ s loyal partner for two terms . And all the metrics are flipped . He just pulled off the best first-day fundraising haul of any candidate in the crowded 2020 field and holds front-runner status with leads in most national and state polls .
“ If you take all of his poll numbers [ from 2008 ] and combine them together that would not add up to the single number he has in our latest poll , ” Selzer said .
Perhaps more important , Biden scores high in a key indicator of campaign sustainability — Selzer calls it the “ Goldilocks question. ” Surveys of Iowa Democrats show that 70 percent believe Biden holds a balanced view on the issues , by far the highest score in the crowded Democratic field . The next closest candidate was Elizabeth Warren , with 54 percent believing her stances on issues were “ just right . ”
“ He looks to be a good fit for likely caucus-goers , ” Selzer said .
Today , Biden is positioning himself as a moderate in a party that has moved too far to the left while working to portray himself as the only Democrat who can beat President Donald Trump .
Sue Dvorsky , former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party , noted that in both Biden ’ s previous runs — in 1988 and 2008 — he was attempting to launch a national campaign as a senator from Delaware . Today , he ’ s up against a slew of competitors who are similarly situated .
“ He was coming from this very small pond in which he was a very big fish , ” Dvorsky said . “ [ Now ] this man was the vice president of the United States for eight years . He has an international set of experiences that he didn ’ t have in either one of those races . The fundamental difference today is that we are in a time when there is clearly a hunger to a return to some kind of normalcy . ”
Even if Biden ’ s circumstances have changed , Trump is already signaling that he doesn ’ t intend to let the former vice president forget about his 2008 caucus flop .
“ I think he ran three times and he never had more than one percent , so we call him One Percent Joe , ” Trump said mockingly at a Nevada rally in late 2018 . “ And then remember what happened ? Obama came along and took him off the trash heap and made him vice president . But he never had more than one percent . ”
Trump ’ s tough talk in singling out Biden only underscores the former vice president ’ s messaging : Biden ’ s the target because Trump sees him as his biggest threat .
“ Lots has changed since 1988 and since 2007 , ” said David Yepsen , the legendary Des Moines Register political reporter who covered both of those campaigns . “ Biden ’ s now the grownup in the room at a time when Democrats are craving some experience and maturity in the White House . That ’ s just going to set him apart . ”
|
Joe Biden makes a last-ditch plea for support in Dubuque on the day of the Iowa caucuses in 2008. He did not fare well. | Mark Hirsch/AP Photo 2020 elections How Joe Biden went from flop to front-runner in Iowa The former veep failed to crack 1 percent in the 2008 caucuses. But that result didn’t accurately capture the depth of his support.
As Iowa caucus night neared in 2008, Joe Biden was outspent, outstaffed and up against tough competition: the historic candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards.
But Biden had consistently attracted solid crowds to his events in the run-up. An impressive number of state legislators had endorsed him. His team felt they had held their own, and entered the evening feeling cautiously optimistic.
Story Continued Below
Then he got creamed. Biden ended up capturing less than one percent of state delegate equivalents — 0.9 percent, precisely. He dropped out of the race later that evening.
Statistically, it was an ignominious early-state defeat for the veteran senator, and one that might not seem to bode well for his third try at the White House in 2020.
Except Biden has led in nearly every Iowa poll to date since last summer.
One reason for the dramatic turnabout is the stature gained from his two terms as Barack Obama’s loyal vice president. But as Biden makes his first official visit to the state this week as a candidate, his Iowa supporters have another explanation for his seeming turn of fortune: his 2008 caucus results were deeply misleading, and failed to reflect his actual appeal on the ground.
POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
They contend that Biden’s weak fifthth place finish that year — behind New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson but ahead of Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd — came as a result of historic forces beyond his control. And they point to caucus rules that they say distorted Biden’s true popularity at the time.
“The narrative that he got one percent of the vote is not an accurate narrative,” said Kevin McCarthy, a former Iowa House majority leader who served as Biden’s 2008 state chair.
Supporters like McCarthy concede that, given the timing and the field Biden was up against, he never stood a chance of winning. Obama, vying to be the first African-American president, suddenly caught fire, animating a younger electorate as he packed larger and larger venues. Clinton, the former first lady and New York senator, was running to be first woman president. Edwards, John Kerry’s 2004 running mate, attracted wide audiences with a message about economic disparity.
“Keep in mind that in 2008, you had John Edwards running for the second time and he had nearly defeated John Kerry. You had Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton making these historic runs,” said Ann Selzer, president of Selzer and Co. who conducts the highly respected Iowa Poll. “So you had a field that was a little bit of a different ball of wax then.”
All three had robust operations, making TV buys and deploying staffers statewide to move supporters to caucuses. Biden’s support, meanwhile, was static, drawing mainly from white voters and in older, Catholic pockets of the state.
“There were these mega-three campaigns that blotted out the sun in terms of polling, messaging and organization,” McCarthy said.
Even so, no one predicted the turnout tidal wave that hit on caucus night.
“I had a projection of how many people would be at my caucus location, and I thought it would be 120. In the end, 400 people showed up. I just thought: ‘forget it. Throw everything out the window,’” said Jim Mowrer, who headed veterans outreach in Iowa for Biden’s 2008 campaign and helped in field organizing. “We were operating under the traditional playbook where we thought we were looking at the normal numbers. Things just changed. The playbook was rewritten.”
That scene played out again and again across the state, where an unprecedented number of Democrats flooded the caucuses, largely propelled by Obama’s historic candidacy.
“[Biden] was respected. People liked him. He generated crowds and enthusiasm. It just wasn’t his time,” says Randy Black, chair of the Iowa Wing Ding Democratic fundraising dinner. “People were so captivated by Obama.”
According to caucus rules, if a candidate doesn’t have 15 percent support of caucusgoers in an individual precinct, that candidate is deemed non-viable — and the candidate’s supporters then move to a different candidate who meets the viability threshold.
Merle Gaber of Dubuque listens to a presentation by Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden during a rally on the day of Iowa’s 2008 caucuses. | Mark Hirsch/AP Photo
Both McCarthy and Mowrer said in their precincts, Biden had respectable levels of support but fell just short of meeting the 15 percent marker. It was that phenomenon, repeated across the state, that ultimately led to his 0.9 percent delegate count, they said.
“We were one single human being short of being viable in my precinct,” says McCarthy, who lives outside of Des Moines. “If you don’t get 15 percent, you get zero.”
Biden’s position is decidedly different this year. He’s no longer a veteran small-state senator, but rather Obama’s loyal partner for two terms. And all the metrics are flipped. He just pulled off the best first-day fundraising haul of any candidate in the crowded 2020 field and holds front-runner status with leads in most national and state polls.
“If you take all of his poll numbers [from 2008] and combine them together that would not add up to the single number he has in our latest poll,” Selzer said.
Perhaps more important, Biden scores high in a key indicator of campaign sustainability — Selzer calls it the “Goldilocks question.” Surveys of Iowa Democrats show that 70 percent believe Biden holds a balanced view on the issues, by far the highest score in the crowded Democratic field. The next closest candidate was Elizabeth Warren, with 54 percent believing her stances on issues were “just right.”
“He looks to be a good fit for likely caucus-goers,” Selzer said.
Today, Biden is positioning himself as a moderate in a party that has moved too far to the left while working to portray himself as the only Democrat who can beat President Donald Trump.
Sue Dvorsky, former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, noted that in both Biden’s previous runs — in 1988 and 2008 — he was attempting to launch a national campaign as a senator from Delaware. Today, he’s up against a slew of competitors who are similarly situated.
“He was coming from this very small pond in which he was a very big fish,” Dvorsky said. “[Now] this man was the vice president of the United States for eight years. He has an international set of experiences that he didn’t have in either one of those races. The fundamental difference today is that we are in a time when there is clearly a hunger to a return to some kind of normalcy.”
Even if Biden’s circumstances have changed, Trump is already signaling that he doesn’t intend to let the former vice president forget about his 2008 caucus flop.
“I think he ran three times and he never had more than one percent, so we call him One Percent Joe,” Trump said mockingly at a Nevada rally in late 2018. “And then remember what happened? Obama came along and took him off the trash heap and made him vice president. But he never had more than one percent.”
Trump’s tough talk in singling out Biden only underscores the former vice president’s messaging: Biden’s the target because Trump sees him as his biggest threat.
“Lots has changed since 1988 and since 2007,” said David Yepsen, the legendary Des Moines Register political reporter who covered both of those campaigns. “Biden’s now the grownup in the room at a time when Democrats are craving some experience and maturity in the White House. That’s just going to set him apart.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
sZCPXotlq9m9AGFG
|
immigration
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Tim-Scott-diversity-ideas-south-carolina/2014/08/03/id/586527/
|
Sen. Tim Scott: Immigration Crisis Won't Be Solved Overnight
|
2014-08-03
|
Sandy Fitzgerald
|
The immigration crisis is n't a problem that happened overnight , and it 's not going to be solved with a quick-fix solution , South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott said Sunday . `` Its not a crisis that occurred in the last two months , '' Scott told ABC senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny on the network 's `` This Week '' program.Instead , said Scott , the problems are a `` lack of collaboration . To show up in the 23rd hour saying we need you to approve a $ 4 billion package is not the way to do it . `` But immigration is `` a hard question to wrestle with , '' said Scott . `` [ It 's ] how to be compassionate to people who you know are coming looking for a better way of life , and at the same time , adhering to the laws of the country.Scott , a former representative , was appointed by Gov . Nikki Haley in 2013 following the resignation of former Sen. Jim DeMint , and won his June primary challenge against Randall Young with more than 90 percent of the vote . He will face Democrat Joyce Dickerson in November 's special election.He says that his service in the Senate during one of its least-productive periods in memory has brought him many questions . `` Whether you 're a Republican or a Democrat , you look at the Senate and you shake your head , '' Scott told Zeleny.But Scott , who is one of only two African-Americans in the Senate and the first black senator from the south since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War , says that he hopes that he 's provided an opportunity to have a `` serious conversation with voters everywhere , white , black , old , and young . `` Republicans struggle to diversify their ranks as they need to `` win the war of ideas , '' said Scott . He noted that it 's `` always good to have diversity , '' whether it 's skin color or philosophy . `` I would hope that the Republican Party would be a little more diversified in its approach , '' said Scott.He also noted that there is always room for improvement when it comes to Republicans focusing on poor and middle class Americans . `` One of the things I said consistently is we have to play in the education space , '' said Scott . `` My life has changed because of public education . `` He said he often thinks of the neighborhood where he grew up in north Charleston , S.C. when he is criticized , including when The Rev . William Barber , president of the North Carolina NAACP , called Scott a ventriloquist dummy for the tea party in a Martin Luther King Day speech in January . `` At the end of the day , very few of them have taken the time to make a phone call , have a conversation , a debate about my agenda , '' said Scott about his critics . `` They have no clue who I am , what I stand for . `` Sometimes , Scott admitted , people do n't even recognize him when they see him in public . Zeleny told of Scott 's program as an `` undercover senator , '' including a shift at a burrito restaurant where he swept floors and chopped chicken so he could listen to voters ' complaints.People not only did n't recognize Scott , but he said that `` within an hour , hour and a half or so , typically someone says , 'are n't you that guy ? ' No , I 'm not Darius Rucker . I 'm just Tim Scott . ''
|
Related stories:
The immigration crisis isn't a problem that happened overnight, and it's not going to be solved with a quick-fix solution, South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott said Sunday."Its not a crisis that occurred in the last two months," Scott told ABC senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny on the network's "This Week" program.Instead, said Scott, the problems are a "lack of collaboration. To show up in the 23rd hour saying we need you to approve a $4 billion package is not the way to do it."But immigration is "a hard question to wrestle with," said Scott. "[It's] how to be compassionate to people who you know are coming looking for a better way of life, and at the same time, adhering to the laws of the country.Scott, a former representative, was appointed by Gov. Nikki Haley in 2013 following the resignation of former Sen. Jim DeMint, and won his June primary challenge against Randall Young with more than 90 percent of the vote. He will face Democrat Joyce Dickerson in November's special election.He says that his service in the Senate during one of its least-productive periods in memory has brought him many questions."Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you look at the Senate and you shake your head," Scott told Zeleny.But Scott, who is one of only two African-Americans in the Senate and the first black senator from the south since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, says that he hopes that he's provided an opportunity to have a "serious conversation with voters everywhere, white, black, old, and young."Republicans struggle to diversify their ranks as they need to "win the war of ideas," said Scott. He noted that it's "always good to have diversity," whether it's skin color or philosophy."I would hope that the Republican Party would be a little more diversified in its approach," said Scott.He also noted that there is always room for improvement when it comes to Republicans focusing on poor and middle class Americans."One of the things I said consistently is we have to play in the education space," said Scott. "My life has changed because of public education."He said he often thinks of the neighborhood where he grew up in north Charleston, S.C. when he is criticized, including when The Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, called Scott a ventriloquist dummy for the tea party in a Martin Luther King Day speech in January."At the end of the day, very few of them have taken the time to make a phone call, have a conversation, a debate about my agenda," said Scott about his critics. "They have no clue who I am, what I stand for."Sometimes, Scott admitted, people don't even recognize him when they see him in public. Zeleny told of Scott's program as an "undercover senator," including a shift at a burrito restaurant where he swept floors and chopped chicken so he could listen to voters' complaints.People not only didn't recognize Scott, but he said that "within an hour, hour and a half or so, typically someone says, 'aren't you that guy?' No, I'm not Darius Rucker. I'm just Tim Scott."
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
MxNeRes9bQ9Kcj9U
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/politics/hillary-clinton-president-2016/index.html?hpt=po_t1
|
How long can Hillary Clinton wait?
|
2013-09-23
|
Paul Steinhauser
|
Story highlights Hillary Clinton tells an interviewer that she 's wrestling with a 2016 decision
Analysts say that because of name recognition and stature , she should be in no hurry
Public opinion polls show Clinton as the overwhelming favorite among Democrats
Clinton herself says such speculation over 2016 is n't good for the country
When it comes to 2016 , Hillary Clinton is in no rush to decide about another run for the White House .
This amid mounting speculation that Clinton will launch another bid , and with everything she says , and every move she makes , scrutinized for signals of where she stands when it comes to her political future .
`` I 'm not in any hurry . I think it 's a serious decision , not to be made lightly , but it 's also not one that has to be made soon , '' Clinton told New York Magazine in her first interview since retiring as secretary of state at the beginning of this year .
Far from her denials in interviews at the beginning of the year , when she told CNN that she had `` absolutely no plans to run , '' Clinton now appears to be wrestling with a decision , saying in the New York Magazine interview that `` I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision . ''
JUST WATCHED Hillary Clinton weighs 2016 run Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hillary Clinton weighs 2016 run 02:28
JUST WATCHED Experts analyze Clinton presidential run Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Experts analyze Clinton presidential run 05:07
JUST WATCHED Hillary wrestling with presidential bid Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hillary wrestling with presidential bid 04:24
JUST WATCHED Hillary Clinton thinking about 2016 run Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hillary Clinton thinking about 2016 run 02:55
Even as Clinton 2016 story count keeps rising many Democrats both inside and outside Clinton World agree that , because of who she is , she does n't need to be the first one out of the gate to announce her 2016 intentions .
`` There is definitely no rush for Hillary to decide about 2016 , '' said Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala . `` As someone who wants her to run , I still understand that she has lots of time . No one should try to rush Hillary on this . She has earned the right to advance her mission in the foundation . Hillary has earned the unique status she has today , and there is no need for her to be pressured into diving back into the political swamp . ''
Thanks to her name recognition , the former first lady , senator from New York and secretary of state is the overwhelming frontrunner in early 2016 surveys . In the most recent survey , conducted earlier this month by CNN/ORC International , nearly two-thirds of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party said they were likely to back Clinton as their presidential nominee . Vice President Joe Biden came in a distant second , at 10 % , with freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 7 % , New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo at 6 % , and Maryland Gov . Martin O'Malley at 2 % .
The CNN survey was in line with previous polls from other organizations conducted earlier this year that indicated Clinton was far ahead of all the other possible Democratic contenders .
Begala , who was a senior political adviser to President Bill Clinton , said Hillary Clinton 's `` time horizon and the whole rest of the party 's time horizon are very , very different , '' adding that `` anybody else has got to start to lay the groundwork '' much earlier than Clinton . ''
`` Hillary has more time than anyone else . And that 's why her friends , and I 'm one of them , are saying she can take her time . She does n't need to build name identification . She does n't even need to build a roster of donors . ''
Translation : Do n't expect to see Clinton make a stop in Iowa , New Hampshire , or South Carolina anytime soon , as some of the other potential 2016ers , such as O'Malley and even Biden , have already made .
Clinton already has a superPAC named `` Ready for Hillary '' actively raising money in support of a possible 2016 bid . And the political action committee that Begala advises , `` Priorities USA , '' which was formed in 2011 to back President Barack Obama 's 2012 re-election campaign and spent millions on TV ads critical of Mitt Romney , could play a similar role for Clinton should she run again .
Asked if there is a concern that if Clinton waits too long , some big name donors and influential Democratic politicians could stray to other 2016 candidates , Begala said such a scenario is `` not a concern at all . ''
`` She is the prohibitive favorite , but the dynamics of the race change the longer someone waits . So the question is how long can she wait , '' said Chris Kofinis , a Democratic strategist and a veteran of the Wesley Clark 2004 and John Edwards 2008 presidential campaigns .
JUST WATCHED Could Hillary Clinton run again ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Could Hillary Clinton run again ? 01:53
JUST WATCHED Signs that Hillary will run for president Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Signs that Hillary will run for president 05:23
JUST WATCHED Pelosi : Hillary prepared to be president Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pelosi : Hillary prepared to be president 01:24
`` If she gets in early , she sucks up the oxygen , the money , and the grassroots . She could basically kill the field . ''
When it comes to polling , Clinton 's standing now compares to her situation the first time she ran for president , when she was the Democratic favorite in the early years of the 2008 presidential cycle . She was the front-runner in CNN polling from mid-2005 through 2006 , prior to her January 2007 announcement that she was forming an exploratory committee , which formally kicked off her presidential fundraising and campaigning .
By then , Sens . Barack Obama of Illinois and Chris Dodd of Connecticut , Biden , former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina , and Gov . Bill Richardson of New Mexico had all jumped in .
Clinton and Obama eventually went on to battle each other in a historic primary season , which ended with Clinton ending her bid for the nomination in June 2008 , at the conclusion of the primary calendar .
Ben LaBolt , a veteran of three presidential campaigns , suggests there may be a middle ground for Clinton .
`` Secretary Clinton faces a paradoxical choice : If she announces that she 's re-entering the political fray , scrutiny on her would be heightened exponentially . Yet even without an announcement , the press and her potential opponents are already treating her like she is running , '' said LaBolt , who served as a deputy press secretary for Obama 's 2008 campaign and national press secretary for the 2012 re-election campaign .
`` The solution might be to ensure trusted advisers are working from the outside to manage rapid response , cultivate donors and study her prospective competitors ' records to lay the groundwork for a run for as long as possible without jumping two feet in . ''
Clinton herself downplays any imminent announcement , saying such speculation is n't good for the country .
`` It 's like when you meet somebody at a party and they look over your shoulder to see who else is there , '' Clinton said . `` And you want to talk to them about something that 's really important ; in fact , maybe you came to the party to talk to that particular person , and they just want to know what 's next . I feel like that 's our political process right now . I just do n't think it is good . ''
|
Story highlights Hillary Clinton tells an interviewer that she's wrestling with a 2016 decision
Analysts say that because of name recognition and stature, she should be in no hurry
Public opinion polls show Clinton as the overwhelming favorite among Democrats
Clinton herself says such speculation over 2016 isn't good for the country
When it comes to 2016, Hillary Clinton is in no rush to decide about another run for the White House.
This amid mounting speculation that Clinton will launch another bid, and with everything she says, and every move she makes, scrutinized for signals of where she stands when it comes to her political future.
"I'm not in any hurry. I think it's a serious decision, not to be made lightly, but it's also not one that has to be made soon," Clinton told New York Magazine in her first interview since retiring as secretary of state at the beginning of this year.
Far from her denials in interviews at the beginning of the year, when she told CNN that she had "absolutely no plans to run," Clinton now appears to be wrestling with a decision, saying in the New York Magazine interview that "I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision."
JUST WATCHED Hillary Clinton weighs 2016 run Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hillary Clinton weighs 2016 run 02:28
JUST WATCHED Experts analyze Clinton presidential run Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Experts analyze Clinton presidential run 05:07
JUST WATCHED Hillary wrestling with presidential bid Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hillary wrestling with presidential bid 04:24
JUST WATCHED Hillary Clinton thinking about 2016 run Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hillary Clinton thinking about 2016 run 02:55
Even as Clinton 2016 story count keeps rising many Democrats both inside and outside Clinton World agree that, because of who she is, she doesn't need to be the first one out of the gate to announce her 2016 intentions.
"There is definitely no rush for Hillary to decide about 2016," said Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala. "As someone who wants her to run, I still understand that she has lots of time. No one should try to rush Hillary on this. She has earned the right to advance her mission in the foundation. Hillary has earned the unique status she has today, and there is no need for her to be pressured into diving back into the political swamp."
Thanks to her name recognition, the former first lady, senator from New York and secretary of state is the overwhelming frontrunner in early 2016 surveys. In the most recent survey, conducted earlier this month by CNN/ORC International, nearly two-thirds of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party said they were likely to back Clinton as their presidential nominee. Vice President Joe Biden came in a distant second, at 10%, with freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 7%, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 6%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley at 2%.
The CNN survey was in line with previous polls from other organizations conducted earlier this year that indicated Clinton was far ahead of all the other possible Democratic contenders.
Begala, who was a senior political adviser to President Bill Clinton, said Hillary Clinton's "time horizon and the whole rest of the party's time horizon are very, very different," adding that "anybody else has got to start to lay the groundwork" much earlier than Clinton."
"Hillary has more time than anyone else. And that's why her friends, and I'm one of them, are saying she can take her time. She doesn't need to build name identification. She doesn't even need to build a roster of donors."
Translation: Don't expect to see Clinton make a stop in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina anytime soon, as some of the other potential 2016ers, such as O'Malley and even Biden, have already made.
Clinton already has a superPAC named "Ready for Hillary" actively raising money in support of a possible 2016 bid. And the political action committee that Begala advises, "Priorities USA," which was formed in 2011 to back President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and spent millions on TV ads critical of Mitt Romney, could play a similar role for Clinton should she run again.
Asked if there is a concern that if Clinton waits too long, some big name donors and influential Democratic politicians could stray to other 2016 candidates, Begala said such a scenario is "not a concern at all."
Not all Democrats agree.
"She is the prohibitive favorite, but the dynamics of the race change the longer someone waits. So the question is how long can she wait," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist and a veteran of the Wesley Clark 2004 and John Edwards 2008 presidential campaigns.
JUST WATCHED Could Hillary Clinton run again? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Could Hillary Clinton run again? 01:53
JUST WATCHED Signs that Hillary will run for president Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Signs that Hillary will run for president 05:23
JUST WATCHED Pelosi: Hillary prepared to be president Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pelosi: Hillary prepared to be president 01:24
"If she gets in early, she sucks up the oxygen, the money, and the grassroots. She could basically kill the field."
When it comes to polling, Clinton's standing now compares to her situation the first time she ran for president, when she was the Democratic favorite in the early years of the 2008 presidential cycle. She was the front-runner in CNN polling from mid-2005 through 2006, prior to her January 2007 announcement that she was forming an exploratory committee, which formally kicked off her presidential fundraising and campaigning.
By then, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Biden, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico had all jumped in.
Clinton and Obama eventually went on to battle each other in a historic primary season, which ended with Clinton ending her bid for the nomination in June 2008, at the conclusion of the primary calendar.
Ben LaBolt, a veteran of three presidential campaigns, suggests there may be a middle ground for Clinton.
"Secretary Clinton faces a paradoxical choice: If she announces that she's re-entering the political fray, scrutiny on her would be heightened exponentially. Yet even without an announcement, the press and her potential opponents are already treating her like she is running," said LaBolt, who served as a deputy press secretary for Obama's 2008 campaign and national press secretary for the 2012 re-election campaign.
"The solution might be to ensure trusted advisers are working from the outside to manage rapid response, cultivate donors and study her prospective competitors' records to lay the groundwork for a run for as long as possible without jumping two feet in."
Clinton herself downplays any imminent announcement, saying such speculation isn't good for the country.
"It's like when you meet somebody at a party and they look over your shoulder to see who else is there," Clinton said. "And you want to talk to them about something that's really important; in fact, maybe you came to the party to talk to that particular person, and they just want to know what's next. I feel like that's our political process right now. I just don't think it is good."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
XyeLqECeCohvlanY
|
elections
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/418483-hyde-smith-prevails-in-mississippi-runoff-after-public-hanging-stumble
|
Hyde-Smith prevails in Mississippi runoff after 'public hanging' stumble
|
2018-11-27
|
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith ( R ) is projected to win Mississippi 's Senate runoff , fending off a stronger-than-expected challenge from Democrats after she stumbled with a series of missteps that brought the race to the forefront of the campaign .
Hyde-Smith defeated former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy ( D ) to serve out the remaining two years of former Sen. Thad Cochran William ( Thad ) Thad CochranBiden has a lot at stake in first debate ███ 's Morning Report — Trump turns the page back to Mueller probe Trump praises Thad Cochran : ' A real senator with incredible values ' MORE 's ( R ) term , in the last congressional race of the year .
Her win makes her the first female senator elected from Mississippi , after she was appointed by Gov . Phil Bryant ( R ) to replace Cochran in April .
Hyde-Smith 's victory is a huge sigh of relief for Republicans , boosting their Senate majority to 53-47 seats .
The runoff was triggered after neither candidate won over 50 percent of the vote in the four-way special election on Nov. 6 .
At her election night party on Tuesday , Hyde-Smith thanked her supporters as well as President Trump Donald John TrumpSessions says he still supports Trump despite ouster as AG House Republicans voice concerns about White House 's impeachment messaging Giuliani consulted with Manafort on Ukraine info : report MORE for his Mississippi rallies ahead of the runoff . She said she 'll be a `` warrior '' for Mississippians and defend conservative values .
`` The reason we won is because Mississippi knows me and knows my heart , and thank you for stepping up Mississippi , '' Hyde-Smith told the crowd . `` This victory , it ’ s about our conservative values . ''
Bryant also spoke at Hyde-Smith 's party , denouncing the media 's coverage of the GOP senator leading up to the runoff .
`` I ’ ve never seen anyone attacked , fired at as much as her ... and she won , '' the governor said . `` I want to thank all the media . Because your coverage helped turn out the Republicans like never before . ''
It had been expected to be an easy victory for Republicans in a state that hasn ’ t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1982 .
But the contest was upended after video surfaced of Hyde-Smith joking about attending a “ public hanging ” if invited by a supporter .
The comments sparked a major backlash in a state with a history of lynchings of African-Americans , who today make up about 38 percent of the state ’ s population .
But she eventually apologized after initially defending the statement as an “ expression of regard ” and calling it “ ridiculous ” to interpret her comments with a negative connotation .
Hyde-Smith compounded her gaffe by joking at a separate event that it should be more difficult for liberal students to vote and after pictures emerged of her wearing a Confederate hat during a 2014 museum visit .
Espy , who was vying to become the state ’ s first black senator since Reconstruction , decried the `` public hanging '' comments as “ harmful , ” arguing that Mississippi has worked hard to overcome past stereotypes .
Following Tuesday 's results , Espy touted Democrats ' `` historic campaign '' in Mississippi and focus on growing the state 's grass-roots organization .
“ While this is not the result we were hoping for , I am proud of the historic campaign we ran and grateful for the support we received across Mississippi , ” Espy said in a Tuesday night statement .
`` Make no mistake—tonight is the beginning , not the end . When this many people show up , stand up , and speak up , it is not a loss . It is a moment . It is a movement . ”
Hyde-Smith 's comments sparked Democrats ’ hopes for another Senate upset in the Deep South after Sen. Doug Jones ( D ) defeated Republican candidate Roy Moore Roy Stewart MooreGOP Senate candidate Tommy Tuberville says Trump has 'put a noose ' around farmers ' necks with trade war Sen. Doug Jones launches reelection bid in Alabama Flake donates to Democratic sheriff being challenged by Arpaio in Arizona MORE in a special election last year .
Trump made a last-minute trip to Mississippi the eve of the runoff in a bid to boost Republican turnout . He urged voters not to take the race for granted and attacked Espy as a “ far-left ” politician who would vote in lockstep with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerMcCarthy shares 'Stranger Things ' parody video criticizing impeachment 2020 Democrats push for gun control action at forum O'Rourke hits Buttigieg over not supporting mandatory gun buybacks : 'It 's time to lead ' MORE ( D-N.Y. ) .
Republicans also poured millions of dollars into the race , with the Republican National Committee using 100 staffers on the ground to make over a million voter contacts .
But Democrats faced long odds in a state that Trump won by nearly 18 points and one where he remains broadly popular .
Espy was looking to make a political comeback after being out of public office for more than two decades .
He served as a congressman of Mississippi ’ s 2nd District — the state ’ s only majority-black district — from 1987 to 1993 . He was then tapped as former President Clinton ’ s Agriculture secretary , becoming the first African-American to serve in that role .
But Espy had his own baggage in the Senate race , as Republicans sought to put the spotlight on his past bribery allegations , which caused him to step down as Agriculture secretary in 1994 . He was acquitted of all charges in 1998 .
The Democrat 's past lobbying contract — and the money he received — with a West African despot also came under intense scrutiny during the campaign .
|
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) is projected to win Mississippi's Senate runoff, fending off a stronger-than-expected challenge from Democrats after she stumbled with a series of missteps that brought the race to the forefront of the campaign.
Hyde-Smith defeated former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy (D) to serve out the remaining two years of former Sen. Thad Cochran William (Thad) Thad CochranBiden has a lot at stake in first debate The Hill's Morning Report — Trump turns the page back to Mueller probe Trump praises Thad Cochran: 'A real senator with incredible values' MORE's (R) term, in the last congressional race of the year.
Her win makes her the first female senator elected from Mississippi, after she was appointed by Gov. Phil Bryant (R) to replace Cochran in April.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hyde-Smith's victory is a huge sigh of relief for Republicans, boosting their Senate majority to 53-47 seats.
The runoff was triggered after neither candidate won over 50 percent of the vote in the four-way special election on Nov. 6.
At her election night party on Tuesday, Hyde-Smith thanked her supporters as well as President Trump Donald John TrumpSessions says he still supports Trump despite ouster as AG House Republicans voice concerns about White House's impeachment messaging Giuliani consulted with Manafort on Ukraine info: report MORE for his Mississippi rallies ahead of the runoff. She said she'll be a "warrior" for Mississippians and defend conservative values.
"The reason we won is because Mississippi knows me and knows my heart, and thank you for stepping up Mississippi," Hyde-Smith told the crowd. "This victory, it’s about our conservative values."
Bryant also spoke at Hyde-Smith's party, denouncing the media's coverage of the GOP senator leading up to the runoff.
"I’ve never seen anyone attacked, fired at as much as her ... and she won," the governor said. "I want to thank all the media. Because your coverage helped turn out the Republicans like never before."
It had been expected to be an easy victory for Republicans in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1982.
But the contest was upended after video surfaced of Hyde-Smith joking about attending a “public hanging” if invited by a supporter.
The comments sparked a major backlash in a state with a history of lynchings of African-Americans, who today make up about 38 percent of the state’s population.
But she eventually apologized after initially defending the statement as an “expression of regard” and calling it “ridiculous” to interpret her comments with a negative connotation.
Hyde-Smith compounded her gaffe by joking at a separate event that it should be more difficult for liberal students to vote and after pictures emerged of her wearing a Confederate hat during a 2014 museum visit.
Espy, who was vying to become the state’s first black senator since Reconstruction, decried the "public hanging" comments as “harmful,” arguing that Mississippi has worked hard to overcome past stereotypes.
Following Tuesday's results, Espy touted Democrats' "historic campaign" in Mississippi and focus on growing the state's grass-roots organization.
“While this is not the result we were hoping for, I am proud of the historic campaign we ran and grateful for the support we received across Mississippi,” Espy said in a Tuesday night statement.
"Make no mistake—tonight is the beginning, not the end. When this many people show up, stand up, and speak up, it is not a loss. It is a moment. It is a movement.”
Hyde-Smith's comments sparked Democrats’ hopes for another Senate upset in the Deep South after Sen. Doug Jones (D) defeated Republican candidate Roy Moore Roy Stewart MooreGOP Senate candidate Tommy Tuberville says Trump has 'put a noose' around farmers' necks with trade war Sen. Doug Jones launches reelection bid in Alabama Flake donates to Democratic sheriff being challenged by Arpaio in Arizona MORE in a special election last year.
Trump made a last-minute trip to Mississippi the eve of the runoff in a bid to boost Republican turnout. He urged voters not to take the race for granted and attacked Espy as a “far-left” politician who would vote in lockstep with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerMcCarthy shares 'Stranger Things' parody video criticizing impeachment 2020 Democrats push for gun control action at forum O'Rourke hits Buttigieg over not supporting mandatory gun buybacks: 'It's time to lead' MORE (D-N.Y.).
Republicans also poured millions of dollars into the race, with the Republican National Committee using 100 staffers on the ground to make over a million voter contacts.
But Democrats faced long odds in a state that Trump won by nearly 18 points and one where he remains broadly popular.
Espy was looking to make a political comeback after being out of public office for more than two decades.
He served as a congressman of Mississippi’s 2nd District — the state’s only majority-black district — from 1987 to 1993. He was then tapped as former President Clinton’s Agriculture secretary, becoming the first African-American to serve in that role.
But Espy had his own baggage in the Senate race, as Republicans sought to put the spotlight on his past bribery allegations, which caused him to step down as Agriculture secretary in 1994. He was acquitted of all charges in 1998.
The Democrat's past lobbying contract — and the money he received — with a West African despot also came under intense scrutiny during the campaign.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
uH6ZuZeJdZhHN4uO
|
|
white_house
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/opinion/trump-fire-mueller.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
|
OPINION: Of Course Trump Can Fire Mueller. He Shouldn’t.
|
2018-04-13
|
John Yoo, Saikrishna Prakash
|
But this narrow view of the president ’ s options rests on a misunderstanding of basic constitutional principles . Ever since the founding , presidents , Congresses and the Supreme Court have recognized that the chief executive has constitutional power to remove executive officers . As James Madison noted in 1789 : “ Is the power of displacing an executive power ? I conceive that if any power whatsoever is in its nature executive , it is the power of appointing , overseeing , and controlling those who execute the laws. ” In Myers v. U.S. ( 1926 ) , the Supreme Court observed “ it was natural , therefore , for those who framed our Constitution to regard the words ‘ executive power ’ as including ” the power to remove executive officers .
A regulation issued by the Justice Department should not be read to limit the president ’ s constitutional power to remove officers . Otherwise , a mere cabinet officer could prevent future presidents from exercising the constitutional authorities of their office . The chief executive commands the attorney general , not the other way around .
A bipartisan group of senators are currently mulling a proposal to prevent the president from firing Mr. Mueller except for cause , and to allow the courts to review his removal . The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled the bill for a possible vote next week .
But any law that prevents the president from removing executive officers would be constitutionally problematic . In his lonely dissent in Morrison v. Olson ( 1988 ) , Justice Antonin Scalia noted that independent counsels would become unhinged Inspector Javerts . “ Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad , so to speak , in sheep ’ s clothing , ” Mr. Scalia wrote . “ But this wolf comes as a wolf . ”
Mr. Scalia had in mind the Iran-contra investigation , which attempted to criminalize a separation of powers dispute between the executive and legislative branches over foreign policy . In the following decade , Democrats belatedly saw the light , too . Ken Starr ’ s investigation of Bill Clinton lasted for years , consumed enormous resources , and resulted in few convictions . By the end , Congress allowed the independent counsel law to quietly die . Resurrecting this Frankenstein would once again strike a blow at the separation of powers , which protects individual liberty as surely as the Bill of Rights itself . It would also let Congress off the hook for conducting a vigorous probe and possible impeachment — the constitutional text ’ s only device to punish a sitting president .
Mr. Trump can short-circuit the Senate and shift the political momentum in his favor . Rather than fire Mr. Mueller , the president should promise his honest and complete cooperation with his nemesis , including agreeing to a one-on-one interview .
But Mr. Trump should also make clear that the special counsel must keep to his mandate — Russian meddling in the 2016 elections — and forget the unrelated payments to various mistresses , which , however sordid , do not relate to that investigation . If Mr. Mueller does not bring the investigation to a swift conclusion , Mr. Trump could then consider using his favorite line : “ You ’ re fired . ”
|
But this narrow view of the president’s options rests on a misunderstanding of basic constitutional principles. Ever since the founding, presidents, Congresses and the Supreme Court have recognized that the chief executive has constitutional power to remove executive officers. As James Madison noted in 1789: “Is the power of displacing an executive power? I conceive that if any power whatsoever is in its nature executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.” In Myers v. U.S. (1926), the Supreme Court observed “it was natural, therefore, for those who framed our Constitution to regard the words ‘executive power’ as including” the power to remove executive officers.
A regulation issued by the Justice Department should not be read to limit the president’s constitutional power to remove officers. Otherwise, a mere cabinet officer could prevent future presidents from exercising the constitutional authorities of their office. The chief executive commands the attorney general, not the other way around.
A bipartisan group of senators are currently mulling a proposal to prevent the president from firing Mr. Mueller except for cause, and to allow the courts to review his removal. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled the bill for a possible vote next week.
But any law that prevents the president from removing executive officers would be constitutionally problematic. In his lonely dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), Justice Antonin Scalia noted that independent counsels would become unhinged Inspector Javerts. “Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing,” Mr. Scalia wrote. “But this wolf comes as a wolf.”
Mr. Scalia had in mind the Iran-contra investigation, which attempted to criminalize a separation of powers dispute between the executive and legislative branches over foreign policy. In the following decade, Democrats belatedly saw the light, too. Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton lasted for years, consumed enormous resources, and resulted in few convictions. By the end, Congress allowed the independent counsel law to quietly die. Resurrecting this Frankenstein would once again strike a blow at the separation of powers, which protects individual liberty as surely as the Bill of Rights itself. It would also let Congress off the hook for conducting a vigorous probe and possible impeachment — the constitutional text’s only device to punish a sitting president.
Mr. Trump can short-circuit the Senate and shift the political momentum in his favor. Rather than fire Mr. Mueller, the president should promise his honest and complete cooperation with his nemesis, including agreeing to a one-on-one interview.
But Mr. Trump should also make clear that the special counsel must keep to his mandate — Russian meddling in the 2016 elections — and forget the unrelated payments to various mistresses, which, however sordid, do not relate to that investigation. If Mr. Mueller does not bring the investigation to a swift conclusion, Mr. Trump could then consider using his favorite line: “You’re fired.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
dC47VCzLEEI68wIC
|
elections
|
The Epoch Times
| 22
|
https://www.theepochtimes.com/10-1-million-people-watched-trumps-tulsa-rally-online-campaign-says_3396455.html
|
10.1 Million People Watched Trump’s Tulsa Rally Online, Campaign Says
|
2020-06-21
|
President Donald Trump at a campaign rally at the BOK Center in Tulsa , Okla. , on June 20 , 2020 . ( Charlotte Cuthbertson/███ )
10.1 Million People Watched Trump ’ s Tulsa Rally Online , Campaign Says
More than 10 million people watched President Donald Trump ’ s reelection rally in Tulsa , Oklahoma , on June 20 , according to Gary Coby , the campaign ’ s digital director .
The total doesn ’ t include television viewers . More than 2.5 million people watched the rally prior to Trump ’ s speech , according to Tim Murtaugh , the campaign ’ s communications director .
The campaign noted the viewership numbers amid media reports spotlighting the fact that not all of the seats inside the venue were filled . The campaign had celebrated receiving 1 million ticket requests . Some 12,000 people attended the rally , based on a count of those who passed the metal detectors .
President Donald Trump points at the crowd as he enters his first re-election campaign rally in several months in the midst of the CCP virus outbreak , at the BOK Center in Tulsa , Okla. , on June 20 , 2020 . ( Leah Millis/Reuters )
Murtaugh noted that the media ’ s coverage prior to the event may have contributed to the lower turnout .
“ The news media , which encouraged protesters and bombarded Americans for more than a week with dire warnings against attending a Trump rally , are still unable to prevent President Trump from reaching the people , ” Murtaugh said . “ These numbers represent unmatched enthusiasm behind the President ’ s reelection and a massive audience that Joe Biden can only dream of . ”
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hasn ’ t held a rally since the beginning of the CCP virus pandemic .
As of June 21 , Biden led Trump by nearly 9.5 points in an average of polls maintained by Real Clear Politics . Trump held a $ 78 million lead in fundraising at the end of May . The president raised a record-breaking $ 14 million in a single day on his birthday , June 14 .
As is customary , Trump covered a range of topics at the rally , including the COVID-19 outbreak , the nationwide riots , the media , and socialism .
“ Biden is a very willing Trojan horse for socialism , ” the president said .
Members of the Biden campaign shared stories and comments on Twitter about the lower-than-expected turnout at the rally .
The Biden campaign also formally responded to a portion of Trump ’ s speech in which Trump recalled jokingly suggesting that testing for COVID-19 should be slowed due to the high number of cases turning up due to increased testing . The Biden campaign treated the anecdote as an actual policy directive .
“ In an outrageous moment that will be remembered long after tonight ’ s debacle of a rally , President Trump just admitted that he ’ s putting politics ahead of the safety and economic well-being of the American people , ” Biden campaign communications director Kate Bedingfield said in a statement .
A White House official told Reuters that the president was “ obviously kidding . ”
“ We are leading the world in testing and have conducted 25 million + in testing , ” the official said .
|
President Donald Trump at a campaign rally at the BOK Center in Tulsa, Okla., on June 20, 2020. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)
10.1 Million People Watched Trump’s Tulsa Rally Online, Campaign Says
More than 10 million people watched President Donald Trump’s reelection rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 20, according to Gary Coby, the campaign’s digital director.
The total doesn’t include television viewers. More than 2.5 million people watched the rally prior to Trump’s speech, according to Tim Murtaugh, the campaign’s communications director.
The campaign noted the viewership numbers amid media reports spotlighting the fact that not all of the seats inside the venue were filled. The campaign had celebrated receiving 1 million ticket requests. Some 12,000 people attended the rally, based on a count of those who passed the metal detectors.
President Donald Trump points at the crowd as he enters his first re-election campaign rally in several months in the midst of the CCP virus outbreak, at the BOK Center in Tulsa, Okla., on June 20, 2020. (Leah Millis/Reuters)
Murtaugh noted that the media’s coverage prior to the event may have contributed to the lower turnout.
“The news media, which encouraged protesters and bombarded Americans for more than a week with dire warnings against attending a Trump rally, are still unable to prevent President Trump from reaching the people,” Murtaugh said. “These numbers represent unmatched enthusiasm behind the President’s reelection and a massive audience that Joe Biden can only dream of.”
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hasn’t held a rally since the beginning of the CCP virus pandemic.
As of June 21, Biden led Trump by nearly 9.5 points in an average of polls maintained by Real Clear Politics. Trump held a $78 million lead in fundraising at the end of May. The president raised a record-breaking $14 million in a single day on his birthday, June 14.
As is customary, Trump covered a range of topics at the rally, including the COVID-19 outbreak, the nationwide riots, the media, and socialism.
“Biden is a very willing Trojan horse for socialism,” the president said.
Members of the Biden campaign shared stories and comments on Twitter about the lower-than-expected turnout at the rally.
The Biden campaign also formally responded to a portion of Trump’s speech in which Trump recalled jokingly suggesting that testing for COVID-19 should be slowed due to the high number of cases turning up due to increased testing. The Biden campaign treated the anecdote as an actual policy directive.
“In an outrageous moment that will be remembered long after tonight’s debacle of a rally, President Trump just admitted that he’s putting politics ahead of the safety and economic well-being of the American people,” Biden campaign communications director Kate Bedingfield said in a statement.
A White House official told Reuters that the president was “obviously kidding.”
“We are leading the world in testing and have conducted 25 million + in testing,” the official said.
|
www.theepochtimes.com
| 1right
|
egyQ7UPYlvuNRhLw
|
|
us_senate
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/senate-votes-on-national-emergency
|
Senate Votes on National Emergency
|
Some suggest that Congress “ remove Trump from office , so that he can not abuse incumbency to subvert the electoral process , but let the American people make the judgment on whether or not he gets a second term… Removing Trump from office for the remainder of his term would disable him from abusing presidential power again and protect the integrity of the electoral process from inappropriate interference . At the same time , letting him run for a second term would permit the American electorate to decide whether Trump , despite his attempt to subvert the system , should have another chance… Decoupling removal from disqualification lowers the stakes and changes the constitutional calculus . As long as Trump can run again , Republicans can not hide behind a claim that they are [ the ] ones protecting voter choice by opposing impeachment. ” Edward B. Foley , Politico
Some posit that “ the real crisis at the border [ is ] that asylum seekers and other immigrants who follow U.S. laws are being wrongly persecuted … “ The Trump administration ’ s policy of ‘ metering ’ asylum applications at the border — only letting in only a small number of migrants in each day — has created confusion and months-long waiting periods at ports of entry , despite the fact that denying individuals the right to apply for asylum is a violation of international human rights law . The extensive backup at ports of entry has caused desperate Central American families to cross between ports of entry instead , which has contributed to the spike in ‘ illegal ’ border crossings. ” Rebekah Entralgo , ThinkProgress
And yet “ this week has provided welcome flashes of independence from at least a few Republican lawmakers… the Senate Republicans ’ rebuke of the president shows that his chronic contempt for democratic norms — and for the Constitution — has become too much to stomach for at least some in his party. ” Editorial Board , New York Times
“ Senators from purple states stuck with Trump as colleagues with an easier path to re-election voted against him . That ’ s kind of strange … Usually it would be the vulnerable politicians who act as moderates , and those with safe seats who are comfortable with ideological extremism… Whether their political calculation is correct or not , Republican politicians have decided that the threats that matter are the ones coming from the Trumpier portions of their own party. ” Jonathan Bernstein , Bloomberg
“ A growing number of Senate Republicans , Trump ’ s biggest check against congressional Democrats , have grown uneasy with the president ’ s executive actions both in diplomacy and in domestic politics… “ [ But ] nationally , 90 percent of Republicans approve of Trump ’ s job performance , according to a Gallup poll released Thursday . And the president made clear that votes against him were an act of betrayal… There ’ s no way to win reelection if you don ’ t first win the GOP primary , so even Republicans who could face difficult general elections lined up behind Trump rather than risk his wrath. ” Paul Kane , Washington Post
“ The issue here isn ’ t whether there are big problems at the border . The issue is that Congress considered them and decided not to address them the way Trump wanted , so he used emergency powers to reverse that decision . That ’ s the precedent being set here , and it ’ s one Congress ignores at its peril. ” Jon Healey , Los Angeles Times
“ Hypocrisy is a term often bandied about too easily . But it was crystallized in a single moment Thursday , when 41 Republican senators voted to surrender their legislative authority to an overreaching president … [ The Republican senators ] who voted to safeguard Trump 's power grab [ will not ] have any credibility to complain when a future Democratic president invokes emergency powers on , say , gun violence or climate change. ” Editorial Board , USA Today
The right is generally supportive of terminating the declaration , arguing that it was a usurpation of Congress ’ s authority over spending .
The right is generally supportive of terminating the declaration , arguing that it was a usurpation of Congress ’ s authority over spending .
“ The problem with the emergency declaration is that , even if it ’ s technically legal… it is clearly pretextual and a way to do an end run around the congressional spending power . The president himself in his press conference announcing the emergency said that he didn ’ t have to do it , but that he wanted to build new fencing more quickly than he could without the declaration . ”
“ The border certainly needs better enforcement . It could use more wall . But it 's up to Congress , not the president , to appropriate money for the wall… The Left loves to declare that conservative talk of principles is a con and a cover story for self-serving ends . Votes like this lend credence to the charge . We applaud the dozen Republicans who voted for the resolution . We hope Congress ’ next step is to pass a bipartisan bill curbing presidential emergency powers . ”
“ The President has set terrible precedent with his emergency declaration . He negotiated with Congress , got nothing , so decided to go this route . To allow a president to exercise this power after failing in negotiations just sets a precedent for future Democrat presidents to do the same… if this President can declare an emergency for this border dispute , a future president could do the same for climate change . ”
Many are asking , “ Where were Mr. Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when President Obama violated the separation of powers again and again to achieve his policy goals ? Senate Democrats gave Mr. Obama a blank check on recess appointments , environmental and financial regulation , ObamaCare spending without appropriations , work permits for illegal immigrants , and much more . The courts later rebuked Mr. Obama on all of them . The GOP opposition is more sincere and significant because it comes at some political cost… [ But ] Mr. Trump should be careful not to test the limits of GOP Senate loyalty . ”
“ Politicians face a difficult decision when a president abuses his powers to achieve something their party wants to achieve . Under Obama that was [ DACA ] for illegal immigrants ; under Trump it ’ s an emergency declaration to build the wall . Democrats were pretty much silent about Obama ’ s abuses… Only four ( out of 186 voting ) [ in the House ] supported killing it via legislation , and the Democratic Senate did not even vote on the bill . By contrast , 13 out of 195 voting Republicans in the House sided against the emergency declaration , and an impressive twelve of 53 Republican senators voted that way as well . ”
Supporters of the President argue that “ I 'm sympathetic to arguments that the National Emergencies Act is too broad and gives the executive branch too much power . That 's a reasonable debate to have… But in the meantime , do n't pretend we did n't delegate all these powers , or that it 's lawless for the executive to use laws we passed , just because you deplore him . ”
Others note , “ I ’ d hate to be a Democratic member of Congress trying to convince Joe Sixpack that this is a whole new ballgame . The transcript shows Trump being Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky trying to ingratiate himself with the big dog by , for instance , mentioning that he stays at Trump hotels . Trump ’ s conversation is typically scattershot , wandering all over the field , leaving a reasonable listener puzzled about what the takeaways are supposed to be… “ I think Joe Sixpack ’ s response is going to be a hearty shrug . After all that has emerged about Trump so far , his approval rating is closely tracking Obama ’ s approval at the same point in his presidency . To get Mr. Sixpack ’ s attention you are going to have to do better than this . ”
|
Some suggest that Congress “remove Trump from office, so that he cannot abuse incumbency to subvert the electoral process, but let the American people make the judgment on whether or not he gets a second term… Removing Trump from office for the remainder of his term would disable him from abusing presidential power again and protect the integrity of the electoral process from inappropriate interference. At the same time, letting him run for a second term would permit the American electorate to decide whether Trump, despite his attempt to subvert the system, should have another chance… Decoupling removal from disqualification lowers the stakes and changes the constitutional calculus . As long as Trump can run again, Republicans cannot hide behind a claim that they are [the] ones protecting voter choice by opposing impeachment.” Edward B. Foley, Politico
Some posit that “the real crisis at the border [is] that asylum seekers and other immigrants who follow U.S. laws are being wrongly persecuted … “The Trump administration’s policy of ‘metering’ asylum applications at the border — only letting in only a small number of migrants in each day — has created confusion and months-long waiting periods at ports of entry, despite the fact that denying individuals the right to apply for asylum is a violation of international human rights law. The extensive backup at ports of entry has caused desperate Central American families to cross between ports of entry instead, which has contributed to the spike in ‘illegal’ border crossings.” Rebekah Entralgo, ThinkProgress
And yet “ this week has provided welcome flashes of independence from at least a few Republican lawmakers… the Senate Republicans’ rebuke of the president shows that his chronic contempt for democratic norms — and for the Constitution — has become too much to stomach for at least some in his party.” Editorial Board, New York Times
“Senators from purple states stuck with Trump as colleagues with an easier path to re-election voted against him. That’s kind of strange … Usually it would be the vulnerable politicians who act as moderates, and those with safe seats who are comfortable with ideological extremism… Whether their political calculation is correct or not, Republican politicians have decided that the threats that matter are the ones coming from the Trumpier portions of their own party.” Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg
“A growing number of Senate Republicans, Trump’s biggest check against congressional Democrats, have grown uneasy with the president’s executive actions both in diplomacy and in domestic politics… “[But] nationally, 90 percent of Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday. And the president made clear that votes against him were an act of betrayal… There’s no way to win reelection if you don’t first win the GOP primary , so even Republicans who could face difficult general elections lined up behind Trump rather than risk his wrath.” Paul Kane, Washington Post
“The issue here isn’t whether there are big problems at the border. The issue is that Congress considered them and decided not to address them the way Trump wanted, so he used emergency powers to reverse that decision. That’s the precedent being set here , and it’s one Congress ignores at its peril.” Jon Healey, Los Angeles Times
“Hypocrisy is a term often bandied about too easily. But it was crystallized in a single moment Thursday, when 41 Republican senators voted to surrender their legislative authority to an overreaching president … [The Republican senators] who voted to safeguard Trump's power grab [will not] have any credibility to complain when a future Democratic president invokes emergency powers on, say, gun violence or climate change.” Editorial Board, USA Today
From the Right
The right is generally supportive of terminating the declaration, arguing that it was a usurpation of Congress’s authority over spending.
From the Right
The right is generally supportive of terminating the declaration, arguing that it was a usurpation of Congress’s authority over spending.
“The problem with the emergency declaration is that, even if it’s technically legal… it is clearly pretextual and a way to do an end run around the congressional spending power. The president himself in his press conference announcing the emergency said that he didn’t have to do it, but that he wanted to build new fencing more quickly than he could without the declaration.”
The Editors, National Review
“The border certainly needs better enforcement. It could use more wall. But it's up to Congress, not the president, to appropriate money for the wall… The Left loves to declare that conservative talk of principles is a con and a cover story for self-serving ends. Votes like this lend credence to the charge. We applaud the dozen Republicans who voted for the resolution. We hope Congress’ next step is to pass a bipartisan bill curbing presidential emergency powers.”
Editorial Board, Washington Examiner
“The President has set terrible precedent with his emergency declaration. He negotiated with Congress, got nothing, so decided to go this route. To allow a president to exercise this power after failing in negotiations just sets a precedent for future Democrat presidents to do the same… if this President can declare an emergency for this border dispute, a future president could do the same for climate change.”
Erick Erickson, The Resurgent
Many are asking, “Where were Mr. Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when President Obama violated the separation of powers again and again to achieve his policy goals? Senate Democrats gave Mr. Obama a blank check on recess appointments, environmental and financial regulation, ObamaCare spending without appropriations, work permits for illegal immigrants, and much more. The courts later rebuked Mr. Obama on all of them. The GOP opposition is more sincere and significant because it comes at some political cost… [But] Mr. Trump should be careful not to test the limits of GOP Senate loyalty.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Politicians face a difficult decision when a president abuses his powers to achieve something their party wants to achieve. Under Obama that was [DACA] for illegal immigrants; under Trump it’s an emergency declaration to build the wall. Democrats were pretty much silent about Obama’s abuses… Only four (out of 186 voting) [in the House] supported killing it via legislation, and the Democratic Senate did not even vote on the bill. By contrast, 13 out of 195 voting Republicans in the House sided against the emergency declaration, and an impressive twelve of 53 Republican senators voted that way as well.”
Robert Verbruggen, National Review
Supporters of the President argue that “I'm sympathetic to arguments that the National Emergencies Act is too broad and gives the executive branch too much power. That's a reasonable debate to have… But in the meantime, don't pretend we didn't delegate all these powers, or that it's lawless for the executive to use laws we passed, just because you deplore him.”
Tom Cotton, Senate.gov
Others note, “I’d hate to be a Democratic member of Congress trying to convince Joe Sixpack that this is a whole new ballgame. The transcript shows Trump being Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky trying to ingratiate himself with the big dog by, for instance, mentioning that he stays at Trump hotels. Trump’s conversation is typically scattershot, wandering all over the field, leaving a reasonable listener puzzled about what the takeaways are supposed to be… “I think Joe Sixpack’s response is going to be a hearty shrug. After all that has emerged about Trump so far, his approval rating is closely tracking Obama’s approval at the same point in his presidency. To get Mr. Sixpack’s attention you are going to have to do better than this.”
Kyle Smith, National Review
|
www.theflipside.io
| 2center
|
u4KLzN2RJcXqu3Sx
|
||
white_house
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/World/GlobalTalk/turkey-seal-syria-border/2015/11/28/id/703738/
|
Obama Administration Calls for Turkey to Seal Off Syrian Border Read more: Obama Administration Calls for Turkey to Seal Off Syrian Border
|
2015-11-28
|
Sandy Fitzgerald
|
The U.S. wants Turkey to seal off a 60-mile stretch of its border with Syria in hopes of blocking the Islamic State ( ISIS ) from moving in foreign fighters , a move that Pentagon officials estimate could take as many as 30,000 soldiers.Turkey has agreed that it needs to tighten the border , and does n't think it will take as many troops , reports The Wall Street Journal , but has demands of its own , including support for a safe zone in Syria , which the Obama administration has rejected.Further , Turkey points out that Washington has not been able to seal the U.S./Mexico border , a statement that angered U.S. officials. “ If we were at war with Mexico , we ’ d close that border , ” a senior official responded to that line of argument.Turkey also wants more financial help from Europe for dealing with the 2.2 million refugees that have come across the border.Instead , U.S. officials believe increasing Turkey 's deployment at its border would be the best way to close off the transit routes . Meanwhile , the United States wants to launch airstrikes in Syria , but has been slowed by Russia 's own airstrikes.U.S . and Turkish leaders already agreed in July on a joint effort for the border , but after the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris , the operation is becoming more urgent , and even after Turkey shot down a Russian military jet , the Obama administration is n't backing down from its demand that Turkey place more troops along the border , especially between two towns that are transit points for ISIS . `` This is an international threat , and it 's all coming out of Syria and it 's coming through Turkish territory , '' an unnamed , senior Obama administration official told the Journal.Turkey is willing to secure the border , a senior official from that country told the publication , and said there is no need of a warning from the United States . But still , the United States has agreed , in principle , to allow air support for rebel troops to fight ISIS on the Syrian side of the border , and Turkey says when that happens , it will be `` obvious to increase troops on our border . `` Pentagon leaders are worried that Turkey will not be able to attract enough rebels on the Syrian side to fight ISIS , and Obama administration officials want Turkey to take the initiative by closing its border.Turkey , meanwhile , believes closing the border is not enough : a safe zone is needed . The U.S. opposes creating a safe zone.There also could be negative reaction from Europe if Turkey does not close its border and more ISIS fighters come through to Europe to commit terrorist attacks . `` They need to step up their game when it comes to this and they can ’ t necessarily look to us to fortify their border for them , '' a senior U.S. official said . `` Paris is a wake-up call to them that this is a problem they don ’ t have under control. ” Turkey has taken some action in recent months , including closing main border crossing points , and has arrested key ISIS militants .
|
The U.S. wants Turkey to seal off a 60-mile stretch of its border with Syria in hopes of blocking the Islamic State (ISIS) from moving in foreign fighters, a move that Pentagon officials estimate could take as many as 30,000 soldiers.Turkey has agreed that it needs to tighten the border, and doesn't think it will take as many troops, reports The Wall Street Journal , but has demands of its own, including support for a safe zone in Syria, which the Obama administration has rejected.Further, Turkey points out that Washington has not been able to seal the U.S./Mexico border, a statement that angered U.S. officials.“If we were at war with Mexico, we’d close that border,” a senior official responded to that line of argument.Turkey also wants more financial help from Europe for dealing with the 2.2 million refugees that have come across the border.Instead, U.S. officials believe increasing Turkey's deployment at its border would be the best way to close off the transit routes. Meanwhile, the United States wants to launch airstrikes in Syria, but has been slowed by Russia's own airstrikes.U.S. and Turkish leaders already agreed in July on a joint effort for the border, but after the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, the operation is becoming more urgent, and even after Turkey shot down a Russian military jet, the Obama administration isn't backing down from its demand that Turkey place more troops along the border, especially between two towns that are transit points for ISIS."This is an international threat, and it's all coming out of Syria and it's coming through Turkish territory," an unnamed, senior Obama administration official told the Journal.Turkey is willing to secure the border, a senior official from that country told the publication, and said there is no need of a warning from the United States. But still, the United States has agreed, in principle, to allow air support for rebel troops to fight ISIS on the Syrian side of the border, and Turkey says when that happens, it will be "obvious to increase troops on our border."Pentagon leaders are worried that Turkey will not be able to attract enough rebels on the Syrian side to fight ISIS, and Obama administration officials want Turkey to take the initiative by closing its border.Turkey, meanwhile, believes closing the border is not enough: a safe zone is needed. The U.S. opposes creating a safe zone.There also could be negative reaction from Europe if Turkey does not close its border and more ISIS fighters come through to Europe to commit terrorist attacks."They need to step up their game when it comes to this and they can’t necessarily look to us to fortify their border for them," a senior U.S. official said. "Paris is a wake-up call to them that this is a problem they don’t have under control.”Turkey has taken some action in recent months, including closing main border crossing points, and has arrested key ISIS militants.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
ySR9y7QgDU2DVdBX
|
economy_and_jobs
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2015/02/23/why-those-wage-equality-demands-should-be-aimed-at-hillary-clinton-n1961085
|
Why Those Wage Equality Demands Should be Aimed at Hillary Clinton
|
2015-02-23
|
"Cortney OBrien", Beth Baumann, Bronson Stocking, Matt Vespa
|
We all heard Patricia Arquette calling for wage equality and women ’ s rights last night on the Oscar stage , with her new Supporting Actress award in hand . Meryl Streep and J-Lo just about went nuts cheering on her feminist speech and Planned Parenthood was giddy with glee on Twitter .
COSIGN ALL OF THAT , @ PattyArquette : `` It is time for wage equality ... and equal rights for women in America ! '' # Oscars2015 # fyeahfeminism — Planned Parenthood ( @ PPact ) February 23 , 2015
With their passionate pleas for gender equality in the workplace , I wonder how these same figures and women ’ s organizations will react to this morning ’ s news that Hillary Clinton paid women on her staff only 72 cents for every dollar paid for men while working in the U.S. Senate . From the Washington Free Beacon :
During those years , the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton ’ s office was $ 15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man , according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports .
The inequality in Clinton ’ s office is a bit ironic , considering the causes the former Secretary of State professes to promote .
20 years ago , women made 72 cents on the dollar to men . Today it 's still just 77 cents . More work to do . # EqualPay # NoCeilings — Hillary Clinton ( @ HillaryClinton ) April 9 , 2014
Those “ ceilings ” she speaks of seem to have been right over her and her staff ’ s own heads .
In June , the Free Beacon also broke the news that in the 1980s Clinton defended a man who raped an underage girl – a scandal which will be remembered as The Hillary Tapes .
Yet , groups like Planned Parenthood and EMILY ’ s List continue to honor her “ efforts ” on behalf of women . And as for those same A-list celebrities who cheered for wage equality last night , they appear to have no problem being chummy with the former First Lady .
I wonder , after these pay gap revelations , if Clinton will now feel the wrath of these famous feminists and popular women ’ s rights groups , or if the latter will continue to air their grievances against the “ real threat ” – the suffocating patriarchy .
The answer is too obvious to be placed inside one of those golden envelopes .
|
We all heard Patricia Arquette calling for wage equality and women’s rights last night on the Oscar stage, with her new Supporting Actress award in hand. Meryl Streep and J-Lo just about went nuts cheering on her feminist speech and Planned Parenthood was giddy with glee on Twitter.
COSIGN ALL OF THAT, @PattyArquette: "It is time for wage equality...and equal rights for women in America!" #Oscars2015 #fyeahfeminism — Planned Parenthood (@PPact) February 23, 2015
With their passionate pleas for gender equality in the workplace, I wonder how these same figures and women’s organizations will react to this morning’s news that Hillary Clinton paid women on her staff only 72 cents for every dollar paid for men while working in the U.S. Senate. From the Washington Free Beacon:
During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.
The inequality in Clinton’s office is a bit ironic, considering the causes the former Secretary of State professes to promote.
20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it's still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay #NoCeilings — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 9, 2014
Those “ceilings” she speaks of seem to have been right over her and her staff’s own heads.
In June, the Free Beacon also broke the news that in the 1980s Clinton defended a man who raped an underage girl – a scandal which will be remembered as The Hillary Tapes.
In other words, she is hardly a feminist hero.
Yet, groups like Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List continue to honor her “efforts” on behalf of women. And as for those same A-list celebrities who cheered for wage equality last night, they appear to have no problem being chummy with the former First Lady.
I wonder, after these pay gap revelations, if Clinton will now feel the wrath of these famous feminists and popular women’s rights groups, or if the latter will continue to air their grievances against the “real threat” – the suffocating patriarchy.
The answer is too obvious to be placed inside one of those golden envelopes.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
BKotCwVQhYIZSjnH
|
elections
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-states/wisconsin-republicans-democrats-debate-laws-that-curb-incoming-democrats-power-idUSKBN1O411E
|
Wisconsin Republicans pass bill to curb incoming Democrats' power
|
2018-12-05
|
Joseph Ax
|
( ███ ) - Facing the loss of complete control of state government next month , Wisconsin Republicans passed legislation on Wednesday to weaken the powers of the newly elected Democratic governor and attorney general .
The final votes in the state Senate and Assembly came around dawn , following hours of debate during which Democrats accused Republicans of a naked last-minute power grab that ignores the results of the Nov. 6 election .
Republicans defended the legislation as a good-faith effort to ensure the legislative and executive branches remain equals .
Republican Governor Scott Walker , who was heckled with chants of “ Shame ! ” from dozens of protesters during a Tuesday tree-lighting ceremony , has indicated he will sign the legislation . His office did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday .
Governor-elect Tony Evers , the Democrat who will succeed him in January , issued a blistering statement criticizing the vote .
“ Power-hungry politicians rushed through sweeping changes to our laws to expand their own power and override the will of the people of Wisconsin who asked for change , ” he said .
The Wisconsin legislation would allow legislators , rather than the attorney general , to decide whether to withdraw the state from lawsuits . That measure is aimed at preventing Evers and the incoming attorney general , Josh Kaul , from following through on campaign promises to end Wisconsin ’ s challenge to the federal Affordable Care Act , popularly known as Obamacare .
The legislation also restricts Evers ’ ability to install rules that implement state laws .
Democrats have said they expect the new bills to be challenged in court .
Republican legislative majorities in other states where Democrats gained power in November have also sought to use lame-duck sessions to push through priorities and hamstring incoming Democrats .
Michigan ’ s Republican-led legislature was poised on Wednesday to advance measures that would allow lawmakers to sidestep the attorney general in litigation and strip away campaign finance oversight from the secretary of state . Both posts , along with the governor ’ s mansion , will be turned over to Democrats in January after eight years of total Republican control .
Republicans in the state also watered down minimum wage and sick leave laws on Tuesday , the culmination of a months-long strategy that involved passing the initial bills in September to keep the measures from appearing on November ’ s ballot as a voter referendum . Democrats have called the move illegal and vowed to sue .
North Carolina ’ s Republican-dominated legislature could approve a new voter identification law as soon as Wednesday during its own lame-duck session . The Republicans are pushing to finish the ID law before January , when they will lose the supermajority that can currently overcome Democratic Governor Roy Cooper ’ s veto .
The various efforts are reminiscent of maneuvers by North Carolina Republicans to remove powers from the governor ’ s office after Cooper won election in 2016 .
Meanwhile , investigators are probing the validity of hundreds of mail-in ballots handled by political operatives in a closely contested congressional race that has led the state to hold off certifying a Republican ’ s apparent victory .
|
(Reuters) - Facing the loss of complete control of state government next month, Wisconsin Republicans passed legislation on Wednesday to weaken the powers of the newly elected Democratic governor and attorney general.
The final votes in the state Senate and Assembly came around dawn, following hours of debate during which Democrats accused Republicans of a naked last-minute power grab that ignores the results of the Nov. 6 election.
Republicans defended the legislation as a good-faith effort to ensure the legislative and executive branches remain equals.
Republican Governor Scott Walker, who was heckled with chants of “Shame!” from dozens of protesters during a Tuesday tree-lighting ceremony, has indicated he will sign the legislation. His office did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
Governor-elect Tony Evers, the Democrat who will succeed him in January, issued a blistering statement criticizing the vote.
“Power-hungry politicians rushed through sweeping changes to our laws to expand their own power and override the will of the people of Wisconsin who asked for change,” he said.
The Wisconsin legislation would allow legislators, rather than the attorney general, to decide whether to withdraw the state from lawsuits. That measure is aimed at preventing Evers and the incoming attorney general, Josh Kaul, from following through on campaign promises to end Wisconsin’s challenge to the federal Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.
The legislation also restricts Evers’ ability to install rules that implement state laws.
Democrats have said they expect the new bills to be challenged in court.
HAMSTRINGING MICHIGAN DEMOCRATS
Republican legislative majorities in other states where Democrats gained power in November have also sought to use lame-duck sessions to push through priorities and hamstring incoming Democrats.
Michigan’s Republican-led legislature was poised on Wednesday to advance measures that would allow lawmakers to sidestep the attorney general in litigation and strip away campaign finance oversight from the secretary of state. Both posts, along with the governor’s mansion, will be turned over to Democrats in January after eight years of total Republican control.
Republicans in the state also watered down minimum wage and sick leave laws on Tuesday, the culmination of a months-long strategy that involved passing the initial bills in September to keep the measures from appearing on November’s ballot as a voter referendum. Democrats have called the move illegal and vowed to sue.
FILE PHOTO: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers greets supporters at an election eve rally in Madison, Wisconsin, U.S. November 5, 2018. REUTERS/Nick Oxford
North Carolina’s Republican-dominated legislature could approve a new voter identification law as soon as Wednesday during its own lame-duck session. The Republicans are pushing to finish the ID law before January, when they will lose the supermajority that can currently overcome Democratic Governor Roy Cooper’s veto.
The various efforts are reminiscent of maneuvers by North Carolina Republicans to remove powers from the governor’s office after Cooper won election in 2016.
Meanwhile, investigators are probing the validity of hundreds of mail-in ballots handled by political operatives in a closely contested congressional race that has led the state to hold off certifying a Republican’s apparent victory.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
AQIn35d6ufeG88DY
|
trade
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/10/donald-trump-threat-kill-nafta-boosts-usmca/
|
Trump corners Democrats with threat to kill NAFTA: 'It is going to force Congress to act'
|
2018-12-10
|
S.A. Miller
|
Democratic congressional leaders are loath to acknowledge it , but President Trump has them cornered with his threat to terminate NAFTA if his new trade deal with Mexico and Canada isn ’ t approved .
Scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement without a replacement would deliver a heavy blow to the U.S. economy . In the short term , it would reduce real U.S. gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services — by as much as $ 231 billion , more than 1 percent during the first five years , according to an analysis commissioned by the Business Roundtable .
“ Terminating NAFTA would have negative impacts on jobs , exports and output even after new supply chains are formed . In this longer run , we estimate that U.S. GDP would remain depressed by over 0.2 percent , permanently , ” said the report for the Business Roundtable , an association of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations .
The impact on the U.S. GDP , about $ 19.3 trillion in 2017 , would depend on the reactions of Mexico and Canada . Alternative scenarios in the analysis pegged the reduced annual GDP at $ 119 billion to $ 231 billion , with job losses from 1.8 million to 3.6 million in the five-year window .
Sen. Charles E. Grassley , the Iowa Republican who next year will take charge of the Senate Finance Committee , which oversees trade agreements , said the president has Congress over a barrel .
“ It seems to me it is going to force Congress to act — even if you disagree with parts of it , ” he said in an interview on the “ Adams on Agriculture ” program on the American Ag Radio Network .
“ Now that is a hard-nosed approach , but sometimes a president has to use that if he wants to get things accomplished , ” Mr. Grassley said .
Capitol Hill Democrats shrugged off Mr. Trump ’ s threat and vowed to tinker with the proposed U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) , potentially derailing a deal that legislatures in all three countries must approve .
Mr. Trump and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada signed the agreement on Nov. 30 , capping a year of intense negotiations that produced a trade deal that many said would be impossible to make .
Two days after signing the accord in Buenos Aires while the three leaders were attending the Group of 20 summit , Mr. Trump put Congress on notice .
“ I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly , ” he told reporters on the Air Force One flight back to Washington . “ Then Congress will have a choice of approving the USMCA , which is a phenomenal deal . Much , much better than NAFTA . A great deal . ”
The president threatened to rip up NAFTA , which he called the “ worst trade deal ever made. ” The threat helped force Mexico and Canada to the negotiating table .
Mr. Trump has found more agreement with Democrats than his fellow Republicans in criticizing the 24-year-old NAFTA , which is blamed for shipping jobs to Mexico and hastening the demise of U.S. manufacturing .
But Democrats , who take control of the House next month , have been less than enthusiastic about approving an agreement that would allow Mr. Trump to check off a major campaign promise .
The USMCA sets new rules on agriculture , technology and auto imports , protects autoworkers ’ jobs in the U.S. and opens Canada to American dairy products .
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , the California Democrat who is poised to become speaker of the House , described the new pact as a warmed-over NAFTA that doesn ’ t go far enough .
She joked that it was “ the bill formerly known as Prince , ” a reference to the late musician who once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol .
Mrs. Pelosi said Democrats will fight for measures to accompany USMCA that enforce labor and environmental requirements , as well as legislation in Mexico to address wages and working conditions .
“ I said it was a work in progress , ” she said . “ I know it ’ s work ; I hope it ’ s progress . ”
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey , the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee ’ s trade panel , said he doesn ’ t believe Mr. Trump would carry out the threat .
“ He ’ s not someone I take at his word . Trump boasted about what a great deal the USMCA was , yet a day after signing is resorting to threats to force Congress ‘ hand , ” he said . “ This doesn ’ t display confidence in the deal he made . I have more confidence in Congress continuing to work with [ U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer ] than it would seem Trump does . ”
“ Continuing the status quo of NAFTA is not an option . Too many jobs have been outsourced and wages lost to let the old agreement stand , ” he said . “ But simply withdrawing won ’ t do anything to raise wages here or in Mexico or reverse NAFTA ’ s destruction . ”
Mr. Trump has the authority to terminate the deal under NAFTA ’ s Article 2205 , which is the exit clause for member countries . Invoking it would begin a six-month waiting period before Mr. Trump could quit the deal .
Invoking Article 2205 would impose a six-month deadline on Congress to approve USMCA or revert to trade laws that were in effect in 1993 before NAFTA .
Congress might test Mr. Trump ’ s resolve , but the president has insisted that the U.S. would be just fine without NAFTA .
|
Democratic congressional leaders are loath to acknowledge it, but President Trump has them cornered with his threat to terminate NAFTA if his new trade deal with Mexico and Canada isn’t approved.
Scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement without a replacement would deliver a heavy blow to the U.S. economy. In the short term, it would reduce real U.S. gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services — by as much as $231 billion, more than 1 percent during the first five years, according to an analysis commissioned by the Business Roundtable.
“Terminating NAFTA would have negative impacts on jobs, exports and output even after new supply chains are formed. In this longer run, we estimate that U.S. GDP would remain depressed by over 0.2 percent, permanently,” said the report for the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations.
The impact on the U.S. GDP, about $19.3 trillion in 2017, would depend on the reactions of Mexico and Canada. Alternative scenarios in the analysis pegged the reduced annual GDP at $119 billion to $231 billion, with job losses from 1.8 million to 3.6 million in the five-year window.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who next year will take charge of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees trade agreements, said the president has Congress over a barrel.
“It seems to me it is going to force Congress to act — even if you disagree with parts of it,” he said in an interview on the “Adams on Agriculture” program on the American Ag Radio Network.
“Now that is a hard-nosed approach, but sometimes a president has to use that if he wants to get things accomplished,” Mr. Grassley said.
Capitol Hill Democrats shrugged off Mr. Trump’s threat and vowed to tinker with the proposed U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), potentially derailing a deal that legislatures in all three countries must approve.
Mr. Trump and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada signed the agreement on Nov. 30, capping a year of intense negotiations that produced a trade deal that many said would be impossible to make.
Two days after signing the accord in Buenos Aires while the three leaders were attending the Group of 20 summit, Mr. Trump put Congress on notice.
“I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly,” he told reporters on the Air Force One flight back to Washington. “Then Congress will have a choice of approving the USMCA, which is a phenomenal deal. Much, much better than NAFTA. A great deal.”
The president threatened to rip up NAFTA, which he called the “worst trade deal ever made.” The threat helped force Mexico and Canada to the negotiating table.
Mr. Trump has found more agreement with Democrats than his fellow Republicans in criticizing the 24-year-old NAFTA, which is blamed for shipping jobs to Mexico and hastening the demise of U.S. manufacturing.
But Democrats, who take control of the House next month, have been less than enthusiastic about approving an agreement that would allow Mr. Trump to check off a major campaign promise.
The USMCA sets new rules on agriculture, technology and auto imports, protects autoworkers’ jobs in the U.S. and opens Canada to American dairy products.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who is poised to become speaker of the House, described the new pact as a warmed-over NAFTA that doesn’t go far enough.
She joked that it was “the bill formerly known as Prince,” a reference to the late musician who once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol.
Mrs. Pelosi said Democrats will fight for measures to accompany USMCA that enforce labor and environmental requirements, as well as legislation in Mexico to address wages and working conditions.
“I said it was a work in progress,” she said. “I know it’s work; I hope it’s progress.”
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee’s trade panel, said he doesn’t believe Mr. Trump would carry out the threat.
“He’s not someone I take at his word. Trump boasted about what a great deal the USMCA was, yet a day after signing is resorting to threats to force Congress‘ hand,” he said. “This doesn’t display confidence in the deal he made. I have more confidence in Congress continuing to work with [U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer] than it would seem Trump does.”
Mr. Pascrell also called the agreement an “ongoing process.”
“Continuing the status quo of NAFTA is not an option. Too many jobs have been outsourced and wages lost to let the old agreement stand,” he said. “But simply withdrawing won’t do anything to raise wages here or in Mexico or reverse NAFTA’s destruction.”
Mr. Trump has the authority to terminate the deal under NAFTA’s Article 2205, which is the exit clause for member countries. Invoking it would begin a six-month waiting period before Mr. Trump could quit the deal.
Invoking Article 2205 would impose a six-month deadline on Congress to approve USMCA or revert to trade laws that were in effect in 1993 before NAFTA.
Congress might test Mr. Trump’s resolve, but the president has insisted that the U.S. would be just fine without NAFTA.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
lXn7FaC08KqbbW5W
|
violence_in_america
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-protests/index.html
|
Baltimore: After riots, protesters and police ensure peace
|
2015-04-29
|
Holly Yan, Brian Todd
|
Baltimore ( CNN ) The streets of Baltimore are calm once again . For the second night in a row , protesters peacefully dispersed Wednesday night after a 10 p.m. curfew meant to prevent riots that tore up the city two days earlier .
Many wore T-shirts that said `` Black Lives Matter , '' demanding accountability for the death of Freddie Gray .
While the Baltimore protesters remained calm , some of their counterparts across the country were not .
More than 100 people were arrested in New York during a `` NYC Rise Up & Shut It Down With Baltimore '' rally Wednesday night , New York police said .
And Denver police arrested 11 people for charges such as assaulting a police officer , robbery , resisting police , disobedience to lawful orders and obstructing roadways .
All this comes as protesters demand to know what happened to Gray , who was arrested April 12 and suffered a severe spinal cord injury . He died one week later .
Demonstrations are planned for Thursday in Cincinnati , CNN affiliate WXIX said .
And a `` Philly is Baltimore '' protest will take place at Philadelphia City Hall , Philly.com said .
Seattle , Portland , Oregon , and Oakland , California , are on tap for Friday , which is also May Day or International Workers Day -- often used to call attention to issues affecting the working class and minorities .
More than 100 people arrested during the fracas in Baltimore this week were released Wednesday without charges , the state public defender 's office said .
Authorities either had to charge or release them within 48 hours of their arrests .
`` We 've come up on a time line , '' said Police Commissioner Anthony Batts . But , he added : `` We 're not giving up on them . We 're just going to follow up . ''
Enya Baez-Ferreras , a student at Johns Hopkins University , joined in the protests Wednesday . She said the violence that marred Baltimore this week is not reflective of the city .
`` Baltimore is not violent . We have been under a lot of duress , and the violence that erupted the other day is only in reaction to the years and decades of oppression , of police brutality , of harassment that many of the Baltimore residents have been under , '' she said .
President Barack Obama denounced the `` violence , looting , destruction that we saw from a handful of individuals in Baltimore . ''
`` There 's no excuse for that , '' he said in an interview that aired Wednesday on `` The Steve Harvey Morning Show . ''
Obama said his `` heart goes out '' to injured officers , and he praised police who he said `` showed appropriate restraint . ''
But he also talked about the state of urban communities .
`` If you send police officers into those situations where the drug trade is the primary economy and you say to them basically your job is to contain that and arrest kids and put them in jail , when those police officers know ( it 's not going to fix things ) , then it 's not surprising you end up with a situation of enormous tension between those communities and those police officers , '' he said .
The relative calm that took over Baltimore can be credited in part to peaceful protesters who formed human barricades between hot-tempered demonstrators and police , day and night .
Baltimore residents line up to protect Police . # BaltimoreUprising pic.twitter.com/fLJRWfvv2d — Angie Crouch ( @ AngieNBCLA ) April 29 , 2015
`` We show that we can police ourselves , '' said a man who stood for hours in what protesters called a `` unity line . ''
`` We 're about positivity here in Baltimore . It starts with us . This long line of people came out here because what we seen on TV ( Monday night ) , we did n't like it . ''
The city implemented a 10 p.m.-to-5 a.m. curfew for a one-week period that started Tuesday .
Asked if she was considering lifting the curfew early , Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake told CNN 's Chris Cuomo she had not made a decision yet .
`` We re-evaluate it on a daily basis , '' the mayor said Thursday morning .
Many residents credited police for not overreacting after the curfew went into effect Tuesday night , setting the tone for peaceful dispersal
`` The Line '' . Maybe moved 100 ft in an hour + and made two arrests that we saw ... but the street cleared # OneBaltimore pic.twitter.com/SvNqbTNnMa — Chris Cuomo ( @ ChrisCuomo ) April 29 , 2015
`` The police did a fantastic job tonight , '' one person commented on Twitter . `` Technically they could of arrested everyone at 10:01 . ''
@ popcornreel and the police did a fantastic job tonight . Technically they could of arrested everyone at 10:01 — Lenni Meow ( @ Lenni819 ) April 29 , 2015
Some 2,000 National Guardsmen and more than 1,000 police officers from across Maryland and neighboring states were assigned to the streets of Baltimore on Tuesday night , Maryland Gov . Larry Hogan said .
While there was no major damage Wednesday , the recovery from Monday 's destruction is far from over .
Many saw their homes and vehicles damaged , their livelihoods in shambles .
So residents like Cindy Oxendine took to the streets to sweep up rocks , glass and more , despite her aching back .
the media will only show you what they want to show you . # BaltimoreUprising # BaltimoreRiots pic.twitter.com/NUm8D0BYEf — banksy ( @ thereaIbanksy ) April 29 , 2015
The governor 's office has started a website for those wanting to help Baltimore recover from this week 's riots .
`` We have received an outpouring of support from Marylanders and people all around the country who want to help get our beloved Baltimore back on its feet in the wake of the violence and destruction , '' Hogan said in a statement .
The website , governor.maryland.gov/mdunites/ , allows visitors to volunteer for cleanup efforts , donate to charities helping affected residents and report new incidents to police .
|
Baltimore (CNN) The streets of Baltimore are calm once again. For the second night in a row, protesters peacefully dispersed Wednesday night after a 10 p.m. curfew meant to prevent riots that tore up the city two days earlier.
Many wore T-shirts that said "Black Lives Matter," demanding accountability for the death of Freddie Gray.
While the Baltimore protesters remained calm, some of their counterparts across the country were not.
More than 100 people were arrested in New York during a "NYC Rise Up & Shut It Down With Baltimore" rally Wednesday night, New York police said.
And Denver police arrested 11 people for charges such as assaulting a police officer, robbery, resisting police, disobedience to lawful orders and obstructing roadways.
All this comes as protesters demand to know what happened to Gray, who was arrested April 12 and suffered a severe spinal cord injury. He died one week later.
More protests to come
Demonstrations are planned for Thursday in Cincinnati, CNN affiliate WXIX said.
And a "Philly is Baltimore" protest will take place at Philadelphia City Hall, Philly.com said.
Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California, are on tap for Friday, which is also May Day or International Workers Day -- often used to call attention to issues affecting the working class and minorities.
100 people released
More than 100 people arrested during the fracas in Baltimore this week were released Wednesday without charges, the state public defender's office said.
Authorities either had to charge or release them within 48 hours of their arrests.
"We've come up on a time line," said Police Commissioner Anthony Batts. But, he added: "We're not giving up on them. We're just going to follow up."
Deeper problems
Enya Baez-Ferreras, a student at Johns Hopkins University, joined in the protests Wednesday. She said the violence that marred Baltimore this week is not reflective of the city.
"Baltimore is not violent. We have been under a lot of duress, and the violence that erupted the other day is only in reaction to the years and decades of oppression, of police brutality, of harassment that many of the Baltimore residents have been under," she said.
President Barack Obama denounced the "violence, looting, destruction that we saw from a handful of individuals in Baltimore."
"There's no excuse for that," he said in an interview that aired Wednesday on "The Steve Harvey Morning Show."
Obama said his "heart goes out" to injured officers, and he praised police who he said "showed appropriate restraint."
But he also talked about the state of urban communities.
"If you send police officers into those situations where the drug trade is the primary economy and you say to them basically your job is to contain that and arrest kids and put them in jail, when those police officers know (it's not going to fix things), then it's not surprising you end up with a situation of enormous tension between those communities and those police officers," he said.
Protesters policed one another
The relative calm that took over Baltimore can be credited in part to peaceful protesters who formed human barricades between hot-tempered demonstrators and police, day and night.
Baltimore residents line up to protect Police. #BaltimoreUprising pic.twitter.com/fLJRWfvv2d — Angie Crouch (@AngieNBCLA) April 29, 2015
"We show that we can police ourselves," said a man who stood for hours in what protesters called a "unity line."
"We're about positivity here in Baltimore. It starts with us. This long line of people came out here because what we seen on TV (Monday night), we didn't like it."
The city implemented a 10 p.m.-to-5 a.m. curfew for a one-week period that started Tuesday.
Asked if she was considering lifting the curfew early, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake told CNN's Chris Cuomo she had not made a decision yet.
"We re-evaluate it on a daily basis," the mayor said Thursday morning.
Police restraint
Many residents credited police for not overreacting after the curfew went into effect Tuesday night, setting the tone for peaceful dispersal
"The Line". Maybe moved 100 ft in an hour + and made two arrests that we saw...but the street cleared #OneBaltimore pic.twitter.com/SvNqbTNnMa — Chris Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) April 29, 2015
"The police did a fantastic job tonight," one person commented on Twitter. "Technically they could of arrested everyone at 10:01."
@popcornreel and the police did a fantastic job tonight. Technically they could of arrested everyone at 10:01 — Lenni Meow (@Lenni819) April 29, 2015
Some 2,000 National Guardsmen and more than 1,000 police officers from across Maryland and neighboring states were assigned to the streets of Baltimore on Tuesday night, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said.
The cleanup
While there was no major damage Wednesday, the recovery from Monday's destruction is far from over.
Many saw their homes and vehicles damaged, their livelihoods in shambles.
So residents like Cindy Oxendine took to the streets to sweep up rocks, glass and more, despite her aching back.
the media will only show you what they want to show you. #BaltimoreUprising #BaltimoreRiots pic.twitter.com/NUm8D0BYEf — banksy (@thereaIbanksy) April 29, 2015
The governor's office has started a website for those wanting to help Baltimore recover from this week's riots.
"We have received an outpouring of support from Marylanders and people all around the country who want to help get our beloved Baltimore back on its feet in the wake of the violence and destruction," Hogan said in a statement.
The website, governor.maryland.gov/mdunites/ , allows visitors to volunteer for cleanup efforts, donate to charities helping affected residents and report new incidents to police.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
1nvWVDbzcZGYQWvF
|
elections
|
Guest Writer - Left
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/26/opinion/campaign-stops/Hillary-Clinton-Convention-Day-2.html?list_item=bill-clinton-pours-on-the-estrogen&ref=opinion&_r=0
|
OPINION: Bill Clinton Pours on the Estrogen
|
2016-07-26
|
PHILADELPHIA — His life took off , he said , when he fell in love with “ that girl . ”
He told a familiar love story , recounted in his memoir , about springtime at Yale Law School in 1971 and a “ magnetic ” girl with thick blond hair and big glasses and no makeup and a long , white flowery skirt .
He said when he first saw her in a political and civil rights class that he wanted to tap her on the shoulder but he knew if he did , he would be starting something beyond his control .
With a sky-blue tie and silvery hair and an easy smile , the 69-year-old looked healthier than he has on the trail . And he was sharp .
The Big Dog basked in the unique historic moment : a former president and a husband and a wannabe first lad making the case for a former first lady , a wife and a wannabe first woman president .
In an act of amazing self-restraint , the man who relishes the word “ I ” managed to make the talk , as he prefers to call his folksy speeches , all about her . He was positively uxorious .
She “ calls you when you ’ re sick , when your kid ’ s in trouble or when there ’ s a death in the family , ” Bill said of his partner of 40 years .
It has been said that the essence of the Clinton marriage is coming to each other ’ s rescue in critical moments . Or maybe more precisely , their byzantine conjugal dynamic works like this : One of them creates chaos — usually Bill — and then they get out of it together . Or as a former aide described the Clinton pattern : “ Hubris . Funk . Reintroduction . ”
“ You could drop her in any trouble spot , pick one , come back in a month and somehow , some way , she will have made it better , ” he said , in a line that could have applied to global crises or marital . ( An earlier celebrity speaker tonight was Tony Goldwyn , who plays the philandering president in a series inspired by Bill and Monica ) .
After the email shaming and a bloodless campaign , tonight it was Bill ’ s turn to rescue Hillary from being the most unknown known person in history . One of the most liked presidents was charged with humanizing one of the least liked presidential candidates .
“ One of the most seductive characters we ’ ve seen in American politics in our lifetime , ” as David Axelrod calls Bill Clinton , had to melt the sphinx-like aura of his guarded wife .
The uncontrollable Clinton had to make the tightly-controlled Clinton seem less coiled and more endearing . The Protean pol had to take his wife ’ s ever-shifting personas and policies , and paint a cohesive portrait . He rivaled Ivanka in his talent for airbrushing , but he probably won ’ t be offering his convention outfit for sale tonight .
Hill and Bill both have 100-percent name ID but Bill ’ s task was to reintroduce her as “ the best darn change-maker I have ever met in my entire life . ”
A quarter-century after Clinton aides wrote memos about how to warm up and round out Hillary by raising her profile as a mother , Bill was still trying to drive that point home .
“ My daughter had the best mother in the whole world , ” he said tonight , adding that Hillary was “ first and foremost ” a mother , “ our family ’ s designated worrier ” who only worried about Bill ’ s parenting when he took a couple days off with Chelsea to watch all six “ Police Academy ” movies “ back-to-back. ” He described Hillary on her knees , lining Chelsea ’ s Stanford dorm room drawers with paper when their daughter moved to college , until Chelsea told them it was time to leave .
It is another example of the overcorrecting that marks Hillary ’ s career . In trying to feminize and maternalize Hillary , Bill almost went overboard about that “ girl , ” as he called her three times . He poured on the estrogen , presaging his role as helpmeet in the East Wing .
He never mentioned Donald Trump , the man he used to be friendly with and play golf with . He simply alluded to the way the Republican convention had tried to turn Hillary into a “ cartoon ” villainess . “ Life in the real world is complicated and hard , ” he said , and “ a lot of people think it ’ s boring . ”
“ One is real , the other is made up , ” he said of the caricature of Hillary . “ You nominated the real one . ”
He implicitly compared his wife to her gilded rival , limning her as someone genuinely seeking a life of service . He talked about her summer sliming fish in Alaska and all her work for poor children .
Hillary has said that she never realized how hard it was to be as great a persuader and performer as Bill until she tried to do it herself .
Bill has now given 10 convention speeches and he has had awful moments and great ones . I was there in 1988 when he talked for 33 minutes and the Dukakis delegates began cheering when he finally said “ In closing… ” And I was there in 2012 , when he won raves for selling Barack Obama ’ s agenda , after the articulate-but-aloof president somehow wasn ’ t able to , and had to appoint Bill as “ Secretary of Explaining Stuff. ” This speech was slightly over 40 minutes .
Donald Trump had a soap opera actress speak at his convention but the Clintons easily topped that . Their lives have been an astonishing soap opera in which Bill has played many starring roles – the loyal spouse , the betraying spouse and the subconscious saboteur .
This was a night a long time coming for the former moot court partners , a night celebrating the promise that animates the Clinton partnership : She helped him . She moved to Arkansas for him . “ I really hoped that her choosing me and rejecting my advice to pursue her own career was a decision she would never regret , ” Bill said tonight .
She added the Clinton name to Rodham to please old-fashioned Southerners when Bill lost the governor ’ s mansion to help him win it back . Bill told the story tonight about how she engineered his comeback , noting “ My experience is it ’ s a pretty good thing to follow her advice . ”
Hillary chafed at eight years of the anachronistic role of first lady , even through slights like getting stationery with the restored middle name of Rodham missing as her husband campaigned for the White House . ( She sent it back . )
“ That girl ” put up with the humiliations of Bill ’ s hound-dog ways with “ that woman ” and others , and let him hide behind her skirt .
And tonight Bill paid her back — and tried to extend his own legacy — even as Trump gets ready to exert more effort dragging the former president through the mud . Jeb Bush had faltered partly on dynasty fatigue , but Bill does not intend to let that happen to Hillary .
Starting tonight and through the fall as he tries to woo back white voters and older voters in the Rust Belt and the South , he is trying to conjure the halcyon days of Clinton peace and prosperity . He does not want to remind people of the shady days of Clinton avarice and deceit , or the parts of his presidency or post-presidency that haven ’ t aged well , like Nafta , the crime bill , deregulation of Wall Street and the Defense of Marriage Act , the Marc Rich pardon or the unseemly braiding of the Clinton Foundation with Hillary ’ s State Department .
Bill tried to augment Hillary ’ s sparse vision , talking about how she would be the right pilot for “ the ride to America ’ s future. ” “ In the greatest country on earth we have always been about tomorrow , ” 42 said , urging America to choose Hillary as 45 . In other words : As Donald Trump tries to drag us back to the past — and to the Clintons ’ past — don ’ t stop thinking about tomorrow .
|
Bill Clinton Pours On the Estrogen
By Maureen Dowd
PHILADELPHIA — His life took off, he said, when he fell in love with “that girl.”
He told a familiar love story, recounted in his memoir, about springtime at Yale Law School in 1971 and a “magnetic” girl with thick blond hair and big glasses and no makeup and a long, white flowery skirt.
He said when he first saw her in a political and civil rights class that he wanted to tap her on the shoulder but he knew if he did, he would be starting something beyond his control.
With a sky-blue tie and silvery hair and an easy smile, the 69-year-old looked healthier than he has on the trail. And he was sharp.
The Big Dog basked in the unique historic moment: a former president and a husband and a wannabe first lad making the case for a former first lady, a wife and a wannabe first woman president.
In an act of amazing self-restraint, the man who relishes the word “I” managed to make the talk, as he prefers to call his folksy speeches, all about her. He was positively uxorious.
She “calls you when you’re sick, when your kid’s in trouble or when there’s a death in the family,” Bill said of his partner of 40 years.
It has been said that the essence of the Clinton marriage is coming to each other’s rescue in critical moments. Or maybe more precisely, their byzantine conjugal dynamic works like this: One of them creates chaos — usually Bill — and then they get out of it together. Or as a former aide described the Clinton pattern: “Hubris. Funk. Reintroduction.”
“You could drop her in any trouble spot, pick one, come back in a month and somehow, some way, she will have made it better,” he said, in a line that could have applied to global crises or marital. (An earlier celebrity speaker tonight was Tony Goldwyn, who plays the philandering president in a series inspired by Bill and Monica).
After the email shaming and a bloodless campaign, tonight it was Bill’s turn to rescue Hillary from being the most unknown known person in history. One of the most liked presidents was charged with humanizing one of the least liked presidential candidates.
“One of the most seductive characters we’ve seen in American politics in our lifetime,” as David Axelrod calls Bill Clinton, had to melt the sphinx-like aura of his guarded wife.
The uncontrollable Clinton had to make the tightly-controlled Clinton seem less coiled and more endearing. The Protean pol had to take his wife’s ever-shifting personas and policies, and paint a cohesive portrait. He rivaled Ivanka in his talent for airbrushing, but he probably won’t be offering his convention outfit for sale tonight.
Hill and Bill both have 100-percent name ID but Bill’s task was to reintroduce her as “the best darn change-maker I have ever met in my entire life.”
A quarter-century after Clinton aides wrote memos about how to warm up and round out Hillary by raising her profile as a mother, Bill was still trying to drive that point home.
“My daughter had the best mother in the whole world,” he said tonight, adding that Hillary was “first and foremost” a mother, “our family’s designated worrier” who only worried about Bill’s parenting when he took a couple days off with Chelsea to watch all six “Police Academy” movies “back-to-back.” He described Hillary on her knees, lining Chelsea’s Stanford dorm room drawers with paper when their daughter moved to college, until Chelsea told them it was time to leave.
It is another example of the overcorrecting that marks Hillary’s career. In trying to feminize and maternalize Hillary, Bill almost went overboard about that “girl,” as he called her three times. He poured on the estrogen, presaging his role as helpmeet in the East Wing.
He never mentioned Donald Trump, the man he used to be friendly with and play golf with. He simply alluded to the way the Republican convention had tried to turn Hillary into a “cartoon” villainess. “Life in the real world is complicated and hard,” he said, and “a lot of people think it’s boring.”
“One is real, the other is made up,” he said of the caricature of Hillary. “You nominated the real one.”
He implicitly compared his wife to her gilded rival, limning her as someone genuinely seeking a life of service. He talked about her summer sliming fish in Alaska and all her work for poor children.
Hillary has said that she never realized how hard it was to be as great a persuader and performer as Bill until she tried to do it herself.
Bill has now given 10 convention speeches and he has had awful moments and great ones. I was there in 1988 when he talked for 33 minutes and the Dukakis delegates began cheering when he finally said “In closing…” And I was there in 2012, when he won raves for selling Barack Obama’s agenda, after the articulate-but-aloof president somehow wasn’t able to, and had to appoint Bill as “Secretary of Explaining Stuff.” This speech was slightly over 40 minutes.
Donald Trump had a soap opera actress speak at his convention but the Clintons easily topped that. Their lives have been an astonishing soap opera in which Bill has played many starring roles – the loyal spouse, the betraying spouse and the subconscious saboteur.
This was a night a long time coming for the former moot court partners, a night celebrating the promise that animates the Clinton partnership: She helped him. She moved to Arkansas for him. “I really hoped that her choosing me and rejecting my advice to pursue her own career was a decision she would never regret,” Bill said tonight.
She added the Clinton name to Rodham to please old-fashioned Southerners when Bill lost the governor’s mansion to help him win it back. Bill told the story tonight about how she engineered his comeback, noting “My experience is it’s a pretty good thing to follow her advice.”
Hillary chafed at eight years of the anachronistic role of first lady, even through slights like getting stationery with the restored middle name of Rodham missing as her husband campaigned for the White House. (She sent it back.)
“That girl” put up with the humiliations of Bill’s hound-dog ways with “that woman” and others, and let him hide behind her skirt.
And tonight Bill paid her back — and tried to extend his own legacy — even as Trump gets ready to exert more effort dragging the former president through the mud. Jeb Bush had faltered partly on dynasty fatigue, but Bill does not intend to let that happen to Hillary.
Starting tonight and through the fall as he tries to woo back white voters and older voters in the Rust Belt and the South, he is trying to conjure the halcyon days of Clinton peace and prosperity. He does not want to remind people of the shady days of Clinton avarice and deceit, or the parts of his presidency or post-presidency that haven’t aged well, like Nafta, the crime bill, deregulation of Wall Street and the Defense of Marriage Act, the Marc Rich pardon or the unseemly braiding of the Clinton Foundation with Hillary’s State Department.
Bill tried to augment Hillary’s sparse vision, talking about how she would be the right pilot for “the ride to America’s future.” “In the greatest country on earth we have always been about tomorrow,” 42 said, urging America to choose Hillary as 45. In other words: As Donald Trump tries to drag us back to the past — and to the Clintons’ past — don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.
Maureen Dowd is an Op-Ed columnist for The Times.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
ilOliHz0BTcw2SUE
|
|
middle_east
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/12/video-islamic-state-nimrud/25667399/
|
Video purports to show ISIL destroying ancient city of Nimrud
|
2015-04-12
|
Jane Onyanga-Omara
|
CLOSE An online video purports to show Islamic State militants bombing ruins at the ancient Iraqi city of Nimrud . In the video , militants use sledgehammers , a bulldozer and explosives to level the site , located near the militant-held city of Mosul . ( April AP
A video purporting to show Islamic State extremists destroying the ancient Iraqi city of Nimrud has been posted online .
In the video , militants use drills , sledgehammers and a bulldozer to destroy ancient stone reliefs and walls , before huge explosions can be seen . The video footage could not be independently verified by ███ .
The Islamic State , also known as ISIL and ISIS , considers the artifacts to be idolatry .
The video , posted late Saturday , follows a statement from Iraq 's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in March that the militants used heavy armed military vehicles to bulldoze Nimrud , near the country 's second largest city of Mosul , which is held by the Islamic State .
Last month , U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called the devastation `` a war crime . ''
A militant in the video said : `` God has honored us in the Islamic State to remove all of these idols and statutes worshiped instead of Allah in the past days , '' the Associated Press reported .
Another militant says `` whenever we seize a piece of land , we will remove signs of idolatry and spread monotheism . ''
The AP added that authorities also believe the extremists have sold artifacts on the black market to fund their atrocities .
The ancient kingdom of Nimrud , on the banks of the Tigris River , began around 900 B.C . and was destroyed in 612 B.C .
A previous video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State showed militants using sledgehammers to knock over artifacts at the Mosul museum and destroying ancient Nineveh gates .
|
CLOSE An online video purports to show Islamic State militants bombing ruins at the ancient Iraqi city of Nimrud. In the video, militants use sledgehammers, a bulldozer and explosives to level the site, located near the militant-held city of Mosul. (April AP
An image taken from a video made available by Jihadist media outlet Welayat Nineveh on April 11 allegedly shows smoke billowing from an ancient site after it was wired with explosives by Islamic State in northern Iraq. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)
A video purporting to show Islamic State extremists destroying the ancient Iraqi city of Nimrud has been posted online.
In the video, militants use drills, sledgehammers and a bulldozer to destroy ancient stone reliefs and walls, before huge explosions can be seen. The video footage could not be independently verified by USA TODAY.
The Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS, considers the artifacts to be idolatry.
The video, posted late Saturday, follows a statement from Iraq's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in March that the militants used heavy armed military vehicles to bulldoze Nimrud, near the country's second largest city of Mosul, which is held by the Islamic State.
Last month, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called the devastation "a war crime."
A militant in the video said: "God has honored us in the Islamic State to remove all of these idols and statutes worshiped instead of Allah in the past days," the Associated Press reported.
An image taken from a video made available by Jihadist media outlet Welayat Nineveh on April 11 , allegedly shows members of the Islamic State destroying a stone slab with a sledgehammer. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Another militant says "whenever we seize a piece of land, we will remove signs of idolatry and spread monotheism."
The AP added that authorities also believe the extremists have sold artifacts on the black market to fund their atrocities.
The ancient kingdom of Nimrud, on the banks of the Tigris River, began around 900 B.C. and was destroyed in 612 B.C.
A previous video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State showed militants using sledgehammers to knock over artifacts at the Mosul museum and destroying ancient Nineveh gates.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1yn6NIH
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
MJh26bA1YHqAZQG9
|
federal_budget
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/03/11/donald-trumps-budget-calls-billions-more-border-wall/3072621002/
|
Dead on arrival? Trump's budget an unlikely wish list in divided Congress
|
2019-03-11
|
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump called for deep cuts in environmental and safety net programs , billions more for his border wall and a huge boost for the military in a $ 4.75 trillion 2020 budget proposal that is unlikely to gain traction in Congress .
Trump delivered his first budget under a divided government Monday , a road map that would not balance the books for 15 years despite deep reductions . The proposal also called for $ 8.6 billion for Trump 's border wall , a request Democrats flatly rejected .
`` Congress has been ignoring the president 's spending reductions for the last two years , '' Trump 's top budget aide , Russell Vought , told reporters when pressed for an explanation about why the budget anticipates a $ 1.1 trillion deficit next year .
Even before Democrats claimed control of the House , similar proposals by Trump failed in Congress . The schism between the president 's wish list and actual government spending only deepened after a dispute over the border wall led to a 35-day partial government shutdown that ended in January .
`` This is not a serious proposal , '' said Sen. Patrick Leahy , D-Vt. , the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee .
Presidential budgets , required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 , for decades have had more to do with politics than policy . With the 2020 election underway , the document gives Trump an opportunity to lay out a vision he can trumpet to supporters .
Not your budget : 'Get rid of the fat ' : Why Uncle Sam 's budget is different from yours
The White House is eager to sell three messages with the president 's third budget : that Trump hasn ’ t given up on building his long-promised border wall , that he wants to increase military spending and that he hopes to slash just about everything else .
The president requested $ 8.6 billion more for his wall , just weeks after Congress failed to approve his demand for $ 5.7 billion . With both sides dug in on the issue , the latest proposal is certain to go nowhere . Trump declared a national emergency in February , a move the White House says will free up billions more for the wall .
Trump is also requesting billions more in spending at the Defense Department – one of the few priorities that could gain some attention from lawmakers . After initially considering Pentagon cuts last year , the White House embraced a proposal to increase the Defense Department ’ s budget 5 percent to $ 750 billion .
• A $ 2.8 billion , or 31 percent reduction in for the Environmental Protection Agency and a $ 327 billion cut to safety-net programs . Some of that reduction would be carried out by imposing a work requirement for food stamps , Medicaid and other programs .
• A new user fee on e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery system products to `` address today ’ s alarming rise in youth e-cigarette use . ''
• Nearly $ 315 million to hire an additional 1,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 128 immigration court prosecuting attorneys .
• Almost $ 300 million toward the goal eliminating nearly all new infections of HIV/AIDS within 10 years .
Some proposals in Trump 's budget could become law , but most of the high-profile items will face tough odds .
Trump has proposed many of the same changes before , without success . Last year ’ s budget , which came at a time when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate , included $ 18 billion for the border wall . His 2017 budget proposed eliminating 62 federal agencies entirely . Congress largely ignored those requests and many others .
None of those agencies was eliminated and lawmakers approved only $ 1.37 billion for border barriers . That partly reflects a politically divided Congress but also the fact that the president 's budget has long been viewed as a wish list .
Government printers published about 20,000 hard copies of the president 's budget , and a spokesman for the Government Publishing Office says the online version of the document averages about 2 million retrievals each year .
The budget proposal must include information about how much the government collected in taxes and other revenue , the public debt and proposed spending priorities . But the real work of spending taxpayer money is handled by the congressional appropriations process . And that means Democrats and Republicans must work together to decide which programs should be prioritized .
Even some Republicans remained noncommittal about the White House proposal .
“ I look forward to reviewing additional details , '' said Sen. Richard Shelby , R-Ala. , the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee , `` Throughout the next few months , the ( committee ) will conduct hearings and carefully review the president ’ s proposal . ''
|
John Fritze
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump called for deep cuts in environmental and safety net programs, billions more for his border wall and a huge boost for the military in a $4.75 trillion 2020 budget proposal that is unlikely to gain traction in Congress.
Trump delivered his first budget under a divided government Monday, a road map that would not balance the books for 15 years despite deep reductions. The proposal also called for $8.6 billion for Trump's border wall, a request Democrats flatly rejected.
"Congress has been ignoring the president's spending reductions for the last two years," Trump's top budget aide, Russell Vought, told reporters when pressed for an explanation about why the budget anticipates a $1.1 trillion deficit next year.
Even before Democrats claimed control of the House, similar proposals by Trump failed in Congress. The schism between the president's wish list and actual government spending only deepened after a dispute over the border wall led to a 35-day partial government shutdown that ended in January.
"This is not a serious proposal," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Presidential budgets, required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, for decades have had more to do with politics than policy. With the 2020 election underway, the document gives Trump an opportunity to lay out a vision he can trumpet to supporters.
Not your budget:'Get rid of the fat': Why Uncle Sam's budget is different from yours
What Trump wants
The White House is eager to sell three messages with the president's third budget: that Trump hasn’t given up on building his long-promised border wall, that he wants to increase military spending and that he hopes to slash just about everything else.
The president requested $8.6 billion more for his wall, just weeks after Congress failed to approve his demand for $5.7 billion. With both sides dug in on the issue, the latest proposal is certain to go nowhere. Trump declared a national emergency in February, a move the White House says will free up billions more for the wall.
Trump is also requesting billions more in spending at the Defense Department – one of the few priorities that could gain some attention from lawmakers. After initially considering Pentagon cuts last year, the White House embraced a proposal to increase the Defense Department’s budget 5 percent to $750 billion.
Other proposals include:
• A $2.8 billion, or 31 percent reduction in for the Environmental Protection Agency and a $327 billion cut to safety-net programs. Some of that reduction would be carried out by imposing a work requirement for food stamps, Medicaid and other programs.
• A new user fee on e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery system products to "address today’s alarming rise in youth e-cigarette use."
• Nearly $315 million to hire an additional 1,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 128 immigration court prosecuting attorneys.
• Almost $300 million toward the goal eliminating nearly all new infections of HIV/AIDS within 10 years.
Why it won't happen
Some proposals in Trump's budget could become law, but most of the high-profile items will face tough odds.
Trump has proposed many of the same changes before, without success. Last year’s budget, which came at a time when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, included $18 billion for the border wall. His 2017 budget proposed eliminating 62 federal agencies entirely. Congress largely ignored those requests and many others.
None of those agencies was eliminated and lawmakers approved only $1.37 billion for border barriers. That partly reflects a politically divided Congress but also the fact that the president's budget has long been viewed as a wish list.
Government printers published about 20,000 hard copies of the president's budget, and a spokesman for the Government Publishing Office says the online version of the document averages about 2 million retrievals each year.
The budget proposal must include information about how much the government collected in taxes and other revenue, the public debt and proposed spending priorities. But the real work of spending taxpayer money is handled by the congressional appropriations process. And that means Democrats and Republicans must work together to decide which programs should be prioritized.
Even some Republicans remained noncommittal about the White House proposal.
“I look forward to reviewing additional details," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, "Throughout the next few months, the (committee) will conduct hearings and carefully review the president’s proposal."
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
re3lulQt7w2g7ogS
|
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/white-house-financial-disclosures/index.html
|
Michael Flynn left Russian speaking fees off initial financial disclosures
|
2017-03-31
|
Julia Horowitz, Theodore Schleifer, Eugene Scott
|
Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump 's former national security adviser , Michael Flynn , did not include receiving thousands of dollars in speaking fees from three Russian companies in initial financial disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics covering the last two years , copies of the reports show .
Flynn submitted the initial disclosures in mid-February , just days before he resigned from his post after it became public that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russia 's ambassador to the United States , Sergey Kislyak . His resignation came amid federal probes into allegations that Trump associates colluded with Russian operatives to interfere in the US election .
The initial disclosures left out that Flynn received money from Russia 's state-funded television network , RT , for a speech in Moscow in December 2015 and from air cargo company Volga-Dnepr Airlines and cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Government Security Solutions Inc. for speaking engagements in the United States . The initial document also left off nearly two dozen other speeches from a diverse array of organizations , including business groups and financial services companies , which Flynn was required to itemize .
Flynn included the speaking fees in disclosure forms he filed Friday , according to the documents . Both sets of filings were made public as part of a White House release of financial disclosures of 180 White House officials .
Flynn attorney Robert Kelner said Flynn `` had only just begun the financial disclosure filing process at the time he left the White House .
`` He filed a draft form explicitly listing his speakers bureau contract , and he expected to engage in the usual process of consultations with the White House Counsel 's Office and OGE regarding what he was expected to disclose , '' Kelner said . `` That process was suspended , however , after he resigned . When the White House asked him this week to complete the process and to itemize the specific speaking events , he did so . ''
When asked to list sources exceeding $ 5,000 year , in his initial paperwork , Flynn disclosed only five organizations from which he received speaking fees in the past two years , including a speakers bureau that set up many of the speaking engagements that he detailed in his second filing . The revised forms specify nearly 30 entities that paid Flynn to give speeches during the same period , saying he received at least $ 250,000 from individual companies , groups and speakers bureaus for the work .
Fourteen of those speeches were arranged by Leading Authorities , the bureau Flynn listed on his initial disclosure . The agency set him up with the three speeches to Russian groups , as well as talks to a slew of other companies and organizations , such as Wells Fargo and the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce .
Flynn also left some speeches off his initial forms that do n't appear to be linked to Leading Authorities or another speakers bureau . Those include talks to Halifax Investment Management and Black Duck Software , which he identified only as consulting jobs in his initial filing .
The initial and recent disclosures also show discrepancy in how he listed a speaking engagement paid for by Ibrahim Kurtulus , a former official with the nonprofit Assembly of Turkish American Associations , a Turkish-American advocacy group based in D.C .
In his initial forms , Flynn lists Kurtulus in a section detailing sources of income exceeding $ 5,000 in the past two years . In his revised forms , Flynn provided more detail in a section of the form covering income from the past year , saying he received $ 10,000 from Kurtulus for a speech he delivered in October 2016 .
The disclosure forms show Flynn made as much as $ 1.5 million last year . According to his financial snapshot , Flynn received $ 827,055 in salary and bonus from his firm , Flynn Intel Group , alone .
CNN has reported that Flynn gave the speech in Moscow , paid for by the Russian television network RT , but the existence of the other two speaking engagements paid for by Russian companies was disclosed last month by House Democrats .
In his recent filing , the retired lieutenant general listed the speaking engagement for `` RT TV '' when asked in the form to disclose `` compensation exceeding $ 5,000 in a year , '' but did not specify the amount . CNN previously reported that Flynn , according to a top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee , was paid more than $ 33,000 of a $ 45,000 speaking fee by RT for the speech in December 2015 , with most of the remainder of the money going to Leading Authorities , the speakers bureau .
The US intelligence community has long assessed RT , formerly called Russia Today , to be a propaganda tool of the Kremlin , writing in a January report on Russian interference in the US election that the organization had participated in disinformation campaigns aimed at the US . Flynn initially said he was paid by his speakers bureau for the talk .
The forms say Flynn received `` compensation exceeding $ 5,000 in a year '' from the Russian airline and cybersecurity company for speaking engagements in the United States . House Democrats last month also revealed the existence of those two speeches , saying Flynn received $ 11,250 from the airline and $ 11,250 from the cybersecurity firm .
The White House acknowledged in March that Trump 's transition team was aware before Flynn was tapped to serve as national security adviser that he had engaged in work that would likely require him to register his consulting firm as a foreign agent .
Flynn 's Justice Department filing last month raised questions when it revealed that Flynn 's firm worked on behalf of a Turkish-owned company , Inovo BV , to improve US confidence in Turkey 's business climate .
Flynn Intel Group received $ 530,000 in payments from the company and acknowledged in its registration as a foreign agent that the work may have benefited the Turkish government .
The White House has many advisers who earned millions of dollars last year , including President Donald Trump 's daughter , Ivanka , whose assets combined with her husband 's could exceed $ 700 million .
Ivanka Trump and her husband , senior Trump adviser Jared Kushner , collected about $ 195 million in income , according to a new financial snapshot of about 180 of the men and women serving in Donald Trump 's White House .
Other Trump aides with lucrative histories include Trump 's top economic adviser Gary Cohn , the former president of banking giant Goldman Sachs , who netted up to around $ 75 million in the previous year . White House chief strategist Steve Bannon made up to $ 2.5 million .
The newly released financial disclosure forms list the assets the Trump aides held when they walked in the doors of the White House in January -- before administration counsel advised them to resign from various postings , divest certain holdings or recuse themselves from future decisions . But the documents nevertheless offer a portrait into the lives of several key White House aides , especially those who came from Wall Street or have other ties to the financial industry .
Kushner , like Trump , a prominent real estate titan , held a position in 267 separate entities , ranging from the Trump transition team to dozens of property holdings in New York and New Jersey .
Ivanka Trump , who just this week formally said she would join the West Wing after serving as an informal adviser to her father , has yet to file her own disclosure forms . But the White House said earlier on Friday that her documents would look largely similar to her husband 's .
Bannon 's forms reveal numerous ties to various conservative organizations and sources funded by the family of influential Trump donors Bob and Rebekah Mercer , such as Breitbart News , which he led as executive chairman , and Cambridge Analytica , a data firm used by many Republican clients . Other income sources for him are Bannon Strategic Advisors , a consultancy firm valued at as high as $ 25 million , along with Affinity Media Holdings , which could have awarded him capital gains of as high as $ 1 million last year .
Bannon is also in the process of selling some of his stake in Cambridge Analytica and Glittering Steel , another Mercer-backed entity , according to the forms .
|
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, did not include receiving thousands of dollars in speaking fees from three Russian companies in initial financial disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics covering the last two years, copies of the reports show.
Flynn submitted the initial disclosures in mid-February, just days before he resigned from his post after it became public that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. His resignation came amid federal probes into allegations that Trump associates colluded with Russian operatives to interfere in the US election.
The initial disclosures left out that Flynn received money from Russia's state-funded television network, RT, for a speech in Moscow in December 2015 and from air cargo company Volga-Dnepr Airlines and cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Government Security Solutions Inc. for speaking engagements in the United States. The initial document also left off nearly two dozen other speeches from a diverse array of organizations, including business groups and financial services companies, which Flynn was required to itemize.
Flynn included the speaking fees in disclosure forms he filed Friday , according to the documents. Both sets of filings were made public as part of a White House release of financial disclosures of 180 White House officials.
Flynn attorney Robert Kelner said Flynn "had only just begun the financial disclosure filing process at the time he left the White House.
"He filed a draft form explicitly listing his speakers bureau contract, and he expected to engage in the usual process of consultations with the White House Counsel's Office and OGE regarding what he was expected to disclose," Kelner said. "That process was suspended, however, after he resigned. When the White House asked him this week to complete the process and to itemize the specific speaking events, he did so."
When asked to list sources exceeding $5,000 year, in his initial paperwork, Flynn disclosed only five organizations from which he received speaking fees in the past two years, including a speakers bureau that set up many of the speaking engagements that he detailed in his second filing. The revised forms specify nearly 30 entities that paid Flynn to give speeches during the same period, saying he received at least $250,000 from individual companies, groups and speakers bureaus for the work.
Fourteen of those speeches were arranged by Leading Authorities, the bureau Flynn listed on his initial disclosure. The agency set him up with the three speeches to Russian groups, as well as talks to a slew of other companies and organizations, such as Wells Fargo and the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce.
Flynn also left some speeches off his initial forms that don't appear to be linked to Leading Authorities or another speakers bureau. Those include talks to Halifax Investment Management and Black Duck Software, which he identified only as consulting jobs in his initial filing.
The initial and recent disclosures also show discrepancy in how he listed a speaking engagement paid for by Ibrahim Kurtulus, a former official with the nonprofit Assembly of Turkish American Associations, a Turkish-American advocacy group based in D.C.
In his initial forms, Flynn lists Kurtulus in a section detailing sources of income exceeding $5,000 in the past two years. In his revised forms, Flynn provided more detail in a section of the form covering income from the past year, saying he received $10,000 from Kurtulus for a speech he delivered in October 2016.
The disclosure forms show Flynn made as much as $1.5 million last year. According to his financial snapshot, Flynn received $827,055 in salary and bonus from his firm, Flynn Intel Group, alone.
CNN has reported that Flynn gave the speech in Moscow, paid for by the Russian television network RT, but the existence of the other two speaking engagements paid for by Russian companies was disclosed last month by House Democrats.
In his recent filing, the retired lieutenant general listed the speaking engagement for "RT TV" when asked in the form to disclose "compensation exceeding $5,000 in a year," but did not specify the amount. CNN previously reported that Flynn, according to a top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, was paid more than $33,000 of a $45,000 speaking fee by RT for the speech in December 2015, with most of the remainder of the money going to Leading Authorities, the speakers bureau.
The US intelligence community has long assessed RT, formerly called Russia Today, to be a propaganda tool of the Kremlin, writing in a January report on Russian interference in the US election that the organization had participated in disinformation campaigns aimed at the US. Flynn initially said he was paid by his speakers bureau for the talk.
The forms say Flynn received "compensation exceeding $5,000 in a year" from the Russian airline and cybersecurity company for speaking engagements in the United States. House Democrats last month also revealed the existence of those two speeches, saying Flynn received $11,250 from the airline and $11,250 from the cybersecurity firm.
The White House acknowledged in March that Trump's transition team was aware before Flynn was tapped to serve as national security adviser that he had engaged in work that would likely require him to register his consulting firm as a foreign agent.
Flynn's Justice Department filing last month raised questions when it revealed that Flynn's firm worked on behalf of a Turkish-owned company, Inovo BV, to improve US confidence in Turkey's business climate.
Flynn Intel Group received $530,000 in payments from the company and acknowledged in its registration as a foreign agent that the work may have benefited the Turkish government.
The White House has many advisers who earned millions of dollars last year, including President Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, whose assets combined with her husband's could exceed $700 million.
Ivanka Trump and her husband, senior Trump adviser Jared Kushner, collected about $195 million in income, according to a new financial snapshot of about 180 of the men and women serving in Donald Trump's White House.
Other Trump aides with lucrative histories include Trump's top economic adviser Gary Cohn , the former president of banking giant Goldman Sachs, who netted up to around $75 million in the previous year. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon made up to $2.5 million.
The newly released financial disclosure forms list the assets the Trump aides held when they walked in the doors of the White House in January -- before administration counsel advised them to resign from various postings, divest certain holdings or recuse themselves from future decisions. But the documents nevertheless offer a portrait into the lives of several key White House aides, especially those who came from Wall Street or have other ties to the financial industry.
Kushner, like Trump, a prominent real estate titan, held a position in 267 separate entities, ranging from the Trump transition team to dozens of property holdings in New York and New Jersey.
Ivanka Trump, who just this week formally said she would join the West Wing after serving as an informal adviser to her father, has yet to file her own disclosure forms. But the White House said earlier on Friday that her documents would look largely similar to her husband's.
Bannon's forms reveal numerous ties to various conservative organizations and sources funded by the family of influential Trump donors Bob and Rebekah Mercer, such as Breitbart News, which he led as executive chairman, and Cambridge Analytica, a data firm used by many Republican clients. Other income sources for him are Bannon Strategic Advisors, a consultancy firm valued at as high as $25 million, along with Affinity Media Holdings, which could have awarded him capital gains of as high as $1 million last year.
Bannon is also in the process of selling some of his stake in Cambridge Analytica and Glittering Steel, another Mercer-backed entity, according to the forms.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
FJ8XKNKBizouWPEI
|
us_congress
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/26/issa-obama-executive-privilege-claim-either-cover-/
|
Issa: Obama executive privilege claim is cover-up or obstruction
|
2012-06-26
|
Jerry Seper
|
The chairman of a House committee that recommended a contempt citation against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in its Fast and Furious investigation said on Tuesday President Obama ’ s assertion of executive privilege in the matter means the White House is covering up its involvement in the botched operation or is obstructing a congressional probe .
“ To date , the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the [ Justice ] Department with respect to the congressional investigation , ” Rep. Darrell Issa , California Republican , said in a tersely-worded seven page letter to Mr. Obama .
“ The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case , ” he said .
Mr. Issa , chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , also challenged the validity of the privilege claim , saying courts have “ consistently held ” that executive privilege applies only to documents and communications that involve the president ’ s decision-making process .
Accordingly , he said , the assertion could only mean that Mr. Obama “ or your most senior advisers ” were involved in managing the Fast and Furious operation “ and the fallout from it , ” or the president was asserting a privilege he knew to be “ unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstruction a congressional investigation . ”
The committee voted 23-17 last week along strict party lines to recommend to the full House that Mr. Holder be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over hundreds of pages of Fast and Furious documents sought by the panel under a subpoena . The executive privilege assertion came only shortly before the committee was scheduled to vote on the recommendation .
The House is expected to vote on the recommendation later this week .
Mr. Obama previously has denied any knowledge of the Fast and Furious operation , and has stood solidly behind Mr. Holder despite an increasing chorus of calls by Republicans for his resignation .
Fast and Furious was a gunrunning operation by the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) aimed at identifying drug smuggling bosses in Mexico who were buying weapons out of Phoenix area gun shops . More than 2,000 weapons , including AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles and .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifles , were sold and “ walked ” into Mexico , but the ATF lost track of them .
The operation , which began in September 2009 , was shut down only after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was shot and killed during a December 2010 gunfight with Mexican bandits at an isolated location near the Mexican border , south of Tucson . Two weapons found at the site of the Terry killing later were traced to the Fast and Furious operation .
“ The Terry family appeared before the committee on June 15 , 2011 , to ask for answers about the program that put guns in the hands of the men who killed their son and brother , ” Mr. Issa said . “ Having been stonewalled for months by the attorney general and his senior staff , the committee issued a subpoena for the documents that would provide the Terry family with the answers they seek . ”
That subpoena was issued on Oct. 12 , 2011 , and while the Justice Department has said it has handed over 7,600 records involving Fast and Furious , Mr. Issa said the department has identified “ 140,000 pages of documents and communications responsive to the committee ’ s subpoena . ”
White House Spokesman Eric Schultz dismissed the letter , saying Mr. Issa ’ s analysis of executive privilege has “ as much merit as his absurd contention that Operation Fast and Furious was created in order to promote gun control. ” He said Mr. Obama ’ s privilege claim was consistent with executive branch legal precedent set over the past three decades .
|
The chairman of a House committee that recommended a contempt citation against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in its Fast and Furious investigation said on Tuesday President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in the matter means the White House is covering up its involvement in the botched operation or is obstructing a congressional probe.
“To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the [Justice] Department with respect to the congressional investigation,” Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, said in a tersely-worded seven page letter to Mr. Obama.
“The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case,” he said.
Mr. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also challenged the validity of the privilege claim, saying courts have “consistently held ” that executive privilege applies only to documents and communications that involve the president’s decision-making process.
Accordingly, he said, the assertion could only mean that Mr. Obama “or your most senior advisers” were involved in managing the Fast and Furious operation “and the fallout from it,” or the president was asserting a privilege he knew to be “unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstruction a congressional investigation.”
The committee voted 23-17 last week along strict party lines to recommend to the full House that Mr. Holder be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over hundreds of pages of Fast and Furious documents sought by the panel under a subpoena. The executive privilege assertion came only shortly before the committee was scheduled to vote on the recommendation.
The House is expected to vote on the recommendation later this week.
Mr. Obama previously has denied any knowledge of the Fast and Furious operation, and has stood solidly behind Mr. Holder despite an increasing chorus of calls by Republicans for his resignation.
Fast and Furious was a gunrunning operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) aimed at identifying drug smuggling bosses in Mexico who were buying weapons out of Phoenix area gun shops. More than 2,000 weapons, including AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles and .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifles, were sold and “walked” into Mexico, but the ATF lost track of them.
The operation, which began in September 2009, was shut down only after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was shot and killed during a December 2010 gunfight with Mexican bandits at an isolated location near the Mexican border, south of Tucson. Two weapons found at the site of the Terry killing later were traced to the Fast and Furious operation.
“The Terry family appeared before the committee on June 15, 2011, to ask for answers about the program that put guns in the hands of the men who killed their son and brother,” Mr. Issa said. “Having been stonewalled for months by the attorney general and his senior staff, the committee issued a subpoena for the documents that would provide the Terry family with the answers they seek.”
That subpoena was issued on Oct. 12, 2011, and while the Justice Department has said it has handed over 7,600 records involving Fast and Furious, Mr. Issa said the department has identified “140,000 pages of documents and communications responsive to the committee’s subpoena.”
White House Spokesman Eric Schultz dismissed the letter, saying Mr. Issa’s analysis of executive privilege has “as much merit as his absurd contention that Operation Fast and Furious was created in order to promote gun control.” He said Mr. Obama’s privilege claim was consistent with executive branch legal precedent set over the past three decades.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
l35LWOLdfHlLQxBp
|
general_news
|
Townhall
| 22
|
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2019/10/11/fox-news-shepard-smith-is-leaving-the-network-n2554606
|
Shepard Smith Is Leaving Fox News
|
2019-10-11
|
Julio Rosas, Beth Baumann, Matt Vespa, Bronson Stocking
|
Fox News announced long-time anchor Shepard Smith will be leaving the network . Smith was most recently the chief news anchor and managing editor of the network ’ s breaking news unit and anchor of `` Shepard Smith Reporting . ''
Friday 's episode `` Shepard Smith Reporting '' is his final show . Fox News said there will be rotating anchors hosting the 3 p.m . ET time slot until a new dayside news program is announced .
“ Shep is one of the premier newscasters of his generation and his extraordinary body of work is among the finest journalism in the industry . His integrity and outstanding reporting from the field helped put FOX News on the map and there is simply no better breaking news anchor who has the ability to transport a viewer to a place of conflict , tragedy , despair or elation through his masterful delivery , '' Jay Wallace , President & Executive Editor of FOX News Media , said in a statement .
“ Recently , I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter , '' Smith explained in the press release . `` After requesting that I stay , they graciously obliged . The opportunities afforded this guy from small town Mississippi have been many . It ’ s been an honor and a privilege to report the news each day to our loyal audience in context and with perspective , without fear or favor . I ’ ve worked with the most talented , dedicated and focused professionals I know and I ’ m proud to have anchored their work each day — I will deeply miss them . ”
Smith has been known to make rebuttals to President Trump on his show , especially when it came to Trump 's criticisms against the press . As a result , Trump has sent out tweets targeting Smith . Trump sent a tweet about Smith as recently as Thursday .
... Court Justice & I turned him down ( he ’ s been terrible ever since ) , Shep Smith , @ donnabrazile ( who gave Crooked Hillary the debate questions & got fired from @ CNN ) , & others , @ FoxNews doesn ’ t deliver for US anymore . It is so different than it used to be . Oh well , I ’ m President ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 10 , 2019
This is a breaking news story and will be updated .
|
Fox News announced long-time anchor Shepard Smith will be leaving the network. Smith was most recently the chief news anchor and managing editor of the network’s breaking news unit and anchor of "Shepard Smith Reporting."
Friday's episode "Shepard Smith Reporting" is his final show. Fox News said there will be rotating anchors hosting the 3 p.m. ET time slot until a new dayside news program is announced.
“Shep is one of the premier newscasters of his generation and his extraordinary body of work is among the finest journalism in the industry. His integrity and outstanding reporting from the field helped put FOX News on the map and there is simply no better breaking news anchor who has the ability to transport a viewer to a place of conflict, tragedy, despair or elation through his masterful delivery," Jay Wallace, President & Executive Editor of FOX News Media, said in a statement.
“Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter," Smith explained in the press release. "After requesting that I stay, they graciously obliged. The opportunities afforded this guy from small town Mississippi have been many. It’s been an honor and a privilege to report the news each day to our loyal audience in context and with perspective, without fear or favor. I’ve worked with the most talented, dedicated and focused professionals I know and I’m proud to have anchored their work each day — I will deeply miss them.”
Smith has been known to make rebuttals to President Trump on his show, especially when it came to Trump's criticisms against the press. As a result, Trump has sent out tweets targeting Smith. Trump sent a tweet about Smith as recently as Thursday.
...Court Justice & I turned him down (he’s been terrible ever since), Shep Smith, @donnabrazile (who gave Crooked Hillary the debate questions & got fired from @CNN), & others, @FoxNews doesn’t deliver for US anymore. It is so different than it used to be. Oh well, I’m President! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2019
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
vJIcS5oZQCx9yXJJ
|
sports
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/15/sports-gambling-supreme-court-federalism-marijuana-sanctuary-cities-column/610876002/
|
OPINION: What Supreme Court victory for sports gambling means for marijuana, sanctuary cities
|
2018-05-15
|
Yesterday , the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Murphy v. NCAA , striking down a federal law that blocks states from legalizing sports gambling under their own state laws . The ruling is a major victory for federalism , and has important implications that go beyond the issue of sports gambling .
Murphy invalidates a provision of the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act ( PASPA ) , which mandates that states may not `` sponsor , operate , advertise , promote , license , or authorize by law or compact '' sports betting . A coalition of sports leagues , including the NCAA , the NBA , the NFL , and Major League Baseball , filed a lawsuit arguing that New Jersey 's laws partially legalizing sports gambling within the state qualifies as `` authorization '' and thus violates PASPA . New Jersey argued that that PASPA violates the `` anti-commandeering '' principles of the Tenth Amendment . Under several longstanding Supreme Court precedents , the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from compelling the states to enforce federal law , including by forcing state legislatures to enact laws of their own . The Supreme Court majority ruled that PASPA is unconstitutional .
More : Winners & losers in Supreme Court sports betting decision : Vindication for Donald Trump ?
More : Listen up Supreme Court : Warrantless tracking of smartphones violates our rights
To get around the anti-commandeering rule , the sports leagues and the Trump administration claimed that there is a distinction between commandeering and federal laws blocking `` affirmative authorization '' of gambling under state law . By this reasoning , PASPA is not `` commandeering '' because it does not prevent complete legalization of sports gambling . It only bans state laws that affirmatively authorize gambling in some way , as New Jersey supposedly does by restricting it to some types of locations and limiting the range of teams that gamblers can bet on . Writing for a 7-2 Supreme Court majority , Justice Samuel Alito correctly concluded that “ this distinction is empty ” because laws banning affirmative “ authorization ” still violate `` the basic principle … that Congress can not issue direct orders to state legislatures . ”
Justice Alito is right . The distinction between legalization and `` authorization '' makes little sense , because virtually any law that legalizes a previously banned activity , but does not completely abolish all restrictions on it , can be described as affirmative authorization . A decision upholding PASPA would essentially have gutted the anti-commandeering rule , as the federal government could easily get around it by adopting regulations preventing states from legalizing previously forbidden behavior , so long as the legalization law did not completely eliminate all legal constraints on it .
The ruling has obvious implications for sports betting , which states are now largely free to legalize as they see fit . Many may follow New Jersey 's example . Murphy is also significant for state policies legalizing other activities that the federal government may oppose , including marijuana , possession of some types of firearms , and others . The federal government can no longer block state legalization by passing laws that require states to continue to bar these activities under their own laws .
More : Supreme Court clerks are overwhelmingly white and male . Just like 20 years ago .
The federal government can still ban many such activities by making them directly illegal under federal law . But if it can not rely on the backing of the states and their own laws , enforcing such federal prohibitions in dissenting states can be expensive and difficult . In practice , federal prohibition of gambling , drugs and other activities relies heavily on state cooperation and support . Today 's decision reinforces the constitutional rule that empowers states to deny such assistance by refusing to enact state laws reinforcing federal prohibition . It also prevents the federal government from forcing the states to ban activities that Congress , for political reasons , does not want to forbid directly .
Perhaps most importantly , Murphy v. NCAA makes clear that a solid majority of the Court is strongly committed to the anti-commandeering principle . The majority includes both the conservative justices and two liberals ( Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan ) . That bodes well for state efforts to oppose commandeering ( and perhaps other types of federal coercion ) in other areas . The most notable current examples are the sanctuary cities cases , in which the Trump administration has been trying to force state and local governments to assist federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants .
Legal battles over federalism will surely continue . We are still a long way from where we should be on enforcing constitutional constraints on federal power . But today 's ruling is an important step in the right direction .
Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason University , and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute . He is the author of Democracy and Political Ignorance : Why Smaller Government is Smarter .
|
Ilya Somin
Opinion contributor
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Murphy v. NCAA, striking down a federal law that blocks states from legalizing sports gambling under their own state laws. The ruling is a major victory for federalism, and has important implications that go beyond the issue of sports gambling.
Murphy invalidates a provision of the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which mandates that states may not "sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact" sports betting. A coalition of sports leagues, including the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, and Major League Baseball, filed a lawsuit arguing that New Jersey's laws partially legalizing sports gambling within the state qualifies as "authorization" and thus violates PASPA. New Jersey argued that that PASPA violates the "anti-commandeering" principles of the Tenth Amendment. Under several longstanding Supreme Court precedents, the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from compelling the states to enforce federal law, including by forcing state legislatures to enact laws of their own. The Supreme Court majority ruled that PASPA is unconstitutional.
More:Winners & losers in Supreme Court sports betting decision: Vindication for Donald Trump?
More:Listen up Supreme Court: Warrantless tracking of smartphones violates our rights
To get around the anti-commandeering rule, the sports leagues and the Trump administration claimed that there is a distinction between commandeering and federal laws blocking "affirmative authorization" of gambling under state law. By this reasoning, PASPA is not "commandeering" because it does not prevent complete legalization of sports gambling. It only bans state laws that affirmatively authorize gambling in some way, as New Jersey supposedly does by restricting it to some types of locations and limiting the range of teams that gamblers can bet on. Writing for a 7-2 Supreme Court majority, Justice Samuel Alito correctly concluded that “this distinction is empty” because laws banning affirmative “authorization” still violate "the basic principle … that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures.”
Justice Alito is right. The distinction between legalization and "authorization" makes little sense, because virtually any law that legalizes a previously banned activity, but does not completely abolish all restrictions on it, can be described as affirmative authorization. A decision upholding PASPA would essentially have gutted the anti-commandeering rule, as the federal government could easily get around it by adopting regulations preventing states from legalizing previously forbidden behavior, so long as the legalization law did not completely eliminate all legal constraints on it.
The ruling has obvious implications for sports betting, which states are now largely free to legalize as they see fit. Many may follow New Jersey's example. Murphy is also significant for state policies legalizing other activities that the federal government may oppose, including marijuana, possession of some types of firearms, and others. The federal government can no longer block state legalization by passing laws that require states to continue to bar these activities under their own laws.
More:Supreme Court clerks are overwhelmingly white and male. Just like 20 years ago.
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
The federal government can still ban many such activities by making them directly illegal under federal law. But if it cannot rely on the backing of the states and their own laws, enforcing such federal prohibitions in dissenting states can be expensive and difficult. In practice, federal prohibition of gambling, drugs and other activities relies heavily on state cooperation and support. Today's decision reinforces the constitutional rule that empowers states to deny such assistance by refusing to enact state laws reinforcing federal prohibition. It also prevents the federal government from forcing the states to ban activities that Congress, for political reasons, does not want to forbid directly.
Perhaps most importantly, Murphy v. NCAA makes clear that a solid majority of the Court is strongly committed to the anti-commandeering principle. The majority includes both the conservative justices and two liberals (Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan). That bodes well for state efforts to oppose commandeering (and perhaps other types of federal coercion) in other areas. The most notable current examples are the sanctuary cities cases, in which the Trump administration has been trying to force state and local governments to assist federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants.
Legal battles over federalism will surely continue. We are still a long way from where we should be on enforcing constitutional constraints on federal power. But today's ruling is an important step in the right direction.
Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason University, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is the author of Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
5DlwwUlI7CAGBEvP
|
|
free_speech
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/13/donald-trump-jim-acosta-222463
|
Donald Trump and Jim Acosta, a Love Story
|
2018-11-13
|
Jack Shafer, Natasha Bertrand, Holly Otterbein
|
If CNN reporter Jim Acosta is such a troublous force inside the White House Briefing Room—a “ rude , terrible person ” as President Donald Trump recently put it—deserving of being banned from White House grounds , then why did Trump and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders routinely call on him during the televised question and answer periods at the White House over the past 22 months ?
Had Acosta ’ s behavior truly offended them , Sanders and Trump could have permanently stifled the pesky reporter by treating him like a ghost , averting their gazes and picking other reporters during question time . Acosta couldn ’ t have done anything about it . Instead , Sanders and Trump regularly called on Acosta , counting on the likelihood that he would do that Acosta thing of speechifying and playing microphone hog as he attempts to turn a question into an extended back-and-forth . Sanders and Trump have pretended exasperation at Acosta ’ s posturing—posturing that hasn ’ t broken much news , by the way—but not so secretly they happily wallow in his pomposity . By getting Acosta to play the preening , self-aggrandizing , sanctimonious reporter and using him as the punching bag for the White House ’ s anti-press strategy , Sanders and Trump have created a unique public venue to exhibit their hatred for the “ fake news ” of CNN .
The TV moments created by Acosta 's clashes—see the Guardian 's reel of their best sparring matches—have served him , too . If you ’ re a fan of reporters who are better at lecturing than asking a question and think White House briefings and presidential press conferences should resemble the bloodsport of duels , then you probably find the Acosta clashes sufficiently enriching to make CNN your cable news destination .
Acosta ’ s forced exile and the lawsuit filed by CNN today demanding that Sanders and Trump return the “ hard pass ” that will allow him to roam the White House grounds have turned him into a free speech martyr , which I suppose he is . Like all First Amendment radicals , I deplore the Acosta ban and look forward to the day that he ’ s back in the White House making a pest of himself again . The case law cited in the suit by lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous , a top cock in the First Amendment bar ’ s pecking order , appears to prevent the White House from arbitrarily banning reporters from White House press facilities “ for less than compelling reasons. ” Even Fox News Channel ’ s legal analyst Andrew Napolitano predicts that the matter will be resolved “ quickly “ in CNN ’ s favor .
The original charge Sanders made when barring Acosta—that he had placed “ his hands ” on the White House intern trying to retrieve his microphone during the presser—has been disproved . Today , attempting to argue against the CNN suit , Sanders shifted her rationale for the de-Acostafication of the White House , accusing him additionally and accurately for not surrendering the microphone when approached by the intern .
But as Sanders herself acknowledges , this was not the first time Acosta had resisted yielding the floor . So where is the common justice in ejecting him from White House grounds without so much as a warning ? Sanders and Trump have thrilled in Acosta ’ s bad manners not only because his acting out helped personify their critique of CNN but also because it has made great TV drama for the president . Anything that ’ s good for ratings is good with Trump . It ’ s obvious from viewing the Acosta-Trump faceoff that Trump was spoiling for a fight— “ Here we go , ” Trump interrupted as Acosta began the wind-up on his first question—and started swinging back from the get-go . He wanted what Acosta was bringing so he could re-assume his old reality-TV role as the heavy who banishes the pretentious upstart . When the CNN lawsuit rolled in today , Trump must have clicked his heels in joy at the prospect of kicking Acosta and CNN around some more .
Televised White House briefings have always been political theater but under Trump ’ s management they ’ ve generated as much genuine news as a low-wattage kitchen microwave . The endless bickering between Sanders and the press corps and her obfuscations have become the story , much to the detriment of journalism . I wouldn ’ t go so far to call the briefings useless—they can connect reporters to otherwise hard-to-find facts and get the administration on the record—but for real news you have to rely on reporters like Maggie Haberman who spend little time in the daily briefings waiting for news to arrive .
Like so many episodes of The Trump Show , the martyrdom of Jim Acosta provides an entertaining sideshow . While it ’ s true that he ’ s more of a pain in the neck than a true newshawk , we can still call for his return to the White House briefing room in good conscience because being a pain in the neck is often a necessary part of the job . Besides , Sanders and Trump already miss him .
|
John Moore/Getty Images Fourth Estate Donald Trump and Jim Acosta, a Love Story The fakest news in town is that the president is mad at a preening TV reporter who’s great for ratings.
Jack Shafer is Politico’s senior media writer.
If CNN reporter Jim Acosta is such a troublous force inside the White House Briefing Room—a “rude, terrible person” as President Donald Trump recently put it—deserving of being banned from White House grounds, then why did Trump and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders routinely call on him during the televised question and answer periods at the White House over the past 22 months?
Had Acosta’s behavior truly offended them, Sanders and Trump could have permanently stifled the pesky reporter by treating him like a ghost, averting their gazes and picking other reporters during question time. Acosta couldn’t have done anything about it. Instead, Sanders and Trump regularly called on Acosta, counting on the likelihood that he would do that Acosta thing of speechifying and playing microphone hog as he attempts to turn a question into an extended back-and-forth. Sanders and Trump have pretended exasperation at Acosta’s posturing—posturing that hasn’t broken much news, by the way—but not so secretly they happily wallow in his pomposity. By getting Acosta to play the preening, self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious reporter and using him as the punching bag for the White House’s anti-press strategy, Sanders and Trump have created a unique public venue to exhibit their hatred for the “fake news” of CNN.
Story Continued Below
The TV moments created by Acosta's clashes—see the Guardian's reel of their best sparring matches—have served him, too. If you’re a fan of reporters who are better at lecturing than asking a question and think White House briefings and presidential press conferences should resemble the bloodsport of duels, then you probably find the Acosta clashes sufficiently enriching to make CNN your cable news destination.
Acosta’s forced exile and the lawsuit filed by CNN today demanding that Sanders and Trump return the “hard pass” that will allow him to roam the White House grounds have turned him into a free speech martyr, which I suppose he is. Like all First Amendment radicals, I deplore the Acosta ban and look forward to the day that he’s back in the White House making a pest of himself again. The case law cited in the suit by lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous, a top cock in the First Amendment bar’s pecking order, appears to prevent the White House from arbitrarily banning reporters from White House press facilities “for less than compelling reasons.” Even Fox News Channel’s legal analyst Andrew Napolitano predicts that the matter will be resolved “quickly“ in CNN’s favor.
The original charge Sanders made when barring Acosta—that he had placed “his hands” on the White House intern trying to retrieve his microphone during the presser—has been disproved. Today, attempting to argue against the CNN suit, Sanders shifted her rationale for the de-Acostafication of the White House, accusing him additionally and accurately for not surrendering the microphone when approached by the intern.
But as Sanders herself acknowledges, this was not the first time Acosta had resisted yielding the floor. So where is the common justice in ejecting him from White House grounds without so much as a warning? Sanders and Trump have thrilled in Acosta’s bad manners not only because his acting out helped personify their critique of CNN but also because it has made great TV drama for the president. Anything that’s good for ratings is good with Trump. It’s obvious from viewing the Acosta-Trump faceoff that Trump was spoiling for a fight—“Here we go,” Trump interrupted as Acosta began the wind-up on his first question—and started swinging back from the get-go. He wanted what Acosta was bringing so he could re-assume his old reality-TV role as the heavy who banishes the pretentious upstart. When the CNN lawsuit rolled in today, Trump must have clicked his heels in joy at the prospect of kicking Acosta and CNN around some more.
Televised White House briefings have always been political theater but under Trump’s management they’ve generated as much genuine news as a low-wattage kitchen microwave. The endless bickering between Sanders and the press corps and her obfuscations have become the story, much to the detriment of journalism. I wouldn’t go so far to call the briefings useless—they can connect reporters to otherwise hard-to-find facts and get the administration on the record—but for real news you have to rely on reporters like Maggie Haberman who spend little time in the daily briefings waiting for news to arrive.
Like so many episodes of The Trump Show, the martyrdom of Jim Acosta provides an entertaining sideshow. While it’s true that he’s more of a pain in the neck than a true newshawk, we can still call for his return to the White House briefing room in good conscience because being a pain in the neck is often a necessary part of the job. Besides, Sanders and Trump already miss him.
******
Does the briefing room emit low-level radiation like a kitchen microwave or is it more like an afterschool special for shut-ins? Send your metaphor judgment to [email protected]. My email alerts get a congressional press pass every session but almost never uses it. My Twitter feed has never been to the White House and doesn’t want to go. My RSS feed agrees with A.J. Liebling that the freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
This article tagged under: CNN
Donald Trump
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
Qu22xafi7mFCU06c
|
healthcare
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/cruz-vows-to-speak-against-obamacare-until-unable-to-stand-as-vote-looms/
|
Cruz delivers all-night floor speech against ObamaCare as vote looms
|
2013-09-25
|
After more than 21 hours on the Senate floor , Sen. Ted Cruz wrapped up his marathon speech against ObamaCare at noon on Wednesday -- though , as expected , it did not stop the chamber from proceeding to a controversial test vote .
The speech amounted to a final act of political theater before the vote . As he concluded , Cruz said to the American people : `` This debate 's in your hands . '' He told reporters afterward that the debate is n't about the bill itself but about `` whether Washington was going to listen to the American people . ''
Cruz had attracted a rotating set of supporters by sunrise , as they joined him on the floor in blasting the health care law .
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was less amused , taking the floor to describe Cruz 's address as a `` big waste of time , '' with a government shutdown looming unless lawmakers can resolve their dispute over the health care law .
`` With all due respect , I 'm not sure we learned anything new , '' Reid said .
The Senate is about to hold a test vote on a bill that would both fund the government past Sept. 30 and defund the health care law , though Reid is expected to quickly strip the ObamaCare language .
Cruz , R-Texas , had declared Tuesday afternoon that he intended to speak in opposition to ObamaCare `` until I am no longer able to stand . ''
`` ObamaCare is n't working , '' he said . `` There are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people . ''
The feisty senator spoke through the night . His topics ranged from the American revolution and the Washington establishment to his Cuban-born father and the impact of the health care law .
As his speech neared its sixth hour , Cruz took an odd turn by reading his young daughters a bedtime story via the Senate floor cameras . Cruz said his book of choice , Dr. Seuss ' `` Green Eggs and Ham , '' was a favorite of his as a child .
The speech was reminiscent of Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , earlier this year staging an old-fashioned filibuster to voice his concerns over drones .
Paul joined Cruz on the Senate floor for a time , telling his colleague to make sure he is wearing comfortable shoes for the long night ahead and saying `` we 're asking for a dialogue '' on ObamaCare .
`` How do we get the dialogue unless somebody 's willing to stand up and say enough 's enough ? '' Paul asked .
Cruz , with the help of Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and others , surpassed the length of Paul 's nearly 13-hour filibuster at about 3:30 a.m. EDT Wednesday .
Cruz 's address on the Senate floor was not technically a filibuster like Paul 's because he is not technically able to stop the Senate from holding a test vote on Wednesday . Democrats say that vote is happening no matter what .
Cruz has taken a curious position on that vote . Though he supported a House-passed bill that both funds the government past Sept. 30 and de-funds ObamaCare , he has urged his colleagues to block the bill in the Senate -- out of concern that Reid will add an amendment stripping out the ObamaCare provision .
Since Monday , however , Cruz has lost the support of many of his Republican colleagues . GOP leaders want to defund the law , but do n't think stalling the bill in the Senate is the best way forward . For some , the position Cruz wants lawmakers to take is counterintuitive .
`` We 'd all be hard-pressed to explain why we were opposed to a bill we were in favor of . And invoking cloture that defunds ObamaCare , does n't raise taxes , and respects the Budget Control Act strikes me as a no-brainer , '' Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday .
Some Republicans also are openly dubious that the push to defund ObamaCare has any chance of succeeding -- and worry that Republicans will take the blame if lawmakers are deadlocked and the government shuts down on Oct. 1 .
Sen. Orrin Hatch , R-Utah , said Republicans surely would be blamed for a shutdown , in part because of media bias against his party .
Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , said the effort is hopeless . `` It will be a cold day in Arizona when we defund ObamaCare , '' he said . `` I know how this movie ends . I do n't know all the scenes before it ends , but I know how it ends . We do n't defund ObamaCare . ''
Some GOP leaders , though , are still urging moderate Democrats to join them in voting against the health care law . Their hope is to advance the bill in a test vote on Wednesday , then convince enough senators to block any effort to fund the law . That 's an uphill climb .
And Reid said Democrats are n't budging . `` The Senate will not pass any bill that defunds or delays ObamaCare , '' he said .
Despite the divide in the GOP , though , there 's no guarantee that lawmakers can reach common ground and pass a budget bill by the time funding runs out on Oct. 1 .
If Reid musters the votes to strip the ObamaCare language , he 'd likely have to clear one more 60-vote hurdle before passing the bill and sending it back to the House . If the House , then , tries to change the Senate bill , lawmakers could easily miss the end-of-the-month deadline .
Reid claimed Tuesday that any effort by the House to modify the bill would be a `` surefire way '' to shut down the government .
To make the pill a bit easier to swallow , Reid said he was changing the budget bill so it only lasts through Nov. 15 , as opposed to Dec. 15 . The move , though , would virtually guarantee another showdown in November .
|
After more than 21 hours on the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Cruz wrapped up his marathon speech against ObamaCare at noon on Wednesday -- though, as expected, it did not stop the chamber from proceeding to a controversial test vote.
The speech amounted to a final act of political theater before the vote. As he concluded, Cruz said to the American people: "This debate's in your hands." He told reporters afterward that the debate isn't about the bill itself but about "whether Washington was going to listen to the American people."
Cruz had attracted a rotating set of supporters by sunrise, as they joined him on the floor in blasting the health care law.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was less amused, taking the floor to describe Cruz's address as a "big waste of time," with a government shutdown looming unless lawmakers can resolve their dispute over the health care law.
"With all due respect, I'm not sure we learned anything new," Reid said.
More On This...
The Senate is about to hold a test vote on a bill that would both fund the government past Sept. 30 and defund the health care law, though Reid is expected to quickly strip the ObamaCare language.
Cruz, R-Texas, had declared Tuesday afternoon that he intended to speak in opposition to ObamaCare "until I am no longer able to stand."
"ObamaCare isn't working," he said. "There are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people."
The feisty senator spoke through the night. His topics ranged from the American revolution and the Washington establishment to his Cuban-born father and the impact of the health care law.
As his speech neared its sixth hour, Cruz took an odd turn by reading his young daughters a bedtime story via the Senate floor cameras. Cruz said his book of choice, Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham," was a favorite of his as a child.
The speech was reminiscent of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., earlier this year staging an old-fashioned filibuster to voice his concerns over drones.
Paul joined Cruz on the Senate floor for a time, telling his colleague to make sure he is wearing comfortable shoes for the long night ahead and saying "we're asking for a dialogue" on ObamaCare.
"How do we get the dialogue unless somebody's willing to stand up and say enough's enough?" Paul asked.
Cruz, with the help of Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and others, surpassed the length of Paul's nearly 13-hour filibuster at about 3:30 a.m. EDT Wednesday.
Cruz's address on the Senate floor was not technically a filibuster like Paul's because he is not technically able to stop the Senate from holding a test vote on Wednesday. Democrats say that vote is happening no matter what.
Cruz has taken a curious position on that vote. Though he supported a House-passed bill that both funds the government past Sept. 30 and de-funds ObamaCare, he has urged his colleagues to block the bill in the Senate -- out of concern that Reid will add an amendment stripping out the ObamaCare provision.
Since Monday, however, Cruz has lost the support of many of his Republican colleagues. GOP leaders want to defund the law, but don't think stalling the bill in the Senate is the best way forward. For some, the position Cruz wants lawmakers to take is counterintuitive.
"We'd all be hard-pressed to explain why we were opposed to a bill we were in favor of. And invoking cloture that defunds ObamaCare, doesn't raise taxes, and respects the Budget Control Act strikes me as a no-brainer," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.
Some Republicans also are openly dubious that the push to defund ObamaCare has any chance of succeeding -- and worry that Republicans will take the blame if lawmakers are deadlocked and the government shuts down on Oct. 1.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Republicans surely would be blamed for a shutdown, in part because of media bias against his party.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the effort is hopeless. "It will be a cold day in Arizona when we defund ObamaCare," he said. "I know how this movie ends. I don't know all the scenes before it ends, but I know how it ends. We don't defund ObamaCare."
Some GOP leaders, though, are still urging moderate Democrats to join them in voting against the health care law. Their hope is to advance the bill in a test vote on Wednesday, then convince enough senators to block any effort to fund the law. That's an uphill climb.
And Reid said Democrats aren't budging. "The Senate will not pass any bill that defunds or delays ObamaCare," he said.
Despite the divide in the GOP, though, there's no guarantee that lawmakers can reach common ground and pass a budget bill by the time funding runs out on Oct. 1.
If Reid musters the votes to strip the ObamaCare language, he'd likely have to clear one more 60-vote hurdle before passing the bill and sending it back to the House. If the House, then, tries to change the Senate bill, lawmakers could easily miss the end-of-the-month deadline.
Reid claimed Tuesday that any effort by the House to modify the bill would be a "surefire way" to shut down the government.
To make the pill a bit easier to swallow, Reid said he was changing the budget bill so it only lasts through Nov. 15, as opposed to Dec. 15. The move, though, would virtually guarantee another showdown in November.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
5mxsKQqnxNhdzqrF
|
|
violence_in_america
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/07/20/157099240/movie-theater-shootings-put-presidential-politics-on-hold
|
Movie-Theater Shootings Put Presidential Politics On Hold
|
2012-07-20
|
Frank James
|
As deeply as the mass shootings in Aurora , Colo. , shocked the national conscience , they also quickly affected the U.S. political scene , with both major party presidential campaigns ripping up their scripts for Friday , and the mayor of the nation 's largest city using the issue to put the candidates on the spot on gun control .
Following news reports of the deaths of at least 12 people attending a Denver-area midnight movie theater showing of The Dark Knight Rises , both President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney revised their campaign schedules .
The president had planned to hold Florida campaign rallies in Fort Myers and Orlando . Instead , Obama canceled the Orlando event and turned the Fort Myers appearance — which had been planned as a rollicking rally to fire up supporters — into a brief and somber affair as the president channeled the national mood .
`` There are going to be other days for politics . This is a day for prayer and reflection , '' Obama said , before he asked the audience to join him in a moment of silence for the victims and their families .
Obama underscored that it was n't the time for political applause lines or zingers aimed at Romney and congressional Republicans by saying :
`` If there 's anything to take away from this tragedy , it 's the reminder that life is very fragile . Our time here is limited and it is precious . And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things , not the trivial things which so often consume us in our daily lives . Ultimately , it 's how we choose to treat each other and how we love one another . ''
The president canceled the planned Orlando event to return to Washington and monitor the situation in Aurora , Colo .
The White House also issued a statement from the president and first lady Michelle Obama , who canceled two Friday campaign stops in Virginia . Vice President Biden canceled a scheduled campaign appearance in Houston , a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee .
Striking a tone similar to the president 's , Romney , the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee , told a crowd at what was supposed to have been a campaign event in Bow , N.H. :
`` Today is a moment to grieve and remember , and to reach out and to help , to appreciate our blessings in life . Each one of us will hold our kids a little closer , linger a bit longer with a colleague or a neighbor , reach out to a family member or friend . `` We 'll all spend a little less time thinking about the worries of our day and more time wondering about how to help those who are in need of compassion most . The answer is that we can come together . We will show our fellow citizens the good heart of the America we know and love . ''
Romney 's campaign also issued a statement on behalf of himself and his wife , Ann . Mrs. Romney also canceled political appearances scheduled for Friday .
Both the Obama and Romney campaigns scrambled in the hours following the shootings to pull down their political ads in Colorado out of respect for the victims and the desire to avoid the appearance of crassness in a key battleground state .
Obama 's campaign initially said it would stop airing `` contrast '' ads , which also are known as negative ads , but later said it asked Colorado station affiliates to pull all campaign ads . Romney 's campaign also said it was suspending all TV ads in the state .
With so many killed and wounded by a gunman , it was inevitable that the issue of gun control , which has played little role in the campaign , would emerge .
Early Friday , New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reacted to the shootings by calling on both Obama and Romney to provide specific details on how they wound combat gun violence in the nation .
|
Movie-Theater Shootings Put Presidential Politics On Hold
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
(Updated @ 1:11 pm ET)
As deeply as the mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., shocked the national conscience, they also quickly affected the U.S. political scene, with both major party presidential campaigns ripping up their scripts for Friday, and the mayor of the nation's largest city using the issue to put the candidates on the spot on gun control.
Following news reports of the deaths of at least 12 people attending a Denver-area midnight movie theater showing of The Dark Knight Rises, both President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney revised their campaign schedules.
The president had planned to hold Florida campaign rallies in Fort Myers and Orlando. Instead, Obama canceled the Orlando event and turned the Fort Myers appearance — which had been planned as a rollicking rally to fire up supporters — into a brief and somber affair as the president channeled the national mood.
"There are going to be other days for politics. This is a day for prayer and reflection," Obama said, before he asked the audience to join him in a moment of silence for the victims and their families.
Obama underscored that it wasn't the time for political applause lines or zingers aimed at Romney and congressional Republicans by saying:
"If there's anything to take away from this tragedy, it's the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, not the trivial things which so often consume us in our daily lives. Ultimately, it's how we choose to treat each other and how we love one another."
The president canceled the planned Orlando event to return to Washington and monitor the situation in Aurora, Colo.
The White House also issued a statement from the president and first lady Michelle Obama, who canceled two Friday campaign stops in Virginia. Vice President Biden canceled a scheduled campaign appearance in Houston, a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Striking a tone similar to the president's, Romney, the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee, told a crowd at what was supposed to have been a campaign event in Bow, N.H.:
"Today is a moment to grieve and remember, and to reach out and to help, to appreciate our blessings in life. Each one of us will hold our kids a little closer, linger a bit longer with a colleague or a neighbor, reach out to a family member or friend. "We'll all spend a little less time thinking about the worries of our day and more time wondering about how to help those who are in need of compassion most. The answer is that we can come together. We will show our fellow citizens the good heart of the America we know and love."
Romney's campaign also issued a statement on behalf of himself and his wife, Ann. Mrs. Romney also canceled political appearances scheduled for Friday.
Both the Obama and Romney campaigns scrambled in the hours following the shootings to pull down their political ads in Colorado out of respect for the victims and the desire to avoid the appearance of crassness in a key battleground state.
Obama's campaign initially said it would stop airing "contrast" ads, which also are known as negative ads, but later said it asked Colorado station affiliates to pull all campaign ads. Romney's campaign also said it was suspending all TV ads in the state.
With so many killed and wounded by a gunman, it was inevitable that the issue of gun control, which has played little role in the campaign, would emerge.
Early Friday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reacted to the shootings by calling on both Obama and Romney to provide specific details on how they wound combat gun violence in the nation.
During a WOR Radio interview, Bloomberg said:
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
PV1OUpi0efgJuDef
|
china
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-26/trump-signals-u-s-likely-to-go-ahead-with-china-tariff-increase?srnd=premium
|
Trump Signals U.S. Likely to Go Ahead With China Tariff Increase
|
2018-11-26
|
Sarah Mcgregor
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 2:28 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
President Donald Trump said he ’ ll likely push forward with plans to increase tariffs on $ 200 billion of Chinese goods , indicating he would also slap duties on all remaining imports from the Asian nation if negotiations with China ’ s leader Xi Jinping fail to produce a trade deal .
Trump , in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Monday , said he ’ s prepared to impose tariffs on a final batch of $ 267 billion of Chinese shipments if he can ’ t make a deal with Xi when they meet at the Group of 20 meeting in Argentina , which starts Nov. 30 . The rate could be either 10 percent or 25 percent , Trump said .
Trump said that Apple Inc. ’ s iPhones and laptops imported from China could be hit by new tariffs . Americans could “ very easily ” handle a 10 percent duty , he said .
Read More : Apple Shares Fall as Trump Suggests 10 % Tariff on IPhones
The Trump administration has complained that U.S. companies aren ’ t getting a fair deal in China .
“ The only deal would be China has to open up their country to competition from the United States , ” the president said , according to the newspaper . “ As far as other countries are concerned , that ’ s up to them . ”
In September , the Trump administration plunged deeper into a trade war with China by imposing a 10 percent tariff on $ 200 billion of Chinese goods , and said the rate will rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1 . The U.S. is unlikely to accede to demands from Beijing to refrain from increasing the tariff , Trump said .
`` This is largely a negotiation tactic , '' said Tao Dong , vice chairman for Greater China at Credit Suisse Private Banking in Hong Kong . `` Putting high stakes pressure onto the other side seems to be a consistent pattern from the Trump administration . ''
China ’ s foreign ministry urged the U.S. to work toward a positive outcome at the planned Group of 20 meeting . Teams from the U.S. and China are working to follow through on a Nov. 1 phone call between Trump and Xi during which the leaders agreed to reach a “ mutually acceptable proposal , ” a foreign ministry spokesman told reporters in Beijing on Tuesday .
The U.S. already imposed tariffs on $ 50 billion on Chinese products earlier this year , which Beijing retaliated against on a dollar-for-dollar basis . China has since added retaliatory duties on an additional $ 60 billion of American products .
In the Crosshairs Consumer goods will be top target if U.S. imposes tariffs on remaining Chinese imports Source : United States International Trade Commission
Chinese officials have said their key outcome from the Trump-Xi meeting is to convince the U.S. to hold off from the tariff increase , the Wall Street Journal reported , without identifying the officials .
Trump told the Journal that his advice to American companies caught up in the trade conflict is to build factories in the U.S. and make their products domestically .
— With assistance by Kevin Hamlin , Miao Han , Natalie Lung , and David Ramli
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 2:28 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
President Donald Trump said he’ll likely push forward with plans to increase tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, indicating he would also slap duties on all remaining imports from the Asian nation if negotiations with China’s leader Xi Jinping fail to produce a trade deal.
Trump, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Monday, said he’s prepared to impose tariffs on a final batch of $267 billion of Chinese shipments if he can’t make a deal with Xi when they meet at the Group of 20 meeting in Argentina, which starts Nov. 30. The rate could be either 10 percent or 25 percent, Trump said.
Trump said that Apple Inc.’s iPhones and laptops imported from China could be hit by new tariffs. Americans could “very easily” handle a 10 percent duty, he said.
Read More: Apple Shares Fall as Trump Suggests 10% Tariff on IPhones
The Trump administration has complained that U.S. companies aren’t getting a fair deal in China.
“The only deal would be China has to open up their country to competition from the United States,” the president said, according to the newspaper. “As far as other countries are concerned, that’s up to them.”
In September, the Trump administration plunged deeper into a trade war with China by imposing a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods, and said the rate will rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1. The U.S. is unlikely to accede to demands from Beijing to refrain from increasing the tariff, Trump said.
"This is largely a negotiation tactic," said Tao Dong, vice chairman for Greater China at Credit Suisse Private Banking in Hong Kong. "Putting high stakes pressure onto the other side seems to be a consistent pattern from the Trump administration."
China’s foreign ministry urged the U.S. to work toward a positive outcome at the planned Group of 20 meeting. Teams from the U.S. and China are working to follow through on a Nov. 1 phone call between Trump and Xi during which the leaders agreed to reach a “mutually acceptable proposal,” a foreign ministry spokesman told reporters in Beijing on Tuesday.
The U.S. already imposed tariffs on $50 billion on Chinese products earlier this year, which Beijing retaliated against on a dollar-for-dollar basis. China has since added retaliatory duties on an additional $60 billion of American products.
In the Crosshairs Consumer goods will be top target if U.S. imposes tariffs on remaining Chinese imports Source: United States International Trade Commission
Chinese officials have said their key outcome from the Trump-Xi meeting is to convince the U.S. to hold off from the tariff increase, the Wall Street Journal reported, without identifying the officials.
Trump told the Journal that his advice to American companies caught up in the trade conflict is to build factories in the U.S. and make their products domestically.
— With assistance by Kevin Hamlin, Miao Han, Natalie Lung, and David Ramli
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
Aeie4dEXy9ffPPc8
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370817279/sen-warren-warns-that-spending-bill-sets-dangerous-precedent
|
Sen. Warren Warns That Spending Bill Sets Dangerous Precedent
|
2014-12-15
|
Steve Inskeep
|
'Warning Shot ' : Sen. Warren On Fighting Banks , And Her Political Future
Sen. Elizabeth Warren failed to stop a change in bank regulations last weekend , but she raised her profile yet again .
The Massachusetts Democrat tells NPR that her fight over a provision in a spending bill was a `` warning shot . '' She intends to continue her fight against what she describes as the power of Wall Street , even though that fight brought her to oppose leaders of her own party .
In recent weeks , Warren challenged one of President Obama 's nominees to a senior post at the Treasury Department , arguing that he was too close to powerful banks . Then , last week , she denounced a $ 1.1 trillion spending bill that had been passed by the House and approved by Senate leaders as well as Obama .
Warren , a hero to many among her party 's liberals , objected to a provision that would undo a new financial regulation .
`` Republicans slipped in a provision at the last minute that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and then get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system , '' she told NPR .
The measure involves complex financial trades called derivatives that can be hugely profitable but also hugely risky .
A provision of the Dodd-Frank law required banks to create subsidiary companies to do their trading — with their own money . The idea was to create a firewall between the banks ' trading and customers ' deposits , which are federally insured .
The spending bill that the Senate passed over the weekend eliminates the new rules , and keeps financial trading within the banks .
NPR 's Steve Inskeep spoke with Warren about the financial provisions in the spending bill , challenging her party 's leadership and calls for her to run for president in 2016 .
You said they slipped it in , which is true — it did get tacked on to this much larger legislation about something else . But is n't this a provision that did go through the regular legislative process in the House of Representatives ? There were committee hearings . There were Democrats as well as Republicans who voted for it .
You know , it was literally never introduced in the Senate . It had no hearings . There was no discussion about this . And let 's keep in mind about this provision , this is a provision that Citigroup lobbyists literally wrote . And then , just to make sure that everybody got the point , Jamie Dimon , the CEO of JPMorgan , personally made phone calls to House members to push for this change . I think that tells you what was really going on here . They want to be able to juice their profits . A half-dozen of the largest financial institutions in this country want to be able to take riskier bets , and , hey , if it does n't work out , they want the U.S. taxpayer to bail 'em out . I think that 's a bad idea .
You mentioned that current bank executives wanted this change . But they were able to point out that over the years — there have been years of debates about this very rule — over the years that people who have thought this change would be OK have included Paul Volcker , the former chairman of the Federal Reserve , who 's widely respected . He is on record as long ago as 2010 saying that other parts of banking regulation take care of this issue and this seems to be needlessly complicating things .
I think that it 's fair to say that this is a very complicated provision and that it was a compromise when it was put in . My view on it , however , is that we should have something stronger here , not that we should just knock it down and get rid of a provision that 's designed to prevent government bailouts .
Is n't it true that whether the government directly insures the transaction or not , the government sort of is ? Because these are institutions regarded as too big to fail . We 're going to bail them out if they fail anyway .
Well , you know , that is the risk we run right now , is that we have a handful of giant banks in this country that were too big to fail in 2008 , got bailed out by the taxpayer and are now bigger than they were then , and are again loading up on risks . But , you know , whichever way you think is the right answer here , I know for sure that this should n't be slipped into an omnibus spending bill — a bill that must pass in order to keep the government open . And what it means , if this works , is they can just kinda keep slipping grenades and attach them to , you know , must-pass spending bills , and pretty soon we have no financial regulations at all .
Sen. Warren , some people will know that you challenged your party 's leadership on this shortly after your party added you to the Democratic Senate leadership . How did it work in this very early case in which you disagreed with the leadership ?
Look , these are issues I 've worked on for most of my career . I am glad to be in leadership , I am grateful to have a , a place at the table , but my priorities have n't changed . I 'm gon na stand up and fight for what I believe in .
Well , what does it say about your party that the party leadership in the Senate and apparently elsewhere , including the White House , was not with you on this ?
You know , actually , I want to say that differently . You know , the president said he was very much opposed to this provision . There were a lot of Democrats who were opposed to this provision . You know , once the House passed an omnibus bill with this in it and threw it over to the Senate — and then the House left town — at that point , there was very little choice but either to pass the omnibus , even with this thing in it , or shut down the government . And we did n't want to shut down the government .
Sen. Warren , as you must know , that even as you were fighting over this in the Senate , there was a group called Ready for Warren that wants you to run for president , that released a letter signed by more than 300 people who describe themselves as former Obama campaign workers and staffers and aides . They want you to run . What do you say to them ?
I 'm , I 'm not running for president . That 's not what we 're doing . We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week . And I 'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this .
Would you tell these independent groups , `` Give it up ! '' You 're just never going to run .
You 're putting that in the present tense , though . Are you never going to run ?
I am not running for president . You want me to put an exclamation point at the end ?
( Laughs ) OK , that 's fine . Can you tell me , Senator , how you see your role over the next couple of years presuming that you do n't run ? You 've raised your profile in a way that few Democrats have been able to do recently .
You know , I 'm just here to stand up for hardworking families who just want a fighting chance . That 's what I 'm in this fight for , and I 'm in this fight all the way .
|
'Warning Shot': Sen. Warren On Fighting Banks, And Her Political Future
Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Updated at 9:30 a.m. ET
Sen. Elizabeth Warren failed to stop a change in bank regulations last weekend, but she raised her profile yet again.
The Massachusetts Democrat tells NPR that her fight over a provision in a spending bill was a "warning shot." She intends to continue her fight against what she describes as the power of Wall Street, even though that fight brought her to oppose leaders of her own party.
In recent weeks, Warren challenged one of President Obama's nominees to a senior post at the Treasury Department, arguing that he was too close to powerful banks. Then, last week, she denounced a $1.1 trillion spending bill that had been passed by the House and approved by Senate leaders as well as Obama.
Warren, a hero to many among her party's liberals, objected to a provision that would undo a new financial regulation.
"Republicans slipped in a provision at the last minute that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and then get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system," she told NPR.
The measure involves complex financial trades called derivatives that can be hugely profitable but also hugely risky.
A provision of the Dodd-Frank law required banks to create subsidiary companies to do their trading — with their own money. The idea was to create a firewall between the banks' trading and customers' deposits, which are federally insured.
The spending bill that the Senate passed over the weekend eliminates the new rules, and keeps financial trading within the banks.
NPR's Steve Inskeep spoke with Warren about the financial provisions in the spending bill, challenging her party's leadership and calls for her to run for president in 2016.
Editor's note: Some earlier comments on this post were inadvertently removed when it was moved to a different URL. Those comments can be viewed here.
Interview Highlights
You said they slipped it in, which is true — it did get tacked on to this much larger legislation about something else. But isn't this a provision that did go through the regular legislative process in the House of Representatives? There were committee hearings. There were Democrats as well as Republicans who voted for it.
You know, it was literally never introduced in the Senate. It had no hearings. There was no discussion about this. And let's keep in mind about this provision, this is a provision that Citigroup lobbyists literally wrote. And then, just to make sure that everybody got the point, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, personally made phone calls to House members to push for this change. I think that tells you what was really going on here. They want to be able to juice their profits. A half-dozen of the largest financial institutions in this country want to be able to take riskier bets, and, hey, if it doesn't work out, they want the U.S. taxpayer to bail 'em out. I think that's a bad idea.
You mentioned that current bank executives wanted this change. But they were able to point out that over the years — there have been years of debates about this very rule — over the years that people who have thought this change would be OK have included Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, who's widely respected. He is on record as long ago as 2010 saying that other parts of banking regulation take care of this issue and this seems to be needlessly complicating things.
I think that it's fair to say that this is a very complicated provision and that it was a compromise when it was put in. My view on it, however, is that we should have something stronger here, not that we should just knock it down and get rid of a provision that's designed to prevent government bailouts.
Isn't it true that whether the government directly insures the transaction or not, the government sort of is? Because these are institutions regarded as too big to fail. We're going to bail them out if they fail anyway.
Well, you know, that is the risk we run right now, is that we have a handful of giant banks in this country that were too big to fail in 2008, got bailed out by the taxpayer and are now bigger than they were then, and are again loading up on risks. But, you know, whichever way you think is the right answer here, I know for sure that this shouldn't be slipped into an omnibus spending bill — a bill that must pass in order to keep the government open. And what it means, if this works, is they can just kinda keep slipping grenades and attach them to, you know, must-pass spending bills, and pretty soon we have no financial regulations at all.
Sen. Warren, some people will know that you challenged your party's leadership on this shortly after your party added you to the Democratic Senate leadership. How did it work in this very early case in which you disagreed with the leadership?
Look, these are issues I've worked on for most of my career. I am glad to be in leadership, I am grateful to have a, a place at the table, but my priorities haven't changed. I'm gonna stand up and fight for what I believe in.
Well, what does it say about your party that the party leadership in the Senate and apparently elsewhere, including the White House, was not with you on this?
You know, actually, I want to say that differently. You know, the president said he was very much opposed to this provision. There were a lot of Democrats who were opposed to this provision. You know, once the House passed an omnibus bill with this in it and threw it over to the Senate — and then the House left town — at that point, there was very little choice but either to pass the omnibus, even with this thing in it, or shut down the government. And we didn't want to shut down the government.
Sen. Warren, as you must know, that even as you were fighting over this in the Senate, there was a group called Ready for Warren that wants you to run for president, that released a letter signed by more than 300 people who describe themselves as former Obama campaign workers and staffers and aides. They want you to run. What do you say to them?
I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this.
Would you tell these independent groups, "Give it up!" You're just never going to run.
I told them, "I'm not running for president."
You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?
I am not running for president.
You're not putting a "never" on that.
I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?
(Laughs) OK, that's fine. Can you tell me, Senator, how you see your role over the next couple of years presuming that you don't run? You've raised your profile in a way that few Democrats have been able to do recently.
You know, I'm just here to stand up for hardworking families who just want a fighting chance. That's what I'm in this fight for, and I'm in this fight all the way.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
5LZ6D5C8lMFTSSQf
|
us_military
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/bergdahl-release-raises-questions-over-security-co/
|
Bergdahl release raises questions over security, congressional authority
|
2014-06-01
|
David Sherfinski
|
As America ’ s only prisoner of war in Afghanistan was transferred back to U.S. custody , Republicans challenged the Obama administration ’ s insistence it did not negotiate with terrorists in securing the soldier ’ s release and say the move was illegal and could embolden terrorists around the globe .
As his parents and residents of his Idaho hometown celebrated the negotiated release of Sgt . Bowe Berdahl over the weekend , the circumstances surrounding the release — and the sudden freeing of five Taliban figures held at the Guantanamo detainee prison — were producing a full-scale controversy in Washington .
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel insisted the U.S. did not negotiate with terrorists in the process of exchanging the transfer of the five terrorism suspects for the release of Sgt . Bergdahl , now 28 , who had been in Taliban hands since June 2009 .
“ We didn ’ t negotiate with terrorists , ” Mr. Hagel said on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press. ” “ And I said and explained before , Sgt . Bergdahl is a prisoner of war . That ’ s a normal process in getting your prisoners back . ”
Sgt . Bergdahl arrived at a U.S. military hospital in Germany Sunday after he was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban Saturday , with the government of Qatar serving as a go-between .
In an emotional press conference Sunday afternoon in Boise , Idaho , Sgt . Bergdahl ’ s father , Bob , likened his son ’ s return to a deep-sea diver resurfacing and urged a gradual re-assimilation process .
SEE ALSO : GOP lawmakers warn of Taliban incentives in freeing American POW
“ If he comes up too fast , it could kill him , ” said Mr. Bergdahl , thanking supporters and government officials for their help in the process . “ The recovery and rehabilitation of Bowe Bergdahl is a work in progress . ”
Jani Bergdahl told her son to give himself all the time he needs to recover .
“ I love you , Bowe — I ’ m so very proud of you , ” she said . “ We praise God for your freedom . ”
Administration officials too said the focus right now should be on the fact that the only U.S. POW from the Afghan conflict is coming back home , even as President Obama is winding down the 13-year war there .
National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice told CNN that what officials did was ensure that the United States doesn ’ t leave a man or woman on the battlefield .
“ And in order to do this — it ’ s very important for folks to understand , if we got into a situation where we said , you know , because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield , we will leave that person behind , we would be in a whole new era for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform , ” Ms. Rice said . “ So [ just ] because the Taliban had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back . ”
But complicating the administration ’ s narrative was a rare public statement Sunday from Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar , who said the prisoner swap marked a “ great victory ” for the Islamist movement that led the military resistance against the U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan for more than a decade .
“ The sacrifice of our mujahedeen have resulted in the release of our senior leaders from the hand of the enemy , ” Mullah Mohammed Omar said .
Ms. Rice and other administration officials insisted that , at the diplomatic level , the U.S. was negotiating with the government of Qatar , not the Taliban or its Afghan allies . But the handover followed secret and indirect negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban , and Qatar is taking custody of five of the Afghan detainees that had been held at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba .
The detainees are believed to be the most senior Afghans still held at the prison : Abdul Haq Wasiq , Mullah Norullah Nori , Khairullah Khairkhwa , Mohammed Nabi and Mohammad Fazl . Mr. Obama ’ s efforts to close the detainee site have been frustrated by opposition from both parties in Congress .
Republican critics Sunday criticized both the abrupt manner in which the Taliban prisoners were traded — with almost no advance warning to lawmakers — and the potential precedent the deal could set in dealing with other terrorist enemies .
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “ Buck ” McKeon said that the released detainees are “ five very dangerous guys that should not leave Guantanamo [ and ] should not have the opportunity to get back into this fight . ”
“ And now we have set a precedent — the president has set a precedent , ” the California Republican said Sunday on CNN . “ You know , he has violated the law and flouted the Constitution so many times . We have real concerns about this . They ’ re not following the law . They know they ’ re not following the law . ”
Added Sen. Ted Cruz , Texas Republican , speaking on ABC News , “ What does this tell terrorists — that if you capture a U.S. soldier you can trade that soldier for five terrorists ? ”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia , the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , said the administration assured him just six months ago they would not consider the release of the leaders without consulting Congress .
“ The security assurances the United States has been given regarding these terrorists is feeble at best , and I fear it is only a matter of time before they resume their terrorist activities , ” he said . “ These men are not soldiers ; they are dangerous terrorists , and President Obama should be treating them as such . ”
But Idaho ’ s all-Republican congressional delegation hailed the move . Rep. Raul R. Labrador told the Boise Weekly he was “ thrilled ” by the news , while Sen. Mike Crapo said that “ our prayers have been answered . ”
Mr. Hagel acknowledged that the law now mandates that the defense secretary give at least 30 days ’ notice for such prison transfers but that officials moved under the timeline they did in order to save Sgt . Bergdahl ’ s life .
“ We had information that his health could be deteriorating rapidly , ” he said . “ There was a question about his safety . We found an opportunity . We took that opportunity . I ’ ll stand by that decision . I signed off on the decision . The president made the ultimate decision . We did spend time looking at this . ”
Ms. Rice said the sergeant ’ s situation was “ acute ” and said the administration would have been criticized if it had failed to act when a deal materialized .
“ We did not have 30 days to wait , ” she said . “ And had we waited and lost him , I don ’ t think anybody would have forgiven the United States government . ”
Mr. Hagel added that he will not agree to the release of any more detainees from Guantanamo unless the country can be assured “ that we can sufficiently mitigate any risk to America ’ s security . ”
Sgt . Bergdahl was captured under murky circumstances in eastern Afghanistan on June 30 , 2009 , about two months after arriving in the country , but neither Mr. Hagel nor Ms. Rice specifically addressed how that happened .
“ We ’ ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years , but what ’ s most important now is his health and well-being , that he have the opportunity to recover in peace and security and be reunited with his family , which is why this is such a joyous day , ” Ms. Rice said on ABC ’ s “ This Week . ”
An annual event called “ Bring Bowe Back ” in his hometown of Hailey , Idaho , scheduled for June 28 was quickly renamed “ Bowe Is Back . ”
“ It is going to be Bowe ’ s official welcome-home party even if he ’ s not quite home yet , ” organizer Stefanie O ’ Neill said .
• This article is based in part on wire service reports .
|
As America’s only prisoner of war in Afghanistan was transferred back to U.S. custody, Republicans challenged the Obama administration’s insistence it did not negotiate with terrorists in securing the soldier’s release and say the move was illegal and could embolden terrorists around the globe.
As his parents and residents of his Idaho hometown celebrated the negotiated release of Sgt. Bowe Berdahl over the weekend, the circumstances surrounding the release — and the sudden freeing of five Taliban figures held at the Guantanamo detainee prison — were producing a full-scale controversy in Washington.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel insisted the U.S. did not negotiate with terrorists in the process of exchanging the transfer of the five terrorism suspects for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, now 28, who had been in Taliban hands since June 2009.
“We didn’t negotiate with terrorists,” Mr. Hagel said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I said and explained before, Sgt. Bergdahl is a prisoner of war. That’s a normal process in getting your prisoners back.”
Sgt. Bergdahl arrived at a U.S. military hospital in Germany Sunday after he was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban Saturday, with the government of Qatar serving as a go-between.
In an emotional press conference Sunday afternoon in Boise, Idaho, Sgt. Bergdahl’s father, Bob, likened his son’s return to a deep-sea diver resurfacing and urged a gradual re-assimilation process.
SEE ALSO: GOP lawmakers warn of Taliban incentives in freeing American POW
“If he comes up too fast, it could kill him,” said Mr. Bergdahl, thanking supporters and government officials for their help in the process. “The recovery and rehabilitation of Bowe Bergdahl is a work in progress.”
Jani Bergdahl told her son to give himself all the time he needs to recover.
“I love you, Bowe — I’m so very proud of you,” she said. “We praise God for your freedom.”
Administration officials too said the focus right now should be on the fact that the only U.S. POW from the Afghan conflict is coming back home, even as President Obama is winding down the 13-year war there.
National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice told CNN that what officials did was ensure that the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield.
“And in order to do this — it’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said, you know, because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind, we would be in a whole new era for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform,” Ms. Rice said. “So [just] because the Taliban had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back.”
But complicating the administration’s narrative was a rare public statement Sunday from Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who said the prisoner swap marked a “great victory” for the Islamist movement that led the military resistance against the U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan for more than a decade.
“The sacrifice of our mujahedeen have resulted in the release of our senior leaders from the hand of the enemy,” Mullah Mohammed Omar said.
Ms. Rice and other administration officials insisted that, at the diplomatic level, the U.S. was negotiating with the government of Qatar, not the Taliban or its Afghan allies. But the handover followed secret and indirect negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban, and Qatar is taking custody of five of the Afghan detainees that had been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The detainees are believed to be the most senior Afghans still held at the prison: Abdul Haq Wasiq, Mullah Norullah Nori, Khairullah Khairkhwa, Mohammed Nabi and Mohammad Fazl. Mr. Obama’s efforts to close the detainee site have been frustrated by opposition from both parties in Congress.
‘Very dangerous guys’
Republican critics Sunday criticized both the abrupt manner in which the Taliban prisoners were traded — with almost no advance warning to lawmakers — and the potential precedent the deal could set in dealing with other terrorist enemies.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon said that the released detainees are “five very dangerous guys that should not leave Guantanamo [and] should not have the opportunity to get back into this fight.”
“And now we have set a precedent — the president has set a precedent,” the California Republican said Sunday on CNN. “You know, he has violated the law and flouted the Constitution so many times. We have real concerns about this. They’re not following the law. They know they’re not following the law.”
Added Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, speaking on ABC News, “What does this tell terrorists — that if you capture a U.S. soldier you can trade that soldier for five terrorists?”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the administration assured him just six months ago they would not consider the release of the leaders without consulting Congress.
“The security assurances the United States has been given regarding these terrorists is feeble at best, and I fear it is only a matter of time before they resume their terrorist activities,” he said. “These men are not soldiers; they are dangerous terrorists, and President Obama should be treating them as such.”
But Idaho’s all-Republican congressional delegation hailed the move. Rep. Raul R. Labrador told the Boise Weekly he was “thrilled” by the news, while Sen. Mike Crapo said that “our prayers have been answered.”
Mr. Hagel acknowledged that the law now mandates that the defense secretary give at least 30 days’ notice for such prison transfers but that officials moved under the timeline they did in order to save Sgt. Bergdahl’s life.
“We had information that his health could be deteriorating rapidly,” he said. “There was a question about his safety. We found an opportunity. We took that opportunity. I’ll stand by that decision. I signed off on the decision. The president made the ultimate decision. We did spend time looking at this.”
Ms. Rice said the sergeant’s situation was “acute” and said the administration would have been criticized if it had failed to act when a deal materialized.
“We did not have 30 days to wait,” she said. “And had we waited and lost him, I don’t think anybody would have forgiven the United States government.”
Mr. Hagel added that he will not agree to the release of any more detainees from Guantanamo unless the country can be assured “that we can sufficiently mitigate any risk to America’s security.”
Sgt. Bergdahl was captured under murky circumstances in eastern Afghanistan on June 30, 2009, about two months after arriving in the country, but neither Mr. Hagel nor Ms. Rice specifically addressed how that happened.
“We’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years, but what’s most important now is his health and well-being, that he have the opportunity to recover in peace and security and be reunited with his family, which is why this is such a joyous day,” Ms. Rice said on ABC’s “This Week.”
An annual event called “Bring Bowe Back” in his hometown of Hailey, Idaho, scheduled for June 28 was quickly renamed “Bowe Is Back.”
“It is going to be Bowe’s official welcome-home party even if he’s not quite home yet,” organizer Stefanie O’Neill said.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
mvL4TmAorNX1R58r
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-aim-their-fire-at-trump-in-south-carolina-vie-for-frontrunner-status
|
Democrats aim their fire at Trump in South Carolina, vie for frontrunner status
|
Adam Shaw
|
Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls took to the stage in South Carolina on Saturday to take a series of swings at President Trump , and position themselves as the front runner in a packed race for the Democratic nomination in a vital primary state .
The candidates spoke at the state ’ s Democratic Party convention , using dramatic language to condemn the current occupant of the White House .
BIDEN , UNDER FIRE FOR COMMENTS ON SEGREGATIONISTS , GAVE EULOGIES FOR STROM THURMOND , ROBERT BYRD
Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , described Trump as “ the most dangerous president in American history ” while Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , made a reference to her background as a prosecutor and called on Democratic activists to “ prosecute ” Trump ’ s record in office .
“ Let 's prosecute the guy . Let 's prosecute that case , ” she said .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , who is the frontrunner in the polls , was scheduled to speak in the evening -- and his rivals didn ’ t mention him by name , but sought to undercut the claim that he is the most electable candidate .
Harris urged voters not to “ turn back the clock , ” a possible reference to Biden ’ s representation of a prior era of American politics . Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass. , who has been creeping up the polls in recent weeks , said that her ideas could also reach Republicans .
“ I believe that when we kept in the big fights for the big ideas that 's when it is that we draw in Democrats and Republicans , ” she said . “ That 's what it is that we make it worthwhile for people to get in the fight . That 's why we 're here to build a future not just for those who are born into privilege but to build a future for everyone . And that 's what my campaign is all about . ”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , who has touted her success in moderate Midwest states , told the crowd that “ I know how to win . ”
Biden himself appeared on stage at a Friday evening fish fry held by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn , D-S.C. , and touted his friendships with Clyburn and other South Carolina politicians . He also urged unity in his party , saying that whoever the nominee may be , “ we have to stay together and elect a Democrat . ”
Biden has been dogged by criticism in recent days over comments he made about being able to work with segregationist Democrats and “ get things done ” in decades past . He was criticized by Sen. Cory Booker , D-N.J. , who called on Biden to apologize , and on Saturday by Harris .
TRUMP CAMPAIGN SLAMS BERNIE SANDERS FOR CALLING FOR FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
“ I ’ ve been very clear , I think his perspective on this is misinformed and if the people he was talking about with such affection had their way I would never have been able to be a United States senator , ” she told reporters .
Biden had been scheduled to meet with black leaders behind closed-doors on Friday .
South Carolina boasts the largest electorate of the four early nominating states , and its mix of black voters and moderate whites gives candidates a proving ground ahead of a Super Tuesday slate that includes other similar Southern states and hundreds of delegates at stake .
The convention also gave Democrats an opportunity to pitch for support from African-Americans , with Sanders slamming what he called a “ grotesque level of racial disparities in America . ”
“ We recently celebrated Juneteenth but a hundred and fifty four years after that day we see a racial gap that leaves the average black family with ten times less wealth than the average white family . We see the infant mortality rate in black communities more than double for white communities . We see young people African-Americans graduating college seven thousand dollars more in debt than white graduates . We see black women making 61 percent of what white men make . ''
“ We are going to end that absurdity , ” he said , before also declaring the criminal justice system “ plagued by racism . ”
Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend , Ind. , appeared after spending time at home after a black man was shot and killed by a police officer . Buttigieg was jeered by black protesters at home . He told the crowd in South Carolina that “ we will heal and we will become stronger in the broken place . ”
Harris , meanwhile , focused on Trump ’ s “ Make America Great Again ” slogan and asked whether it meant a return to segregation .
“ Does that mean he wants to take us back to before schools were integrated ? ” she asked . “ Does that mean he wants to take us back before the Voting Rights Act was enacted ? Does that mean he wants to take us back before the Civil Rights Act was enacted ? Does he mean he wants to take us back before Roe v. Wade was enacted ? ”
███ ’ Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report
|
Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls took to the stage in South Carolina on Saturday to take a series of swings at President Trump, and position themselves as the front runner in a packed race for the Democratic nomination in a vital primary state.
The candidates spoke at the state’s Democratic Party convention, using dramatic language to condemn the current occupant of the White House.
BIDEN, UNDER FIRE FOR COMMENTS ON SEGREGATIONISTS, GAVE EULOGIES FOR STROM THURMOND, ROBERT BYRD
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., described Trump as “the most dangerous president in American history” while Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., made a reference to her background as a prosecutor and called on Democratic activists to “prosecute” Trump’s record in office.
“Let's prosecute the guy. Let's prosecute that case,” she said.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is the frontrunner in the polls, was scheduled to speak in the evening -- and his rivals didn’t mention him by name, but sought to undercut the claim that he is the most electable candidate.
Harris urged voters not to “turn back the clock,” a possible reference to Biden’s representation of a prior era of American politics. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who has been creeping up the polls in recent weeks, said that her ideas could also reach Republicans.
“I believe that when we kept in the big fights for the big ideas that's when it is that we draw in Democrats and Republicans,” she said. “That's what it is that we make it worthwhile for people to get in the fight. That's why we're here to build a future not just for those who are born into privilege but to build a future for everyone. And that's what my campaign is all about.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who has touted her success in moderate Midwest states, told the crowd that “I know how to win.”
Biden himself appeared on stage at a Friday evening fish fry held by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., and touted his friendships with Clyburn and other South Carolina politicians. He also urged unity in his party, saying that whoever the nominee may be, “we have to stay together and elect a Democrat.”
Biden has been dogged by criticism in recent days over comments he made about being able to work with segregationist Democrats and “get things done” in decades past. He was criticized by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who called on Biden to apologize, and on Saturday by Harris.
TRUMP CAMPAIGN SLAMS BERNIE SANDERS FOR CALLING FOR FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
“I’ve been very clear, I think his perspective on this is misinformed and if the people he was talking about with such affection had their way I would never have been able to be a United States senator,” she told reporters.
Biden had been scheduled to meet with black leaders behind closed-doors on Friday.
South Carolina boasts the largest electorate of the four early nominating states, and its mix of black voters and moderate whites gives candidates a proving ground ahead of a Super Tuesday slate that includes other similar Southern states and hundreds of delegates at stake.
The convention also gave Democrats an opportunity to pitch for support from African-Americans, with Sanders slamming what he called a “grotesque level of racial disparities in America.”
“We recently celebrated Juneteenth but a hundred and fifty four years after that day we see a racial gap that leaves the average black family with ten times less wealth than the average white family. We see the infant mortality rate in black communities more than double for white communities. We see young people African-Americans graduating college seven thousand dollars more in debt than white graduates. We see black women making 61 percent of what white men make."
“We are going to end that absurdity,” he said, before also declaring the criminal justice system “plagued by racism.”
Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., appeared after spending time at home after a black man was shot and killed by a police officer. Buttigieg was jeered by black protesters at home. He told the crowd in South Carolina that “we will heal and we will become stronger in the broken place.”
Harris, meanwhile, focused on Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan and asked whether it meant a return to segregation.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP
“Does that mean he wants to take us back to before schools were integrated?” she asked. “Does that mean he wants to take us back before the Voting Rights Act was enacted? Does that mean he wants to take us back before the Civil Rights Act was enacted? Does he mean he wants to take us back before Roe v. Wade was enacted?”
“Because we're not going back,” she said.
Fox News’ Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
p3pPMZ0Yixsbc0aE
|
|
nsa
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
In high-stakes hide-and-seek, Snowden keeps much of the world guessing
|
2013-06-25
|
Jethro Mullen, Michael Pearson
|
Story highlights Snowden is safe and `` possibly simply relaxing , '' WikiLeaks spokesman says
Venezuela has n't gotten asylum request but would consider it , leader says
Vladimir Putin says Russia wo n't hand Snowden over to U.S. authorities
U.S. is asking for help in detaining former NSA contractor accused of spilling secrets
Edward Snowden , the former National Security Agency contractor who spilled U.S. surveillance secrets to the world , is a `` free man '' biding his time in a Moscow airport , Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters Tuesday .
Putin said Snowden -- who flew to Moscow from Hong Kong on Sunday -- is in the `` transit area '' of Sheremetyevo International Airport , the zone between arrival gates and Russia 's passport control checkpoints . While he said Russia wo n't hand Snowden over to the United States , he seemed eager to have the focus of international intrigue off his hands .
`` The sooner he selects his final destination point , the better both for us and for himself , '' Putin said from Finland of Snowden , who is wanted by U.S. officials on espionage charges for disclosing classified details of U.S. surveillance programs .
Putin 's comments end , for now at least , the international pastime of `` Where 's Snowden ? '' There have been rumors for days that the former NSA contractor had perhaps duped the world into thinking he was in Moscow to throw pursuers off his trail as he seeks a safe haven from U.S. prosecution .
Kristinn Hrafnsson -- a spokesman for WikiLeaks , an organization that facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information and has one of its members with Snowden in Russia -- told CNN 's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday only that Snowden `` is in a safe place and is comfortable and possibly simply relaxing after a very stressful week . ''
JUST WATCHED Hunting for Edward Snowden Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hunting for Edward Snowden 02:08
JUST WATCHED Snowden 's global game of hide and seek Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Snowden 's global game of hide and seek 00:10
JUST WATCHED Schumer : Putin aided , abetted Snowden Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Schumer : Putin aided , abetted Snowden 04:13
JUST WATCHED McCain : Putin 'sticks his thumb ' at us Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH McCain : Putin 'sticks his thumb ' at us 03:30
Noting the United States and Russia do not have an extradition agreement , Putin said Snowden ca n't be turned over to U.S. authorities and has committed no crimes on Russian soil .
But he also said Russian security forces have not been `` working with '' Snowden and expressed hope that the incident would not `` affect the cordial nature of our relations with the U.S. '' Hrafnsson offered a similar story , saying there 's been `` no cooperation or coordination with the Russian authority '' before or since Snowden arrived in Moscow .
A senior Obama administration official called Putin 's comments `` potentially positive '' while reiterating hopes that Snowden would be expelled from Russia and returned to the United States .
U.S. officials believe Russian authorities have a `` clear legal basis to expel Mr. Snowden , based on the status of his travel documents and the pending charges against him , '' National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said .
Secretary of State John Kerry , speaking to reporters while traveling in Saudi Arabia , said the United States is n't looking to Russia to enforce U.S. law , only to `` allow him to be subject to the laws of our land and our Constitution . ''
`` We are not looking for confrontation , we 're not ordering anybody , '' Kerry said . `` We 're simply requesting under a very normal procedure for the transfer of somebody , just as we transferred to Russia seven people in the last two years that they requested , that we did without any clamor , without any rancor , without any argument and according to our sense of the appropriateness of meeting their request . ''
Snowden left Hong Kong on Sunday after a couple of weeks spent doling out details of classified U.S. intelligence programs to journalists .
With his passport revoked by U.S. officials , Snowden traveled out of the semiautonomous Chinese territory on refugee papers issued by Ecuador , one of the countries from which he is seeking asylum .
His travels have sparked international dust-ups , with U.S. officials accusing China of making a `` deliberate choice '' to let Snowden go free and criticizing Russia for failing to hand him over in a spirit of international cooperation .
On Tuesday , a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman rejected the U.S. claims as `` unreasonable , '' according to the official Xinhua news service .
`` The accusation that the U.S. side made against the Central Government of China fell short of proof . The Chinese side will absolutely not accept it , '' spokeswoman Hua Chunying said .
Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung , Hong Kong 's justice secretary , likewise denied that authorities there intentionally let Snowden leave before acting on U.S. requests .
`` All along , we acted fully in accordance with the law and any suggestion that we have been deliberately letting Mr. Snowden go away or to do any other thing to obstruct the normal operation is totally untrue , '' Yuen said Tuesday .
Authorities in Hong Kong were seeking answers from U.S. authorities around when Snowden left , the justice secretary added . Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying said Monday that authorities acted independently from Beijing `` to follow procedural fairness and procedural justice . ''
In Moscow , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the U.S. complaints `` absolutely groundless and unacceptable . ''
`` I want to say , right away , that we have nothing to do with Mr. Snowden or his movements around the world , '' Lavrov said .
JUST WATCHED Did the U.S. drop the ball on Snowden ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Did the U.S. drop the ball on Snowden ? 02:00
JUST WATCHED White House upset about Snowden travels Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH White House upset about Snowden travels 03:20
JUST WATCHED We want to know : Where 's Ed ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH We want to know : Where 's Ed ? 02:28
The White House is eager to avoid a repeat of what happened in Hong Kong , where authorities let Snowden leave despite a U.S. request for his arrest and extradition . Washington has described that move as a `` serious setback '' to building trust between the United States and China .
But the Obama administration does n't have much leverage with Moscow , said Matthew Rojansky , an expert on U.S. and Russian national security at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace .
`` We really need Russian cooperation , I think , much more in most areas than the Russians need us , '' he said .
Washington is also telling other countries where Snowden might end up -- notably Ecuador , which says it 's analyzing an asylum request from Snowden -- that they should hand him over if he lands on their soil . They note that his U.S. passport has been revoked .
`` The U.S. is advising these governments that Mr. Snowden is wanted on felony charges and as such should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than is necessary to return him here to the United States , '' Carney said .
One rumored destination is Venezuela , whose leaders have been frequently at odds with Washington in recent years .
According to the AVN state news agency , President Nicolas Maduro said Tuesday his country has not received a formal request for political asylum from Snowden . But if it did , the government would consider it on humanitarian grounds , the agency reports .
In its quest to get Snowden , the United States has limited options . CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the issue now `` is much more of a political and diplomatic matter than it is a legal matter . ''
`` In an ordinary case , sure , you need a passport to get around , '' Toobin said . `` But here , where this case is causing increasing embarrassment for the United States , governments that want the United States to be embarrassed are only too happy to waive some of the technical legal rules . ''
Snowden has acknowledged he leaked classified documents about the NSA 's surveillance programs to the Guardian newspaper in Britain and The Washington Post .
The documents revealed the existence of programs that collect records of domestic telephone calls in the United States and monitor the Internet activity of people overseas residents .
The disclosures shook the U.S. intelligence community and raised questions about whether the NSA is eroding American civil liberties .
Snowden worked as a Hawaii-based computer network administrator for Booz Allen Hamilton , an NSA contractor , before he fled to Hong Kong last month with laptops full of confidential information .
The South China Morning Post newspaper published a story Monday quoting Snowden as saying he took the job to gather evidence on U.S. surveillance programs .
He told the Guardian that he exposed the surveillance programs because they pose a threat to democracy , but administration officials said the programs are vital to preventing terrorist attacks and are overseen by all three branches of government .
Carney questioned Snowden 's assertion that he acted in defense of democratic transparency , saying his argument `` is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen -- China , Russia , Ecuador . ''
`` His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States , not to advance Internet freedom and free speech , '' Carney told reporters .
Snowden is seeking asylum from Ecuador , Iceland and other , unspecified countries , a WikiLeaks attorney said Monday .
Ecuador has already given WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange freedom if he can find a way out of the country 's embassy in London .
In his aslyum request read by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo , Snowden compared himself to Pvt . Bradley Manning , the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified information through WikiLeaks .
He said U.S. officials have treated Manning inhumanely by holding him in solitary confinement , and he predicted a similar `` cruel and unusual '' fate for himself if he falls into U.S. hands .
Snowden has come under some criticism for seeking out help from nations with questionable histories on free speech and press freedom .
For instance , The Committee to Protect Journalists has criticized Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa 's government for pushing legislation that would roll back press freedoms , calling its policies increasingly repressive .
Snowden is n't looking for `` political nirvana , '' said Glenn Greenwald , the columnist for the Guardian who broke his revelations .
`` He 's searching for a place where he can be safe and remain free and participate in the debate , and Ecuador seems to be the place he has chosen , '' Greenwald told CNN 's `` The Lead . ''
Some have speculated Snowden has `` doomsday insurance '' in the form of even more top-secret U.S. documents that will go public if he 's ever detained by U.S. authorities .
Hrafnsson , the WikiLeaks spokesman , said he did n't know about Snowden 's specific plans , but did suggest more secrets may be revealed .
`` This is simply information that should be out in the public , '' he said . `` There is more to come . ''
|
Story highlights Snowden is safe and "possibly simply relaxing," WikiLeaks spokesman says
Venezuela hasn't gotten asylum request but would consider it, leader says
Vladimir Putin says Russia won't hand Snowden over to U.S. authorities
U.S. is asking for help in detaining former NSA contractor accused of spilling secrets
Edward Snowden , the former National Security Agency contractor who spilled U.S. surveillance secrets to the world, is a "free man" biding his time in a Moscow airport, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters Tuesday.
Putin said Snowden -- who flew to Moscow from Hong Kong on Sunday -- is in the "transit area" of Sheremetyevo International Airport, the zone between arrival gates and Russia's passport control checkpoints. While he said Russia won't hand Snowden over to the United States, he seemed eager to have the focus of international intrigue off his hands.
"The sooner he selects his final destination point, the better both for us and for himself," Putin said from Finland of Snowden, who is wanted by U.S. officials on espionage charges for disclosing classified details of U.S. surveillance programs.
Putin's comments end, for now at least, the international pastime of "Where's Snowden?" There have been rumors for days that the former NSA contractor had perhaps duped the world into thinking he was in Moscow to throw pursuers off his trail as he seeks a safe haven from U.S. prosecution.
Kristinn Hrafnsson -- a spokesman for WikiLeaks, an organization that facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information and has one of its members with Snowden in Russia -- told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday only that Snowden "is in a safe place and is comfortable and possibly simply relaxing after a very stressful week."
JUST WATCHED Hunting for Edward Snowden Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hunting for Edward Snowden 02:08
JUST WATCHED Snowden's global game of hide and seek Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Snowden's global game of hide and seek 00:10
JUST WATCHED Schumer: Putin aided, abetted Snowden Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Schumer: Putin aided, abetted Snowden 04:13
JUST WATCHED McCain: Putin 'sticks his thumb' at us Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH McCain: Putin 'sticks his thumb' at us 03:30
Noting the United States and Russia do not have an extradition agreement, Putin said Snowden can't be turned over to U.S. authorities and has committed no crimes on Russian soil.
But he also said Russian security forces have not been "working with" Snowden and expressed hope that the incident would not "affect the cordial nature of our relations with the U.S." Hrafnsson offered a similar story, saying there's been "no cooperation or coordination with the Russian authority" before or since Snowden arrived in Moscow.
A senior Obama administration official called Putin's comments "potentially positive" while reiterating hopes that Snowden would be expelled from Russia and returned to the United States.
U.S. officials believe Russian authorities have a "clear legal basis to expel Mr. Snowden, based on the status of his travel documents and the pending charges against him," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said.
Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking to reporters while traveling in Saudi Arabia, said the United States isn't looking to Russia to enforce U.S. law, only to "allow him to be subject to the laws of our land and our Constitution."
"We are not looking for confrontation, we're not ordering anybody," Kerry said. "We're simply requesting under a very normal procedure for the transfer of somebody, just as we transferred to Russia seven people in the last two years that they requested, that we did without any clamor, without any rancor, without any argument and according to our sense of the appropriateness of meeting their request."
Snowden left Hong Kong on Sunday after a couple of weeks spent doling out details of classified U.S. intelligence programs to journalists.
With his passport revoked by U.S. officials, Snowden traveled out of the semiautonomous Chinese territory on refugee papers issued by Ecuador, one of the countries from which he is seeking asylum.
International tiff
His travels have sparked international dust-ups, with U.S. officials accusing China of making a "deliberate choice" to let Snowden go free and criticizing Russia for failing to hand him over in a spirit of international cooperation.
On Tuesday, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman rejected the U.S. claims as "unreasonable," according to the official Xinhua news service.
"The accusation that the U.S. side made against the Central Government of China fell short of proof. The Chinese side will absolutely not accept it," spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, Hong Kong's justice secretary, likewise denied that authorities there intentionally let Snowden leave before acting on U.S. requests.
"All along, we acted fully in accordance with the law and any suggestion that we have been deliberately letting Mr. Snowden go away or to do any other thing to obstruct the normal operation is totally untrue," Yuen said Tuesday.
Authorities in Hong Kong were seeking answers from U.S. authorities around when Snowden left, the justice secretary added. Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying said Monday that authorities acted independently from Beijing "to follow procedural fairness and procedural justice."
In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the U.S. complaints "absolutely groundless and unacceptable."
"I want to say, right away, that we have nothing to do with Mr. Snowden or his movements around the world," Lavrov said.
JUST WATCHED Did the U.S. drop the ball on Snowden? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Did the U.S. drop the ball on Snowden? 02:00
JUST WATCHED White House upset about Snowden travels Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH White House upset about Snowden travels 03:20
JUST WATCHED We want to know: Where's Ed? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH We want to know: Where's Ed? 02:28
The White House is eager to avoid a repeat of what happened in Hong Kong, where authorities let Snowden leave despite a U.S. request for his arrest and extradition. Washington has described that move as a "serious setback" to building trust between the United States and China.
But the Obama administration doesn't have much leverage with Moscow, said Matthew Rojansky, an expert on U.S. and Russian national security at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"We really need Russian cooperation, I think, much more in most areas than the Russians need us," he said.
U.S. diplomatic headache
Washington is also telling other countries where Snowden might end up -- notably Ecuador, which says it's analyzing an asylum request from Snowden -- that they should hand him over if he lands on their soil. They note that his U.S. passport has been revoked.
"The U.S. is advising these governments that Mr. Snowden is wanted on felony charges and as such should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than is necessary to return him here to the United States," Carney said.
One rumored destination is Venezuela, whose leaders have been frequently at odds with Washington in recent years.
According to the AVN state news agency, President Nicolas Maduro said Tuesday his country has not received a formal request for political asylum from Snowden. But if it did, the government would consider it on humanitarian grounds, the agency reports.
In its quest to get Snowden, the United States has limited options. CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the issue now "is much more of a political and diplomatic matter than it is a legal matter."
"In an ordinary case, sure, you need a passport to get around," Toobin said. "But here, where this case is causing increasing embarrassment for the United States, governments that want the United States to be embarrassed are only too happy to waive some of the technical legal rules."
The leak controversy
Snowden has acknowledged he leaked classified documents about the NSA's surveillance programs to the Guardian newspaper in Britain and The Washington Post.
The documents revealed the existence of programs that collect records of domestic telephone calls in the United States and monitor the Internet activity of people overseas residents.
The disclosures shook the U.S. intelligence community and raised questions about whether the NSA is eroding American civil liberties.
Snowden worked as a Hawaii-based computer network administrator for Booz Allen Hamilton, an NSA contractor, before he fled to Hong Kong last month with laptops full of confidential information.
The South China Morning Post newspaper published a story Monday quoting Snowden as saying he took the job to gather evidence on U.S. surveillance programs.
He told the Guardian that he exposed the surveillance programs because they pose a threat to democracy, but administration officials said the programs are vital to preventing terrorist attacks and are overseen by all three branches of government.
Carney questioned Snowden's assertion that he acted in defense of democratic transparency, saying his argument "is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen -- China, Russia, Ecuador."
"His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance Internet freedom and free speech," Carney told reporters.
Snowden's search
Snowden is seeking asylum from Ecuador, Iceland and other, unspecified countries, a WikiLeaks attorney said Monday.
Ecuador has already given WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange freedom if he can find a way out of the country's embassy in London.
In his aslyum request read by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo, Snowden compared himself to Pvt. Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified information through WikiLeaks.
He said U.S. officials have treated Manning inhumanely by holding him in solitary confinement, and he predicted a similar "cruel and unusual" fate for himself if he falls into U.S. hands.
Snowden has come under some criticism for seeking out help from nations with questionable histories on free speech and press freedom.
For instance, The Committee to Protect Journalists has criticized Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa's government for pushing legislation that would roll back press freedoms, calling its policies increasingly repressive.
Snowden isn't looking for "political nirvana," said Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for the Guardian who broke his revelations.
"He's searching for a place where he can be safe and remain free and participate in the debate, and Ecuador seems to be the place he has chosen," Greenwald told CNN's "The Lead."
Some have speculated Snowden has "doomsday insurance" in the form of even more top-secret U.S. documents that will go public if he's ever detained by U.S. authorities.
Hrafnsson, the WikiLeaks spokesman, said he didn't know about Snowden's specific plans, but did suggest more secrets may be revealed.
"This is simply information that should be out in the public," he said. "There is more to come."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
K2TmpX7etEkDPGEX
|
taxes
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/362866-tax-bill-could-fuel-push-for-medicare-social-security-cuts
|
Tax bill could fuel push for Medicare, Social Security cuts
|
2017-12-03
|
The tax bill that Republicans are muscling through Congress could result in cuts to entitlement spending if it significantly increases the national debt , budget experts say .
Republicans say the tax-cut package will lead to economic growth and greater tax revenues , but there are doubts even within their party about whether that growth will come to pass .
The Joint Committee on Taxation , Congress ’ s official budget scorekeeper , estimated the bill would cost $ 1 trillion over a decade even with economic growth taken into account . Sen. Bob Corker Robert ( Bob ) Phillips CorkerTrump announces , endorses ambassador to Japan 's Tennessee Senate bid Meet the key Senate player in GOP fight over Saudi Arabia Trump says he 's 'very happy ' some GOP senators have 'gone on to greener pastures ' MORE ( R-Tenn. ) opposed the bill for that reason .
As the population ages and health-care costs continue to rise , the fiscal demands on entitlements like Medicare , Medicaid and Social Security are projected to grow . The projected increase in the debt from the tax package could make the situation worse , budget experts say .
“ In the past when members of Congress have been concerned about the debt , they ’ ve turned to these programs , so it ’ s not a stretch to see that they turn there in the foreseeable future , ” said Tricia Neuman , a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation .
“ If we are talking about the kinds of deficits ” that are projected from the tax bill , “ entitlement cuts are definitely on the table , ” said William Hoagland , a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center .
Democrats and activist groups are seizing on the potential threat to entitlement programs to try and stop the bill and rally their base for the 2018 elections .
They have run television ads warning the bill would result in a $ 25 billion cut to Medicare , and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerTrump calls on Republicans to vote out Democratic Louisiana governor amid GOP infighting Appeals court upholds net neutrality repeal but rules FCC ca n't block state laws Schumer : Trump 's reported Russian meddling remarks among 'most disturbing things ' yet MORE ( D-N.Y. ) has repeatedly said the bill will “ gut ” the program .
During an exchange on the Senate floor Thursday evening , Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersBiden , Warren in dead heat in New Hampshire : poll Trump campaign , RNC raise staggering 5 million in third quarter Biden has 20-point lead in South Carolina primary : poll MORE ( I-Vt. ) asked Sens . Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioOver 1,000 people attend funeral for veteran with no immediate family To win the federal paid family leave debate , allow states to lead the way Rubio : The term 'impeachable offense ' has 'lost all meaning ' MORE ( R-Fla. ) and Pat Toomey Patrick ( Pat ) Joseph ToomeyNSA improperly collected US phone records in October , new documents show Overnight Defense : Pick for South Korean envoy splits with Trump on nuclear threat | McCain blasts move to suspend Korean military exercises | White House defends Trump salute of North Korean general WH backpedals on Trump 's 'due process ' remark on guns MORE ( R-Pa. ) to promise that Republicans wouldn ’ t cut Medicare and Social Security after passing the tax bill .
“ Will you guarantee the American people there will be zero cuts to benefits in Social Security , Medicare and Medicaid ? ” Sanders said .
Toomey said there were no plans to cut the programs , but activists are skeptical .
“ This is a tax bill that ’ s coming after Medicare and Medicaid cuts , ” said Eliot Fishman , senior director of health policy at Families USA . “ It ’ s fundamentally step one of a two-step process . Nobody should be under any illusions otherwise . ”
Senate Republicans on Friday scrambled to piece together their legislation ahead of a final vote . The bill passed despite the $ 1 trillion price tag .
Corker wanted to add $ 350 billion in automatic tax increases to reduce the bill ’ s impact on the debt , but other Republicans balked . He originally called for a tax-increase trigger , but that provision ran into issues with the Senate parliamentarian and couldn ’ t be included in the bill .
“ I wanted to get to yes . But at the end of the day , I am not able to cast aside my fiscal concerns and vote for legislation that I believe , based on the information I currently have , could deepen the debt burden on future generations , ” Corker said in a statement .
Corker ’ s worries about increasing deficits were not echoed by other rank-and-file Republicans or members of leadership . They said the bill would grow the economy , reducing the debt in the process .
“ This will be a revenue enhancer . This will not be revenue decrease overall , or else we wouldn ’ t be doing it , ” Sen. Mike Rounds Marion ( Mike ) Michael RoundsAmerica 's newest comedy troupe : House GOP 'Mike Pounce ' trends on Twitter after Trump slip at GOP retreat Conservatives offer stark warning to Trump , GOP on background checks MORE ( R-S.D . ) said .
“ We are presupposing it is going to cause a deficit and I am not sure that is a correct presupposition , ” added Sen. Bill Cassidy William ( Bill ) Morgan CassidyTo win the federal paid family leave debate , allow states to lead the way Democrats divided on surprise medical bill fix America 's newest comedy troupe : House GOP MORE ( R-La . ) .
Republicans are also facing the possibility that the $ 1 trillion tax bill will trigger deep , automatic cuts to Medicare next year unless Congress stops it from happening .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison ( Mitch ) Mitchell McConnellMcConnell : Communist Party 's methods a 'tragedy ' for Chinese people Trump congratulates China on anniversary as GOP lawmakers decry communist rule Appeals court upholds net neutrality repeal but rules FCC ca n't block state laws MORE ( R-Ky. ) promised Sen. Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsYes , President Trump , we do have a homelessness crisis and you 're making it harder for us to address The policy-driven presidential campaign could be drowned out by impeachment Flake tells GOP : Trump 'does not deserve reelection ' MORE ( R-Maine ) that the cuts required by the `` pay-as-you-go '' or `` pay-go '' budgetary rule won ’ t happen .
Collins was a key holdout , and she said the personal promise from McConnell helped win her support for the legislation .
McConnell on Friday issued a joint statement with Speaker Paul Ryan Paul Davis RyanDemocrats hit Scalia over LGBTQ rights Three-way clash set to dominate Democratic debate Krystal Ball touts Sanders odds in Texas MORE ( R-Wis. ) saying the pay-go cuts won ’ t happen .
“ Congress has readily available methods to waive this law , which has never been enforced since its enactment . There is no reason to believe that Congress would not act again to prevent a sequester , and we will work to ensure these spending cuts are prevented , ” McConnell and Ryan said .
Lawmakers have voted numerous times in the past to waive the rule , but they need the support of Democrats , who have so far been reluctant to offer it .
|
The tax bill that Republicans are muscling through Congress could result in cuts to entitlement spending if it significantly increases the national debt, budget experts say.
Republicans say the tax-cut package will lead to economic growth and greater tax revenues, but there are doubts even within their party about whether that growth will come to pass.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official budget scorekeeper, estimated the bill would cost $1 trillion over a decade even with economic growth taken into account. Sen. Bob Corker Robert (Bob) Phillips CorkerTrump announces, endorses ambassador to Japan's Tennessee Senate bid Meet the key Senate player in GOP fight over Saudi Arabia Trump says he's 'very happy' some GOP senators have 'gone on to greener pastures' MORE (R-Tenn.) opposed the bill for that reason.
As the population ages and health-care costs continue to rise, the fiscal demands on entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are projected to grow. The projected increase in the debt from the tax package could make the situation worse, budget experts say.
“In the past when members of Congress have been concerned about the debt, they’ve turned to these programs, so it’s not a stretch to see that they turn there in the foreseeable future,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
“If we are talking about the kinds of deficits” that are projected from the tax bill, “entitlement cuts are definitely on the table,” said William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Democrats and activist groups are seizing on the potential threat to entitlement programs to try and stop the bill and rally their base for the 2018 elections.
They have run television ads warning the bill would result in a $25 billion cut to Medicare, and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerTrump calls on Republicans to vote out Democratic Louisiana governor amid GOP infighting Appeals court upholds net neutrality repeal but rules FCC can't block state laws Schumer: Trump's reported Russian meddling remarks among 'most disturbing things' yet MORE (D-N.Y.) has repeatedly said the bill will “gut” the program.
During an exchange on the Senate floor Thursday evening, Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersBiden, Warren in dead heat in New Hampshire: poll Trump campaign, RNC raise staggering 5 million in third quarter Biden has 20-point lead in South Carolina primary: poll MORE (I-Vt.) asked Sens. Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioOver 1,000 people attend funeral for veteran with no immediate family To win the federal paid family leave debate, allow states to lead the way Rubio: The term 'impeachable offense' has 'lost all meaning' MORE (R-Fla.) and Pat Toomey Patrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyNSA improperly collected US phone records in October, new documents show Overnight Defense: Pick for South Korean envoy splits with Trump on nuclear threat | McCain blasts move to suspend Korean military exercises | White House defends Trump salute of North Korean general WH backpedals on Trump's 'due process' remark on guns MORE (R-Pa.) to promise that Republicans wouldn’t cut Medicare and Social Security after passing the tax bill.
“Will you guarantee the American people there will be zero cuts to benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?” Sanders said.
Toomey said there were no plans to cut the programs, but activists are skeptical.
“This is a tax bill that’s coming after Medicare and Medicaid cuts,” said Eliot Fishman, senior director of health policy at Families USA. “It’s fundamentally step one of a two-step process. Nobody should be under any illusions otherwise.”
Senate Republicans on Friday scrambled to piece together their legislation ahead of a final vote. The bill passed despite the $1 trillion price tag.
Corker wanted to add $350 billion in automatic tax increases to reduce the bill’s impact on the debt, but other Republicans balked. He originally called for a tax-increase trigger, but that provision ran into issues with the Senate parliamentarian and couldn’t be included in the bill.
On Friday, Corker announced his opposition to the legislation.
“I wanted to get to yes. But at the end of the day, I am not able to cast aside my fiscal concerns and vote for legislation that I believe, based on the information I currently have, could deepen the debt burden on future generations,” Corker said in a statement.
Corker’s worries about increasing deficits were not echoed by other rank-and-file Republicans or members of leadership. They said the bill would grow the economy, reducing the debt in the process.
“This will be a revenue enhancer. This will not be revenue decrease overall, or else we wouldn’t be doing it,” Sen. Mike Rounds Marion (Mike) Michael RoundsAmerica's newest comedy troupe: House GOP 'Mike Pounce' trends on Twitter after Trump slip at GOP retreat Conservatives offer stark warning to Trump, GOP on background checks MORE (R-S.D.) said.
“We are presupposing it is going to cause a deficit and I am not sure that is a correct presupposition,” added Sen. Bill Cassidy William (Bill) Morgan CassidyTo win the federal paid family leave debate, allow states to lead the way Democrats divided on surprise medical bill fix America's newest comedy troupe: House GOP MORE (R-La.).
Republicans are also facing the possibility that the $1 trillion tax bill will trigger deep, automatic cuts to Medicare next year unless Congress stops it from happening.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellMcConnell: Communist Party's methods a 'tragedy' for Chinese people Trump congratulates China on anniversary as GOP lawmakers decry communist rule Appeals court upholds net neutrality repeal but rules FCC can't block state laws MORE (R-Ky.) promised Sen. Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsYes, President Trump, we do have a homelessness crisis and you're making it harder for us to address The policy-driven presidential campaign could be drowned out by impeachment Flake tells GOP: Trump 'does not deserve reelection' MORE (R-Maine) that the cuts required by the "pay-as-you-go" or "pay-go" budgetary rule won’t happen.
Collins was a key holdout, and she said the personal promise from McConnell helped win her support for the legislation.
McConnell on Friday issued a joint statement with Speaker Paul Ryan Paul Davis RyanDemocrats hit Scalia over LGBTQ rights Three-way clash set to dominate Democratic debate Krystal Ball touts Sanders odds in Texas MORE (R-Wis.) saying the pay-go cuts won’t happen.
“Congress has readily available methods to waive this law, which has never been enforced since its enactment. There is no reason to believe that Congress would not act again to prevent a sequester, and we will work to ensure these spending cuts are prevented,” McConnell and Ryan said.
Lawmakers have voted numerous times in the past to waive the rule, but they need the support of Democrats, who have so far been reluctant to offer it.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
XsOnxpe9dHW3QcSW
|
|
politics
|
Rich Lowry
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453263/donald-trump-robert-mueller-trump-should-sit-tight
|
OPINION: Don’t Fire, Don’t Pardon
|
2017-10-30
|
John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Carrie Severino
|
President Trump in the Oval Office , April 27 , 2017 . ( Carlos Barria/Reuters )
With special counsel Robert Mueller unveiling his first indictments and a plea deal in the Russia case , President Donald Trump should do what ’ s hardest for him — nothing .
The indictment of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates — together with news of a plea agreement with former Trump foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos — will generate a torrent of negative press coverage of the sort that drives Trump crazy .
His instinct to lash out is his worst enemy . Trump is at more peril from his own reaction than from any of the facts that have been uncovered by Mueller , congressional investigators or the press to this point . If he were to fire Mueller , he ’ d endanger his presidency — and perhaps over nothing .
The proverbial net , as far as we know , isn ’ t closing in . The indictment of Manafort is about Manafort , namely his shady lobbying business . He had long crossed over into the netherworld of representing foreign malefactors and shouldn ’ t have been allowed within 100 miles of an American presidential election . That he ran the Trump campaign for a crucial period in the summer of 2016 speaks to the campaign ’ s desperation for talent at that point — a disreputable hired gun that no other Republican campaign would have considered hiring brought a note of professionalism to the operation .
There is no suggestion in the indictment that any of Manafort ’ s alleged wrongdoing , which dates back to 2006 , had anything to do with the campaign . He failed to register as a foreign lobbyist for his work for Ukrainian political players , a fairly common offense among lobbyists that is usually remedied by an amended filing . He also is accused of laundering millions of dollars from his Ukrainian bounty to escape the notice of American authorities .
Unless Manafort knows details of a collusion scheme that we have no evidence of yet and is about to flip ( no sign of that , either ) , none of this need directly affect Trump . If Manafort is innocent , he ’ s a dirty lobbyist who just barely stayed on the right side of the law ; if he ’ s guilty , he ’ s a dirty lobbyist who also committed crimes .
As for George Papadopoulos , his plea for lying to the FBI actually involves his work for the campaign . He misled investigators about the timing and nature of his contacts with Russians who wanted to set up a Vladimir Putin-Donald Trump meeting and spoke of dirt on Hillary Clinton . This is suggestive , but Papadopoulos was a bit player , and it ’ s not clear the talk went anywhere .
If Trump fired Mueller in reaction to all this , he would take a matter that now is at the edges of his world — Manafort has already been gingerly tossed under the bus , and no one knows Papadopoulos —and make it a truly all-consuming crisis . And for what ? As a practical matter , there is no way to end the investigation . If Mueller is dismissed , all the special counsel ’ s materials will presumably be handed over to Congress , and he would , at some point , be a lead witness in impeachment hearings .
The option of pre-emptively pardoning everyone targeted by Mueller also is foolhardy . A Trump pardon of Manafort would associate the president with the lobbyist ’ s alleged malfeasance when the point should be to establish distance , and would convince everyone that Trump has something explosive to hide .
The calculus here isn ’ t complicated . If Trump is guilty of serious wrongdoing , there is nothing he can do to stop it from being uncovered . If , on the other hand , he ’ s innocent , firing Mueller would be a catastrophic error .
The proximate cause of Trump ’ s ouster of James Comey appears to have been Trump ’ s irritation that the FBI director wouldn ’ t publicly state that Trump wasn ’ t under investigation . So Trump acted out of pique and made things much worse for himself — in fact , got the special counsel probe .
If the president wants to repeat that unhappy experience , he should ax Mueller or issue a barrage of pardons . Otherwise , he should sit tight .
|
President Trump in the Oval Office, April 27, 2017. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Trump’s instinct to lash out is his worst enemy.
With special counsel Robert Mueller unveiling his first indictments and a plea deal in the Russia case, President Donald Trump should do what’s hardest for him — nothing.
The indictment of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates — together with news of a plea agreement with former Trump foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos — will generate a torrent of negative press coverage of the sort that drives Trump crazy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
His instinct to lash out is his worst enemy. Trump is at more peril from his own reaction than from any of the facts that have been uncovered by Mueller, congressional investigators or the press to this point. If he were to fire Mueller, he’d endanger his presidency — and perhaps over nothing.
The proverbial net, as far as we know, isn’t closing in. The indictment of Manafort is about Manafort, namely his shady lobbying business. He had long crossed over into the netherworld of representing foreign malefactors and shouldn’t have been allowed within 100 miles of an American presidential election. That he ran the Trump campaign for a crucial period in the summer of 2016 speaks to the campaign’s desperation for talent at that point — a disreputable hired gun that no other Republican campaign would have considered hiring brought a note of professionalism to the operation.
There is no suggestion in the indictment that any of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing, which dates back to 2006, had anything to do with the campaign. He failed to register as a foreign lobbyist for his work for Ukrainian political players, a fairly common offense among lobbyists that is usually remedied by an amended filing. He also is accused of laundering millions of dollars from his Ukrainian bounty to escape the notice of American authorities.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Unless Manafort knows details of a collusion scheme that we have no evidence of yet and is about to flip (no sign of that, either), none of this need directly affect Trump. If Manafort is innocent, he’s a dirty lobbyist who just barely stayed on the right side of the law; if he’s guilty, he’s a dirty lobbyist who also committed crimes.
As for George Papadopoulos, his plea for lying to the FBI actually involves his work for the campaign. He misled investigators about the timing and nature of his contacts with Russians who wanted to set up a Vladimir Putin-Donald Trump meeting and spoke of dirt on Hillary Clinton. This is suggestive, but Papadopoulos was a bit player, and it’s not clear the talk went anywhere.
If Trump fired Mueller in reaction to all this, he would take a matter that now is at the edges of his world — Manafort has already been gingerly tossed under the bus, and no one knows Papadopoulos —and make it a truly all-consuming crisis. And for what? As a practical matter, there is no way to end the investigation. If Mueller is dismissed, all the special counsel’s materials will presumably be handed over to Congress, and he would, at some point, be a lead witness in impeachment hearings.
Advertisement
The option of pre-emptively pardoning everyone targeted by Mueller also is foolhardy. A Trump pardon of Manafort would associate the president with the lobbyist’s alleged malfeasance when the point should be to establish distance, and would convince everyone that Trump has something explosive to hide.
Advertisement
The calculus here isn’t complicated. If Trump is guilty of serious wrongdoing, there is nothing he can do to stop it from being uncovered. If, on the other hand, he’s innocent, firing Mueller would be a catastrophic error.
The proximate cause of Trump’s ouster of James Comey appears to have been Trump’s irritation that the FBI director wouldn’t publicly state that Trump wasn’t under investigation. So Trump acted out of pique and made things much worse for himself — in fact, got the special counsel probe.
Advertisement
If the president wants to repeat that unhappy experience, he should ax Mueller or issue a barrage of pardons. Otherwise, he should sit tight.
READ MORE:
Mueller’s First Indictments
The Papadopoulos Case
A Guide to Understanding the Manafort Indictment
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: [email protected]. Copyright © 2017 King Features Syndicate
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
J29Coe0B0eM8cQIk
|
supreme_court
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17907462/christine-blasey-ford-testimony-brett-kavanaugh-hearing
|
Read Christine Blasey Ford’s written testimony: “I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified.”
|
2018-09-26
|
Dylan Scott, Terry Nguyen, Rebecca Jennings, Hannah Brown, Lauren Katz, Theodore Schleifer, Li Zhou
|
Christine Blasey Ford ’ s written testimony for Thursday ’ s Senate hearing with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh begins with a stunning , simple summary of why she has come forward with an accusation of sexual assault against a man who could soon be one of the most powerful people in the country .
“ I am here today not because I want to be . I am terrified , ” Ford writes in the testimony , which was posted online Wednesday afternoon . “ I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school . ”
She describes her childhood in Bethesda , Maryland , and the social scene involving her all-girls alma mater Holton-Arms and Georgetown Prep , the all-boys school that Kavanaugh attended .
“ This is how I met Brett Kavanaugh , the boy who sexually assaulted me , ” Ford writes .
She goes on to recount the day of the alleged assault , which Kavanaugh has repeatedly and unequivocally denied . ( He has also denied accusations of sexual misconduct from two other women : Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick . )
Ford says that after swimming at Columbia Country Club , she went to a small gathering of friends at a house in the Washington area . She says she had one beer while at the house but that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were “ visibly drunk . ”
Early in the evening , I went up a narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the bathroom . When I got to the top of the stairs , I was pushed from behind into a bedroom . I couldn ’ t see who pushed me . Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them . There was music already playing in the bedroom . It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room . I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me . He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me . I yelled , hoping someone downstairs might hear me , and tried to get away from him , but his weight was heavy . Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes .
“ I believed he was going to rape me . I tried to yell for help . When I did , Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming , ” Ford says . “ This was what terrified me the most , and has had the most lasting impact on my life . It was hard for me to breathe , and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me . ”
Kavanaugh and Judge , according to Ford , “ were drunkenly laughing during the attack . They both seemed to be having a good time . ”
Ford writes that at one point , Judge jumped on the bed , Kavanaugh fell off her , and she ran out of the room and left the house . She also offered an explanation for why she did not report the assault immediately to the police or her parents .
“ I did not want to tell my parents that I , at age 15 , was in a house without any parents present , drinking beer with boys , ” Ford says . “ I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me , I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened . ”
Ford then recounts what she shared with her husband and friends over the years about the attack , her struggle to decide whether to come forward once Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court candidacy picked up steam , and what her life has been like since her story became public .
She ends with another explanation of why she has come forward .
“ My motivation in coming forward was to provide the facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh ’ s actions have damaged my life , so that you can take that into serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed , ” Ford testifies . “ It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court . My responsibility is to tell the truth . ”
In his own written testimony , Kavanaugh says that while he is “ not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time , ” he has “ never done that to her or to anyone . I am innocent of this charge . ”
You can read Ford ’ s full testimony on Document Cloud or below .
|
Christine Blasey Ford’s written testimony for Thursday’s Senate hearing with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh begins with a stunning, simple summary of why she has come forward with an accusation of sexual assault against a man who could soon be one of the most powerful people in the country.
“I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified,” Ford writes in the testimony, which was posted online Wednesday afternoon. “I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.”
She describes her childhood in Bethesda, Maryland, and the social scene involving her all-girls alma mater Holton-Arms and Georgetown Prep, the all-boys school that Kavanaugh attended.
“This is how I met Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me,” Ford writes.
She goes on to recount the day of the alleged assault, which Kavanaugh has repeatedly and unequivocally denied. (He has also denied accusations of sexual misconduct from two other women: Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick.)
Ford says that after swimming at Columbia Country Club, she went to a small gathering of friends at a house in the Washington area. She says she had one beer while at the house but that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were “visibly drunk.”
She then begins to describe the alleged assault:
Early in the evening, I went up a narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the bathroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes.
“I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming,” Ford says. “This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.”
Kavanaugh and Judge, according to Ford, “were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time.”
Ford writes that at one point, Judge jumped on the bed, Kavanaugh fell off her, and she ran out of the room and left the house. She also offered an explanation for why she did not report the assault immediately to the police or her parents.
“I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys,” Ford says. “I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened.”
Ford then recounts what she shared with her husband and friends over the years about the attack, her struggle to decide whether to come forward once Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court candidacy picked up steam, and what her life has been like since her story became public.
She ends with another explanation of why she has come forward.
“My motivation in coming forward was to provide the facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh’s actions have damaged my life, so that you can take that into serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed,” Ford testifies. “It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court. My responsibility is to tell the truth.”
In his own written testimony, Kavanaugh says that while he is “not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time,” he has “never done that to her or to anyone. I am innocent of this charge.”
You can read Ford’s full testimony on Document Cloud or below.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
TZifOsjtJwhV6WN2
|
labor
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/obama-angers-democrats-labor-base-with-keystone-re/
|
Obama angers Democrats' labor base with Keystone rejection, Trans-Pacific Partnership
|
2015-11-08
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
President Obama ’ s relationship with blue-collar unions has hit an all-time low , with several powerful labor groups ripping into the administration — and the Democratic Party as a whole — for its rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and its promotion of the highly controversial trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership .
Mr. Obama ’ s decision to reject Keystone on environmental grounds , which he announced Friday after a review process that lasted nearly seven years , deeply angered the president ’ s traditional supporters in the labor movement .
In addition to unprecedented verbal criticism of Mr. Obama — including from the Laborers ’ International Union or North America , which branded the president “ cowardly ” and his actions “ shameful ” — other unions hinted that they may rethink their support for Democrats in 2016 .
“ President Obama has chosen to place politics over substantive policy that only serves to advance the agenda of well-funded radical environmentalists , ” Sean McGarvey , president of the North America ’ s Building Trades Unions , said in a statement Friday . “ All of which begs the question : Where does this leave the Democratic Party ’ s historical core constituency of working Americans ? We won ’ t know the answer to that question until November 2016 . But , to paraphrase Senator Ted Kennedy , for all those whose jobs have been our concern , the work goes on , the cause endures , and the dream shall never die , and hope springs again in January of 2017 . ”
Mr. Obama , who has tried to cultivate close ties with labor leaders throughout his time in the White House , now finds himself in a situation where his relationship with some major unions is tense at best and fatally wounded at worst . In addition to the lambasting the administration has taken over Keystone , it is enduring equal criticism on the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) , a major trade deal involving the U.S. and 12 Pacific Rim nations .
The full text of the deal , which is opposed by many key figures in the Democratic Party , including 2016 presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton , finally was released last week .
“ Officials have talked about side deals and special arrangements that they say will improve the agreement , ” Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said in a statement . “ But they are unenforceable and won ’ t help protect the jobs of hardworking Americans . That ’ s why there is only one right answer for lawmakers when it comes to TPP . Just say no . ”
Teamsters also launched a # TPPWorseThanWeThought campaign on Twitter seeking to rally opposition to the deal within the Democratic Party .
While the administration flat out rejects many criticisms of TPP — including that the deal ’ s labor standards aren ’ t strong enough — Mr. Obama took a slightly different tack when explaining why he blocked the Keystone pipeline .
The project — which would have crossed the U.S.-Canada boundary , connected with existing pipeline infrastructure and transported more than 800,000 barrels of Canadian oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast — would have created more than 40,000 jobs , according to State Department research . Supporters argue it would have greatly enhanced North American energy security and potentially would have lowered U.S. gas prices .
But the president , while also casting doubt on the true job-creation potential of Keystone , made clear that his chief motivation for killing the project is to prove to the world that America will voluntarily lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and lead the world in the fight against climate change .
“ Today we ’ re continuing to lead by example , ” Mr. Obama said in a White House speech Friday , flanked by Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of State John F. Kerry . “ Because , ultimately , if we ’ re going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes , we ’ re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky . ”
From the perspective of some unions , the president ’ s decision proves he ’ s more interested in securing an environmental legacy than he is in creating jobs and boosting the economy .
“ After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay , the president ’ s decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth , middle-class working Americans , ” said Terry O ’ Sullivan , general president of the Laborers ’ International Union of North America .
“ The politics he has played with their lives and livelihoods is far dirtier than oil carried by any pipeline in the world , and the cynical manipulation of the approval process has made a mockery of regulatory institutions and government itself . We are dismayed and disgusted that the president has once again thrown the members of LIUNA and other hard-working , blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘ legacy , ’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change . His actions are shameful . ”
|
President Obama’s relationship with blue-collar unions has hit an all-time low, with several powerful labor groups ripping into the administration — and the Democratic Party as a whole — for its rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and its promotion of the highly controversial trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Mr. Obama’s decision to reject Keystone on environmental grounds, which he announced Friday after a review process that lasted nearly seven years, deeply angered the president’s traditional supporters in the labor movement.
In addition to unprecedented verbal criticism of Mr. Obama — including from the Laborers’ International Union or North America, which branded the president “cowardly” and his actions “shameful” — other unions hinted that they may rethink their support for Democrats in 2016.
“President Obama has chosen to place politics over substantive policy that only serves to advance the agenda of well-funded radical environmentalists,” Sean McGarvey, president of the North America’s Building Trades Unions, said in a statement Friday. “All of which begs the question: Where does this leave the Democratic Party’s historical core constituency of working Americans? We won’t know the answer to that question until November 2016. But, to paraphrase Senator Ted Kennedy, for all those whose jobs have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, and the dream shall never die, and hope springs again in January of 2017.”
Mr. Obama, who has tried to cultivate close ties with labor leaders throughout his time in the White House, now finds himself in a situation where his relationship with some major unions is tense at best and fatally wounded at worst. In addition to the lambasting the administration has taken over Keystone, it is enduring equal criticism on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a major trade deal involving the U.S. and 12 Pacific Rim nations.
The full text of the deal, which is opposed by many key figures in the Democratic Party, including 2016 presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, finally was released last week.
Major unions wasted little time publicly crushing it.
“Officials have talked about side deals and special arrangements that they say will improve the agreement,” Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said in a statement. “But they are unenforceable and won’t help protect the jobs of hardworking Americans. That’s why there is only one right answer for lawmakers when it comes to TPP. Just say no.”
Teamsters also launched a #TPPWorseThanWeThought campaign on Twitter seeking to rally opposition to the deal within the Democratic Party.
While the administration flat out rejects many criticisms of TPP — including that the deal’s labor standards aren’t strong enough — Mr. Obama took a slightly different tack when explaining why he blocked the Keystone pipeline.
The project — which would have crossed the U.S.-Canada boundary, connected with existing pipeline infrastructure and transported more than 800,000 barrels of Canadian oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast — would have created more than 40,000 jobs, according to State Department research. Supporters argue it would have greatly enhanced North American energy security and potentially would have lowered U.S. gas prices.
But the president, while also casting doubt on the true job-creation potential of Keystone, made clear that his chief motivation for killing the project is to prove to the world that America will voluntarily lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and lead the world in the fight against climate change.
“Today we’re continuing to lead by example,” Mr. Obama said in a White House speech Friday, flanked by Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of State John F. Kerry. “Because, ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.”
From the perspective of some unions, the president’s decision proves he’s more interested in securing an environmental legacy than he is in creating jobs and boosting the economy.
“After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay, the president’s decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans,” said Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America.
“The politics he has played with their lives and livelihoods is far dirtier than oil carried by any pipeline in the world, and the cynical manipulation of the approval process has made a mockery of regulatory institutions and government itself. We are dismayed and disgusted that the president has once again thrown the members of LIUNA and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change. His actions are shameful.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
TTHZ42fJvRr64Z4Z
|
justice
|
The Daily Wire
| 22
|
https://www.dailywire.com/news/first-u-s-state-to-sue-china-announces-its-lawsuit
|
First U.S. State To Sue China Announces Its Lawsuit
|
On Tuesday , Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced the state of Missouri was filing a lawsuit against the Chinese government , Chinese Communist Party , and other Chinese officials and institutions for the actions they took that triggered deaths and economic chaos across Missouri . In the lawsuit , Schmitt writes bluntly , “ This COVID-19 pandemic is the direct result of a sinister campaign of malfeasance and deception carried out by Defendants . ”
Citing Alfred L. Snapp & Son , Inc. v. Puerto Rico , Schmitt pointed out the legitimacy of his lawsuit : “ As a sovereign State , Missouri has ‘ a quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being—both physical and economic—of its residents in general. ’ … A state like Missouri , through its Attorney General , may act as ‘ a representative of the public ’ in ‘ complaining of a wrong which , if proven , limits the opportunities of her people [ and ] shackles her industries . ’ ”
He also explained why the Chinese Communist Party was not immune from prosecution :
Defendant People ’ s Republic of China ( “ PRC ” or “ China ” ) is a communist nation in Asia . Defendant Communist Party of China ( “ CPC ” or “ Communist Party ” ) is the sole governing party within China , and the Communist Party ’ s General Secretary becomes the president of the PRC . On information and belief , the Communist Party is not an organ or political subdivision of the PRC , nor is it owned by the PRC or a political subdivision of the PRC , and thus it is not protected by sovereign immunity .
COVID-19 has done irreparable damage to countries across the globe , causing sickness , death , economic disruption , and human suffering . In Missouri , the impact of the virus is very real — thousands have been infected and many have died , families have been separated from dying loved ones , small businesses are shuttering their doors , and those living paycheck to paycheck are struggling to put food on their table . The Chinese government lied to the world about the danger and contagious nature of COVID-19 , silenced whistleblowers , and did little to stop the spread of the disease . They must be held accountable for their actions .
An appalling campaign of deceit , concealment , misfeasance , and inaction by Chinese authorities unleashed this pandemic . During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak , Chinese authorities deceived the public , suppressed crucial information , arrested whistleblowers , denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence , destroyed critical medical research , permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus , and even hoarded personal protective equipment ( “ PPE ” ) —thus causing a global pandemic that was unnecessary and preventable .
The lawsuit continues with more regarding the efforts by the Chinese government to suppress information regarding the coronavirus :
When their actions began to kill hundreds of thousands of people across the globe , Defendants sought to minimize the consequences , engaging in a coverup and misleading public relations campaign by censoring scientists , ordering the destruction and suppression of valuable research , and refusing cooperation with the global community , all in violation of international health standards .
Schmitt also noted that the Chinese government did not act to stop the spread of the virus soon enough :
While denying human-to-human transmission , Chinese officials took little to no steps to contain the outbreak . By January 13 , the Chinese government was aware of spread to Thailand . For the next week , they began treating COVID-19 as a serious and contagious virus without advising the public . During that time , millions of people traveled through Wuhan , and many thousands were infected , making a worldwide outbreak almost inevitable . A potluck event for 40,000 people went forward in Wuhan on January 16 . The Chinese government took no serious steps to contain the outbreak until January 23 —when it was far too late .
Further , “ According to data gathered by The New York Times , nearly 175,000 individuals left Wuhan on January 1 alone to travel for the Lunar New Year . The Chinese government also continued with New Year celebrations , despite the risk for potential further infections . ”
PJ Media noted , “ According to unpublished , unconfirmed Chinese government reports seen by the South China Morning Post , the first recorded case of the coronavirus dates to November 17 , 2019 , weeks before The Lancet ‘ s claim that the first recorded case came on December 1 . By December 8 , the SCMP documents recorded between 1 and 5 new cases . By December 27 , the SCMP documents showed 181 confirmed cases , and a friend of coronavirus whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang recalled that his medical department first reported the new outbreak to the Wuhan Center for Disease Control on the 27th . ”
|
On Tuesday, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced the state of Missouri was filing a lawsuit against the Chinese government, Chinese Communist Party, and other Chinese officials and institutions for the actions they took that triggered deaths and economic chaos across Missouri. In the lawsuit, Schmitt writes bluntly, “This COVID-19 pandemic is the direct result of a sinister campaign of malfeasance and deception carried out by Defendants.”
Citing Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, Schmitt pointed out the legitimacy of his lawsuit: “As a sovereign State, Missouri has ‘a quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being—both physical and economic—of its residents in general.’ … A state like Missouri, through its Attorney General, may act as ‘a representative of the public’ in ‘complaining of a wrong which, if proven, limits the opportunities of her people [and] shackles her industries.’”
He also explained why the Chinese Communist Party was not immune from prosecution:
Defendant People’s Republic of China (“PRC” or “China”) is a communist nation in Asia. Defendant Communist Party of China (“CPC” or “Communist Party”) is the sole governing party within China, and the Communist Party’s General Secretary becomes the president of the PRC. On information and belief, the Communist Party is not an organ or political subdivision of the PRC, nor is it owned by the PRC or a political subdivision of the PRC, and thus it is not protected by sovereign immunity.
Schmitt stated:
COVID-19 has done irreparable damage to countries across the globe, causing sickness, death, economic disruption, and human suffering. In Missouri, the impact of the virus is very real — thousands have been infected and many have died, families have been separated from dying loved ones, small businesses are shuttering their doors, and those living paycheck to paycheck are struggling to put food on their table. The Chinese government lied to the world about the danger and contagious nature of COVID-19, silenced whistleblowers, and did little to stop the spread of the disease. They must be held accountable for their actions.
The lawsuit delineates the issue further:
An appalling campaign of deceit, concealment, misfeasance, and inaction by Chinese authorities unleashed this pandemic. During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak, Chinese authorities deceived the public, suppressed crucial information, arrested whistleblowers, denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence, destroyed critical medical research, permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus, and even hoarded personal protective equipment (“PPE”)—thus causing a global pandemic that was unnecessary and preventable.
The lawsuit continues with more regarding the efforts by the Chinese government to suppress information regarding the coronavirus:
When their actions began to kill hundreds of thousands of people across the globe, Defendants sought to minimize the consequences, engaging in a coverup and misleading public relations campaign by censoring scientists, ordering the destruction and suppression of valuable research, and refusing cooperation with the global community, all in violation of international health standards.
Schmitt also noted that the Chinese government did not act to stop the spread of the virus soon enough:
While denying human-to-human transmission, Chinese officials took little to no steps to contain the outbreak. By January 13, the Chinese government was aware of spread to Thailand. For the next week, they began treating COVID-19 as a serious and contagious virus without advising the public. During that time, millions of people traveled through Wuhan, and many thousands were infected, making a worldwide outbreak almost inevitable. A potluck event for 40,000 people went forward in Wuhan on January 16. The Chinese government took no serious steps to contain the outbreak until January 23 —when it was far too late.
Further, “According to data gathered by The New York Times, nearly 175,000 individuals left Wuhan on January 1 alone to travel for the Lunar New Year. The Chinese government also continued with New Year celebrations, despite the risk for potential further infections.”
PJ Media noted, “According to unpublished, unconfirmed Chinese government reports seen by the South China Morning Post, the first recorded case of the coronavirus dates to November 17, 2019, weeks before The Lancet‘s claim that the first recorded case came on December 1. By December 8, the SCMP documents recorded between 1 and 5 new cases. By December 27, the SCMP documents showed 181 confirmed cases, and a friend of coronavirus whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang recalled that his medical department first reported the new outbreak to the Wuhan Center for Disease Control on the 27th.”
|
www.dailywire.com
| 1right
|
Oax5jmMUBWWroGRh
|
||
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0309/Post-Sandy-Hook-South-Dakota-and-Georgia-move-to-protect-schools-with-guns?nav=99-csm_subcategory-leadStory
|
Post-Sandy Hook, South Dakota and Georgia move to protect schools with guns
|
2013-03-09
|
Patrik Jonsson
|
As the post-Sandy Hook gun-control debate continues , states such as Georgia , South Dakota , Colorado , and New York have emerged as bellwethers on how the nation is beginning to stand up to gun violence .
A day after the Georgia legislature ended bans on guns in bars , churches , and college classrooms , South Dakota passed the first law in the United States aimed expressly at allowing school districts to arm teachers .
Guns are not outlawed in schools in 18 states and some school districts do have some armed teachers , but the vast majority of districts have not supported teacher-carry to this point .
The extent to which South Dakota teachers take advantage of what will become a tough new licensing program is unclear . And the issue is electrified by politics , as over a thousand gun laws , divided between expansion and contraction of gun laws , have emerged in state houses across the country since the massacre of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Conn. , on Dec. 14 .
Indeed , as a federal gun-control package has been whittled down in the Senate , the real impact of Newtown is likely to be felt state to state , especially given some of the sweeping reforms that have already passed . The big question is what these legislative moves suggest about public support for more antiviolence gun controls , which have in the past spiked and then petered out after past mass shootings .
`` We know that attention to these issues moves on relatively quickly , '' says Brendan Nyhan , a political scientist at Dartmouth College in Hanover , N.H .
Recognizing that need for urgency , New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo signed a tough new gun-control law into effect in New York . Colorado legislators are set to vote Monday on arguably the most meaningful bellwether gun-control package , one that would crimp the ability of Coloradoans to own certain types of ammunition magazines and institute universal background checks , closing the so-called gun show loophole .
Colorado 's stature as a traditional pioneer state with a progressive bent has made the outcome of that legislation especially interesting to national observers , as it may augur how similar proposals fare in other western states . Colorado has also been uniquely affected by gun violence at Columbine High School in 1999 and last year 's massacre in an Aurora movie theater .
But so far , many local governments have taken the opposite lesson from the Sandy Hook massacre . Instead of limiting the right to own weapons , their thinking goes , it 's instead a call to arms .
To many Americans , `` gun rights has become a civil rights movement , so it 's not just purely strategic politics , '' says Jennifer Carlson , a gun culture expert at the University of Toronto .
Communities in Idaho , Maine , and Georgia are all pondering whether to make gun ownership mandatory for residents , primarily to make up for emergency call time delays from distant police or sheriff departments .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
South Dakota 's armed teacher law is directly tied to what happened at Sandy Hook , as well as concerns about shootings in distant , rural communities . According to the law , school boards are under no obligation to adopt the training regimen , but have to address the issue if 5 percent of registered voters sign a petition urging them to take up the topic .
Lawmakers in Georgia , meanwhile , had been working since before Sandy Hook to end gun-carry bans in bars , churches , and college campuses . The measure passed the House and is expected to prevail in the Senate as well . It 's not clear whether Gov . Nathan Deal would sign the law or let it become law without his signature .
|
As the post-Sandy Hook gun-control debate continues, states such as Georgia, South Dakota, Colorado, and New York have emerged as bellwethers on how the nation is beginning to stand up to gun violence.
A day after the Georgia legislature ended bans on guns in bars, churches, and college classrooms, South Dakota passed the first law in the United States aimed expressly at allowing school districts to arm teachers.
Guns are not outlawed in schools in 18 states and some school districts do have some armed teachers, but the vast majority of districts have not supported teacher-carry to this point.
The extent to which South Dakota teachers take advantage of what will become a tough new licensing program is unclear. And the issue is electrified by politics, as over a thousand gun laws, divided between expansion and contraction of gun laws, have emerged in state houses across the country since the massacre of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.
Indeed, as a federal gun-control package has been whittled down in the Senate, the real impact of Newtown is likely to be felt state to state, especially given some of the sweeping reforms that have already passed. The big question is what these legislative moves suggest about public support for more antiviolence gun controls, which have in the past spiked and then petered out after past mass shootings.
"We know that attention to these issues moves on relatively quickly," says Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.
Recognizing that need for urgency, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a tough new gun-control law into effect in New York. Colorado legislators are set to vote Monday on arguably the most meaningful bellwether gun-control package, one that would crimp the ability of Coloradoans to own certain types of ammunition magazines and institute universal background checks, closing the so-called gun show loophole.
Colorado's stature as a traditional pioneer state with a progressive bent has made the outcome of that legislation especially interesting to national observers, as it may augur how similar proposals fare in other western states. Colorado has also been uniquely affected by gun violence at Columbine High School in 1999 and last year's massacre in an Aurora movie theater.
But so far, many local governments have taken the opposite lesson from the Sandy Hook massacre. Instead of limiting the right to own weapons, their thinking goes, it's instead a call to arms.
To many Americans, "gun rights has become a civil rights movement, so it's not just purely strategic politics," says Jennifer Carlson, a gun culture expert at the University of Toronto.
Communities in Idaho, Maine, and Georgia are all pondering whether to make gun ownership mandatory for residents, primarily to make up for emergency call time delays from distant police or sheriff departments.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
South Dakota's armed teacher law is directly tied to what happened at Sandy Hook, as well as concerns about shootings in distant, rural communities. According to the law, school boards are under no obligation to adopt the training regimen, but have to address the issue if 5 percent of registered voters sign a petition urging them to take up the topic.
Lawmakers in Georgia, meanwhile, had been working since before Sandy Hook to end gun-carry bans in bars, churches, and college campuses. The measure passed the House and is expected to prevail in the Senate as well. It's not clear whether Gov. Nathan Deal would sign the law or let it become law without his signature.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
VZTqP79K6QJtmjB6
|
terrorism
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/22/178369466/boston-bombings-mondays-developments
|
Boston Bombings: Monday's Developments
|
2013-04-22
|
Mark Memmott, Eyder Peralta
|
The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was charged Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill three people and wound more than 200 in what FBI investigators said evidence shows was a coldly calculated attack .
With chilling detail , the criminal complaint filed against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev says he was seen on video placing a bag near the the finish line of the marathon , watching and reacting with no surprise as the first explosion went off down the street , and then `` calmly but rapidly '' walking away before the second blast occurred at the spot where moments before he had been standing . ( Scroll down to see more from the complaint or to read a complete copy of it . )
The FBI 's description of that scene came just before people in Boston and across Massachusetts were to pause for a moment of silence at 2:50 p.m . ET Monday — marking the time exactly one week ago when the first of the two bombs exploded . The criminal complaint filed against Tsarnaev also included a new detail : Previously , officials had said 170 to 180 people were injured in the blasts . In the complaint , they increased that to `` over 200 . ''
Latest Developments — Surviving suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not be considered an `` enemy combatant , '' the White House says . That means he will be treated and tried as a criminal defendant . — Tsarnaev , who remains in serious condition at a Boston hospital , was arraigned in his bed . He 's charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill three people and injure more than 200 ( a higher number of injured than had previously been reported ) . — According to a transcript — obtained by The New York Times — of today 's initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler , Tsarnaev said one word — `` No '' — when he was asked if he could afford a lawyer . At the end of the hearing — where Tsarnaev was given his Miranda warning — Bowler said she found `` the defendant is alert , mentally competent , and lucid . He is aware of the nature of the proceedings . '' — The investigation continues into whether anyone besides Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan ( who died Friday after a gun battle with police ) may have been involved in the Boston Marathon bombings . — There was a funeral Monday for Krystle Campbell , one of the three people killed in the marathon bombings .
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , 19 , was arraigned at Boston 's Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital , where he remains in serious condition . As NPR 's David Schaper reported on Morning Edition , it 's not clear yet how or when Tsarnaev was wounded or who inflicted some of his injuries . It 's possible he tried to kill himself . Sources familiar with the investigation into the bombings have told NPR that wounds to his neck and jaw area are preventing Tsarnaev from talking .
According to a transcript of today 's initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler , Tsarnaev said one word — `` No '' — when he was asked if he could afford a lawyer .
At the end of the hearing — where Tsarnaev was given his Miranda warning — Bowler said she found `` the defendant is alert , mentally competent , and lucid . He is aware of the nature of the proceedings . ''
Tamerlan Tsarnaev , Dzhokhar 's 26-year-old brother and the other suspect in the bombings , died after a gun battle with police early Friday in the Boston suburb of Watertown , Mass . The brothers allegedly killed an MIT campus police officer and seriously wounded a Boston transit police officer during a wild shooting spree that began Thursday night and lasted into the early hours of Friday .
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured Friday evening after a harrowing day when much of the Boston area was locked down during the police manhunt . He was discovered in a boat stored in a Watertown family 's backyard . Authorities are anxious to know whether anyone else may have been involved and whether any more attacks were planned .
Investigators also are trying to piece together how Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have been radicalized in recent years , NPR 's Temple-Raston added Monday . They 're looking to interview his wife . The Tsarnaev brothers , both Muslims , came from an ethnic Chechen family that had been living in the U.S. for about a decade . Tamerlan was a legal resident , and Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen last year .
We 'll keep an eye on developments as the day continues and update this post with the news .
Update at 8:02 p.m . ET . Feds Hand Off Boylston Street :
In a move that also had a lot of symbolic significance , federal officers handed custody of Boylston Street back to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino . The Boston Police Department tweeted a picture of the moment a little bit ago .
CBS Boston reports that this means the city has begun a 5-step plan to reopen the scene of the bombings to the general public .
`` The 5-steps include testing the area for contamination , structural building assessments , removing debris , internal building assessments and re-entry including communication and counseling . ''
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read the Miranda warning today during his initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler .
A transcript of the proceeding was filed at the United States District Court District of Massachusetts and the document was posted online by The New York Times .
Bowler tells Tsarnaev that he has the right to remain silent and not say anything that will incriminate him . She also asks Tsarnaev if he can afford a lawyer and Tsarnaev appears to answer `` no . ''
Perhaps most importantly , the judge says , `` At this time , at the conclusion of the initial appearance , I find that the defendant is alert , mentally competent , and lucid . He is aware of the nature of the proceedings . ''
William Fick , the federal defender representing Tsarnaev , also agreed to a voluntary detention of the suspect .
For about seven minutes beginning at 2:50 p.m . ET. , the city of Boston fell silent . Investigators formed a semi-circle around the the site of one the blasts and bowed their heads .
The New York Stock Exchange , the House of Representatives in Washington and the Massachusetts State House also paused to remember the three killed and the more than 200 injured .
The historic Peabody Square clock , near where 8-year-old Martin Richard lived , was frozen at 2:50 p.m. During the moment of silence , reports the Boston Globe 's Eric Moskowitz , it was restarted .
Update at 2:15 p.m . ET . Details From The Complaint Against Tsarnaev .
Daniel Genck , an FBI special agent , writes in the criminal complaint that :
-- On video , a man who appears to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can be seen placing a bag down in front of the Forum Restaurant along the marathon route . `` Approximately 30 seconds before the first explosion , he lifts [ a ] phone to his ear as if he is speaking ... and keeps it there for approximately 18 seconds . A few seconds after he finishes the call , the large crowd of people around him can be seen reacting to the first explosion . Virtually every head turns to the east ( toward the finish line ) and stares in that direction in apparent bewilderment and alarm . Bomber Two [ Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ] , virtually alone among the individuals in front of the restaurant appears calm . He glances to east and then calmly but rapidly begins moving to the west , away from the direction of the finish line . He walks away without his knapsack , having left it on the ground where he had been standing . Approximately 10 seconds later , an explosion occurs in the location where Bomber Two had placed his knapsack . ''
-- The victim of a carjacking Thursday night in Cambridge , Mass. , has told police that one of the two men ( who the agent later identifies as Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev ) said during the carjacking : `` Did you hear about the Boston explosion ? ... I did that . ''
-- `` A preliminary examination of the explosive devices that were discovered at the scene of the shootout in Watertown [ early Friday ] and in the abandoned vehicle has revealed similarities to the explosives used at the Boston Marathon . ''
-- In Dzhokhar Tsarnaev 's dormitory room at the University of Massachusetts , Dartmouth , FBI agents found `` a large pyrotechnic , a black jacket and a white hat of the same general appearance as those worn by Bomber Two at the Boston Marathon . ''
Update at 1:55 p.m . ET . The Criminal Complaint Against Tsarnaev :
Update at 1:38 p.m . ET . Confirmed : Tsarnaev Has Been Charged .
`` Dzhokhar Tsarnaev charged with conspiring to use weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in U.S. resulting in death , '' the U.S. attorney 's offfice for the district of Massachusetts confirms on its Twitter page .
And in a statement , the Department of Justice says he 's been charged `` with using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property at the Boston Marathon on April 15 , 2013 , resulting in the death of three people and injuries to more than 200 people . ''
Update at 1:05 p.m . ET . Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Will Not Be Charged As Enemy Combatant , White House Says ; He 's Arraigned In Hospital Bed , Official Says :
Confirming what was expected , the White House has said Tsarnaev will not be treated as an `` enemy combatant , '' but will be prosecuted in civilian courts . And as that news was breaking moments ago , WCVB-TV in Boston was reporting that Tsarnaev today was arraigned in his hospital bed , according to Gary Wente , the circuit executive for the U.S. Courts in Boston . The complaint against him has been sealed , the station added . NPR has not independently confirmed that an arraignment has happened .
For more on the legal issues involved in treating someone as an enemy combatant , check this Morning Edition report from NPR 's Tovia Smith .
Update at 12:20 p.m . ET . Tamerlan Tsarnaev 's `` Closest American Friend '' And Two Other Young Men Were Murdered Three Years Ago ; Case Remains Unsolved :
After a Buzzfeed report that `` associates of slain Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev now believe he may have been involved in a 2011 triple murder that claimed the life of his closest American friend , Brendan Mess , '' the prosecutor 's office in Middlesex County , Mass. , is going to go back to see if there 's any connection between Tsarnaev and that unsolved crime , Reuters reports .
`` 'We are definitely going to pursue any new leads , ' said Stephanie Guyotte , a spokeswoman for the Middlesex District Attorney 's office . She said it was fair to say that investigators will check to see if Tsarnaev had anything to do with the crime . ''
John Allan , owner of Wai Kru Mixed Martial Arts in Allston , Mass. , where Tsarnaev once boxed , had earlier told the Boston Globe that the 26-year-old had once introduced Mess as his best friend . Then two years ago , the Globe wrote , `` Mess and two other men were brutally killed in a Waltham apartment where they were found by police with their throats slit and their bodies covered with marijuana . The murders remain unsolved . ''
According to Buzzfeed , a mutual friend says Tsarnaev did not come to Mess ' funeral . `` A few months after Mess 's murder , '' Buzzfeed adds , `` Tsarnaev went to Russia for six months . ''
Guyotte , the prosecutor 's spokeswoman , has also told the local Waltham Patch that the triple murders are `` an active homicide case and that investigators would pursue any new leads they receive . ''
While friends are asking whether Tsarnaev might have been involved in the murders , The Wall Street Journal notes that the killings came at a tumultuous time in Tsarnaev 's life and raises the prospect that they might have been among the reasons he appears to have turned to a radical form of Islam .
The funeral for 29-year-old Krystle Campbell , one of the three people killed in the bombings , is being held this hour in her hometown of Medford , Mass . The Boston Globe says `` some 200 members of Teamsters Local 25 members began gathering at St. Joseph 's Church before 8 a.m. today , promising to block protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church if they follow through on a threat to picket the funeral . ''
A memorial service for 23-year-old Lingzi Lu of China , who was a graduate student at Boston University , is planned for 7 p.m . ET Monday at the school . The third person killed at the marathon was 8-year-old Martin Richard of Dorchester , Mass . He was remembered during a Mass on Sunday at Dorchester 's St. Ann Parish . Sean Collier , the 26-year-old slain MIT police officer , is to be remembered later this week .
Update at 10:45 a.m . ET . President Obama Will Observe Moment :
President Obama will also `` observe a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings '' at 2:50 p.m . ET , the White House says in a statement sent to reporters . He will do so in private , the statement adds .
Update at 10 a.m . ET . Wounded Officer `` Shows Hopeful Signs '' :
`` The transit police officer critically wounded in a gunbattle with the marathon bombing suspects opened his eyes , wiggled his toes and squeezed his wife 's hand yesterday for the first time since he nearly bled to death Friday — hopeful signs for his doctors and family , '' The Boston Herald writes . `` Three-year veteran MBTA cop Richard Donohue remains in critical but stable condition at the surgical intensive care unit at Mount Auburn Hospital . ''
Update at 8:50 a.m . ET . Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Remains In Serious Condition .
`` According to BIDMC marathon bombing suspect remains in serious condition this morning . Releasing info at hospital 's request . ''
As Monday dawned , here were some of the related headlines :
-- `` Turn To Religion Split Bomb Suspects ' Home . '' ( The Wall Street Journal , behind a paywall )
-- `` Dead Suspect Broke Angrily With Muslim Speakers . '' ( The Boston Globe )
-- `` Suspects Seemed Set For Attacks Beyond Boston . '' ( The New York Times )
-- `` The Inside Story '' Of The Investigation . ( CBS News ' 60 Minutes )
-- `` Should Marathon Bomber Be Treated As An Enemy Combatant ? '' ( Morning Edition )
|
Tsarnaev Charged: Suspected Boston Bomber Accused Of Using WMD
Enlarge this image toggle caption C.J. Gunther /EPA /LANDOV C.J. Gunther /EPA /LANDOV
(Most recent update: 7:00 p.m. ET.)
The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was charged Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill three people and wound more than 200 in what FBI investigators said evidence shows was a coldly calculated attack.
With chilling detail, the criminal complaint filed against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev says he was seen on video placing a bag near the the finish line of the marathon, watching and reacting with no surprise as the first explosion went off down the street, and then "calmly but rapidly" walking away before the second blast occurred at the spot where moments before he had been standing. (Scroll down to see more from the complaint or to read a complete copy of it.)
The FBI's description of that scene came just before people in Boston and across Massachusetts were to pause for a moment of silence at 2:50 p.m. ET Monday — marking the time exactly one week ago when the first of the two bombs exploded. The criminal complaint filed against Tsarnaev also included a new detail: Previously, officials had said 170 to 180 people were injured in the blasts. In the complaint, they increased that to "over 200."
Latest Developments — Surviving suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not be considered an "enemy combatant," the White House says. That means he will be treated and tried as a criminal defendant. — Tsarnaev, who remains in serious condition at a Boston hospital, was arraigned in his bed. He's charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill three people and injure more than 200 (a higher number of injured than had previously been reported). — According to a transcript — obtained by The New York Times — of today's initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler, Tsarnaev said one word — "No" — when he was asked if he could afford a lawyer. At the end of the hearing — where Tsarnaev was given his Miranda warning — Bowler said she found "the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. He is aware of the nature of the proceedings." — The investigation continues into whether anyone besides Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan (who died Friday after a gun battle with police) may have been involved in the Boston Marathon bombings. — There was a funeral Monday for Krystle Campbell, one of the three people killed in the marathon bombings.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was arraigned at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, where he remains in serious condition. As NPR's David Schaper reported on Morning Edition, it's not clear yet how or when Tsarnaev was wounded or who inflicted some of his injuries. It's possible he tried to kill himself. Sources familiar with the investigation into the bombings have told NPR that wounds to his neck and jaw area are preventing Tsarnaev from talking.
According to a transcript of today's initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler, Tsarnaev said one word — "No" — when he was asked if he could afford a lawyer.
At the end of the hearing — where Tsarnaev was given his Miranda warning — Bowler said she found "the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. He is aware of the nature of the proceedings."
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar's 26-year-old brother and the other suspect in the bombings, died after a gun battle with police early Friday in the Boston suburb of Watertown, Mass. The brothers allegedly killed an MIT campus police officer and seriously wounded a Boston transit police officer during a wild shooting spree that began Thursday night and lasted into the early hours of Friday.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured Friday evening after a harrowing day when much of the Boston area was locked down during the police manhunt. He was discovered in a boat stored in a Watertown family's backyard. Authorities are anxious to know whether anyone else may have been involved and whether any more attacks were planned.
Investigators also are trying to piece together how Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have been radicalized in recent years, NPR's Temple-Raston added Monday. They're looking to interview his wife. The Tsarnaev brothers, both Muslims, came from an ethnic Chechen family that had been living in the U.S. for about a decade. Tamerlan was a legal resident, and Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen last year.
We'll keep an eye on developments as the day continues and update this post with the news.
Update at 8:02 p.m. ET. Feds Hand Off Boylston Street:
In a move that also had a lot of symbolic significance, federal officers handed custody of Boylston Street back to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. The Boston Police Department tweeted a picture of the moment a little bit ago.
CBS Boston reports that this means the city has begun a 5-step plan to reopen the scene of the bombings to the general public.
The station reports:
"The 5-steps include testing the area for contamination, structural building assessments, removing debris, internal building assessments and re-entry including communication and counseling."
Update at 6:31 p.m. ET. Tsarnaev Mirandized:
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read the Miranda warning today during his initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler.
A transcript of the proceeding was filed at the United States District Court District of Massachusetts and the document was posted online by The New York Times.
Bowler tells Tsarnaev that he has the right to remain silent and not say anything that will incriminate him. She also asks Tsarnaev if he can afford a lawyer and Tsarnaev appears to answer "no."
Perhaps most importantly, the judge says, "At this time, at the conclusion of the initial appearance, I find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. He is aware of the nature of the proceedings."
William Fick, the federal defender representing Tsarnaev, also agreed to a voluntary detention of the suspect.
Update at 2:53 p.m. ET. A Moment Of Silence:
For about seven minutes beginning at 2:50 p.m. ET., the city of Boston fell silent. Investigators formed a semi-circle around the the site of one the blasts and bowed their heads.
The New York Stock Exchange, the House of Representatives in Washington and the Massachusetts State House also paused to remember the three killed and the more than 200 injured.
The historic Peabody Square clock, near where 8-year-old Martin Richard lived, was frozen at 2:50 p.m. During the moment of silence, reports the Boston Globe's Eric Moskowitz, it was restarted.
Update at 2:15 p.m. ET. Details From The Complaint Against Tsarnaev.
Daniel Genck, an FBI special agent, writes in the criminal complaint that:
-- On video, a man who appears to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can be seen placing a bag down in front of the Forum Restaurant along the marathon route. "Approximately 30 seconds before the first explosion, he lifts [a] phone to his ear as if he is speaking ... and keeps it there for approximately 18 seconds. A few seconds after he finishes the call, the large crowd of people around him can be seen reacting to the first explosion. Virtually every head turns to the east (toward the finish line) and stares in that direction in apparent bewilderment and alarm. Bomber Two [Dzhokhar Tsarnaev], virtually alone among the individuals in front of the restaurant appears calm. He glances to east and then calmly but rapidly begins moving to the west, away from the direction of the finish line. He walks away without his knapsack, having left it on the ground where he had been standing. Approximately 10 seconds later, an explosion occurs in the location where Bomber Two had placed his knapsack."
-- The victim of a carjacking Thursday night in Cambridge, Mass., has told police that one of the two men (who the agent later identifies as Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev) said during the carjacking: "Did you hear about the Boston explosion? ... I did that."
-- "A preliminary examination of the explosive devices that were discovered at the scene of the shootout in Watertown [early Friday] and in the abandoned vehicle has revealed similarities to the explosives used at the Boston Marathon."
-- In Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's dormitory room at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, FBI agents found "a large pyrotechnic, a black jacket and a white hat of the same general appearance as those worn by Bomber Two at the Boston Marathon."
Update at 1:55 p.m. ET. The Criminal Complaint Against Tsarnaev:
Update at 1:38 p.m. ET. Confirmed: Tsarnaev Has Been Charged.
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev charged with conspiring to use weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in U.S. resulting in death," the U.S. attorney's offfice for the district of Massachusetts confirms on its Twitter page.
And in a statement, the Department of Justice says he's been charged "with using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, resulting in the death of three people and injuries to more than 200 people."
We'll have more from the criminal complaint shortly.
Update at 1:05 p.m. ET. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Will Not Be Charged As Enemy Combatant, White House Says; He's Arraigned In Hospital Bed, Official Says:
Confirming what was expected, the White House has said Tsarnaev will not be treated as an "enemy combatant," but will be prosecuted in civilian courts. And as that news was breaking moments ago, WCVB-TV in Boston was reporting that Tsarnaev today was arraigned in his hospital bed, according to Gary Wente, the circuit executive for the U.S. Courts in Boston. The complaint against him has been sealed, the station added. NPR has not independently confirmed that an arraignment has happened.
For more on the legal issues involved in treating someone as an enemy combatant, check this Morning Edition report from NPR's Tovia Smith.
Update at 12:20 p.m. ET. Tamerlan Tsarnaev's "Closest American Friend" And Two Other Young Men Were Murdered Three Years Ago; Case Remains Unsolved:
After a Buzzfeed report that "associates of slain Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev now believe he may have been involved in a 2011 triple murder that claimed the life of his closest American friend, Brendan Mess," the prosecutor's office in Middlesex County, Mass., is going to go back to see if there's any connection between Tsarnaev and that unsolved crime, Reuters reports.
The wire service writes:
" 'We are definitely going to pursue any new leads,' said Stephanie Guyotte, a spokeswoman for the Middlesex District Attorney's office. She said it was fair to say that investigators will check to see if Tsarnaev had anything to do with the crime."
John Allan, owner of Wai Kru Mixed Martial Arts in Allston, Mass., where Tsarnaev once boxed, had earlier told the Boston Globe that the 26-year-old had once introduced Mess as his best friend. Then two years ago, the Globe wrote, "Mess and two other men were brutally killed in a Waltham apartment where they were found by police with their throats slit and their bodies covered with marijuana. The murders remain unsolved."
According to Buzzfeed, a mutual friend says Tsarnaev did not come to Mess' funeral. "A few months after Mess's murder," Buzzfeed adds, "Tsarnaev went to Russia for six months."
Guyotte, the prosecutor's spokeswoman, has also told the local Waltham Patch that the triple murders are "an active homicide case and that investigators would pursue any new leads they receive."
While friends are asking whether Tsarnaev might have been involved in the murders, The Wall Street Journal notes that the killings came at a tumultuous time in Tsarnaev's life and raises the prospect that they might have been among the reasons he appears to have turned to a radical form of Islam.
Update at 11:30 a.m. ET. Funeral For Krystle Campbell:
The funeral for 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, one of the three people killed in the bombings, is being held this hour in her hometown of Medford, Mass. The Boston Globe says "some 200 members of Teamsters Local 25 members began gathering at St. Joseph's Church before 8 a.m. today, promising to block protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church if they follow through on a threat to picket the funeral."
A memorial service for 23-year-old Lingzi Lu of China, who was a graduate student at Boston University, is planned for 7 p.m. ET Monday at the school. The third person killed at the marathon was 8-year-old Martin Richard of Dorchester, Mass. He was remembered during a Mass on Sunday at Dorchester's St. Ann Parish. Sean Collier, the 26-year-old slain MIT police officer, is to be remembered later this week.
Update at 10:45 a.m. ET. President Obama Will Observe Moment:
President Obama will also "observe a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings" at 2:50 p.m. ET, the White House says in a statement sent to reporters. He will do so in private, the statement adds.
Update at 10 a.m. ET. Wounded Officer "Shows Hopeful Signs":
"The transit police officer critically wounded in a gunbattle with the marathon bombing suspects opened his eyes, wiggled his toes and squeezed his wife's hand yesterday for the first time since he nearly bled to death Friday — hopeful signs for his doctors and family," The Boston Herald writes. "Three-year veteran MBTA cop Richard Donohue remains in critical but stable condition at the surgical intensive care unit at Mount Auburn Hospital."
Update at 8:50 a.m. ET. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Remains In Serious Condition.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Massachusetts tweets that:
"According to BIDMC marathon bombing suspect remains in serious condition this morning. Releasing info at hospital's request."
BIDMC is Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
As Monday dawned, here were some of the related headlines:
-- "Turn To Religion Split Bomb Suspects' Home." (The Wall Street Journal, behind a paywall)
-- "Dead Suspect Broke Angrily With Muslim Speakers." (The Boston Globe)
-- "Suspects Seemed Set For Attacks Beyond Boston." (The New York Times)
-- "The Inside Story" Of The Investigation. (CBS News' 60 Minutes)
-- "Should Marathon Bomber Be Treated As An Enemy Combatant?" (Morning Edition)
Note: As happens when stories such as this are developing, there will likely be reports that turn out to be mistaken. Wednesday, for example, there were reports from CNN, the AP, WBUR and others that authorities either had arrested a suspect or were about to do that. It turned out that no one had been arrested or taken into custody. We will focus on news being reported by NPR, other news outlets with expertise, and statements from authorities who are in a position to know what's going on. And if some of that information turns out to be wrong, we'll update.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
Gk2TVNXRUi8aIdwb
|
economy_and_jobs
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/488071-markets-rebound-on-stimulus-promises-fed-action
|
Markets rebound on stimulus promises, Fed action
|
2020-03-17
|
U.S. stock markets rebounded Tuesday after one of their worst drops in history a day earlier , as 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 and Congress advanced economic stimulus plans and the Federal Reserve took actions to shore up the financial system in the face of the coronavirus pandemic .
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 1,049 points , or 5.2 percent percent , recovering a portion of its nearly 3,000-point drop on Monday , the third worst day in its history .
The index , which peaked at more than 29,500 just last month , briefly hovered below 20,000 in the morning hours , before rebounding to a 21,238 close .
The market jumped after the Federal Reserve announced it would expand its bond-buying efforts to include corporate bonds in an effort to help provide businesses with short-term funding .
Traders took further solace as the Trump administration took up a plan to send stimulus checks to all Americans . On Monday , Sen. Mitt Romney Willard ( Mitt ) Mitt RomneySenators balance coronavirus action with risks to health GOP Sen. Cotton calls for monthly cash payments to Americans during coronavirus pandemic Mnuchin to pitch Senate GOP on third coronavirus package Tuesday MORE ( R-Utah ) floated the idea of sending every American $ 1,000 checks to bolster the economy .
Meanwhile , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison ( Mitch ) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill 's Morning Report - Trump shifts his tone on coronavirus Mnuchin to pitch Senate GOP on third coronavirus package Tuesday Overnight Health Care : Trump says coronavirus crisis could last through summer | House bill hits new roadblocks | Schumer to propose 0B for third aid package | Researchers launch first vaccine trial | Dow plunges after Fed cuts rates MORE ( R-Ky. ) said the Senate would approve a $ 104 billion House-passed stimulus package , providing for free coronavirus testing and bolstering paid sick and family leave .
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was also at the Capitol to pitch a broader , $ 850 billion stimulus bill .
Still , the outlook remained dour for the near-term , as social distancing and efforts to prevent further coronavirus spread shuttered businesses , canceled large events and ground much of the economy to a halt .
Analysts said a global recession was a near certainty , and S & P Global said the U.S. was likely already in a recession .
|
U.S. stock markets rebounded Tuesday after one of their worst drops in history a day earlier, as 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 and Congress advanced economic stimulus plans and the Federal Reserve took actions to shore up the financial system in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 1,049 points, or 5.2 percent percent, recovering a portion of its nearly 3,000-point drop on Monday, the third worst day in its history.
The index, which peaked at more than 29,500 just last month, briefly hovered below 20,000 in the morning hours, before rebounding to a 21,238 close.
ADVERTISEMENT
The market jumped after the Federal Reserve announced it would expand its bond-buying efforts to include corporate bonds in an effort to help provide businesses with short-term funding.
Traders took further solace as the Trump administration took up a plan to send stimulus checks to all Americans. On Monday, Sen. Mitt Romney Willard (Mitt) Mitt RomneySenators balance coronavirus action with risks to health GOP Sen. Cotton calls for monthly cash payments to Americans during coronavirus pandemic Mnuchin to pitch Senate GOP on third coronavirus package Tuesday MORE (R-Utah) floated the idea of sending every American $1,000 checks to bolster the economy.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump shifts his tone on coronavirus Mnuchin to pitch Senate GOP on third coronavirus package Tuesday Overnight Health Care: Trump says coronavirus crisis could last through summer | House bill hits new roadblocks | Schumer to propose 0B for third aid package | Researchers launch first vaccine trial | Dow plunges after Fed cuts rates MORE (R-Ky.) said the Senate would approve a $104 billion House-passed stimulus package, providing for free coronavirus testing and bolstering paid sick and family leave.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was also at the Capitol to pitch a broader, $850 billion stimulus bill.
Still, the outlook remained dour for the near-term, as social distancing and efforts to prevent further coronavirus spread shuttered businesses, canceled large events and ground much of the economy to a halt.
Analysts said a global recession was a near certainty, and S&P Global said the U.S. was likely already in a recession.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
SJXCmVs7wgfplaSL
|
|
politics
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/419976-wake-up-dudes-gender-gap-confounds-gop-women
|
‘Wake up, dudes’ — gender gap confounds GOP women
|
2018-12-06
|
Republican men and women are deeply divided over how to confront the results of a brutal midterm election that decimated the ranks of female GOP lawmakers in the House .
Most House Republicans have so far shown little appetite for performing an autopsy on the 2018 election cycle and publicly identifying the root of their tough losses , which were stark among female voters , particularly in the suburbs .
But a vocal chorus of Republican women has been sounding the alarm to address what they view as a crisis , calling on party leaders to be more aggressive in devising a strategy to reverse the trend by the next election cycle .
“ I encourage our party leaders to be more aggressive in seeking out and helping younger candidates , female candidates and candidates of color , ” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Ileana Carmen Ros-LehtinenEx-Rep. Duffy to join lobbying firm BGR Former GOP Rep. Walters joins energy company Republican Salazar seeks rematch with Shalala in key Miami House district MORE ( R-Fla. ) , who is retiring . “ We have to step up our game or risk having the nation look upon us as the political party of the grandparents . ”
Some GOP women are even vowing to go on their own missions to bring female candidates and voters back into the arms of the party next year .
Rep. Elise Stefanik Elise Marie StefanikMeadows slams ex-Bush aide 's 'reprehensible ' remark about GOP congresswoman GOP motions to subpoena whistleblower Live coverage : House holds first public impeachment hearing MORE ( R-N.Y. ) , who led recruitment efforts for the House GOP ’ s campaign arm this cycle , made waves this week when she announced plans to get involved in primary races to help more Republican women get elected to Congress .
Rep. Tom Emmer Thomas ( Tom ) Earl EmmerGeorge Papadopoulos launches campaign to run for Katie Hill 's congressional seat Shimkus says he 's been asked to reconsider retirement Walden retirement adds to GOP election woes MORE ( R-Minn. ) , the chairman-elect of the National Republican Congressional Committee ( NRCC ) , called the idea a “ mistake . ”
“ NEWSFLASH I wasn ’ t asking for permission , ” Stefanik fired back in a tweet . “ I will continue speaking out [ about ] the crisis level of GOP women in Congress & will try to lead and change that by supporting strong GOP women candidates through my leadership PAC . ”
Tensions have started to spill out into public view in the wake of a slow-moving blue wave that handed the House back to Democrats for the first time since 2010 . And Republican women suffered a stinging blow , with their ranks poised to shrink from 23 down to 13 next year .
That comes in stark contrast to House Democrats , who will see a record 89 women serving in Congress , nearly seven times the number of Republican women .
“ I think the Republicans have to get off of defense on this issue , ” Rep. Liz Cheney Elizabeth ( Liz ) Lynn CheneyLawmakers call for extra security for anti-Erdoğan protesters Live updates on impeachment : Schiff fires warning at GOP over whistleblower Overnight Defense : Protests at Trump 's NYC Veterans Day speech | House Dems release Pentagon official 's deposition transcript | Lawmakers ask Trump to rescind Erdogan invite MORE ( R-Wyo . ) , who was recently elected to be GOP conference chairwoman , told The Washington Post . “ We need more women running for office , no doubt . ”
Republican women faced especially tough political headwinds this year . Exit polls suggest that President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes MORE ’ s deep unpopularity , particularly among women and college-educated voters in the suburbs , helped fuel the major Democratic gains .
That could pose a serious problem for the GOP as it tries to win over voters and ramp up female recruitment efforts in 2020 , when Trump will be at the top of the ticket .
The widening gender gap between the two parties has been a real source of pain and frustration for Republican women , and particularly Stefanik , a rising GOP star who was , until this year , the youngest woman elected to Congress .
Stefanik , 34 , was credited with doubling the number of female GOP candidates who were recruited to run for congressional seats this year . But only one woman — Rep.-elect Carol Miller Carol Devine MillerGOP women 's super PAC blasts 'out of touch ' candidate in NC runoff GOP amps up efforts to recruit women candidates Kerry goes after Trump over climate on Capitol Hill MORE ( R-W.Va. ) — won her race .
Stefanik reportedly pressed the two male lawmakers running for GOP minority leader during a candidate forum last month about their plans to help more Republican women win their races , but she was disappointed by their responses .
“ I was struck that I really didn ’ t get an answer , ” Stefanik told The Washington Post .
House Republicans have been reluctant , at least publicly , to diagnose the reasons for their electoral losses and discuss ways to correct course — a stark contrast to the 2006 and 2012 election cycles , though some Republicans point out that the infamous 2012 autopsy report was largely ignored .
Despite the 40-seat drubbing , there were few calls for a wholesale change in leadership . The GOP conference elevated Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy Kevin Owen McCarthyHouse Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring , ' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay ███ 's Morning Report - Diplomats kick off public evidence about Trump , Ukraine House Republicans prepare for public impeachment proceedings with mock hearing MORE ( Calif. ) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise Stephen ( Steve ) Joseph ScaliseLive updates on impeachment : Schiff fires warning at GOP over whistleblower Bottom Line Trump allies assail impeachment on process while House Democrats promise open hearings soon MORE ( La . ) to the No . 1 and No . 2 spots , respectively , and elected Cheney to replace Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Cathy McMorris RodgersShimkus announces he will stick with plan to retire after reconsidering Bipartisan group reveals agricultural worker immigration bill DC 's liaison to rock ' n ' roll MORE ( Wash. ) as conference chairwoman .
Few Republicans have been interested in talking publicly about the negative effects Trump has had when it comes to the GOP ’ s standing with women .
“ I think people know what happened , but in certain positions it ’ s difficult to say those things , ” said retiring Rep. Ryan Costello Ryan Anthony CostellloFormer GOP Rep. Costello launches lobbying shop Head of Pennsylvania GOP resigns over alleged explicit texts Lobbying world MORE ( R-Pa. ) , a vocal Trump critic . “ The president was on the ballot . The president himself said he was on the ballot . ”
Some in the party believe an autopsy report would be premature at this point .
And Emmer , who will take the reins of the House GOP ’ s campaign arm , disputed the notion that Republicans weren ’ t being proactive about figuring out what went wrong .
“ We ’ re being incredibly introspective . We ’ ve got a long way to go , but we ’ ve just started , ” he said . “ We ’ re going to be doing some deep review of the issues most important to the voters we didn ’ t get . ”
Emmer also defended the party ’ s efforts to elect women this cycle , pointing out that Stefanik successfully recruited 100 female candidates to run for office and that Democratic mega-donors like Michael Bloomberg targeted their female incumbents .
He said it ’ s a major priority for him to replenish the dwindling number of GOP women in Congress . The NRCC is in the process of building a new program aimed at getting more female candidates over the finish line , and Emmer plans to gather input directly from House Republican women in devising the strategy , though it will not involve playing in primaries .
“ We need to elect more Elise Stefaniks , more Liz Cheneys , ” Emmer said .
Stefanik , who faced a competitive primary race in 2014 , isn ’ t the only female Republican vowing to intervene in primaries .
Sarah Chamberlain , president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership , is also vowing to get involved earlier in the primary process and spend big on top female recruits .
She argued that Democrats have the advantage of a long-standing centralized effort to recruit and support female candidates in the form of EMILY ’ s List , which was founded in 1985 . Republican organizations to support female candidates don ’ t have the same level of prominence and haven ’ t been around as long .
Chamberlain pointed to GOP congressional candidate Ashley Nickloes , a military pilot who lost a seven-way primary in a safe Republican district in Tennessee , as someone who would have benefited from early intervention and funding .
“ She was a perfect candidate … I could have gotten her through , ” Chamberlain said . “ I ’ m not gon na leave one on the table again . ”
|
Republican men and women are deeply divided over how to confront the results of a brutal midterm election that decimated the ranks of female GOP lawmakers in the House.
Most House Republicans have so far shown little appetite for performing an autopsy on the 2018 election cycle and publicly identifying the root of their tough losses, which were stark among female voters, particularly in the suburbs.
ADVERTISEMENT
But a vocal chorus of Republican women has been sounding the alarm to address what they view as a crisis, calling on party leaders to be more aggressive in devising a strategy to reverse the trend by the next election cycle.
“I encourage our party leaders to be more aggressive in seeking out and helping younger candidates, female candidates and candidates of color,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Ileana Carmen Ros-LehtinenEx-Rep. Duffy to join lobbying firm BGR Former GOP Rep. Walters joins energy company Republican Salazar seeks rematch with Shalala in key Miami House district MORE (R-Fla.), who is retiring. “We have to step up our game or risk having the nation look upon us as the political party of the grandparents.”
“Wake up, dudes,” she added.
Some GOP women are even vowing to go on their own missions to bring female candidates and voters back into the arms of the party next year.
Rep. Elise Stefanik Elise Marie StefanikMeadows slams ex-Bush aide's 'reprehensible' remark about GOP congresswoman GOP motions to subpoena whistleblower Live coverage: House holds first public impeachment hearing MORE (R-N.Y.), who led recruitment efforts for the House GOP’s campaign arm this cycle, made waves this week when she announced plans to get involved in primary races to help more Republican women get elected to Congress.
Rep. Tom Emmer Thomas (Tom) Earl EmmerGeorge Papadopoulos launches campaign to run for Katie Hill's congressional seat Shimkus says he's been asked to reconsider retirement Walden retirement adds to GOP election woes MORE (R-Minn.), the chairman-elect of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), called the idea a “mistake.”
“NEWSFLASH I wasn’t asking for permission,” Stefanik fired back in a tweet. “I will continue speaking out [about] the crisis level of GOP women in Congress & will try to lead and change that by supporting strong GOP women candidates through my leadership PAC.”
Tensions have started to spill out into public view in the wake of a slow-moving blue wave that handed the House back to Democrats for the first time since 2010. And Republican women suffered a stinging blow, with their ranks poised to shrink from 23 down to 13 next year.
That comes in stark contrast to House Democrats, who will see a record 89 women serving in Congress, nearly seven times the number of Republican women.
“I think the Republicans have to get off of defense on this issue,” Rep. Liz Cheney Elizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyLawmakers call for extra security for anti-Erdoğan protesters Live updates on impeachment: Schiff fires warning at GOP over whistleblower Overnight Defense: Protests at Trump's NYC Veterans Day speech | House Dems release Pentagon official's deposition transcript | Lawmakers ask Trump to rescind Erdogan invite MORE (R-Wyo.), who was recently elected to be GOP conference chairwoman, told The Washington Post. “We need more women running for office, no doubt.”
Republican women faced especially tough political headwinds this year. Exit polls suggest that President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans' votes MORE’s deep unpopularity, particularly among women and college-educated voters in the suburbs, helped fuel the major Democratic gains.
That could pose a serious problem for the GOP as it tries to win over voters and ramp up female recruitment efforts in 2020, when Trump will be at the top of the ticket.
The widening gender gap between the two parties has been a real source of pain and frustration for Republican women, and particularly Stefanik, a rising GOP star who was, until this year, the youngest woman elected to Congress.
Stefanik, 34, was credited with doubling the number of female GOP candidates who were recruited to run for congressional seats this year. But only one woman — Rep.-elect Carol Miller Carol Devine MillerGOP women's super PAC blasts 'out of touch' candidate in NC runoff GOP amps up efforts to recruit women candidates Kerry goes after Trump over climate on Capitol Hill MORE (R-W.Va.) — won her race.
Stefanik reportedly pressed the two male lawmakers running for GOP minority leader during a candidate forum last month about their plans to help more Republican women win their races, but she was disappointed by their responses.
“I was struck that I really didn’t get an answer,” Stefanik told The Washington Post.
House Republicans have been reluctant, at least publicly, to diagnose the reasons for their electoral losses and discuss ways to correct course — a stark contrast to the 2006 and 2012 election cycles, though some Republicans point out that the infamous 2012 autopsy report was largely ignored.
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite the 40-seat drubbing, there were few calls for a wholesale change in leadership. The GOP conference elevated Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy Kevin Owen McCarthyHouse Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring,' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay The Hill's Morning Report - Diplomats kick off public evidence about Trump, Ukraine House Republicans prepare for public impeachment proceedings with mock hearing MORE (Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise Stephen (Steve) Joseph ScaliseLive updates on impeachment: Schiff fires warning at GOP over whistleblower Bottom Line Trump allies assail impeachment on process while House Democrats promise open hearings soon MORE (La.) to the No. 1 and No. 2 spots, respectively, and elected Cheney to replace Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Cathy McMorris RodgersShimkus announces he will stick with plan to retire after reconsidering Bipartisan group reveals agricultural worker immigration bill DC's liaison to rock 'n' roll MORE (Wash.) as conference chairwoman.
Few Republicans have been interested in talking publicly about the negative effects Trump has had when it comes to the GOP’s standing with women.
“I think people know what happened, but in certain positions it’s difficult to say those things,” said retiring Rep. Ryan Costello Ryan Anthony CostellloFormer GOP Rep. Costello launches lobbying shop Head of Pennsylvania GOP resigns over alleged explicit texts Lobbying world MORE (R-Pa.), a vocal Trump critic. “The president was on the ballot. The president himself said he was on the ballot.”
Some in the party believe an autopsy report would be premature at this point.
And Emmer, who will take the reins of the House GOP’s campaign arm, disputed the notion that Republicans weren’t being proactive about figuring out what went wrong.
“We’re being incredibly introspective. We’ve got a long way to go, but we’ve just started,” he said. “We’re going to be doing some deep review of the issues most important to the voters we didn’t get.”
Emmer also defended the party’s efforts to elect women this cycle, pointing out that Stefanik successfully recruited 100 female candidates to run for office and that Democratic mega-donors like Michael Bloomberg targeted their female incumbents.
He said it’s a major priority for him to replenish the dwindling number of GOP women in Congress. The NRCC is in the process of building a new program aimed at getting more female candidates over the finish line, and Emmer plans to gather input directly from House Republican women in devising the strategy, though it will not involve playing in primaries.
“We need to elect more Elise Stefaniks, more Liz Cheneys,” Emmer said.
Stefanik, who faced a competitive primary race in 2014, isn’t the only female Republican vowing to intervene in primaries.
Sarah Chamberlain, president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership, is also vowing to get involved earlier in the primary process and spend big on top female recruits.
She argued that Democrats have the advantage of a long-standing centralized effort to recruit and support female candidates in the form of EMILY’s List, which was founded in 1985. Republican organizations to support female candidates don’t have the same level of prominence and haven’t been around as long.
Chamberlain pointed to GOP congressional candidate Ashley Nickloes, a military pilot who lost a seven-way primary in a safe Republican district in Tennessee, as someone who would have benefited from early intervention and funding.
“She was a perfect candidate … I could have gotten her through,” Chamberlain said. “I’m not gonna leave one on the table again.”
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
KpaGeWVUBcsnLfeG
|
|
politics
|
New York Post
| 22
|
https://nypost.com/2020/05/08/adam-schiff-lied-about-the-trump-probe-and-the-media-let-him/
|
Adam Schiff lied about the Trump investigation — and the media let him
|
2020-05-08
|
Last week , Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell forced Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff ’ s hand . If the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee didn ’ t release the transcripts of 53 interviews from the committee ’ s Russia collusion investigations , then he ’ d do it himself . The transcripts , many of them from nearly three years ago , were declassified and ready for public viewing since June .
As the grand impresario of collusion , Schiff has filled print and broadcast media since January 2017 claiming that he has seen “ more than circumstantial evidence ” of a Trump-Putin conspiracy . Obviously there was none in the transcripts , or he ’ d have pulled back the curtain years ago . But Schiff didn ’ t want to hand control of the narrative to one of Trump ’ s most effective deputies , so on Thursday they finally went live .
They show exactly what you ’ d expect them to show : None of the former Obama administration officials who took to the airwaves immediately after Trump ’ s election to claim collusion had any evidence of it .
Here ’ s Obama ’ s director of national intelligence , and CNN analyst , James Clapper : “ I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election . ”
Former Pentagon official and now candidate for New York ’ s 17th Congressional District Evelyn Farkas claimed in a notorious 2017 MSNBC segment that she advised her colleagues to disseminate intelligence so that Trump could not destroy evidence of collusion . Under oath , however , she testified she “ didn ’ t know anything ” about Trump staff dealing with Russians .
But what makes the transcripts significant is not what ’ s contained in them . Rather , it ’ s what they represent .
Grenell ’ s deputy at DNI is Kash Patel . He was lead investigator in the Russia probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee , when it was chaired by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes . He told me for my book “ The Plot Against the President ” that he and GOP colleagues asked every former Obama official they interviewed if they had any evidence of collusion .
“ I ’ m not asking if you thought it happened or if you heard it happened , ” Patel told them all , from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to FBI Director James Comey . “ I said , ‘ Do you have information that exactly addresses this issue ? ’ ”
It was when Patel and Nunes saw no Obama official had any that their inquiry changed course . If there was no evidence of the Trump team ’ s ties to Russia , why was the FBI investigating Trump ’ s 2016 campaign ?
And thus began what Patel called “ Objective Medusa , ” the Nunes team ’ s investigation of the FBI team that targeted the Trump campaign . Their efforts not only unraveled the collusion myth but also first illuminated the FBI ’ s crimes and abuses . Their groundwork led , among other things , to Attorney General William Barr ’ s decision , also Thursday , to drop the DOJ ’ s case against Gen. Michael Flynn .
The transcripts also represent yet another blow to the media ’ s credibility . The Obama officials interviewed were among the many sources , like Schiff , the press tapped for its prize-winning collusion reporting . They lied for years about Trump and Russia and the press peddled their narrative without question .
No matter what evidence surfaced to prove the collusion story wrong , the media continued to credential the destructive conspiracy theory . It didn ’ t matter when Objective Medusa showed that former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele ’ s reports were paid for by the Clinton campaign . Or when the Nunes memo explained that the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign . It didn ’ t even matter when resistance messiah Robert Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion .
After Mueller filed his report last spring , CNN ’ s Jake Tapper said that “ I don ’ t know anybody who got anything wrong. ” Don ’ t expect anyone in the mainstream media to admit gross journalistic malpractice this time either . The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations , including CNN as well as MSNBC , the New York Times and the Washington Post , weren ’ t fooled by the collusion hoax . They were an essential part of it .
Lee Smith is author of the bestselling book “ The Plot Against the President . ”
|
Last week, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell forced Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff’s hand. If the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee didn’t release the transcripts of 53 interviews from the committee’s Russia collusion investigations, then he’d do it himself. The transcripts, many of them from nearly three years ago, were declassified and ready for public viewing since June.
As the grand impresario of collusion, Schiff has filled print and broadcast media since January 2017 claiming that he has seen “more than circumstantial evidence” of a Trump-Putin conspiracy. Obviously there was none in the transcripts, or he’d have pulled back the curtain years ago. But Schiff didn’t want to hand control of the narrative to one of Trump’s most effective deputies, so on Thursday they finally went live.
They show exactly what you’d expect them to show: None of the former Obama administration officials who took to the airwaves immediately after Trump’s election to claim collusion had any evidence of it.
Here’s Obama’s director of national intelligence, and CNN analyst, James Clapper: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”
Former Pentagon official and now candidate for New York’s 17th Congressional District Evelyn Farkas claimed in a notorious 2017 MSNBC segment that she advised her colleagues to disseminate intelligence so that Trump could not destroy evidence of collusion. Under oath, however, she testified she “didn’t know anything” about Trump staff dealing with Russians.
But what makes the transcripts significant is not what’s contained in them. Rather, it’s what they represent.
Grenell’s deputy at DNI is Kash Patel. He was lead investigator in the Russia probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, when it was chaired by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes. He told me for my book “The Plot Against the President” that he and GOP colleagues asked every former Obama official they interviewed if they had any evidence of collusion.
“I’m not asking if you thought it happened or if you heard it happened,” Patel told them all, from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to FBI Director James Comey. “I said, ‘Do you have information that exactly addresses this issue?’ ”
It was when Patel and Nunes saw no Obama official had any that their inquiry changed course. If there was no evidence of the Trump team’s ties to Russia, why was the FBI investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign?
And thus began what Patel called “Objective Medusa,” the Nunes team’s investigation of the FBI team that targeted the Trump campaign. Their efforts not only unraveled the collusion myth but also first illuminated the FBI’s crimes and abuses. Their groundwork led, among other things, to Attorney General William Barr’s decision, also Thursday, to drop the DOJ’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn.
The transcripts also represent yet another blow to the media’s credibility. The Obama officials interviewed were among the many sources, like Schiff, the press tapped for its prize-winning collusion reporting. They lied for years about Trump and Russia and the press peddled their narrative without question.
No matter what evidence surfaced to prove the collusion story wrong, the media continued to credential the destructive conspiracy theory. It didn’t matter when Objective Medusa showed that former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s reports were paid for by the Clinton campaign. Or when the Nunes memo explained that the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. It didn’t even matter when resistance messiah Robert Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion.
After Mueller filed his report last spring, CNN’s Jake Tapper said that “I don’t know anybody who got anything wrong.” Don’t expect anyone in the mainstream media to admit gross journalistic malpractice this time either. The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.
Lee Smith is author of the bestselling book “The Plot Against the President.”
|
www.nypost.com
| 1right
|
Eb35h6IQIf2kqSxc
|
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/09/trump-pence-vow-to-fight-on-together-after-emergence-damaging-tape.html
|
Trump, Pence vow to fight on together after emergence of damaging tape
|
2016-10-09
|
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and running mate Mike Pence indicated Saturday that they would fight their election campaign to its conclusion next month , despite calls by prominent Republicans for Trump to withdraw from the race after the emergence of a damaging audio tape .
In the morning , a defiant Trump told the Wall Street Journal that there was `` zero chance '' that he would drop out over lewd comments he made about women in a 2005 audio tape that surfaced Friday .
`` I never , ever give up , ” Trump told the paper . `` The support I ’ m getting is unbelievable , because Hillary Clinton is a horribly flawed candidate . ''
In the afternoon , a smiling Trump briefly appeared outside his Trump Tower headquarters , high-fiving crowd members chanting `` U-S-A ! '' and saying that he “ will never let my supporters down . ”
In the evening , Pence , who has described himself as a `` Christian , a conservative and a Republican , in that order , '' told a Rhode Island fundraiser that he was committed to the real estate mogul .
`` He looked me in the eye and he said , 'Don ’ t worry , we ’ re going to get through this , we ’ re going to be OK , ' '' Rhode Island GOP Chairman Brandon Bell told WPRI-TV of his meeting with Pence .
`` So he didn ’ t address it head on , but he wanted to reassure people , the folks that were here – and I think he ’ s going to do this publicly in the next coming days – that we shouldn ’ t worry , that they ’ re still on a path to victory , '' Bell added .
Amid calls for Pence to replace Trump at the top of the Republican ticket , a senior Trump adviser told ███ late Saturday that the Indiana governor was `` solid '' behind the nominee .
Earlier Saturday , however , Pence said in a statement that he was `` offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the 11-year-old video . I do not condone his remarks and can not defend them . ”
`` We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night , '' Pence added , a reference to Trump 's second presidential debate against Democrat Hillary Clinton in St. Louis Sunday night .
The Indiana governor also cancelled a planned appearance Saturday with House Speaker Paul Ryan in Ryan 's home state of Wisconsin . Pence was supposed to fill in for the embattled Trump , and sources said the circumstance surrounding the tape was the issue .
The audio and an accompanying video , released by The Washington Post and NBC News on Friday , recorded a conversation between Trump and `` Access Hollywood '' host Billy Bush in which Trump described an attempt to have sex with a married woman .
Trump brags in the tape about women letting him kiss and grab them because he is famous , and also uses a crude word for a part of a woman 's anatomy .
The 70-year-old Trump apologized overnight for the comments , saying they “ don ’ t reflect who I am . ”
“ I said it , I was wrong , and I apologize , '' Trump said in videotaped remarks , after he originally apologized in a statement .
Throughout the day Saturday , several Republicans took the extraordinary step of revoking support for their party 's nominee one month from Election Day and with early voting already underway in some key states .
Among them : Ohio Sen . Rob Portman , New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte -- both are running for re-election -- and the party 's 2008 nominee , Arizona Sen. John McCain , who had stood by Trump even after the billionaire questioned whether the former POW should be considered a war hero because he got `` captured . ''
McCain , who is also facing a challenge in November , said Trump 's behavior made it `` impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy . ''
Many went further and called on Trump to quit the race altogether .
Step aside & let Mike Pence try . — Ben Sasse ( @ BenSasse ) October 8 , 2016
`` I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party , '' Alabama Rep. Martha Roby said in a statement . `` Now , it is abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible , respectable Republican to lead the ticket . ''
Republican leaders have scheduled a Monday morning conference call for House GOP lawmakers , who are out of town for Congress ' election recess . The email obtained by The Associated Press does n't specify the topic for the 11 a.m. EDT call , but rank-and-file lawmakers believe it 's about Trump . Such calls are rare and usually held to discuss important matters .
While still publicly backing Trump , the Republican National Committee is considering how to move forward .
One possibility : re-directing its expansive political operation away from Trump and toward helping vulnerable Senate and House candidates . Such a move would leave Trump with virtually no political infrastructure in swing states to identify his supporters and ensure they vote .
`` We are working to evaluate the appropriate messaging going forward , '' said RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer .
Election law experts suggest it would be logistically impossible to replace Trump on the ballot altogether , with early voting underway in some states and overseas ballots already distributed to military servicemen and others .
Ryan fundraising chief Spencer Zwick , however , said he 's been fielding calls from donors who `` want help putting money together to fund a new person to be the GOP nominee . ''
Zwick told the AP that a write-in or `` sticker campaign '' relying on social media could `` actually work . '' While there has never been a winning write-in campaign in a U.S. presidential contest , such an effort could make it harder for Trump to win .
|
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and running mate Mike Pence indicated Saturday that they would fight their election campaign to its conclusion next month, despite calls by prominent Republicans for Trump to withdraw from the race after the emergence of a damaging audio tape.
In the morning, a defiant Trump told the Wall Street Journal that there was "zero chance" that he would drop out over lewd comments he made about women in a 2005 audio tape that surfaced Friday.
"I never, ever give up,” Trump told the paper. "The support I’m getting is unbelievable, because Hillary Clinton is a horribly flawed candidate."
In the afternoon, a smiling Trump briefly appeared outside his Trump Tower headquarters, high-fiving crowd members chanting "U-S-A!" and saying that he “will never let my supporters down.”
In the evening, Pence, who has described himself as a "Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order," told a Rhode Island fundraiser that he was committed to the real estate mogul.
"He looked me in the eye and he said, 'Don’t worry, we’re going to get through this, we’re going to be OK,'" Rhode Island GOP Chairman Brandon Bell told WPRI-TV of his meeting with Pence.
"So he didn’t address it head on, but he wanted to reassure people, the folks that were here – and I think he’s going to do this publicly in the next coming days – that we shouldn’t worry, that they’re still on a path to victory," Bell added.
Amid calls for Pence to replace Trump at the top of the Republican ticket, a senior Trump adviser told Fox News late Saturday that the Indiana governor was "solid" behind the nominee.
Earlier Saturday, however, Pence said in a statement that he was "offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the 11-year-old video. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them.”
"We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night," Pence added, a reference to Trump's second presidential debate against Democrat Hillary Clinton in St. Louis Sunday night.
The Indiana governor also cancelled a planned appearance Saturday with House Speaker Paul Ryan in Ryan's home state of Wisconsin. Pence was supposed to fill in for the embattled Trump, and sources said the circumstance surrounding the tape was the issue.
The audio and an accompanying video, released by The Washington Post and NBC News on Friday, recorded a conversation between Trump and "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush in which Trump described an attempt to have sex with a married woman.
Trump brags in the tape about women letting him kiss and grab them because he is famous, and also uses a crude word for a part of a woman's anatomy.
The 70-year-old Trump apologized overnight for the comments, saying they “don’t reflect who I am.”
“I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize," Trump said in videotaped remarks, after he originally apologized in a statement.
Throughout the day Saturday, several Republicans took the extraordinary step of revoking support for their party's nominee one month from Election Day and with early voting already underway in some key states.
Among them: Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte -- both are running for re-election -- and the party's 2008 nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who had stood by Trump even after the billionaire questioned whether the former POW should be considered a war hero because he got "captured."
McCain, who is also facing a challenge in November, said Trump's behavior made it "impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy."
Many went further and called on Trump to quit the race altogether.
Character matters.@realDonaldTrump is obviously not going to win.
But he can still make an honorable move:
Step aside & let Mike Pence try. — Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) October 8, 2016
"I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party," Alabama Rep. Martha Roby said in a statement. "Now, it is abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible, respectable Republican to lead the ticket."
Republican leaders have scheduled a Monday morning conference call for House GOP lawmakers, who are out of town for Congress' election recess. The email obtained by The Associated Press doesn't specify the topic for the 11 a.m. EDT call, but rank-and-file lawmakers believe it's about Trump. Such calls are rare and usually held to discuss important matters.
While still publicly backing Trump, the Republican National Committee is considering how to move forward.
One possibility: re-directing its expansive political operation away from Trump and toward helping vulnerable Senate and House candidates. Such a move would leave Trump with virtually no political infrastructure in swing states to identify his supporters and ensure they vote.
"We are working to evaluate the appropriate messaging going forward," said RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer.
Election law experts suggest it would be logistically impossible to replace Trump on the ballot altogether, with early voting underway in some states and overseas ballots already distributed to military servicemen and others.
Ryan fundraising chief Spencer Zwick, however, said he's been fielding calls from donors who "want help putting money together to fund a new person to be the GOP nominee."
Zwick told the AP that a write-in or "sticker campaign" relying on social media could "actually work." While there has never been a winning write-in campaign in a U.S. presidential contest, such an effort could make it harder for Trump to win.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and Dan Gallo, Fox News.com's Joseph Weber and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
4EbiJZu23A8wKAKq
|
|
treasury
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/23/lois-lerner-key-player-in-irs-tea-party-scandal-retiring/
|
Lois Lerner, key player in Tea Party targeting scandal, retiring
|
2013-09-23
|
Lois Lerner , the IRS official at the heart of the scandal involving the targeting of Tea Party groups , is retiring .
Lerner , who headed the division in the tax-collecting agency that handles applications for tax-exempt status , had been placed on paid administrative leave in May . Calls for her dismissal came almost immediately following allegations she had participated in unfairly targeting conservative groups .
The IRS confirmed on Monday that she has resigned , though it 's unclear how that decision might affect the ongoing congressional investigations into the scandal .
`` Since May , the IRS has taken decisive actions to correct failures in Exempt Organizations management , replacing top leadership throughout the chain of command , '' the agency said in a written statement announcing her retirement . `` In addition , IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel created an Accountability Review Board to fully review information to ensure proper oversight in handling personnel issues . ''
The announcement has not quieted calls for a thorough probe into the agency 's actions . It 's also not clear what kind of government-paid retirement benefits Lerner might be receiving .
`` Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over . Far from it . In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth , '' Sen. Orrin Hatch , R-Utah , top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee , said in a written statement .
Rep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif. , chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , said : `` Lois Lerner 's exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee 's interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs . ''
`` We still do n't know why Lois Lerner , as a senior IRS official , had such a personal interest in directing scrutiny and why she denied improper conduct to Congress . Her departure does not answer these questions or diminish the Committee 's interest in hearing her testimony , '' he said .
Lerner first disclosed the IRS targeting at a May 10 tax law conference .
Lerner then infamously refused to testify at a hearing before Issa 's committee , citing her constitutional right not to incriminate herself . Three congressional committees and the Department of Justice , though , launched investigations into the IRS and its actions .
Eventually , the agency acknowledged that while she was in charge , IRS agents improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status from 2010-2012 .
Earlier this month , newly released emails seemed to support accusations against the embattled IRS official and her role in scrutinizing applications .
The agency had initially tried to spin the story , claiming the unfair targeting was the work of rogue Ohio-based employees .
One email dated February 2011 from Lerner said , `` Tea Party Matter very dangerous '' - before going on to warn that the `` matter '' could be used to go to court to test campaign spending limits .
The email was released by the House Ways and Means Committee and parts were redacted .
|
Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the heart of the scandal involving the targeting of Tea Party groups, is retiring.
Lerner, who headed the division in the tax-collecting agency that handles applications for tax-exempt status, had been placed on paid administrative leave in May. Calls for her dismissal came almost immediately following allegations she had participated in unfairly targeting conservative groups.
The IRS confirmed on Monday that she has resigned, though it's unclear how that decision might affect the ongoing congressional investigations into the scandal.
"Since May, the IRS has taken decisive actions to correct failures in Exempt Organizations management, replacing top leadership throughout the chain of command," the agency said in a written statement announcing her retirement. "In addition, IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel created an Accountability Review Board to fully review information to ensure proper oversight in handling personnel issues."
The announcement has not quieted calls for a thorough probe into the agency's actions. It's also not clear what kind of government-paid retirement benefits Lerner might be receiving.
More On This...
"Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over. Far from it. In fact, there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a written statement.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said: "Lois Lerner's exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee's interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs."
"We still don't know why Lois Lerner, as a senior IRS official, had such a personal interest in directing scrutiny and why she denied improper conduct to Congress. Her departure does not answer these questions or diminish the Committee's interest in hearing her testimony," he said.
Lerner first disclosed the IRS targeting at a May 10 tax law conference.
Lerner then infamously refused to testify at a hearing before Issa's committee, citing her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. Three congressional committees and the Department of Justice, though, launched investigations into the IRS and its actions.
Eventually, the agency acknowledged that while she was in charge, IRS agents improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status from 2010-2012.
Earlier this month, newly released emails seemed to support accusations against the embattled IRS official and her role in scrutinizing applications.
The agency had initially tried to spin the story, claiming the unfair targeting was the work of rogue Ohio-based employees.
One email dated February 2011 from Lerner said, "Tea Party Matter very dangerous" - before going on to warn that the "matter" could be used to go to court to test campaign spending limits.
The email was released by the House Ways and Means Committee and parts were redacted.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
NPyZMqWLv97ziGm2
|
|
opioid_crisis
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/17/18292021/opioid-epidemic-methadone-buprenorphine-naltrexone-drug-rehab
|
We have a solution for the opioid epidemic. It’s dramatically underused.
|
2019-12-17
|
German Lopez
|
Ian McLoone was at his son ’ s first birthday party in 2011 when his drug addiction rehab center called him at his Minneapolis home , telling him he needed to come back early .
McLoone quickly realized he was in trouble . The day before , he had missed curfew while chaperoning another client ’ s family visit for the inpatient facility . After the call , McLoone told his family that he had to go , and left , embarrassed . Over the next few days , he would be forced to “ sit on the bench . ”
“ It was literally a bench out in the hallway , ” McLoone told me . “ You would sit there from after breakfast time until just before dinner time . ”
While on the bench , McLoone , who was in treatment for opioid addiction at RS Eden , a treatment center in Minneapolis , couldn ’ t participate in most group sessions . He couldn ’ t attend lectures . He couldn ’ t talk to others in the program or eat with them . He couldn ’ t watch TV or use the phone . He just had to sit — in public , in silence . It was all part of RS Eden ’ s approach to treatment , as McLoone described it : “ We ’ re going to break you down in order to build you up again . ”
McLoone is now doing well , staying off heroin since 2010 . But he said that RS Eden had little to do with his recovery . Instead , he credited his use of methadone , a medication for opioid addiction .
In fact , McLoone said RS Eden pushed him to get off methadone — leaving him feeling stigmatized about using the medication . McLoone ’ s mom had to convince him to stay on it . As she told him , “ Why wouldn ’ t you use every tool at your disposal to get it right this time ? ”
Medications like methadone , as well as buprenorphine and naltrexone , are considered the gold standard of care for opioid addiction . Studies show that the medications reduce the mortality rate among those patients by half or more , and keep people in treatment better than non-medication approaches .
Yet rehab facilities in the US often treat medications with skepticism or even scorn , while embracing approaches with little if any peer-reviewed scientific evidence , like the bench .
The majority of addiction treatment facilities don ’ t offer medications . According to federal data , only 42 percent of the nearly 15,000 facilities tracked by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ( SAMHSA ) provide any type of medication for opioid addiction . Less than 3 percent offer all three federally approved medications : methadone , buprenorphine , and naltrexone .
As a result , the best response to an opioid epidemic that ’ s contributed to the more than 700,000 drug overdose deaths in the US since 1999 is vastly underused . Hundreds of people have now responded to the survey for ███ ’ s Rehab Racket project with complaints that evidence-based treatment — including medications — is expensive , hard to find , and sometimes outright shunned at addiction care facilities .
Medication isn ’ t the only effective way to treat opioid addiction . Other approaches , including cognitive behavioral therapy , motivational interviewing , and contingency management , also have evidence backing up their ability to treat addiction .
Still , for opioid addiction , medications “ should be the first-line option , ” Keith Humphreys , a drug policy expert at Stanford , told me . “ Not forced , but every single person should be offered that in any decent program treating opioid addiction . ”
When it opened in the 1970s , RS Eden at times forced patients to shave their heads and wear diapers as punishments . The approach came from the Synanon movement — to which one of RS Eden ’ s founders belonged to , RS Eden president Dan Cain told me . The formal Synanon organization , which began as a drug rehab program and turned into what ’ s now widely characterized as a “ violent cult , ” no longer exists , but some of its teachings remain in the addiction field today .
By the time McLoone got into RS Eden ( on a court order and paid for by the state ) , it had long gotten rid of head shaving and the diapers . But it still used the bench punishment and another technique , also from Synanon , called “ the game ” : Over the course of a typical week , patients would write down and submit complaints about others in the program . Those complaints would be read out loud by staff in group sessions , during which people would be expected to defend themselves — at times devolving into shouting matches and nearly fist fights as emotions ran high , McLoone said .
The Rehab Racket is ███ ’ s investigation into America ’ s notoriously opaque addiction treatment industry . We ’ re crowdsourcing patients and families ’ rehab stories , with an emphasis on the cost of treatment and quality of care . If you ’ d like help our reporting by sharing your story , please fill out this survey .
Cain acknowledged that his program “ made mistakes. ” It no longer uses the bench , but still uses “ the game , ” he said . He generally defended RS Eden ’ s practices .
“ ‘ Confrontation ’ is a term that there ’ s a lot of variables in and different levels in , ” Cain told me . “ We believe that people have to own who they are before they can be motivated to be somebody else. ” He added , “ We do focus on breaking through that level of denial . ”
Still , scientific evidence suggests confrontational approaches like these can actually make things worse .
Meanwhile , opioid addiction medications remain difficult to access for many .
Other addiction patients have told ███ about struggles to find medication treatments . Eitan , who asked to use their Hebrew name as a pseudonym , sought help for a drug problem going back to their teenage years — after their mom died of an asthma attack because she couldn ’ t afford her inhalers .
But in two separate outpatient programs in Arizona — Mirasol Recovery Centers and Desert Star Addiction Recovery Center — Eitan said they were pushed into a restrictive , unhelpful 12-step approach . Though the programs said they used other treatment methods , Eitan felt the programs were hostile to questions about them . And neither made medications available to Eitan .
“ It left me not really wanting to have treatment , ” Eitan told me . “ I felt really condescended to a lot of the time . ”
Richard Poppy , owner of Desert Star , told me that “ we ’ re not ‘ it ’ for everyone , ” and said , contrary to Eitan ’ s experience as a patient , that the program does support medications , although it doesn ’ t initiate buprenorphine or methadone . Mirasol has since shut down its drug addiction treatment services , focusing on treating eating disorders .
Eventually , Eitan moved to Massachusetts , where they now get outpatient treatment at the Boston Medical Center . There , the staff was quick to offer medications for addiction . Eitan got on naltrexone , which they said has helped reduce cravings for both alcohol and opioids . ( The evidence for medications for alcohol addiction is generally weaker than it is for opioid addiction , but experts say it ’ s a good option for some patients . )
“ I didn ’ t want recovery to mean that I spend the rest of my life miserably fighting cravings in 12-step meetings , ” Eitan said . But , they added , that was seen as the only path to recovery in the treatment facilities they attended before Boston Medical Center .
In the 1980s and ’ 90s , France faced a heroin epidemic that got as many as 300,000 people addicted and led to hundreds of overdose deaths each year along with a rise in other drug-related problems , such as HIV and hepatitis . In 1995 , French officials responded , in part , by expanding doctors ’ ability to prescribe buprenorphine .
From 1995 to 1999 , the number of people in medication-based treatment increased . According to a 2004 study published in The American Journal on Addictions , overdose deaths in the same time span in France fell by 79 percent .
It ’ s the kind of model , experts and advocates say , that the US should move to replicate .
There are three federally approved medications for opioid addiction : buprenorphine , methadone , and naltrexone .
Two of them , buprenorphine and methadone , are opioid agonists . As opioids , they activate the same kinds of receptors in the brain that , say , painkillers or heroin would . ( Indeed , both can be used for pain treatment . ) But when taken as prescribed , at a consistent dose , neither gets the patient high . Instead , the medications just stop the withdrawals and cravings that are linked to addiction — stabilizing a patient ’ s condition and giving them space to rebuild .
Both of these medications have strong scientific and medical evidence behind them . Methadone in particular has been around for decades , and is one of the most studied addiction treatments in the world . Every major public health organization — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the National Institute on Drug Abuse , the American Medical Association , and the World Health Organization — considers opioid agonist treatment a vital approach for combating addiction .
Naltrexone is the newer medication of the three . It ’ s not an opioid agonist . Instead , it blocks the effects of opioids up to certain doses , making it much harder to get high or overdose on the drugs . It can also reduce cravings for some people . While it has less evidence behind it , research suggests that naltrexone works well for some patients . The catch is that it requires full withdrawal , which makes it far more difficult to initiate for people than buprenorphine , which only requires partial withdrawal , and methadone , which doesn ’ t require withdrawal at all .
Naltrexone can also be used for alcohol addiction , along with medications like disulfiram and acamprosate . Although evidence suggests medications don ’ t work quite as well for alcohol as they do for opioid addiction , they ’ re a good approach for some people , like Eitan , who was temporarily on acamprosate as well .
There are no equivalent medications , at least not yet , for cocaine or meth .
Despite their effectiveness , the available medications are often stigmatized with a common trope that they “ replace one drug with another. ” On its face , this is literally true : The medications do substitute , say , heroin or alcohol .
But the context matters . The issue with addiction is not just drug use . Most people use some kind of drug — caffeine , alcohol , or medications . Some people are even dependent on these drugs , whether someone needs coffee to get going in the morning or insulin to survive .
What makes addiction a medical disorder is not just drug use or even dependence , but continued , compulsive use despite negative consequences . So someone would be unable to stop using heroin even when it poses serious risks to his health , career , or family . It ’ s only then that drug use becomes a drug use disorder .
The medications alleviate those problems , turning a drug use disorder back into just drug use . That ’ s why they reduce all sorts of drug-related problems , including the risk of death .
The medications don ’ t work for everyone , and different medications might work better for different individuals . Some people may need the medications for months or years , while others benefit for the rest of their lives . With a condition as individualized , complex , and difficult to treat as addiction , the correct treatment is going to vary from person to person .
Broadly , though , medications are proven to be effective for addiction .
As Eitan put it , “ It ’ s definitely not a silver bullet . It ’ s not like I took the medication and emerged cured . But about a week or a week and a half after taking it , I had this experience where I was like , ‘ I didn ’ t think about substances today. ’ ” They added , “ There was a break . ”
Despite the evidence , many addiction treatment facilities don ’ t offer any medications . Some outright shun the medications — perpetuating the stigma that they simply replace one drug with another . That ’ s deeply unusual compared to the rest of the health care industry , in which medications are , obviously , used quite often to treat medical conditions .
Cain , the president of RS Eden in Minnesota , called methadone an “ opioid replacement drug ” and “ more a tool than a solution. ” He acknowledged some people might need to be on a medication for the rest of their lives , but said it “ can be problematic ” and ultimately would like to see patients “ titrate off ” medications like methadone during or after RS Eden ’ s program . “ In terms of ‘ encourage to get off , ’ I think that ’ s a bit difficult to define , ” Cain said .
In McLoone ’ s experience , RS Eden ’ s message was clear : He felt pushed to get off methadone — until his mom intervened . ( RS Eden didn ’ t speak specifically about McLoone ’ s case , citing patient confidentiality . )
The resistance toward medications stems from the moralization and stigma that has wrapped addiction treatment for decades . For most of American history , addiction has been viewed as a moral failing , not a medical condition . So addiction was kept out of the health care system — leaving it to religious and spiritual groups , the criminal justice system , and Alcoholics Anonymous , Narcotics Anonymous , and other 12-step modalities to fill the void .
“ It would be like sending a bunch of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes to camp ”
It ’ s in this environment that the current model of what many Americans think of treatment — the 28-day stay in rehab — took off . Known as the “ Minnesota Model , ” the concept was popularized by the Hazelden Foundation , now the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation , as a way to treat people with addictions . The idea : People go to an inpatient setting for one month or several months , often outside the community where they use drugs , to cure themselves of their drug addiction .
Paul Earley , president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine ( ASAM ) , described the Minnesota Model as “ a hodgepodge of efforts ” that “ combined a little bit of AA , a little bit of psychosocial treatment , and a little bit of group therapy . ”
“ It was an acute care metaphor , ” he explained . “ You went to treatment for 28 days . And then when you left , they said , ‘ Good luck . Go to AA meetings , and it will all work out. ’ That works for a very small subset of people who have addiction. ” He added , “ But because there was nothing else , that grew throughout the United States , and that metaphor of shorter-term care for a chronic illness took hold . ”
At the same time , some people in the addiction field took things further — leading to the kind of confrontational approach popularized by Synanon and the “ tough love ” industry more broadly .
This history has led to a system that would appear ridiculous if it were applied to any other medical condition , said Kim Sue , medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition , which focuses on services that treat and mitigate the harms of drug use and addiction .
“ It would be like sending a bunch of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes to camp , ” Sue told me . “ Then saying , ‘ We ’ re going to give you your meals every day . You ’ re going to go to group every day about how to be a better diabetic . We ’ re not going to give you any insulin . Instead , we ’ re going to make you exercise , have counseling about your bad eating habits — things like that. ’ And then send people out and say , ‘ Good luck . We ’ ve endowed you with the skills to better handle your disease , ’ and expect people to get better . ”
A reprieve came for McLoone after four months at RS Eden , when he was accused — falsely , he said — of misusing opioids and kicked out .
He then found an outpatient program at the hospital and clinic chain Fairview , which he said worked better for him , while he stayed on methadone . He went on to grad school at the University of Minnesota , getting training to be a counselor for addiction and mental health issues .
In 2015 , he tapered off methadone , struggling with the many restrictions people taking the medication face . In the US , only specially licensed clinics can dispense methadone . Due to rules around how methadone is stored , secured , and distributed , patients at first have to go back to their methadone clinic at least once a day to get the drug , earning the right to take home a limited amount of medication after months or years . Travel can be a burden , with strict , often complex rules on whether patients can go to other clinics to get methadone when they ’ re out of town .
“ Traveling became really difficult . Working became difficult . Fitting it around my schedule became very difficult , ” McLoone said .
McLoone was in a place in his life in which he felt comfortable tapering off methadone . But some patients may need it indefinitely — just like someone with diabetes needs insulin — and the strict rules around methadone could get in the way .
“ No other medication is prescribed in this way , ” Sue , of the Harm Reduction Coalition , said .
Buprenorphine can be prescribed in a traditional health care setting , but it too faces unique restrictions . Doctors have to go through an eight-hour training course to get certification to prescribe it , and nurse practitioners and physician assistants have to go through a 24-hour training course . The restrictions are one reason that , according to the White House opioid commission ’ s 2017 report , 47 percent of US counties — and 72 percent of the most rural counties — had no physicians who could prescribe buprenorphine as of 2016 .
Since methadone and buprenorphine are opioids themselves , the rules are meant to make it harder to get and illegally sell the medications for misuse . ( Naltrexone , the non-opioid option , doesn ’ t face similar restrictions . ) But the laws and regulations have also helped create an environment in which rehab facilities are more likely to try unproven methods than medication-based treatments with decades of scientific evidence .
“ When you see people who ’ ve been through the wringer — people who have been through 20 detoxes and 10 rehabs — it just makes you think : ‘ Well , what are treatment centers doing ? ’ ” Sue said . “ It ’ s really a disservice , because it ’ s kept failing , and we ’ ve never looked at why you keep revolving in and out of this very dysfunctional system . ”
Looking back , McLoone , who worked at a food shelf before he went into addiction care , said it was his time at the bench at RS Eden that led him to a new career . “ I knew in my heart that there had to be a better way , ” he said . “ There had to be more respectful , more humane , more dignified , and more scientifically valid approaches out there . ”
Now he ’ s trying to change the addiction treatment field from within . In 2013 , after graduate school , he started working at the Alltyr Clinic in St. Paul . The clinic was founded by Mark Willenbring , who was previously profiled in the New York Times for his efforts to apply evidence and research to addiction treatment . Today , McLoone is the lead therapist there .
He supports medications , McLoone said , but also understands people ’ s concerns : “ I think my experiences on methadone also helped me appreciate the nuances and ambivalence that most people feel about taking medications in general , and I can understand acutely how and why people feel hesitant about taking a medicine , especially one that requires a longer-term commitment . ”
But for him , staying on methadone was “ by far the best decision I could have made . ”
“ I was able to finish rehab , get a job shoveling asphalt that summer , working my ass off , ” McLoone added . “ I got into grad school . I got through grad school . And I was able to really have the life and the family and the career that I had dreamed of . Methadone absolutely facilitated that and helped to make that possible . ”
We ’ re shining a light on the problems with the addiction treatment system in America and how they ’ re affecting people , financially and otherwise , every day . Please help our reporting on the high cost of addiction rehab by sharing your story with us . You can also sign up for our email newsletter to get updates on the project .
If you or someone you know needs addiction treatment , you can seek help online at FindTreatment.gov or by phone at 1-800-662-4357 . If you need more information , ███ put together a guide for how to find good addiction treatment .
Photographs by Jenn Ackerman of Ackerman + Gruber , a husband and wife team based in Minneapolis , specializing in advertising , corporate , and editorial photography .
|
Ian McLoone was at his son’s first birthday party in 2011 when his drug addiction rehab center called him at his Minneapolis home, telling him he needed to come back early.
McLoone quickly realized he was in trouble. The day before, he had missed curfew while chaperoning another client’s family visit for the inpatient facility. After the call, McLoone told his family that he had to go, and left, embarrassed. Over the next few days, he would be forced to “sit on the bench.”
“It was literally a bench out in the hallway,” McLoone told me. “You would sit there from after breakfast time until just before dinner time.”
While on the bench, McLoone, who was in treatment for opioid addiction at RS Eden, a treatment center in Minneapolis, couldn’t participate in most group sessions. He couldn’t attend lectures. He couldn’t talk to others in the program or eat with them. He couldn’t watch TV or use the phone. He just had to sit — in public, in silence. It was all part of RS Eden’s approach to treatment, as McLoone described it: “We’re going to break you down in order to build you up again.”
McLoone is now doing well, staying off heroin since 2010. But he said that RS Eden had little to do with his recovery. Instead, he credited his use of methadone, a medication for opioid addiction.
In fact, McLoone said RS Eden pushed him to get off methadone — leaving him feeling stigmatized about using the medication. McLoone’s mom had to convince him to stay on it. As she told him, “Why wouldn’t you use every tool at your disposal to get it right this time?”
This is the reality of America’s drug rehab industry.
Medications like methadone, as well as buprenorphine and naltrexone, are considered the gold standard of care for opioid addiction. Studies show that the medications reduce the mortality rate among those patients by half or more, and keep people in treatment better than non-medication approaches.
Yet rehab facilities in the US often treat medications with skepticism or even scorn, while embracing approaches with little if any peer-reviewed scientific evidence, like the bench.
The majority of addiction treatment facilities don’t offer medications. According to federal data, only 42 percent of the nearly 15,000 facilities tracked by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provide any type of medication for opioid addiction. Less than 3 percent offer all three federally approved medications: methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.
As a result, the best response to an opioid epidemic that’s contributed to the more than 700,000 drug overdose deaths in the US since 1999 is vastly underused. Hundreds of people have now responded to the survey for Vox’s Rehab Racket project with complaints that evidence-based treatment — including medications — is expensive, hard to find, and sometimes outright shunned at addiction care facilities.
Medication isn’t the only effective way to treat opioid addiction. Other approaches, including cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, and contingency management, also have evidence backing up their ability to treat addiction.
Still, for opioid addiction, medications “should be the first-line option,” Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford, told me. “Not forced, but every single person should be offered that in any decent program treating opioid addiction.”
Addiction treatment facilities often reject evidence-based approaches
When it opened in the 1970s, RS Eden at times forced patients to shave their heads and wear diapers as punishments. The approach came from the Synanon movement — to which one of RS Eden’s founders belonged to, RS Eden president Dan Cain told me. The formal Synanon organization, which began as a drug rehab program and turned into what’s now widely characterized as a “violent cult,” no longer exists, but some of its teachings remain in the addiction field today.
By the time McLoone got into RS Eden (on a court order and paid for by the state), it had long gotten rid of head shaving and the diapers. But it still used the bench punishment and another technique, also from Synanon, called “the game”: Over the course of a typical week, patients would write down and submit complaints about others in the program. Those complaints would be read out loud by staff in group sessions, during which people would be expected to defend themselves — at times devolving into shouting matches and nearly fist fights as emotions ran high, McLoone said.
The Rehab Racket is Vox’s investigation into America’s notoriously opaque addiction treatment industry. We’re crowdsourcing patients and families’ rehab stories, with an emphasis on the cost of treatment and quality of care. If you’d like help our reporting by sharing your story, please fill out this survey.
Cain acknowledged that his program “made mistakes.” It no longer uses the bench, but still uses “the game,” he said. He generally defended RS Eden’s practices.
“‘Confrontation’ is a term that there’s a lot of variables in and different levels in,” Cain told me. “We believe that people have to own who they are before they can be motivated to be somebody else.” He added, “We do focus on breaking through that level of denial.”
Still, scientific evidence suggests confrontational approaches like these can actually make things worse.
Meanwhile, opioid addiction medications remain difficult to access for many.
Other addiction patients have told Vox about struggles to find medication treatments. Eitan, who asked to use their Hebrew name as a pseudonym, sought help for a drug problem going back to their teenage years — after their mom died of an asthma attack because she couldn’t afford her inhalers.
But in two separate outpatient programs in Arizona — Mirasol Recovery Centers and Desert Star Addiction Recovery Center — Eitan said they were pushed into a restrictive, unhelpful 12-step approach. Though the programs said they used other treatment methods, Eitan felt the programs were hostile to questions about them. And neither made medications available to Eitan.
“It left me not really wanting to have treatment,” Eitan told me. “I felt really condescended to a lot of the time.”
Richard Poppy, owner of Desert Star, told me that “we’re not ‘it’ for everyone,” and said, contrary to Eitan’s experience as a patient, that the program does support medications, although it doesn’t initiate buprenorphine or methadone. Mirasol has since shut down its drug addiction treatment services, focusing on treating eating disorders.
Eventually, Eitan moved to Massachusetts, where they now get outpatient treatment at the Boston Medical Center. There, the staff was quick to offer medications for addiction. Eitan got on naltrexone, which they said has helped reduce cravings for both alcohol and opioids. (The evidence for medications for alcohol addiction is generally weaker than it is for opioid addiction, but experts say it’s a good option for some patients.)
“I didn’t want recovery to mean that I spend the rest of my life miserably fighting cravings in 12-step meetings,” Eitan said. But, they added, that was seen as the only path to recovery in the treatment facilities they attended before Boston Medical Center.
How medications for addiction work
In the 1980s and ’90s, France faced a heroin epidemic that got as many as 300,000 people addicted and led to hundreds of overdose deaths each year along with a rise in other drug-related problems, such as HIV and hepatitis. In 1995, French officials responded, in part, by expanding doctors’ ability to prescribe buprenorphine.
From 1995 to 1999, the number of people in medication-based treatment increased. According to a 2004 study published in The American Journal on Addictions, overdose deaths in the same time span in France fell by 79 percent.
It’s the kind of model, experts and advocates say, that the US should move to replicate.
There are three federally approved medications for opioid addiction: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.
Two of them, buprenorphine and methadone, are opioid agonists. As opioids, they activate the same kinds of receptors in the brain that, say, painkillers or heroin would. (Indeed, both can be used for pain treatment.) But when taken as prescribed, at a consistent dose, neither gets the patient high. Instead, the medications just stop the withdrawals and cravings that are linked to addiction — stabilizing a patient’s condition and giving them space to rebuild.
Both of these medications have strong scientific and medical evidence behind them. Methadone in particular has been around for decades, and is one of the most studied addiction treatments in the world. Every major public health organization — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization — considers opioid agonist treatment a vital approach for combating addiction.
Naltrexone is the newer medication of the three. It’s not an opioid agonist. Instead, it blocks the effects of opioids up to certain doses, making it much harder to get high or overdose on the drugs. It can also reduce cravings for some people. While it has less evidence behind it, research suggests that naltrexone works well for some patients. The catch is that it requires full withdrawal, which makes it far more difficult to initiate for people than buprenorphine, which only requires partial withdrawal, and methadone, which doesn’t require withdrawal at all.
Naltrexone can also be used for alcohol addiction, along with medications like disulfiram and acamprosate. Although evidence suggests medications don’t work quite as well for alcohol as they do for opioid addiction, they’re a good approach for some people, like Eitan, who was temporarily on acamprosate as well.
There are no equivalent medications, at least not yet, for cocaine or meth.
Despite their effectiveness, the available medications are often stigmatized with a common trope that they “replace one drug with another.” On its face, this is literally true: The medications do substitute, say, heroin or alcohol.
But the context matters. The issue with addiction is not just drug use. Most people use some kind of drug — caffeine, alcohol, or medications. Some people are even dependent on these drugs, whether someone needs coffee to get going in the morning or insulin to survive.
What makes addiction a medical disorder is not just drug use or even dependence, but continued, compulsive use despite negative consequences. So someone would be unable to stop using heroin even when it poses serious risks to his health, career, or family. It’s only then that drug use becomes a drug use disorder.
The medications alleviate those problems, turning a drug use disorder back into just drug use. That’s why they reduce all sorts of drug-related problems, including the risk of death.
The medications don’t work for everyone, and different medications might work better for different individuals. Some people may need the medications for months or years, while others benefit for the rest of their lives. With a condition as individualized, complex, and difficult to treat as addiction, the correct treatment is going to vary from person to person.
Broadly, though, medications are proven to be effective for addiction.
As Eitan put it, “It’s definitely not a silver bullet. It’s not like I took the medication and emerged cured. But about a week or a week and a half after taking it, I had this experience where I was like, ‘I didn’t think about substances today.’” They added, “There was a break.”
Why the addiction treatment field frequently rejects medication
Despite the evidence, many addiction treatment facilities don’t offer any medications. Some outright shun the medications — perpetuating the stigma that they simply replace one drug with another. That’s deeply unusual compared to the rest of the health care industry, in which medications are, obviously, used quite often to treat medical conditions.
Cain, the president of RS Eden in Minnesota, called methadone an “opioid replacement drug” and “more a tool than a solution.” He acknowledged some people might need to be on a medication for the rest of their lives, but said it “can be problematic” and ultimately would like to see patients “titrate off” medications like methadone during or after RS Eden’s program. “In terms of ‘encourage to get off,’ I think that’s a bit difficult to define,” Cain said.
In McLoone’s experience, RS Eden’s message was clear: He felt pushed to get off methadone — until his mom intervened. (RS Eden didn’t speak specifically about McLoone’s case, citing patient confidentiality.)
The resistance toward medications stems from the moralization and stigma that has wrapped addiction treatment for decades. For most of American history, addiction has been viewed as a moral failing, not a medical condition. So addiction was kept out of the health care system — leaving it to religious and spiritual groups, the criminal justice system, and Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and other 12-step modalities to fill the void.
“It would be like sending a bunch of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes to camp”
It’s in this environment that the current model of what many Americans think of treatment — the 28-day stay in rehab — took off. Known as the “Minnesota Model,” the concept was popularized by the Hazelden Foundation, now the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, as a way to treat people with addictions. The idea: People go to an inpatient setting for one month or several months, often outside the community where they use drugs, to cure themselves of their drug addiction.
Paul Earley, president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), described the Minnesota Model as “a hodgepodge of efforts” that “combined a little bit of AA, a little bit of psychosocial treatment, and a little bit of group therapy.”
“It was an acute care metaphor,” he explained. “You went to treatment for 28 days. And then when you left, they said, ‘Good luck. Go to AA meetings, and it will all work out.’ That works for a very small subset of people who have addiction.” He added, “But because there was nothing else, that grew throughout the United States, and that metaphor of shorter-term care for a chronic illness took hold.”
At the same time, some people in the addiction field took things further — leading to the kind of confrontational approach popularized by Synanon and the “tough love” industry more broadly.
This history has led to a system that would appear ridiculous if it were applied to any other medical condition, said Kim Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, which focuses on services that treat and mitigate the harms of drug use and addiction.
“It would be like sending a bunch of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes to camp,” Sue told me. “Then saying, ‘We’re going to give you your meals every day. You’re going to go to group every day about how to be a better diabetic. We’re not going to give you any insulin. Instead, we’re going to make you exercise, have counseling about your bad eating habits — things like that.’ And then send people out and say, ‘Good luck. We’ve endowed you with the skills to better handle your disease,’ and expect people to get better.”
Addiction treatment doesn’t have to be this way
A reprieve came for McLoone after four months at RS Eden, when he was accused — falsely, he said — of misusing opioids and kicked out.
He then found an outpatient program at the hospital and clinic chain Fairview, which he said worked better for him, while he stayed on methadone. He went on to grad school at the University of Minnesota, getting training to be a counselor for addiction and mental health issues.
In 2015, he tapered off methadone, struggling with the many restrictions people taking the medication face. In the US, only specially licensed clinics can dispense methadone. Due to rules around how methadone is stored, secured, and distributed, patients at first have to go back to their methadone clinic at least once a day to get the drug, earning the right to take home a limited amount of medication after months or years. Travel can be a burden, with strict, often complex rules on whether patients can go to other clinics to get methadone when they’re out of town.
“Traveling became really difficult. Working became difficult. Fitting it around my schedule became very difficult,” McLoone said.
McLoone was in a place in his life in which he felt comfortable tapering off methadone. But some patients may need it indefinitely — just like someone with diabetes needs insulin — and the strict rules around methadone could get in the way.
“No other medication is prescribed in this way,” Sue, of the Harm Reduction Coalition, said.
Buprenorphine can be prescribed in a traditional health care setting, but it too faces unique restrictions. Doctors have to go through an eight-hour training course to get certification to prescribe it, and nurse practitioners and physician assistants have to go through a 24-hour training course. The restrictions are one reason that, according to the White House opioid commission’s 2017 report, 47 percent of US counties — and 72 percent of the most rural counties — had no physicians who could prescribe buprenorphine as of 2016.
Since methadone and buprenorphine are opioids themselves, the rules are meant to make it harder to get and illegally sell the medications for misuse. (Naltrexone, the non-opioid option, doesn’t face similar restrictions.) But the laws and regulations have also helped create an environment in which rehab facilities are more likely to try unproven methods than medication-based treatments with decades of scientific evidence.
“When you see people who’ve been through the wringer — people who have been through 20 detoxes and 10 rehabs — it just makes you think: ‘Well, what are treatment centers doing?’” Sue said. “It’s really a disservice, because it’s kept failing, and we’ve never looked at why you keep revolving in and out of this very dysfunctional system.”
Looking back, McLoone, who worked at a food shelf before he went into addiction care, said it was his time at the bench at RS Eden that led him to a new career. “I knew in my heart that there had to be a better way,” he said. “There had to be more respectful, more humane, more dignified, and more scientifically valid approaches out there.”
Now he’s trying to change the addiction treatment field from within. In 2013, after graduate school, he started working at the Alltyr Clinic in St. Paul. The clinic was founded by Mark Willenbring, who was previously profiled in the New York Times for his efforts to apply evidence and research to addiction treatment. Today, McLoone is the lead therapist there.
He supports medications, McLoone said, but also understands people’s concerns: “I think my experiences on methadone also helped me appreciate the nuances and ambivalence that most people feel about taking medications in general, and I can understand acutely how and why people feel hesitant about taking a medicine, especially one that requires a longer-term commitment.”
But for him, staying on methadone was “by far the best decision I could have made.”
“I was able to finish rehab, get a job shoveling asphalt that summer, working my ass off,” McLoone added. “I got into grad school. I got through grad school. And I was able to really have the life and the family and the career that I had dreamed of. Methadone absolutely facilitated that and helped to make that possible.”
We want to hear from you
We’re shining a light on the problems with the addiction treatment system in America and how they’re affecting people, financially and otherwise, every day. Please help our reporting on the high cost of addiction rehab by sharing your story with us. You can also sign up for our email newsletter to get updates on the project.
If you or someone you know needs addiction treatment, you can seek help online at FindTreatment.gov or by phone at 1-800-662-4357. If you need more information, Vox put together a guide for how to find good addiction treatment.
Photographs by Jenn Ackerman of Ackerman + Gruber, a husband and wife team based in Minneapolis, specializing in advertising, corporate, and editorial photography.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
5ofYKeLfcgaJ52yf
|
healthcare
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/14/obamacare-contractor-pays-employees-to-do-nothing-whistleblower-says/
|
ObamaCare contractor pays employees to do nothing, whistleblower says
|
2014-05-14
|
Employees at an ObamaCare processing center in Missouri with a contract worth $ 1.2 billion are reportedly getting paid to do nothing but sit at their computers .
`` Their goals are set to process two applications per month and some people are not even able to do that , '' a whistleblower told KMOV-TV , referring to employees hired to process paper applications for ObamaCare enrollees .
The facility in Wentzville is operated by Serco , a company owned by a British firm that was awarded $ 1.2 billion in part to hire 1,500 workers to handle paper applications for coverage under the law , according to The Washington Post .
The whistleblower employee told the station that weeks can pass without data entry workers receiving even a single application to process . Employees reportedly spend their days staring at their computers , according to a KMOX-TV report .
“ They ’ re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every 10 minutes , no more than every 10 minutes , ” the employee said . “ They ’ re monitored , to hopefully look for an application . ”
The employee accused Serco of attempting to conceal the lack of work as it continues to hire employees for processing centers in Missouri , Kentucky and Oklahoma . The employee said Serco is compensated for each worker it hires .
The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare services told KMOV-TV in a statement that `` Serco is committed to making sure federal funds are spent appropriately , and the number of Serco staff is reviewed on a regular basis . ''
Last year , the British government launched an investigation into the firm 's parent company , Serco Group , for allegedly overbilling the government by `` tens of millions of pounds '' under a contract to monitor offenders on parole and individuals released on bail , The Washington Post reported .
The Obama administration defended the high-dollar contract at the time .
`` Serco is a highly skilled company that has a proven track record in providing cost-effective services to numerous other federal agencies , '' then-Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said . “ The company has provided exceptional records management and processing support to other federal agencies , similar to work they will do for the marketplace . ''
|
Employees at an ObamaCare processing center in Missouri with a contract worth $1.2 billion are reportedly getting paid to do nothing but sit at their computers.
"Their goals are set to process two applications per month and some people are not even able to do that," a whistleblower told KMOV-TV, referring to employees hired to process paper applications for ObamaCare enrollees.
The facility in Wentzville is operated by Serco, a company owned by a British firm that was awarded $1.2 billion in part to hire 1,500 workers to handle paper applications for coverage under the law, according to The Washington Post.
The whistleblower employee told the station that weeks can pass without data entry workers receiving even a single application to process. Employees reportedly spend their days staring at their computers, according to a KMOX-TV report.
“They’re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every 10 minutes, no more than every 10 minutes,” the employee said. “They’re monitored, to hopefully look for an application.”
The employee accused Serco of attempting to conceal the lack of work as it continues to hire employees for processing centers in Missouri, Kentucky and Oklahoma. The employee said Serco is compensated for each worker it hires.
The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare services told KMOV-TV in a statement that "Serco is committed to making sure federal funds are spent appropriately, and the number of Serco staff is reviewed on a regular basis."
Last year, the British government launched an investigation into the firm's parent company, Serco Group, for allegedly overbilling the government by "tens of millions of pounds" under a contract to monitor offenders on parole and individuals released on bail, The Washington Post reported.
The Obama administration defended the high-dollar contract at the time.
"Serco is a highly skilled company that has a proven track record in providing cost-effective services to numerous other federal agencies," then-Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said. “The company has provided exceptional records management and processing support to other federal agencies, similar to work they will do for the marketplace."
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
63a0IR07IWBKZreR
|
|
taxes
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-taxes/treasurys-mnuchin-will-try-to-shield-trump-tax-returns-idUSKCN1QV1ZA
|
Treasury's Mnuchin: Will try to shield Trump tax returns
|
2019-03-14
|
Jason Lange
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Thursday that he would shield President Donald Trump ’ s tax returns from Congress , during remarks that could signal the administration ’ s approach to an expected request from congressional Democrats .
During testimony in the House of Representatives , Mnuchin told the House tax committee that he would follow the law upon receiving a request for tax returns but would also protect Trump ’ s privacy rights .
“ I ’ m not aware if there ’ s ever been a request for an elected official ’ s tax return , ” Mnuchin said in response to questions from Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett , a member of the House Ways and Means Committee . “ But we will follow the law and we will protect the president as we would protect any individual taxpayer under their rights . ”
Committee Chairman Richard Neal , the only member of the House authorized by law to request the president ’ s returns , is expected to ask Mnuchin for the documents . A Democratic member of the committee said earlier this month he believed the panel would ask for Trump ’ s returns in a few weeks .
Democrats view the documents as a potential linchpin for oversight investigations , saying they would show whether the president has complied with U.S. tax law , profited from his own tax cuts , or has conflicts of interest from his vast business holdings .
Neal ’ s committee could seek both his personal and business returns .
Trump defied decades of precedent as a presidential candidate by refusing to release his tax documents and has continued to keep them under wraps as president , saying his returns were under audit by the Internal Revenue Service . The IRS has said that Trump can release his tax returns even while under audit .
Interest in Trump ’ s returns has soared since his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen told a House panel on Feb. 27 that the president has altered his value of assets and slashed the wages of his employees to lower his tax bills .
Section 6103 of the U.S. tax code allows the chairs of three committees — Neal ’ s House panel , the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation — to request confidential tax returns , and says the Treasury secretary “ shall furnish ” the documents .
But requesting the tax returns of a sitting president is unprecedented . Fearing a lengthy court battle for the documents , Neal ’ s committee has spent months working to develop a winning legal argument that could base the quest firmly within the panel ’ s jurisdiction to oversee the U.S. tax system .
Senator Chuck Grassley , the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee , is also expected to seek Trump ’ s taxes if Democrats obtain them .
“ There ’ s an awful lot of interest in 6103 today , ” Mnuchin said . He said he would not speculate on a specific strategy for handling a request from lawmakers because he has not yet received one .
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Thursday that he would shield President Donald Trump’s tax returns from Congress, during remarks that could signal the administration’s approach to an expected request from congressional Democrats.
During testimony in the House of Representatives, Mnuchin told the House tax committee that he would follow the law upon receiving a request for tax returns but would also protect Trump’s privacy rights.
“I’m not aware if there’s ever been a request for an elected official’s tax return,” Mnuchin said in response to questions from Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “But we will follow the law and we will protect the president as we would protect any individual taxpayer under their rights.”
Committee Chairman Richard Neal, the only member of the House authorized by law to request the president’s returns, is expected to ask Mnuchin for the documents. A Democratic member of the committee said earlier this month he believed the panel would ask for Trump’s returns in a few weeks.
Democrats view the documents as a potential linchpin for oversight investigations, saying they would show whether the president has complied with U.S. tax law, profited from his own tax cuts, or has conflicts of interest from his vast business holdings.
Neal’s committee could seek both his personal and business returns.
Trump defied decades of precedent as a presidential candidate by refusing to release his tax documents and has continued to keep them under wraps as president, saying his returns were under audit by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS has said that Trump can release his tax returns even while under audit.
Interest in Trump’s returns has soared since his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen told a House panel on Feb. 27 that the president has altered his value of assets and slashed the wages of his employees to lower his tax bills.
Section 6103 of the U.S. tax code allows the chairs of three committees — Neal’s House panel, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation — to request confidential tax returns, and says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” the documents.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin speaks at the Jordan Growth and Opportunity Conference in London, Britain February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Toby Melville/Pool
But requesting the tax returns of a sitting president is unprecedented. Fearing a lengthy court battle for the documents, Neal’s committee has spent months working to develop a winning legal argument that could base the quest firmly within the panel’s jurisdiction to oversee the U.S. tax system.
Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is also expected to seek Trump’s taxes if Democrats obtain them.
“There’s an awful lot of interest in 6103 today,” Mnuchin said. He said he would not speculate on a specific strategy for handling a request from lawmakers because he has not yet received one.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
wMX74BQVrt894fOC
|
us_senate
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/29/president-trump-says-gop-senators-look-like-fools-over-health-care-loss-calls-scrapping-filibuster/522465001/
|
Trump says GOP senators 'look like fools' over health care loss, calls for scrapping filibuster
|
2017-07-29
|
After his party 's stinging defeat over health care legislation , President Trump tweeted Saturday that the Republicans in the Senate `` look like fools '' and should do away with the filibuster , even though scrapping a 60-vote requirement would still not have saved the doomed bill .
The president 's tweetstorm comes barely a day and a half after Senate Republicans failed to muster even the 50 votes needed to pass a `` skinny '' bill to repeal key parts of Obamacare , or the Affordable Care Act .
The narrowly written bill was crafted under the budget reconciliation rules specifically to avoid requiring a 60-vote threshold , but it still failed to win even 50 votes , despite Republican control of the chamber 52 to 48 .
Three Republican senators , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona , voted `` no , '' joining the solid 48-vote Democratic bloc to scuttle the legislation .
On Saturday , Trump charged , however , that eight Democrats `` totally control the U.S. Senate '' and that many great Republican bills would fail under the current rules .
`` Republicans in the Senate will NEVER win if they do n't go to a 51 vote majority NOW . They look like fools and are just wasting time .... '' the president wrote .
In fact , the Republicans really needed only 50 votes in the health care debate because Vice President Pence could have provided a tie-breaker .
`` Republican Senate must get rid of 60 vote NOW ! It is killing the R Party , allows 8 Dems to control country . 200 Bills sit in Senate . A JOKE ! '' the president tweeted at 7:20 a.m .
Nineteen minutes later , he hammered away at the same theme : `` The very outdated filibuster rule must go . Budget reconciliation is killing R 's in Senate . Mitch M , go to 51 Votes NOW and WIN . IT 'S TIME ! ''
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , while scrapping the filibuster for judicial appointments and the Supreme Court , has so far made it clear that he does not support doing away with the filibuster for most legislation .
One key reason : It would offer his party leverage if and when they should fall into the minority in the future .
Trump 's current views on the filibuster is in sharp contrast to a tweet from 2013 , when he blasted then Majority leader Harry Reid for scrapping the filibuster for presidential appointments below the Supreme Court level . At that time , Trump tweeted : `` Thomas Jefferson wrote the Senate filibuster rule . Harry Reid & Obama killed it yesterday . Rule was in effect for over 200 years . ''
A few hours after his tweets on the filibuster , Trump was back on Twitter Saturday afternoon with a couple of dire messages aimed at congressional Republicans .
“ After seven years of `` talking '' Repeal & Replace , the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare ! ” he wrote .
“ If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly , BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon ! ”
In the last tweet , Trump appeared to be threatening to eliminate cost-sharing reduction subsidies , which reimburse insurers for covering out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-pays for low-income exchange enrollees .
Trump 's twitter attack on the subsidies brought a quick retort from Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer .
`` If the president refuses to make cost-sharing reduction payments , every expert agrees that premiums will go up and health care will be more expensive for millions of Americans , '' the New York Democrat said in a statement .
`` The president ought to stop playing politics with people 's lives and health care , start leading and finally acting presidential , '' Schumer said .
In yet another tweet , Trump insisted the battle to repeal and replace Obamacare isn ’ t over – unless Republicans give up .
“ Unless the Republican Senators are total quitters , Repeal & Replace is not dead ! ” he wrote . “ Demand another vote before voting on any other bill ! ”
The president was back on Twitter again Saturday night , this time expressing disappointment with China and its lack of action on North Korea .
Trump complained that past American leaders have allowed China to make hundreds of billions a year in trade but that “ they do NOTHING for us with North Korea , just talk . ”
The president adds : “ We will no longer allow this to continue . China could easily solve this problem ! ”
North Korea conducted a second flight test of an intercontinental ballistic missile Friday night .
|
Doug Stanglin
USA TODAY
After his party's stinging defeat over health care legislation, President Trump tweeted Saturday that the Republicans in the Senate "look like fools" and should do away with the filibuster, even though scrapping a 60-vote requirement would still not have saved the doomed bill.
The president's tweetstorm comes barely a day and a half after Senate Republicans failed to muster even the 50 votes needed to pass a "skinny" bill to repeal key parts of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act.
The narrowly written bill was crafted under the budget reconciliation rules specifically to avoid requiring a 60-vote threshold, but it still failed to win even 50 votes, despite Republican control of the chamber 52 to 48.
Three Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona, voted "no," joining the solid 48-vote Democratic bloc to scuttle the legislation.
On Saturday, Trump charged, however, that eight Democrats "totally control the U.S. Senate" and that many great Republican bills would fail under the current rules.
"Republicans in the Senate will NEVER win if they don't go to a 51 vote majority NOW. They look like fools and are just wasting time...." the president wrote.
In fact, the Republicans really needed only 50 votes in the health care debate because Vice President Pence could have provided a tie-breaker.
"Republican Senate must get rid of 60 vote NOW! It is killing the R Party, allows 8 Dems to control country. 200 Bills sit in Senate. A JOKE!" the president tweeted at 7:20 a.m.
Nineteen minutes later, he hammered away at the same theme: "The very outdated filibuster rule must go. Budget reconciliation is killing R's in Senate. Mitch M, go to 51 Votes NOW and WIN. IT'S TIME!"
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while scrapping the filibuster for judicial appointments and the Supreme Court, has so far made it clear that he does not support doing away with the filibuster for most legislation.
One key reason: It would offer his party leverage if and when they should fall into the minority in the future.
Trump's current views on the filibuster is in sharp contrast to a tweet from 2013, when he blasted then Majority leader Harry Reid for scrapping the filibuster for presidential appointments below the Supreme Court level. At that time, Trump tweeted: "Thomas Jefferson wrote the Senate filibuster rule. Harry Reid & Obama killed it yesterday. Rule was in effect for over 200 years."
A few hours after his tweets on the filibuster, Trump was back on Twitter Saturday afternoon with a couple of dire messages aimed at congressional Republicans.
“After seven years of "talking" Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!” he wrote.
“If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!”
In the last tweet, Trump appeared to be threatening to eliminate cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which reimburse insurers for covering out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-pays for low-income exchange enrollees.
Trump's twitter attack on the subsidies brought a quick retort from Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.
"If the president refuses to make cost-sharing reduction payments, every expert agrees that premiums will go up and health care will be more expensive for millions of Americans," the New York Democrat said in a statement.
"The president ought to stop playing politics with people's lives and health care, start leading and finally acting presidential," Schumer said.
In yet another tweet, Trump insisted the battle to repeal and replace Obamacare isn’t over – unless Republicans give up.
“Unless the Republican Senators are total quitters, Repeal & Replace is not dead!” he wrote. “Demand another vote before voting on any other bill!”
The president was back on Twitter again Saturday night, this time expressing disappointment with China and its lack of action on North Korea.
Trump complained that past American leaders have allowed China to make hundreds of billions a year in trade but that “they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk.”
The president adds: “We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!”
North Korea conducted a second flight test of an intercontinental ballistic missile Friday night.
Contributing: Michael Collins; the Associated Press
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
Q1XexFF3Ti15cAG0
|
|
immigration
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/democrats-activists-rally-against-trumps-family-separation-policy-idUSKBN1JD0YQ
|
Democrats, activists rally against Trump's family separation policy
|
2018-06-18
|
Joseph Ax
|
ELIZABETH , N.J. ( ███ ) - Democratic lawmakers joined protesters outside immigration detention facilities in New Jersey and Texas on Sunday for Father ’ s Day demonstrations against the Trump administration ’ s practice of separating children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border .
“ This must not be who we are as a nation , ” said Representative Jerrold Nadler , one of seven members of Congress from New York and New Jersey who met with five detainees inside a facility in Elizabeth , New Jersey , including three who said they had young relatives removed from their care after seeking asylum at the border .
The events came as news stories highlighting the family separations intensified political pressure on the White House , even from some of President Donald Trump ’ s fellow Republicans .
U.S. officials said on Friday that nearly 2,000 children were separated from adults at the border between mid-April and the end of May .
In May , U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “ zero tolerance ” policy in which all those apprehended entering the United States illegally , including those seeking asylum , would be criminally charged , which generally leads to children being separated from their parents .
Administration officials have defended the tactic as necessary to secure the border and suggested it would act as a deterrent to illegal immigration .
But the policy has drawn condemnation from medical professionals , religious leaders and immigration activists , who warn that some children could suffer lasting psychological trauma . The children are held in government facilities , released to adult sponsors or placed in temporary foster care .
In South Texas on Sunday , several Democratic lawmakers , including Senator Jeff Merkley , visited a Border Patrol Processing Center in McAllen to call attention to the policy , while Representative Beto O ’ Rourke , who is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas , led a protest march to a temporary detention facility for immigrant children set up near El Paso .
O ’ Rourke told the demonstrators they had to bear the burden of “ what we now know to be happening . ”
“ I want that burden to be so uncomfortable for so many of us that it forces us to act , it places the public pressure on those in positions of public trust and power to do the right thing for our country , ” O ’ Rourke , who is seeking to unseat Republican Senator Ted Cruz , said to applause .
Some moderate Republicans have also called on Trump to stop the separations . Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake wrote to White House officials on Saturday seeking more information on the policy .
People participate in a protest against a recent U.S. immigration policy of separating children from their families when they enter the United States as undocumented immigrants , outside the Tornillo Tranit Centre , in Tornillo , Texas , U.S. June 17 , 2018 . ███/Monica Lozano
“ It is inconsistent with our American values to separate these children from their parents , ” Collins said on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” on Sunday .
Trump has sought to blame Democrats , saying their support for passage of a broader immigration bill would end the separations .
White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday : “ As a mother , as a Catholic , as somebody who has got a conscience . ... I will tell you that nobody likes this policy . ”
“ You saw the president ( say ) on camera that he wants this to end , ” she added .
A spokeswoman for Melania Trump told CNN on Sunday that the first lady “ hates to see children separated from their families ” and hopes lawmakers from both parties can agree on immigration reform .
In an opinion piece in the Washington Post , former first lady Laura Bush , wife of the previous Republican president , George W. Bush , said she lives in a border state and appreciates the need to enforce and protect the U.S. borders .
“ But this zero-tolerance policy is cruel . It is immoral . And it breaks my heart , ” Bush wrote , adding the images were “ eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II , now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history . ”
Democrats have accused the president of effectively turning the children into political hostages to secure stricter immigration measures , such as funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall .
“ Stop lying to the American people . This is your policy , ” Democratic U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries said in New Jersey .
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will introduce legislation this week aimed at stopping separations , mirroring a similar Senate bill sponsored by Democrat Dianne Feinstein . But neither bill has much hope of securing enough support in the Republican-controlled Congress , let alone surviving Trump ’ s veto pen .
Roy Garcia , 43 , attended the New Jersey protest with his wife , Linda , and their sons , 8-year-old Julian and 11-year-old Sebastian .
“ It ’ s hard for me to enjoy Father ’ s Day knowing what ’ s happening to other children and families , ” he said . “ It ’ s heartbreaking . ”
|
ELIZABETH, N.J. (Reuters) - Democratic lawmakers joined protesters outside immigration detention facilities in New Jersey and Texas on Sunday for Father’s Day demonstrations against the Trump administration’s practice of separating children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border.
“This must not be who we are as a nation,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, one of seven members of Congress from New York and New Jersey who met with five detainees inside a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, including three who said they had young relatives removed from their care after seeking asylum at the border.
The events came as news stories highlighting the family separations intensified political pressure on the White House, even from some of President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans.
U.S. officials said on Friday that nearly 2,000 children were separated from adults at the border between mid-April and the end of May.
In May, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy in which all those apprehended entering the United States illegally, including those seeking asylum, would be criminally charged, which generally leads to children being separated from their parents.
Administration officials have defended the tactic as necessary to secure the border and suggested it would act as a deterrent to illegal immigration.
But the policy has drawn condemnation from medical professionals, religious leaders and immigration activists, who warn that some children could suffer lasting psychological trauma. The children are held in government facilities, released to adult sponsors or placed in temporary foster care.
In South Texas on Sunday, several Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Jeff Merkley, visited a Border Patrol Processing Center in McAllen to call attention to the policy, while Representative Beto O’Rourke, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, led a protest march to a temporary detention facility for immigrant children set up near El Paso.
O’Rourke told the demonstrators they had to bear the burden of “what we now know to be happening.”
“I want that burden to be so uncomfortable for so many of us that it forces us to act, it places the public pressure on those in positions of public trust and power to do the right thing for our country,” O’Rourke, who is seeking to unseat Republican Senator Ted Cruz, said to applause.
Some moderate Republicans have also called on Trump to stop the separations. Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake wrote to White House officials on Saturday seeking more information on the policy.
People participate in a protest against a recent U.S. immigration policy of separating children from their families when they enter the United States as undocumented immigrants, outside the Tornillo Tranit Centre, in Tornillo, Texas, U.S. June 17, 2018. REUTERS/Monica Lozano
“It is inconsistent with our American values to separate these children from their parents,” Collins said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
‘STOP LYING’
Trump has sought to blame Democrats, saying their support for passage of a broader immigration bill would end the separations.
White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday: “As a mother, as a Catholic, as somebody who has got a conscience. ... I will tell you that nobody likes this policy.”
“You saw the president (say) on camera that he wants this to end,” she added.
A spokeswoman for Melania Trump told CNN on Sunday that the first lady “hates to see children separated from their families” and hopes lawmakers from both parties can agree on immigration reform.
In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, former first lady Laura Bush, wife of the previous Republican president, George W. Bush, said she lives in a border state and appreciates the need to enforce and protect the U.S. borders.
“But this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” Bush wrote, adding the images were “eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history.”
Democrats have accused the president of effectively turning the children into political hostages to secure stricter immigration measures, such as funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.
“Stop lying to the American people. This is your policy,” Democratic U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries said in New Jersey.
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will introduce legislation this week aimed at stopping separations, mirroring a similar Senate bill sponsored by Democrat Dianne Feinstein. But neither bill has much hope of securing enough support in the Republican-controlled Congress, let alone surviving Trump’s veto pen.
Slideshow (17 Images)
Roy Garcia, 43, attended the New Jersey protest with his wife, Linda, and their sons, 8-year-old Julian and 11-year-old Sebastian.
“It’s hard for me to enjoy Father’s Day knowing what’s happening to other children and families,” he said. “It’s heartbreaking.”
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
Q4mZDMjR8HnmYC6j
|
national_security
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/10/trump-to-welcome-freed-korean-americans-return-to-/
|
Trump gives freed Americans flag-waving, wee-hours welcome
|
2018-05-10
|
Dave Boyer
|
President Trump welcomed home three Americans freed by North Korea early Thursday in a flag-waving ceremony before dawn , calling their release a hopeful sign that North Korea will denuclearize .
“ This is a special night for these three really great people , ” Mr. Trump told reporters on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland shortly after 3 a.m. with the former detainees . “ The true honor is going to be if we have a victory in getting rid of nuclear weapons . ”
As he stood with the three men , Mr. Trump thanked North Korea ’ s Kim Jong-un for releasing the Americans , and said he believes Mr. Kim wants to reach an agreement on denuclearizing the Korean peninsula .
“ We ’ re starting off on a new footing , ” the president said . “ I think he did this because I really think he wants to do something and bring that country into the real world . I really believe that . ”
The president and Mr. Kim plan to meet soon at a historic summit to discuss North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program . The date and location of the meeting will be announced within days , after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo nailed down more details in meetings in North Korea this week .
“ Hopefully , everything is going to work out at the highest level , ” Mr. Trump said . “ We want to thank Kim Jong-un who really was excellent to these three incredible people . ”
Asked by a reporter how it feels to be home , one of the men , Kim Dong-chul , said through a translator , “ It ’ s like a dream . We are very , very happy . ”
“ We were treated in many different ways , ” Mr. Kim said of his North Korean captors . “ For me , I had to do a lot of labor . But when I got sick , I was also treated by them . ”
When a reporter asked Mr. Trump whether the return of the three men is his proudest achievement , the president replied , “ My proudest achievement will be — this is a part of it , but it will be when we denuclearize that entire peninsula . This is what people have been waiting for for a long time . Nobody thought we could be on this track in terms of the speed . ”
First lady Melania Trump , Vice President Mike Pence and other senior administration officials joined Mr. Trump to celebrate the return of the Americans at the military base near Washington . The men , Kim Dong-chul , Kim Hak-song and Tony Kim , were released Wednesday amid a warming of relations between the longtime adversaries .
The president and first lady boarded the medical plane on which the men traveled to take a private moment with them , then appeared at the top of the airplane stairway with the three and applauded as the men held up their arms in what appeared to be gestures of triumph .
The freed prisoners appeared tired but in excellent spirits , flashing peace signs as they emerged from the aircraft . As the men entered into view , U.S. service members on the tarmac burst into applause and cheers .
After Mr. Trump ’ s remarks , the three men boarded a bus for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center . The White House said earlier they would be evaluated and receive medical treatment at the Washington-area facility before being reunited with their families .
Mr. Pompeo had secured their release in Pyongyang after meeting with Mr. Kim on final plans for the summit . The Americans had boarded Mr. Pompeo ’ s plane out of North Korea without assistance and then transferred in Japan to the Boeing C-40 outfitted with medical facilities for the trip back to the U.S .
During their flight back to the U.S. , the State Department released a statement from the freed men .
“ We would like to express our deep appreciation to the United States government , President Trump , Secretary Pompeo , and the people of the United States for bringing us home , ” they said . “ We thank God , and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return . God Bless America , the greatest nation in the world . ”
Singapore has emerged as the likely host of the summit , late this month or in early June , as Mr. Trump seeks to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in his highest-stakes foreign policy effort yet . Trump announced Wednesday that the demilitarized zone between the Koreas would not host the summit . Mr. Pompeo said the meeting would last one day and possibly a second .
Mr. Trump hailed Mr. Kim ’ s gesture as a sign of cooling tensions and growing opportunity on the Korean peninsula . Mr. Kim decided to grant amnesty to the three Americans at the “ official suggestion ” of the U.S. president , said North Korea ’ s official news agency , KCNA .
North Korea had accused the three Korean-Americans of anti-state activities . Their arrests were widely seen as politically motivated and had compounded the dire state of relations over the isolated nation ’ s nuclear weapons .
The president also noted that he and Mr. Pence this week had called the family of Otto Warmbier , the Ohio college student who died in June 2017 after being released from North Korean captivity . He had suffered brain injury of an undetermined cause .
“ I want to pay my warmest respects to the parents of Otto Warmbier , who was a great young man who who really suffered , ” Mr. Trump said . “ His parents have become friends of ours . They are spectacular people , and I just want to pay my respects . ”
Mr. Warmbier was arrested by North Korean authorities in January 2016 , accused of stealing a propaganda poster and sentenced to 15 years in prison with hard labor . His parents , Fred and Cindy Warmbier , have filed a wrongful death lawsuit , accusing the government of torturing and killing their son .
“ We are happy for the hostages and their families , ” the Warmbiers said in a statement Wednesday . “ We miss Otto . ”
Mr. Trump praised Mr. Pompeo ’ s work and criticized The New York Times for a report this week that said the secretary of state was “ AWOL ” on the day that the president pulled the U.S. out of the Iranian nuclear deal . Mr. Pompeo was actually in North Korea on his mission to bring home the three Americans and complete the groundwork for the summit with Mr. Kim .
“ I think our secretary of state , despite the fact that The New York Times said he was missing , he was in North Korea , ” Mr. Trump said . “ But I think our secretary of state has done a fantastic job . ”
The president turned to Mr. Pompeo and asked , “ Mike , did you know that you were missing ? They couldn ’ t find him because he was in North Korea . ”
Mr. Trump entered office as an emboldened North Korea developed new generations of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of hitting the continental U.S. Those advances were the subject of President Barack Obama ’ s starkest warning shortly before Mr. Trump took office , and this is a crisis he ’ s convinced his negotiating skills can resolve .
South Korea , Japan and others have credited Mr. Trump ’ s “ maximum pressure ” campaign of sanctions for Mr. Kim ’ s willingness to come to the negotiating table .
The release capped a dramatic day of diplomacy in Pyongyang . After Mr. Pompeo ’ s 90-minute meeting with Kim Jong-un , he gave reporters a fingers-crossed sign when asked about the prisoners as he returned to his hotel . It was only after a North Korean emissary arrived a bit later to inform him that the release was confirmed .
The three were the latest in a series of Americans who have been detained by North Korea in recent years for seemingly small offenses and typically freed when senior U.S. officials or statesmen personally visited to bail them out .
The highly public and politically tinged arrival ceremony for the former prisoners organized by the White House was in stark contrast to the low-key and very private reception that the State Department had envisioned and carried out from the moment they took custody of them .
Department officials took great pains on their release in North Korea , as well as on their flights to Japan and Alaska , to keep them sequestered not only from the two journalists traveling with Mr. Pompeo but also from staffers not immediately involved in their cases . The trio , along with medical personnel , including a psychiatrist , were cloistered in the middle of Mr. Pompeo ’ s plane in a small section of 12 business class-sized seats that was cordoned off by curtains on both ends .
State Department officials refused to discuss anything but the most basic details of their conditions , citing privacy concerns in keeping with the minimal amount of information they had released since the men were imprisoned .
Of the newly released detainees , Kim Dong-chul , a South Korean-born U.S. citizen , had been held the longest . The former Virginia resident was sentenced in April 2016 to 10 years in prison with hard labor after being convicted of espionage . He reportedly ran a trade and hotel service company in Rason , a special economic zone on North Korea ’ s border with Russia .
Kim Hak-song worked in agricultural development at an experimental farm run by the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology , or PUST . The university is the only privately funded college in North Korea and was founded in 2010 with donations from Christian groups . He was detained last May for alleged anti-state activities .
Tony Kim , who also uses the name Kim Sang-duk , was detained in April 2017 at the Pyongyang airport . He taught accounting at PUST . He was accused of committing unspecified criminal acts intended to overthrow the government .
On Capitol Hill , Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York celebrated the detainees ’ return but warned that “ we ’ ll see many more hostages ” if the administration provides an incentive for imprisoning Americans .
“ We are happy they ’ ve returned , but North Korea shouldn ’ t gain by taking Americans and then releasing them , ” he said .
After the release of the detainees Thursday , North Korea ’ s state-run media explicitly mentioned plans for the summit for the first time Thursday . Pyongyang has been exceptionally cautious about its public framing of Kim Jong-un ’ s recent diplomatic moves , which are a major shift from the more aggressive focus on missile launches and nuclear development that heated tensions to a boil last year .
• This article is based in part on wire service reports .
|
President Trump welcomed home three Americans freed by North Korea early Thursday in a flag-waving ceremony before dawn, calling their release a hopeful sign that North Korea will denuclearize.
“This is a special night for these three really great people,” Mr. Trump told reporters on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland shortly after 3 a.m. with the former detainees. “The true honor is going to be if we have a victory in getting rid of nuclear weapons.”
As he stood with the three men, Mr. Trump thanked North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for releasing the Americans, and said he believes Mr. Kim wants to reach an agreement on denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.
“We’re starting off on a new footing,” the president said. “I think he did this because I really think he wants to do something and bring that country into the real world. I really believe that.”
The president and Mr. Kim plan to meet soon at a historic summit to discuss North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. The date and location of the meeting will be announced within days, after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo nailed down more details in meetings in North Korea this week.
“Hopefully, everything is going to work out at the highest level,” Mr. Trump said. “We want to thank Kim Jong-un who really was excellent to these three incredible people.”
PHOTOS: Trump to welcome freed Korean Americans' return to US
Asked by a reporter how it feels to be home, one of the men, Kim Dong-chul, said through a translator, “It’s like a dream. We are very, very happy.”
“We were treated in many different ways,” Mr. Kim said of his North Korean captors. “For me, I had to do a lot of labor. But when I got sick, I was also treated by them.”
When a reporter asked Mr. Trump whether the return of the three men is his proudest achievement, the president replied, “My proudest achievement will be — this is a part of it, but it will be when we denuclearize that entire peninsula. This is what people have been waiting for for a long time. Nobody thought we could be on this track in terms of the speed.”
First lady Melania Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and other senior administration officials joined Mr. Trump to celebrate the return of the Americans at the military base near Washington. The men, Kim Dong-chul, Kim Hak-song and Tony Kim, were released Wednesday amid a warming of relations between the longtime adversaries.
The president and first lady boarded the medical plane on which the men traveled to take a private moment with them, then appeared at the top of the airplane stairway with the three and applauded as the men held up their arms in what appeared to be gestures of triumph.
The freed prisoners appeared tired but in excellent spirits, flashing peace signs as they emerged from the aircraft. As the men entered into view, U.S. service members on the tarmac burst into applause and cheers.
After Mr. Trump’s remarks, the three men boarded a bus for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The White House said earlier they would be evaluated and receive medical treatment at the Washington-area facility before being reunited with their families.
Mr. Pompeo had secured their release in Pyongyang after meeting with Mr. Kim on final plans for the summit. The Americans had boarded Mr. Pompeo’s plane out of North Korea without assistance and then transferred in Japan to the Boeing C-40 outfitted with medical facilities for the trip back to the U.S.
During their flight back to the U.S., the State Department released a statement from the freed men.
“We would like to express our deep appreciation to the United States government, President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, and the people of the United States for bringing us home,” they said. “We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return. God Bless America, the greatest nation in the world.”
Singapore has emerged as the likely host of the summit, late this month or in early June, as Mr. Trump seeks to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in his highest-stakes foreign policy effort yet. Trump announced Wednesday that the demilitarized zone between the Koreas would not host the summit. Mr. Pompeo said the meeting would last one day and possibly a second.
Mr. Trump hailed Mr. Kim’s gesture as a sign of cooling tensions and growing opportunity on the Korean peninsula. Mr. Kim decided to grant amnesty to the three Americans at the “official suggestion” of the U.S. president, said North Korea’s official news agency, KCNA.
North Korea had accused the three Korean-Americans of anti-state activities. Their arrests were widely seen as politically motivated and had compounded the dire state of relations over the isolated nation’s nuclear weapons.
The president also noted that he and Mr. Pence this week had called the family of Otto Warmbier, the Ohio college student who died in June 2017 after being released from North Korean captivity. He had suffered brain injury of an undetermined cause.
“I want to pay my warmest respects to the parents of Otto Warmbier, who was a great young man who who really suffered,” Mr. Trump said. “His parents have become friends of ours. They are spectacular people, and I just want to pay my respects.”
Mr. Warmbier was arrested by North Korean authorities in January 2016, accused of stealing a propaganda poster and sentenced to 15 years in prison with hard labor. His parents, Fred and Cindy Warmbier, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit, accusing the government of torturing and killing their son.
“We are happy for the hostages and their families,” the Warmbiers said in a statement Wednesday. “We miss Otto.”
Mr. Trump praised Mr. Pompeo’s work and criticized The New York Times for a report this week that said the secretary of state was “AWOL” on the day that the president pulled the U.S. out of the Iranian nuclear deal. Mr. Pompeo was actually in North Korea on his mission to bring home the three Americans and complete the groundwork for the summit with Mr. Kim.
“I think our secretary of state, despite the fact that The New York Times said he was missing, he was in North Korea,” Mr. Trump said. “But I think our secretary of state has done a fantastic job.”
The president turned to Mr. Pompeo and asked, “Mike, did you know that you were missing? They couldn’t find him because he was in North Korea.”
Mr. Trump entered office as an emboldened North Korea developed new generations of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of hitting the continental U.S. Those advances were the subject of President Barack Obama’s starkest warning shortly before Mr. Trump took office, and this is a crisis he’s convinced his negotiating skills can resolve.
South Korea, Japan and others have credited Mr. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions for Mr. Kim’s willingness to come to the negotiating table.
The release capped a dramatic day of diplomacy in Pyongyang. After Mr. Pompeo’s 90-minute meeting with Kim Jong-un, he gave reporters a fingers-crossed sign when asked about the prisoners as he returned to his hotel. It was only after a North Korean emissary arrived a bit later to inform him that the release was confirmed.
The three were the latest in a series of Americans who have been detained by North Korea in recent years for seemingly small offenses and typically freed when senior U.S. officials or statesmen personally visited to bail them out.
The highly public and politically tinged arrival ceremony for the former prisoners organized by the White House was in stark contrast to the low-key and very private reception that the State Department had envisioned and carried out from the moment they took custody of them.
Department officials took great pains on their release in North Korea, as well as on their flights to Japan and Alaska, to keep them sequestered not only from the two journalists traveling with Mr. Pompeo but also from staffers not immediately involved in their cases. The trio, along with medical personnel, including a psychiatrist, were cloistered in the middle of Mr. Pompeo’s plane in a small section of 12 business class-sized seats that was cordoned off by curtains on both ends.
State Department officials refused to discuss anything but the most basic details of their conditions, citing privacy concerns in keeping with the minimal amount of information they had released since the men were imprisoned.
Of the newly released detainees, Kim Dong-chul, a South Korean-born U.S. citizen, had been held the longest. The former Virginia resident was sentenced in April 2016 to 10 years in prison with hard labor after being convicted of espionage. He reportedly ran a trade and hotel service company in Rason, a special economic zone on North Korea’s border with Russia.
The other two detainees hadn’t been tried.
Kim Hak-song worked in agricultural development at an experimental farm run by the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, or PUST. The university is the only privately funded college in North Korea and was founded in 2010 with donations from Christian groups. He was detained last May for alleged anti-state activities.
Tony Kim, who also uses the name Kim Sang-duk, was detained in April 2017 at the Pyongyang airport. He taught accounting at PUST. He was accused of committing unspecified criminal acts intended to overthrow the government.
On Capitol Hill, Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York celebrated the detainees’ return but warned that “we’ll see many more hostages” if the administration provides an incentive for imprisoning Americans.
“We are happy they’ve returned, but North Korea shouldn’t gain by taking Americans and then releasing them,” he said.
After the release of the detainees Thursday, North Korea’s state-run media explicitly mentioned plans for the summit for the first time Thursday. Pyongyang has been exceptionally cautious about its public framing of Kim Jong-un’s recent diplomatic moves, which are a major shift from the more aggressive focus on missile launches and nuclear development that heated tensions to a boil last year.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
2QTwbCS0zpZbvsnX
|
world
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02/24/ukraine-new-leaders-order-arrest-president-yanukovych/
|
Ukraine's new leaders order arrest of former President Yanukovych
|
2014-02-24
|
Ukraine 's acting government issued an arrest warrant Monday for President Viktor Yanukovych , accusing him of mass crimes against the protesters who stood up for months against his rule . Russia sharply questioned its authority , calling it an `` armed mutiny . ''
Yanukovych has reportedly fled to the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea , a pro-Russian area in Ukraine . His exact whereabouts are unknown .
Calls are mounting in Ukraine to put Yanukovych on trial , after a tumultuous presidency in which he amassed powers , enriched his allies and family and cracked down on protesters . Anger boiled over last week after government snipers killed scores of protesters in the bloodiest violence in Ukraine 's post-Soviet history .
Yanukovych ‘ s departure came hours after signing an agreement on resolving Ukraine 's political crisis that reduced his powers and was seen by many as a tacit admission of defeat . He apparently fled Ukraine 's capital by car and aircraft , heading for the parts of the country where he is most likely to find friends , according to the acting head of the police .
The turmoil has turned this strategically located country of 46 million inside out over the past few days . The parliament speaker is now nominally in charge of a country whose ailing economy is on the brink of default and whose loyalties are sharply torn between Europe and longtime ruler Russia .
Russia and the European Union appeared to be taking opposing sides in Ukraine 's new political landscape .
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev questioned the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian authorities on Monday . According to Russian news agencies , he said the acting authorities have come to power as a result of an `` armed mutiny , '' so their legitimacy is causing `` big doubts . ''
In Brussels , European Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly referred to parliament speaker Oleksandr Turchinov as the `` interim president '' and said Turchinov will meet with Monday visiting EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Kiev .
Turchinov said he hopes to form a new coalition government by Tuesday .
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday that the U.S. is prepared to provide financial support to Ukraine at this crucial time .
`` The United States , working with partners around the world , stands ready to provide support for Ukraine as it takes the reforms it needs to , to get back to economic stability , '' Carney said .
`` This support can complement an IMF program by helping to make reforms easier and by putting Ukraine in a position to invest more in health and education to help develop Ukraine 's human capital and strengthen its social safety net , '' Carney added .
Russian President Vladimir Putin is facing a huge challenge in how to respond to the turmoil in Ukraine , a country he has declared vital for Russia 's interests , which is home to millions of Russian-speakers and hosts a major Russian navy base .
Some in Ukraine 's Russian-speaking east and south already have begged the Kremlin to help protect them against what they fear could be violence by the victorious protesters who toppled Ukraine 's Moscow-backed leader . Putin has refrained from taking a public stance on Ukraine amid the Sochi Games , but the mounting tensions could quickly leave him with a stark choice : Stick to diplomacy and risk losing face at home , or open a Pandora 's box by entering the fray .
If Moscow openly backs separatist-minded groups in Ukraine 's Crimean Peninsula that serves as the base for Russia 's Black Sea Fleet , it could unleash devastating hostilities that Europe has n't seen since the Balkan wars . And ignoring pleas for help from pro-Russian groups in Ukraine could shatter Putin 's carefully manicured image of the tough ruler eager to stand up to the West , eroding his conservative support base at home , where his foes could be encouraged by the Ukrainian example .
Facing such high risks , Putin has remained silent , weighing his options .
Putin spoke with German Chancellor Angela Merkel by telephone Sunday and the German government said the two agreed that Ukraine 's `` territorial integrity must be respected . ''
On Monday , German government spokesman Steffan Seibert told reporters that Ukraine 's new leaders should consider the interests of the south and east -- the pro-Russian sections of Ukraine -- in the composition of a new government . He also said the offer of an association agreement with the EU is still on the table .
Meanwhile , Ukraine 's acting interior minister , Arsen Avakhov , said on his official Facebook page that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Yanukovych and several other officials for the `` mass killing of civilians . ''
At least 82 people , primarily protesters , were killed in clashes in Kiev last week .
Yanukovych set off a wave of protests by shelving an agreement with the European Union in November and turning instead for a $ 15 billion bailout loan from Russia . Within weeks , the protests expanded to include outrage over corruption and human rights abuses , leading to calls for Yanukovych 's resignation .
After signing an agreement Friday with the opposition to form a unity government , Yanukovych fled Kiev for his pro-Russian power base in eastern Ukraine . Avakhov said he tried to fly out of Donetsk but was stopped then went to Crimea on Sunday .
Yanukovych then freed his official security detail and drove off to an unknown location , turning off all forms of communication , Avakhov said .
Security has been tightened across Ukraine 's borders , the Interfax news agency quoted the State Border Guard service as saying .
Avakhov published a letter that he said was from Yanukovych , dated Monday , in which he gave up his security guard . Yanukovych 's aides and spokespeople could not be reached Monday to verify the reported letter -- they have been rapidly distancing themselves from him as his hold on power disintegrates .
Activist Valeri Kazachenko said Yanukovych must be arrested and brought to Kiev 's main square for trial .
`` He must answer for all the crimes he has committed against Ukraine and its people , '' Kazachenko said .
Tensions have been mounting in Crimea in southern Ukraine . Russia maintains a large naval base in Sevastopol that has strained relations between the countries for two decades .
Pro-Russian protesters gathered in front of city hall in the port of Sevastopol on Monday chanting `` Russia ! Russia ! ''
`` Extremists have seized power in Kiev and we must defend Crimea . Russia must help us with that , '' said Anataly Mareta , head of a Cossack militia in Sevastopol .
The head of the city administration in Sevastopol quit Monday amid the turmoil , and protesters replaced a Ukrainian flag near the city hall building with a Russian flag .
As president , Yanukovych moved quickly to consolidate power and wealth , curb free speech and oversee the imprisonment of his top political rival , former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko . But as protesters took control of the capital over the weekend , many allies turned against him .
Tymoshenko , the blond-braided heroine of the 2004 Orange Revolution , is back on the political scene after having been freed from prison .
The current protest movement in Ukraine has been in large part a fight for the country 's economic future -- for better jobs and prosperity .
Ukraine has a large potential consumer market , an educated workforce , a significant industrial base and good natural resources , in particular rich farmland . Yet its economy is in tatters .
Ukraine has struggled with corruption , bad government and short-sighted reliance on cheap gas from Russia . Political unrest has pushed up the deficit , sent the currency skidding and may have pushed the economy back into a recession .
|
Ukraine's acting government issued an arrest warrant Monday for President Viktor Yanukovych, accusing him of mass crimes against the protesters who stood up for months against his rule. Russia sharply questioned its authority, calling it an "armed mutiny."
Yanukovych has reportedly fled to the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, a pro-Russian area in Ukraine. His exact whereabouts are unknown.
Calls are mounting in Ukraine to put Yanukovych on trial, after a tumultuous presidency in which he amassed powers, enriched his allies and family and cracked down on protesters. Anger boiled over last week after government snipers killed scores of protesters in the bloodiest violence in Ukraine's post-Soviet history.
Yanukovych‘s departure came hours after signing an agreement on resolving Ukraine's political crisis that reduced his powers and was seen by many as a tacit admission of defeat. He apparently fled Ukraine's capital by car and aircraft, heading for the parts of the country where he is most likely to find friends, according to the acting head of the police.
The turmoil has turned this strategically located country of 46 million inside out over the past few days. The parliament speaker is now nominally in charge of a country whose ailing economy is on the brink of default and whose loyalties are sharply torn between Europe and longtime ruler Russia.
Russia and the European Union appeared to be taking opposing sides in Ukraine's new political landscape.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev questioned the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian authorities on Monday. According to Russian news agencies, he said the acting authorities have come to power as a result of an "armed mutiny," so their legitimacy is causing "big doubts."
In Brussels, European Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly referred to parliament speaker Oleksandr Turchinov as the "interim president" and said Turchinov will meet with Monday visiting EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Kiev.
Turchinov said he hopes to form a new coalition government by Tuesday.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday that the U.S. is prepared to provide financial support to Ukraine at this crucial time.
``The United States, working with partners around the world, stands ready to provide support for Ukraine as it takes the reforms it needs to, to get back to economic stability,'' Carney said.
``This support can complement an IMF program by helping to make reforms easier and by putting Ukraine in a position to invest more in health and education to help develop Ukraine's human capital and strengthen its social safety net,'' Carney added.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is facing a huge challenge in how to respond to the turmoil in Ukraine, a country he has declared vital for Russia's interests, which is home to millions of Russian-speakers and hosts a major Russian navy base.
Some in Ukraine's Russian-speaking east and south already have begged the Kremlin to help protect them against what they fear could be violence by the victorious protesters who toppled Ukraine's Moscow-backed leader. Putin has refrained from taking a public stance on Ukraine amid the Sochi Games, but the mounting tensions could quickly leave him with a stark choice: Stick to diplomacy and risk losing face at home, or open a Pandora's box by entering the fray.
If Moscow openly backs separatist-minded groups in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula that serves as the base for Russia's Black Sea Fleet, it could unleash devastating hostilities that Europe hasn't seen since the Balkan wars. And ignoring pleas for help from pro-Russian groups in Ukraine could shatter Putin's carefully manicured image of the tough ruler eager to stand up to the West, eroding his conservative support base at home, where his foes could be encouraged by the Ukrainian example.
Facing such high risks, Putin has remained silent, weighing his options.
Putin spoke with German Chancellor Angela Merkel by telephone Sunday and the German government said the two agreed that Ukraine's "territorial integrity must be respected."
On Monday, German government spokesman Steffan Seibert told reporters that Ukraine's new leaders should consider the interests of the south and east -- the pro-Russian sections of Ukraine -- in the composition of a new government. He also said the offer of an association agreement with the EU is still on the table.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's acting interior minister, Arsen Avakhov, said on his official Facebook page that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Yanukovych and several other officials for the "mass killing of civilians."
At least 82 people, primarily protesters, were killed in clashes in Kiev last week.
Yanukovych set off a wave of protests by shelving an agreement with the European Union in November and turning instead for a $15 billion bailout loan from Russia. Within weeks, the protests expanded to include outrage over corruption and human rights abuses, leading to calls for Yanukovych's resignation.
After signing an agreement Friday with the opposition to form a unity government, Yanukovych fled Kiev for his pro-Russian power base in eastern Ukraine. Avakhov said he tried to fly out of Donetsk but was stopped then went to Crimea on Sunday.
Yanukovych then freed his official security detail and drove off to an unknown location, turning off all forms of communication, Avakhov said.
"Yanukovych has disappeared," he said.
Security has been tightened across Ukraine's borders, the Interfax news agency quoted the State Border Guard service as saying.
Avakhov published a letter that he said was from Yanukovych, dated Monday, in which he gave up his security guard. Yanukovych's aides and spokespeople could not be reached Monday to verify the reported letter -- they have been rapidly distancing themselves from him as his hold on power disintegrates.
Activist Valeri Kazachenko said Yanukovych must be arrested and brought to Kiev's main square for trial.
"He must answer for all the crimes he has committed against Ukraine and its people," Kazachenko said.
Tensions have been mounting in Crimea in southern Ukraine. Russia maintains a large naval base in Sevastopol that has strained relations between the countries for two decades.
Pro-Russian protesters gathered in front of city hall in the port of Sevastopol on Monday chanting "Russia! Russia!"
"Extremists have seized power in Kiev and we must defend Crimea. Russia must help us with that," said Anataly Mareta, head of a Cossack militia in Sevastopol.
The head of the city administration in Sevastopol quit Monday amid the turmoil, and protesters replaced a Ukrainian flag near the city hall building with a Russian flag.
As president, Yanukovych moved quickly to consolidate power and wealth, curb free speech and oversee the imprisonment of his top political rival, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. But as protesters took control of the capital over the weekend, many allies turned against him.
Tymoshenko, the blond-braided heroine of the 2004 Orange Revolution, is back on the political scene after having been freed from prison.
The current protest movement in Ukraine has been in large part a fight for the country's economic future -- for better jobs and prosperity.
Ukraine has a large potential consumer market, an educated workforce, a significant industrial base and good natural resources, in particular rich farmland. Yet its economy is in tatters.
Ukraine has struggled with corruption, bad government and short-sighted reliance on cheap gas from Russia. Political unrest has pushed up the deficit, sent the currency skidding and may have pushed the economy back into a recession.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
ire7EFctIuv65im3
|
|
healthcare
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/10/medicare-paid-millions-drug-benefits-prisoners/
|
Medicare paid millions in drug benefits to prisoners
|
2014-02-10
|
Phillip Swarts
|
Food stamps . Free meals . Cable TV . Unemployment and disability benefits . And now prescription drugs .
It ’ s a good time to be in prison , where inmates are mistakenly receiving tens of millions of dollars in benefits at taxpayer expense .
The latest folly comes compliments of Medicare , which gave such poor oversight to its prescription coverage that it allowed $ 11.7 million in drug benefits to go to inmates from 2006 to 2010 , according a report released Monday by the Health and Human Services inspector general .
“ Individuals who are incarcerated in correctional facilities … are generally not eligible for federal health care benefits , ” the agency ’ s internal watchdog said in a report that blamed officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for poor management .
Investigators found that medical companies that gave drugs to inmates were improperly allowed to claim Medicare reimbursements because CMS lacked the safeguards necessary to screen out prisoners , and did not supply the medical companies the information needed to check for themselves .
The revelation was made a year after the same inspector general found that Medicare inappropriately paid $ 33.6 million to health care providers to cover costs associated with medical treatment for inmates .
CMS officials acknowledged the problem but said their accounting is so disorganized that they don ’ t even have a way to recoup the drug benefits they have misspent .
An audit last fall by the inspector general of the Social Security Administration found more problems with prisoners receiving taxpayer dollars . In a sampling of 100 Social Security disability recipients , one out of four had been receiving the benefit — wrongfully — while incarcerated .
“ There ’ s no effective way to stop these improper payments , because no one really has any incentive , ” said Michael Cannon , a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute , a libertarian think tank . “ It ’ s all someone else ’ s money , so nobody cares to prevent fraud as much as they should . This is maybe the main reason why government is less efficient than markets . ”
Getting an exact amount of how much is being wasted annually from Medicare payment mistakes is difficult , but some estimates place the number as high as $ 50 billion .
Erroneous benefits to prisoners also have been flowing through states . Investigations at the state level found $ 1 million in food stamps given to inmates in Louisiana . Fiscal watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste reported that prisons in Illinois spent $ 2.3 million on cable TV bills . A House of Representatives hearing in September found that prisoners received $ 23 million in unemployment benefits in New Jersey , $ 2 million in Illinois and $ 600,000 in Wisconsin .
“ It is an injustice that the tax dollars of law-abiding citizens are paying for these benefit checks for people who have broken the law and simply should not qualify for these benefits , ” Rep. David G. Reichert , a Washington Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Human Resources subcommittee , said during the hearing .
Medicare Part D pays for prescription drugs , but convicted felons are supposed to lose their benefits when they go to prison — along with many of their other rights and privileges . Instead , the Justice Department ’ s Bureau of Prisons takes charge of many health concerns for inmates .
Officials at CMS agreed there was a problem and said they would work to fix it .
“ The lack of a more robust set of CMS internal processes regarding access to services under the Medicare Part D program has been a concern to CMS , ” a response from the agency said . “ CMS is taking steps to address this issue and ensure that this requirement is executed in accordance with the information we receive from the correctional facilities and the Social Security Administration . ”
However , Medicare officials challenged the inspector general ’ s recommendation that they try to recoup the taxpayers ’ money .
“ There is no effective way of fully recovering these payments without first implementing the appropriate policies and procedures , ” the agency said .
Investigators said CMS never checked the claims to see whether they were coming from inmates and didn ’ t give health care providers enough information .
“ CMS did not provide sufficient and timely information to sponsors that would have allowed them to readily and accurately verify a beneficiary ’ s incarceration status and dates of incarceration , ” the inspector general said .
The Medicare agency did not give health care providers any information on names or contact information for correctional facilities , which services would most likely be used by inmates , and the fact that some beneficiaries were incarcerated .
Without this data , the inspector general said , health care companies relied on public websites to try to determine whether their patients were in prison , an often hit-or-miss plan .
Wasteful payments in Medicare and Medicaid have long been targets of lawmakers trying to reduce spending and fiscal abuse in the government .
“ We have a solemn responsibility to ensure that these programs have the resources they need to provide quality care and services , and part of that effort means cracking down on vulnerabilities in these programs that put taxpayer dollars at risk for waste , fraud and abuse , ” said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Thomas R. Carper , Delaware Democrat .
Mr. Carper and a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill last year to increase penalties for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and bolster oversight at CMS to prevent erroneous payments .
“ Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid expect Congress to work together to reduce waste and fraud , ” said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma , the committee ’ s ranking Republican . “ Improper payments divert scarce resources away from those most in need . ”
|
Food stamps. Free meals. Cable TV. Unemployment and disability benefits. And now prescription drugs.
It’s a good time to be in prison, where inmates are mistakenly receiving tens of millions of dollars in benefits at taxpayer expense.
The latest folly comes compliments of Medicare, which gave such poor oversight to its prescription coverage that it allowed $11.7 million in drug benefits to go to inmates from 2006 to 2010, according a report released Monday by the Health and Human Services inspector general.
“Individuals who are incarcerated in correctional facilities … are generally not eligible for federal health care benefits,” the agency’s internal watchdog said in a report that blamed officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for poor management.
Investigators found that medical companies that gave drugs to inmates were improperly allowed to claim Medicare reimbursements because CMS lacked the safeguards necessary to screen out prisoners, and did not supply the medical companies the information needed to check for themselves.
The revelation was made a year after the same inspector general found that Medicare inappropriately paid $33.6 million to health care providers to cover costs associated with medical treatment for inmates.
CMS officials acknowledged the problem but said their accounting is so disorganized that they don’t even have a way to recoup the drug benefits they have misspent.
An audit last fall by the inspector general of the Social Security Administration found more problems with prisoners receiving taxpayer dollars. In a sampling of 100 Social Security disability recipients, one out of four had been receiving the benefit — wrongfully — while incarcerated.
“There’s no effective way to stop these improper payments, because no one really has any incentive,” said Michael Cannon, a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “It’s all someone else’s money, so nobody cares to prevent fraud as much as they should. This is maybe the main reason why government is less efficient than markets.”
Getting an exact amount of how much is being wasted annually from Medicare payment mistakes is difficult, but some estimates place the number as high as $50 billion.
Erroneous benefits to prisoners also have been flowing through states. Investigations at the state level found $1 million in food stamps given to inmates in Louisiana. Fiscal watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste reported that prisons in Illinois spent $2.3 million on cable TV bills. A House of Representatives hearing in September found that prisoners received $23 million in unemployment benefits in New Jersey, $2 million in Illinois and $600,000 in Wisconsin.
“It is an injustice that the tax dollars of law-abiding citizens are paying for these benefit checks for people who have broken the law and simply should not qualify for these benefits,” Rep. David G. Reichert, a Washington Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Human Resources subcommittee, said during the hearing.
Benefits behind bars
Medicare Part D pays for prescription drugs, but convicted felons are supposed to lose their benefits when they go to prison — along with many of their other rights and privileges. Instead, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons takes charge of many health concerns for inmates.
Officials at CMS agreed there was a problem and said they would work to fix it.
“The lack of a more robust set of CMS internal processes regarding access to services under the Medicare Part D program has been a concern to CMS,” a response from the agency said. “CMS is taking steps to address this issue and ensure that this requirement is executed in accordance with the information we receive from the correctional facilities and the Social Security Administration.”
However, Medicare officials challenged the inspector general’s recommendation that they try to recoup the taxpayers’ money.
“There is no effective way of fully recovering these payments without first implementing the appropriate policies and procedures,” the agency said.
Investigators said CMS never checked the claims to see whether they were coming from inmates and didn’t give health care providers enough information.
“CMS did not provide sufficient and timely information to sponsors that would have allowed them to readily and accurately verify a beneficiary’s incarceration status and dates of incarceration,” the inspector general said.
The Medicare agency did not give health care providers any information on names or contact information for correctional facilities, which services would most likely be used by inmates, and the fact that some beneficiaries were incarcerated.
Without this data, the inspector general said, health care companies relied on public websites to try to determine whether their patients were in prison, an often hit-or-miss plan.
Wasteful payments in Medicare and Medicaid have long been targets of lawmakers trying to reduce spending and fiscal abuse in the government.
“We have a solemn responsibility to ensure that these programs have the resources they need to provide quality care and services, and part of that effort means cracking down on vulnerabilities in these programs that put taxpayer dollars at risk for waste, fraud and abuse,” said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Thomas R. Carper, Delaware Democrat.
Mr. Carper and a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill last year to increase penalties for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and bolster oversight at CMS to prevent erroneous payments.
“Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid expect Congress to work together to reduce waste and fraud,” said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the committee’s ranking Republican. “Improper payments divert scarce resources away from those most in need.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
vU1CNtduHNQQeuXR
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/politics/obamas-immigration-shift-puts-pressure-on-romney.html?ref=politics
|
Obama’s Announcement Seizes Initiative and Puts Pressure on Romney
|
2012-06-16
|
Helene Cooper, Trip Gabriel
|
Democrats have long seen immigration as the best example of how Mr. Romney ’ s move to the right during the bitterly contested Republican primary could complicate his ability to create a broad general election coalition . During the primary season , Mr. Romney opposed the Dream Act , proposed legislation that would have allowed many young illegal immigrants to remain in the country and would have given them a path to citizenship . As he has moved into the general election and confronted the need to compete for Latino voters , his campaign has tried to finesse the issue by saying that the focus of his outreach to Hispanics would be on jobs and the economy , and his initial response to Mr. Obama ’ s decision on Friday was to focus less on its substance than its unilateral nature .
Speaking after an event in Milford , N.H. , on Friday , Mr. Romney criticized the president ’ s executive order for making it “ more difficult to reach a long-term solution ” for dealing with the fate of young people who are in the United States illegally “ through no fault of their own. ” Mr. Romney did not respond to questions about whether he would repeal Mr. Obama ’ s order if elected .
In both substance and tone , his remarks were a softening of the posture he struck during the Republican primary fight , when he said he would veto any bill allowing children brought to the country by illegal immigrants to become permanent residents .
They should “ return home , apply and get in line with everyone else , ” Mr. Romney said in a debate in January .
His position apparently shifted under the influence of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida who has been preparing a Republican version of the Dream Act similar to what the president ordered Friday .
Congressional Republicans were more pointed in their criticism , but they too were careful not to oppose some kind of solution to the problem of young people who are in the country illegally but who are productive , otherwise law-abiding residents . Senator Lindsey Graham , Republican of South Carolina , denounced it as “ possibly illegal ” for essentially bypassing lawmakers . Mr. Rubio said the announcement would be “ welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer , ” but that by going around Congress , the president had made it “ harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term ” solution .
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you 're not a robot by clicking the box . Invalid email address . Please re-enter . You must select a newsletter to subscribe to . Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times . You may opt-out at any time . You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times 's products and services . Thank you for subscribing . An error has occurred . Please try again later . View all New York Times newsletters .
Their caution reflected concern within the Republican Party that they are at risk of giving up a chance to win the political allegiance of Hispanics , not just for this election but for years to come . Though the Dream Act was originally co-sponsored by a conservative Republican , Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah , in recent years most conservatives have worked to block any changes to immigration policies that would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants , and many conservatives have backed measures to limit the rights of illegal immigrants already in the United States .
But Jeb Bush , the former Florida governor , called this week for the party to do more to connect with Hispanic voters . And just before Mr. Obama ’ s announcement , former Gov . Haley Barbour of Mississippi told reporters in Washington on Friday that Republicans , for political and business reasons , should support plans to let workers who are not citizens stay in the country .
“ I believe America is in a global battle for capital , ” Mr. Barbour said . “ If you are a worker who has been here for any length of time , we have to have a path , not to citizenship , but a secure knowledge that they will be able to work . ”
Many Hispanic leaders had been critical of the president for not doing more to address immigration . But on Friday , they said they welcomed his move , whatever his motivation . “ We know this is political — we like that it ’ s political , ” said Robert Meza , a Democratic state senator from Phoenix . “ People are smart enough to know that of course it ’ s politics , but if their agenda moves forward , they ’ re happy . ”
Mr. Romney has warned that if Republicans did not find a better way to appeal to Hispanic voters , “ it spells doom for us . ”
But his campaign has concluded so far that its outreach should be an economic message , not a modulation of the anti-illegal immigration stances Mr. Romney took during the primaries . His advisers observe that polls show Hispanic voters rank jobs and the economy their most pressing issues , followed by education .
Some advisers have argued that Mr. Romney has more to lose by exposing himself to charges of shifting positions over illegal immigration than he has to gain by appealing to a slice of the Latino constituency that ranks immigration a top concern — because those voters already support Mr. Obama .
|
Democrats have long seen immigration as the best example of how Mr. Romney’s move to the right during the bitterly contested Republican primary could complicate his ability to create a broad general election coalition. During the primary season, Mr. Romney opposed the Dream Act, proposed legislation that would have allowed many young illegal immigrants to remain in the country and would have given them a path to citizenship. As he has moved into the general election and confronted the need to compete for Latino voters, his campaign has tried to finesse the issue by saying that the focus of his outreach to Hispanics would be on jobs and the economy, and his initial response to Mr. Obama’s decision on Friday was to focus less on its substance than its unilateral nature.
Speaking after an event in Milford, N.H., on Friday, Mr. Romney criticized the president’s executive order for making it “more difficult to reach a long-term solution” for dealing with the fate of young people who are in the United States illegally “through no fault of their own.” Mr. Romney did not respond to questions about whether he would repeal Mr. Obama’s order if elected.
In both substance and tone, his remarks were a softening of the posture he struck during the Republican primary fight, when he said he would veto any bill allowing children brought to the country by illegal immigrants to become permanent residents.
Video
They should “return home, apply and get in line with everyone else,” Mr. Romney said in a debate in January.
His position apparently shifted under the influence of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida who has been preparing a Republican version of the Dream Act similar to what the president ordered Friday.
Congressional Republicans were more pointed in their criticism, but they too were careful not to oppose some kind of solution to the problem of young people who are in the country illegally but who are productive, otherwise law-abiding residents. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, denounced it as “possibly illegal” for essentially bypassing lawmakers. Mr. Rubio said the announcement would be “welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer,” but that by going around Congress, the president had made it “harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term” solution.
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.
Their caution reflected concern within the Republican Party that they are at risk of giving up a chance to win the political allegiance of Hispanics, not just for this election but for years to come. Though the Dream Act was originally co-sponsored by a conservative Republican, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, in recent years most conservatives have worked to block any changes to immigration policies that would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and many conservatives have backed measures to limit the rights of illegal immigrants already in the United States.
But Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, called this week for the party to do more to connect with Hispanic voters. And just before Mr. Obama’s announcement, former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi told reporters in Washington on Friday that Republicans, for political and business reasons, should support plans to let workers who are not citizens stay in the country.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“I believe America is in a global battle for capital,” Mr. Barbour said. “If you are a worker who has been here for any length of time, we have to have a path, not to citizenship, but a secure knowledge that they will be able to work.”
Many Hispanic leaders had been critical of the president for not doing more to address immigration. But on Friday, they said they welcomed his move, whatever his motivation. “We know this is political — we like that it’s political,” said Robert Meza, a Democratic state senator from Phoenix. “People are smart enough to know that of course it’s politics, but if their agenda moves forward, they’re happy.”
Mr. Romney has warned that if Republicans did not find a better way to appeal to Hispanic voters, “it spells doom for us.”
But his campaign has concluded so far that its outreach should be an economic message, not a modulation of the anti-illegal immigration stances Mr. Romney took during the primaries. His advisers observe that polls show Hispanic voters rank jobs and the economy their most pressing issues, followed by education.
Some advisers have argued that Mr. Romney has more to lose by exposing himself to charges of shifting positions over illegal immigration than he has to gain by appealing to a slice of the Latino constituency that ranks immigration a top concern — because those voters already support Mr. Obama.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
UB6BS2ZABMKy49SZ
|
foreign_policy
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/obamas-blurry-foreign-policy-vision-110336.html?hp=t1_3
|
Obama’s blurry foreign policy vision
|
2014-08-26
|
Josh Gerstein
|
The Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear course of action to dismantle ISIL . Obama 's blurry foreign policy vision
The extremist Islamic group that beheaded journalist James Foley has been described as “ wicked ” and an “ imminent threat , ” and President Barack Obama has vowed to be “ relentless ” in pursuing it .
Yet for all the vivid rhetoric in recent days , the Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear course of action to dismantle the radical group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and is struggling to lay out a precise vision to respond to the new threats in chaotic areas of Iraq and Syria where ISIL has thrived in recent months .
The lack of clarity in the U.S. approach to the region has underscored claims by critics — including voices generally friendly to the White House — questioning whether Obama ’ s foreign policy message is coherent enough to win support across the globe .
And the disconnect between dramatic condemnations and decisive action against ISIL threatens to leave the president looking ineffective or even impotent , just as his call for Syrian President Bashar Assad to resign remains unheeded three years later .
At the daily briefing for reporters Monday , White House press secretary Josh Earnest faced a barrage of questions about whether Obama is prepared to expand the campaign against ISIL and whether Obama ’ s policies on the subject are muddled .
“ The president has been very clear about what he believes our priorities are in Iraq , why he believes it ’ s important for the United States to pursue a comprehensive approach to countering the threat that ’ s posed by ISIL , not just to Iraq , but also to Americans and American interests , ” Earnest said . “ That strategy includes some of the military strikes that the president has ordered . ”
Prominent foreign policy figures , including Democrats such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Rep. Jane Harman , as well as a broad range of Republicans , have argued recently that the message the U.S. is projecting abroad is murky .
“ Great nations need organizing principles , and ‘ Don ’ t do stupid stuff ’ is not an organizing principle , ” Clinton told The Atlantic ’ s Jeffrey Goldberg in an interview earlier this month , adding , “ One issue is that we don ’ t even tell our own story very well these days . ”
Clinton ’ s remarks caused a stir mainly because they were taken as criticism of Obama , but less attention was paid to the substance of her critique , which seemed to track very closely statements made earlier in the summer by Harman , who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars .
“ I ’ m not saying it is U.S. foreign policy , but the perception of our foreign policy in much of the Middle East is : ‘ Don ’ t do stupid stuff — plus use drones , ’ ” Harman told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum in July . “ I don ’ t think that ’ s winning any heart or mind or any mind or heart . ”
“ The perception has to be that we stand for things and not only stand for them , but live those values , ” Harman added . “ We ’ re just not making the sale right now for lots of reasons . … Our narrative needs a lot of work . ”
While Obama did authorize a “ limited ” U.S. military campaign to bomb ISIL positions in Iraq earlier this month , he has yet to expand that military effort to try to eradicate the group there or across the border in Syria . Despite Obama ’ s talk of a “ relentless ” effort against ISIL , the limits he has articulated — such as “ no boots on the ground ” — have been clearer than the indications of how far the U.S. is willing to go to fight the militant group .
While some observers expected Obama might lay out his ISIL policy in greater detail during a speech Tuesday to an American Legion convention in North Carolina , the White House said Monday the address would focus mainly on issues like problems at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals .
But the president will need to move quickly ; the issue is increasingly urgent in Europe , which has had thousands of Muslim citizens join the fighting in Syria — a substantial number of those with ISIL . The strategy debate is likely to be a significant theme in Obama ’ s diplomatic talks over the next month . The president is scheduled to attend a NATO summit in Wales next week and in mid-September is expected to host a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York focused specifically on the dangers posed by foreign fighters in Syria who might return to Europe or the U.S. to carry out terrorist attacks .
When pressed Monday about Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ’ s comments declaring ISIL to be an “ imminent threat ” to American interests worldwide , Earnest straddled , preferring to call the group “ a significant threat ” and hedging about the dangers it poses to Americans outside Iraq and Syria .
“ This is a complicated situation , but there is no question that there is a significant threat that ’ s posed by ISIL , in part because of their demonstrated military capacity ; in part also because they have demonstrated access to significant financial resources , ” Earnest said .
Earnest also insisted that when Obama told The New Yorker magazine earlier this year that some radicals were “ JV ” or junior varsity players pretending to be more threatening than they were , he was not referring specifically to ISIL .
“ The president was not singling out ISIL , Earnest said . “ He was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe . Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States , and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing Al Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden . ”
Analysts said the White House ’ s tone toward ISIL has changed markedly in recent weeks and that the policy also appears to be shifting .
“ The rhetoric has changed from the ‘ JV ’ comment , ” the Middle East Institute ’ s Paul Salem said . “ Although some in the intelligence community and government agencies were apparently sounding the alarm , it seems that as it went up in the echelons of government that alarm was not sounded in a major way two months ago to the president . ”
|
The Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear course of action to dismantle ISIL. Obama's blurry foreign policy vision
The extremist Islamic group that beheaded journalist James Foley has been described as “wicked” and an “imminent threat,” and President Barack Obama has vowed to be “relentless” in pursuing it.
Yet for all the vivid rhetoric in recent days, the Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear course of action to dismantle the radical group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and is struggling to lay out a precise vision to respond to the new threats in chaotic areas of Iraq and Syria where ISIL has thrived in recent months.
Story Continued Below
The lack of clarity in the U.S. approach to the region has underscored claims by critics — including voices generally friendly to the White House — questioning whether Obama’s foreign policy message is coherent enough to win support across the globe.
And the disconnect between dramatic condemnations and decisive action against ISIL threatens to leave the president looking ineffective or even impotent, just as his call for Syrian President Bashar Assad to resign remains unheeded three years later.
( Also on POLITICO: The incredible shrinking defense industry)
At the daily briefing for reporters Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest faced a barrage of questions about whether Obama is prepared to expand the campaign against ISIL and whether Obama’s policies on the subject are muddled.
“The president has been very clear about what he believes our priorities are in Iraq, why he believes it’s important for the United States to pursue a comprehensive approach to countering the threat that’s posed by ISIL, not just to Iraq, but also to Americans and American interests,” Earnest said. “That strategy includes some of the military strikes that the president has ordered.”
Prominent foreign policy figures, including Democrats such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Rep. Jane Harman, as well as a broad range of Republicans, have argued recently that the message the U.S. is projecting abroad is murky.
“Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Clinton told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in an interview earlier this month, adding, “One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.”
( Also on POLITICO: Report: Obama OKs Syria flights)
Clinton’s remarks caused a stir mainly because they were taken as criticism of Obama, but less attention was paid to the substance of her critique, which seemed to track very closely statements made earlier in the summer by Harman, who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
“I’m not saying it is U.S. foreign policy, but the perception of our foreign policy in much of the Middle East is: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff — plus use drones,’” Harman told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum in July. “I don’t think that’s winning any heart or mind or any mind or heart.”
“The perception has to be that we stand for things and not only stand for them, but live those values,” Harman added. “We’re just not making the sale right now for lots of reasons. … Our narrative needs a lot of work.”
While Obama did authorize a “limited” U.S. military campaign to bomb ISIL positions in Iraq earlier this month, he has yet to expand that military effort to try to eradicate the group there or across the border in Syria. Despite Obama’s talk of a “relentless” effort against ISIL, the limits he has articulated — such as “no boots on the ground” — have been clearer than the indications of how far the U.S. is willing to go to fight the militant group.
( Also on POLITICO: McCain relates ISIL to quake)
While some observers expected Obama might lay out his ISIL policy in greater detail during a speech Tuesday to an American Legion convention in North Carolina, the White House said Monday the address would focus mainly on issues like problems at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.
But the president will need to move quickly; the issue is increasingly urgent in Europe, which has had thousands of Muslim citizens join the fighting in Syria — a substantial number of those with ISIL. The strategy debate is likely to be a significant theme in Obama’s diplomatic talks over the next month. The president is scheduled to attend a NATO summit in Wales next week and in mid-September is expected to host a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York focused specifically on the dangers posed by foreign fighters in Syria who might return to Europe or the U.S. to carry out terrorist attacks.
When pressed Monday about Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s comments declaring ISIL to be an “imminent threat” to American interests worldwide, Earnest straddled, preferring to call the group “a significant threat” and hedging about the dangers it poses to Americans outside Iraq and Syria.
“This is a complicated situation, but there is no question that there is a significant threat that’s posed by ISIL, in part because of their demonstrated military capacity; in part also because they have demonstrated access to significant financial resources,” Earnest said.
Earnest also insisted that when Obama told The New Yorker magazine earlier this year that some radicals were “JV” or junior varsity players pretending to be more threatening than they were, he was not referring specifically to ISIL.
“The president was not singling out ISIL, Earnest said. “He was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe. Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States, and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing Al Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden.”
Analysts said the White House’s tone toward ISIL has changed markedly in recent weeks and that the policy also appears to be shifting.
“The rhetoric has changed from the ‘JV’ comment,” the Middle East Institute’s Paul Salem said. “Although some in the intelligence community and government agencies were apparently sounding the alarm, it seems that as it went up in the echelons of government that alarm was not sounded in a major way two months ago to the president.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
DOELHpt3kF2hryIS
|
nsa
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/06/nicaragua-and-venezuela-willing-to-grant-asylum-to-edward-snowden/?test=latestnews
|
Nicaragua and Venezuela willing to grant asylum to Edward Snowden
|
2013-07-06
|
NSA leaker Edward Snowden 's effort to evade prosecution in the U.S. took a turn toward Latin America Friday after the Presidents of Venezuela and Nicaragua announced they were prepared to grant NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum .
Although there were no concrete details from Presidents Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua or Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela , it is believed that they are the first offers of asylum that Snowden has received since he requested asylum in several countries , including Nicaragua and Venezuela .
`` As head of state , the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden so that he can live ( without ) ... persecution from the empire , '' President Maduro said , referring to the United States . He made the offer during a speech marking the anniversary of Venezuela 's independence . It was not immediately clear if there were any conditions to Venezuela 's offer .
In Nicaragua , Ortega said he was willing to make the same offer `` if circumstances allow it . '' Ortega did n't say what the right circumstances would be when he spoke during a speech in Managua .
He said the Nicaraguan embassy in Moscow received Snowden 's application for asylum and that it is studying the request .
`` We have the sovereign right to help a person who felt remorse after finding out how the United States was using technology to spy on the whole world , and especially its European allies , '' Ortega said .
Maduro made the asylum offer during a speech marking the anniversary of Venezuela 's independence . It was not immediately clear if there were any conditions to Venezuela 's offer .
But his critics said Maduro 's decision is nothing but an attempt to veil the current undignified conditions of Venezuela , including one of the world 's highest inflation rates and a shortage of basic products such as toilet paper .
`` The asylum does n't fix the economic disaster , the record inflation , an upcoming devaluation ( of the currency ) , and the rising crime rate , '' Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles said in his Twitter account . Maduro beat Capriles in April 's presidential election , but Capriles has not recognized defeat and has called it an electoral fraud .
The White House on Friday refused to comment on the asylum offers , referring questions on the matter to the U.S. Justice Department , according to Reuters .
The offers came a day after left-wing South American leaders gathered to denounce the rerouting of Bolivian President Evo Morales ' plane in Europe earlier this week amid reports that Snowden might have been aboard .
Spain on Friday said it had been warned along with other European countries that Snowden , a former U.S. intelligence worker , was aboard the Bolivian presidential plane , an acknowledgement that the manhunt for the fugitive leaker had something to do with the plane 's unexpected diversion to Austria .
It is unclear whether the United States , which has told its European allies that it wants Snowden back , warned Madrid about the Bolivian president 's plane . U.S. officials will not detail their conversations with European countries , except to say that they have stated the U.S. 's general position that it wants Snowden back .
President Obama has publicly displayed a relaxed attitude toward Snowden 's movements , saying last month that he would n't be `` scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker . ''
But the drama surrounding the flight of Bolivian President Evo Morales , whose plane was abruptly rerouted to Vienna after apparently being denied permission to fly over France , suggests that pressure is being applied behind the scenes .
Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo told Spanish National Television that `` they told us that the information was clear , that he was inside . ''
He did not identify who `` they '' were and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the U.S . But he said that European countries ' decisions were based on the tip . France has since sent a letter of apology to the Bolivian government .
Meanwhile , secret-spilling website WikiLeaks said that Snowden , who is still believed to be stuck in a Moscow airport 's transit area , had put in asylum applications to six new countries .
The organization said in a message posted to Twitter on Friday that it would n't be identifying the countries involved `` due to attempted U.S . interference . '' They also called for “ all strong countries ” in the Union of South American Nations to offer Snowden asylym .
A number of countries have already rejected asylum applications from Snowden .
|
NSA leaker Edward Snowden's effort to evade prosecution in the U.S. took a turn toward Latin America Friday after the Presidents of Venezuela and Nicaragua announced they were prepared to grant NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum.
Although there were no concrete details from Presidents Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua or Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, it is believed that they are the first offers of asylum that Snowden has received since he requested asylum in several countries, including Nicaragua and Venezuela.
"As head of state, the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden so that he can live (without) ... persecution from the empire," President Maduro said, referring to the United States. He made the offer during a speech marking the anniversary of Venezuela's independence. It was not immediately clear if there were any conditions to Venezuela's offer.
In Nicaragua, Ortega said he was willing to make the same offer "if circumstances allow it." Ortega didn't say what the right circumstances would be when he spoke during a speech in Managua.
He said the Nicaraguan embassy in Moscow received Snowden's application for asylum and that it is studying the request.
"We have the sovereign right to help a person who felt remorse after finding out how the United States was using technology to spy on the whole world, and especially its European allies," Ortega said.
Maduro made the asylum offer during a speech marking the anniversary of Venezuela's independence. It was not immediately clear if there were any conditions to Venezuela's offer.
But his critics said Maduro's decision is nothing but an attempt to veil the current undignified conditions of Venezuela, including one of the world's highest inflation rates and a shortage of basic products such as toilet paper.
"The asylum doesn't fix the economic disaster, the record inflation, an upcoming devaluation (of the currency), and the rising crime rate," Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles said in his Twitter account. Maduro beat Capriles in April's presidential election, but Capriles has not recognized defeat and has called it an electoral fraud.
The White House on Friday refused to comment on the asylum offers, referring questions on the matter to the U.S. Justice Department, according to Reuters.
The offers came a day after left-wing South American leaders gathered to denounce the rerouting of Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane in Europe earlier this week amid reports that Snowden might have been aboard.
Spain on Friday said it had been warned along with other European countries that Snowden, a former U.S. intelligence worker, was aboard the Bolivian presidential plane, an acknowledgement that the manhunt for the fugitive leaker had something to do with the plane's unexpected diversion to Austria.
It is unclear whether the United States, which has told its European allies that it wants Snowden back, warned Madrid about the Bolivian president's plane. U.S. officials will not detail their conversations with European countries, except to say that they have stated the U.S.'s general position that it wants Snowden back.
President Obama has publicly displayed a relaxed attitude toward Snowden's movements, saying last month that he wouldn't be "scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker."
But the drama surrounding the flight of Bolivian President Evo Morales, whose plane was abruptly rerouted to Vienna after apparently being denied permission to fly over France, suggests that pressure is being applied behind the scenes.
Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo told Spanish National Television that "they told us that the information was clear, that he was inside."
He did not identify who "they" were and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the U.S. But he said that European countries' decisions were based on the tip. France has since sent a letter of apology to the Bolivian government.
Meanwhile, secret-spilling website WikiLeaks said that Snowden, who is still believed to be stuck in a Moscow airport's transit area, had put in asylum applications to six new countries.
The organization said in a message posted to Twitter on Friday that it wouldn't be identifying the countries involved "due to attempted U.S. interference." They also called for “all strong countries” in the Union of South American Nations to offer Snowden asylym.
A number of countries have already rejected asylum applications from Snowden.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
4ZtARQDIaQW2jTT2
|
|
us_military
|
BBC News
| 11
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40729996
|
Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' US military
|
US President Donald Trump says transgender people can not serve in `` any capacity '' in the military .
He tweeted that he had consulted with military experts and cited `` tremendous medical costs and disruption '' .
The Obama administration decided last year to allow transgender people to serve openly in the military .
But in June , Defence Secretary James Mattis agreed to a six-month delay in the recruitment of transgender people .
As is often the case , the announcement came in a series of tweets .
Mr Trump said : `` After consultation with my Generals and military experts , please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military .
`` Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and can not be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail . ''
But the measure will not go into effect immediately , as spokesperson Sarah Sanders told reporters at a White House press briefing .
The implementation policy has to be worked out , she said when asked if troops on battlefields would be immediately sent back to the United States .
This was `` a military decision '' said Mrs Sanders , adding that it is `` not meant to be anything more than that '' .
The timing of this transgender ban is almost as interesting as the move itself .
Why now ? With the Trump administration being buffeted by the Jeff Sessions political death watch , the ongoing multi-prong investigation into the Trump campaign , the healthcare drama in the Senate and the impending Russian sanctions bill , perhaps the administration decided this was a good time to change the subject and rally conservative forces to his side .
Republicans have long used cultural issues as a wedge to divide Democrats and energise evangelicals . As one White House insider acknowledged , this is straight out of that playbook . While Mr Trump campaigned as sympathetic to LGBT rights , he needs the traditional religious conservatives to stay loyal to him now , more than ever .
Or perhaps , as Politico is reporting , the White House sought to resolve an intraparty dispute that threatened passage of a key military spending bill in the House of Representatives . That the president chose to do so suddenly , with little advanced notice , would not be out of the ordinary for this administration .
The president 's action will create a furore among liberals and the media commentators whose disdain for the current administration is not a new development . This is a fight the White House will welcome .
The independent Rand Corporation estimated in 2016 that about 4,000 US active-duty and reserve service members are transgender , although some campaigners put the figure higher than 10,000 .
Rand also predicted that the inclusion of transgender people in the military would cause a 0.13 % increase in healthcare spending ( approximately $ 8.4m ) .
A Military Times analysis found that the Department of Defense spends five times that figure just on erectile dysfunction drug Viagara alone .
The Obama administration 's move to allow transgender people in the military to serve openly was announced in June 2016 by then Defence Secretary Ash Carter .
The policy included a provision for the military to provide medical help for service members wanting to change gender .
Transgender people would be permitted to join the services , so long as they could demonstrate they had been stable in their new gender for at least 18 months .
This was meant to come into effect on 1 July 2017 but the Trump administration delayed it by a further six months . The Pentagon said the five branches of the military needed more time to `` review their accession plans and provide input on the impact to the readiness and lethality of our forces '' .
While Mr Trump 's decision concerns transgender military personnel , the US military 's ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemen and women - known as `` Do n't ask do n't tell '' - was lifted in 2011 .
LGBTQ campaign group , GLAAD , called Mr Trump 's move `` a direct attack on transgender Americans '' .
Aaron Belkin , director of the Palm Centre , a leading think-tank which studies gender and sexuality in the military , told the BBC that Mr Trump 's decision would force transgender troops to in effect live as gays and lesbians did under `` Do n't ask , do n't tell '' .
Kristin Beck , a retired elite Navy SEAL , issued a challenge to President Trump in an interview with Business Insider : `` Let 's meet face to face and you tell me I 'm not worthy . ''
She said that during her decorated military career , she had been `` defending individual liberty '' .
`` Being transgender does n't affect anyone else , '' she said . `` We are liberty 's light . If you ca n't defend that for everyone that 's an American citizen , that 's not right . ''
Former Defence Secretary Carter released a critical statement : `` To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military . There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honourably . ''
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee , Republican John McCain , said major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter and continued :
`` The statement was unclear . The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military , and many are serving honorably today .
Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving . ''
Several British military generals have condemned Mr Trump 's decision , including the commander of the UK Maritime Forces , Rear Admiral Alex Burton .
`` As an @ RoyalNavy_LGBT champion and senior warfighter I am so glad we are not going this way '' , he wrote on Twitter , later adding : `` We have a justifiably rigorous selection process but it does n't include discrimination and we 're a better fighting force for it . ''
Republican opponents of transgender people serving in the military include Vicky Hartzler , a congresswoman from Missouri , who wants transgender service members honourably discharged .
Some oppose the military having to bear medical costs associated with transgender recruits , such as gender reassignment .
Tony Perkins of the socially conservative Family Research council said : `` Our troops should n't be forced to endure hours of transgender 'sensitivity ' classes and politically correct distractions . ''
Trump supporter and political commentator Scott Presler is among those who disagree with the military carrying the cost of such interventions .
While disagreeing with the ban , he added that `` generals know more about war than I do .
`` I am cognisant that they understand what it takes to go to war ... I do n't think this is an attack on the LGBT community .
`` I 'm mixed , but I have confidence in the guidance that President Trump is receiving , '' he said . `` I do n't think for a second he 's prejudiced . ''
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Riley Dosh explains why she wants to defend her country
US President Donald Trump says transgender people cannot serve in "any capacity" in the military.
He tweeted that he had consulted with military experts and cited "tremendous medical costs and disruption".
The Obama administration decided last year to allow transgender people to serve openly in the military.
But in June, Defence Secretary James Mattis agreed to a six-month delay in the recruitment of transgender people.
How has Mr Trump justified his decision?
Image copyright Reuters
As is often the case, the announcement came in a series of tweets.
Mr Trump said: "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.
"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."
But the measure will not go into effect immediately, as spokesperson Sarah Sanders told reporters at a White House press briefing.
The implementation policy has to be worked out, she said when asked if troops on battlefields would be immediately sent back to the United States.
This was "a military decision" said Mrs Sanders, adding that it is "not meant to be anything more than that".
'My stomach dropped': Transgender troops hit by ban
The secret life of a transgender airman
Why has the president decided on this now?
Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America Reporter
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Different stance - on the campaign trail last year
The timing of this transgender ban is almost as interesting as the move itself.
Why now? With the Trump administration being buffeted by the Jeff Sessions political death watch, the ongoing multi-prong investigation into the Trump campaign, the healthcare drama in the Senate and the impending Russian sanctions bill, perhaps the administration decided this was a good time to change the subject and rally conservative forces to his side.
Republicans have long used cultural issues as a wedge to divide Democrats and energise evangelicals. As one White House insider acknowledged, this is straight out of that playbook. While Mr Trump campaigned as sympathetic to LGBT rights, he needs the traditional religious conservatives to stay loyal to him now, more than ever.
Or perhaps, as Politico is reporting, the White House sought to resolve an intraparty dispute that threatened passage of a key military spending bill in the House of Representatives. That the president chose to do so suddenly, with little advanced notice, would not be out of the ordinary for this administration.
The president's action will create a furore among liberals and the media commentators whose disdain for the current administration is not a new development. This is a fight the White House will welcome.
What is the status of transgender service personnel?
The independent Rand Corporation estimated in 2016 that about 4,000 US active-duty and reserve service members are transgender, although some campaigners put the figure higher than 10,000.
Rand also predicted that the inclusion of transgender people in the military would cause a 0.13% increase in healthcare spending (approximately $8.4m).
A Military Times analysis found that the Department of Defense spends five times that figure just on erectile dysfunction drug Viagara alone.
The Obama administration's move to allow transgender people in the military to serve openly was announced in June 2016 by then Defence Secretary Ash Carter.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Being transgender in the US military - Jamie Ewing spoke to the BBC in 2016
The policy included a provision for the military to provide medical help for service members wanting to change gender.
Transgender people would be permitted to join the services, so long as they could demonstrate they had been stable in their new gender for at least 18 months.
This was meant to come into effect on 1 July 2017 but the Trump administration delayed it by a further six months. The Pentagon said the five branches of the military needed more time to "review their accession plans and provide input on the impact to the readiness and lethality of our forces".
While Mr Trump's decision concerns transgender military personnel, the US military's ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemen and women - known as "Don't ask don't tell" - was lifted in 2011.
Delays leave transgender military in limbo
UK chiefs praise transgender troops
What do critics of this say?
LGBTQ campaign group, GLAAD, called Mr Trump's move "a direct attack on transgender Americans".
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Centre, a leading think-tank which studies gender and sexuality in the military, told the BBC that Mr Trump's decision would force transgender troops to in effect live as gays and lesbians did under "Don't ask, don't tell".
Kristin Beck, a retired elite Navy SEAL, issued a challenge to President Trump in an interview with Business Insider: "Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy."
She said that during her decorated military career, she had been "defending individual liberty".
"Being transgender doesn't affect anyone else," she said. "We are liberty's light. If you can't defend that for everyone that's an American citizen, that's not right."
Image copyright Twitter - MicahGrimes Image caption NBC's Micah Grimes tweeted this reaction
Former Defence Secretary Carter released a critical statement: "To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military. There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honourably."
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John McCain, said major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter and continued:
"The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today.
Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving."
Image copyright Twitter @xychelsea Image caption Chelsea Manning, a transgender former US soldier, tweeted her reaction to the news
Several British military generals have condemned Mr Trump's decision, including the commander of the UK Maritime Forces, Rear Admiral Alex Burton.
"As an @RoyalNavy_LGBT champion and senior warfighter I am so glad we are not going this way", he wrote on Twitter, later adding: "We have a justifiably rigorous selection process but it doesn't include discrimination and we're a better fighting force for it."
Trump revokes transgender toilet rules
What about those in favour?
Republican opponents of transgender people serving in the military include Vicky Hartzler, a congresswoman from Missouri, who wants transgender service members honourably discharged.
Some oppose the military having to bear medical costs associated with transgender recruits, such as gender reassignment.
Tony Perkins of the socially conservative Family Research council said: "Our troops shouldn't be forced to endure hours of transgender 'sensitivity' classes and politically correct distractions."
Trump supporter and political commentator Scott Presler is among those who disagree with the military carrying the cost of such interventions.
While disagreeing with the ban, he added that "generals know more about war than I do.
"I am cognisant that they understand what it takes to go to war... I don't think this is an attack on the LGBT community.
"I'm mixed, but I have confidence in the guidance that President Trump is receiving," he said. "I don't think for a second he's prejudiced."
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
xComzYLVGydWXVjT
|
||
domestic_policy
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/elizabeth-warren-plan-nationalize-everything-woos-hard-left/
|
OPINION: Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything
|
2018-08-16
|
Kevin D. Williamson, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Mairead Mcardle, John Mccormack, Carrie Severino, John Fund, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Bill Corsair
|
Sen. Elizabeth Warren with Sen. Bernie Sanders at a Capitol Hill press conference introducing Sanders ’ s “ Medicare for All ” plan , September 13 , 2017 . ( Yuri Gripas/Reuters )
Wholesale seizure and control of private property ? With 2020 in her sights , Warren woos the hard Left .
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has one-upped socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez : She proposes to nationalize every major business in the United States of America . If successful , it would constitute the largest seizure of private property in human history .
Warren ’ s proposal is dishonestly called the “ Accountable Capitalism Act. ” Accountable to whom ? you might ask . That ’ s a reasonable question . The answer is — as it always is — accountable to politicians , who desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends . It is remarkable that people who are most keenly attuned to the self-interest of CEOs and shareholders and the ways in which that self-interest influences their decisions apparently believe that members of the House , senators , presidents , regulators , Cabinet secretaries , and agency chiefs somehow are liberated from self-interest when they take office through some kind of miracle of transcendence .
Under Senator Warren ’ s proposal , no business with more than $ 1 billion in revenue would be permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government . The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards , the details of internal corporate governance , compensation practices , personnel policies , and much more . Naturally , their political activities would be restricted , too . Senator Warren ’ s proposal entails the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States , and nothing less . It is unconstitutional , unethical , immoral , irresponsible , and — not to put too fine a point on it — utterly bonkers .
It is also cynical . Senator Warren is many things : a crass opportunist , intellectually bankrupt , personally vapid , a peddler of witless self-help books , etc . But she is not stupid . She knows that this is a go-nowhere proposition , that she will be spared by the Republican legislative majority from the ignominy that would ensue from the wholehearted pursuit of this daft program . It is in reality only a means of staking out for purely strategic reasons the most radical corner for her 2020 run at the Democratic presidential nomination . The Democratic party in 2018 , like the Republican primary electorate in 2016 , is out for blood and desirous of confrontation . So Senator Warren is running this red flag up the flagpole to see who salutes .
To propose such a thing for sincere reasons would be ghastly stupidity . To propose this program for narrowly self-serving political reasons is the sort of thing that would end a political career in a sane and self-respecting state , which Massachusetts plainly is not and has not been for some time .
When the owners of Apple wish to hold on to their own after-tax earnings , they are denounced as greedy . When Elizabeth Warren wants to seize those earnings for her own use , what is that ? It is covetousness , which is what you get when you have greed compounded with envy .
To those on the left who look at Senator Warren ’ s proposal and think that giving the government a stronger whip hand over American businesses is just the ticket , I would like to present four questions : Who is the president of these United States ? Who is the majority leader in the Senate ? Who is the speaker of the House ? How would you evaluate the composition of the Supreme Court , either as it stands or after President Donald Trump has the opportunity to nominate another justice or two ? The power you give the federal government will be there during Republican administrations , too . Any future populist demagogue who finds his way into the White House will have access to the same power . No one should be trusted with that kind of power .
And nobody who seeks that kind of power should be trusted with any power at all .
It is worth keeping in mind that the fabulous goose was slaughtered not in spite of the golden eggs but because of them . Politicians are covetous . When the owners of Apple wish to hold on to their own after-tax earnings , they are denounced as greedy . ( Apple ’ s shareholders are corporately the largest taxpayer in the world . ) When Elizabeth Warren wants to seize those earnings for her own use , what is that ? It is covetousness , which is what you get when you have greed compounded with envy . Senator Warren , a former Sunday-school teacher , apparently has a keen appreciation for the vices that lurk in the human heart , and she intends to leverage them to her benefit .
Another thing about these kinds of proposals : They are , at heart , acts of cowardice . There are politicians who wish to provide benefits to certain constituents and who would like those benefits to be paid for by other parties who are politically disfavored . There is an easy way to do that : Tax x to subsidize y . The problem with doing that is embarrassment . Politicians such as Senator Warren lack the courage to go to the American electorate and say : “ We wish to provide these benefits , and they will cost an extra $ 3 trillion a year , which we will pay for by doubling taxes. ” Why spend the money to subsidize , say , health insurance , when you can just pass rules that make businesses do the subsidizing for you ? It ’ s a way to spend money without putting the expenditures on a budget line . It treats the productive capacity of the United States as a herd of dairy cows to be milked by Senator Warren et al . at their convenience . And , of course , Senator Warren and her colleagues get to decide how the milk gets distributed , too .
It is a fairly easy thing for an established American business to move its corporate domicile to some other country , as with all those corporate inversions in the pharmaceutical industry that gave the Obama administration the willies a few years ago . It is also a fairly easy thing for a new business being founded by Americans to incorporate in some other country from the beginning . There is no insurmountable reason for , say , Microsoft or Altria ( formerly Philip Morris ) to be domiciled in the United States . Silicon Valley ’ s competitive edge comes from people , and people are mobile .
Nearly half of the total sales of the S & P 500 businesses come from overseas customers . Many big U.S. manufacturers such as Caterpillar get more than half of their sales from abroad . Exxon , the target of a political jihad being conducted by Senator Warren ’ s party , gets more than half of its revenue from overseas sales . You can serve the growing Asian markets as easily from Singapore as from California or Virginia . Watching American cities scurry around to prostrate themselves before Jeff Bezos ( pbuh ) in the hopes of attracting the new Amazon campus has been amusing . Imagine Apple or Google doing that in a global search for a new home . Fanciful ? Yes .
Recep Tayyip Erdogan , Hugo Chávez , Huey Long : The rogues ’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long , and it is sickening .
Businesses historically have chosen to locate in the United States for a number of reasons : It was long the world ’ s largest market , and businesses had faith in American law and the American dollar . It ’ s still a big market , and the dollar is still the world ’ s favorite currency . But if American law or American lawmakers are going to treat profit-seeking enterprises as an Enemy of the People — Zurich is pretty nice . Lots of places are . There are a lot of big American businesses with targets painted on their backs , and those that do not already have a Plan B are doing their shareholders a disservice .
Recep Tayyip Erdogan , Hugo Chávez , Huey Long : The rogues ’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long , and it is sickening . Senator Warren now nominates herself to that list , at least in her aspiration . It is not an honorable aspiration .
|
Sen. Elizabeth Warren with Sen. Bernie Sanders at a Capitol Hill press conference introducing Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan, September 13, 2017. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Wholesale seizure and control of private property? With 2020 in her sights, Warren woos the hard Left.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has one-upped socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: She proposes to nationalize every major business in the United States of America. If successful, it would constitute the largest seizure of private property in human history.
Warren’s proposal is dishonestly called the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” Accountable to whom? you might ask. That’s a reasonable question. The answer is — as it always is — accountable to politicians, who desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends. It is remarkable that people who are most keenly attuned to the self-interest of CEOs and shareholders and the ways in which that self-interest influences their decisions apparently believe that members of the House, senators, presidents, regulators, Cabinet secretaries, and agency chiefs somehow are liberated from self-interest when they take office through some kind of miracle of transcendence.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Under Senator Warren’s proposal, no business with more than $1 billion in revenue would be permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government. The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards, the details of internal corporate governance, compensation practices, personnel policies, and much more. Naturally, their political activities would be restricted, too. Senator Warren’s proposal entails the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States, and nothing less. It is unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, irresponsible, and — not to put too fine a point on it — utterly bonkers.
It is also cynical. Senator Warren is many things: a crass opportunist, intellectually bankrupt, personally vapid, a peddler of witless self-help books, etc. But she is not stupid. She knows that this is a go-nowhere proposition, that she will be spared by the Republican legislative majority from the ignominy that would ensue from the wholehearted pursuit of this daft program. It is in reality only a means of staking out for purely strategic reasons the most radical corner for her 2020 run at the Democratic presidential nomination. The Democratic party in 2018, like the Republican primary electorate in 2016, is out for blood and desirous of confrontation. So Senator Warren is running this red flag up the flagpole to see who salutes.
Advertisement
To propose such a thing for sincere reasons would be ghastly stupidity. To propose this program for narrowly self-serving political reasons is the sort of thing that would end a political career in a sane and self-respecting state, which Massachusetts plainly is not and has not been for some time.
When the owners of Apple wish to hold on to their own after-tax earnings, they are denounced as greedy. When Elizabeth Warren wants to seize those earnings for her own use, what is that? It is covetousness, which is what you get when you have greed compounded with envy.
To those on the left who look at Senator Warren’s proposal and think that giving the government a stronger whip hand over American businesses is just the ticket, I would like to present four questions: Who is the president of these United States? Who is the majority leader in the Senate? Who is the speaker of the House? How would you evaluate the composition of the Supreme Court, either as it stands or after President Donald Trump has the opportunity to nominate another justice or two? The power you give the federal government will be there during Republican administrations, too. Any future populist demagogue who finds his way into the White House will have access to the same power. No one should be trusted with that kind of power.
Advertisement
And nobody who seeks that kind of power should be trusted with any power at all.
Advertisement
Advertisement
It is worth keeping in mind that the fabulous goose was slaughtered not in spite of the golden eggs but because of them. Politicians are covetous. When the owners of Apple wish to hold on to their own after-tax earnings, they are denounced as greedy. (Apple’s shareholders are corporately the largest taxpayer in the world.) When Elizabeth Warren wants to seize those earnings for her own use, what is that? It is covetousness, which is what you get when you have greed compounded with envy. Senator Warren, a former Sunday-school teacher, apparently has a keen appreciation for the vices that lurk in the human heart, and she intends to leverage them to her benefit.
Another thing about these kinds of proposals: They are, at heart, acts of cowardice. There are politicians who wish to provide benefits to certain constituents and who would like those benefits to be paid for by other parties who are politically disfavored. There is an easy way to do that: Tax x to subsidize y. The problem with doing that is embarrassment. Politicians such as Senator Warren lack the courage to go to the American electorate and say: “We wish to provide these benefits, and they will cost an extra $3 trillion a year, which we will pay for by doubling taxes.” Why spend the money to subsidize, say, health insurance, when you can just pass rules that make businesses do the subsidizing for you? It’s a way to spend money without putting the expenditures on a budget line. It treats the productive capacity of the United States as a herd of dairy cows to be milked by Senator Warren et al. at their convenience. And, of course, Senator Warren and her colleagues get to decide how the milk gets distributed, too.
Advertisement
One wonders why American businesses put up with it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
They do not have to. Not really.
It is a fairly easy thing for an established American business to move its corporate domicile to some other country, as with all those corporate inversions in the pharmaceutical industry that gave the Obama administration the willies a few years ago. It is also a fairly easy thing for a new business being founded by Americans to incorporate in some other country from the beginning. There is no insurmountable reason for, say, Microsoft or Altria (formerly Philip Morris) to be domiciled in the United States. Silicon Valley’s competitive edge comes from people, and people are mobile.
Nearly half of the total sales of the S&P 500 businesses come from overseas customers. Many big U.S. manufacturers such as Caterpillar get more than half of their sales from abroad. Exxon, the target of a political jihad being conducted by Senator Warren’s party, gets more than half of its revenue from overseas sales. You can serve the growing Asian markets as easily from Singapore as from California or Virginia. Watching American cities scurry around to prostrate themselves before Jeff Bezos (pbuh) in the hopes of attracting the new Amazon campus has been amusing. Imagine Apple or Google doing that in a global search for a new home. Fanciful? Yes.
Fanciful today.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Hugo Chávez, Huey Long: The rogues’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long, and it is sickening.
Businesses historically have chosen to locate in the United States for a number of reasons: It was long the world’s largest market, and businesses had faith in American law and the American dollar. It’s still a big market, and the dollar is still the world’s favorite currency. But if American law or American lawmakers are going to treat profit-seeking enterprises as an Enemy of the People — Zurich is pretty nice . Lots of places are. There are a lot of big American businesses with targets painted on their backs, and those that do not already have a Plan B are doing their shareholders a disservice.
Advertisement
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Hugo Chávez, Huey Long: The rogues’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long, and it is sickening. Senator Warren now nominates herself to that list, at least in her aspiration. It is not an honorable aspiration.
IN THE NEWS: ‘Democrats Like Socialism More than Capitalism’
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
vi9BDifcV0OaTN7J
|
nsa
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/16/politics/nsa-privacy-claims/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
Analysis: NSA revelations undermine government's assurances of privacy
|
2013-08-16
|
Z. Byron Wolf
|
Story highlights New report raises more concerns over NSA surveillance programs
Obama : Americans would be comfortable with programs if they knew all about them
Obama says programs not being abused ; later report says NSA often breaks privacy rules
First the Obama administration and the intelligence community said there was no program gathering Americans ' data . Then they said the government was only gathering focused bits of data and only on foreign targets .
Then they admitted intelligence operatives were gathering large amounts of data but not accessing it unless a court first gave the OK .
Now it appears there are thousands of times each year when the data of Americans not suspected of having anything to do with terrorism are gathered .
`` Can you understand , though , why some people might not trust what you 're saying right now about wanting ... , `` a reporter asked President Barack Obama last week at a White House news conference .
Americans would be comfortable with the programs , he argued , if they knew everything about them .
JUST WATCHED Obama : Snowden was no patriot Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama : Snowden was no patriot 01:47
JUST WATCHED Obama : We need new thinking for new era Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama : We need new thinking for new era 04:13
JUST WATCHED Obama : Doing the dishes to regain trust Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama : Doing the dishes to regain trust 01:14
JUST WATCHED Who will review spy agencies ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Who will review spy agencies ? 02:43
`` I am comfortable that the program currently is not being abused , '' the president said . `` I 'm comfortable that if the American people examined exactly what was taking place , how it was being used , what the safeguards were , that they would say , 'You know what ? These folks are following the law and doing what they say they 're doing . ' ``
But the public has learned about the National Security Agency programs in such a way that every time a new revelation is served up , it undercuts what the president or the major players in the intelligence committee just said . Here are the most glaring examples :
The president tried to assuage concerns about the programs during his August 9 news conference . He said he had ordered a new review of the programs , even as he suggested Americans would be better off if NSA leaker Edward Snowden had never let the world know about them .
The important thing , he argued , is for Americans to be able to trust their government is n't abusing the information it is collecting .
`` What you 're not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and listening in on people 's phone calls or inappropriately reading people 's e-mails . What you 're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused , '' he said , adding that the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was guarding against those abuses .
Less than a week later , The Washington Post published a blockbuster report based on more documents provided by Snowden under the headline , `` NSA often breaks privacy rules . ''
The documents given by Snowden to the Post suggest thousands of accidental and some intentional infractions . The head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court took the unprecedented step of issuing a public statement that his barebones staff can only oversee what NSA provides to it . And the Senate Intelligence Committee , one of the main overseers of the NSA in Congress , was not made aware of the internal review by the NSA -- staffers learned of the review of privacy infractions when the Post contacted them , according to the newspaper .
The NSA argued in a response that the infractions represent only a small fraction of the calls and data it is sifting through and they are incidental to the overall mission of preventing terrorism .
Obama also noted at his news conference that a review of the programs was already under way and that Americans learning about the NSA 's gathering of their data should n't have come through leaks .
JUST WATCHED Filmmaker helped NSA leaker tell story Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Filmmaker helped NSA leaker tell story 03:13
JUST WATCHED Snowden 's father lashes out Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Snowden 's father lashes out 01:41
JUST WATCHED Clyburn : No 'blank check ' for the NSA Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clyburn : No 'blank check ' for the NSA 02:36
JUST WATCHED Crossfire 's Jones and Cupp on the NSA Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Crossfire 's Jones and Cupp on the NSA 06:12
JUST WATCHED King : Obama catering to Edward Snowden Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH King : Obama catering to Edward Snowden 05:35
During a combative June 16 interview with Charlie Rose , Obama dodged a question about how often the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denies NSA requests to subpoena and analyze the data that it collects . Rose asked if the program should be in some way transparent .
`` It is transparent , '' Obama said . `` That 's why we set up the FISA court . ''
According to Thursday 's Washington Post report , the court is not given all the information about every request for surveillance . And Obama has admitted that the programs needs review to assure Americans they are not violating civil liberties .
The most obvious misstatement came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he told Sen. Ron Wyden at a March congressional hearing that the government is n't gathering information on Americans . Wyden , who has been a critic of the programs behind closed doors , was trying to get Clapper on the record .
Wyden asked Clapper whether the NSA collected `` any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans ? ''
Clapper : `` Not wittingly . There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect but not wittingly . ''
The nation 's top spy later had to apologize in a letter to the Intelligence Committee . He admitted what he said was `` erroneous . '' He told NBC that what he said was the `` least untruthful '' answer .
4 . Alexander : NSA does n't have capability to 'flip the switch '
In testimony to a House committee on June 18 , Gen. Keith Alexander , the head of the NSA , had the following exchange with Rep. Mike Rogers , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a supporter of the data mining programs :
Rep. Mike Rogers : `` Does the NSA have the ability to listen to Americans ' phone calls or read their e-mails under these two programs ? ''
Gen. Keith Alexander : `` No , we do not have that authority , ''
Rogers : `` Does the technology exist at the NSA to flip a switch by some analyst to listen to Americans ' phone calls or read their e-mails ? ''
Rogers : `` So the technology does not exist for any individual or group of individuals at the NSA to flip a switch to listen to Americans ' phone calls or read their e-mails ? '' he repeated .
It has since become clear through subsequent leaks that the government does have temporary access to large amounts of the phone calls and e-mails sent in the United States . But the distinction that allowed Alexander to answer `` no '' is that analysts are supposed to obtain the OK from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before doing so . That 's perhaps why he said they lacked the `` authority . ''
Subsequent leaks in July about a program called XKeyscore printed in the UK 's Guardian newspaper and in The New York Times suggested that the NSA collects nearly every phone call and e-mail . The idea is that the intelligence community is collecting the entire `` haystack '' of information that it can sift through later when it has some idea what needle it needs to find . Even if the analysts need court approval , the newer disclosures suggest the NSA has access to the content of communications , at least for a time .
Alexander also argued several times before Congress that information `` gathered from these programs provided government with critical leads to prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world . ''
But details of these plots have not been shared publicly .
Lawmakers who have been briefed on the plots have expressed skepticism . At a July 31 hearing , Sen. Patrick Leahy said by his estimation the NSA 's data showed the data collection had not foiled `` dozens or even several terrorist plots . ''
|
Story highlights New report raises more concerns over NSA surveillance programs
Obama: Americans would be comfortable with programs if they knew all about them
Obama says programs not being abused; later report says NSA often breaks privacy rules
Court overseeing programs reportedly doesn't see all documents
First the Obama administration and the intelligence community said there was no program gathering Americans' data. Then they said the government was only gathering focused bits of data and only on foreign targets.
Then they admitted intelligence operatives were gathering large amounts of data but not accessing it unless a court first gave the OK.
Now it appears there are thousands of times each year when the data of Americans not suspected of having anything to do with terrorism are gathered.
"Can you understand, though, why some people might not trust what you're saying right now about wanting ..., " a reporter asked President Barack Obama last week at a White House news conference.
"No, I can't," Obama said.
Americans would be comfortable with the programs, he argued, if they knew everything about them.
JUST WATCHED Obama: Snowden was no patriot Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: Snowden was no patriot 01:47
JUST WATCHED Obama: We need new thinking for new era Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: We need new thinking for new era 04:13
JUST WATCHED Obama: Doing the dishes to regain trust Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: Doing the dishes to regain trust 01:14
JUST WATCHED Who will review spy agencies? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Who will review spy agencies? 02:43
"I am comfortable that the program currently is not being abused," the president said. "I'm comfortable that if the American people examined exactly what was taking place, how it was being used, what the safeguards were, that they would say, 'You know what? These folks are following the law and doing what they say they're doing.' "
But the public has learned about the National Security Agency programs in such a way that every time a new revelation is served up, it undercuts what the president or the major players in the intelligence committee just said. Here are the most glaring examples:
1. Obama: Programs not being abused
The president tried to assuage concerns about the programs during his August 9 news conference. He said he had ordered a new review of the programs, even as he suggested Americans would be better off if NSA leaker Edward Snowden had never let the world know about them.
The important thing, he argued, is for Americans to be able to trust their government isn't abusing the information it is collecting.
"What you're not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and listening in on people's phone calls or inappropriately reading people's e-mails. What you're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused," he said, adding that the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was guarding against those abuses.
Less than a week later, The Washington Post published a blockbuster report based on more documents provided by Snowden under the headline, "NSA often breaks privacy rules."
The documents given by Snowden to the Post suggest thousands of accidental and some intentional infractions. The head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court took the unprecedented step of issuing a public statement that his barebones staff can only oversee what NSA provides to it. And the Senate Intelligence Committee, one of the main overseers of the NSA in Congress, was not made aware of the internal review by the NSA -- staffers learned of the review of privacy infractions when the Post contacted them, according to the newspaper.
The NSA argued in a response that the infractions represent only a small fraction of the calls and data it is sifting through and they are incidental to the overall mission of preventing terrorism.
Obama also noted at his news conference that a review of the programs was already under way and that Americans learning about the NSA's gathering of their data shouldn't have come through leaks.
JUST WATCHED Filmmaker helped NSA leaker tell story Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Filmmaker helped NSA leaker tell story 03:13
JUST WATCHED Snowden's father lashes out Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Snowden's father lashes out 01:41
JUST WATCHED Clyburn: No 'blank check' for the NSA Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clyburn: No 'blank check' for the NSA 02:36
JUST WATCHED Crossfire's Jones and Cupp on the NSA Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Crossfire's Jones and Cupp on the NSA 06:12
JUST WATCHED King: Obama catering to Edward Snowden Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH King: Obama catering to Edward Snowden 05:35
2. Obama: The programs are transparent
During a combative June 16 interview with Charlie Rose, Obama dodged a question about how often the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denies NSA requests to subpoena and analyze the data that it collects. Rose asked if the program should be in some way transparent.
"It is transparent," Obama said. "That's why we set up the FISA court."
According to Thursday's Washington Post report, the court is not given all the information about every request for surveillance. And Obama has admitted that the programs needs review to assure Americans they are not violating civil liberties.
3. Clapper: U.S. not gathering Americans' info
The most obvious misstatement came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he told Sen. Ron Wyden at a March congressional hearing that the government isn't gathering information on Americans. Wyden, who has been a critic of the programs behind closed doors, was trying to get Clapper on the record.
Wyden asked Clapper whether the NSA collected "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper answered, "No, sir."
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect but not wittingly."
The nation's top spy later had to apologize in a letter to the Intelligence Committee. He admitted what he said was "erroneous." He told NBC that what he said was the "least untruthful" answer.
4. Alexander: NSA doesn't have capability to 'flip the switch'
In testimony to a House committee on June 18, Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA, had the following exchange with Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a supporter of the data mining programs:
Rep. Mike Rogers: "Does the NSA have the ability to listen to Americans' phone calls or read their e-mails under these two programs?"
Gen. Keith Alexander: "No, we do not have that authority,"
Rogers: "Does the technology exist at the NSA to flip a switch by some analyst to listen to Americans' phone calls or read their e-mails?"
Alexander: "No."
Rogers: "So the technology does not exist for any individual or group of individuals at the NSA to flip a switch to listen to Americans' phone calls or read their e-mails?" he repeated.
Alexander: "That is correct."
It has since become clear through subsequent leaks that the government does have temporary access to large amounts of the phone calls and e-mails sent in the United States. But the distinction that allowed Alexander to answer "no" is that analysts are supposed to obtain the OK from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before doing so. That's perhaps why he said they lacked the "authority."
Subsequent leaks in July about a program called XKeyscore printed in the UK's Guardian newspaper and in The New York Times suggested that the NSA collects nearly every phone call and e-mail. The idea is that the intelligence community is collecting the entire "haystack" of information that it can sift through later when it has some idea what needle it needs to find. Even if the analysts need court approval, the newer disclosures suggest the NSA has access to the content of communications, at least for a time.
5. Alexander: 50 plots thwarted
Alexander also argued several times before Congress that information "gathered from these programs provided government with critical leads to prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world."
But details of these plots have not been shared publicly.
Lawmakers who have been briefed on the plots have expressed skepticism. At a July 31 hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy said by his estimation the NSA's data showed the data collection had not foiled "dozens or even several terrorist plots."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
EWNkoFB194sgbwEk
|
terrorism
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/19/put_alan_grayson_on_benghazi_panel_why_hes_dems_best_option_to_expose_this_clown_show/
|
Put Alan Grayson on Benghazi panel - he's Dems' best option to expose this clown show
|
2014-05-19
|
With the latest Benghazi ! ™ extravaganza about to begin , the Democrats are faced with a dilemma . Should they boycott the silly hearings , thus leaving the Republicans to put on their pageant unimpeded , or should they join in with a full panel and add legitimacy to the process ? The problem seems to be that whether they like it or not , these hearings are going to be covered . And if the press reaction so far tells us anything , they are looking for a show .
This is why they should follow the advice of Ari Rabin-Havt in the American Prospect who says that a boycott would be a `` colossal error . '' He points out the unfortunate reality :
Even with limited power , ceding the committee room to Republicans—not to mention the televised hearings—will only allow them to parade their Benghazi myths unimpeded by relevant facts framed in questions from the minority
Yes , one might expect that the media would be able to straighten out all the factual misrepresentations and downright lies , but considering the fact that even Lara Logan and the venerable `` 60 Minutes '' imploding with a full-fledged hoax did little to put the story to bed , it 's highly unlikely that allowing the GOP to harangue and harass Hillary Clinton will put an end to this phony scandal .
In fact , it 's long past time the Democrats understood that they are not as successful as they think they are at letting the Republicans hang themselves . They seem to believe that because all their friends and wealthy donors think the GOP clown show is appalling that it always reads that way in the rest of the country . `` Smell-test '' scandal-mongering , where people begin to think there must be something to it or they could n't get away with spending all this time and money pursuing it , takes its toll .
Nobody in American politics has dealt with this phenomenon more than the Clintons . And the one thing they were known for back in the day , always , was to never let charges go unanswered . They understood very well that expecting the press and the people to see through such inanity and recognize it for the rank partisan hack job it is is a fool 's game .
Still , it does n't make a whole lot of sense to try to deal with a three-ring circus by convening an academic seminar . In order to perform their role properly , they need to engage the issue at hand with intelligence and a grasp of the facts but also an ability to guide the questioning in a way that illuminates the absurdity of the hearings as a whole . And yes , they need to provide easy sound bites for the media so they have something to run with .
Luckily , as Rabin-Havt points out , they have the perfect person right there in the Congress to do it : the original `` congressman with guts , '' Alan Grayson of Florida .
Perhaps people do n't realize that Alan Grayson is n't just another lawyer/congressman . He 's an experienced litigator who fought whistle-blower fraud cases aimed at military contractors . The Wall Street Journal characterized him in 2006 as `` waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq . '' And he was very successful at it . As a politician Grayson is usually seen as a pugnacious fighter always at the ready with a pithy put-down on cable news shows . His floor speeches are often fiery indictments of his political opponents and the power elite .
But that 's not why the Democrats should tap him for the job . As notable as all those characteristics are , they are not where Grayson 's true talent lies . He is a master at the task of committee questioning . During his first term as a member of the Financial Services Committee he practically had bankers whimpering on the hot seat and he took on everyone from Ben Bernanke to Timothy Geithner , eliciting important information . Unlike the vaunted prosecutor the GOP has tapped to lead the inquiry , Trey Gowdy ( who specializes in browbeating and histrionic questioning ) , Grayson is never rude and he is n't dismissive or insulting . He is serious , composed and extremely well prepared . And when he has the floor he is completely in control .
And yes , choosing him would please the Democratic base and infuriate the Republicans . That should be a feature , not a bug . The Republicans want a show . Grayson will definitely give them one -- but it wo n't be the kind of show they 're looking for . He 'll elicit the kinds of responses from the Democratic witnesses that are needed to make their case and he 'll skewer the conservative scandal-mongers with the facts .
Rabin-Havt had originally suggested that Grayson simply be on the committee as a member , but he and other progressives , including Credo Mobile , are now suggesting that he should be the lone Democrat assigned . It would be an uncharacteristically bold and brilliant move for the House Democrats to do it .
Grayson says he 's game if they are . Will they have the guts that he has ?
|
With the latest Benghazi! ™ extravaganza about to begin, the Democrats are faced with a dilemma. Should they boycott the silly hearings, thus leaving the Republicans to put on their pageant unimpeded, or should they join in with a full panel and add legitimacy to the process? The problem seems to be that whether they like it or not, these hearings are going to be covered. And if the press reaction so far tells us anything, they are looking for a show.
This is why they should follow the advice of Ari Rabin-Havt in the American Prospect who says that a boycott would be a "colossal error." He points out the unfortunate reality:
Advertisement:
Even with limited power, ceding the committee room to Republicans—not to mention the televised hearings—will only allow them to parade their Benghazi myths unimpeded by relevant facts framed in questions from the minority
Yes, one might expect that the media would be able to straighten out all the factual misrepresentations and downright lies, but considering the fact that even Lara Logan and the venerable "60 Minutes" imploding with a full-fledged hoax did little to put the story to bed, it's highly unlikely that allowing the GOP to harangue and harass Hillary Clinton will put an end to this phony scandal.
In fact, it's long past time the Democrats understood that they are not as successful as they think they are at letting the Republicans hang themselves. They seem to believe that because all their friends and wealthy donors think the GOP clown show is appalling that it always reads that way in the rest of the country. "Smell-test" scandal-mongering, where people begin to think there must be something to it or they couldn't get away with spending all this time and money pursuing it, takes its toll.
Nobody in American politics has dealt with this phenomenon more than the Clintons. And the one thing they were known for back in the day, always, was to never let charges go unanswered. They understood very well that expecting the press and the people to see through such inanity and recognize it for the rank partisan hack job it is is a fool's game.
Still, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try to deal with a three-ring circus by convening an academic seminar. In order to perform their role properly, they need to engage the issue at hand with intelligence and a grasp of the facts but also an ability to guide the questioning in a way that illuminates the absurdity of the hearings as a whole. And yes, they need to provide easy sound bites for the media so they have something to run with.
Luckily, as Rabin-Havt points out, they have the perfect person right there in the Congress to do it: the original "congressman with guts," Alan Grayson of Florida.
Perhaps people don't realize that Alan Grayson isn't just another lawyer/congressman. He's an experienced litigator who fought whistle-blower fraud cases aimed at military contractors. The Wall Street Journal characterized him in 2006 as "waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq." And he was very successful at it. As a politician Grayson is usually seen as a pugnacious fighter always at the ready with a pithy put-down on cable news shows. His floor speeches are often fiery indictments of his political opponents and the power elite.
Advertisement:
But that's not why the Democrats should tap him for the job. As notable as all those characteristics are, they are not where Grayson's true talent lies. He is a master at the task of committee questioning. During his first term as a member of the Financial Services Committee he practically had bankers whimpering on the hot seat and he took on everyone from Ben Bernanke to Timothy Geithner, eliciting important information. Unlike the vaunted prosecutor the GOP has tapped to lead the inquiry, Trey Gowdy (who specializes in browbeating and histrionic questioning), Grayson is never rude and he isn't dismissive or insulting. He is serious, composed and extremely well prepared. And when he has the floor he is completely in control.
And yes, choosing him would please the Democratic base and infuriate the Republicans. That should be a feature, not a bug. The Republicans want a show. Grayson will definitely give them one -- but it won't be the kind of show they're looking for. He'll elicit the kinds of responses from the Democratic witnesses that are needed to make their case and he'll skewer the conservative scandal-mongers with the facts.
Rabin-Havt had originally suggested that Grayson simply be on the committee as a member, but he and other progressives, including Credo Mobile, are now suggesting that he should be the lone Democrat assigned. It would be an uncharacteristically bold and brilliant move for the House Democrats to do it.
Grayson says he's game if they are. Will they have the guts that he has?
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
faFEa6vcAHI4gL02
|
|
coronavirus
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52615311
|
Coronavirus: South Dakota Sioux refuse to take down 'illegal' checkpoints
|
Sioux tribes in the US state of South Dakota are refusing to remove coronavirus checkpoints they set up on roads which pass through their land .
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem wrote to several tribal leaders last week saying the checkpoints were illegal .
But the Sioux say they are the only way of making sure the virus does not enter their reservations .
Their limited healthcare facilities would not be able to cope with an outbreak , they say .
At present , people are only allowed to enter the reservations for essential business if they have not travelled from a Covid-19 hotspot .
They must also complete a health questionnaire before doing so .
Ms Noem is threatening to take the two tribes - the Oglala Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux tribes - to federal court if they do not comply .
In a letter sent to their representatives on Friday , she demanded the checkpoints be removed .
`` The checkpoints on state and US highways are not legal , and if they do n't come down , the state will take the matter to federal court , as Governor Noem noted in her Friday letter , '' her senior adviser and policy director , Maggie Seidel , said in an email sent to the local Argus Leader newspaper on Sunday .
Tribes are meant to get permission from state authorities if they want to close or restrict travel inside their reservations .
The chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe , Harold Frazier , issued a statement in response to the governor on Friday , saying : `` We will not apologise for being an island of safety in a sea of uncertainty and death . ''
`` You continuing to interfere in our efforts to do what science and facts dictate seriously undermine our ability to protect everyone on the reservation , '' he added .
Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner says Ms Noem 's decision `` threatened the sovereign interest of the Oglala people '' .
`` Due to the lack of judgment in planning of preventative measures in response to the current pandemic , Covid-19 , the Oglala Sioux Tribe has adopted reasonable and necessary measures to protect the health and safety of our tribal members and our other residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation , '' he is quoted as saying by the Argus Leader .
Mr Frazier says the main purpose of the checkpoints is to monitor and try to track the virus . `` We want to ensure that people coming from 'hotspots ' or highly infected areas , we ask them to go around our land , '' he told CNN .
`` With the lack of resources we have medically , this is our best tool we have right now to try to prevent [ the spread of Covid-19 ] , '' he added .
He says the reservations are ill-equipped to deal with a coronavirus outbreak , with the nearest critical care facilities three hours away .
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe only operates an eight-bed facility on the reservation and no intensive care unit for the 12,000 people that live on the reservation , he adds .
South Dakota is one of a handful of US states which have not issued stay-at-home order to their residents .
There were 198 cases of Covid-19 among Native Americans in the state as of Sunday , according to state health department figures quoted by CNN . The state has more than 3,500 confirmed cases and at least 34 deaths , according to Johns Hopkins University .
The US has the highest number of virus deaths and cases in the world - but it also has one of the biggest populations , and widespread testing .
|
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Tribal leader Harold Frazier says the tribes would not "apologise for being an island of safety in a sea of uncertainty and death"
Sioux tribes in the US state of South Dakota are refusing to remove coronavirus checkpoints they set up on roads which pass through their land.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem wrote to several tribal leaders last week saying the checkpoints were illegal.
But the Sioux say they are the only way of making sure the virus does not enter their reservations.
Their limited healthcare facilities would not be able to cope with an outbreak, they say.
At present, people are only allowed to enter the reservations for essential business if they have not travelled from a Covid-19 hotspot.
They must also complete a health questionnaire before doing so.
Ms Noem is threatening to take the two tribes - the Oglala Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux tribes - to federal court if they do not comply.
In a letter sent to their representatives on Friday, she demanded the checkpoints be removed.
"The checkpoints on state and US highways are not legal, and if they don't come down, the state will take the matter to federal court, as Governor Noem noted in her Friday letter," her senior adviser and policy director, Maggie Seidel, said in an email sent to the local Argus Leader newspaper on Sunday.
Tribes are meant to get permission from state authorities if they want to close or restrict travel inside their reservations.
You may also be interested in:
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'We used to donate to this food bank, now we rely on it'
The chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, Harold Frazier, issued a statement in response to the governor on Friday, saying: "We will not apologise for being an island of safety in a sea of uncertainty and death."
"You continuing to interfere in our efforts to do what science and facts dictate seriously undermine our ability to protect everyone on the reservation," he added.
Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner says Ms Noem's decision "threatened the sovereign interest of the Oglala people".
"Due to the lack of judgment in planning of preventative measures in response to the current pandemic, Covid-19, the Oglala Sioux Tribe has adopted reasonable and necessary measures to protect the health and safety of our tribal members and our other residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation," he is quoted as saying by the Argus Leader.
Mr Frazier says the main purpose of the checkpoints is to monitor and try to track the virus. "We want to ensure that people coming from 'hotspots' or highly infected areas, we ask them to go around our land," he told CNN.
"With the lack of resources we have medically, this is our best tool we have right now to try to prevent [the spread of Covid-19]," he added.
He says the reservations are ill-equipped to deal with a coronavirus outbreak, with the nearest critical care facilities three hours away.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe only operates an eight-bed facility on the reservation and no intensive care unit for the 12,000 people that live on the reservation, he adds.
No stay-at-home order
South Dakota is one of a handful of US states which have not issued stay-at-home order to their residents.
There were 198 cases of Covid-19 among Native Americans in the state as of Sunday, according to state health department figures quoted by CNN. The state has more than 3,500 confirmed cases and at least 34 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University.
The US has the highest number of virus deaths and cases in the world - but it also has one of the biggest populations, and widespread testing.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
PAbbrxanqYEmYfUw
|
||
race_and_racism
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/for-the-aclu-george-zimmerman-case-is-awkward-deja-vu-94518.html?hp=t1
|
For the ACLU, George Zimmerman case is awkward déjà vu
|
2013-07-21
|
Josh Gerstein
|
Trayvon Martin 's death is highlighting one of the ACLU ’ s biggest challenges once more . Zimmerman case : ACLU 's déjà vu
The American Civil Liberties Union is experiencing some uncomfortable déjà vu .
George Zimmerman ’ s acquittal in the shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin has triggered the specter of an awkward and often raucous debate the group thought it had put behind itself two decades ago .
After the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the videotaped beating of African-American Rodney King , ACLU leaders split sharply over the possibility of a federal trial for the officers . The group eventually suspended its policy opposing double jeopardy — only to reverse itself the following year .
A New York Times editorial back then called the ACLU “ torn by internal disagreement. ” A Boston Globe column described the organization as “ twisting itself up in knots . ”
The heated debate highlighted one of the ACLU ’ s challenges : It is perhaps the nation ’ s foremost advocate for civil liberties — but it also has a long history advocating for civil rights .
More than 20 years later , President Barack Obama ’ s comments reacting to the Zimmerman verdict dwelled on race while calling for respect for the trial process and the jury verdict .
“ The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner , ” he said Friday . “ The juries [ sic ] were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant , and they rendered a verdict . And once the jury has spoken , that ’ s how our system works . ”
Meanwhile , the ACLU ’ s first public reaction drew notice in some quarters for leaning heavily toward racial justice — while staying silent on civil liberties and due process in the Florida case .
“ Last night ’ s verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity , ” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement on July 14 , the day after the Florida jury ’ s verdict . “ This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime . ”
The statement went on to call for additional federal guidance on the use of race in law enforcement and for a new federal law aimed at ending racial profiling .
But it was the specific reference to an “ imperative ” for DOJ to investigate under criminal statutes — an apparent endorsement of the calls of many civil rights activists and groups for a federal prosecution of Zimmerman — that threatened to reopen old wounds .
That call came even though the ACLU ’ s long-standing policy , restored in 1993 after the King debate , explicitly rejects such an option . “ There should be no exception to double jeopardy principles simply because the same offense may be prosecuted by two different sovereigns , ” the policy says .
Romero ’ s statement stirred concern among some civil libertarians that in a rush to join the chorus of outrage over the Zimmerman verdict , the group had turned its back on the policy it settled on two decades ago .
In an apparent attempt to stem the controversy , a top ACLU official wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday to make clear that the group does not favor a second prosecution of Zimmerman in federal court .
“ We are writing to clearly state the ACLU ’ s position on whether or not the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case , ” Laura Murphy , director of the ACLU ’ s Washington office , wrote .
“ The ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction . A jury found Zimmerman not guilty , and that should be the end of the criminal case , ” she wrote .
Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department ’ s Civil Rights Division is continuing to investigate Martin ’ s shooting — and the department has even set up an email address to gather information about the case . However , Obama suggested Friday that those upset about the verdict would be unwise to expect a federal prosecution .
“ I think it ’ s important for people to have some clear expectations here , ” Obama said . “ And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels , not at the federal levels . ”
Romero , who provided Murphy ’ s letter to ███ , said Thursday there was no intent to change or depart from the double jeopardy policy .
“ I think there are real serious concerns about going back on the double jeopardy policy . It is a slippery slope that if you allow the government to prosecute individuals for one crime and then fail and try again , it creates the wrong incentives for the criminal justice system , ” Romero said in an interview on the outskirts of the Aspen Security Forum .
Romero acknowledged that cases like that of Trayvon Martin sometimes prompt disagreements within the organization , and often put the group at odds with other civil rights groups .
“ Good civil libertarians will differ on this issue , like a lot of our issues that divide the membership or the leadership whether it ’ s campaign finance or whether it ’ s civil rights prosecutions after a failed trial , ” he said . “ The unique part of the ACLU is that we have to balance some of the concerns that we have that are long-standing , deep-seated values like racial justice against broader concerns about the administration of justice . ”
Romero ’ s critics see the statement as part of a pattern of incidents in which the ACLU has departed from or muddied its long-standing civil liberties positions , often in an effort to accommodate liberal interest groups like abortion rights and gay rights advocates .
“ It ’ s just astonishing to me that a statement like that could go out without any understanding that they were violating their own policy , ” said Ira Glasser , who served as executive director of the ACLU from 1978 to 2001 . He called the letter a symptom of “ the transformation of the ACLU from a civil liberties organization to a liberal bandwagon organization . ”
“ The ACLU ’ s almost unique mission is to stand against the tide of turning Zimmerman and the verdict into the opportunity to be a symbol of everything that ’ s wrong with race and our criminal justice system in our country . Not only didn ’ t they stand against the tide , they increased the tide , ” he added . “ I was very unhappy with it . ”
Glasser said he approved of Thursday ’ s letter , adding that it “ is what the ACLU should have said from the beginning. ” However , critics noted that the statement received widespread attention and remains on the group ’ s website .
Former ACLU board member Michael Meyers said he was also troubled by Romero ’ s initial statement .
“ The ACLU is out of line ; a civil liberties organization is concerned with the accused getting a fair trial , which includes the right of effective counsel , due process and protection against double jeopardy , ” said Meyers , who was voted off of the ACLU board in 2005 . “ No government , much less an angry community , is entitled to a verdict to their liking . ”
“ The ACLU is not the NAACP ; the ACLU is the guardian of individual liberty , not a victims ’ rights or racial grievance group . ”
Critics of the current ACLU leadership say the organization ’ s mishandling of the Martin case is not limited to one press statement issued on a Sunday morning . They also accuse the group of being too quick to portray the incident as racial profiling before all the facts were in .
While some posts on the group ’ s site carry titles like Justice for Trayvon , at least one statement from 2012 called for due process for Zimmerman . He “ has all the rights of every defendant charged with a crime , including a legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty , ” ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said .
While Meyers opposes a second prosecution of Zimmerman , the former board member acknowledged that in the King discussion two decades ago , he favored making an exception to the ACLU ’ s policy . Meyers said the two positions are consistent because violence by police raises greater concerns that could merit federal prosecution .
As in the nation generally , the King debate was racially polarizing within the ACLU — at least to an extent . At the board meeting when the group decided to stick with its long-standing anti-double jeopardy policy , all the African-American board members voting dissented .
“ All the blacks were united , ” recalled Meyers , who is black .
Glasser said he recalls “ very vigorously ” opposing the double jeopardy exception Meyers and others were backing . The former ACLU director said the debate was impassioned and well-known among the group ’ s leaders but not as bitter as some other internal ACLU showdowns .
“ Its was not one of the disputes that rended the organization ” like the ACLU ’ s backing of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie , Ill. , he said . “ It was a spirited , civil debate . ”
“ I know it was a vigorous debate . There were strong opinions on both sides , ” said Romero , who was not involved with the group at the time but recently reviewed minutes of the 1993 meeting .
The ACLU ’ s position on the double jeopardy issue is largely one of principle and public rhetoric . The Supreme Court has ruled consistently since 1907 that simultaneous or successive prosecutions by the state and federal authorities don ’ t violate the double jeopardy clause , but the group has long resisted that view . ( A petition is pending with the justices asking them to revisit the issue . )
” At the end of the day , our role in any of these debates — whether it ’ s the Rodney King trial or the Trayvon Martin case — is really commentary , ” Romero said .
However , the position has affected the group ’ s legislative advocacy . Prior to the passage of the federal hate crimes law in 2009 , the ACLU lobbied for a section that requires a federal prosecution following a state prosecution to be approved by a high level Justice Department official for one of several reasons laid out in the statute .
” During the debate on the hate crimes laws , we expressed our concern and we worked to get something in there about double jeopardy , ” Murphy said in an interview . “ I don ’ t think would have happened without the ACLU ’ s advocacy . ”
Romero rejected claims that the ACLU is unwilling to part company with liberal interest groups . He said the ACLU has had disagreements with women ’ s groups over photographing women visiting abortion clinics and with gay advocates over virulently anti-gay protesters .
“ We ’ ve often had different points of view with our Planned Parenthood colleagues . … We ’ ve had clashes with gay rights groups , ” he said . “ It ’ s part of what makes the ACLU such a distinct player in these fields . ”
|
Trayvon Martin's death is highlighting one of the ACLU’s biggest challenges once more. Zimmerman case: ACLU's déjà vu
The American Civil Liberties Union is experiencing some uncomfortable déjà vu.
George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin has triggered the specter of an awkward and often raucous debate the group thought it had put behind itself two decades ago.
Advertisement
After the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the videotaped beating of African-American Rodney King, ACLU leaders split sharply over the possibility of a federal trial for the officers. The group eventually suspended its policy opposing double jeopardy — only to reverse itself the following year.
( PHOTOS: George Zimmerman trial)
A New York Times editorial back then called the ACLU “torn by internal disagreement.” A Boston Globe column described the organization as “twisting itself up in knots.”
The heated debate highlighted one of the ACLU’s challenges: It is perhaps the nation’s foremost advocate for civil liberties — but it also has a long history advocating for civil rights.
More than 20 years later, President Barack Obama’s comments reacting to the Zimmerman verdict dwelled on race while calling for respect for the trial process and the jury verdict.
( WATCH: Obama's full remarks on Zimmerman verdict)
“The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner,” he said Friday. “The juries [sic] were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.”
Meanwhile, the ACLU’s first public reaction drew notice in some quarters for leaning heavily toward racial justice — while staying silent on civil liberties and due process in the Florida case.
“Last night’s verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement on July 14, the day after the Florida jury’s verdict. “This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime.”
( Also on POLITICO: Obama weighs in on race, reluctantly)
The statement went on to call for additional federal guidance on the use of race in law enforcement and for a new federal law aimed at ending racial profiling.
But it was the specific reference to an “imperative” for DOJ to investigate under criminal statutes — an apparent endorsement of the calls of many civil rights activists and groups for a federal prosecution of Zimmerman — that threatened to reopen old wounds.
That call came even though the ACLU’s long-standing policy, restored in 1993 after the King debate, explicitly rejects such an option. “There should be no exception to double jeopardy principles simply because the same offense may be prosecuted by two different sovereigns,” the policy says.
( PHOTOS: Trayvon Martin rallies)
Romero’s statement stirred concern among some civil libertarians that in a rush to join the chorus of outrage over the Zimmerman verdict, the group had turned its back on the policy it settled on two decades ago.
In an apparent attempt to stem the controversy, a top ACLU official wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday to make clear that the group does not favor a second prosecution of Zimmerman in federal court.
“We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case,” Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington office, wrote.
( WATCH: President Obama’s full remarks on Trayvon Martin)
“The ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case,” she wrote.
Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is continuing to investigate Martin’s shooting — and the department has even set up an email address to gather information about the case. However, Obama suggested Friday that those upset about the verdict would be unwise to expect a federal prosecution.
“I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here,” Obama said. “And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.”
Romero, who provided Murphy’s letter to POLITICO, said Thursday there was no intent to change or depart from the double jeopardy policy.
“I think there are real serious concerns about going back on the double jeopardy policy. It is a slippery slope that if you allow the government to prosecute individuals for one crime and then fail and try again, it creates the wrong incentives for the criminal justice system,” Romero said in an interview on the outskirts of the Aspen Security Forum.
Romero acknowledged that cases like that of Trayvon Martin sometimes prompt disagreements within the organization, and often put the group at odds with other civil rights groups.
“Good civil libertarians will differ on this issue, like a lot of our issues that divide the membership or the leadership whether it’s campaign finance or whether it’s civil rights prosecutions after a failed trial,” he said. “The unique part of the ACLU is that we have to balance some of the concerns that we have that are long-standing, deep-seated values like racial justice against broader concerns about the administration of justice.”
Follow @politico
Romero’s critics see the statement as part of a pattern of incidents in which the ACLU has departed from or muddied its long-standing civil liberties positions, often in an effort to accommodate liberal interest groups like abortion rights and gay rights advocates.
“It’s just astonishing to me that a statement like that could go out without any understanding that they were violating their own policy,” said Ira Glasser, who served as executive director of the ACLU from 1978 to 2001. He called the letter a symptom of “the transformation of the ACLU from a civil liberties organization to a liberal bandwagon organization.”
“The ACLU’s almost unique mission is to stand against the tide of turning Zimmerman and the verdict into the opportunity to be a symbol of everything that’s wrong with race and our criminal justice system in our country. Not only didn’t they stand against the tide, they increased the tide,” he added. “I was very unhappy with it.”
Glasser said he approved of Thursday’s letter, adding that it “is what the ACLU should have said from the beginning.” However, critics noted that the statement received widespread attention and remains on the group’s website.
Former ACLU board member Michael Meyers said he was also troubled by Romero’s initial statement.
“The ACLU is out of line; a civil liberties organization is concerned with the accused getting a fair trial, which includes the right of effective counsel, due process and protection against double jeopardy,” said Meyers, who was voted off of the ACLU board in 2005. “No government, much less an angry community, is entitled to a verdict to their liking.”
“The ACLU is not the NAACP; the ACLU is the guardian of individual liberty, not a victims’ rights or racial grievance group.”
Critics of the current ACLU leadership say the organization’s mishandling of the Martin case is not limited to one press statement issued on a Sunday morning. They also accuse the group of being too quick to portray the incident as racial profiling before all the facts were in.
While some posts on the group’s site carry titles like Justice for Trayvon, at least one statement from 2012 called for due process for Zimmerman. He “has all the rights of every defendant charged with a crime, including a legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said.
While Meyers opposes a second prosecution of Zimmerman, the former board member acknowledged that in the King discussion two decades ago, he favored making an exception to the ACLU’s policy. Meyers said the two positions are consistent because violence by police raises greater concerns that could merit federal prosecution.
As in the nation generally, the King debate was racially polarizing within the ACLU — at least to an extent. At the board meeting when the group decided to stick with its long-standing anti-double jeopardy policy, all the African-American board members voting dissented.
“All the blacks were united,” recalled Meyers, who is black.
Glasser said he recalls “very vigorously” opposing the double jeopardy exception Meyers and others were backing. The former ACLU director said the debate was impassioned and well-known among the group’s leaders but not as bitter as some other internal ACLU showdowns.
“Its was not one of the disputes that rended the organization” like the ACLU’s backing of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., he said. “It was a spirited, civil debate.”
“I know it was a vigorous debate. There were strong opinions on both sides,” said Romero, who was not involved with the group at the time but recently reviewed minutes of the 1993 meeting.
The ACLU’s position on the double jeopardy issue is largely one of principle and public rhetoric. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently since 1907 that simultaneous or successive prosecutions by the state and federal authorities don’t violate the double jeopardy clause, but the group has long resisted that view. (A petition is pending with the justices asking them to revisit the issue.)
”At the end of the day, our role in any of these debates — whether it’s the Rodney King trial or the Trayvon Martin case — is really commentary,” Romero said.
However, the position has affected the group’s legislative advocacy. Prior to the passage of the federal hate crimes law in 2009, the ACLU lobbied for a section that requires a federal prosecution following a state prosecution to be approved by a high level Justice Department official for one of several reasons laid out in the statute.
”During the debate on the hate crimes laws, we expressed our concern and we worked to get something in there about double jeopardy,” Murphy said in an interview. “I don’t think would have happened without the ACLU’s advocacy.”
Romero rejected claims that the ACLU is unwilling to part company with liberal interest groups. He said the ACLU has had disagreements with women’s groups over photographing women visiting abortion clinics and with gay advocates over virulently anti-gay protesters.
“We’ve often had different points of view with our Planned Parenthood colleagues. … We’ve had clashes with gay rights groups,” he said. “It’s part of what makes the ACLU such a distinct player in these fields.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
beweH7ceMa5ck1iq
|
religion_and_faith
|
Daily Kos
| 00
|
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/17/1690933/-Nation-discovers-evangelicals-have-no-moral-compass-as-business-leaders-pick-up-the-slack
|
Nation discovers evangelicals have no moral compass as business leaders pick up the slack
|
2017-08-17
|
Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Story Count, Comment Count, Popular Tags
|
As leaders sitting on two of Donald Trump 's business councils took stock of Trump 's repulsive defense of neo-Nazi and white supremacist violence , many concluded they just could n't stomach a continued alliance with Trump 's administration and decided to cut ties .
But what of religious leaders who also prize their access , like those sitting on Trump 's Evangelical Council ?
x Not a single member of Trump 's Evangelical Council has resigned . We have learned corporate America has a greater moral compass . So so sad . — Matthew Dowd ( @ matthewjdowd ) August 16 , 2017
The fact that institutional leaders of conservative religious groups have entirely ceded their moral authority to the business community on issues of basic decency and human rights is a lesson LGBTQ Americans have learned repeatedly over the last decade . It was on full display last year in North Carolina , for instance , where businesses like PayPal led the charge in opposing HB2 , a bill targeting transgender individuals for discrimination .
The same was true the year before when companies like Salesforce and Angie 's List took on then-Gov . Mike Pence after he signed an Indiana law protecting businesses that discriminate against LGBTQ customers . That story repeated itself again this year during the right-wing push in Texas to prohibit transgender folks from using public restrooms corresponding to their gender . The bill just died this week .
But as all of those measures made national headlines , leaders of the evangelical and Catholic faiths fell silent , just like they have been in directly challenging Trump 's disastrous handling of the violence that took one life and injured 19 others last weekend .
While the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops , Cardinal Daniel DiNardo , swiftly issued a statement last Saturday condemning the `` abhorrent acts of hatred '' in Charlottesville as `` an attack on the unity of our nation , '' he has said nothing following Trump 's defense of that very same violence .
|
As leaders sitting on two of Donald Trump's business councils took stock of Trump's repulsive defense of neo-Nazi and white supremacist violence, many concluded they just couldn't stomach a continued alliance with Trump's administration and decided to cut ties.
But what of religious leaders who also prize their access, like those sitting on Trump's Evangelical Council?
x Not a single member of Trump's Evangelical Council has resigned. We have learned corporate America has a greater moral compass. So so sad. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) August 16, 2017
The fact that institutional leaders of conservative religious groups have entirely ceded their moral authority to the business community on issues of basic decency and human rights is a lesson LGBTQ Americans have learned repeatedly over the last decade. It was on full display last year in North Carolina, for instance, where businesses like PayPal led the charge in opposing HB2, a bill targeting transgender individuals for discrimination.
The same was true the year before when companies like Salesforce and Angie's List took on then-Gov. Mike Pence after he signed an Indiana law protecting businesses that discriminate against LGBTQ customers. That story repeated itself again this year during the right-wing push in Texas to prohibit transgender folks from using public restrooms corresponding to their gender. The bill just died this week.
But as all of those measures made national headlines, leaders of the evangelical and Catholic faiths fell silent, just like they have been in directly challenging Trump's disastrous handling of the violence that took one life and injured 19 others last weekend.
While the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, swiftly issued a statement last Saturday condemning the "abhorrent acts of hatred" in Charlottesville as "an attack on the unity of our nation," he has said nothing following Trump's defense of that very same violence.
|
www.dailykos.com
| 0left
|
rS4Vtv6TPRRJOiS0
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-gun-restrictions-217354
|
Thwarted by Congress, Obama to unveil new gun measures
|
2016-01-05
|
Sarah Wheaton
|
President Barack Obama wept openly Tuesday as he delivered a forceful defense of new executive actions on gun violence , a set of modest proposals to tighten loopholes that likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a Republican White House .
The president ran through a list of mass shootings that have happened during his time in office , and teared up as he recalled the schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown , Connecticut in 2012 .
`` First graders in Newtown . First graders , '' Obama said , pausing to collect himself . `` Every time I think about those kids , it gets me mad . ''
Obama offered a new argument to counter gun rights enthusiasts , noting that mass shootings have taken place as Americans have tried to exercise other rights , such as attending worship services or watching a movie . The right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble , he said , and called upon Congress to be `` brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby 's lies . ''
“ Every single year , more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns . Thirty thousand . Suicides , domestic violence , gang shootouts , accidents . Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children , '' he said , flanked in the White House East Room by family members of victims .
In making his case , Obama brushed off criticism that he did not respect the Second Amendment , citing his past as a constitutional law professor .
`` No matter how many times people try to twist my words around , I taught constitutional law , I know a little bit about this . I get it , '' he said . `` But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment . ''
`` We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom , '' Obama said .
The president also argued that common-sense safety measures used on other equipment should apply to guns as well .
`` If we can set it up so you can ’ t unlock your phone unless you ’ ve got the right fingerprint , why can ’ t we do the same thing for our guns ? ” Obama said .
`` If there ’ s an app that can help us find a missing tablet — which happens to me often the older I get , ” Obama said to laughter , `` if we can do it for your iPad , there ’ s no reason we can ’ t do it with a stolen gun . If a child can ’ t open a bottle of aspirin , we should make sure that they can ’ t pull a trigger on a gun . ”
Despite the `` general consensus '' for what needs to be done , and support from many gun owners , Obama acknowledged gridlock .
`` I 'm not on the ballot again . I 'm not looking to score some points . I think we can disagree without impugning other people 's motives , '' he said . `` But we do have to feel a fierce sense of urgency about it . In Dr. King 's words , we need to feel the fierce urgency of now . Because people are dying and the constant excesses for inaction no longer do , no longer suffice . That 's why we 're here today , not to debate the last mass shooting but to prevent the next one . ''
As the details of Obama ’ s actions— and their limited nature — became clear , reactions of Republicans took on a tone that was more dismissive than alarm-raising . While some continued to attack Obama for going after law-abiding citizens ’ Second Amendment rights , others pooh-poohed his actions as theater .
“ Rather than focus on criminals and terrorists , ” House Speaker Paul Ryan said , “ he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens . His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty . ”
Despite such condemnation , there 's little chance this GOP-controlled Congress can block the president 's latest gun control moves . That 's because there are no must-pass bills looming that Republicans could use as vehicles to force Democrats to undo Obama 's actions . Furthermore , Senate Democrats would likely block any movement in the Senate on individual bills . And any stand-alone legislation that managed to pass the House and Senate would surely be vetoed by Obama .
Ryan said the GOP ’ s best chance to overturn the executive orders is to elect a Republican president in 2016 .
Gun rights advocates argue that new restrictions aren ’ t necessary because gun homicide rates have dropped even as gun ownership has soared . National Rifle Association used blistering language to cast the moves as a way to distract from other more pressing problems , echoing GOP lines of attack .
`` Once again , President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation ’ s pressing problems , ” said NRA Legislative Action Executive Director Chris W. Cox . “ Today ’ s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attacks . ”
Firearms industry officials , however , had a more nuanced response . The National Shooting Sports Federation , a top trade group , applauded some elements of Obama ’ s package , including the completion of a long-delayed measure to include more mental health information in the federal background check system . It also cheered plans to bulk up FBI staffing to conduct background checks .
In a statement , NSSF called the new requirement to make dealers report guns that were lost or stolen in transit “ misdirected , ” arguing that participation in a voluntary program is already robust and , if there is going to be a requirement , the onus should be on the buyer to do the reporting .
And the new guideline about dealers licenses , NSSF said , “ needs considerable clarification and raises questions about enforceability . ”
Some Republican presidential candidates saw no need to parse the provisions .
“ When you live by the pen , you die by the pen , ” declared Sen. Ted Cruz , a top Republican presidential candidate . “ And my pen 's got an eraser . ''
The White House makes no bones about this possibility . That ’ s all the more reason , White House spokesman Josh Earnest said after the president ’ s speech on Tuesday , that Congress should pass a more permanent measure .
The issue of gun violence has been a perpetual presence during Obama ’ s presidency due to a series of mass shootings that have grabbed national headlines , perhaps none more so than the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook .
“ Fort Hood , Binghamton , Aurora , Oak Creek , Newtown , the Navy Yard , Santa Barbara , Charleston , San Bernardino . Too many , ” Obama said , ticking through a list of mass shootings since the 2011 Tucson shooting that killed six and injured more than a dozen more , including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords ( D-Ariz. ) , who was in attendance in the East Room .
Despite professing an unflinching commitment to curbing gun violence , Obama and Biden have been thwarted by Congress and what Obama calls a lack of national will to change the way Americans think about guns .
Obama has issued more than 20 executive actions , including incentives for states to share background check information and directing the attorney general to review those types of individuals prohibited from having guns . But gun sales have soared , with 2015 expected to have been a record year , as Americans buy up weapons in advance of new restrictions .
Likewise , the actions rolled out on Tuesday are not expected to have a huge impact .
The measures include a more detailed definition of which gun sellers must apply for a federal dealers license — and therefore conduct background checks for all sales , in a bid to close the so-called gun show loophole . The administration is also finalizing a few other rules that were stuck in a bureaucratic backlog , including new requirements for reporting guns lost or stolen in transit , and a measure that would allow more mental health records to be submitted to the federal background check registry by removing patient privacy limits .
The FBI is also adding 230 agents devoted to processing background checks — a 50 percent increase — as it moves toward automating the system .
The series of gun-related events this week represents one of Obama 's largest pushes on gun control since the collapse of the effort that followed Sandy Hook . The White House is eager to fend off political attacks and to minimize the lobbying from pro-guns-rights groups , and so is preparing a heavy public campaign to explain his moves . On Thursday , Obama partners with CNN for an hourlong town hall to discuss gun violence in prime time .
Vice President Biden — who led the administration ’ s efforts to enact new gun restrictions in 2013 — is also getting in on the act . After standing next to Obama in the East Room on Tuesday , he sat for an interview with NowThis , a news video network geared toward social media , in a bid to target millennials . On Wednesday , he ’ ll do a series of interviews with local news affiliates in markets that have been home to high-profile guns-slayings ( Hartford , Connecticut ; Roanoke , Virginia and Charleston ) or in states where gun safety legislation is pending ( Columbus , Ohio and Philadelphia ) .
Even as gun control advocates have praised the White House ’ s efforts , they pledge to still push Congress and Obama to do more .
The National Rifle Association , meanwhile , has blanketed the airwaves with ads warning of “ a government that would disarm us during the age of terror . ”
|
President Barack Obama wept openly Tuesday as he delivered a forceful defense of new executive actions on gun violence, a set of modest proposals to tighten loopholes that likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a Republican White House.
The president ran through a list of mass shootings that have happened during his time in office, and teared up as he recalled the schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.
Story Continued Below
"First graders in Newtown. First graders," Obama said, pausing to collect himself. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad."
Obama offered a new argument to counter gun rights enthusiasts, noting that mass shootings have taken place as Americans have tried to exercise other rights, such as attending worship services or watching a movie. The right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble, he said, and called upon Congress to be "brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies."
“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children," he said, flanked in the White House East Room by family members of victims.
In making his case, Obama brushed off criticism that he did not respect the Second Amendment, citing his past as a constitutional law professor.
"No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it," he said. "But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment."
"We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom," Obama said.
The president also argued that common-sense safety measures used on other equipment should apply to guns as well.
"If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?” Obama said.
Obama wipes away tears during gun violence announcement poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201601/2754/1155968404_4686393457001_4686356432001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
"If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet — which happens to me often the older I get,” Obama said to laughter, "if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun.”
Despite the "general consensus" for what needs to be done, and support from many gun owners, Obama acknowledged gridlock.
"I'm not on the ballot again. I'm not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives," he said. "But we do have to feel a fierce sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King's words, we need to feel the fierce urgency of now. Because people are dying and the constant excesses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice. That's why we're here today, not to debate the last mass shooting but to prevent the next one."
As the details of Obama’s actions— and their limited nature — became clear, reactions of Republicans took on a tone that was more dismissive than alarm-raising. While some continued to attack Obama for going after law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights, others pooh-poohed his actions as theater.
“Rather than focus on criminals and terrorists,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”
Despite such condemnation, there's little chance this GOP-controlled Congress can block the president's latest gun control moves. That's because there are no must-pass bills looming that Republicans could use as vehicles to force Democrats to undo Obama's actions. Furthermore, Senate Democrats would likely block any movement in the Senate on individual bills. And any stand-alone legislation that managed to pass the House and Senate would surely be vetoed by Obama.
Ryan said the GOP’s best chance to overturn the executive orders is to elect a Republican president in 2016.
Gun rights advocates argue that new restrictions aren’t necessary because gun homicide rates have dropped even as gun ownership has soared. National Rifle Association used blistering language to cast the moves as a way to distract from other more pressing problems, echoing GOP lines of attack.
"Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems,” said NRA Legislative Action Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attacks.”
Firearms industry officials, however, had a more nuanced response. The National Shooting Sports Federation, a top trade group, applauded some elements of Obama’s package, including the completion of a long-delayed measure to include more mental health information in the federal background check system. It also cheered plans to bulk up FBI staffing to conduct background checks.
In a statement, NSSF called the new requirement to make dealers report guns that were lost or stolen in transit “misdirected,” arguing that participation in a voluntary program is already robust and, if there is going to be a requirement, the onus should be on the buyer to do the reporting.
And the new guideline about dealers licenses, NSSF said, “needs considerable clarification and raises questions about enforceability.”
Some Republican presidential candidates saw no need to parse the provisions.
“When you live by the pen, you die by the pen,” declared Sen. Ted Cruz, a top Republican presidential candidate. “And my pen's got an eraser."
The White House makes no bones about this possibility. That’s all the more reason, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said after the president’s speech on Tuesday, that Congress should pass a more permanent measure.
The issue of gun violence has been a perpetual presence during Obama’s presidency due to a series of mass shootings that have grabbed national headlines, perhaps none more so than the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook.
“Fort Hood, Binghamton, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown, the Navy Yard, Santa Barbara, Charleston, San Bernardino. Too many,” Obama said, ticking through a list of mass shootings since the 2011 Tucson shooting that killed six and injured more than a dozen more, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was in attendance in the East Room.
Despite professing an unflinching commitment to curbing gun violence, Obama and Biden have been thwarted by Congress and what Obama calls a lack of national will to change the way Americans think about guns.
2016-ers on Gun Control poster="https://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201601/151/1155968404_4685271631001_2016.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
Obama has issued more than 20 executive actions, including incentives for states to share background check information and directing the attorney general to review those types of individuals prohibited from having guns. But gun sales have soared, with 2015 expected to have been a record year, as Americans buy up weapons in advance of new restrictions.
Likewise, the actions rolled out on Tuesday are not expected to have a huge impact.
The measures include a more detailed definition of which gun sellers must apply for a federal dealers license — and therefore conduct background checks for all sales, in a bid to close the so-called gun show loophole. The administration is also finalizing a few other rules that were stuck in a bureaucratic backlog, including new requirements for reporting guns lost or stolen in transit, and a measure that would allow more mental health records to be submitted to the federal background check registry by removing patient privacy limits.
The FBI is also adding 230 agents devoted to processing background checks — a 50 percent increase — as it moves toward automating the system.
The series of gun-related events this week represents one of Obama's largest pushes on gun control since the collapse of the effort that followed Sandy Hook. The White House is eager to fend off political attacks and to minimize the lobbying from pro-guns-rights groups, and so is preparing a heavy public campaign to explain his moves. On Thursday, Obama partners with CNN for an hourlong town hall to discuss gun violence in prime time.
Vice President Biden — who led the administration’s efforts to enact new gun restrictions in 2013 — is also getting in on the act. After standing next to Obama in the East Room on Tuesday, he sat for an interview with NowThis, a news video network geared toward social media, in a bid to target millennials. On Wednesday, he’ll do a series of interviews with local news affiliates in markets that have been home to high-profile guns-slayings (Hartford, Connecticut; Roanoke, Virginia and Charleston) or in states where gun safety legislation is pending (Columbus, Ohio and Philadelphia).
Even as gun control advocates have praised the White House’s efforts, they pledge to still push Congress and Obama to do more.
The National Rifle Association, meanwhile, has blanketed the airwaves with ads warning of “a government that would disarm us during the age of terror.”
Nick Gass, Lauren French and Nolan D. McCaskill contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
jL4uaaTvxABgu7pI
|
europe
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1202/Ursula-von-der-Leyen-The-making-of-Europe-s-top-leader
|
Ursula von der Leyen: The making of Europe’s top leader
|
2019-12-02
|
Peter Ford
|
“ She doesn ’ t just believe in Europe , she embodies that and radiates it , ” says Jan Techau , a political analyst at The German Marshall Fund of the United States . “ That is a huge part of the deal . ”
But Dr. von der Leyen , the first woman to take the European Union ’ s top job , has impeccable credentials for the post , observers say . She was born in Brussels where her father was one of the pioneer pan-European diplomats , she speaks fluent English and French , and in her ministerial career she has forged close ties with Germany ’ s neighbors .
As president of the commission she will shape the EU ’ s policy agenda and sit atop the institution that supervises member states ’ budgets , handles international trade negotiations , and acts as a competition watchdog .
Dr. Ursula von der Leyen , the new president of the European Commission , arrives in Brussels with the reputation of a resilient and determined survivor . And she is taking over at a delicate moment , with the union ’ s 28 members divided over issues such as immigration and climate change , and Britain expected to pull out of the EU early next year .
When Daniel Goffart and Ulrike Demmer published their biography of Dr. Ursula von der Leyen five years ago , the reason for their interest in Germany ’ s then-defense minister was clear from the book ’ s title : “ The Chancellor in Waiting . ”
Now their publisher is rushing out a new edition , titled simply “ Ursula von der Leyen. ” She is not going to be Angela Merkel ’ s successor , as her biographers had expected . Instead , to continent-wide surprise , Dr. von der Leyen has become president of the European Commission , her term having started on Dec. 1 .
Dr. von der Leyen emerged unexpectedly as a compromise presidential nominee in July , breaking an EU summit deadlock over how to share out the bloc ’ s top jobs . She is taking over at a delicate moment , with the union ’ s 28 members divided over issues such as immigration and climate change , and Britain expected to pull out of the EU early next year .
As president of the commission she will shape the EU ’ s policy agenda and sit atop the institution that supervises member states ’ budgets , handles international trade negotiations , and acts as a competition watchdog .
But Dr. von der Leyen , the first woman to take the European Union ’ s top job , has impeccable credentials for the post , observers say . She was born in Brussels where her father was one of the pioneer pan-European diplomats , she speaks fluent English and French , and in her ministerial career she has forged close ties with Germany ’ s neighbors .
“ She doesn ’ t just believe in Europe , she embodies that and radiates it , ” says Jan Techau , a political analyst at The German Marshall Fund of the United States think tank in Berlin . “ That is a huge part of the deal . ”
Dr. von der Leyen arrives in Brussels with the reputation of a resilient and determined survivor , the only minister to have served in all of Chancellor Merkel ’ s cabinets since 2005 ( while raising seven children ) .
She has politics in her blood . Her father became state premier of Lower Saxony and Ursula was his favorite daughter , says Mr. Goffart . “ She would sit next to him and follow his discussions with his political visitors . She was infected with politics from childhood . ”
But she did not immediately choose a political career . She studied economics and then medicine , going on to practice as a gynecologist . Only when she was 42 did she follow in her father ’ s footsteps .
She may have started late , but she moved fast , propelled by her famous pedigree , her TV-friendly style , and her appetite for work . No sooner had she won her first election to the state parliament in Lower Saxony than she was made a state minister . Two years later Ms. Merkel tapped her to be family affairs minister in her first government .
In that job , and later as labor minister , she made a name for herself as a briskly modern reformer dragging her party , the center-right Christian Democratic Union , kicking and screaming into the 21st century .
The CDU was largely a party of old white men who thought a woman ’ s role should be limited to “ kinder , küche , kirche ” – children , kitchen , church – says Mr. Goffart . “ Merkel and von der Leyen abolished that . ”
Hannibal Hanschke/Reuters German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attend the Christian Democratic Union ( CDU ) party congress in Leipzig , Germany , Nov. 22 , 2019 . The general perception in Germany three months ago was that Ms. von der Leyen 's political career appeared to be reaching its end .
Among Dr. von der Leyen ’ s hallmark policies with a strong feminist flavor : providing daycare for all infants over 12 months , two months ’ paternity leave for new fathers , and women ’ s quotas in the boardroom ( though parliament voted this down ) . She also supported same-sex marriage .
Such reforms “ were a very important cornerstone of her career , ” says Mr. Goffart .
Though she comes from a conservative background , “ she is on the progressive wing of the CDU , ” says Mr. Techau . “ She is not a conservative hardliner . ”
Dr. von der Leyen herself has spoken of an “ inner freedom ” that she acquired in London during a year studying at the London School of Economics in the late 1970s , although she also admitted , in an interview with the German weekly “ Zeit , ” that “ I lived much more than I studied .
“ London was the epitome of modernity : freedom , the joy of life , trying everything , ” she recalled in the interview . “ For me , coming from the rather monotonous , white Germany , that was fascinating . ”
She also has fond memories of her years in California , where she lived when her husband was teaching at Stanford University , Mr. Goffart says . “ She found Americans much more tolerant of noisy kids than Germans . She said it was a lot easier to live with children there . ”
While her years abroad may have given Dr. von der Leyen an international outlook , she honed her political skills in Germany , where negotiation and compromise form the bedrock of political life . “ That ’ s her strength , ” says Mr. Goffart . “ She is used to finding compromises and that ’ s what you need in the EU . ”
Already Dr. von der Leyen has shown signs of her inclination to be a conciliator , coming up with a policy platform striving for balance , that offers something to as many competing interest groups as possible .
But she is by no means a pushover , argues Mr. Techau . When she took over the Defense Ministry soon after Berlin abolished conscription , he recalls , she brought in measures to make military life more family friendly so as to attract more volunteers . “ Old soldiers and pundits gave her a lot of stick for that , but she showed no nerves and it paid off , ” he recalls .
Her public image , he adds , is of a “ strong-minded ” woman . “ There is a strictness to her , a directness , even a certain hardness . ”
Dr. von der Leyen has also attracted criticism from CDU colleagues for grandstanding , reveling in photo ops that advance her own career and “ sometimes going a little over the top , ” explains Mr. Goffart , such as when she visited a German Air Force base looking like Tom Cruise , in “ Top Gun ” -style aviator sunglasses .
If such behavior has made her enemies in her own party , her performance at the Defense Ministry – where she had several run-ins with the top military brass – has disappointed many Germans ; she left office as the second least popular minster in the cabinet . “ She was a falling star , ” says Dr. Gero Neugebauer , who teaches politics at the Free University of Berlin . “ She started strong and ended weak . But she survived . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
The general perception that she had failed at the Defense Ministry , however , put an end to her ambition to succeed her boss , Ms. Merkel , and three months ago her political career appeared to be reaching its end .
“ Perhaps she was surprised by her good luck , ” says Mr. Goffart . “ I think she must be really happy now to have a chance that she never expected . ”
|
“She doesn’t just believe in Europe, she embodies that and radiates it,” says Jan Techau, a political analyst at The German Marshall Fund of the United States. “That is a huge part of the deal.”
But Dr. von der Leyen, the first woman to take the European Union’s top job, has impeccable credentials for the post, observers say. She was born in Brussels where her father was one of the pioneer pan-European diplomats, she speaks fluent English and French, and in her ministerial career she has forged close ties with Germany’s neighbors.
As president of the commission she will shape the EU’s policy agenda and sit atop the institution that supervises member states’ budgets, handles international trade negotiations, and acts as a competition watchdog.
Dr. Ursula von der Leyen, the new president of the European Commission, arrives in Brussels with the reputation of a resilient and determined survivor. And she is taking over at a delicate moment, with the union’s 28 members divided over issues such as immigration and climate change, and Britain expected to pull out of the EU early next year.
When Daniel Goffart and Ulrike Demmer published their biography of Dr. Ursula von der Leyen five years ago, the reason for their interest in Germany’s then-defense minister was clear from the book’s title: “The Chancellor in Waiting.”
Now their publisher is rushing out a new edition, titled simply “Ursula von der Leyen.” She is not going to be Angela Merkel’s successor, as her biographers had expected. Instead, to continent-wide surprise, Dr. von der Leyen has become president of the European Commission, her term having started on Dec. 1.
Dr. von der Leyen emerged unexpectedly as a compromise presidential nominee in July, breaking an EU summit deadlock over how to share out the bloc’s top jobs. She is taking over at a delicate moment, with the union’s 28 members divided over issues such as immigration and climate change, and Britain expected to pull out of the EU early next year.
As president of the commission she will shape the EU’s policy agenda and sit atop the institution that supervises member states’ budgets, handles international trade negotiations, and acts as a competition watchdog.
But Dr. von der Leyen, the first woman to take the European Union’s top job, has impeccable credentials for the post, observers say. She was born in Brussels where her father was one of the pioneer pan-European diplomats, she speaks fluent English and French, and in her ministerial career she has forged close ties with Germany’s neighbors.
“She doesn’t just believe in Europe, she embodies that and radiates it,” says Jan Techau, a political analyst at The German Marshall Fund of the United States think tank in Berlin. “That is a huge part of the deal.”
Dragging her party into the 21st century
Dr. von der Leyen arrives in Brussels with the reputation of a resilient and determined survivor, the only minister to have served in all of Chancellor Merkel’s cabinets since 2005 (while raising seven children).
She has politics in her blood. Her father became state premier of Lower Saxony and Ursula was his favorite daughter, says Mr. Goffart. “She would sit next to him and follow his discussions with his political visitors. She was infected with politics from childhood.”
But she did not immediately choose a political career. She studied economics and then medicine, going on to practice as a gynecologist. Only when she was 42 did she follow in her father’s footsteps.
She may have started late, but she moved fast, propelled by her famous pedigree, her TV-friendly style, and her appetite for work. No sooner had she won her first election to the state parliament in Lower Saxony than she was made a state minister. Two years later Ms. Merkel tapped her to be family affairs minister in her first government.
In that job, and later as labor minister, she made a name for herself as a briskly modern reformer dragging her party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union, kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
The CDU was largely a party of old white men who thought a woman’s role should be limited to “kinder, küche, kirche” – children, kitchen, church – says Mr. Goffart. “Merkel and von der Leyen abolished that.”
Hannibal Hanschke/Reuters German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attend the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party congress in Leipzig, Germany, Nov. 22, 2019. The general perception in Germany three months ago was that Ms. von der Leyen's political career appeared to be reaching its end.
Among Dr. von der Leyen’s hallmark policies with a strong feminist flavor: providing daycare for all infants over 12 months, two months’ paternity leave for new fathers, and women’s quotas in the boardroom (though parliament voted this down). She also supported same-sex marriage.
Such reforms “were a very important cornerstone of her career,” says Mr. Goffart.
Though she comes from a conservative background, “she is on the progressive wing of the CDU,” says Mr. Techau. “She is not a conservative hardliner.”
Dr. von der Leyen herself has spoken of an “inner freedom” that she acquired in London during a year studying at the London School of Economics in the late 1970s, although she also admitted, in an interview with the German weekly “Zeit,” that “I lived much more than I studied.
“London was the epitome of modernity: freedom, the joy of life, trying everything,” she recalled in the interview. “For me, coming from the rather monotonous, white Germany, that was fascinating.”
She also has fond memories of her years in California, where she lived when her husband was teaching at Stanford University, Mr. Goffart says. “She found Americans much more tolerant of noisy kids than Germans. She said it was a lot easier to live with children there.”
While her years abroad may have given Dr. von der Leyen an international outlook, she honed her political skills in Germany, where negotiation and compromise form the bedrock of political life. “That’s her strength,” says Mr. Goffart. “She is used to finding compromises and that’s what you need in the EU.”
“A little over the top”
Already Dr. von der Leyen has shown signs of her inclination to be a conciliator, coming up with a policy platform striving for balance, that offers something to as many competing interest groups as possible.
But she is by no means a pushover, argues Mr. Techau. When she took over the Defense Ministry soon after Berlin abolished conscription, he recalls, she brought in measures to make military life more family friendly so as to attract more volunteers. “Old soldiers and pundits gave her a lot of stick for that, but she showed no nerves and it paid off,” he recalls.
Her public image, he adds, is of a “strong-minded” woman. “There is a strictness to her, a directness, even a certain hardness.”
Dr. von der Leyen has also attracted criticism from CDU colleagues for grandstanding, reveling in photo ops that advance her own career and “sometimes going a little over the top,” explains Mr. Goffart, such as when she visited a German Air Force base looking like Tom Cruise, in “Top Gun”-style aviator sunglasses.
If such behavior has made her enemies in her own party, her performance at the Defense Ministry – where she had several run-ins with the top military brass – has disappointed many Germans; she left office as the second least popular minster in the cabinet. “She was a falling star,” says Dr. Gero Neugebauer, who teaches politics at the Free University of Berlin. “She started strong and ended weak. But she survived.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
The general perception that she had failed at the Defense Ministry, however, put an end to her ambition to succeed her boss, Ms. Merkel, and three months ago her political career appeared to be reaching its end.
“Perhaps she was surprised by her good luck,” says Mr. Goffart. “I think she must be really happy now to have a chance that she never expected.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
bwZOM6y3LllMq22C
|
us_military
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/repeal-authorization-for-use-of-military-force-congress-must-take-back-war-making-powers/
|
Repeal the AUMF
|
2020-01-05
|
Kevin D. Williamson, Rich Lowry, Kyle Smith, Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Kathryn Jean Lopez, David Harsanyi, Zachary Evans, Jonah Goldberg
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks during a press briefing on Capitol Hill , Washington , D.C. , January 17 , 2019 . ( Joshua Roberts/Reuters )
Enough is enough : It 's long past time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional war-making power .
Nancy Pelosi complains that the Trump administration ’ s decision to assassinate Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani was “ provocative and disproportionate ” and that it “ risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. ” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders also have denounced the killing .
Specifically , Pelosi says the action was taken “ without an authorization for use of military force against Iran. ” But the airstrike happened in the Iraqi capital , Baghdad , not in Iran . The Trump administration argues that the Iraq AUMF empowered the president to take this action , a position shared by many critics not ordinarily inclined to view the president with a great deal of indulgence , my friend David French among them . The administration ’ s case here is not obviously implausible .
Pelosi also complains that she was not notified of the operation prior to its execution , even though protocol calls for her and a few other top congressional leaders to be briefed . She must be especially irritated that she was left in the dark and Senator Lindsay Graham was advised of the operation while paying court to Trump in Florida .
But Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House , not a passive bystander unable to do anything at all about a situation that , if we take her at her word , she believes to be potentially catastrophic . She can do more than stamp her foot . She could , if she were so inclined , begin the process of repealing the Iraq AUMF — which is long overdue , irrespective of the wisdom or propriety of the killing of Qasem Soleimani .
Congress has the power to remove any ambiguity in this matter , and it should .
The Iraq AUMF has been on the books since 2002 , when it was enacted to empower the administration of George W. Bush to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein , who is long gone . It is supplemented by an earlier AUMF , passed shortly after 9/11 , which authorized the U.S. government to go after those responsible for the attacks of that day and any “ associated forces. ” But the version of al-Qaeda responsible for 9/11 is long gone , too , even if the name lives on . Also gone is the principal actor behind the attack , Osama bin Laden , killed by U.S. forces and buried at sea . Conversely , the Tehran-backed militias ( Kata ’ ib Hezbollah et al . ) causing havoc in Iraq today — and killing Americans in the process — did not exist in 2001 or 2002 . And if either AUMF was meant to include the Iranian state , then that certainly was not made explicit in the relevant texts .
On the one hand , we have an ongoing U.S. presence in Iraq and a wide array of legitimate U.S. interests in that country and in the broader Middle East ; on the other hand , we have an Iranian regime looking to export its Islamist revolution far and wide in ways that pose direct and specific threats to Americans and U.S. interests .
Fortunately , there is a solution — right there in the Constitution . But it is a solution that will require Nancy Pelosi to do something more than carp : It will require the speaker of the House to do her job .
We should forthrightly admit that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations have outlived their rationales , that both the organization behind 9/11 and the troublemaking regime of Saddam Hussein have been eliminated — mission accomplished , at last . But Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not the only threats in the world , nor the only threats emanating from the Middle East . Tehran is a problem . So is the rat ’ s nest of new terrorist outfits and regional militias that have sprung up after the vanquishing of al-Qaeda . The use of the 2001 and 2002 authorizations in the current military and political context is obviously pretextual , the barest little fig leaf to cover up the fact that Congress has abandoned its duties in the matter of war-making , delegating them to an increasingly imperial presidency .
These things have a way of getting out of hand . When the USA PATRIOT Act was passed ( damn the authors of these cutesy acronyms ) , purported civil libertarians such as Barack Obama fretted that the law would empower Dick Cheney and sundry spooks to go peeking at Americans ’ library accounts . ( Note for Millennials : Libraries once were places where people went to borrow books rather than places where homeless people go to masturbate to Internet porn ; ask your parents . ) But once he himself was invested with the awesome power of the presidency , Obama saw things differently and enacted several innovations of his own , notable among them ordering assassinations of American citizens . Of course Pelosi and her cronies were largely silent about that — such criticism as there was came largely from Senator Rand Paul , the libertarian-ish Republican from Kentucky . Those “ associated forces ” considered in the AUMF grew to encompass a man known as “ the Osama bin Laden of . . . Facebook. ” And Democrats bent to President Obama ’ s will for much the same reason that today ’ s Republicans bend to Trump ’ s .
The 2001 and 2002 authorizations have served their purposes . They are open-ended enabling acts , and they should be repealed and replaced — if they must be replaced — with an instrument that is much more narrowly tailored and takes into account the current political and security realities , which are not what they were nearly 20 years ago . If the Democrats really believe that Donald Trump is a uniquely dangerous threat in the White House — morally unmoored and psychologically unstable , as many of them charge — then they should act on that belief and begin the process of tying his hands .
Yes , that would mean a fight with Senate Republicans . But Pelosi is ready to have a fight with Senate Republicans over impeachment , and launching a war on Iran surely is a much more serious matter than Donald Trump ’ s telephone call with the Ukrainians and his assorted acts of petty , apple-stealing corruption . If Pelosi is not willing to have a political fight when it really matters , then of what use is she ?
Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war . The plain language of the Constitution is clear about that . If Nancy Pelosi wants to rein in the Trump administration — and leave a lasting legislative legacy that is worth a damn — she should reclaim that power for the legislature and guard it jealously .
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks during a press briefing on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., January 17, 2019. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
Enough is enough: It's long past time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional war-making power.
Nancy Pelosi complains that the Trump administration’s decision to assassinate Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani was “provocative and disproportionate” and that it “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders also have denounced the killing.
Pelosi further charges that the operation was unauthorized.
Specifically, Pelosi says the action was taken “without an authorization for use of military force against Iran.” But the airstrike happened in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, not in Iran. The Trump administration argues that the Iraq AUMF empowered the president to take this action, a position shared by many critics not ordinarily inclined to view the president with a great deal of indulgence, my friend David French among them. The administration’s case here is not obviously implausible.
Advertisement
Pelosi also complains that she was not notified of the operation prior to its execution, even though protocol calls for her and a few other top congressional leaders to be briefed. She must be especially irritated that she was left in the dark and Senator Lindsay Graham was advised of the operation while paying court to Trump in Florida.
But Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, not a passive bystander unable to do anything at all about a situation that, if we take her at her word, she believes to be potentially catastrophic. She can do more than stamp her foot. She could, if she were so inclined, begin the process of repealing the Iraq AUMF — which is long overdue, irrespective of the wisdom or propriety of the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
Advertisement
Congress has the power to remove any ambiguity in this matter, and it should.
Advertisement
The Iraq AUMF has been on the books since 2002, when it was enacted to empower the administration of George W. Bush to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who is long gone. It is supplemented by an earlier AUMF, passed shortly after 9/11, which authorized the U.S. government to go after those responsible for the attacks of that day and any “associated forces.” But the version of al-Qaeda responsible for 9/11 is long gone, too, even if the name lives on. Also gone is the principal actor behind the attack, Osama bin Laden, killed by U.S. forces and buried at sea. Conversely, the Tehran-backed militias (Kata’ib Hezbollah et al.) causing havoc in Iraq today — and killing Americans in the process — did not exist in 2001 or 2002. And if either AUMF was meant to include the Iranian state, then that certainly was not made explicit in the relevant texts.
On the one hand, we have an ongoing U.S. presence in Iraq and a wide array of legitimate U.S. interests in that country and in the broader Middle East; on the other hand, we have an Iranian regime looking to export its Islamist revolution far and wide in ways that pose direct and specific threats to Americans and U.S. interests.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Fortunately, there is a solution — right there in the Constitution. But it is a solution that will require Nancy Pelosi to do something more than carp: It will require the speaker of the House to do her job.
We should forthrightly admit that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations have outlived their rationales, that both the organization behind 9/11 and the troublemaking regime of Saddam Hussein have been eliminated — mission accomplished, at last. But Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not the only threats in the world, nor the only threats emanating from the Middle East. Tehran is a problem. So is the rat’s nest of new terrorist outfits and regional militias that have sprung up after the vanquishing of al-Qaeda. The use of the 2001 and 2002 authorizations in the current military and political context is obviously pretextual, the barest little fig leaf to cover up the fact that Congress has abandoned its duties in the matter of war-making, delegating them to an increasingly imperial presidency.
These things have a way of getting out of hand. When the USA PATRIOT Act was passed (damn the authors of these cutesy acronyms), purported civil libertarians such as Barack Obama fretted that the law would empower Dick Cheney and sundry spooks to go peeking at Americans’ library accounts. (Note for Millennials: Libraries once were places where people went to borrow books rather than places where homeless people go to masturbate to Internet porn; ask your parents.) But once he himself was invested with the awesome power of the presidency, Obama saw things differently and enacted several innovations of his own, notable among them ordering assassinations of American citizens. Of course Pelosi and her cronies were largely silent about that — such criticism as there was came largely from Senator Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican from Kentucky. Those “associated forces” considered in the AUMF grew to encompass a man known as “the Osama bin Laden of . . . Facebook.” And Democrats bent to President Obama’s will for much the same reason that today’s Republicans bend to Trump’s.
Advertisement
The 2001 and 2002 authorizations have served their purposes. They are open-ended enabling acts, and they should be repealed and replaced — if they must be replaced — with an instrument that is much more narrowly tailored and takes into account the current political and security realities, which are not what they were nearly 20 years ago. If the Democrats really believe that Donald Trump is a uniquely dangerous threat in the White House — morally unmoored and psychologically unstable, as many of them charge — then they should act on that belief and begin the process of tying his hands.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Yes, that would mean a fight with Senate Republicans. But Pelosi is ready to have a fight with Senate Republicans over impeachment, and launching a war on Iran surely is a much more serious matter than Donald Trump’s telephone call with the Ukrainians and his assorted acts of petty, apple-stealing corruption. If Pelosi is not willing to have a political fight when it really matters, then of what use is she?
Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war. The plain language of the Constitution is clear about that. If Nancy Pelosi wants to rein in the Trump administration — and leave a lasting legislative legacy that is worth a damn — she should reclaim that power for the legislature and guard it jealously.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
Sdo901CTDuDSJhWx
|
healthcare
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/how_obamacare_became_its_own_culture_war/
|
The right’s core dishonesty: How Obamacare became its own culture war
|
2013-12-04
|
Many people think of the right 's Obamacare hatred as an outgrowth of straightforward partisan and ideological truths . Movement conservatives broadly oppose the idea of taxing wealthy people to subsidize the lower and middle classes . They do n't like regulating the private sector very much either . Add in the political incentives they faced to uniformly oppose President Obama 's agenda , the zero Republican votes for the Affordable Care Act , and you 've planted seeds of lasting hostility .
But the hostility has become so deeply rooted that it now stands on its own , detached from the ideological and partisan antipathies that gave rise to it .
It has forced conservatives to blind themselves to the law 's positive , unobjectionable qualities , and police those within their ranks who dare to acknowledge them .
Talking Points Memo 's Josh Marshall called this reactionary phenomenon Obamacare McCarthyism . It ensnared Rep. Jack Kingston , R-Ga. , who 's running for Senate in 2014 and had the temerity to suggest that Republicans should n't just idly mock the law when it stumbles . A few years ago , Sen. Mike Enzi , R-Wy0. , said he liked the concept of insurance exchanges -- which are crucial components of GOP-backed Medicare privatization proposals and other conservative reform ideas -- and now a hardline super PAC is using his words against him , as if he 'd called for the creation of a public option .
But on the battlefields of partisan warfare , this sort of post-principled contempt , combined with the inception of benefits , has turned the fight over Obamacare from a dispute over first principles , into a culture war , in which signaling matters more than tactical victories .
The repeal campaign -- once marked by earnest and sustained efforts to wipe the law off the books -- has all but burned itself out . But the law remains a potent political organizing force -- a rallying cry Republicans believe they can use to channel the right 's Obamacare obsession into voter turnout .
An astute friend remarked to me on Tuesday that the GOP 's position on Obamacare is coming to resemble its position on abortion in one key way : loudly , consistently , uniformly opposed , but ultimately not really driven to eliminate it . The backlash they 'd face would be brutal , but they might stand to gain by fighting it on the margins and keeping the issue alive .
The comparison holds at a state level too . The most effective Obamacare saboteurs have been GOP governors and legislatures who resisted the opportunity to create their own exchanges and have refused to expand Medicaid with federal dollars , as the law allows .
More generally , conservatives are wielding Obamacare the way they wielded culture war issues in the 1990s . The particulars are enormously different , but the political objectives are similar : pick an issue that both unites conservative voters and appeals to the discontent of moderates and use it first and foremost to fracture the Democratic coalition .
I do n't think they 're going to fracture the Democratic coalition . But I can imagine the issue remaining an effective mobilizing tool for an otherwise agenda-less party through the end of Obama 's presidency .
Of course , the culture wars of the '90s did n't all unfold the same way . Abortion and gun rights have proven to be more durable polarizing tools than immigration and gay rights .
My suspicion is that over time , as Affordable Care Act beneficiaries become friends , neighbors and family members of the law 's most ardent foes , hostilities will wane . The word `` Obamacare '' will have much less unifying power on the right when the law has 30 million beneficiaries than it does with 1 million ; and liberals will protect it from broader attacks on social insurance programs with relish , just as they use conservative Medicare and Social Security privatization proposals to their political benefit .
But the bitterness wo n't just disappear . We 're a long way from Southern governors clamoring for the Medicaid expansion , or building their own exchanges , let alone directing their own constituents to enroll on Healthcare.gov . And that 's a huge bummer for uninsured people in those states who hoped Obamacare would work as well for them as it 's likely to work in the rest of the country .
|
Many people think of the right's Obamacare hatred as an outgrowth of straightforward partisan and ideological truths. Movement conservatives broadly oppose the idea of taxing wealthy people to subsidize the lower and middle classes. They don't like regulating the private sector very much either. Add in the political incentives they faced to uniformly oppose President Obama's agenda, the zero Republican votes for the Affordable Care Act, and you've planted seeds of lasting hostility.
But the hostility has become so deeply rooted that it now stands on its own, detached from the ideological and partisan antipathies that gave rise to it.
Advertisement:
It has forced conservatives to blind themselves to the law's positive, unobjectionable qualities, and police those within their ranks who dare to acknowledge them.
Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall called this reactionary phenomenon Obamacare McCarthyism. It ensnared Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., who's running for Senate in 2014 and had the temerity to suggest that Republicans shouldn't just idly mock the law when it stumbles. A few years ago, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wy0., said he liked the concept of insurance exchanges -- which are crucial components of GOP-backed Medicare privatization proposals and other conservative reform ideas -- and now a hardline super PAC is using his words against him, as if he'd called for the creation of a public option.
But on the battlefields of partisan warfare, this sort of post-principled contempt, combined with the inception of benefits, has turned the fight over Obamacare from a dispute over first principles, into a culture war, in which signaling matters more than tactical victories.
The repeal campaign -- once marked by earnest and sustained efforts to wipe the law off the books -- has all but burned itself out. But the law remains a potent political organizing force -- a rallying cry Republicans believe they can use to channel the right's Obamacare obsession into voter turnout.
An astute friend remarked to me on Tuesday that the GOP's position on Obamacare is coming to resemble its position on abortion in one key way: loudly, consistently, uniformly opposed, but ultimately not really driven to eliminate it. The backlash they'd face would be brutal, but they might stand to gain by fighting it on the margins and keeping the issue alive.
The comparison holds at a state level too. The most effective Obamacare saboteurs have been GOP governors and legislatures who resisted the opportunity to create their own exchanges and have refused to expand Medicaid with federal dollars, as the law allows.
Advertisement:
More generally, conservatives are wielding Obamacare the way they wielded culture war issues in the 1990s. The particulars are enormously different, but the political objectives are similar: pick an issue that both unites conservative voters and appeals to the discontent of moderates and use it first and foremost to fracture the Democratic coalition.
I don't think they're going to fracture the Democratic coalition. But I can imagine the issue remaining an effective mobilizing tool for an otherwise agenda-less party through the end of Obama's presidency.
Of course, the culture wars of the '90s didn't all unfold the same way. Abortion and gun rights have proven to be more durable polarizing tools than immigration and gay rights.
My suspicion is that over time, as Affordable Care Act beneficiaries become friends, neighbors and family members of the law's most ardent foes, hostilities will wane. The word "Obamacare" will have much less unifying power on the right when the law has 30 million beneficiaries than it does with 1 million; and liberals will protect it from broader attacks on social insurance programs with relish, just as they use conservative Medicare and Social Security privatization proposals to their political benefit.
Advertisement:
But the bitterness won't just disappear. We're a long way from Southern governors clamoring for the Medicaid expansion, or building their own exchanges, let alone directing their own constituents to enroll on Healthcare.gov. And that's a huge bummer for uninsured people in those states who hoped Obamacare would work as well for them as it's likely to work in the rest of the country.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
HIAlQSic67dZdf1z
|
|
supreme_court
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-trump-analysis/trump-likely-to-win-whether-or-not-kavanaugh-is-confirmed-idUSKCN1ME2Q0
|
Trump likely to win whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed
|
2018-10-05
|
John Whitesides
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - The ugly partisan brawl over U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation remains undecided , but President Donald Trump appears likely to come out on top regardless of the outcome .
If Kavanaugh is confirmed by the Senate in a vote planned on Saturday , Trump will have succeeded in placing his second justice on the top U.S. court and fulfilled his pledge to solidify its conservative majority .
Even if Kavanaugh is rejected , the battle to save his nomination in the face of sexual misconduct allegations has jolted a slumbering Republican base to life just ahead of the Nov. 6 elections , political strategists and new polls suggest .
“ This has done more to wake up complacent Republican voters than anything I have seen , ” said Robert Cahaly , a pollster and senior strategist at The Trafalgar Group , a Republican-leaning consulting and polling firm .
Trump ’ s pugnacious style was well suited to the messy drama , and his decision to stick by Kavanaugh , mock the woman who accused the nominee of sexual assault and use the controversy to fire up supporters could help Republicans in key Senate races in conservative states - even if it turns off independents and women voters in suburban House of Representatives districts that were already trending away from Republicans .
Several recent polls show that Republican enthusiasm about voting , which had lagged behind Democrats , jumped after the dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week in which Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in 1982 and Kavanaugh angrily denied her accusation and sexual misconduct allegations by two other women .
The shift has bolstered Republican hopes of saving their Senate majority in the Nov. 6 elections . Democrats must gain two Senate seats and 23 House seats to claim majorities in each chamber , enabling them to block Trump ’ s agenda and investigate his administration .
Fueled by resistance to Trump , polls have found Democrats were far more enthusiastic about voting than Republicans for most of the year . But a new NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll showed the Democratic advantage in voter enthusiasm slipping to only 2 points this week from 10 points in July .
That newfound enthusiasm , which Republicans strategists say they are seeing around the country , could bolster Republicans in close Senate battles in Florida , North Dakota , Missouri , Montana , Indiana , Tennessee , Texas and West Virginia - all states carried by Trump in 2016 .
“ There is no question the Kavanaugh fight has provided a burst of energy to Republican voters at a critical time , ” said Brian Walsh , a Republican strategist and former staffer for the party ’ s Senate campaign committee .
Democrats contend that the Kavanaugh nomination and sexual misconduct allegations have motivated women and independents in contentious House races , many of which are in suburban and swing districts where Trump already was less popular .
“ I think women are going to turn out in very big numbers to express their opinion , ” Representative Steny Hoyer , the No . 2 Democrat in the House , told reporters on Wednesday .
“ While I believe there is some energy on the other side as well , I don ’ t think it matches the energy that was created on our side that was already at high level , ” he said .
Trump has stoked outrage over the Kavanaugh hearing on the campaign trail , enthusiastically using it as Exhibit A in why Republicans need to retain control of Congress . At stops over the past week in West Virginia , Tennessee and Mississippi , Trump painted Democrats as villains who had to be stopped for trying to sink Kavanaugh ’ s nomination .
“ Democrats are willing to do anything and to hurt anyone to get their way , like they ’ re doing with Judge Kavanaugh , ” he told cheering supporters in Johnson City , Tennessee , where Republican Marsha Blackburn and Democrat Phil Bredesen are embroiled in a toss-up race .
A source familiar with Trump ’ s campaign strategy said that whatever drawbacks Republican candidates might face from standing with Trump were far outweighed by the benefits of energizing Trump voters .
“ Democrats can ’ t get more motivated , ” the source said . “ Who can be more motivated is Republican voters . ”
Republican Senate candidates in Missouri and Montana have made the Supreme Court fight part of their campaign message and released television ads referencing it . Incumbent Democrats Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Jon Tester in Montana have both said they will vote against Kavanaugh .
“ I will fight for the Supreme Court . It ’ s the last line of defense for our values , ” Republican Senate candidate Josh Hawley of Missouri says in his ad .
Given the tumultuous political atmosphere and short shelf life of controversies in Washington , it is possible , however , the fallout from the Kavanaugh fight could fade before the election .
“ The question is whether this will really last for another 30 days. ” Walsh said . “ There are still going to be about 100 news cycles between now and the election . ”
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The ugly partisan brawl over U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation remains undecided, but President Donald Trump appears likely to come out on top regardless of the outcome.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump talks with his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, at his nomination announcement in the East Room of the White House in Washington, July 9, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/File Photo
If Kavanaugh is confirmed by the Senate in a vote planned on Saturday, Trump will have succeeded in placing his second justice on the top U.S. court and fulfilled his pledge to solidify its conservative majority.
Even if Kavanaugh is rejected, the battle to save his nomination in the face of sexual misconduct allegations has jolted a slumbering Republican base to life just ahead of the Nov. 6 elections, political strategists and new polls suggest.
“This has done more to wake up complacent Republican voters than anything I have seen,” said Robert Cahaly, a pollster and senior strategist at The Trafalgar Group, a Republican-leaning consulting and polling firm.
Trump’s pugnacious style was well suited to the messy drama, and his decision to stick by Kavanaugh, mock the woman who accused the nominee of sexual assault and use the controversy to fire up supporters could help Republicans in key Senate races in conservative states - even if it turns off independents and women voters in suburban House of Representatives districts that were already trending away from Republicans.
Several recent polls show that Republican enthusiasm about voting, which had lagged behind Democrats, jumped after the dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week in which Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in 1982 and Kavanaugh angrily denied her accusation and sexual misconduct allegations by two other women.
The shift has bolstered Republican hopes of saving their Senate majority in the Nov. 6 elections. Democrats must gain two Senate seats and 23 House seats to claim majorities in each chamber, enabling them to block Trump’s agenda and investigate his administration.
Fueled by resistance to Trump, polls have found Democrats were far more enthusiastic about voting than Republicans for most of the year. But a new NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll showed the Democratic advantage in voter enthusiasm slipping to only 2 points this week from 10 points in July.
That newfound enthusiasm, which Republicans strategists say they are seeing around the country, could bolster Republicans in close Senate battles in Florida, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia - all states carried by Trump in 2016.
“There is no question the Kavanaugh fight has provided a burst of energy to Republican voters at a critical time,” said Brian Walsh, a Republican strategist and former staffer for the party’s Senate campaign committee.
‘WOMEN WILL TURN OUT’
Democrats contend that the Kavanaugh nomination and sexual misconduct allegations have motivated women and independents in contentious House races, many of which are in suburban and swing districts where Trump already was less popular.
“I think women are going to turn out in very big numbers to express their opinion,” Representative Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, told reporters on Wednesday.
“While I believe there is some energy on the other side as well, I don’t think it matches the energy that was created on our side that was already at high level,” he said.
Trump has stoked outrage over the Kavanaugh hearing on the campaign trail, enthusiastically using it as Exhibit A in why Republicans need to retain control of Congress. At stops over the past week in West Virginia, Tennessee and Mississippi, Trump painted Democrats as villains who had to be stopped for trying to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination.
“Democrats are willing to do anything and to hurt anyone to get their way, like they’re doing with Judge Kavanaugh,” he told cheering supporters in Johnson City, Tennessee, where Republican Marsha Blackburn and Democrat Phil Bredesen are embroiled in a toss-up race.
A source familiar with Trump’s campaign strategy said that whatever drawbacks Republican candidates might face from standing with Trump were far outweighed by the benefits of energizing Trump voters.
“Democrats can’t get more motivated,” the source said. “Who can be more motivated is Republican voters.”
Republican Senate candidates in Missouri and Montana have made the Supreme Court fight part of their campaign message and released television ads referencing it. Incumbent Democrats Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Jon Tester in Montana have both said they will vote against Kavanaugh.
“I will fight for the Supreme Court. It’s the last line of defense for our values,” Republican Senate candidate Josh Hawley of Missouri says in his ad.
Given the tumultuous political atmosphere and short shelf life of controversies in Washington, it is possible, however, the fallout from the Kavanaugh fight could fade before the election.
“The question is whether this will really last for another 30 days.” Walsh said. “There are still going to be about 100 news cycles between now and the election.”
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
n4TjxWOTEDkktZlT
|
women's_issues
|
BBC News
| 11
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40618356
|
Right to bare arms: US Congresswomen protest against dress code
|
US Congresswomen have protested for the right to bare arms in parts of Washington DC 's Capitol building .
The National Rifle Association may be disappointed to learn that this is not a typo . They are not campaigning to bear weapons , but to stand against the Congressional dress code .
The protest comes after a number of women have recently reported being told their outfits violated the rules .
Female reporters have said they had been prevented from entering the lobby area , where the press meets to ask questions of US politicians .
On Friday , Representative Jackie Speier tweeted to encourage colleagues to dress in clothes that showed their arms , calling the protest `` Sleeveless Friday '' .
A group of around 25 women gathered on the steps of Congress , wearing sleeveless shirts and dresses .
`` It 's 2017 and women vote , hold office , and choose their own style . Time to update House Rules to reflect the times ! '' tweeted Congress member Chellie Pingree .
Although the rules are long-standing , they are rarely enforced , and so those affected recently expressed surprise .
News network CBS said one reporter tried to fashion makeshift sleeves out of her notebook so she would be able to work .
The sleeves rule also applies to men , who are required to wear suit jackets and ties to enter the same areas .
Policing of the rules is left to the chamber 's security team , under the guidance of the house speaker .
After a backlash , House Speaker Paul Ryan emphasised that the code had not been devised under his term , and agreed it needs to be modernised .
`` It came to my attention that there was an issue about dress code , '' he said in a press conference on Thursday morning , with a laugh .
Speaker Ryan said , earlier in June , that members should wear `` appropriate business attire '' .
In the UK , a similar debate recently erupted when House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said he was happy to relax the rules .
In June , he accepted a question from a member of parliament who was not wearing a tie .
Yet what this constitutes in 2017 - especially with the rise of more casual media and tech companies - is not always clear .
|
Image copyright Twitter / @RepRoybalAllard Image caption Women gathered on the steps of Congress for their "sleeveless Friday" protest
US Congresswomen have protested for the right to bare arms in parts of Washington DC's Capitol building.
The National Rifle Association may be disappointed to learn that this is not a typo. They are not campaigning to bear weapons, but to stand against the Congressional dress code.
The long-standing code bans sleeveless tops, among other things.
The protest comes after a number of women have recently reported being told their outfits violated the rules.
Female reporters have said they had been prevented from entering the lobby area, where the press meets to ask questions of US politicians.
On Friday, Representative Jackie Speier tweeted to encourage colleagues to dress in clothes that showed their arms, calling the protest "Sleeveless Friday".
A group of around 25 women gathered on the steps of Congress, wearing sleeveless shirts and dresses.
"It's 2017 and women vote, hold office, and choose their own style. Time to update House Rules to reflect the times!" tweeted Congress member Chellie Pingree.
Image copyright Jackie Speier / Twitter Image caption Women gathered on the steps of the US Capitol building on Friday morning
Although the rules are long-standing, they are rarely enforced, and so those affected recently expressed surprise.
News network CBS said one reporter tried to fashion makeshift sleeves out of her notebook so she would be able to work.
The sleeves rule also applies to men, who are required to wear suit jackets and ties to enter the same areas.
Open-toed shoes are also not allowed.
Temperatures in Washington on Friday reached 36C (97F).
Policing of the rules is left to the chamber's security team, under the guidance of the house speaker.
Image copyright @janschakowsky / Twitter Image caption Jan Schakowsky, a representative for Illinois, also joined in
After a backlash, House Speaker Paul Ryan emphasised that the code had not been devised under his term, and agreed it needs to be modernised.
"It came to my attention that there was an issue about dress code," he said in a press conference on Thursday morning, with a laugh.
Speaker Ryan said, earlier in June, that members should wear "appropriate business attire".
Image copyright @RepRoybalAllard / Twitter Image caption Californian Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard also took part
In the UK, a similar debate recently erupted when House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said he was happy to relax the rules.
In June, he accepted a question from a member of parliament who was not wearing a tie.
He also said members should wear "businesslike attire".
Yet what this constitutes in 2017 - especially with the rise of more casual media and tech companies - is not always clear.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
mwDCSRUCJLM3qghB
|
||
politics
|
Townhall
| 22
|
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/06/13/sessions-hearing-n2340612
|
Sessions Pushes Back at 'Appalling, Detestable' Lies
|
2017-06-13
|
"Cortney OBrien", Matt Vespa, Katie Pavlich, Timothy Meads, Leah Barkoukis
|
Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday to address several allegations against him . Both Chairman Richard Burr ( R-NC ) and Sen. Mark Warner ( D-VA ) hoped he would clear up all questions relating to the Russia investigation .
Sessions , who requested an open hearing a day before his testimony , began his opening statement by insisting that such interference by Russia into our election can “ never be tolerated . ”
Then , he proceeded to try and exonerate himself from any wrongdoing , particularly in regards to accusations that he met privately with Russian officials during last year ’ s presidential campaign .
“ I did not have any private meetings with any Russian officials ” at the Mayflower hotel last April , Sessions insisted .
He continued to emphasize he had “ no recollection ” of talking with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the reception in question . Besides , it was “ entirely beside the point ” into this investigation into Russia ’ s interfering in our elections .
The attorney general then got personal , shocked that his former colleagues would accuse him of undermining their democracy .
“ I have never met with or had any conversations with Russians concerning interference with any campaign , ” Sessions reiterated . “ The suggestion that I participated in any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country , which I have served with honor for 35 years , is an appalling and detestable lie . ”
Many outlets have been obsessed with an exchange Sessions had with Sen. Al Franken ( D-MN ) during his confirmation hearing in March . Some argue that the then-senator misled the panel by answering he had never had communications with Russian officials .
“ Former colleagues , that is false , ” Sessions said . “ Sen . Franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony that included dramatic , new allegations . I was taken aback by explosive allegations . ”
Sessions said he wanted to refute claims of collusion immediately . So , he offered what he thought was “ a fair and correct response . ”
Yet , when Sessions decided to recuse himself from the Russia investigation , many took that as a sign of guilt . Sessions cleared up that allegation as well .
The attorney general recused himself not because of any wrongdoing , but because of a DOJ regulation that mandated department employees should not participate in campaign investigations on campaigns in which they served as an advisor .
That ’ s why he stepped aside . It is “ absurd ” to suggest otherwise , Sessions said , or that a recusal proves he would be unable to manage leadership of the DOJ .
Sessions then pivoted to the issue over former FBI Director James Comey ’ s firing . Specifically , he shed some light on the conversation he had with Comey regarding the latter ’ s meeting with the president .
Comey and Sessions met after a routine morning threat briefing . In that meeting , Comey reportedly shared his concern about proper communications protocol with the White House . Sessions said he agreed with Comey that the FBI and the DOJ need to be careful to follow policies , taking care to limit communications with the White House . Sessions said he was “ confident ” the FBI director would comply .
He did not , however , recuse himself from defending himself against false allegations .
“ I have dedicated myself to the highest standards , ” Sessions concluded .
When it came time for questions , several lawmakers wanted Sessions to expand on his involvement in the firing of Comey .
President Trump asked him and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for their opinions on Comey and to put it in writing , Sessions explained .
“ There was a clear view of mine and Rosenstein that we had problems ” at the FBI and it was his best judgment that a “ fresh start ” was the appropriate thing to do .
Comey had proved himself unfit for the job , Sessions said , because when he denied prosecution of Hillary Clinton after the email probe , that was a “ usurpation of authority . ”
|
Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday to address several allegations against him. Both Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) hoped he would clear up all questions relating to the Russia investigation.
Sessions, who requested an open hearing a day before his testimony, began his opening statement by insisting that such interference by Russia into our election can “never be tolerated.”
Then, he proceeded to try and exonerate himself from any wrongdoing, particularly in regards to accusations that he met privately with Russian officials during last year’s presidential campaign.
“I did not have any private meetings with any Russian officials” at the Mayflower hotel last April, Sessions insisted.
He continued to emphasize he had “no recollection” of talking with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the reception in question. Besides, it was “entirely beside the point” into this investigation into Russia’s interfering in our elections.
The attorney general then got personal, shocked that his former colleagues would accuse him of undermining their democracy.
“I have never met with or had any conversations with Russians concerning interference with any campaign,” Sessions reiterated. “The suggestion that I participated in any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for 35 years, is an appalling and detestable lie.”
Many outlets have been obsessed with an exchange Sessions had with Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) during his confirmation hearing in March. Some argue that the then-senator misled the panel by answering he had never had communications with Russian officials.
“Former colleagues, that is false,” Sessions said. “Sen. Franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony that included dramatic, new allegations. I was taken aback by explosive allegations.”
Sessions said he wanted to refute claims of collusion immediately. So, he offered what he thought was “a fair and correct response.”
Yet, when Sessions decided to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, many took that as a sign of guilt. Sessions cleared up that allegation as well.
The attorney general recused himself not because of any wrongdoing, but because of a DOJ regulation that mandated department employees should not participate in campaign investigations on campaigns in which they served as an advisor.
That’s why he stepped aside. It is “absurd” to suggest otherwise, Sessions said, or that a recusal proves he would be unable to manage leadership of the DOJ.
Sessions then pivoted to the issue over former FBI Director James Comey’s firing. Specifically, he shed some light on the conversation he had with Comey regarding the latter’s meeting with the president.
Comey and Sessions met after a routine morning threat briefing. In that meeting, Comey reportedly shared his concern about proper communications protocol with the White House. Sessions said he agreed with Comey that the FBI and the DOJ need to be careful to follow policies, taking care to limit communications with the White House. Sessions said he was “confident” the FBI director would comply.
He did not, however, recuse himself from defending himself against false allegations.
“I have dedicated myself to the highest standards,” Sessions concluded.
When it came time for questions, several lawmakers wanted Sessions to expand on his involvement in the firing of Comey.
President Trump asked him and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for their opinions on Comey and to put it in writing, Sessions explained.
“There was a clear view of mine and Rosenstein that we had problems” at the FBI and it was his best judgment that a “fresh start” was the appropriate thing to do.
Comey had proved himself unfit for the job, Sessions said, because when he denied prosecution of Hillary Clinton after the email probe, that was a “usurpation of authority.”
The FBI, he noted, doesn’t decide prosecution policies.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
2vYdo6qm9dU1HLHN
|
politics
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/02/michael-avenatti-crash-burn-1037151
|
‘He’s going through a pretty rough time’: Avenatti crashes and burns
|
2018-12-02
|
Natasha Korecki, Quint Forgey, Alice Miranda Ollstein
|
Michael Avenatti ’ s cable TV bookings have dwindled . He was uninvited from one prominent Democratic event and skipped out on another . He has even publicly clashed with his highest profile client .
In just a matter of weeks , Avenatti ’ s fortunes have taken a nosedive , rapidly downshifting him from 2020 presidential prospect to political pariah .
After a recent domestic violence arrest in Los Angeles and a public rift with client Stormy Daniels over fees and legal strategy , even some of his most loyal supporters are questioning whetherhe could survive the latest round of challenges and be a viable candidate .
“ As a friend , I ’ m concerned about him . When I call him to say ‘ Hey , how you doing ? ’ It ’ s pretty obvious he ’ s going through a pretty rough time now , ” said David Betras , a Democratic county chairman in Youngstown , Ohio , and one of Avenatti ’ s earliest political backers . “ I ’ m more worried about these pending charges . Domestic abuse ? That ’ s pretty bad for a run for president . ”
The most serious threat to Avenatti ’ s political ambition is a still-pending domestic violence case in Los Angeles . The district attorney ’ s office declined to press a felony charge . However , the Los Angeles city attorney is still reviewing it as a misdemeanor case .
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 . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
“ If he had a conviction for domestic violence , I couldn ’ t see myself supporting him if he runs for office with that on his record , ” Betras said .
While Avenatti has overcome his share of challenges to gain a place in the 2020 discussion , the weight of the latest round of allegations is serving to cement the case against the bellicose attorney in the eyes of those in the party who have long raised red flags about his candidacy .
“ The thuggish spectacle is not what the Democratic Party needs right now , ” said Patti Solis Doyle , a former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton who has clashed publicly with Avenatti in the past . “ We don ’ t need another Donald Trump . Donald Trump is imploding as we speak . ”
Avenatti told ███ he will be fully exonerated when the facts and evidence relating to the alleged incident are known . If anything , he said , the conditions for his bid have improved .
“ I think the field is shaping up to be even more advantageous for someone like me , not less , ” Avenatti said , declining to elaborate . “ I think my chances have only gone up , not gone down . ”
But it ’ s clear that the past few weeks have taken a toll . When news first broke of Avenatti ’ s arrest , the Vermont Democratic Party canceled events that were to have featured the attorney .
One of Avenatti ’ s recent hires is leaving after only six weeks . Roger Salazar , a Sacramento-based operative who advised the Bill Clinton White House and Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign , was helping with communications related to The Fight PAC , the political action committee Avenatti launched to pay for his operation .
“ Michael ’ s got a very important voice with respect to holding Trump ’ s feet to the fire . He doesn ’ t need me to speak for him . I ’ m not engaged at this point , ” Salazar said Friday . “ I ’ m not working for Fight PAC any longer . ”
There ’ s no clearer evidence of Avenatti ’ s diminished position than his absence from the debate surrounding former Trump attorney Michael Cohen , who pleaded guilty Thursday to making false statements to Congress in what prosecutors say was an attempt to minimize his talks with Trump about a Moscow real estate project .
It was Avenatti ’ s case with Daniels that first put a spotlight on Cohen ’ s role as Trump ’ s fixer . Avenatti has long touted his accurate prediction that Cohen — who was accused of paying Daniels $ 130,000 before the 2016 election to hide an affair she allegedly had with Trump — would eventually flip on the president .
Instead of stepping into his familiar role as a dominant presence on the cable news circuit , Avenatti was sidelined at the time of Cohen ’ s bombshell plea .
Avenatti has cut a lower profile since his Nov. 14 arrest on suspicion of domestic violence , an allegation involving actress Mareli Minutti , who later won a restraining order against him . Avenatti vehemently denies any allegation that he was physically abusive , and he refused in an interview to elaborate on his contention over social media that pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl was somehow involved in his court case .
“ We have received the case and we are reviewing it , ” Los Angeles City Attorney ’ s office spokesman Rob Wilcox said , adding that there is no timeline on the decision .
In another blow , Avenatti ’ s relationship with the client who helped rocket Avenatti to national fame was recently revealed to be a hot mess .
Daniels , whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford , last week claimed Avenatti had refused to give her details of how money raised for her legal defense through a crowdfunding site was spent and said she didn ’ t know about a second crowdfunded endeavor until she read about it on Twitter . She since has said she and Avenatti have resolved their dispute .
On Monday , Daniels tweeted that she and Avenatti had sorted things out and that `` we know the accounting is on the up and up . We are going to kick ass together on two coasts tomorrow . ''
Last week , Daniels had said , “ For months , I ’ ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense , ” Daniels said in a statement to The Daily Beast . “ He has repeatedly ignored those requests . Days ago I demanded again , repeatedly , that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left . Instead of answering me , without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf . ”
A spokesperson with the crowd-fund site CrowdJustice said it took down a new page related to fundraising for her legal costs .
“ We were made aware via press reports that the new Stormy Daniels case page may not have been approved by the beneficiary , ” a CrowdJustice spokesperson said in a statement . “ That page has been taken down . No funds from that campaign have been transferred to the legal representative and all pledges made have been refunded . ”
Avenatti told ███ that Clifford has paid $ 100 for legal costs that he estimates exceed $ 1.6 million and insists that he ’ s given her a “ full and complete accounting ” of the CrowdJustice fundraising . He contends that it was he who asked the site to pull down the latest page .
One Democrat close to Avenatti said other potential candidates in the field haven ’ t gone through a similar battle-testing period and that if Avenatti overcomes his latest set of obstacles , he will have demonstrated he can withstand any kind of attack Republicans would bring .
Another Democrat , Iowa strategist Jeff Link , who met with Avenatti before an Iowa event over the summer , said it is too soon to predict the attorney ’ s political demise .
“ If he has an explanation and facts to back up his perspective on this , I think he probably could survive this , ” Link said . “ If these are credible charges about domestic abuse , I don ’ t know how you get past those . It just seems like it ’ s a mounting list of issues that need to be clarified , and that ’ s always problematic . ”
CORRECTION : An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money at issue in the Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels case . It has been updated to reflect the correct amount , $ 130,000 .
|
The most serious threat to Michael Avenatti’s political ambition is a still-pending domestic violence case in Los Angeles. | Mario Tama/Getty Images 2020 Election ‘He’s going through a pretty rough time’: Avenatti crashes and burns Some of the attorney’s most loyal supporters question whether he can survive the latest round of challenges and remain a viable 2020 candidate.
Michael Avenatti’s cable TV bookings have dwindled. He was uninvited from one prominent Democratic event and skipped out on another. He has even publicly clashed with his highest profile client.
In just a matter of weeks, Avenatti’s fortunes have taken a nosedive, rapidly downshifting him from 2020 presidential prospect to political pariah.
Story Continued Below
After a recent domestic violence arrest in Los Angeles and a public rift with client Stormy Daniels over fees and legal strategy, even some of his most loyal supporters are questioning whetherhe could survive the latest round of challenges and be a viable candidate.
“As a friend, I’m concerned about him. When I call him to say ‘Hey, how you doing?’ It’s pretty obvious he’s going through a pretty rough time now,” said David Betras, a Democratic county chairman in Youngstown, Ohio, and one of Avenatti’s earliest political backers. “I’m more worried about these pending charges. Domestic abuse? That’s pretty bad for a run for president.”
The most serious threat to Avenatti’s political ambition is a still-pending domestic violence case in Los Angeles. The district attorney’s office declined to press a felony charge. However, the Los Angeles city attorney is still reviewing it as a misdemeanor case.
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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
“If he had a conviction for domestic violence, I couldn’t see myself supporting him if he runs for office with that on his record,” Betras said.
While Avenatti has overcome his share of challenges to gain a place in the 2020 discussion, the weight of the latest round of allegations is serving to cement the case against the bellicose attorney in the eyes of those in the party who have long raised red flags about his candidacy.
“The thuggish spectacle is not what the Democratic Party needs right now,” said Patti Solis Doyle, a former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton who has clashed publicly with Avenatti in the past. “We don’t need another Donald Trump. Donald Trump is imploding as we speak.”
Avenatti told POLITICO he will be fully exonerated when the facts and evidence relating to the alleged incident are known. If anything, he said, the conditions for his bid have improved.
“I think the field is shaping up to be even more advantageous for someone like me, not less,” Avenatti said, declining to elaborate. “I think my chances have only gone up, not gone down.”
But it’s clear that the past few weeks have taken a toll. When news first broke of Avenatti’s arrest, the Vermont Democratic Party canceled events that were to have featured the attorney.
One of Avenatti’s recent hires is leaving after only six weeks. Roger Salazar, a Sacramento-based operative who advised the Bill Clinton White House and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was helping with communications related to The Fight PAC, the political action committee Avenatti launched to pay for his operation.
“Michael’s got a very important voice with respect to holding Trump’s feet to the fire. He doesn’t need me to speak for him. I’m not engaged at this point,” Salazar said Friday. “I’m not working for Fight PAC any longer.”
There’s no clearer evidence of Avenatti’s diminished position than his absence from the debate surrounding former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty Thursday to making false statements to Congress in what prosecutors say was an attempt to minimize his talks with Trump about a Moscow real estate project.
It was Avenatti’s case with Daniels that first put a spotlight on Cohen’s role as Trump’s fixer. Avenatti has long touted his accurate prediction that Cohen — who was accused of paying Daniels $130,000 before the 2016 election to hide an affair she allegedly had with Trump — would eventually flip on the president.
Instead of stepping into his familiar role as a dominant presence on the cable news circuit, Avenatti was sidelined at the time of Cohen’s bombshell plea.
Avenatti has cut a lower profile since his Nov. 14 arrest on suspicion of domestic violence, an allegation involving actress Mareli Minutti, who later won a restraining order against him. Avenatti vehemently denies any allegation that he was physically abusive, and he refused in an interview to elaborate on his contention over social media that pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl was somehow involved in his court case.
The misdemeanor case is still outstanding.
“We have received the case and we are reviewing it,” Los Angeles City Attorney’s office spokesman Rob Wilcox said, adding that there is no timeline on the decision.
In another blow, Avenatti’s relationship with the client who helped rocket Avenatti to national fame was recently revealed to be a hot mess.
Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, last week claimed Avenatti had refused to give her details of how money raised for her legal defense through a crowdfunding site was spent and said she didn’t know about a second crowdfunded endeavor until she read about it on Twitter. She since has said she and Avenatti have resolved their dispute.
On Monday, Daniels tweeted that she and Avenatti had sorted things out and that "we know the accounting is on the up and up. We are going to kick ass together on two coasts tomorrow."
Last week, Daniels had said, “For months, I’ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense,” Daniels said in a statement to The Daily Beast. “He has repeatedly ignored those requests. Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf.”
A spokesperson with the crowd-fund site CrowdJustice said it took down a new page related to fundraising for her legal costs.
“We were made aware via press reports that the new Stormy Daniels case page may not have been approved by the beneficiary,” a CrowdJustice spokesperson said in a statement. “That page has been taken down. No funds from that campaign have been transferred to the legal representative and all pledges made have been refunded.”
Avenatti told POLITICO that Clifford has paid $100 for legal costs that he estimates exceed $1.6 million and insists that he’s given her a “full and complete accounting” of the CrowdJustice fundraising. He contends that it was he who asked the site to pull down the latest page.
One Democrat close to Avenatti said other potential candidates in the field haven’t gone through a similar battle-testing period and that if Avenatti overcomes his latest set of obstacles, he will have demonstrated he can withstand any kind of attack Republicans would bring.
Another Democrat, Iowa strategist Jeff Link, who met with Avenatti before an Iowa event over the summer, said it is too soon to predict the attorney’s political demise.
“If he has an explanation and facts to back up his perspective on this, I think he probably could survive this,” Link said. “If these are credible charges about domestic abuse, I don’t know how you get past those. It just seems like it’s a mounting list of issues that need to be clarified, and that’s always problematic.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money at issue in the Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels case. It has been updated to reflect the correct amount, $130,000.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
mA1KEE1dr9oOj1eT
|
terrorism
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
Boston bombing suspect communicating in writing, source says
|
2013-04-22
|
Jake Tapper, Matt Smith
|
Story highlights Tsarnaev has said his brother drove the attack and they had no international ties
Federal investigators return Boylston Street to city of Boston but it remains closed
His brother was killed during a police chase early Friday
Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told investigators his older brother Tamerlan was the driving force behind last week 's attack and that no international terrorist groups were behind them , a U.S. government source said Monday .
Preliminary interviews with Tsarnaev indicate the two brothers fit the classification of self-radicalized jihadists , the source said . Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , wounded and held in a Boston hospital , has said his brother -- who was killed early Friday -- wanted to defend Islam from attack , according to the source .
The government source cautioned that the interviews were preliminary , and that Tsarnaev 's account needs to be checked out and followed up on by investigators .
And a federal law enforcement official told CNN that while investigators have seen nothing yet to indicate the suspects were working with anyone else , a lot of work remains before they can say confidently that no others were involved . That official would not comment on any motive or specifics on what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has communicated to officials .
The 19-year-old has been charged with using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death , and one count of malicious destruction of property by means of an explosive device resulting in death . He was heavily sedated and on a ventilator at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital , but was `` alert , mentally competent and lucid '' during the brief initial court appearance at his bedside on Monday , U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler found .
During the hearing , Tsarnaev communicated mostly by nodding his head , though he once answered `` No '' when Bowler asked him if he could afford a lawyer , according to a transcript of the proceeding . A public defender was appointed to represent him .
Investigators have been asking Tsarnaev whether there are more bombs , explosives caches or weapons beyond those already found by police , and if anyone else was involved in the attacks , a source with first-hand knowledge of the investigation told CNN . Investigators are going into Tsarnaev 's room every few hours to ask questions in the presence of doctors , the source said .
Federal agents at first questioned Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights , under an exception to the rule invoked when authorities believe there is an imminent public safety threat , a Justice Department official said over the weekend . But by the time of the hospital room proceeding , government sources said he had been read his rights , and Bowler reviewed those with him again Monday .
Tsarnaev had been shot in the head , neck , legs and one hand , according to an FBI affidavit supporting the charges . He had lost a lot of blood and may have hearing loss from two flash-bang devices used to draw him out of the boat , the source said .
-- armed with handguns and explosives -- apparently were planning another attack before the shootout disrupted their efforts . It was n't clear whether Tsarnaev was wounded during his capture Friday night or in an earlier shootout with police that left his 26-year-old brother dead . Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said the brothers -- armed with handguns and explosives -- apparently were planning another attack before the shootout disrupted their efforts .
`` I believe that the only reason that someone would have those in their possession was to further attack people and cause more death and destruction , '' Davis said on CNN 's `` Starting Point '' Monday .
Investigators are also trying to determine whether anyone else was involved in the bombings . But Davis , speaking Sunday to CNN 's Don Lemon , said that he was confident that the brothers were `` the two major actors in the violence that occurred . ''
`` I told the people of Boston that they can rest easily , that the two people who were committing these vicious attacks are either dead or arrested , and I still believe that , '' he said .
Meanwhile , after a week of combing the downtown thoroughfare where the bombs went off for evidence , federal authorities handed control of Boylston Street back to the city . But the blocks around the bomb sites remain closed to the public while Boston officials clean up the area and make sure the buildings are safe to occupy .
`` This area will be opened up to businesses over the next few hours , and then the people will be back here in a day or so , '' Davis said . `` And they will be walking up and down this street , and the terrorists will understand that they can not keep us down . ''
A police honor guard , accompanied by a bagpiper , lowered the flag that had flown at the finish line of last week 's marathon and presented it to Mayor Thomas Menino to mark the occasion . Shortly afterward , workers in bright yellow suits began hosing down and scrubbing the sidewalks around the second bomb site .
Among the pieces of evidence collected from Boylston Street during the past week was a tree that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have leaned against before the bombing , according to a source who receives regular intelligence briefings on the Boston bombings . The source said the tree -- located at the site of the second blast -- was removed along with the surrounding grate , where the explosive device 's circuit board was found .
The decision to charge Tsarnaev in civilian court put an end to speculation that he would be charged as an enemy combatant , a designation sometimes used against terrorists . White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen and can not be tried by a military commission .
Trying Tsarnaev in civilian courts -- like `` hundreds of terrorists '' to date -- is `` absolutely the right way to go and the appropriate way to go , '' Carney said . `` We have a long history of successfully prosecuting terrorists and bringing them to justice , and the president fully believes that that process will work in this case . ''
That disappointed Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-South Carolina , who has been calling for Tsarnaev to be handed over to U.S. intelligence as an `` enemy combatant . ''
`` There is ample evidence here on the criminal side , '' Graham said . `` A first-year law student could prosecute this case . What I am worried about is , what does this individual know about future attacks or terrorist organizations that may be in our midst ? We have the right to gather intelligence . ''
Graham also said there was also `` ample evidence '' that the bombings were `` inspired by radical ideology . ''
But while Tamerlan Tsarnaev apparently became increasingly radical in the past three or four years , according to an analysis of his social media accounts and the recollections of family members , there was no evidence Monday that he had any active association with international jihadist groups .
Tamerlan Tsarnaev , 26 , died after a shootout with police early Friday . Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured that night , after police found him hiding in a boat in the back yard of a house in the Boston suburb of Watertown , Massachusetts .
With one suspect dead and the other hindered in his ability to communicate , investigators are eager to speak to Tamerlan Tsarnaev 's wife , Katherine Russell , to see what she might know about incidents leading up to the bombings .
On Monday , her attorney said she learned of her husband 's alleged involvement through news accounts .
`` She knew nothing about it at any time , '' Amato DeLuca said in response to questions about whether Russell knew of plans to attack the marathon .
Tsarnaev stayed home and cared for the couple 's 2-year-old daughter while his wife worked long hours as a home-care aide , according to DeLuca .
`` They 're very distraught . They 're upset . Their lives have been unalterably changed . They 're upset because of what happened , the people that were injured , that were killed . It 's an awful , terrible thing , '' he said . `` And of course ( for ) Katy , it 's even worse because what she lost -- her husband and the father of her daughter . ''
The Tsarnaev family hails from the Russian republic of Chechnya and fled the brutal wars there in the 1990s . The two brothers were born in Kyrgyzstan ; Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen in 2012 , while Tamerlan was a legal U.S. resident .
An FBI official said agents interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of the Russian government . The FBI said Russia claimed that he was a follower of radical Islam and that he had changed drastically since 2010 .
But the Russian government 's request was vague , a U.S. official and a law enforcement source said Sunday . The lack of specifics limited how much the FBI was able to investigate Tamerlan , the law enforcement official said .
In August 2012 , soon after returning from a visit to Russia , the elder Tsarnaev brother created a YouTube channel with links to a number of videos . Two videos under a category labeled `` Terrorists '' were deleted . It 's not clear when or by whom .
Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended prayers periodically at the Islamic Society of Boston 's mosque in Cambridge , a board member told CNN 's Brian Todd . In a statement issued Monday , the society said he twice interrupted sermons -- once in November to express his opposition to celebrating any holiday as un-Islamic , and once in January when he tore into the preacher for citing civil rights leader Martin Luther King .
The second time , the congregation shouted back , `` Leave now , '' the statement said .
`` After the sermon and the congregational prayer ended , a few volunteer leaders of the mosque sat down with the older suspect and gave him a clear choice : either he stops interrupting sermons and remains silent or he would not be welcomed , '' it said . `` While he continued to attend some of the congregational prayers after the January incident , he neither interrupted another sermon nor did he cause any other disturbances . ''
Tamerlan Tsarnaev `` began coming intermittently to our congregational prayers on Friday over a year ago and occasionally to our daily prayers , '' the statement read . `` The younger suspect was rarely seen at the center , coming only occasionally for prayer . ''
One of the victims , Krystle Campbell was memorialized Monday morning in a service at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Medford , Massachusetts . After the service , police officers lined the street in front of the church as other officers wearing dress uniforms saluted as the casket bearing her remains was taken from the church and loaded into a hearse .
Another memorial service was scheduled Monday night at Boston University for Lingzi Lu , a student from China . Lu was a graduate student in mathematics and statistics . Before coming to Boston , she won an academic scholarship to the Beijing Institute of Technology , where she received accolades for her math skills .
On Wednesday , Vice President Joe Biden will attend the memorial service for MIT police officer Sean Collier , who was allegedly killed by the Tsarnaev brothers .
A week after the marathon bombings , 50 people remain hospitalized , including two in critical condition , according to a CNN tally .
Patients at Boston Medical Center have received visits from war veterans who have also suffered amputations . The vets , Dr. Jeffrey Kalish said , told patients that their lives are n't over because they 've lost limbs .
`` We 've seen really tremendous success and great attitudes , '' he said .
Also Monday , Davis -- the Boston police commissioner -- said transit system police officer Richard Donohue , wounded in the firefight with the Tsarnaev brothers , was improving .
`` He was in grave condition when he went to the hospital , so we 're very optimistic at this point in time , and our prayers are with him and his family , '' he said .
|
Story highlights Tsarnaev has said his brother drove the attack and they had no international ties
Federal investigators return Boylston Street to city of Boston but it remains closed
Tsarnaev is communicating with investigators by nodding, source says
His brother was killed during a police chase early Friday
Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told investigators his older brother Tamerlan was the driving force behind last week's attack and that no international terrorist groups were behind them, a U.S. government source said Monday.
Preliminary interviews with Tsarnaev indicate the two brothers fit the classification of self-radicalized jihadists, the source said. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wounded and held in a Boston hospital, has said his brother -- who was killed early Friday -- wanted to defend Islam from attack, according to the source.
The government source cautioned that the interviews were preliminary, and that Tsarnaev's account needs to be checked out and followed up on by investigators.
And a federal law enforcement official told CNN that while investigators have seen nothing yet to indicate the suspects were working with anyone else, a lot of work remains before they can say confidently that no others were involved. That official would not comment on any motive or specifics on what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has communicated to officials.
The 19-year-old has been charged with using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death, and one count of malicious destruction of property by means of an explosive device resulting in death. He was heavily sedated and on a ventilator at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, but was "alert, mentally competent and lucid" during the brief initial court appearance at his bedside on Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler found.
During the hearing, Tsarnaev communicated mostly by nodding his head, though he once answered "No" when Bowler asked him if he could afford a lawyer, according to a transcript of the proceeding. A public defender was appointed to represent him.
Investigators have been asking Tsarnaev whether there are more bombs, explosives caches or weapons beyond those already found by police, and if anyone else was involved in the attacks, a source with first-hand knowledge of the investigation told CNN. Investigators are going into Tsarnaev's room every few hours to ask questions in the presence of doctors, the source said.
Federal agents at first questioned Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, under an exception to the rule invoked when authorities believe there is an imminent public safety threat, a Justice Department official said over the weekend. But by the time of the hospital room proceeding, government sources said he had been read his rights, and Bowler reviewed those with him again Monday.
Bowler scheduled a probable cause hearing for May 30.
Tsarnaev had been shot in the head, neck, legs and one hand, according to an FBI affidavit supporting the charges. He had lost a lot of blood and may have hearing loss from two flash-bang devices used to draw him out of the boat, the source said.
-- armed with handguns and explosives -- apparently were planning another attack before the shootout disrupted their efforts. It wasn't clear whether Tsarnaev was wounded during his capture Friday night or in an earlier shootout with police that left his 26-year-old brother dead. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said the brothers-- armed with handguns and explosives -- apparently were planning another attack before the shootout disrupted their efforts.
"I believe that the only reason that someone would have those in their possession was to further attack people and cause more death and destruction," Davis said on CNN's "Starting Point" Monday.
Investigators are also trying to determine whether anyone else was involved in the bombings. But Davis, speaking Sunday to CNN's Don Lemon, said that he was confident that the brothers were "the two major actors in the violence that occurred."
"I told the people of Boston that they can rest easily, that the two people who were committing these vicious attacks are either dead or arrested, and I still believe that," he said.
Meanwhile, after a week of combing the downtown thoroughfare where the bombs went off for evidence, federal authorities handed control of Boylston Street back to the city. But the blocks around the bomb sites remain closed to the public while Boston officials clean up the area and make sure the buildings are safe to occupy.
"This area will be opened up to businesses over the next few hours, and then the people will be back here in a day or so," Davis said. "And they will be walking up and down this street, and the terrorists will understand that they can not keep us down."
A police honor guard, accompanied by a bagpiper, lowered the flag that had flown at the finish line of last week's marathon and presented it to Mayor Thomas Menino to mark the occasion. Shortly afterward, workers in bright yellow suits began hosing down and scrubbing the sidewalks around the second bomb site.
Among the pieces of evidence collected from Boylston Street during the past week was a tree that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have leaned against before the bombing, according to a source who receives regular intelligence briefings on the Boston bombings. The source said the tree -- located at the site of the second blast -- was removed along with the surrounding grate, where the explosive device's circuit board was found.
White House: No 'enemy combatant' status
The decision to charge Tsarnaev in civilian court put an end to speculation that he would be charged as an enemy combatant, a designation sometimes used against terrorists. White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen and cannot be tried by a military commission.
Trying Tsarnaev in civilian courts -- like "hundreds of terrorists" to date -- is "absolutely the right way to go and the appropriate way to go," Carney said. "We have a long history of successfully prosecuting terrorists and bringing them to justice, and the president fully believes that that process will work in this case."
That disappointed Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who has been calling for Tsarnaev to be handed over to U.S. intelligence as an "enemy combatant."
"There is ample evidence here on the criminal side," Graham said. "A first-year law student could prosecute this case. What I am worried about is, what does this individual know about future attacks or terrorist organizations that may be in our midst? We have the right to gather intelligence."
Graham also said there was also "ample evidence" that the bombings were "inspired by radical ideology."
But while Tamerlan Tsarnaev apparently became increasingly radical in the past three or four years, according to an analysis of his social media accounts and the recollections of family members, there was no evidence Monday that he had any active association with international jihadist groups.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, died after a shootout with police early Friday. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured that night, after police found him hiding in a boat in the back yard of a house in the Boston suburb of Watertown, Massachusetts.
Older suspect's wife
With one suspect dead and the other hindered in his ability to communicate, investigators are eager to speak to Tamerlan Tsarnaev's wife, Katherine Russell , to see what she might know about incidents leading up to the bombings.
On Monday, her attorney said she learned of her husband's alleged involvement through news accounts.
"She knew nothing about it at any time," Amato DeLuca said in response to questions about whether Russell knew of plans to attack the marathon.
Tsarnaev stayed home and cared for the couple's 2-year-old daughter while his wife worked long hours as a home-care aide, according to DeLuca.
The family is devastated, the attorney said.
"They're very distraught. They're upset. Their lives have been unalterably changed. They're upset because of what happened, the people that were injured, that were killed. It's an awful, terrible thing," he said. "And of course (for) Katy, it's even worse because what she lost -- her husband and the father of her daughter."
Clues about radicalization?
The Tsarnaev family hails from the Russian republic of Chechnya and fled the brutal wars there in the 1990s. The two brothers were born in Kyrgyzstan; Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen in 2012, while Tamerlan was a legal U.S. resident.
An FBI official said agents interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of the Russian government. The FBI said Russia claimed that he was a follower of radical Islam and that he had changed drastically since 2010.
But the Russian government's request was vague, a U.S. official and a law enforcement source said Sunday. The lack of specifics limited how much the FBI was able to investigate Tamerlan, the law enforcement official said.
Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is detained by officers on Friday, April 19. After a car chase and shootout with police, one suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and killed by police early Friday, and his brother and second suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was taken into custody Friday night. The two men are suspects in the bombings at the Boston Marathon on April 15, that killed three people and wounded at least 170. See all photography related to the Boston bombings. Hide Caption 1 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Special imaging techniques employed by Massachusetts State Police reveal Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in a boat in a backyard in Watertown on April 19. Hide Caption 2 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gets out of the boat he was hiding in outside of a home in Watertown, as seen in a surveillance video still. Hide Caption 3 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – An ambulance carries Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, from the scene after he was apprehended in Watertown, Massachusetts, on April 19. Hide Caption 4 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police SWAT teams leave the area after apprehending the suspect in a yard where he was hiding in a dry-docked boat on April 19. Hide Caption 5 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Residents flee from an area where a suspect was hiding on Franklin Street on April 19. Hide Caption 6 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT team members run toward a police assault on a house as gunfire erupts on April 19. Hide Caption 7 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – People react while watching police respond to reported gunfire on April 19. Hide Caption 8 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT team members move down residential streets as they perform door-to-door searches in Watertown, Massachusetts, on April 19. Hide Caption 9 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A U.S. military helicopter lands behind Watertown Mall as law enforcement agencies continue to search for the 19-year-old bombing suspect on Friday. Hide Caption 10 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT teams prepare to enter a home as they continue the door-to-door search. Hide Caption 11 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – U.S. President Barack Obama meets with members of his national security team in the Situation Room of the White House on April 19 to discuss developments in the Boston bombings investigation. Hide Caption 12 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT team members line a residential street in Watertown, Massachusetts, as the manhunt continues on Friday. Hide Caption 13 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A man watches from the window of a home as a SWAT team member keeps watch on Friday, in Watertown, Massachusetts. Hide Caption 14 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police to continue to the door-to-door search on Francis Street in Watertown, Massachusetts, on Friday. Hide Caption 15 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Law enforcement officers place themselves in an overhead position on Arsenal Street as the search continues on April 19. Hide Caption 16 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Law enforcement officers react to what was initially thought to be a threatening suspect on Arsenal Street on April 19. Hide Caption 17 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A police SWAT team searches houses on April 19 for the second suspect. Hide Caption 18 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT teams searches homes along Winsor Avenue in Watertown on April 19. Hide Caption 19 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A Massachusetts state trooper watches other troopers line up at Watertown Mall as the manhunt for the second suspect continues in Watertown on Friday. Hide Caption 20 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police continue the ongoing manhunt for the second suspect on Williow Avenue in Watertown on Friday. Hide Caption 21 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A Watertown police vehicle with bullet holes in its body and a shattered windshield is towed out of the search area on April 19 in Watertown, Massachusetts. Hide Caption 22 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A Massachusetts State Police officer checks the bag of a cyclist amid heightened security on Friday in Watertown. Hide Caption 23 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Katia Costa looks out her window as police continue the manhunt on Nichols Avenue in Watertown on Friday. Hide Caption 24 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Ruslan Tsarni, uncle of the Boston terror suspects, told CNN affiliate WBZ that Tamerlan "got what he deserved" in an interview outside his home in Montgomery Village, Maryland, on Friday. Hide Caption 25 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A woman is questioned by Cambridge police and other law enforcement agencies Friday near the home of the second suspect in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer was shot and killed late Thursday night at the school's campus in Cambridge. A short time later, police reported exchanging gunfire with alleged carjackers in nearby Watertown. Hide Caption 26 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT teams move into position at the intersection of Nichols and Melendy avenues in Watertown, Massachusetts, on Friday. Hide Caption 27 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT teams gather at the intersection of Nichols and Melendy avenues in Watertown while searching for the remaining suspect on Friday. Hide Caption 28 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Onlookers take pictures while SWAT team members look around on Friday. Hide Caption 29 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, left, speaks to the media at a shopping mall on the perimeter of a locked-down area during the search on Friday. Hide Caption 30 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Metro SWAT members hang off the back of a truck during the search on Friday. Hide Caption 31 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – SWAT officers check a door with guns ready on Friday. Hide Caption 32 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Officers patrol Watertown on Friday. Hide Caption 33 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers – The aftermath of the shootout that police said involved the two suspects in Watertown early Friday. Hide Caption 34 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police with guns drawn search for a suspect on Friday in Watertown, Massachusetts. Hide Caption 35 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A police officer runs with his gun drawn on Friday. Hide Caption 36 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Boston Police gather in the parking lot in front of a Best Buy store near the Watertown Mall on Friday. Hide Caption 37 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis speaks during a media briefing in the parking lot of the Watertown Mall on Friday. Hide Caption 38 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Boston police gather in front of a Best Buy on Friday. Hide Caption 39 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police stop cars at School and Walnut streets on Friday. Hide Caption 40 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A Massachusetts state trooper checks a building along Mount Auburn Street as police search neighborhoods in Watertown. Hide Caption 41 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police search neighborhoods yard by yard on Friday. Hide Caption 42 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police convene on School and Walnut streets on Friday. Hide Caption 43 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – A police officer talks to a driver at a checkpoint in Watertown, Massachusetts. Hide Caption 44 of 45 Photos: Photos: Manhunt for Boston bombers Manhunt for Boston bombers – Police officers keep a man on the ground in Watertown on Friday. See all photography related to the Boston bombings. Hide Caption 45 of 45
Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A man removes a sign hanging from the Lennox Hotel along Boylston Street after the street reopened to the public for the first time since the Boston Marathon bombings in Boston on Wednesday, April 24. The city is trying to return to normal less than a week after two bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, shocking the nation and leaving the city on edge. See all photography relating to the Boston bombings. Hide Caption 1 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A man washes a bus stop window on Boylston Street on April 24. Hide Caption 2 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Alec Mikels cleans tables at Whiskey's Smokehouse on Boylston Street on Tuesday, April 23 in Boston. Hide Caption 3 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A cleaner power washes Boylston Street near the blast site after the FBI handed the area back to the city of Boston on Monday, April 22, following the week-long investigation. Hide Caption 4 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – The Boston Fire Department Hazardous Materials team cleans the first blast site near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 22. Hide Caption 5 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Cleaning material is sprayed on April 22 on the outlined blast seat on the sidewalk of Boylston Street at the site of the marathon bombings. Hide Caption 6 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A member of the Boston Fire Department Hazardous Materials team cleans the first blast site with a pressure washer on April 22. Hide Caption 7 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Brad Marchand of the Boston Bruins embraces one of the first responders from the Boston Marathon attack after the game against the Florida Panthers at the TD Garden on Sunday, April 21, in Boston. Hide Caption 8 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox speaks to the crowd during a ceremony held in honor of the bombing victims before a baseball game against the Kansas City Royals at Fenway Park in Boston, on Saturday, April 20. Hide Caption 9 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Neil Diamond sings "Sweet Caroline," a song traditionally played at Boston Red Sox home games, during a game against the Kansas City Royals on April 20. Hide Caption 10 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Members of law enforcement react during ceremonies in honor of the Marathon bombing victims before Saturday's game. Hide Caption 11 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Photos: Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A woman sheds a tear during pregame ceremonies Saturday. Hide Caption 12 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Photos: Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A man holds an American flag at ceremonies before the Saturday game in Boston. Hide Caption 13 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Hundreds of people pour onto Hemingway Street in the Fenway neighborhood to celebrate after the announcement that the second Boston Marathon bombing suspect had been captured on Friday, April 19. Hide Caption 14 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Women cheer police as they exit Franklin Street on Friday, April 19, in Watertown, Massachusetts. Hide Caption 15 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Officers from the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives relax Friday after the capture in Watertown, Massachusetts. Hide Caption 16 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A woman gives a Boston police officer a hug and other officers are thanked during a celebration in the Boston Common on April 19. Hide Caption 17 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A member of the North Metro SWAT team pumps his fist while leaving the scene near Franklin Street on April 19. Hide Caption 18 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Around 200 people celebrate on Hemingway Street in the Fenway neighborhood after the capture of the second suspect on April 19. Hide Caption 19 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – People wave U.S. flags as police drive down the street on April 19. Hide Caption 20 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A photograph of Martin Richard, one of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, was placed on the plexiglass by a fan following the hockey game between the Buffalo Sabres and the New York Rangers on April 19 at the First Niagara Center in Buffalo, New York. Hide Caption 21 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A man waves a U.S. flag in Watertown on April 19. Hide Caption 22 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Local residents cheer to news that police have captured the surviving suspect Watertown on April 19. Hide Caption 23 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – President Barack Obama arrives in the White House briefing room to make a statement late April 19 about the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. "We've closed an important chapter in this tragedy," he said. Hide Caption 24 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A SWAT team member is followed by reporters and a celebrating crowd on April 19 after the successful operation. Hide Caption 25 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A police officer adjusts his hat while various law enforcement agencies descend on the area around Franklin Street on April 19. Hide Caption 26 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Spectators celebrate as law enforcement officers leave the scene on April 19 near Franklin Street. Hide Caption 27 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – People gather at the scene near Franklin Street in Watertown on April 19. Hide Caption 28 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – A man claps next to a police vehicle in the Watertown neighborhood on April 19. Hide Caption 29 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Onlookers applaud first responders departing the scene at the end of the manhunt on April 19. Hide Caption 30 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Police officers and SWAT team members exult after the successful operation to capture suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on April 19. Hide Caption 31 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Boston SWAT team members are surrounded by spectators and the media on April 19. Hide Caption 32 of 33 Photos: Photos: Boston celebrates Boston celebrates, seeks return to normal – Residents clap after the capture of the second of two suspects wanted in the Boston Marathon bombings on April 19. See all photography relating to the Boston bombings. Hide Caption 33 of 33
Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings Evidence photos from Boston bombings – A police forensics team examines a boat April 22, 2013, in Watertown, Massachusetts, where Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was discovered several days earlier and taken into custody. Hide Caption 1 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings Massachusetts State Police released thermal images of Tsarnaev hiding in the boat on April 19, 2013. They were taken by an infrared device on a helicopter. The first image was taken at 7:19 p.m., less than 20 minutes after a homeowner told police there was a bloodied person in his boat. Hide Caption 2 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings This image from 7:22 p.m. shows a white heat signature large enough to be a person. Hide Caption 3 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings A robotic arm tears away the cover on the boat at 7:36 p.m. Hide Caption 4 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings The heat signature clearly shows the suspect's feet and the rest of his body behind the boat console at 8:01 p.m., minutes before he surrendered. Hide Caption 5 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings Boston Marathon bomb scene pictures, taken by investigators, show the remains of an explosive device. Hide Caption 6 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings A federal law enforcement source with firsthand knowledge of the investigation told CNN that a lid to a pressure cooker -- thought to have been used in the bombings -- had been found on a roof of a building near the scene. Hide Caption 7 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings One bomb was housed in a pressure cooker hidden inside a backpack, the FBI said in a joint intelligence bulletin. Hide Caption 8 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings The device also had fragments that may have included nails, BBs and ball bearings, the FBI said. Hide Caption 9 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings The recovered parts include part of a circuit board, which might have been used to detonate a device. Hide Caption 10 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings A law enforcement official said the bombs were probably detonated by timers. But the FBI said details of the detonating system were unknown. Hide Caption 11 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings Scraps of at least one pressure cooker, nails and nylon bags were sent to the FBI's national laboratory in Virginia, where technicians will try to reconstruct the devices, the agent leading the investigation said. Hide Caption 12 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings The U.S. government has warned federal agencies in the past that terrorists could turn pressure cookers into bombs by packing them with explosives and shrapnel and detonating them with blasting caps. Hide Caption 13 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings The pieces suggest each of the devices was 6 liters (about 1.6 gallons) in volume, a Boston law enforcement source said. Hide Caption 14 of 15 Photos: Evidence photos from Boston bombings "It has the hallmarks of both domestic and international (attacks), and you can see either side of that," former FBI Assistant Director Tom Fuentes told CNN. Hide Caption 15 of 15
Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Three people were killed when two homemade explosives went off at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, and a campus police officer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was fatally shot in the manhunt that followed. From left, the victims were Krystle Campbell, Sean Collier, Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard. Click through the gallery to see how the victims were honored and remembered in the weeks after the terror attack. Hide Caption 1 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims People pause at the memorial site in Boston's Copley Square on April 30, 2013. Hide Caption 2 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Running shoes were among the mementos left as a tribute to the bombing victims. Hide Caption 3 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Boston showed its resilience and heart with signs of support for the bombing victims, including this cover from an issue of Boston magazine. Hide Caption 4 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Law enforcement officials enter St. Patrick's Church prior to Collier's funeral in Stoneham, Massachusetts, on April 23, 2013. Hide Caption 5 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims President Barack Obama observes a moment of silence in the White House Oval Office on April 22, 2013. Hide Caption 6 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Staff members of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center gather inside a trauma room to observe a moment of silence on April 22, 2013. Hide Caption 7 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A Buddhist sits at a memorial near the marathon finish line during a moment of silence on April 22, 2013. Hide Caption 8 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims One week after the bombings, people gather to observe a moment of silence in Copley Square. Hide Caption 9 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Officials line Boylston Street as they observe a moment of silence near the marathon finish line on April 22, 2013. Hide Caption 10 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims People take part in the moment of silence near the marathon finish line. Hide Caption 11 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims State employees pause for a moment of silence on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. Hide Caption 12 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Pallbearers carry Campbell's casket after a funeral service in Medford, Massachusetts, on April 22, 2013. Hide Caption 13 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Mourners walk out of St. Joseph Catholic Church after Campbell's funeral service. Hide Caption 14 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Nurse practitioner Maureen Quaranto, who treated victims of the bombings, wears her Boston Marathon jacket during Mass on April 21, 2013. Hide Caption 15 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims From left, Boston Police Department Superintendents Kevin Buckley and William Evans attend Mass with Police Commissioner Edward Davis on April 21, 2013. Hide Caption 16 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Photos of the deceased are displayed in Boston at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on April 21, 2013. Hide Caption 17 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Leaders of an interfaith service participate in a vigil near the finish line on April 21, 2013. Hide Caption 18 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A makeshift memorial honors the bombing victims on April 21, 2013. Hide Caption 19 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Nicole Collier Lynch, Collier's sister, hugs a police officer during a vigil in Wilmington, Massachusetts, on April 20, 2013. Hide Caption 20 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims People gather at a makeshift memorial in Boston on April 20, 2013. Hide Caption 21 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Huntsville, Alabama, residents hold a prayer vigil on April 19, 2013. Hide Caption 22 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A man rings a bell at the vigil in Huntsville. Hide Caption 23 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Two women embrace during a candlelight vigil in Somerville, Massachusetts, on April 18, 2013. Hide Caption 24 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Obama talks with staff members at Massachusetts General Hospital while visiting injured patients on April 18, 2013. Hide Caption 25 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A man at a Boston restaurant watches Obama speak on television on April 18, 2013. Hide Caption 26 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Mourners fill a Boston cathedral for an interfaith service on April 18, 2013. Hide Caption 27 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick attend the interfaith prayer service. Hide Caption 28 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Flowers, running shoes and other items are left in memory of bombing victim Lingzi Lu. Hide Caption 29 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Dennis Seidenberg of the Boston Bruins observes a moment of silence before the start of an NHL hockey game in Boston on April 17, 2013. It was the first sporting event held in the city after the bombings. Hide Caption 30 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Danielle Cerroni writes a chalk message on the street near the marathon's finish line on April 17, 2013. Hide Caption 31 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A woman looks at memorials left at the scene of the attack. Hide Caption 32 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A crowd gathers at Boston's Garvey Park during a vigil for bombing victim Martin Richard on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 33 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims A woman uses her hand to keep wind from her candle during an interfaith service in Boston on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 34 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Mourners gather on the edge of the pond for a candlelight vigil in Boston on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 35 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Students from the Clifden Academy hold an American flag and candles during a vigil in Dorcester, Massachusetts, on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 36 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims People walk along the barricade at Boylston Street on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 37 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Mourners in Boston hug one another during a vigil for victims on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 38 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Five-time Boston Marathon runner Jose Sotolongo, center, reacts during a moment of silence in Miami on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 39 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims The New York Islanders and Florida Panthers stand for a moment of silence before an NHL hocky game in Uniondale, New York, on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 40 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Members of the Boston Red Sox observe a moment of silence before their Major League Baseball game in Cleveland on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 41 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims From left, Boston Marathon runners Tammy Snyder, Diane Deigmann and Lisa Kresky-Griffin embrace at the barricaded entrance to Boylston Street on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 42 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Two young girls leave flowers on the steps outside the Boston home of 8-year-old bombing victim Martin Richard on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 43 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Traders at the New York Stock Exchange observe a moment of silence before the opening bell on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 44 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims The flag above the White House flies at half-staff on April 16, 2013. Hide Caption 45 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims The Minnesota Twins stand during the national anthem before a baseball game in Minneapolis on April 15, 2013. Hide Caption 46 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Obama makes a statement about the bombings on April 15, 2013. Hide Caption 47 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Players and fans observe a moment of silence before an NBA game in Oakland, California, on Aprl 15, 2013. Hide Caption 48 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims An American flag flies at half-staff at the Capitol building in Washington on April 15, 2013. Hide Caption 49 of 50 Photos: Nation mourns Boston bombing victims Hockey fans in Glendale, Arizona, pause for a moment of silence before a game on April 15, 2013. Hide Caption 50 of 50
In August 2012, soon after returning from a visit to Russia, the elder Tsarnaev brother created a YouTube channel with links to a number of videos. Two videos under a category labeled "Terrorists" were deleted. It's not clear when or by whom.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended prayers periodically at the Islamic Society of Boston's mosque in Cambridge, a board member told CNN's Brian Todd. In a statement issued Monday, the society said he twice interrupted sermons -- once in November to express his opposition to celebrating any holiday as un-Islamic, and once in January when he tore into the preacher for citing civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
The second time, the congregation shouted back, "Leave now," the statement said.
"After the sermon and the congregational prayer ended, a few volunteer leaders of the mosque sat down with the older suspect and gave him a clear choice: either he stops interrupting sermons and remains silent or he would not be welcomed," it said. "While he continued to attend some of the congregational prayers after the January incident, he neither interrupted another sermon nor did he cause any other disturbances."
Tamerlan Tsarnaev "began coming intermittently to our congregational prayers on Friday over a year ago and occasionally to our daily prayers," the statement read. "The younger suspect was rarely seen at the center, coming only occasionally for prayer."
Memorials and tributes
One of the victims, Krystle Campbell was memorialized Monday morning in a service at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Medford, Massachusetts. After the service, police officers lined the street in front of the church as other officers wearing dress uniforms saluted as the casket bearing her remains was taken from the church and loaded into a hearse.
Another memorial service was scheduled Monday night at Boston University for Lingzi Lu, a student from China. Lu was a graduate student in mathematics and statistics. Before coming to Boston, she won an academic scholarship to the Beijing Institute of Technology, where she received accolades for her math skills.
On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden will attend the memorial service for MIT police officer Sean Collier, who was allegedly killed by the Tsarnaev brothers.
A week after the marathon bombings, 50 people remain hospitalized, including two in critical condition, according to a CNN tally.
At least a dozen survivors have endured amputations.
Patients at Boston Medical Center have received visits from war veterans who have also suffered amputations. The vets, Dr. Jeffrey Kalish said, told patients that their lives aren't over because they've lost limbs.
"We've seen really tremendous success and great attitudes," he said.
Also Monday, Davis -- the Boston police commissioner -- said transit system police officer Richard Donohue, wounded in the firefight with the Tsarnaev brothers, was improving.
"He was in grave condition when he went to the hospital, so we're very optimistic at this point in time, and our prayers are with him and his family," he said.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
sxoFKvuJM7OmflAz
|
foreign_policy
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/20/britain-warns-iran-over-seized-oil-tanker-strait-hormuz-us-iran-tensions/1784626001/
|
Britain warns Iran of 'serious consequences' if British-flagged oil tanker not released
|
2019-07-20
|
LONDON — Britain 's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned Iran of `` serious consequences '' if it does not release a British-flagged oil tanker it seized in the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway on Friday , although he ruled out `` military options . ''
Hunt announced later in a tweet that he had spoken with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and `` expressed extreme disappointment '' that Iran had `` behaved in the opposite way '' of trying to deescalate the situation .
The seizing of the `` Stena Impero '' potentially marks the most significant escalation in tensions between Iran and the West since they began rising in May , about a year after the United States pulled out of an international accord aimed at Iran 's nuclear program .
The Pentagon announced it authorized the movement of troops to Saudi Arabia as an `` additional deterrent , '' adding to the 1,000 troops deployed to the Middle East in June .
The showdown has caused concerns around the globe , with each maneuver bringing fear that any misunderstanding or misstep by either side could lead to war .
`` It is essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region , '' Hunt said late Friday , ahead of an emergency government meeting . He subsequently told British media that `` we ’ re looking at a diplomatic way to resolve the situation , but we are very clear that it must be resolved . ''
About a fifth of the world 's crude oil exports passes through the Strait of Hormuz .
Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) said Friday that the `` Stena Impero '' was taken to an Iranian port because it was not complying with `` international maritime laws and regulations . '' On Saturday , Iran 's state-run IRNA news agency reported that the `` Stena Impero '' collided with an Iranian fishing boat , causing it damage , and then failed to respond to calls from the smaller craft . The fishing boat informed Iran ’ s Ports and Maritime Organization , which notified the IRGC . The IRGC launched an investigation .
FARS , Iran 's semi-official news agency , later released video showing the IRGC seizing the ship .
Iran 's Revolutionary Guard also released a new , high-quality video of the incident , showing commandos in black ski masks rappelling from a helicopter onto the vessel .
A statement from Stena Bulk , which owns the seized tanker , said the ship had 23 crew members aboard when it was seized . They are from India , Russia , Latvia and the Philippines . There were no reports suggesting of any of them were injured .
Another British ship was briefly detained Friday before allowed to go . The owner of the Liberian-flagged , but British-owned , tanker said it was boarded by armed guards . The `` Mesdar '' vessel has left Iran ’ s territorial waters , Iran state media said .
`` This only goes to show what I ’ m saying about Iran : trouble , '' President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House . `` Nothing but trouble . ''
Trump declined to say whether the moves by Iran crossed a `` red line '' or how the U.S. might respond . He noted the U.S. has a maritime security agreement with Britain .
The latest incident follows a threat by Iran to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf after British Royal Marines earlier this month helped capture an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar , in the Mediterranean Sea , suspected of carrying oil to Syria in breach of European Union sanctions . Iran denied the ship was on its way to Syria .
Suggesting the tanker seizure could have been a retaliatory act , FARS reported a spokesperson for Iran 's Guardian Council , Abbas Ali Kadkhodayee , as saying , `` The rule of reciprocal action is well-known in international law which is used against the foul measures of a government , '' adding that the seizure of the ship was a `` correct measure ... based on international rights . ''
U.S. patrol aircraft are in the vicinity monitoring the situation in the Strait of Hormuz , and Naval Forces Central Command has been in contact with American ships in the area to ensure their safety , a Department of Defense official said . Britain has sent additional warships to the area and been escorting oil tankers in the region .
U.S. Central Command said it in the process of developing a `` multinational maritime effort , '' called `` Operation Sentinel , '' to increase security of key Middle East waterways .
Last month , Trump abruptly canceled a planned retaliatory attack on Iran after the country downed an unmanned U.S. drone , but his administration has kept up a policy of trying to squeeze Iran 's leaders with stiff economic sanctions . Days after he pulled back the strikes on Iran , Trump threatened to use `` overwhelming force '' against Iran if it attacked any U.S. assets or personnel . Trump announced that the U.S. `` destroyed '' an Iranian drone on Thursday . Iran said there is no evidence for that .
`` If ( Stena Impero ) has been taken to Bandar Abbas then that ’ s an important Iranian military port and I think any military options will therefore be extremely unwise , '' Tom Tugendhat , chairman of Britain 's parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee , told the BBC .
Contributing : Doug Stanglin , Nicholas Wu , David Jackson , Donovan Slack and John Fritze , from Washington , D.C. ; Associated Press
|
USA TODAY
LONDON — Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it does not release a British-flagged oil tanker it seized in the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway on Friday, although he ruled out "military options."
Hunt announced later in a tweet that he had spoken with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and "expressed extreme disappointment" that Iran had "behaved in the opposite way" of trying to deescalate the situation.
The seizing of the "Stena Impero" potentially marks the most significant escalation in tensions between Iran and the West since they began rising in May, about a year after the United States pulled out of an international accord aimed at Iran's nuclear program.
The Pentagon announced it authorized the movement of troops to Saudi Arabia as an "additional deterrent," adding to the 1,000 troops deployed to the Middle East in June.
The showdown has caused concerns around the globe, with each maneuver bringing fear that any misunderstanding or misstep by either side could lead to war.
"It is essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region," Hunt said late Friday, ahead of an emergency government meeting. He subsequently told British media that "we’re looking at a diplomatic way to resolve the situation, but we are very clear that it must be resolved."
About a fifth of the world's crude oil exports passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said Friday that the "Stena Impero" was taken to an Iranian port because it was not complying with "international maritime laws and regulations." On Saturday, Iran's state-run IRNA news agency reported that the "Stena Impero" collided with an Iranian fishing boat, causing it damage, and then failed to respond to calls from the smaller craft. The fishing boat informed Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization, which notified the IRGC. The IRGC launched an investigation.
FARS, Iran's semi-official news agency, later released video showing the IRGC seizing the ship.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard also released a new, high-quality video of the incident, showing commandos in black ski masks rappelling from a helicopter onto the vessel.
A statement from Stena Bulk, which owns the seized tanker, said the ship had 23 crew members aboard when it was seized. They are from India, Russia, Latvia and the Philippines. There were no reports suggesting of any of them were injured.
Another British ship was briefly detained Friday before allowed to go. The owner of the Liberian-flagged, but British-owned, tanker said it was boarded by armed guards. The "Mesdar" vessel has left Iran’s territorial waters, Iran state media said.
"This only goes to show what I’m saying about Iran: trouble," President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House. "Nothing but trouble."
Trump declined to say whether the moves by Iran crossed a "red line" or how the U.S. might respond. He noted the U.S. has a maritime security agreement with Britain.
The latest incident follows a threat by Iran to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf after British Royal Marines earlier this month helped capture an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar, in the Mediterranean Sea, suspected of carrying oil to Syria in breach of European Union sanctions. Iran denied the ship was on its way to Syria.
Suggesting the tanker seizure could have been a retaliatory act, FARS reported a spokesperson for Iran's Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodayee, as saying, "The rule of reciprocal action is well-known in international law which is used against the foul measures of a government," adding that the seizure of the ship was a "correct measure...based on international rights."
U.S. patrol aircraft are in the vicinity monitoring the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, and Naval Forces Central Command has been in contact with American ships in the area to ensure their safety, a Department of Defense official said. Britain has sent additional warships to the area and been escorting oil tankers in the region.
U.S. Central Command said it in the process of developing a "multinational maritime effort," called "Operation Sentinel," to increase security of key Middle East waterways.
Last month, Trump abruptly canceled a planned retaliatory attack on Iran after the country downed an unmanned U.S. drone, but his administration has kept up a policy of trying to squeeze Iran's leaders with stiff economic sanctions. Days after he pulled back the strikes on Iran, Trump threatened to use "overwhelming force" against Iran if it attacked any U.S. assets or personnel. Trump announced that the U.S. "destroyed" an Iranian drone on Thursday. Iran said there is no evidence for that.
"If (Stena Impero) has been taken to Bandar Abbas then that’s an important Iranian military port and I think any military options will therefore be extremely unwise," Tom Tugendhat, chairman of Britain's parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, told the BBC.
Contributing: Doug Stanglin, Nicholas Wu, David Jackson, Donovan Slack and John Fritze, from Washington, D.C.; Associated Press
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
GGtsDM78g2ogl8f7
|
|
politics
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/24/kushner-calls-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-waste-our-time-denies-collusion.html
|
Kushner calls meeting with Russian lawyer 'waste of our time,' denies collusion President
|
2017-07-24
|
President Trump 's son-in-law Jared Kushner on Monday denied any collusion with Russia and called the meeting he and the president 's eldest son attended with a Russian attorney a `` waste of our time , '' in a rare written statement released as he met with congressional investigators .
In the statement to committees released early Monday morning , Kushner , a White House adviser , laid out his dealings with foreign leaders and said none constitute campaign collusion .
“ I did not collude , nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded , with any foreign government , ” reads a section of his statement . “ I had no improper contacts . I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector . I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form [ security clearance ] , above and beyond what is required . Hopefully , this puts these matters to rest . ”
Kushner met with Senate Intelligence Committee investigators Monday morning behind closed doors , in the first of several private sessions Hill committees are holding with Trump associates . The committees are investigating Russia 's meddling in the 2016 election and any possible collusion by Trump associates .
Kushner , in his statement , detailed four contacts he had with Russians during the presidential campaign and transition .
“ With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign , there were hardly any , ” he said in the statement . He recalled when he was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington in April 2016 , when his father-in-law delivered a speech on foreign policy and he was introduced to four ambassadors at the event , which included then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak .
“ With all the ambassadors , including Mr. Kislyak , we shook hands , exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump ’ s speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America ’ s foreign policy , ” Kushner recalled . “ The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election . Each exchange lasted less than a minute ; some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies . I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions . ”
Kushner denied reports he took two calls with Kislyak between April and November 2016 .
“ I had no ongoing relationship with the ambassador before the election , and had limited knowledge about him then . In fact , on Nov. 9 , the day after the election , I could not even remember the name of the Russian ambassador , ” he said .
In the statement , Kushner detailed the June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer , news of which emerged ealier this month and gave new momentum to Democrats ' claims the Trump administration secretly worked with the Kremlin to game the election .
“ I arrived at the meeting a little late . When I got there , the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children . I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting , ” he recalls in the statement . “ Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that , in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work , I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell ? Need excuse to get out of meeting . '
“ I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since . I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently . ”
Emails released this month show Donald Trump Jr. accepted the meeting at Trump Tower with the idea that he would receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton . But Kushner says he had n't seen those emails until he was recently shown them by his lawyers . Kushner says in his statement that Trump Jr. invited him to the meeting .
|
President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner on Monday denied any collusion with Russia and called the meeting he and the president's eldest son attended with a Russian attorney a "waste of our time," in a rare written statement released as he met with congressional investigators.
In the statement to committees released early Monday morning, Kushner, a White House adviser, laid out his dealings with foreign leaders and said none constitute campaign collusion.
“I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,” reads a section of his statement. “I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form [security clearance], above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.”
READ THE FULL KUSHNER STATEMENT
Kushner met with Senate Intelligence Committee investigators Monday morning behind closed doors, in the first of several private sessions Hill committees are holding with Trump associates. The committees are investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and any possible collusion by Trump associates.
Kushner, in his statement, detailed four contacts he had with Russians during the presidential campaign and transition.
“With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any,” he said in the statement. He recalled when he was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington in April 2016, when his father-in-law delivered a speech on foreign policy and he was introduced to four ambassadors at the event, which included then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.
“With all the ambassadors, including Mr. Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump’s speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America’s foreign policy,” Kushner recalled. “The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election. Each exchange lasted less than a minute; some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies. I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.”
Kushner denied reports he took two calls with Kislyak between April and November 2016.
“I had no ongoing relationship with the ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then. In fact, on Nov. 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian ambassador,” he said.
In the statement, Kushner detailed the June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer, news of which emerged ealier this month and gave new momentum to Democrats' claims the Trump administration secretly worked with the Kremlin to game the election.
“I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting,” he recalls in the statement. “Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.'
“I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently.”
Emails released this month show Donald Trump Jr. accepted the meeting at Trump Tower with the idea that he would receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton. But Kushner says he hadn't seen those emails until he was recently shown them by his lawyers. Kushner says in his statement that Trump Jr. invited him to the meeting.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
wCyp7MVMOLLf3PPP
|
|
healthcare
|
American Spectator
| 22
|
https://spectator.org/obamacare-bailout-dumb-policy-dumber-politics/
|
Obamacare Bailout: Dumb Policy, Dumber Politics
|
David Catron, Ben Stein, Ali Atia, Roger Stark, Betsy Mccaughey, Steven Greenhut
|
The congressional leadership of the GOP seems determined to hand their congressional majorities back to the Democrats . Otherwise , why would they even consider including two Obamacare bailouts — the cost-sharing reduction ( CSR ) and risk mitigation programs — in the upcoming omnibus budget bill ? These bailouts would allegedly reduce future increases in health insurance premiums and incentivize insurers to remain in the Obamacare exchanges . They will accomplish neither , but they will send a clear signal to the voters that the GOP was never serious about getting rid of Obamacare . The taxpayer-funded bailouts would be , in other words , bad policy and worse politics .
Beginning with the politics of these bailouts , it should be blindingly obvious to the Republicans that they have a serious enthusiasm gap to close , and that chasm is largely the result of their failure to honor the pledge to repeal Obamacare . That promise fueled Republican gains in the 2010 and 2014 midterms , and it would be an egregious understatement to say that the voters who believed it are extremely unhappy to find themselves still laboring under the yoke of the “ Affordable Care Act. ” If the Republicans actually prop it up with these bailouts , many of their constituents will stay home on November 6 . In fact , Tuesday ’ s special election in Pennsylvania provided an ominous portent :
Pennsylvania 18 was yet another example of a Democratic turnout advantage — the telltale sign of an enthusiasm gap — helping the party do better than expected in special elections . The number of votes Lamb received was 80 percent of the number of votes Clinton received in this district in 2016 — but Saccone got just 53 percent of the number of votes Trump got . Anecdotally , turnout was also much higher in Democratic precincts than it was in Republican precincts .
The loss of a special election in a state like Pennsylvania doesn ’ t necessarily spell doom for the Republicans , of course . But , considering that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 20 points in the same congressional district , Tuesday ’ s turnout numbers should be considered a shot across the GOP bow . It ’ s possible that the effective elimination of the individual mandate , and the repeal of IPAB , combined with benefits associated with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act , may have mollified conservative voters enough to get them to the polls in November . But that will certainly not happen if the GOP colludes with the Democrats to bail out the “ reform ” law . A recent Heritage poll found the following :
With health insurance premiums rising annually as a result of Obamacare taxes and regulations , Congress is considering paying health insurance companies taxpayer money to temporarily lower costs . A majority of Americans ( 61 % ) oppose these payments , even to provide temporary premium relief . Just 39 % support such a measure , and only 8 % strongly support it . Furthermore , two-thirds agree that subsidies like these “ are not only a bailout for the companies , but also hide the fact that Obamacare is failing . ”
Even if the voters were in favor of the bailouts , conservative policy experts are vehemently against them . The Hill reports , “ A coalition of 15 conservative groups wrote to Congress on Monday to urge against including a ‘ bailout ’ of Obamacare in the coming government funding bill. ” The coalition , which includes American Commitment , Americans for Prosperity , Campaign for Liberty , Club for Growth , Competitive Enterprise Institute , Concerned Veterans for America , Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce , FreedomWorks , Heritage Action for America , Independent Women ’ s Voice , and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance , did not mince words in their letter :
Lawmakers should not be fooled by ludicrous claims that spending new federal money on Obamacare bailouts will save the federal government money . Creating a new Obamacare corporate welfare program will increase government spending . Nor should lawmakers fall for the argument that bailouts are only temporary . The same insurers who are lobbying for bailout money this year will be back again when funding expires , threatening to withdraw from the exchanges or raise premiums if bailouts aren ’ t extended .
Yesterday afternoon , in an opinion column for Fox News , Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee , along with Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan , point out that , despite the GOP ’ s failure to repeal Obamacare in one fell swoop , they have successfully eliminated a number of its worst provisions and made changes to the law that make it easier for enrollees to access market-based alternatives to former President Obama ’ s “ signature domestic achievement. ” Observing that they are “ closer than ever to sending Obamacare to the ash heap of history , ” they suggest that helping the Democrats pass bailouts would amount to “ snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ” :
This Frankenstein combination of a new Republican-created insurance bailout plus funding Obamacare ’ s existing pro-abortion CSR bailout is exactly what we counseled against in March last year . If we ignore the years of promises we made to the people on ObamaCare , the voters would , quite rightly , distrust Republicans for years to come .
That pretty much sums it up , while providing hope that some Republicans are smart enough to avoid the blunder that quislings like Tennessee ’ s Lamar Alexander would have them commit . And there is other good news . AP reports , “ Congress ’ effort to stabilize the nation ’ s insurance markets is faltering amid escalating demands by each party.… The bickering could collapse the whole effort , with each side blaming the other. ” The Democrats claim the GOP will “ own ” Obamacare if the bailouts don ’ t pass . But the voters aren ’ t that stupid . They know who created the monster , and the Dems have permanent title to the beast unless the Republicans are dumb enough to go along with the bailouts .
|
The congressional leadership of the GOP seems determined to hand their congressional majorities back to the Democrats. Otherwise, why would they even consider including two Obamacare bailouts — the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) and risk mitigation programs — in the upcoming omnibus budget bill? These bailouts would allegedly reduce future increases in health insurance premiums and incentivize insurers to remain in the Obamacare exchanges. They will accomplish neither, but they will send a clear signal to the voters that the GOP was never serious about getting rid of Obamacare. The taxpayer-funded bailouts would be, in other words, bad policy and worse politics.
Beginning with the politics of these bailouts, it should be blindingly obvious to the Republicans that they have a serious enthusiasm gap to close, and that chasm is largely the result of their failure to honor the pledge to repeal Obamacare. That promise fueled Republican gains in the 2010 and 2014 midterms, and it would be an egregious understatement to say that the voters who believed it are extremely unhappy to find themselves still laboring under the yoke of the “Affordable Care Act.” If the Republicans actually prop it up with these bailouts, many of their constituents will stay home on November 6. In fact, Tuesday’s special election in Pennsylvania provided an ominous portent:
Pennsylvania 18 was yet another example of a Democratic turnout advantage — the telltale sign of an enthusiasm gap — helping the party do better than expected in special elections. The number of votes Lamb received was 80 percent of the number of votes Clinton received in this district in 2016 — but Saccone got just 53 percent of the number of votes Trump got. Anecdotally, turnout was also much higher in Democratic precincts than it was in Republican precincts.
The loss of a special election in a state like Pennsylvania doesn’t necessarily spell doom for the Republicans, of course. But, considering that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 20 points in the same congressional district, Tuesday’s turnout numbers should be considered a shot across the GOP bow. It’s possible that the effective elimination of the individual mandate, and the repeal of IPAB, combined with benefits associated with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, may have mollified conservative voters enough to get them to the polls in November. But that will certainly not happen if the GOP colludes with the Democrats to bail out the “reform” law. A recent Heritage poll found the following:
With health insurance premiums rising annually as a result of Obamacare taxes and regulations, Congress is considering paying health insurance companies taxpayer money to temporarily lower costs. A majority of Americans (61%) oppose these payments, even to provide temporary premium relief. Just 39% support such a measure, and only 8% strongly support it. Furthermore, two-thirds agree that subsidies like these “are not only a bailout for the companies, but also hide the fact that Obamacare is failing.”
Even if the voters were in favor of the bailouts, conservative policy experts are vehemently against them. The Hill reports, “A coalition of 15 conservative groups wrote to Congress on Monday to urge against including a ‘bailout’ of Obamacare in the coming government funding bill.” The coalition, which includes American Commitment, Americans for Prosperity, Campaign for Liberty, Club for Growth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Concerned Veterans for America, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, FreedomWorks, Heritage Action for America, Independent Women’s Voice, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, did not mince words in their letter:
Lawmakers should not be fooled by ludicrous claims that spending new federal money on Obamacare bailouts will save the federal government money. Creating a new Obamacare corporate welfare program will increase government spending. Nor should lawmakers fall for the argument that bailouts are only temporary. The same insurers who are lobbying for bailout money this year will be back again when funding expires, threatening to withdraw from the exchanges or raise premiums if bailouts aren’t extended.
Yesterday afternoon, in an opinion column for Fox News, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, along with Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, point out that, despite the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare in one fell swoop, they have successfully eliminated a number of its worst provisions and made changes to the law that make it easier for enrollees to access market-based alternatives to former President Obama’s “signature domestic achievement.” Observing that they are “closer than ever to sending Obamacare to the ash heap of history,” they suggest that helping the Democrats pass bailouts would amount to “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”:
This Frankenstein combination of a new Republican-created insurance bailout plus funding Obamacare’s existing pro-abortion CSR bailout is exactly what we counseled against in March last year. If we ignore the years of promises we made to the people on ObamaCare, the voters would, quite rightly, distrust Republicans for years to come.
That pretty much sums it up, while providing hope that some Republicans are smart enough to avoid the blunder that quislings like Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander would have them commit. And there is other good news. AP reports, “Congress’ effort to stabilize the nation’s insurance markets is faltering amid escalating demands by each party.… The bickering could collapse the whole effort, with each side blaming the other.” The Democrats claim the GOP will “own” Obamacare if the bailouts don’t pass. But the voters aren’t that stupid. They know who created the monster, and the Dems have permanent title to the beast unless the Republicans are dumb enough to go along with the bailouts.
|
www.spectator.org
| 1right
|
J1T7DRK3SBtA1Mmb
|
|
trade
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0624/Five-misconceptions-about-Obama-s-Asia-trade-agenda
|
Five misconceptions about Obama's Asia trade agenda
|
2015-06-24
|
Francine Kiefer
|
As the president ’ s trade agenda approaches reality this week , misconceptions about it abound – partly because the noisy arguments for and against it have obscured the issue , and partly because of the emotionalism that trade stirs up .
The trade debate is a combination of both factual information about what ’ s actually in the legislation and of emotions about job loss , says Gary Chaison , a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester , Ma .
“ Trade agreements are always difficult because they are very emotional things , ” he says . They invariably benefit some people and negatively affect others . “ For the winners we look at the facts , and for the losers we look at emotions . ”
On Wednesday , the Senate passed `` fast track , '' which prevents Congress from amending trade bills negotiated by President Obama , by a 60-to-38 vote . That now goes to Mr. Obama 's desk for a signature . It also approved assistance for workers displaced by global trade . That goes back to the House for final approval .
With all that in mind , here are five common misconceptions about free trade agreements and the president ’ s trade agenda .
Figuring job losses and gains from trade is not an exact science .
Opponents argue vigorously that trade deals such as the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) are job killers and wage suppressors , while proponents argue they lead to economic growth .
But in April , the independent Congressional Research Service reported that “ the overall economic impact of NAFTA is difficult to measure ” because trade and investment are influenced by many variables . “ NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters , ” it concluded .
Predicting losses or gains from the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership – the historic trade deal that the US is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations – is even harder because it involves so many countries , says Steve Bell , senior director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank in Washington .
It ’ s “ virtually impossible to estimate with any reliability the job impact or the cost impact or the [ economic ] impact . People who say that are pretty much making that stuff up , ” he says .
For that reason , he and others argue , trade deals should be judged on whether they expand America ’ s positive influence in the world , whether they break down export barriers to US goods , and whether they improve labor , environmental , and human rights standards abroad .
Professor Chaison argues they must be accompanied by assistance for displaced American workers , because “ we don ’ t fully appreciate ” the radical way in which real people ’ s lives can be harmed by trade .
China is not part of the Pacific trade agreement , or any US trade deal .
Lawmakers and labor often point to jobs lost to a China trade deal . For example , Rep. Barbara Lee ( D ) of California recently said that communities of color have disproportionately suffered because of a “ US-China trade deal . ”
Yes , minorities have disproportionately suffered job losses over the years , but the way it 's described makes it sound like the losses come from America 's trade agreement with China . There is no US-China trade deal .
Representative Lee is getting her data – 35 percent of minority jobs lost to China along with a 30 percent drop in wages – from the Communications Workers of America . The union cites “ the China deal , ” but what it ’ s really referring to is China joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 .
Being in the WTO is not the same as entering into a negotiated free trade agreement , which could be potentially stricter , between two countries or even a dozen countries . Some argue that China should be part of the Pacific Rim deal or some future US free trade agreement because it ’ s too big to ignore .
But for now , the Obama administration is arguing that the Pacific agreement is needed as a geostrategic counterweight to China .
Globalization and free trade deals are not the same thing .
When opponents of free trade agreements cite job losses , lower wages , or outsourcing , they often lump in the phenomenon of “ globalization ” with free trade agreements .
Globalization is what ’ s happening with the world economy and culture – the spread of interconnectedness hastened by the digital age . Its downside can mean Americans losing business to international retailers over the Internet , losing call centers to India ( with which the US has no trade agreement ) , or being undercut by Chinese currency manipulation .
Free trade agreements try to bring structure to this free-wheeling world by setting up common standards . They , too , have downsides that result in job losses in some sectors , but the deals are an attempt to bring order to globalization .
“ Globalization is an economic evolution . A trade agreement is just the opposite . It ’ s a construct , ” says Bell .
The secrecy surrounding the Pacific trade deal is not so unusual .
It ’ s true that members of Congress have to go to a special room to read the draft Pacific trade agreement ; that they must surrender their cell phones before going in ; that they can take notes – but not with them when they leave ; that they may not divulge its contents to outsiders , even experts who might help them better understand the contents .
Why the secrecy ? The administration says it ’ s to protect its negotiating power . How can it negotiate sensitive points with 11 countries while 535 members of Congress and the general public weigh in ? Besides , any member of Congress will be able to go to the trade negotiations or consult with the administration . And the final deal will be available to the public for 60 days before it ’ s voted on in Congress .
Deal-making in secret is not an unusual negotiating strategy , supporters say .
“ This is really not substantially different than how labor unions themselves negotiate their contracts , ” says Rep. Gregory Meeks ( D ) of New York , one of the president ’ s few Democratic trade supporters in the House . For example , top union officials negotiate contracts , and then take the results back to the members for ratification .
On Wednesday , the Senate approved fast track trading authority for the president .
But this was a vote about process , not a vote on a trade agreement . Fast track allows the president to negotiate a trade deal with the assurance that Congress can ’ t change it once he ’ s sealed the deal ; it can only approve or disapprove it . The actual vote on a trade deal would come only after it ’ s finalized .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
This week ’ s votes also include assistance to help workers displaced by global trade . Republicans generally view such aid as welfare , but it ’ s the price that Democrats , including the president , are demanding because trade deals inevitably displace some workers ( see point No . 1 ) .
After a difficult journey through Congress , both fast track and help for displaced workers are expected to reach the president for signature by the end of this week .
|
As the president’s trade agenda approaches reality this week, misconceptions about it abound – partly because the noisy arguments for and against it have obscured the issue, and partly because of the emotionalism that trade stirs up.
The trade debate is a combination of both factual information about what’s actually in the legislation and of emotions about job loss, says Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Ma.
“Trade agreements are always difficult because they are very emotional things,” he says. They invariably benefit some people and negatively affect others. “For the winners we look at the facts, and for the losers we look at emotions.”
On Wednesday, the Senate passed "fast track," which prevents Congress from amending trade bills negotiated by President Obama, by a 60-to-38 vote. That now goes to Mr. Obama's desk for a signature. It also approved assistance for workers displaced by global trade. That goes back to the House for final approval.
With all that in mind, here are five common misconceptions about free trade agreements and the president’s trade agenda.
Figuring job losses and gains from trade is not an exact science.
Opponents argue vigorously that trade deals such as the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are job killers and wage suppressors, while proponents argue they lead to economic growth.
But in April, the independent Congressional Research Service reported that “the overall economic impact of NAFTA is difficult to measure” because trade and investment are influenced by many variables. “NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters,” it concluded.
Predicting losses or gains from the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership – the historic trade deal that the US is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations – is even harder because it involves so many countries, says Steve Bell, senior director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank in Washington.
It’s “virtually impossible to estimate with any reliability the job impact or the cost impact or the [economic] impact. People who say that are pretty much making that stuff up,” he says.
For that reason, he and others argue, trade deals should be judged on whether they expand America’s positive influence in the world, whether they break down export barriers to US goods, and whether they improve labor, environmental, and human rights standards abroad.
Professor Chaison argues they must be accompanied by assistance for displaced American workers, because “we don’t fully appreciate” the radical way in which real people’s lives can be harmed by trade.
China is not part of the Pacific trade agreement, or any US trade deal.
Lawmakers and labor often point to jobs lost to a China trade deal. For example, Rep. Barbara Lee (D) of California recently said that communities of color have disproportionately suffered because of a “US-China trade deal.”
Yes, minorities have disproportionately suffered job losses over the years, but the way it's described makes it sound like the losses come from America's trade agreement with China. There is no US-China trade deal.
Representative Lee is getting her data – 35 percent of minority jobs lost to China along with a 30 percent drop in wages – from the Communications Workers of America. The union cites “the China deal,” but what it’s really referring to is China joining the World Trade Organization in 2001.
Being in the WTO is not the same as entering into a negotiated free trade agreement, which could be potentially stricter, between two countries or even a dozen countries. Some argue that China should be part of the Pacific Rim deal or some future US free trade agreement because it’s too big to ignore.
But for now, the Obama administration is arguing that the Pacific agreement is needed as a geostrategic counterweight to China.
Globalization and free trade deals are not the same thing.
When opponents of free trade agreements cite job losses, lower wages, or outsourcing, they often lump in the phenomenon of “globalization” with free trade agreements.
But they’re opposites.
Globalization is what’s happening with the world economy and culture – the spread of interconnectedness hastened by the digital age. Its downside can mean Americans losing business to international retailers over the Internet, losing call centers to India (with which the US has no trade agreement), or being undercut by Chinese currency manipulation.
Free trade agreements try to bring structure to this free-wheeling world by setting up common standards. They, too, have downsides that result in job losses in some sectors, but the deals are an attempt to bring order to globalization.
“Globalization is an economic evolution. A trade agreement is just the opposite. It’s a construct,” says Bell.
The secrecy surrounding the Pacific trade deal is not so unusual.
It’s true that members of Congress have to go to a special room to read the draft Pacific trade agreement; that they must surrender their cell phones before going in; that they can take notes – but not with them when they leave; that they may not divulge its contents to outsiders, even experts who might help them better understand the contents.
Why the secrecy? The administration says it’s to protect its negotiating power. How can it negotiate sensitive points with 11 countries while 535 members of Congress and the general public weigh in? Besides, any member of Congress will be able to go to the trade negotiations or consult with the administration. And the final deal will be available to the public for 60 days before it’s voted on in Congress.
Deal-making in secret is not an unusual negotiating strategy, supporters say.
“This is really not substantially different than how labor unions themselves negotiate their contracts,” says Rep. Gregory Meeks (D) of New York, one of the president’s few Democratic trade supporters in the House. For example, top union officials negotiate contracts, and then take the results back to the members for ratification.
This week’s votes are not on a trade deal.
On Wednesday, the Senate approved fast track trading authority for the president.
But this was a vote about process, not a vote on a trade agreement. Fast track allows the president to negotiate a trade deal with the assurance that Congress can’t change it once he’s sealed the deal; it can only approve or disapprove it. The actual vote on a trade deal would come only after it’s finalized.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
This week’s votes also include assistance to help workers displaced by global trade. Republicans generally view such aid as welfare, but it’s the price that Democrats, including the president, are demanding because trade deals inevitably displace some workers (see point No. 1).
After a difficult journey through Congress, both fast track and help for displaced workers are expected to reach the president for signature by the end of this week.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
J8DvIcKbHK7pmViv
|
technology
|
Vice
| 00
|
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n7w3zw/silicon-valley-elite-discuss-journalists-having-too-much-power-in-private-app
|
Silicon Valley Elite Discuss Journalists Having Too Much Power in Private App
|
Joseph Cox, Anna Merlan
|
During a conversation held Wednesday night on the invite-only Clubhouse app—an audio social network popular with venture capitalists and celebrities—entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan , several Andreessen Horowitz venture capitalists , and , for some reason , television personality Roland Martin spent at least an hour talking about how journalists have too much power to `` cancel '' people and wondering what they , the titans of Silicon Valley , could do about it .
The call shows how Silicon Valley millionaires , who have been coddled by the press and lauded as innovators and disruptors , fundamentally misunderstand the role of journalism the moment it turns a critical eye to their industry . It also suggests they ’ re eager to find new ways to hit back at what they see as unfavorable and unfair press coverage .
Motherboard obtained a recording of the conversation , which took place on Clubhouse , an app which as of late May had just 1,500 users . The app was valued at $ 100 million after a reported $ 12 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz , and requires an invite to join . In May , New York Times internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz wrote that the app is `` where venture capitalists have gathered to mingle with one another while they are quarantined in their homes . ''
`` Sometimes there is a tarot card reader critiquing a member ’ s Instagram account ; sometimes it is a dating advice show ; sometimes bored people sound off about anything that pops into their mind , '' she wrote .
On Wednesday night , the topic of conversation was Lorenz herself , who had been listening earlier in the conversation but left partway through . After she left , the participants began discussing whether Lorenz was playing `` the woman card '' when speaking out about her harassment following a Twitter altercation with Srinivasan .
`` You ca n't fucking hit somebody , attack them and just say , 'Hey , I have ovaries and therefore , you ca n't fight back , ' '' Felicia Horowitz , founder of the Horowitz Family Foundation and wife of Andreessen Horowitz cofounder Ben Horowitz , said .
In recent days Lorenz , who criticized luggage startup Away co-CEO Steph Korey on Twitter Wednesday , has been harassed and impersonated on Twitter .
On the call , Srinivasan suggested that Lorenz—who earlier in the day had accused him on Twitter of `` constantly trying to destroy my career on the internet and in private '' —was overreacting and that she was perhaps scared of him , and that this was why she left the conversation that night on Clubhouse .
`` Is Taylor afraid of a brown man on the street ? Then she should n't be afraid of a brown man in Clubhouse , '' Srinivasan said . `` I have literally done nothing other than one previous tweet . Number one , right ? So the whole , you know , talking about tweeting as you know , harassment—completely illegitimate , completely wrong , completely fabricated and just false . ''
The audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control from a broader conversation earlier in the call about the state of journalism and what VCs should do to receive better coverage . Srinivasan , formerly a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz , claimed that `` the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19 , '' and claimed that relying on the press is `` outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you , '' comparable to the United States having outsourced its medical supply chain . He proposed that the approaches to truth and accountability offered by GitHub , venture capital funding , and cryptocurrency all offer better models for journalism than `` the East Coast model of 'Respect my authori-tay . ' ''
When asked for comment about the Clubhouse chat , Srinivasan screenshotted our request and tweeted about it .
`` When it comes to our industry , there ’ s a really , really toxic dynamic that exists right now , '' Nait Jones , an Andreessen Horowitz VC , said on the call while speaking about recent reports about abuse in the tech industry . `` Because those stories were so popular and drove so much traffic , they also created a market for more of those stories . They created a pressure on many reporters to find the next one of those stories inside of a fast growing tech company because those stories play very well on Twitter , especially around protecting vulnerable people . ''
( In 2020 , the idea that fishing for “ clicks ” to drive ad revenue is a successful or even common business model is a fallacy . Publications that rely exclusively on advertising are failing at an astonishing rate ; financially , many journalistic outlets are increasingly moving away from an ad-based revenue model driven by traffic , and instead focus on live events , subscriptions , optioning their articles to movie studios , and other models that rely on having a dedicated readership that trusts the publication ) .
The exclusive users of Clubhouse on the call seemed to conceive of themselves as humble citizens preyed upon by corrupted elites cravenly lusting after money and power ; this reached a bizarre apogee when Srinivasan boasted of standing up for the CEO of a scandal-plagued luggage brand , depicting her as all but powerless because of her relatively low Twitter follower count . The conversation essentially resembled a Gamergate chat , with people obsessing over minute drama and , at times , suggesting that Lorenz had crossed a line on Twitter and must be punished .
`` How can there be an accountability function that 's implementable across all media that allows for that to happen , that pushback to happen without it being turned around and can become some toxic thing where all types of power dynamics are being used , and people have their weapons out , '' Jones said .
`` Her employer should be saying , you cross the line with your editorial comments , '' Martin said , adding that `` If I 'm [ Srinivasan ] , the argument that I would make to her bosses is you should be instructing your reporters not to be making editorial judgments about someone . Stick to reporting . ''
“ Taylor is an excellent reporter doing incredibly relevant reporting for this moment . She , and all reporters , should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment , ” Choire Sicha , editor of the NYTimes Styles desk , told Motherboard in an email .
Clubhouse founders Rothan Seth and Paul Davison did n't respond to a request for comment . Jones did not respond to a request for comment . Andreessen Horowitz declined to comment .
The conversation was set off by a series of exhausting , insidery events from the last two weeks . Some in the Silicon Valley set turned their sights on the Times after Scott Alexander , a psychiatrist who ran the philosophy blog SlateStarCodex , deleted the entire blog because he said the Times was going to `` dox '' him by publishing his real name in an upcoming story . ( It is worth noting that Alexander has republished SlateStarCodex blogs in books using his full name . ) This event resurfaced an ongoing and tedious discussion among venture capitalist types about journalism ethics , business models , and publishing incentives .
Wednesday , Korey , the co-CEO of Away , a direct to consumer luggage brand that was the subject of an expose in The Verge last year , published a series of Instagram Story posts in which she suggested that she was unfairly targeted by The Verge in part because she is a woman . She also said that journalists should be easier to sue , and suggested that the main thing driving journalism is `` clicks . '' The Verge story focused on a culture of abuse at Away under Korey 's leadership ; workers there said they were prevented from taking vacation , were banned from emailing each other , and worked extremely long hours .
While Korey ’ s Instagram comments were a supposed critique of the journalism industry , they looked at times a lot more like a claim that The Verge story was unfair or inaccurate in ways she didn ’ t actually address .
After Korey posted her stories on Instagram , a number of journalists commented on them , including Lorenz , who tweeted `` Steph Korey , the disgraced former CEO of Away luggage company , is ranting on IG stories about the media . Her posts are incoherent and it ’ s disappointing to see a woman who ran a luggage brand perpetuate falsehoods like this abt an industry she clearly has 0 understanding of . ''
Lorenz 's tweet was immediately tweeted about by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists , most notably Srinivasan , who eventually made a seven-tweet thread in which he suggested Lorenz , and journalists like her , are `` sociopaths . ''
That same day , a self-described Taylor Lorenz `` parody '' Twitter account started retweeting Srinivasan and other tech investors and executives critical of her work . The account 's bio also links to a website , also self-described as parody , which is dedicated to harassing Lorenz . ( Twitter told Motherboard it deleted another account for impersonating Lorenz . )
Yesterday Lorenz called out Srinivasan on Twitter by tagging him and asked his friends , like Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz , to help end the conflict , which eventually continued on Clubhouse .
In Korey 's analysis , exposing the conditions of workers is clickbait designed to attract eyeballs ; she also argued that female founders were more likely to be attacked , especially by young female reporters . The story about Korey ’ s alleged misconduct was written by a young reporter named Zoe Schiffer . Korey added a few minutes later that she ’ d gotten word her comments were filtering through to Twitter , and wrote , in part , “ I believe the overwhelming majority of young female reporters are truly excellent . It has been the case that the female-founder takedowns tend to be written by young women , but I do not think they represent the whole demographic whatsoever . ”
Korey ’ s avid defenders in the Clubhouse conversation agreed with that analysis .
“ The coverage seems to be so one-sided around the people running the companies , ” one person on the call whom Motherboard could not immediately identify complained . “ They 're all abusers , they 're all trying to get rich . It 's just down , down , down . It 's almost depressing to watch , as someone who 's an advocate for building things . It 's hard to watch the coverage , it 's almost anti-building things ... The whole entire DNA of Silicon Valley has been optimism from day one . ''
Articles like the Verge 's investigation into Away do not appear out of thin air . People who work at tech companies—often burdened with non-disclosure agreements—take risks to discuss labor conditions at their company . At the time the Verge article was published , Korey apologized . Wednesday , she was suggesting she 'd been unfairly targeted , and that `` a few who are using the media platform they have access to further their careers by knowingly misrepresenting female founders for clicks & their own profile/fame . ''
`` I spoke up for her because she had , you know , 8,000 followers , and she was being attacked by a New York Times reporter as a disgraced former CEO and she 's actually still , you know , current co-CEO , '' Srinivasan said . `` I believe in standing up for those people who do n't have a voice , who can not stand up for themselves . ''
Lost in the shuffle are the employees who say this apparently powerless CEO still presides over a broken company . Thursday afternoon , a coalition of Away employees emailed Away 's leadership to say that `` Steph 's Comments Are Hurting Us . ''
We “ have been hurt and left deflated by Steph Korey ’ s recent action on Instagram and Twitter , '' they wrote in the email , which was obtained by Motherboard and was acknowledged by Away 's cofounder Jen Rubio . `` We are writing to you as the employees of Away and asking that something is done to address the story that is building around Steph 's Instagram and Twitter comments over the last several days .
Steph has been largely absent during this health pandemic , the company 's layoffs and the civil unrest surrounding Black Lives Matter . This made sense . She was on mat leave and taking time to focus on her personal life over her professional one . This is why her social media activity over the last few days has been so surprising and frankly hurtful as employees of this company . ''
Korey and Away 's cofounders did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
In response to a request for comment from Motherboard , Away 's ███ president of communications and corporate affairs shared two screenshots . The first was an email from Jen Rubio , Away 's co-founder , president , and Chief Brand Officer , addressed to the employees who had complained about Korey 's comments . ( The email comes from Rubio 's email account ; it 's also cosigned by Stuart Haselden , the company 's co-CEO ) .
Rubio wrote that Korey 's comments `` do not reflect or affect our current company priorities and the deep work we 're doing about diversity , equity and inclusion . '' The email also stated that Stuart Haselden will take on the role of sole CEO at Away in 2020 , and that Korey has updated her social media profiles to state that her views are her own .
In her own Slack response , Korey wrote : `` I understand that I have a responsibility as co-founder and co-CEO to commit to using my personal platforms to support our priorities , not distract by them . '' She apologized to `` anyone I hurt by shifting the focus away from these important cultural moments this past week , '' referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and the company 's stated commitment to `` Diversity , Equity and Inclusion , '' as Korey put it . Both statements say Away 's priority is `` becoming an anti-racist company . ''
|
During a conversation held Wednesday night on the invite-only Clubhouse app—an audio social network popular with venture capitalists and celebrities—entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, several Andreessen Horowitz venture capitalists, and, for some reason, television personality Roland Martin spent at least an hour talking about how journalists have too much power to "cancel" people and wondering what they, the titans of Silicon Valley, could do about it.
The call shows how Silicon Valley millionaires, who have been coddled by the press and lauded as innovators and disruptors, fundamentally misunderstand the role of journalism the moment it turns a critical eye to their industry. It also suggests they’re eager to find new ways to hit back at what they see as unfavorable and unfair press coverage.
Motherboard obtained a recording of the conversation, which took place on Clubhouse, an app which as of late May had just 1,500 users. The app was valued at $100 million after a reported $12 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz, and requires an invite to join. In May, New York Times internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz wrote that the app is "where venture capitalists have gathered to mingle with one another while they are quarantined in their homes."
"Sometimes there is a tarot card reader critiquing a member’s Instagram account; sometimes it is a dating advice show; sometimes bored people sound off about anything that pops into their mind," she wrote.
On Wednesday night, the topic of conversation was Lorenz herself, who had been listening earlier in the conversation but left partway through. After she left, the participants began discussing whether Lorenz was playing "the woman card" when speaking out about her harassment following a Twitter altercation with Srinivasan.
"You can't fucking hit somebody, attack them and just say, 'Hey, I have ovaries and therefore, you can't fight back,'" Felicia Horowitz, founder of the Horowitz Family Foundation and wife of Andreessen Horowitz cofounder Ben Horowitz, said.
In recent days Lorenz, who criticized luggage startup Away co-CEO Steph Korey on Twitter Wednesday, has been harassed and impersonated on Twitter.
On the call, Srinivasan suggested that Lorenz—who earlier in the day had accused him on Twitter of "constantly trying to destroy my career on the internet and in private"—was overreacting and that she was perhaps scared of him, and that this was why she left the conversation that night on Clubhouse.
"Is Taylor afraid of a brown man on the street? Then she shouldn't be afraid of a brown man in Clubhouse," Srinivasan said. "I have literally done nothing other than one previous tweet. Number one, right? So the whole, you know, talking about tweeting as you know, harassment—completely illegitimate, completely wrong, completely fabricated and just false."
The audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control from a broader conversation earlier in the call about the state of journalism and what VCs should do to receive better coverage. Srinivasan, formerly a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, claimed that "the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19," and claimed that relying on the press is "outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you," comparable to the United States having outsourced its medical supply chain. He proposed that the approaches to truth and accountability offered by GitHub, venture capital funding, and cryptocurrency all offer better models for journalism than "the East Coast model of 'Respect my authori-tay.'"
When asked for comment about the Clubhouse chat, Srinivasan screenshotted our request and tweeted about it.
"When it comes to our industry, there’s a really, really toxic dynamic that exists right now," Nait Jones, an Andreessen Horowitz VC, said on the call while speaking about recent reports about abuse in the tech industry. "Because those stories were so popular and drove so much traffic, they also created a market for more of those stories. They created a pressure on many reporters to find the next one of those stories inside of a fast growing tech company because those stories play very well on Twitter, especially around protecting vulnerable people."
(In 2020, the idea that fishing for “clicks” to drive ad revenue is a successful or even common business model is a fallacy. Publications that rely exclusively on advertising are failing at an astonishing rate; financially, many journalistic outlets are increasingly moving away from an ad-based revenue model driven by traffic, and instead focus on live events, subscriptions, optioning their articles to movie studios, and other models that rely on having a dedicated readership that trusts the publication).
The exclusive users of Clubhouse on the call seemed to conceive of themselves as humble citizens preyed upon by corrupted elites cravenly lusting after money and power; this reached a bizarre apogee when Srinivasan boasted of standing up for the CEO of a scandal-plagued luggage brand, depicting her as all but powerless because of her relatively low Twitter follower count. The conversation essentially resembled a Gamergate chat, with people obsessing over minute drama and, at times, suggesting that Lorenz had crossed a line on Twitter and must be punished.
"How can there be an accountability function that's implementable across all media that allows for that to happen, that pushback to happen without it being turned around and can become some toxic thing where all types of power dynamics are being used, and people have their weapons out," Jones said.
"Her employer should be saying, you cross the line with your editorial comments," Martin said, adding that "If I'm [Srinivasan], the argument that I would make to her bosses is you should be instructing your reporters not to be making editorial judgments about someone. Stick to reporting."
“Taylor is an excellent reporter doing incredibly relevant reporting for this moment. She, and all reporters, should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment,” Choire Sicha, editor of the NYTimes Styles desk, told Motherboard in an email.
Clubhouse founders Rothan Seth and Paul Davison didn't respond to a request for comment. Jones did not respond to a request for comment. Andreessen Horowitz declined to comment.
*
The conversation was set off by a series of exhausting, insidery events from the last two weeks. Some in the Silicon Valley set turned their sights on the Times after Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist who ran the philosophy blog SlateStarCodex, deleted the entire blog because he said the Times was going to "dox" him by publishing his real name in an upcoming story. (It is worth noting that Alexander has republished SlateStarCodex blogs in books using his full name.) This event resurfaced an ongoing and tedious discussion among venture capitalist types about journalism ethics, business models, and publishing incentives.
Wednesday, Korey, the co-CEO of Away, a direct to consumer luggage brand that was the subject of an expose in The Verge last year, published a series of Instagram Story posts in which she suggested that she was unfairly targeted by The Verge in part because she is a woman. She also said that journalists should be easier to sue, and suggested that the main thing driving journalism is "clicks." The Verge story focused on a culture of abuse at Away under Korey's leadership; workers there said they were prevented from taking vacation, were banned from emailing each other, and worked extremely long hours.
“The incentive isn’t to report what’s happening,” Korey wrote. “It’s to write things that will be shared by people on social media. And several of these digital-only outlets have nearly nonexistent editorial standards (especially the click baity-y ones, you know who they are). Side note: I could write a whole separate essay about how defamation lawsuits should be easier to pursue now that misrepresentation *is* the business model of some of these outlets.” (In the aftermath of The Verge's story, Korey announced she’d hired the well-known defamation firm Clare Locke LLP, which has made a business out of getting unflattering stories stalled or killed.)
While Korey’s Instagram comments were a supposed critique of the journalism industry, they looked at times a lot more like a claim that The Verge story was unfair or inaccurate in ways she didn’t actually address.
After Korey posted her stories on Instagram, a number of journalists commented on them, including Lorenz, who tweeted "Steph Korey, the disgraced former CEO of Away luggage company, is ranting on IG stories about the media. Her posts are incoherent and it’s disappointing to see a woman who ran a luggage brand perpetuate falsehoods like this abt an industry she clearly has 0 understanding of."
Lorenz's tweet was immediately tweeted about by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists, most notably Srinivasan, who eventually made a seven-tweet thread in which he suggested Lorenz, and journalists like her, are "sociopaths."
That same day, a self-described Taylor Lorenz "parody" Twitter account started retweeting Srinivasan and other tech investors and executives critical of her work. The account's bio also links to a website, also self-described as parody, which is dedicated to harassing Lorenz. (Twitter told Motherboard it deleted another account for impersonating Lorenz.)
Yesterday Lorenz called out Srinivasan on Twitter by tagging him and asked his friends, like Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz, to help end the conflict, which eventually continued on Clubhouse.
*
In Korey's analysis, exposing the conditions of workers is clickbait designed to attract eyeballs; she also argued that female founders were more likely to be attacked, especially by young female reporters. The story about Korey’s alleged misconduct was written by a young reporter named Zoe Schiffer. Korey added a few minutes later that she’d gotten word her comments were filtering through to Twitter, and wrote, in part, “I believe the overwhelming majority of young female reporters are truly excellent. It has been the case that the female-founder takedowns tend to be written by young women, but I do not think they represent the whole demographic whatsoever.”
Korey’s avid defenders in the Clubhouse conversation agreed with that analysis.
“The coverage seems to be so one-sided around the people running the companies,” one person on the call whom Motherboard could not immediately identify complained. “They're all abusers, they're all trying to get rich. It's just down, down, down. It's almost depressing to watch, as someone who's an advocate for building things. It's hard to watch the coverage, it's almost anti-building things ...The whole entire DNA of Silicon Valley has been optimism from day one."
Articles like the Verge's investigation into Away do not appear out of thin air. People who work at tech companies—often burdened with non-disclosure agreements—take risks to discuss labor conditions at their company. At the time the Verge article was published, Korey apologized. Wednesday, she was suggesting she'd been unfairly targeted, and that "a few who are using the media platform they have access to further their careers by knowingly misrepresenting female founders for clicks & their own profile/fame."
"I spoke up for her because she had, you know, 8,000 followers, and she was being attacked by a New York Times reporter as a disgraced former CEO and she's actually still, you know, current co-CEO," Srinivasan said. "I believe in standing up for those people who don't have a voice, who cannot stand up for themselves."
Lost in the shuffle are the employees who say this apparently powerless CEO still presides over a broken company. Thursday afternoon, a coalition of Away employees emailed Away's leadership to say that "Steph's Comments Are Hurting Us."
We “have been hurt and left deflated by Steph Korey’s recent action on Instagram and Twitter," they wrote in the email, which was obtained by Motherboard and was acknowledged by Away's cofounder Jen Rubio. "We are writing to you as the employees of Away and asking that something is done to address the story that is building around Steph's Instagram and Twitter comments over the last several days.
Steph has been largely absent during this health pandemic, the company's layoffs and the civil unrest surrounding Black Lives Matter. This made sense. She was on mat leave and taking time to focus on her personal life over her professional one. This is why her social media activity over the last few days has been so surprising and frankly hurtful as employees of this company."
Korey and Away's cofounders did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update, 5:43 P.M. EST
In response to a request for comment from Motherboard, Away's vice president of communications and corporate affairs shared two screenshots. The first was an email from Jen Rubio, Away's co-founder, president, and Chief Brand Officer, addressed to the employees who had complained about Korey's comments. (The email comes from Rubio's email account; it's also cosigned by Stuart Haselden, the company's co-CEO).
Rubio wrote that Korey's comments "do not reflect or affect our current company priorities and the deep work we're doing about diversity, equity and inclusion." The email also stated that Stuart Haselden will take on the role of sole CEO at Away in 2020, and that Korey has updated her social media profiles to state that her views are her own.
In her own Slack response, Korey wrote: "I understand that I have a responsibility as co-founder and co-CEO to commit to using my personal platforms to support our priorities, not distract by them." She apologized to "anyone I hurt by shifting the focus away from these important cultural moments this past week," referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and the company's stated commitment to "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion," as Korey put it. Both statements say Away's priority is "becoming an anti-racist company."
Additional reporting by Tim Marchman and Samantha Cole.
|
www.vice.com
| 0left
|
mSIXvrzCkFmiWxt4
|
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/democratic-debate-key-moments-216978
|
14 key moments from the Democratic debate
|
2015-12-19
|
Daniel Strauss, Gabriel Debenedetti
|
poster= '' http : //v.███.com/images/1155968404/201512/790/1155968404_4668687257001_omalley-cant-talk-00-00-11-18-Still002.jpg ? pubId=1155968404 '' 14 key moments from the Democratic debate Sanders tells Clinton he ’ s sorry . O ’ Malley hammers away on guns . And not surprisingly , Trump is mentioned .
There were only three candidates on the stage in the latest Democratic presidential debate , but each had plenty of big moments as they argued about taxes on the middle class , intervention abroad and the safety of their campaign data . Here are the most memorable , important and explosive moments from Saturday 's ABC News debate :
Right out of the gate , Sen. Bernie Sanders apologized for this week 's data breach , in which Sanders campaign staffers improperly accessed voter data from Hillary Clinton 's campaign . And Clinton accepted his apology .
“ Yes , I apologize , ” Sanders said . “ Not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton , and I hope we can work on an independent investigation , I apologize to my supporters . ”
Clinton said she was looking forward to moving beyond the scuffle .
“ I very much appreciate that comment , Bernie , '' Clinton said . `` It is important that we go forward on this . I know that you now have your data back and there has been an agreement for an independent inquiry into what did happen . ... Now that ... we 've resolved your data , we 've agreed on an independent inquiry , we should move on . Because I do n't think the American people are all that interested in this . ''
All the candidates pivoted to attack Donald Trump again and again during the debate , repeatedly using him as a foil . At one point , Clinton contrasted Trump ’ s rhetoric on fighting Islamic terrorists with former President George W. Bush 's repeated statements that the United States was not at war with all Muslims .
“ George W. Bush has done this , I give him credit , ” Clinton said before saying that Trump is becoming ISIS ’ best recruiter . `` They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists . ''
After Clinton defended instituting a no-fly zone over Syria , Sanders brought up Clinton 's vote to go to war in Iraq over a decade ago to contrast their foreign policies .
`` Our differences are fairly deep on this issue , '' Sanders said . `` We disagreed on the war in Iraq . ... I say this with due respect , I worry that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences could be . '' After bringing up Iraq again as well as Libya , Sanders continued : `` Yes , we could get rid of [ Syrian President Bashar ] Assad tomorrow , but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS . ... Getting rid of dictators is easy , but you have to think of what will come after . ''
Clinton shot back : “ With all due respect , senator , you voted for regime change in Libya . ... All of these are very difficult issues . I know that , I 've been dealing with that for a very long time . ”
4 . Clinton : U.S. 'where we need to be ' on ISIS
Clinton sounded an optimistic note on the country 's ability to handle the threat of ISIS , also known as the Islamic State : `` We now finally are where we need to be . We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS , which is a danger to us as well as the region . ''
The comments followed talk about the challenge of Syria : `` I think it 's fair to say , Assad has killed , by last count , about 250,000 Syrians . The reason we are in the mess we 're in , that ISIS has the territory it has , is because of Assad . I advocated arming the moderate opposition back in the day when I was still secretary of state , because I worried we would end up exactly where we are now . And so , when we look at these complex problems , I wish it could be either/or . I wish we could say yes , let 's go destroy ISIS and let 's let Assad continue to destroy Syria , which creates more terrorists , more extremists by the minute . No . We now finally are where we need to be . ''
5 . O'Malley thunders away on guns to contrast with opponents
Martin O ’ Malley jumped in , talking over the moderators , to hit both Sanders and Clinton on guns . While touting his gun control record in Maryland , O'Malley called both of them inconsistent and squishy on the issue .
“ Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election year , ” O ’ Malley said . “ Look , what we need is not more polls , we need more principles. ” He continued , saying both Clinton and Sanders exemplified the `` flip-flopping political approach of Washington . ”
The other two Democratic candidates didn ’ t take that lightly . “ Whoa , whoa , let ’ s tell the truth here , ” Sanders said , with Clinton adding “ Yeah , let ’ s tell the truth here. ” Both said O'Malley misrepresented them , with Sanders touting his past campaigns in Vermont and Clinton ticking off her support for the Brady Bill and closing loopholes for gun sellers .
6 . Clinton calls for gun control as part of terrorism response
Asked about how to handle the threat of domestic and lone-wolf terrorism after the San Bernardino , California , attack , Clinton brought gun control into the conversation : `` If you only think about the coalition abroad , you ’ re missing the point because we need a coalition at home . … Arming more people — to do what ? — I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism . ''
Once again , Clinton hit out at Trump : `` I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from Republicans , particularly Donald Trump , is sending a message to Muslims in the United states and around the world that there is … a war against Islam . ''
7 . Clinton splits with New Hampshire 's governor on halting refugees
Asked about Democratic New Hampshire Gov . Maggie Hassan ’ s call for the federal government to stop accepting Syrian refugees , Clinton split with the popular governor , who has endorsed Clinton and is running for Senate in 2016 .
8 awkward moments from the Democratic debate A collection of awkward moments from the debate on Saturday . poster= '' https : //v.███.com/images/1155968404/201512/506/1155968404_4668687291001_Awk-.jpg ? pubId=1155968404 ''
“ I do n't think a halt is necessary , ” Clinton said , instead saying that the screening process should be “ very tough ” but that did not mean keeping all refugees from coming to the U.S. “ We do n't want to make it seem that we are turning into a nation of fear . ”
O ’ Malley joined in too , saying “ there are wider vulnerabilities than when it comes to refugees . ”
8 . O ’ Malley reminds everyone he ’ s younger than Clinton and Sanders
O ’ Malley went there . During a discussion on dealing with Assad and fighting ISIS , the former Maryland governor used his age as a campaign selling point . Clinton is 68 , Sanders is 74 , and O ’ Malley is 52 .
“ May I offer a different generation ’ s perspective on this ? ” O ’ Malley said , sparking audible shock from the audience .
As the debate moved deep into the weeds on the candidates ' various economic plans , Clinton vowed not to raise taxes on the middle class . `` No middle-class tax raises , '' she said , promising not to hike them on those making less than $ 250,000 .
Sanders and O'Malley declined to make the same promise , and Sanders said Clinton was abandoning the Democratic Party 's social legacy , `` disagreeing with FDR on Social Security , disagreeing with LBJ on Medicare '' and how to fund large social programs . Sanders mentioned paid family leave as an issue worth funding with a broad-based tax , though Clinton said she supported funding the proposal with taxes on the wealthy .
As the moderators kept the conversation going , Sanders quipped , `` Now this is getting to be fun . ''
After the first break , the debate resumed with one glaring difference : Clinton was missing from the stage . As moderator David Muir stalled for time while delivering the next question , the cameras showed an empty center podium between Sanders and O'Malley .
Clinton walked back onstage to applause in the middle of that question . `` I 'm sorry , '' Clinton said , sounding slightly exasperated and sparking chuckles from the audience .
Clinton wriggled out of a question about her ties to big business with a laugh line . When Muir asked if corporate America should “ love Clinton , ” she replied : `` Everybody should . '' ( The crowd laughed . ) `` I have said I want to be the president for the struggling , the striving , and successful . ''
When the question turned to Sanders ( Would corporate America love a President Sanders ? ) , the Vermont senator took a different route .
“ No , I think they won ’ t , ” Sanders said , again sparking laughter . “ I don ’ t think I ’ m going to get a whole lot of campaign contributions from Wall Street . ”
The king of Jordan got his second mention of the week in a presidential debate — but unlike Chris Christie in the GOP debate , Sanders got his name right .
In making his case on how to fight ISIS and direct America ’ s national security interests in the Middle East , the Vermont senator gave a shout-out to King Abdullah II of Jordan . Sanders said he didn ’ t believe in unilateral American action in the Middle East , pointing to Abdullah and saying the king said , `` 'We , the Muslims , should lead the effort on the ground , ' and I think he 's absolutely right . ”
13 . The role of the first lady — or gentleman
Clinton was asked whether her husband would take on the traditional role that first ladies have played if the former secretary of state and former President Bill Clinton make it back to the White House . After praising first ladies that came before and after her , the Democratic front-runner said , “ I am probably still going to pick the flowers and the china for state dinners and things like that. ” But Clinton added that she would still go to her husband for advice in the same way that other presidents have with their spouses .
Sanders praised Clinton for redefining the role of presidential spouse and talked about his wife 's work with youth , while O'Malley said it was up to his wife whether she would continue her work as a district court judge in the event that he becomes president .
Clinton had the last word Saturday night , and her sign-off was stranger than ( science ) fiction .
`` Thank you , good night , and may the Force be with you , '' she said , an homage to the release of the new `` Star Wars '' movie .
|
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201512/790/1155968404_4668687257001_omalley-cant-talk-00-00-11-18-Still002.jpg?pubId=1155968404" 14 key moments from the Democratic debate Sanders tells Clinton he’s sorry. O’Malley hammers away on guns. And not surprisingly, Trump is mentioned.
There were only three candidates on the stage in the latest Democratic presidential debate, but each had plenty of big moments as they argued about taxes on the middle class, intervention abroad and the safety of their campaign data. Here are the most memorable, important and explosive moments from Saturday's ABC News debate:
1. Sanders apologizes for data breach
Story Continued Below
Right out of the gate, Sen. Bernie Sanders apologized for this week's data breach, in which Sanders campaign staffers improperly accessed voter data from Hillary Clinton's campaign. And Clinton accepted his apology.
“Yes, I apologize,” Sanders said. “Not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton, and I hope we can work on an independent investigation, I apologize to my supporters.”
Clinton said she was looking forward to moving beyond the scuffle.
“I very much appreciate that comment, Bernie," Clinton said. "It is important that we go forward on this. I know that you now have your data back and there has been an agreement for an independent inquiry into what did happen. ... Now that ... we've resolved your data, we've agreed on an independent inquiry, we should move on. Because I don't think the American people are all that interested in this."
2. Clinton: Trump is ISIS' ‘best recruiter’
All the candidates pivoted to attack Donald Trump again and again during the debate, repeatedly using him as a foil. At one point, Clinton contrasted Trump’s rhetoric on fighting Islamic terrorists with former President George W. Bush's repeated statements that the United States was not at war with all Muslims.
“George W. Bush has done this, I give him credit,” Clinton said before saying that Trump is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter. "They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
3. Sanders raises Iraq War vote on foreign policy
After Clinton defended instituting a no-fly zone over Syria, Sanders brought up Clinton's vote to go to war in Iraq over a decade ago to contrast their foreign policies.
"Our differences are fairly deep on this issue," Sanders said. "We disagreed on the war in Iraq. ... I say this with due respect, I worry that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences could be." After bringing up Iraq again as well as Libya, Sanders continued: "Yes, we could get rid of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. ... Getting rid of dictators is easy, but you have to think of what will come after."
Clinton shot back: “With all due respect, senator, you voted for regime change in Libya. ... All of these are very difficult issues. I know that, I've been dealing with that for a very long time.”
4. Clinton: U.S. 'where we need to be' on ISIS
Clinton sounded an optimistic note on the country's ability to handle the threat of ISIS, also known as the Islamic State: "We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us as well as the region."
The comments followed talk about the challenge of Syria: "I think it's fair to say, Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians. The reason we are in the mess we're in, that ISIS has the territory it has, is because of Assad. I advocated arming the moderate opposition back in the day when I was still secretary of state, because I worried we would end up exactly where we are now. And so, when we look at these complex problems, I wish it could be either/or. I wish we could say yes, let's go destroy ISIS and let's let Assad continue to destroy Syria, which creates more terrorists, more extremists by the minute. No. We now finally are where we need to be."
5. O'Malley thunders away on guns to contrast with opponents
Martin O’Malley jumped in, talking over the moderators, to hit both Sanders and Clinton on guns. While touting his gun control record in Maryland, O'Malley called both of them inconsistent and squishy on the issue.
“Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election year,” O’Malley said. “Look, what we need is not more polls, we need more principles.” He continued, saying both Clinton and Sanders exemplified the "flip-flopping political approach of Washington.”
The other two Democratic candidates didn’t take that lightly. “Whoa, whoa, let’s tell the truth here,” Sanders said, with Clinton adding “Yeah, let’s tell the truth here.” Both said O'Malley misrepresented them, with Sanders touting his past campaigns in Vermont and Clinton ticking off her support for the Brady Bill and closing loopholes for gun sellers.
6. Clinton calls for gun control as part of terrorism response
Asked about how to handle the threat of domestic and lone-wolf terrorism after the San Bernardino, California, attack, Clinton brought gun control into the conversation: "If you only think about the coalition abroad, you’re missing the point because we need a coalition at home. … Arming more people — to do what? — I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism."
Once again, Clinton hit out at Trump: "I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims in the United states and around the world that there is … a war against Islam."
7. Clinton splits with New Hampshire's governor on halting refugees
Asked about Democratic New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan’s call for the federal government to stop accepting Syrian refugees, Clinton split with the popular governor, who has endorsed Clinton and is running for Senate in 2016.
8 awkward moments from the Democratic debate A collection of awkward moments from the debate on Saturday. poster="https://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201512/506/1155968404_4668687291001_Awk-.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
“I don't think a halt is necessary,” Clinton said, instead saying that the screening process should be “very tough” but that did not mean keeping all refugees from coming to the U.S. “We don't want to make it seem that we are turning into a nation of fear.”
O’Malley joined in too, saying “there are wider vulnerabilities than when it comes to refugees.”
8. O’Malley reminds everyone he’s younger than Clinton and Sanders
O’Malley went there. During a discussion on dealing with Assad and fighting ISIS, the former Maryland governor used his age as a campaign selling point. Clinton is 68, Sanders is 74, and O’Malley is 52.
“May I offer a different generation’s perspective on this?” O’Malley said, sparking audible shock from the audience.
9. We find out how Sanders has fun
As the debate moved deep into the weeds on the candidates' various economic plans, Clinton vowed not to raise taxes on the middle class. "No middle-class tax raises," she said, promising not to hike them on those making less than $250,000.
Sanders and O'Malley declined to make the same promise, and Sanders said Clinton was abandoning the Democratic Party's social legacy, "disagreeing with FDR on Social Security, disagreeing with LBJ on Medicare" and how to fund large social programs. Sanders mentioned paid family leave as an issue worth funding with a broad-based tax, though Clinton said she supported funding the proposal with taxes on the wealthy.
As the moderators kept the conversation going, Sanders quipped, "Now this is getting to be fun."
10. Clinton disappears
After the first break, the debate resumed with one glaring difference: Clinton was missing from the stage. As moderator David Muir stalled for time while delivering the next question, the cameras showed an empty center podium between Sanders and O'Malley.
Clinton walked back onstage to applause in the middle of that question. "I'm sorry," Clinton said, sounding slightly exasperated and sparking chuckles from the audience.
11. 'Everybody should'
Clinton wriggled out of a question about her ties to big business with a laugh line. When Muir asked if corporate America should “love Clinton,” she replied: "Everybody should." (The crowd laughed.) "I have said I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving, and successful."
When the question turned to Sanders (Would corporate America love a President Sanders?), the Vermont senator took a different route.
“No, I think they won’t,” Sanders said, again sparking laughter. “I don’t think I’m going to get a whole lot of campaign contributions from Wall Street.”
12. Sanders gives King Abdullah a shout-out
The king of Jordan got his second mention of the week in a presidential debate — but unlike Chris Christie in the GOP debate, Sanders got his name right.
In making his case on how to fight ISIS and direct America’s national security interests in the Middle East, the Vermont senator gave a shout-out to King Abdullah II of Jordan. Sanders said he didn’t believe in unilateral American action in the Middle East, pointing to Abdullah and saying the king said, "'We, the Muslims, should lead the effort on the ground,' and I think he's absolutely right.”
13. The role of the first lady — or gentleman
Clinton was asked whether her husband would take on the traditional role that first ladies have played if the former secretary of state and former President Bill Clinton make it back to the White House. After praising first ladies that came before and after her, the Democratic front-runner said, “I am probably still going to pick the flowers and the china for state dinners and things like that.” But Clinton added that she would still go to her husband for advice in the same way that other presidents have with their spouses.
Sanders praised Clinton for redefining the role of presidential spouse and talked about his wife's work with youth, while O'Malley said it was up to his wife whether she would continue her work as a district court judge in the event that he becomes president.
14. Many Bothans died to bring us this broadcast
Clinton had the last word Saturday night, and her sign-off was stranger than (science) fiction.
"Thank you, good night, and may the Force be with you," she said, an homage to the release of the new "Star Wars" movie.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
Zfnx8xro7XgQp5YN
|
fiscal_cliff
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mccain-graham-norquist-chambliss/2012/11/25/id/465282
|
Top Republicans Signal Willingness to Break Tax Pledge
|
2012-11-25
|
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes . See Video
“ I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss , ” King said on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press. ” “ A pledge you signed 20 years ago , 18 years ago , is for that Congress . … The world has changed , and the economic situation is different . ”
“ I will violate the pledge , long story short , for the good of the country , only if Democrats will do entitlement reform , ” Graham said on ABC ’ s “ This Week . ”
McCain , meanwhile , said he wants to focus on closing so-called tax “ loopholes ” to raise revenue but stressed he wants no increases to the marginal tax rates . Many observers , however , note that closing loopholes will still represent an effective tax increase . `` We can close a lot of loopholes , '' McCain said on “ Fox News Sunday , ” identifying deductions on charitable donations and on mortgage interest .
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes . See Video
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes . See Video
As Congress prepared to dive back into `` fiscal cliff '' talks on Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday , there were growing signs that the long-standing Republican resistance to raising taxes is beginning to crack.On Sunday , three leading Republicans — Sens . Lindsey Graham and John McCain , and Rep. Peter King — said they no longer viewed the anti-tax pledge designed by activist Grover Norquist to be binding on them . Their statements followed a similar one Thursday by Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss.The decades-old pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform group has been signed by 238 House members and 41 senators in this Congress and has essentially become inescapable for any Republican seeking statewide or national office over recent election cycles , especially in the Republican-controlled lower chamber.But on Sunday , there were signals of a sudden shift : For his part , Norquist on Friday said that breaking the pledge is breaking a promise to constituents who elected their representatives in part on their commitment against tax increases.In a statement to ███ on Friday responding to Chambliss ’ statements , Norquist said , `` Sen. Chambliss promised the people of Georgia he would go to Washington and reform government rather than raise taxes to pay for bigger government . He made that commitment in writing to the people of Georgia . `` If he plans to vote for higher taxes to pay for Obama-sized government he should address the people of Georgia and let them know that he plans to break his promise to them . `` If no deal is reached before the end of the year , a poison pill law of tax hikes and massive spending cuts , including slashes to the military , comes into effect with potentially catastrophic effects for the fragile US economy.After months of stalemate , congressional leaders met on November 16 with President Barack Obama — who is deemed to have a considerably stronger negotiating hand after handily winning re-election 10 days earlier.Just five weeks now remain in the calendar year to conclude an agreement before the expiration of tax cuts put in place during the presidency of Obama 's predecessor , George W. Bush.Obama has said that any deal he concludes would have to include an increase in taxes on wealthy taxpayers , something congressional Republicans so far have rejected.The plan he proposes — and presented to voters on the campaign trail — would raise the tax rate for top earners , but keep Bush-era tax rates for individuals who make less than $ 200,000 per year and families earning less than $ 250,000.Most Republicans still insist raising taxes on the wealthy would be counter-productive and only serve to slow economic growth and ensure that the country continues to be plagued by economic stagnation.They insist that higher taxes would dampen spending and hiring and investment by business owners.The top income tax rate , which now stands at 35 percent , will automatically revert to 39.6 percent at the beginning of 2013 unless there is a new budget deal.Republicans say they prefer to look at ways to bring in more tax revenue by completely overhauling the old and unwieldy tax code , including closing what they say are `` special interest loopholes '' likely to hit the poor and the middle class as well as the rich.But Graham said it was fair to ask his party to do this and raise taxes for Democratic concessions on reducing government spending on social welfare programs , known here as entitlements . `` When you 're $ 16 trillion in debt , the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece , and Republicans -- Republicans should put revenue on the table , '' Graham said . `` I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs , but I will violate the pledge , long story short , for the good of the country , only if Democrats will do entitlement reform , '' Graham added.Graham 's apparent willingness to ignore the no higher taxes pledge came just days after Chambliss , said he would not be not bound by the promise either . `` I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge , '' Chambliss said.King would not predict anything about a deal before it has actually been presented to Congress - so that an actual deal can be made between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner for Congress to discuss , rather than have possibilities batted around killing any potential “ grand bargain. ” “ I don ’ t want to prejudge any of this , ” King said . “ [ The ] bottom line is we can not have sequestration . We ca n't go off a fiscal cliff . We have to show the world we ’ re adults ... I think everything should be on the table . I myself am opposed to tax increases . The fact is that speaker and the majority in leader and the president are going to be in a room , trying to find the best package . I ’ m not going to prejudge it . And I ’ m just saying we should not be taking ironclad positions. ” Added King , “ The world has changed and the economic situation is different . Ronald Reagan and Tip O ’ Neill realized that in the 1980s . I think everything should be on the table , ” he said . “ I , myself , am opposed to tax increases . The fact is the speaker and the majority leader and the president are gon na be in a room , trying to find the best package . I ’ m not gon na prejudge it . And I ’ m just saying we should not be taking iron clad positions . I have faith in John Boehner to put together a good package. ” Economists have said that closing loopholes and ending deductions will likely not generate sufficient money to chip away at the national debt , and that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will be needed.Speaking on the same program as Graham , Democratic Senator Dick Durbin insisted that tax rates for the highest earners do have to up . `` How in the world are you going to reduce deductions and generate enough revenue for meaningful deficit reduction , '' Durbin said.Some experts said that there need not be a `` grand deal '' by the end of the year , because they could give themselves an extension by passing new legislation . `` Anytime Congress puts handcuffs on itself , it still has the key to those handcuffs . It can open the handcuffs anytime they want , or say . 'OK , we 'll change the lock ' , '' said Roberton Williams at the Tax Policy Center , an independent think tank .
|
Editor's Note:
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes. See Video
“I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss,” King said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress. … The world has changed, and the economic situation is different.”
“I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.”
McCain, meanwhile, said he wants to focus on closing so-called tax “loopholes” to raise revenue but stressed he wants no increases to the marginal tax rates. Many observers, however, note that closing loopholes will still represent an effective tax increase. "We can close a lot of loopholes," McCain said on “Fox News Sunday,” identifying deductions on charitable donations and on mortgage interest.
Editor's Note:
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes. See Video
Editor's Note:
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes. See Video
As Congress prepared to dive back into "fiscal cliff" talks on Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday, there were growing signs that the long-standing Republican resistance to raising taxes is beginning to crack.On Sunday, three leading Republicans — Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and Rep. Peter King — said they no longer viewed the anti-tax pledge designed by activist Grover Norquist to be binding on them. Their statements followed a similar one Thursday by Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss.The decades-old pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform group has been signed by 238 House members and 41 senators in this Congress and has essentially become inescapable for any Republican seeking statewide or national office over recent election cycles, especially in the Republican-controlled lower chamber.But on Sunday, there were signals of a sudden shift:For his part, Norquist on Friday said that breaking the pledge is breaking a promise to constituents who elected their representatives in part on their commitment against tax increases.In a statement to Newsmax on Friday responding to Chambliss’ statements, Norquist said, "Sen. Chambliss promised the people of Georgia he would go to Washington and reform government rather than raise taxes to pay for bigger government. He made that commitment in writing to the people of Georgia."If he plans to vote for higher taxes to pay for Obama-sized government he should address the people of Georgia and let them know that he plans to break his promise to them."If no deal is reached before the end of the year, a poison pill law of tax hikes and massive spending cuts, including slashes to the military, comes into effect with potentially catastrophic effects for the fragile US economy.After months of stalemate, congressional leaders met on November 16 with President Barack Obama — who is deemed to have a considerably stronger negotiating hand after handily winning re-election 10 days earlier.Just five weeks now remain in the calendar year to conclude an agreement before the expiration of tax cuts put in place during the presidency of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush.Obama has said that any deal he concludes would have to include an increase in taxes on wealthy taxpayers, something congressional Republicans so far have rejected.The plan he proposes — and presented to voters on the campaign trail — would raise the tax rate for top earners, but keep Bush-era tax rates for individuals who make less than $200,000 per year and families earning less than $250,000.Most Republicans still insist raising taxes on the wealthy would be counter-productive and only serve to slow economic growth and ensure that the country continues to be plagued by economic stagnation.They insist that higher taxes would dampen spending and hiring and investment by business owners.The top income tax rate, which now stands at 35 percent, will automatically revert to 39.6 percent at the beginning of 2013 unless there is a new budget deal.Republicans say they prefer to look at ways to bring in more tax revenue by completely overhauling the old and unwieldy tax code, including closing what they say are "special interest loopholes" likely to hit the poor and the middle class as well as the rich.But Graham said it was fair to ask his party to do this and raise taxes for Democratic concessions on reducing government spending on social welfare programs, known here as entitlements."When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece, and Republicans -- Republicans should put revenue on the table," Graham said."I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform," Graham added.Graham's apparent willingness to ignore the no higher taxes pledge came just days after Chambliss, said he would not be not bound by the promise either."I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," Chambliss said.King would not predict anything about a deal before it has actually been presented to Congress - so that an actual deal can be made between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner for Congress to discuss, rather than have possibilities batted around killing any potential “grand bargain.”“I don’t want to prejudge any of this,” King said. “[The] bottom line is we cannot have sequestration. We can't go off a fiscal cliff. We have to show the world we’re adults... I think everything should be on the table. I myself am opposed to tax increases. The fact is that speaker and the majority in leader and the president are going to be in a room, trying to find the best package. I’m not going to prejudge it. And I’m just saying we should not be taking ironclad positions.”Added King, “The world has changed and the economic situation is different. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill realized that in the 1980s. I think everything should be on the table,” he said. “I, myself, am opposed to tax increases. The fact is the speaker and the majority leader and the president are gonna be in a room, trying to find the best package. I’m not gonna prejudge it. And I’m just saying we should not be taking iron clad positions. I have faith in John Boehner to put together a good package.”Economists have said that closing loopholes and ending deductions will likely not generate sufficient money to chip away at the national debt, and that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will be needed.Speaking on the same program as Graham, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin insisted that tax rates for the highest earners do have to up."How in the world are you going to reduce deductions and generate enough revenue for meaningful deficit reduction," Durbin said.Some experts said that there need not be a "grand deal" by the end of the year, because they could give themselves an extension by passing new legislation."Anytime Congress puts handcuffs on itself, it still has the key to those handcuffs. It can open the handcuffs anytime they want, or say. 'OK, we'll change the lock'," said Roberton Williams at the Tax Policy Center, an independent think tank.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
9SLazWWLi0HE8Fff
|
|
elections
|
Breitbart News
| 22
|
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/08/hillary-clinton-wins-california-primary/
|
Hillary Clinton Wins California Primary by Wide Margin
|
2016-06-08
|
Joel B. Pollak
|
SANTA MONICA — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has won the California primary , taking nearly 56 % of the vote , with 99.5 % of precincts reporting as of 5:00 a.m. California time . Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) won just over 43 % of the vote .
The late-night win provides Clinton with an important symbolic boost . She had already sewn up the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination the day before the California primary , adding to her delegate majority with a large win in the New Jersey primary .
Sanders ’ s hopes for mounting a campaign to convince the party ’ s “ superdelegates ” to switch sides had rested on winning California and demonstrating that Clinton did not have the loyalty of her party ’ s broad constituencies . That effort is now very much in doubt , and Sanders will come under tremendous pressure to quit the race — though he vowed , in his speech to supporters late Tuesday night , to keep fighting onward through the Democratic National Convention in July .
A map of the state ’ s Democratic primary results ( see above ) reveals a tale of two states . Sanders won the northern portion of the state , plus Santa Cruz , Mariposa , and two counties bordering Nevada . Clinton swept the state ’ s major metropolitan areas , the Central Valley , the Inland Empire and Southern California . Though polls showed the two candidates neck-and-neck in the closing days of the race , Clinton out-performed those polls in the end — perhaps boosted by the Associated Press report the day before that she had sealed the nomination through winning the support of enough party insiders with super delegate votes .
On the Republican side , Donald Trump won over 75 % of the vote , running uncontested . Ohio Gov . John Kasich was second with over 11 % .
The state ’ s two leading Democratic contenders for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Barbara Boxer ( D-CA ) , Attorney General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez ( D-CA ) , shut out all of their Republican rivals .
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at ███ . His new e-book , Leadership Secrets of the Kings and Prophets : What the Bible ’ s Struggles Teach Us About Today , is on sale through Amazon Kindle Direct . Follow him on Twitter at @ joelpollak .
|
SANTA MONICA — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has won the California primary, taking nearly 56% of the vote, with 99.5% of precincts reporting as of 5:00 a.m. California time. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won just over 43% of the vote.
The late-night win provides Clinton with an important symbolic boost. She had already sewn up the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination the day before the California primary, adding to her delegate majority with a large win in the New Jersey primary.
Sanders’s hopes for mounting a campaign to convince the party’s “superdelegates” to switch sides had rested on winning California and demonstrating that Clinton did not have the loyalty of her party’s broad constituencies. That effort is now very much in doubt, and Sanders will come under tremendous pressure to quit the race — though he vowed, in his speech to supporters late Tuesday night, to keep fighting onward through the Democratic National Convention in July.
A map of the state’s Democratic primary results (see above) reveals a tale of two states. Sanders won the northern portion of the state, plus Santa Cruz, Mariposa, and two counties bordering Nevada. Clinton swept the state’s major metropolitan areas, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and Southern California. Though polls showed the two candidates neck-and-neck in the closing days of the race, Clinton out-performed those polls in the end — perhaps boosted by the Associated Press report the day before that she had sealed the nomination through winning the support of enough party insiders with super delegate votes.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump won over 75% of the vote, running uncontested. Ohio Gov. John Kasich was second with over 11%.
The state’s two leading Democratic contenders for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Attorney General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), shut out all of their Republican rivals.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new e-book, Leadership Secrets of the Kings and Prophets: What the Bible’s Struggles Teach Us About Today, is on sale through Amazon Kindle Direct. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
|
www.breitbart.com
| 1right
|
HOBJdckEuFLwwn1d
|
justice_department
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/13/breaking-obama-justice-department-secretly-monitored-ap-reporters-phone-records-n1594033
|
BREAKING: Obama Justice Department Secretly Monitored AP Reporters' Phone Records
|
2013-05-13
|
Guy Benson, Matt Vespa, "Cortney OBrien", Bronson Stocking, Reagan Mccarthy
|
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative 's top executive called a `` massive and unprecedented intrusion '' into how news organizations gather the news . The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls , and the duration of each call , for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters , general AP office numbers in New York , Washington and Hartford , Conn. , and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery , according to attorneys for the AP . In all , the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012 . The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters .
What the hell is going on within the Obama administration ? Another huge scandal rears its head , and I 'd bet the press wo n't take this one lying down :
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday , AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation . He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies . `` There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters . These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period , provide a road map to AP 's newsgathering operations , and disclose information about AP 's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know , '' Pruitt said .
Was the DOJ snooping for leakers and potential whistle-blowers ? That 's my initial gut reaction . Stay tuned for details . If you 're keeping score at home , here 's what we 've discovered since last Friday :
( 1 ) The Obama administration changed its Benghazi talking points 12 times , scrubbing politically unhelpful elements , and radically changing the best analysis of the intelligence community . The White House had previously denied presiding over anything but minor , cosmetic changes to the talking points .
( 2 ) The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra harassment from 2010 to 2012 , and top officials knew about it since at least 2011 . No disciplinary action has been taken so far .
( 3 ) The Obama Department of Health and Human Services is requesting `` voluntary '' donations from the healthcare companies over which it wields enormous power in order to help fund Obamacare 's implementation , perhaps in violation of the law .
( 4 ) The Obama Justice Department secretly monitored dozens of Associated Press journalists ' work and personal phone records for purposes that remain unclear . This lasted for at least two months .
I 'd toss in some `` what if Bush had done it ? '' snark , but that hardly seems necessary . This is quite simply astonishing . And to think , Ron Fournier 's piece about President Obama 's credibility crisis was written before this latest bomb dropped . Last week , Obama told Ohio State graduates to `` reject '' those `` cynical '' voices who warn of government abuse and tyranny . Then the IRS and AP stories broke . Listen up , grads . And all other citizens .
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws , federal regulations , and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations . Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media . We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation . Because we value the freedom of the press , we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws .
Notifying the AP that they were secretly collectingphone records data onof reporters and editors for months was a `` substantial threat '' to the investigation ? But remember , they `` value the freedom of the press . ''
Obama schmoozing w Justin Timberlake & Jessica Biel at NYC fundraiser , while his DoJ snoops on reporters & his IRS targets tea party orgs . — Kenneth P. Vogel ( @ kenvogel ) May 13 , 2013
|
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
What the hell is going on within the Obama administration? Another huge scandal rears its head, and I'd bet the press won't take this one lying down:
The Associated Press is understandably livid:
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
Was the DOJ snooping for leakers and potential whistle-blowers? That's my initial gut reaction. Stay tuned for details. If you're keeping score at home, here's what we've discovered since last Friday:
(1) The Obama administration changed its Benghazi talking points 12 times, scrubbing politically unhelpful elements, and radically changing the best analysis of the intelligence community. The White House had previously denied presiding over anything but minor, cosmetic changes to the talking points.
(2) The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra harassment from 2010 to 2012, and top officials knew about it since at least 2011. No disciplinary action has been taken so far.
(3) The Obama Department of Health and Human Services is requesting "voluntary" donations from the healthcare companies over which it wields enormous power in order to help fund Obamacare's implementation, perhaps in violation of the law.
(4) The Obama Justice Department secretly monitored dozens of Associated Press journalists' work and personal phone records for purposes that remain unclear. This lasted for at least two months.
I'd toss in some "what if Bush had done it?" snark, but that hardly seems necessary. This is quite simply astonishing. And to think, Ron Fournier's piece about President Obama's credibility crisis was written before this latest bomb dropped. Last week, Obama told Ohio State graduates to "reject" those "cynical" voices who warn of government abuse and tyranny. Then the IRS and AP stories broke. Listen up, grads. And all other citizens.
UPDATE - Here's the DOJ's deeply Orwellian statement:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.
Notifying the AP that they were secretly collectingphone records data onof reporters and editors for months was a "substantial threat" to the investigation? But remember, they "value the freedom of the press."
UPDATE II - What's our president up to tonight?
Obama schmoozing w Justin Timberlake &Jessica Biel at NYC fundraiser, while his DoJ snoops on reporters & his IRS targets tea party orgs. — Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) May 13, 2013
Is this a " side-show ," as well?
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
wim4mSLokNtjkfVs
|
media_bias
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-other-administration/339708-reporter-accuses-white-house-of-inflaming
|
Reporter accuses White House of 'inflaming' media tensions in heated exchange
|
2017-06-27
|
A White House reporter confronted White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the top of her Tuesday press briefing , accusing her of `` inflaming '' tensions with the media and undercutting the credibility of reporters .
Sanders had been asked about whether President Trump accepts the apology from CNN regarding a recent story it retracted about alleged ties between a Trump ally and a Russian investment fund .
`` All we are saying is I think we should take a really good look at what we are focused on , what we are covering and making sure it 's accurate and honest , '' she said .
`` If we make the slightest mistake , the slightest word is off , it 's an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room . But news outlets get to go on day after day and cite unnamed sources , use stories without sources . ''
As she continued , Brian Karem , a contributor to Playboy magazine , interrupted .
`` You are inflaming everyone right here right now with those words . This administration has done that as well ... Any one of us are replaceable , if we do n't get it right , the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us . You have been elected to serve for four years at least , there is no option other than that , '' Karem said .
`` We are here to ask you questions , you are here to provide answers . And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say , 'See , once again , the president is right and everybody else is just fake media . ' Everybody in this room is only trying to do their job . ”
Playboy drew attention to Karem 's comments on Twitter , calling it `` his 'Network ' moment . ''
Sanders pushed back , briefly addressing the accusations before moving onto questions from another reporter .
`` I disagree completely . First of all , if anything has been inflamed , it ’ s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media . I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question , '' she said .
Tuesday marked the first on-camera press briefing for the White House in a week . Reporters have grown critical of the administration 's decision to hold more off-camera briefings , and of officials who denounce anonymous sources while only agreeing to speak to the press on background .
During the same briefing , Sanders encouraged reporters `` and frankly everybody around the country '' to watch a new video from conservative provocateur James O'Keefe the purports to show a CNN producer referring to much of his network 's Russian coverage as `` bullshit . ''
`` If it is accurate , I think it ’ s a disgrace to all of media , to all of journalism . I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can ’ t be trusted to report the news , then that ’ s a dangerous place for America , ” Sanders said .
|
A White House reporter confronted White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the top of her Tuesday press briefing, accusing her of "inflaming" tensions with the media and undercutting the credibility of reporters.
Sanders had been asked about whether President Trump accepts the apology from CNN regarding a recent story it retracted about alleged ties between a Trump ally and a Russian investment fund.
"All we are saying is I think we should take a really good look at what we are focused on, what we are covering and making sure it's accurate and honest," she said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"If we make the slightest mistake, the slightest word is off, it's an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room. But news outlets get to go on day after day and cite unnamed sources, use stories without sources."
As she continued, Brian Karem, a contributor to Playboy magazine, interrupted.
"You are inflaming everyone right here right now with those words. This administration has done that as well ... Any one of us are replaceable, if we don't get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years at least, there is no option other than that," Karem said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We are here to ask you questions, you are here to provide answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, 'See, once again, the president is right and everybody else is just fake media.' Everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.”
Playboy drew attention to Karem's comments on Twitter, calling it "his 'Network' moment."
Sanders pushed back, briefly addressing the accusations before moving onto questions from another reporter.
"I disagree completely. First of all, if anything has been inflamed, it’s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media. I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question," she said.
Tuesday marked the first on-camera press briefing for the White House in a week. Reporters have grown critical of the administration's decision to hold more off-camera briefings, and of officials who denounce anonymous sources while only agreeing to speak to the press on background.
During the same briefing, Sanders encouraged reporters "and frankly everybody around the country" to watch a new video from conservative provocateur James O'Keefe the purports to show a CNN producer referring to much of his network's Russian coverage as "bullshit."
"If it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism. I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America,” Sanders said.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
teiLYKz8YVD4zZxd
|
|
us_senate
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/29/health-care-fail-gop-caves-to-ignorant-voters-who-want-revenge-not-facts-tom-nichols-column/714382001/
|
OPINION: Health care fail: GOP caves to ignorant voters who want revenge, not facts
|
2017-09-29
|
Once again , a Republican effort to repeal ( or replace , or modify , or mangle ) the Affordable Care Act has failed . The proposed bill by Sens . Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy , rushed along in order to take advantage of a procedural loophole that would allow passage by a simple majority , couldn ’ t even muster the necessary 50 votes ( plus a tie breaker from Vice President Pence ) to squeak it through the chamber .
Liberal commentators in particular crowed that this second ACA train wreck was a classic failure of expertise . Republicans and their staffs failed to put Graham-Cassidy through its paces , hold hearings , listen to testimony , and in general do the things that are part of “ regular order ” in the Senate . “ Republicans , ” wrote MSNBC ’ s Steve Benen , had “ no idea what they ’ re voting on . ”
More : Donald Trump , North Korea and nuclear weapons : Should presidents alone decide ?
There ’ s a lot of truth in this , but the reality here is that expertise wouldn ’ t have mattered . GOP legislators know that their base isn ’ t interested in the mumbo-jumbo of actual health care experts . These voters are not interested in analysis , or extended debate . They don ’ t care who ’ s in favor of it or who ’ s against it , or for what reason . They ’ ve been told that Obamacare — which they hate — would be repealed , and the Affordable Care Act — which they like — would be improved .
If that sounds strange , remember that a third of all voters and about a quarter of GOP voters don ’ t realize these are the same thing , and that ’ s the rub . No amount of expert testimony is going to change anyone ’ s mind about Obamacare .
What the most vocal and angry part of the Republican base wants is a repeal of this thing called “ Obamacare ” because it is a political symbol and because President Trump promised them it would be repealed , totally and completely , on Day One of his administration . What that would mean is as much a mystery to those angry voters as it is to many of the senators who supported that repeal .
I am not a health care expert . I am a conservative ( and former GOP Senate staffer ) who in general objected to the establishment of a massive new entitlement in 2010 with a series of legislative and regulatory contraptions muscled through by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid . I was appalled by Rep. Nancy Pelosi ’ s admission that Congress would have to pass the bill in order to figure it out . And I was disgusted by health care consultant Jonathan Gruber later admitting that much of the debate around the ACA was a charade premised on the stupidity of the average voter .
The Affordable Care Act needs fixing . ( Even a non-expert can see that . ) And yet Graham-Cassidy has proved Gruber and the other experts right : There is a vocal minority of the voting public that really has no interest in finding out what ’ s in some of the most important bills facing Congress at any given time . What they want , instead , is a victory over the other side in every legislative battle . Voters who didn ’ t understand the ACA in the first place now demand “ repeal ” without knowing what that means , either .
The resulting mess is not because legislators are insular , but because they are in fact reflecting the incoherent wishes of their constituents . In such an environment , experts aren ’ t much help — not because these specialists and professionals don ’ t know what they ’ re doing , but because the public only wants to hear answers from them with which they already agree . Forget about nuance or competence .
As scholar Philip Tetlock once noted , there ’ s not much point in checking the track record of competing experts when the public approaches expert advice with “ the psychology of the sports arena , not the seminar room . ”
More : President Trump is running out of time to score all those wins he promised
Experts can assist policymaking only when the voters know what they want , and when the public and their elected representatives are willing to listen to the various possibilities about how to get the results they desire . When Americans think instead , as so many do now , of public policy only in terms of scoring wins or losses , legislative dumpster fires like the last two ACA repeal efforts are inevitable .
Ironically , these failures in the Senate will lead at least some Americans to say that Washington “ isn ’ t listening ” to the electorate . The problem , in reality , is that Washington is listening far too much to a vocal minority who have no idea what they ’ re talking about and do not want to learn more than the little they know .
Republicans were not bereft of expert advice in this or any other legislative fight . But there ’ s not much use for that advice when voters have already told them that facts are less important than unfocused rage and a thirst for promises of political revenge .
Tom Nichols , a Russia specialist and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College , is the author of The Death of Expertise . The views expressed here are solely his own . Follow him on Twitter : @ RadioFreeTom .
|
Tom Nichols
Opinion contributor
Once again, a Republican effort to repeal (or replace, or modify, or mangle) the Affordable Care Act has failed. The proposed bill by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, rushed along in order to take advantage of a procedural loophole that would allow passage by a simple majority, couldn’t even muster the necessary 50 votes (plus a tie breaker from Vice President Pence) to squeak it through the chamber.
Liberal commentators in particular crowed that this second ACA train wreck was a classic failure of expertise. Republicans and their staffs failed to put Graham-Cassidy through its paces, hold hearings, listen to testimony, and in general do the things that are part of “regular order” in the Senate. “Republicans,” wrote MSNBC’s Steve Benen, had “no idea what they’re voting on.”
More:Donald Trump, North Korea and nuclear weapons: Should presidents alone decide?
More:Trump amateur hour with Putin threatens U.S. security
There’s a lot of truth in this, but the reality here is that expertise wouldn’t have mattered. GOP legislators know that their base isn’t interested in the mumbo-jumbo of actual health care experts. These voters are not interested in analysis, or extended debate. They don’t care who’s in favor of it or who’s against it, or for what reason. They’ve been told that Obamacare — which they hate — would be repealed, and the Affordable Care Act — which they like — would be improved.
If that sounds strange, remember that a third of all voters and about a quarter of GOP voters don’t realize these are the same thing, and that’s the rub. No amount of expert testimony is going to change anyone’s mind about Obamacare.
What the most vocal and angry part of the Republican base wants is a repeal of this thing called “Obamacare” because it is a political symbol and because President Trump promised them it would be repealed, totally and completely, on Day One of his administration. What that would mean is as much a mystery to those angry voters as it is to many of the senators who supported that repeal.
I am not a health care expert. I am a conservative (and former GOP Senate staffer) who in general objected to the establishment of a massive new entitlement in 2010 with a series of legislative and regulatory contraptions muscled through by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid. I was appalled by Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s admission that Congress would have to pass the bill in order to figure it out. And I was disgusted by health care consultant Jonathan Gruber later admitting that much of the debate around the ACA was a charade premised on the stupidity of the average voter.
The Affordable Care Act needs fixing. (Even a non-expert can see that.) And yet Graham-Cassidy has proved Gruber and the other experts right: There is a vocal minority of the voting public that really has no interest in finding out what’s in some of the most important bills facing Congress at any given time. What they want, instead, is a victory over the other side in every legislative battle. Voters who didn’t understand the ACA in the first place now demand “repeal” without knowing what that means, either.
The resulting mess is not because legislators are insular, but because they are in fact reflecting the incoherent wishes of their constituents. In such an environment, experts aren’t much help — not because these specialists and professionals don’t know what they’re doing, but because the public only wants to hear answers from them with which they already agree. Forget about nuance or competence.
As scholar Philip Tetlock once noted, there’s not much point in checking the track record of competing experts when the public approaches expert advice with “the psychology of the sports arena, not the seminar room.”
More:President Trump is running out of time to score all those wins he promised
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
Experts can assist policymaking only when the voters know what they want, and when the public and their elected representatives are willing to listen to the various possibilities about how to get the results they desire. When Americans think instead, as so many do now, of public policy only in terms of scoring wins or losses, legislative dumpster fires like the last two ACA repeal efforts are inevitable.
Ironically, these failures in the Senate will lead at least some Americans to say that Washington “isn’t listening” to the electorate. The problem, in reality, is that Washington is listening far too much to a vocal minority who have no idea what they’re talking about and do not want to learn more than the little they know.
Republicans were not bereft of expert advice in this or any other legislative fight. But there’s not much use for that advice when voters have already told them that facts are less important than unfocused rage and a thirst for promises of political revenge.
Tom Nichols, a Russia specialist and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, is the author of The Death of Expertise. The views expressed here are solely his own. Follow him on Twitter: @RadioFreeTom.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
nSHCNTujNM0sjRJr
|
|
politics
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/9/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-claimed-clinton-cam/
|
Donald Trump Jr. says Russian lawyer claimed Clinton campaign collusion
|
2017-07-09
|
S.A. Miller
|
President Trump ’ s eldest son said Sunday that there was more to his meeting with a Russian lawyer last year than previously acknowledged , prompting fresh speculation about Trump campaign intrigue with the Kremlin .
In a startling switch , however , Donald Trump Jr. said the lawyer claimed Russia was working to help Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign .
When the New York Times first reported the meeting Saturday , the younger Mr. Trump issued a statement saying the meeting was focused mainly on a discontinued program for U.S. adoptions of Russian children .
He issued a new statement Sunday , acknowledging the meeting was set up by an acquaintance he knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow who said the lawyer might have information helpful to the Trump campaign .
The meeting in June 2016 with a lawyer with Kremlin ties , who was later identified as Natalia Veselnitskaya , was also attended by Mr. Trump ’ s son-in-law and top advisor Jared Kushner and Trump campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort .
The younger Mr. Trump said that during the meeting Ms. Vesenlantskaya claimed to have information that “ individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee ” and supporting Clinton .
“ No details or supporting information was provided or even offered , ” the younger Mr. Trump said in a statement . “ It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information . ”
He said no details or supporting information was ever offered , and that his father was unaware of the meeting .
Mark Corallo , a spokesman for Trump ’ s legal team , said the president was “ not aware of and did not attend the meeting . ”
The younger Mr. Trump had not disclosed the meeting prior to the news report .
Mr. Kushner , who works as a top adviser to the president , later reported the meeting on White House disclosure forms .
The president ’ s opponents in the U.S. seized on the story as fresh evidence of possible collusion . The FBI has uncovered no evidence of collusion after a yearlong investigation , but they continue , including a Justice Department special counsel probe that began in May .
• This article is based in part on wire service reports .
|
President Trump’s eldest son said Sunday that there was more to his meeting with a Russian lawyer last year than previously acknowledged, prompting fresh speculation about Trump campaign intrigue with the Kremlin.
In a startling switch, however, Donald Trump Jr. said the lawyer claimed Russia was working to help Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
When the New York Times first reported the meeting Saturday, the younger Mr. Trump issued a statement saying the meeting was focused mainly on a discontinued program for U.S. adoptions of Russian children.
He issued a new statement Sunday, acknowledging the meeting was set up by an acquaintance he knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow who said the lawyer might have information helpful to the Trump campaign.
The meeting in June 2016 with a lawyer with Kremlin ties, who was later identified as Natalia Veselnitskaya, was also attended by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and top advisor Jared Kushner and Trump campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort.
The younger Mr. Trump said that during the meeting Ms. Vesenlantskaya claimed to have information that “individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee” and supporting Clinton.
“No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” the younger Mr. Trump said in a statement. “It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
He said no details or supporting information was ever offered, and that his father was unaware of the meeting.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump’s legal team, said the president was “not aware of and did not attend the meeting.”
The younger Mr. Trump had not disclosed the meeting prior to the news report.
Mr. Kushner, who works as a top adviser to the president, later reported the meeting on White House disclosure forms.
The president’s opponents in the U.S. seized on the story as fresh evidence of possible collusion. The FBI has uncovered no evidence of collusion after a yearlong investigation, but they continue, including a Justice Department special counsel probe that began in May.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
HQqXYu7J4DEZ5Kmd
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/magazine/will-trump-swallow-the-gop-whole.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
|
Will Trump Swallow the G.O.P. Whole?
|
2016-06-26
|
Mark Leibovich
|
Priebus was saying in effect that it would be possible to build a wall around Donald Trump and not have the G.O.P . pay for it . Trump did not define its values in the long term , even if he might temporarily defile them . “ We ’ re the party of the ‘ open door , ’ ” Priebus told me , as he often does . Not big , beautiful walls .
For a while this spring , it seemed possible to contain the earthquake . Trump showed flickering signs of “ maturing ” as a candidate , and Republicans seemed willing to “ support the nominee , ” if not endorse him . The “ normalization ” of Donald Trump became a media watchword , the idea that his daily affronts could be integrated into the routine paces of a quadrennial exercise . Formerly hostile primary opponents like Marco Rubio , Lindsey Graham , Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry all at various points said they would support Trump or were at least no longer ( in Rubio ’ s case ) deriding him as a “ fraud , ” “ con man ” and “ lunatic ” or ( in Graham ’ s ) a “ race-baiting , xenophobic , religious bigot ” or ( in Jindal ’ s ) a “ madman who must be stopped ” or ( in Perry ’ s ) a “ barking carnival act. ” I imagined Trump laughing at how easy it was to get Republicans to submit to him after he had savaged so many of them during the primaries . Actually there was no need to imagine because Trump was doing exactly that . “ I ’ ve never seen people able to pivot like politicians , ” he said at a rally in California in late May while boasting of his support from Perry . In an interview , I asked Trump if it was harder to flip politicians or the real estate people he has dealt with over the years . His smirk was audible over the phone . “ Well , I ’ m not referring to any politicians in particular , but I ’ ve said many times that businesspeople are much tougher , ” Trump said . “ Politicians tend to be much more deceptive and deceiving and more willing to break a deal . But they are not as tough . ”
Priebus , meanwhile , kept working the phones , trying to coax anti-Trump Republicans back to the party line and persuade — beg — Trump to lay off the elected Republicans he kept dumping on . “ I have encouraged him to constantly offer grace to people that he doesn ’ t think are deserving of grace , ” Priebus said . Trump , in turn , calls Priebus “ Mr . Switzerland ” and speaks well of him . “ Reince is a peacemaker , a very good person for getting people together , ” he said . Trump was calling me from his limo after a rally in Anaheim , Calif . He was in the midst of an intrapartisan grudge tour of the American West , during which he disparaged , among other Republicans , Jeb Bush , the South Carolina governor , Nikki Haley , and the New Mexico governor , Susana Martinez , who is one of the highest-profile Hispanic elected officials in the G.O.P . He also reiterated that Romney was a “ loser ” and a “ choker ” and for good measure boasted that “ I have a store that ’ s worth more money than he is . ”
Priebus ’ s mother is Greek , which he says trains him for dealing with whatever the Greek word for mishegas is . “ Ever see ‘ My Big Fat Greek Wedding ’ ? ” he asked . “ That ’ s my family , that ’ s my life . The arguing starts at 7:30 in the morning , everyone ’ s in each other ’ s business . It was good family chaos. ” I asked if what the G.O.P . was going through now was “ good family chaos . ”
At this point in the pre-general-election calendar four and eight years ago , Romney and John McCain had built massive campaign operations and fund-raising networks that were orders of magnitude larger than Trump ’ s . They had accumulated armies of elected officials promoting them and were diligently making peace with vanquished opponents and paying courtesy calls to party dignitaries and congressional leaders in the name of “ unity. ” The period between the end of the primaries and the start of the conventions is typically one of consolidation , good-will harvesting and turning full attention to the general-election opponent — all of which Trump has succeeded in achieving the 180-degree opposite of .
Trump would of course be the first to point out that both McCain and Romney lost and that he has been doubted at every step of his campaign . But the degree to which he seems unconcerned with his pariah status among name Republicans remains a key feature of his pursuit . To a comical extent , top Republicans willed themselves invisible when I reached out to them for this article , fearing , not incorrectly , that the conversation would turn to Trump . This included some of the most typically quotable Republicans , including former Trump challengers like Graham ( “ He ’ s sorta had his fill talking about Trump , ” a spokesman emailed ) , Perry ( “ Thanks for thinking of him ” ) and Ted Cruz ( “ Not great timing on our end ” ) ; the previous nominee Mitt Romney ( “ You are kind to think of me , ” he wrote ) ; Trump stalwarts like Chris Christie ( “ We are going to take a pass this time ” ) ; Trump-averse Republican governors like Charlie Baker of Massachusetts ( “ The governor won ’ t be available ” ) ; and senators like Mike Lee , of Utah ( “ Senator Lee would love to talk to you about the state of the G.O.P . and conservatism in general . We are free anytime after Nov 8. ” ) .
|
Priebus was saying in effect that it would be possible to build a wall around Donald Trump and not have the G.O.P. pay for it. Trump did not define its values in the long term, even if he might temporarily defile them. “We’re the party of the ‘open door,’ ” Priebus told me, as he often does. Not big, beautiful walls.
For a while this spring, it seemed possible to contain the earthquake. Trump showed flickering signs of “maturing” as a candidate, and Republicans seemed willing to “support the nominee,” if not endorse him. The “normalization” of Donald Trump became a media watchword, the idea that his daily affronts could be integrated into the routine paces of a quadrennial exercise. Formerly hostile primary opponents like Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry all at various points said they would support Trump or were at least no longer (in Rubio’s case) deriding him as a “fraud,” “con man” and “lunatic” or (in Graham’s) a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” or (in Jindal’s) a “madman who must be stopped” or (in Perry’s) a “barking carnival act.” I imagined Trump laughing at how easy it was to get Republicans to submit to him after he had savaged so many of them during the primaries. Actually there was no need to imagine because Trump was doing exactly that. “I’ve never seen people able to pivot like politicians,” he said at a rally in California in late May while boasting of his support from Perry. In an interview, I asked Trump if it was harder to flip politicians or the real estate people he has dealt with over the years. His smirk was audible over the phone. “Well, I’m not referring to any politicians in particular, but I’ve said many times that businesspeople are much tougher,” Trump said. “Politicians tend to be much more deceptive and deceiving and more willing to break a deal. But they are not as tough.”
Priebus, meanwhile, kept working the phones, trying to coax anti-Trump Republicans back to the party line and persuade — beg — Trump to lay off the elected Republicans he kept dumping on. “I have encouraged him to constantly offer grace to people that he doesn’t think are deserving of grace,” Priebus said. Trump, in turn, calls Priebus “Mr. Switzerland” and speaks well of him. “Reince is a peacemaker, a very good person for getting people together,” he said. Trump was calling me from his limo after a rally in Anaheim, Calif. He was in the midst of an intrapartisan grudge tour of the American West, during which he disparaged, among other Republicans, Jeb Bush, the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley, and the New Mexico governor, Susana Martinez, who is one of the highest-profile Hispanic elected officials in the G.O.P. He also reiterated that Romney was a “loser” and a “choker” and for good measure boasted that “I have a store that’s worth more money than he is.”
Priebus’s mother is Greek, which he says trains him for dealing with whatever the Greek word for mishegas is. “Ever see ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’?” he asked. “That’s my family, that’s my life. The arguing starts at 7:30 in the morning, everyone’s in each other’s business. It was good family chaos.” I asked if what the G.O.P. was going through now was “good family chaos.”
“It depends how it turns out,” he said.
At this point in the pre-general-election calendar four and eight years ago, Romney and John McCain had built massive campaign operations and fund-raising networks that were orders of magnitude larger than Trump’s. They had accumulated armies of elected officials promoting them and were diligently making peace with vanquished opponents and paying courtesy calls to party dignitaries and congressional leaders in the name of “unity.” The period between the end of the primaries and the start of the conventions is typically one of consolidation, good-will harvesting and turning full attention to the general-election opponent — all of which Trump has succeeded in achieving the 180-degree opposite of.
Trump would of course be the first to point out that both McCain and Romney lost and that he has been doubted at every step of his campaign. But the degree to which he seems unconcerned with his pariah status among name Republicans remains a key feature of his pursuit. To a comical extent, top Republicans willed themselves invisible when I reached out to them for this article, fearing, not incorrectly, that the conversation would turn to Trump. This included some of the most typically quotable Republicans, including former Trump challengers like Graham (“He’s sorta had his fill talking about Trump,” a spokesman emailed), Perry (“Thanks for thinking of him”) and Ted Cruz (“Not great timing on our end”); the previous nominee Mitt Romney (“You are kind to think of me,” he wrote); Trump stalwarts like Chris Christie (“We are going to take a pass this time”); Trump-averse Republican governors like Charlie Baker of Massachusetts (“The governor won’t be available”); and senators like Mike Lee, of Utah (“Senator Lee would love to talk to you about the state of the G.O.P. and conservatism in general. We are free anytime after Nov 8.”).
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
i1LnUcBP64suIQ9d
|
impeachment
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/454640-mueller-testimony-fails-to-move-needle-on-impeachment
|
Mueller testimony fails to move needle on impeachment
|
2019-07-25
|
House Democrats hoping that former special counsel Robert Mueller Robert ( Bob ) Swan MuellerSchiff : Trump acquittal in Senate trial would not signal a 'failure ' Jeffries blasts Trump for attack on Thunberg at impeachment hearing Live coverage : House Judiciary to vote on impeachment after surprise delay MORE would trigger momentum for impeaching President Trump Donald John TrumpDem lawmaker says Nunes threatened to sue him over criticism Parnas : U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed to clear path for investigations into Bidens Five takeaways from Parnas 's Maddow interview MORE were met with resistance Wednesday from a witness who often wouldn ’ t even answer lawmakers ’ questions .
Unlike Mueller ’ s May remarks on his report on Russia ’ s election meddling , his testimony Wednesday did not spark any new major wave behind the movement to oust the president .
And some of the most vocal impeachment proponents said they don ’ t expect Mueller ’ s halting testimony — in which he asked legislators to repeat their questions on multiple occasions and often declined to answer questions at all — to lend any significant new power to the effort .
“ I think that there were some persons who were hoping for a seminal moment , a wild moment — a wild , gotcha moment , ” said Rep. Al Green Alexander ( Al ) N. GreenThe Memo : Will Iran crisis sideline impeachment process ? Green says House should n't hold impeachment articles indefinitely GOP set to make life difficult for Democrats on impeachment MORE ( D-Texas ) . “ It didn ’ t happen . ”
Green , who forced a vote to impeach Trump last week , predicted Mueller ’ s testimony won ’ t prompt any meaningful change in public support for ousting the president . Only launching the process , he argued , would bring more people on board .
“ I think public sentiment will change significantly once you start the process of impeachment , ” he said .
Rep. Jared Huffman Jared William HuffmanDemocrats reach cusp of impeachment Democrats gear up for high-stakes Judiciary hearing Pelosi heading to Madrid for UN climate change convention MORE ( D-Calif. ) , another impeachment supporter , delivered a similar assessment early in Mueller ’ s testimony .
“ I did not have super high expectations for this testimony , and I would say it ’ s living up to my low expectations , ” Huffman said . “ He ’ s made it clear in every possible way that he ’ s just not going beyond the words he wrote in his report . ”
Trump and Republican lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday after the hearings , ripping Democrats for refusing to move on from the Mueller investigation .
Still , impeachment backers say they are optimistic that Mueller ’ s testimony will help sway members of the public who aren ’ t familiar with the findings of the special counsel ’ s report . Most Americans , they argue , haven ’ t read the full 448-page report but may have found it easier to watch Wednesday ’ s hearings .
“ There was no new information relayed today , ” acknowledged Rep. Jamie Raskin Jamin ( Jamie ) Ben RaskinThe Hill 's Morning Report - Trump trial questions ; civil Democratic debate House poised to hand impeachment articles to Senate House to vote Wednesday on sending articles of impeachment to Senate MORE ( D-Md . ) , a House Judiciary Committee member who supports an impeachment inquiry . “ But it was new to about 99 percent of the American people . So it wasn ’ t new to anybody who read it . But most people have not read it . ”
Mueller did offer Democrats some sound bites . He confirmed that Trump “ was not exculpated ” by the report ’ s findings on whether he obstructed justice over the course of the investigation into Russia ’ s election meddling , despite the president ’ s claims to the contrary .
Mueller also confirmed , in response to questioning from a GOP lawmaker , that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office .
And Mueller testified that Trump ’ s repeated embrace of WikiLeaks and its distribution of Clinton campaign emails was “ problematic . ”
“ Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some , I don ’ t know , hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity , ” Mueller said .
But Mueller declined or deflected dozens of other questions from lawmakers over the course of his testimony .
Rep. Pramila Jayapal Pramila JayapalHouse to investigate Trump 'Remain in Mexico ' policy Democrats do n't expect to do 2020 budget House to vote Thursday on war powers resolution after Iran attacks MORE ( D-Wash. ) , a Congressional Progressive Caucus ( CPC ) co-chairwoman who also serves on the Judiciary Committee , said Democrats needed Mueller to simply state his findings to counter Trump and Attorney General William Barr William Pelham BarrHillicon Valley : Trump turns up heat on Apple over gunman 's phone | Mnuchin says Huawei wo n't be 'chess piece ' in trade talks | Dems seek briefing on Iranian cyber threats | Buttigieg loses cyber chief Appeals court appears wary of letting Trump reinstate death sentences Apple v. Attorney General Barr : Giving feds access to smartphones is a bad call MORE ’ s framing of the report , even if it was largely Democrats reading from the report with Mueller offering terse affirmative responses .
“ We knew what was in the report , but we needed Mueller to say it because we needed Mueller to agree this was in the findings of this report , ” Jayapal said . “ We really needed to reset the table and reeducate people about what was actually in there , which I think happened . ”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiOn The Money — Presented by Wells Fargo — Trump signs first phase of US-China trade deal | Senate to vote Thursday on Canada , Mexico deal | IRS provides relief for those with discharged student loans House delivers impeachment articles to Senate Senate begins preparations for Trump trial MORE ( D-Calif. ) maintained her position that the House still needs to make a case for impeachment .
“ My position has always been : whatever decision we make in that regard would have to be done with our strongest possible hand , and we still have some outstanding matters in the courts , ” Pelosi said at a press conference in the Capitol with three top committee chairmen after Mueller ’ s testimony .
At least one House Democrat came out in favor of an impeachment inquiry on Wednesday following Mueller ’ s testimony : Rep. Lori Trahan Lori A. Trahan'Minor league cities ' need new federal partnership Ethics panel reviewing freshman Democrat over campaign finance complaint House Democrats inch toward majority support for impeachment MORE ( Mass. ) . Trahan voted in favor of Green ’ s impeachment resolution a week earlier .
“ Mueller ’ s message to the American people today was clear : his report did not exonerate the president , and that there is ample evidence that the president broke the law by repeatedly engaging in efforts to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election , ” Trahan said in a statement .
More than 90 House Democrats have come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry , according to a tally kept by ███ . But impeachment backers are still mostly progressives and amount to less than half of the 235-member caucus . Only a half-dozen Democrats representing swing districts have joined the push — and even they all hail from districts carried by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonWarren-Sanders fight raises alarm on the left Poll : Trump trails 2020 Democratic contenders in Michigan US company offers free cybersecurity assistance to campaigns MORE in 2016 .
Some of the most liberal impeachment backers said they ’ re confident Mueller ’ s appearance will build support for the effort , particularly after lawmakers return home this week for the long August recess and hear the voters ’ reaction to the former FBI director ’ s testimony .
“ This was a pretty critical [ hearing ] for a lot of members who were waiting to see what came out of today . And … going back home this is going to [ be ] brought up to everybody a lot , ” said Rep. Mark Pocan Mark William PocanDemocrats do n't expect to do 2020 budget Rep. Collins says Democrats are 'in love with terrorists , ' 'mourn Soleimani ' Democrats ramp up calls for war powers vote after Iran strike MORE ( D-Wis. ) , a co-chairman of the CPC . “ This is elevating the discussion considerably . ”
Jayapal also sounded bullish that more lawmakers would support an impeachment inquiry after hearing from Mueller .
“ I just believe that it ’ s hard to listen to all of that and not believe that that ’ s not where we should be , ” Jayapal said .
However , Huffman suggested that Democrats simply haven ’ t been aggressive enough in the first place since Mueller ’ s report was released three months ago to win over public opinion .
“ So much of this is baked in , and frankly our caucus hasn ’ t tried very hard to move public opinion on these issues . We ’ ve been passive . And we allowed [ Attorney General ] Bill Barr to seize the narrative in a very effective but cynical and I believe disgusting way . And now we ’ re trying to play catch-up , as we try to do this Hamlet act about what to do on impeachment . And we just haven ’ t been very bold or very assertive in any of this , ” Huffman said .
|
House Democrats hoping that former special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) Swan MuellerSchiff: Trump acquittal in Senate trial would not signal a 'failure' Jeffries blasts Trump for attack on Thunberg at impeachment hearing Live coverage: House Judiciary to vote on impeachment after surprise delay MORE would trigger momentum for impeaching President Trump Donald John TrumpDem lawmaker says Nunes threatened to sue him over criticism Parnas: U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed to clear path for investigations into Bidens Five takeaways from Parnas's Maddow interview MORE were met with resistance Wednesday from a witness who often wouldn’t even answer lawmakers’ questions.
Unlike Mueller’s May remarks on his report on Russia’s election meddling, his testimony Wednesday did not spark any new major wave behind the movement to oust the president.
ADVERTISEMENT
And some of the most vocal impeachment proponents said they don’t expect Mueller’s halting testimony — in which he asked legislators to repeat their questions on multiple occasions and often declined to answer questions at all — to lend any significant new power to the effort.
“I think that there were some persons who were hoping for a seminal moment, a wild moment — a wild, gotcha moment,” said Rep. Al Green Alexander (Al) N. GreenThe Memo: Will Iran crisis sideline impeachment process? Green says House shouldn't hold impeachment articles indefinitely GOP set to make life difficult for Democrats on impeachment MORE (D-Texas). “It didn’t happen.”
Green, who forced a vote to impeach Trump last week, predicted Mueller’s testimony won’t prompt any meaningful change in public support for ousting the president. Only launching the process, he argued, would bring more people on board.
“I think public sentiment will change significantly once you start the process of impeachment,” he said.
Rep. Jared Huffman Jared William HuffmanDemocrats reach cusp of impeachment Democrats gear up for high-stakes Judiciary hearing Pelosi heading to Madrid for UN climate change convention MORE (D-Calif.), another impeachment supporter, delivered a similar assessment early in Mueller’s testimony.
“I did not have super high expectations for this testimony, and I would say it’s living up to my low expectations,” Huffman said. “He’s made it clear in every possible way that he’s just not going beyond the words he wrote in his report.”
Trump and Republican lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday after the hearings, ripping Democrats for refusing to move on from the Mueller investigation.
Still, impeachment backers say they are optimistic that Mueller’s testimony will help sway members of the public who aren’t familiar with the findings of the special counsel’s report. Most Americans, they argue, haven’t read the full 448-page report but may have found it easier to watch Wednesday’s hearings.
“There was no new information relayed today,” acknowledged Rep. Jamie Raskin Jamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump trial questions; civil Democratic debate House poised to hand impeachment articles to Senate House to vote Wednesday on sending articles of impeachment to Senate MORE (D-Md.), a House Judiciary Committee member who supports an impeachment inquiry. “But it was new to about 99 percent of the American people. So it wasn’t new to anybody who read it. But most people have not read it.”
Mueller did offer Democrats some sound bites. He confirmed that Trump “was not exculpated” by the report’s findings on whether he obstructed justice over the course of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling, despite the president’s claims to the contrary.
Mueller also confirmed, in response to questioning from a GOP lawmaker, that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office.
And Mueller testified that Trump’s repeated embrace of WikiLeaks and its distribution of Clinton campaign emails was “problematic.”
ADVERTISEMENT
“Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity,” Mueller said.
But Mueller declined or deflected dozens of other questions from lawmakers over the course of his testimony.
At one point, Mueller was forced to revise his testimony. He initially said in response to a question from Rep. Ted Lieu Ted W. LieuDem lawmaker says Nunes threatened to sue him over criticism Paralysis of nations is empowering cities 2019 in Photos: 35 pictures in politics MORE (D-Calif.) that Trump couldn’t be indicted because of an existing Justice Department opinion saying that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. But Mueller later clarified that his report did not reach a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal Pramila JayapalHouse to investigate Trump 'Remain in Mexico' policy Democrats don't expect to do 2020 budget House to vote Thursday on war powers resolution after Iran attacks MORE (D-Wash.), a Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) co-chairwoman who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats needed Mueller to simply state his findings to counter Trump and Attorney General William Barr William Pelham BarrHillicon Valley: Trump turns up heat on Apple over gunman's phone | Mnuchin says Huawei won't be 'chess piece' in trade talks | Dems seek briefing on Iranian cyber threats | Buttigieg loses cyber chief Appeals court appears wary of letting Trump reinstate death sentences Apple v. Attorney General Barr: Giving feds access to smartphones is a bad call MORE’s framing of the report, even if it was largely Democrats reading from the report with Mueller offering terse affirmative responses.
“We knew what was in the report, but we needed Mueller to say it because we needed Mueller to agree this was in the findings of this report,” Jayapal said. “We really needed to reset the table and reeducate people about what was actually in there, which I think happened.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiOn The Money — Presented by Wells Fargo — Trump signs first phase of US-China trade deal | Senate to vote Thursday on Canada, Mexico deal | IRS provides relief for those with discharged student loans House delivers impeachment articles to Senate Senate begins preparations for Trump trial MORE (D-Calif.) maintained her position that the House still needs to make a case for impeachment.
“My position has always been: whatever decision we make in that regard would have to be done with our strongest possible hand, and we still have some outstanding matters in the courts,” Pelosi said at a press conference in the Capitol with three top committee chairmen after Mueller’s testimony.
At least one House Democrat came out in favor of an impeachment inquiry on Wednesday following Mueller’s testimony: Rep. Lori Trahan Lori A. Trahan'Minor league cities' need new federal partnership Ethics panel reviewing freshman Democrat over campaign finance complaint House Democrats inch toward majority support for impeachment MORE (Mass.). Trahan voted in favor of Green’s impeachment resolution a week earlier.
“Mueller’s message to the American people today was clear: his report did not exonerate the president, and that there is ample evidence that the president broke the law by repeatedly engaging in efforts to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election,” Trahan said in a statement.
More than 90 House Democrats have come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, according to a tally kept by The Hill. But impeachment backers are still mostly progressives and amount to less than half of the 235-member caucus. Only a half-dozen Democrats representing swing districts have joined the push — and even they all hail from districts carried by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonWarren-Sanders fight raises alarm on the left Poll: Trump trails 2020 Democratic contenders in Michigan US company offers free cybersecurity assistance to campaigns MORE in 2016.
Some of the most liberal impeachment backers said they’re confident Mueller’s appearance will build support for the effort, particularly after lawmakers return home this week for the long August recess and hear the voters’ reaction to the former FBI director’s testimony.
“This was a pretty critical [hearing] for a lot of members who were waiting to see what came out of today. And … going back home this is going to [be] brought up to everybody a lot,” said Rep. Mark Pocan Mark William PocanDemocrats don't expect to do 2020 budget Rep. Collins says Democrats are 'in love with terrorists,' 'mourn Soleimani' Democrats ramp up calls for war powers vote after Iran strike MORE (D-Wis.), a co-chairman of the CPC. “This is elevating the discussion considerably.”
Jayapal also sounded bullish that more lawmakers would support an impeachment inquiry after hearing from Mueller.
“I just believe that it’s hard to listen to all of that and not believe that that’s not where we should be,” Jayapal said.
However, Huffman suggested that Democrats simply haven’t been aggressive enough in the first place since Mueller’s report was released three months ago to win over public opinion.
“So much of this is baked in, and frankly our caucus hasn’t tried very hard to move public opinion on these issues. We’ve been passive. And we allowed [Attorney General] Bill Barr to seize the narrative in a very effective but cynical and I believe disgusting way. And now we’re trying to play catch-up, as we try to do this Hamlet act about what to do on impeachment. And we just haven’t been very bold or very assertive in any of this,” Huffman said.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
RayXLaAMlvG7g0OV
|
|
state_department
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fbi-found-14000-new-hillary-clinton-emails/
|
New emails disprove Clinton’s story
|
2016-08-22
|
Stephen Dinan
|
The Obama administration acknowledged Monday that the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government , and officials are facing intense pressure to release them ahead of November ’ s election .
A federal judge ordered the State Department to speed up the process , and the Republican National Committee said the administration should strive to release an initial set of the secret emails within a month , or when the first states conduct early voting .
The existence of the emails marks yet more trouble for Mrs. Clinton , the Democratic presidential nominee , who insisted she turned over all of her work-related messages in December 2014 .
Rep. Lamar Smith , Texas Republican and chairman of the House Science , Space and Technology Committee , issued subpoenas Monday demanding answers from three technology companies that helped set up or maintain Mrs. Clinton ’ s unique email arrangement and demanding to know what kind of security she took to prevent hacks .
Another part of Mrs. Clinton ’ s email story — that former Secretary Colin L. Powell gave her the idea of using a secret account — also crumbled after Mr. Powell disputed it . He said he sent Mrs. Clinton a memo a year after she took office , meaning she couldn ’ t have been relying on his suggestion .
“ Her people have been trying to pin it on me , ” Mr. Powell said , according to the New York Post and People magazine , who caught up with him at a social function in New York over the weekend .
Mrs. Clinton refused to use an official State Department email account during her four years in office . Instead , she conducted all of her business , including sending classified emails , from an account tied to a server she kept at her New York home . That arrangement effectively thwarted open-records laws and shielded her communications from the public for more than six years .
State Department officials said they would try to work through the newly discovered messages as quickly as possible , but their initial timeline meant the first disclosure wouldn ’ t be until the middle of October .
Judge James E. Boasberg rejected that estimate Monday and ordered a faster schedule , saying the State Department has one month to appraise the first 14,900 emails and must report back by Sept. 23 on how it will release them .
Some critics fear the Obama administration may try to slow the process and push the release of most of the messages past the November election .
“ If they wanted the records out quickly , they ’ d be out quickly . If they don ’ t want the records out quickly , they ’ ll let politics intrude on the process and the American people won ’ t see them until Election Day , ” said Tom Fitton , president of Judicial Watch , which sued to get a look at all of Mrs. Clinton ’ s emails .
State Department spokesman Mark Toner couldn ’ t explain why the nearly 15,000 messages were coming to light now , after Mrs. Clinton assured federal judges that she had turned over all of her work-related messages .
The 14,900 messages are on one disk in a set of eight that the FBI turned over to the State Department last month , after the law enforcement agency completed a yearlong probe into Mrs. Clinton ’ s emails .
Among the other seven disks are one containing what has been described as “ classified ” material and another containing the 30,000 or so messages Mrs. Clinton did turn back to the Obama administration in December 2014 . The contents of the remaining five disks are unclear , though the Obama administration says the set contains a lot of emails .
“ There are tens of thousands , ” Lisa A. Olson , a Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the State Department , told Judge Boasberg .
For now , the first disk is the focus of Judicial Watch , the State Department and the judge , because all 14,900 of its emails are among those Mrs. Clinton didn ’ t turn over . Some of them may be personal — the messages about her yoga schedule or her daughter ’ s wedding plans — that Mrs. Clinton mentioned last year .
But FBI Director James B. Comey also has said thousands are work-related . They were obtained from Mrs. Clinton ’ s server and various email devices she used .
The State Department said it will finish “ ingesting ” all eight disks ’ contents this week and then will appraise the contents . After that , it will know the total number of documents and have a general idea of what is on them , and then it must process them , redacting private or protected information and asking other agencies to weigh in on potentially classified material .
Ms. Olson originally said the State Department would have an update in October and begin releasing documents on Oct. 14 , with releases to follow on Oct. 21 , Oct. 28 and Nov. 4 — each of the Fridays preceding the Nov. 8 election . The releases would likely continue well after the election .
Judge Boasberg , though , said the department can work faster by focusing on the first disk ’ s emails . He said they will set a schedule when they meet next month .
The Republican National Committee insisted that the schedule be expedited so the first emails are released as early voting begins in the states near the end of September . It said all of the messages should be released before Election Day .
It ’ s unclear what sort of information will be found on the newly discovered emails or whether any of them contain classified information .
The FBI concluded that Mrs. Clinton was negligent in handling classified information on her server but doubted a criminal case could be made because the former senator , first lady and top diplomat was not “ sophisticated ” enough to understand the information she was looking at or the risks she was running with the technology .
Mr. Smith , the science committee chairman , issued subpoenas Monday to three tech companies that helped with Mrs. Clinton ’ s email . He said the companies were defying his requests for information .
The companies were Datto , Inc. , which handled the backup of Mrs. Clinton ’ s server ; Secnap Network Security Corp. , which sold a threat monitoring application for Mrs. Clinton ’ s server after she left the State Department ; and Platte River Networks , which helped run the server .
Mr. Smith said Secnap and Datto refused to cooperate voluntarily , insisting they needed permission of their client first . Meanwhile the attorney for Platte River ducked attempts to communicate with him , Mr. Smith said .
Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr. , a Virginia Democrat who serves on the science committee , called the subpoenas “ a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars … for blatantly partisan purposes . ”
|
The Obama administration acknowledged Monday that the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government, and officials are facing intense pressure to release them ahead of November’s election.
A federal judge ordered the State Department to speed up the process, and the Republican National Committee said the administration should strive to release an initial set of the secret emails within a month, or when the first states conduct early voting.
The existence of the emails marks yet more trouble for Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, who insisted she turned over all of her work-related messages in December 2014.
Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, issued subpoenas Monday demanding answers from three technology companies that helped set up or maintain Mrs. Clinton’s unique email arrangement and demanding to know what kind of security she took to prevent hacks.
Another part of Mrs. Clinton’s email story — that former Secretary Colin L. Powell gave her the idea of using a secret account — also crumbled after Mr. Powell disputed it. He said he sent Mrs. Clinton a memo a year after she took office, meaning she couldn’t have been relying on his suggestion.
“Her people have been trying to pin it on me,” Mr. Powell said, according to the New York Post and People magazine, who caught up with him at a social function in New York over the weekend.
Mrs. Clinton refused to use an official State Department email account during her four years in office. Instead, she conducted all of her business, including sending classified emails, from an account tied to a server she kept at her New York home. That arrangement effectively thwarted open-records laws and shielded her communications from the public for more than six years.
State Department officials said they would try to work through the newly discovered messages as quickly as possible, but their initial timeline meant the first disclosure wouldn’t be until the middle of October.
Judge James E. Boasberg rejected that estimate Monday and ordered a faster schedule, saying the State Department has one month to appraise the first 14,900 emails and must report back by Sept. 23 on how it will release them.
Some critics fear the Obama administration may try to slow the process and push the release of most of the messages past the November election.
“If they wanted the records out quickly, they’d be out quickly. If they don’t want the records out quickly, they’ll let politics intrude on the process and the American people won’t see them until Election Day,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which sued to get a look at all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner couldn’t explain why the nearly 15,000 messages were coming to light now, after Mrs. Clinton assured federal judges that she had turned over all of her work-related messages.
The 14,900 messages are on one disk in a set of eight that the FBI turned over to the State Department last month, after the law enforcement agency completed a yearlong probe into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
Among the other seven disks are one containing what has been described as “classified” material and another containing the 30,000 or so messages Mrs. Clinton did turn back to the Obama administration in December 2014. The contents of the remaining five disks are unclear, though the Obama administration says the set contains a lot of emails.
“There are tens of thousands,” Lisa A. Olson, a Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the State Department, told Judge Boasberg.
For now, the first disk is the focus of Judicial Watch, the State Department and the judge, because all 14,900 of its emails are among those Mrs. Clinton didn’t turn over. Some of them may be personal — the messages about her yoga schedule or her daughter’s wedding plans — that Mrs. Clinton mentioned last year.
But FBI Director James B. Comey also has said thousands are work-related. They were obtained from Mrs. Clinton’s server and various email devices she used.
The State Department said it will finish “ingesting” all eight disks’ contents this week and then will appraise the contents. After that, it will know the total number of documents and have a general idea of what is on them, and then it must process them, redacting private or protected information and asking other agencies to weigh in on potentially classified material.
Ms. Olson originally said the State Department would have an update in October and begin releasing documents on Oct. 14, with releases to follow on Oct. 21, Oct. 28 and Nov. 4 — each of the Fridays preceding the Nov. 8 election. The releases would likely continue well after the election.
Judge Boasberg, though, said the department can work faster by focusing on the first disk’s emails. He said they will set a schedule when they meet next month.
The Republican National Committee insisted that the schedule be expedited so the first emails are released as early voting begins in the states near the end of September. It said all of the messages should be released before Election Day.
It’s unclear what sort of information will be found on the newly discovered emails or whether any of them contain classified information.
The FBI concluded that Mrs. Clinton was negligent in handling classified information on her server but doubted a criminal case could be made because the former senator, first lady and top diplomat was not “sophisticated” enough to understand the information she was looking at or the risks she was running with the technology.
Mr. Smith, the science committee chairman, issued subpoenas Monday to three tech companies that helped with Mrs. Clinton’s email. He said the companies were defying his requests for information.
The companies were Datto, Inc., which handled the backup of Mrs. Clinton’s server; Secnap Network Security Corp., which sold a threat monitoring application for Mrs. Clinton’s server after she left the State Department; and Platte River Networks, which helped run the server.
Mr. Smith said Secnap and Datto refused to cooperate voluntarily, insisting they needed permission of their client first. Meanwhile the attorney for Platte River ducked attempts to communicate with him, Mr. Smith said.
Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr., a Virginia Democrat who serves on the science committee, called the subpoenas “a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars … for blatantly partisan purposes.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
niJnxe6T4wyyY1J4
|
white_house
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/08/robert-kraft-sex-trafficking-case-spa-owner-trump-watch-super-bowl/3103381002/
|
Founder of Florida day spa tied to Robert Kraft's prostitution case attended Trump's Super Bowl party, report says
|
2019-03-08
|
The founder of a Florida day spa where New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was busted for allegedly soliciting prostitution watched this year 's Super Bowl at a party hosted by President Donald Trump .
Li Yang , 45 , snapped a selfie photo with Trump from the Super Bowl watch party , held at the president 's West Palm Beach country club , the Miami Herald reported Friday .
Trump , a longtime friend of Kraft and Patriots admirer , is seen leaning back in his chair and smiling with Yang and another woman who are seated at a table behind the president in the blurry photo . They watched New England beat the Los Angeles Rams for the franchise 's sixth championship .
Yang , an entrepreneur from China who goes by Cindy , opened a chain of South Florida day spas more than a decade ago that included Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter , Florida , which is now connected to a sex trafficking ring tied to Kraft 's case .
Yang told the Miami Herald that she long ago sold Orchids of Asia Day Spa . But her family still owns several spas in Florida , including some with the name Tokyo Day Spas — which the publication said has a reputation for offering sexual services .
Yang was not charged in the four-county , seven-month sex trafficking investigation that targeted 10 spas in Florida and nabbed some 300 alleged johns , including Kraft .
The White House , the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization have not responded to requests for comment , the report said .
Yang , a newcomer to Republican politics , and her close relatives have contributed more than $ 42,000 to Trump Victory , a political action committee , and more than $ 16,000 to the president ’ s campaign committee since 2017 , according to the Miami Herald .
According to her Facebook page , the report said , Yang was invited to the White House for an Asian American and Pacific Islander Initiative event in February 2018 . She attended the White House ’ s celebration of the Lunar New Year at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building .
Yang has attended other GOP and Trump-affiliated fundraisers , balls and events as well , including at Trump 's `` Winter White House '' Mar-a-Lago . There , she was photographed with Trump 's son Eric for the group Turning Points USA , a conservative college organization . The report said she 's also met Donald Trump Jr .
Kraft , 77 , faces a pair of misdemeanor charges for allegedly paying women for sexual acts at Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter twice during the NFL playoffs , including the morning the Patriots won the AFC Championship game against the Kansas City Chiefs .
The allegations against Kraft have put sex tracking back in the national spotlight .
Jupiter police said the acts were captured on video surveillance . Kraft , who has pleaded not guilty in both cases and asked for a non-jury trial , has said through a spokesman that he did not engage in any illegal activity .
|
Joey Garrison
USA TODAY
The founder of a Florida day spa where New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was busted for allegedly soliciting prostitution watched this year's Super Bowl at a party hosted by President Donald Trump.
Li Yang, 45, snapped a selfie photo with Trump from the Super Bowl watch party, held at the president's West Palm Beach country club, the Miami Herald reported Friday.
Trump, a longtime friend of Kraft and Patriots admirer, is seen leaning back in his chair and smiling with Yang and another woman who are seated at a table behind the president in the blurry photo. They watched New England beat the Los Angeles Rams for the franchise's sixth championship.
Yang, an entrepreneur from China who goes by Cindy, opened a chain of South Florida day spas more than a decade ago that included Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida, which is now connected to a sex trafficking ring tied to Kraft's case.
Yang told the Miami Herald that she long ago sold Orchids of Asia Day Spa. But her family still owns several spas in Florida, including some with the name Tokyo Day Spas — which the publication said has a reputation for offering sexual services.
Yang was not charged in the four-county, seven-month sex trafficking investigation that targeted 10 spas in Florida and nabbed some 300 alleged johns, including Kraft.
The White House, the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization have not responded to requests for comment, the report said.
Yang, a newcomer to Republican politics, and her close relatives have contributed more than $42,000 to Trump Victory, a political action committee, and more than $16,000 to the president’s campaign committee since 2017, according to the Miami Herald.
According to her Facebook page, the report said, Yang was invited to the White House for an Asian American and Pacific Islander Initiative event in February 2018. She attended the White House’s celebration of the Lunar New Year at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
Yang has attended other GOP and Trump-affiliated fundraisers, balls and events as well, including at Trump's "Winter White House" Mar-a-Lago. There, she was photographed with Trump's son Eric for the group Turning Points USA, a conservative college organization. The report said she's also met Donald Trump Jr.
Kraft, 77, faces a pair of misdemeanor charges for allegedly paying women for sexual acts at Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter twice during the NFL playoffs, including the morning the Patriots won the AFC Championship game against the Kansas City Chiefs.
The allegations against Kraft have put sex tracking back in the national spotlight.
Jupiter police said the acts were captured on video surveillance. Kraft, who has pleaded not guilty in both cases and asked for a non-jury trial, has said through a spokesman that he did not engage in any illegal activity.
Reach Joey Garrison at [email protected] on on Twitter @joeygarrison.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
9N2umfRaR3lc1xL1
|
|
religion_and_faith
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/the_raging_sins_of_the_persecution_industry_unpacking_the_hypocrisy_at_the_heart_of_the_religious_right/
|
The raging sins of the persecution industry: Unpacking the hypocrisy at the heart of the Religious Right
|
2015-09-14
|
Edwin Lyngar
|
`` Hypocrite , first take the plank out of your own eye , and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother 's eye . ''
I thought after gay marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court that we might get a well-deserved break from the “ culture wars , ” but oh , how wrong I ’ ve been . Instead , it ’ s open season on anyone who threatens Christian hegemony . Recently , Bill O ’ Reilly , the meanest , angriest and most unholy bastard who has ever made a living by screaming at strangers , claimed that “ secularism ” is responsible for mass murder in America . O ’ Reilly glosses over the fact that religious wars have dominated human history , but if you need something more current , statistics show that 7 percent of the general population self-identifies as agnostic or atheist , while less than 1 percent of the prison population identifies as such . We don ’ t commit crimes on the scale that religious people do .
O ’ Reilly ’ s outrageous slander underscores the two-front religious attack on democracy . On one side you have misguided “ true believers , ” like Kim Davis , famous for using her government position to deny gay people their right to marry . On the other you have the professional exploiter class , a long list of people that includes O ’ Reilly , Ted Cruz , Mike Huckabee and a parade of political and pundit rabble . What ’ s striking is that the loudest , most outspoken “ Christian warriors ” are the most flawed and perverted bunch of people collectively found outside a bordello . The entire “ persecution industry ” is loaded with hypocrisy .
The supporters of Kim Davis continue to ignore her own colorful life , as she proclaims herself the highest judge of morality , a final arbiter of who is entitled to public accommodation at a government office and to marry the person they love . I ’ m most struck not by her hypocrisy but rather by her authenticity . She wept when released from jail in a cry out to her god and her own humanity , at the same moment she denied the fundamental dignity and humanity of others . Yet , I don ’ t hold that against her . She ’ s an obvious rube , a useful and backward hick who is being exploited by others for cash and votes . As a rehabilitated rube myself , I feel sorry for her . Despite her hypocrisy and foundational ignorance , she ’ s far too useful to be cast aside .
As a point of contrast , look at Josh Dugger , both a true believer and a member of the exploiter class . He ’ s also a great example of the breathtaking hypocrisy that exemplifies American Christianity . He made a good living at the Family Research Council by shaming other people for their “ sins , ” while he racked up an impressive list of sexual conquests , all while dodging his own past as a child molester . If you were to write a novel about a fall from grace , you 'd struggle to use Duggar ’ s life , because it would almost be too unbelievable . We have not seen the last of this doughy clown , and I wonder if he ’ ll come back a Christian or if he ’ ll embrace his inner freak and launch a line of Jesus-themed French Ticklers ? Only time will tell .
Yet I pity Josh , just as I pity Kim . They are both pawns in a high-stakes religious long con . You can tell the players from the exploiters by the constant expression of downtrodden misery worn by the former , as they deny their own sexual natures , hide their own “ sins ” and decry entire groups of other human beings . They all look so pained and miserable all the time .
Like most decent people , I have no desire to call others out for their personal conduct . I don ’ t even believe in the concept of “ sin. ” We do good things and bad , but the choices we make are no one ’ s business but our own . Yet we can ’ t ignore the salivating pious who behave no better than average people ( and often much worse ) , but who still insist on judging how the rest of us live . ( Eyeballing you , Josh .. If I did believe in sin , hypocrisy would be the first one on my list .
If you think I ’ m taking the cheap shots , there ’ s a never-ending supply of easy targets to pick from . There were 400 pastors caught trolling for adulterous affairs on one web site alone , exposed by the Ashley Madison hack . I could wallpaper my house with the names of the disgraced , and that ’ s only from last year . This awful fiction has been going on for my entire life , from Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker , Ted Haggard , Jimmy Swaggart and too many more to list . And it is not only professional Christians . Rightwing politicians most invested in “ family values ” also can ’ t seem to resist the behavior they most decry . Mark Sanford , Todd Courser and David Vitter , are great examples , and I pick them , because they were still in office a week ago . ( Courser resigned last week . )
Politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have not been caught . ( Not yet at least . ) In any case , they ’ re the first to jump on any manufactured Christian crisis . Those politicians who are losing to Donald Trump are exploiting the last bits of sexual gratification from the religious right in a crass attempt to prop up their flagging presidential campaigns . The only good news is that this seems like a less effective strategy every day .
Politicians are not the worst of it . The conservative media and Fox News sells daily fiction about the persecution of Christians . It ’ s all nonsense and one of the worst offenders is persecution-pimp Todd Starnes . No matter how small or manufactured , Starnes blames every unclaimed American fart as an attack on Jesus .
The big names at Fox often have the same kind of horrendous hypocrisy , and O ’ Reilly is a perfect example . While he bashes the “ nihilism of secular America ” with one hand , he shells out millions to settle his brazen sexual harassment with the other . No ones ' hands are clean .
Atheists , like me , have said mean things about Christianity and religious people , but have also tried to engage with liberal Christians . The most reasonable Christians I know are not the voice of American Christianity . Those who love and promote a more nuanced version of the faith have a duty to get their house in order . Liberal Christians have been either ineffective or unwilling to tame the excesses in their pews .
The reason I am so troubled about this ongoing culture war is that it is a distraction . When people obsess about gay marriage , abortion and shoehorning Christianity into public schools , they don ’ t notice their country is being auctioned off to the highest bidder . Religious , blue collar , salt of the earth types like to blame immigrants and “ Obummer ” for their inability to find or keep a meaningful job , rather than the rightwing , religious politicians that shovel money upward while slicing programs that benefit the working class . Distracted , American Christians are too busy defending Christmas from some nefarious , unseen and imaginary attack to realize they ’ re being screwed over by their own party . Worse , is that progressives , who should be focusing on serious economic issues , get dragged along for the ride .
|
"Hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
— Matthew 7:5
I thought after gay marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court that we might get a well-deserved break from the “culture wars,” but oh, how wrong I’ve been. Instead, it’s open season on anyone who threatens Christian hegemony. Recently, Bill O’Reilly, the meanest, angriest and most unholy bastard who has ever made a living by screaming at strangers, claimed that “secularism” is responsible for mass murder in America. O’Reilly glosses over the fact that religious wars have dominated human history, but if you need something more current, statistics show that 7 percent of the general population self-identifies as agnostic or atheist, while less than 1 percent of the prison population identifies as such. We don’t commit crimes on the scale that religious people do.
O’Reilly’s outrageous slander underscores the two-front religious attack on democracy. On one side you have misguided “true believers,” like Kim Davis, famous for using her government position to deny gay people their right to marry. On the other you have the professional exploiter class, a long list of people that includes O’Reilly, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and a parade of political and pundit rabble. What’s striking is that the loudest, most outspoken “Christian warriors” are the most flawed and perverted bunch of people collectively found outside a bordello. The entire “persecution industry” is loaded with hypocrisy.
Advertisement:
The supporters of Kim Davis continue to ignore her own colorful life, as she proclaims herself the highest judge of morality, a final arbiter of who is entitled to public accommodation at a government office and to marry the person they love. I’m most struck not by her hypocrisy but rather by her authenticity. She wept when released from jail in a cry out to her god and her own humanity, at the same moment she denied the fundamental dignity and humanity of others. Yet, I don’t hold that against her. She’s an obvious rube, a useful and backward hick who is being exploited by others for cash and votes. As a rehabilitated rube myself, I feel sorry for her. Despite her hypocrisy and foundational ignorance, she’s far too useful to be cast aside.
As a point of contrast, look at Josh Dugger, both a true believer and a member of the exploiter class. He’s also a great example of the breathtaking hypocrisy that exemplifies American Christianity. He made a good living at the Family Research Council by shaming other people for their “sins,” while he racked up an impressive list of sexual conquests, all while dodging his own past as a child molester. If you were to write a novel about a fall from grace, you'd struggle to use Duggar’s life, because it would almost be too unbelievable. We have not seen the last of this doughy clown, and I wonder if he’ll come back a Christian or if he’ll embrace his inner freak and launch a line of Jesus-themed French Ticklers? Only time will tell.
Yet I pity Josh, just as I pity Kim. They are both pawns in a high-stakes religious long con. You can tell the players from the exploiters by the constant expression of downtrodden misery worn by the former, as they deny their own sexual natures, hide their own “sins” and decry entire groups of other human beings. They all look so pained and miserable all the time.
Advertisement:
Like most decent people, I have no desire to call others out for their personal conduct. I don’t even believe in the concept of “sin.” We do good things and bad, but the choices we make are no one’s business but our own. Yet we can’t ignore the salivating pious who behave no better than average people (and often much worse), but who still insist on judging how the rest of us live. (Eyeballing you, Josh.. If I did believe in sin, hypocrisy would be the first one on my list.
If you think I’m taking the cheap shots, there’s a never-ending supply of easy targets to pick from. There were 400 pastors caught trolling for adulterous affairs on one web site alone, exposed by the Ashley Madison hack. I could wallpaper my house with the names of the disgraced, and that’s only from last year. This awful fiction has been going on for my entire life, from Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart and too many more to list. And it is not only professional Christians. Rightwing politicians most invested in “family values” also can’t seem to resist the behavior they most decry. Mark Sanford, Todd Courser and David Vitter, are great examples, and I pick them, because they were still in office a week ago. (Courser resigned last week.)
Politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have not been caught. (Not yet at least.) In any case, they’re the first to jump on any manufactured Christian crisis. Those politicians who are losing to Donald Trump are exploiting the last bits of sexual gratification from the religious right in a crass attempt to prop up their flagging presidential campaigns. The only good news is that this seems like a less effective strategy every day.
Advertisement:
Politicians are not the worst of it. The conservative media and Fox News sells daily fiction about the persecution of Christians. It’s all nonsense and one of the worst offenders is persecution-pimp Todd Starnes. No matter how small or manufactured, Starnes blames every unclaimed American fart as an attack on Jesus.
The big names at Fox often have the same kind of horrendous hypocrisy, and O’Reilly is a perfect example. While he bashes the “nihilism of secular America” with one hand, he shells out millions to settle his brazen sexual harassment with the other. No ones' hands are clean.
Advertisement:
Atheists, like me, have said mean things about Christianity and religious people, but have also tried to engage with liberal Christians. The most reasonable Christians I know are not the voice of American Christianity. Those who love and promote a more nuanced version of the faith have a duty to get their house in order. Liberal Christians have been either ineffective or unwilling to tame the excesses in their pews.
The reason I am so troubled about this ongoing culture war is that it is a distraction. When people obsess about gay marriage, abortion and shoehorning Christianity into public schools, they don’t notice their country is being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Religious, blue collar, salt of the earth types like to blame immigrants and “Obummer” for their inability to find or keep a meaningful job, rather than the rightwing, religious politicians that shovel money upward while slicing programs that benefit the working class. Distracted, American Christians are too busy defending Christmas from some nefarious, unseen and imaginary attack to realize they’re being screwed over by their own party. Worse, is that progressives, who should be focusing on serious economic issues, get dragged along for the ride.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
JCmmF6Vx6alZNIrQ
|
healthcare
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/11/obama-admin-orders-insurers-to-provide-birth-contr/
|
HHS re-writes Obamacare rules: Orders free birth control for all
|
2015-05-11
|
Tom Howell Jr.
|
The Obama administration on Monday ordered all insurers to provide IUDs , the contraceptive patch and other birth control free of out-of-pocket charge to all women , thereby rewriting the rules after reports that some insurance carriers were refusing to cover all types of contraceptives .
Insurers must now cover at least one brand of contraception in each of 18 different methods outlined by the Food and Drug Administration , such as one type of oral contraceptive pill , one version of the emergency contraceptive morning-after pill and , notably , the vaginal ring , which some women could not get before without paying out of pocket .
In New York , Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called for his state to go even farther , proposing legislation that would force insurance companies to pay for men ’ s sterilization procedures .
At the federal level , the Health and Human Services Department said it was trying to clear things up after women and members of Congress complained that some insurers were refusing to cover the specific contraceptives women ’ s doctors were recommending .
Insurers can in some cases still impose costs to prod women to use generics rather than brand-name drugs under the new guidance — but if a doctor or hospital recommends a particular drug or contraceptive device out of medical necessity , the plans must cover them without additional cost .
“ Today ’ s announcement is an important step toward making it clear that all insurance companies should follow the rules and provide women with the health care they are entitled to , ” said Sen. Patty Murray , Washington Democrat , who led dozens of party colleagues this month in urging HHS to ensure compliance .
Insurers too had sought more specifics about what was required under the Affordable Care Act and its contraceptive coverage provisions , which have been among the most controversial parts of the law .
They were supposed to give women free access to birth control , but some insurers were refusing to fully cover all types of contraceptives , meaning women who wanted a particular form of birth control had to pay some or all of the costs , the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation and other groups said in recent studies .
“ Insurance companies have been breaking the law and , today , the Obama administration underscored that it will not tolerate these violations , ” the National Women ’ s Law Center said . “ It is now absolutely clear that all means all — all unique birth control methods for women must be covered . ”
Pro-choice groups and others had said insurers were using so-called “ medical management ” to either skirt the rules or plead ignorance .
For example , an inquiry by the New York attorney general found one plan told a patient she couldn ’ t get the NuvaRing — for which there is no generic on the market — without cost-sharing because she could use birth control pills with the same chemical formulation .
Holly Lynch , a bioethics experts at Harvard Law School who closely tracks Obamacare ’ s contraception rules , said that was exactly the type of problem that HHS wanted to erase .
“ Just because a pill would be available for free doesn ’ t mean that an insurer could refuse to make the ring available for free , ” she said .
The contraceptive mandate has been controversial from the start , though most of the attention has gone to the marathon court battle between the administration and employers who have religious objections to contraceptives , and who say forcing them to pay for employees ’ coverage violates their own rights .
The Supreme Court last year ruled closely held corporations do not have to insure types of birth control that violate their moral beliefs , and the Obama administration is expected to update its rules soon .
Religious nonprofits , meanwhile , are still pursuing their cases through the courts , arguing that the “ accommodation ” the administration designed for them still leaves them complicit in contraceptive coverage .
HHS ’ s new guidance , however , looked at the mandate from the perspective of female consumers .
America ’ s Health Insurance Plans , the industry ’ s top lobbying group , welcomed Monday ’ s clarification .
“ Today ’ s guidance takes important steps to support health plans ’ use of medical management in providing women with safe , affordable health care services , ” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni said . “ Health plans are committed to promoting evidenced-based decision-making and to ensuring all consumers understand how their coverage works . ”
Under the new rules , insurers must be willing to waive cost sharing if a doctor says a particular drug — brand-name or generic — is medically necessary , although such considerations are limited to serious considerations such as the severity of side effects .
“ If a patient simply prefers brand over generic , that wouldn ’ t fit the bill , ” Ms. Lynch said .
The contraception rules were released as part of broader guidance on women ’ s health services , including insisting on free screenings for women susceptible to certain types of cancer . Also , insurers can not charge extra for anesthesia services provided with preventive colonoscopies .
HHS said the rewrite would apply to future plan years , saying insurers could have argued they were using “ good faith ” in more narrowly interpreting the current rules .
Meanwhile , New York ’ s top lawman tried to tackle the issue on his own , proposing legislation that would write Obamacare ’ s coverage requirement into state law while piling on extra consumer protections — even to men .
Mr. Schneiderman said his bill would force every state-regulated health policy to cover all methods of FDA-approved contraceptives at no cost , akin to federal guidance , although consumers could also get a year ’ s worth of contraception at a time .
He also said men ’ s sterilization procedures should be covered without cost sharing .
“ New Yorkers should not be penalized by their insurance companies for using the birth control method that they and their medical provider agree is most appropriate for them , ” Mr. Schneiderman said .
|
The Obama administration on Monday ordered all insurers to provide IUDs, the contraceptive patch and other birth control free of out-of-pocket charge to all women, thereby rewriting the rules after reports that some insurance carriers were refusing to cover all types of contraceptives.
Insurers must now cover at least one brand of contraception in each of 18 different methods outlined by the Food and Drug Administration, such as one type of oral contraceptive pill, one version of the emergency contraceptive morning-after pill and, notably, the vaginal ring, which some women could not get before without paying out of pocket.
In New York, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called for his state to go even farther, proposing legislation that would force insurance companies to pay for men’s sterilization procedures.
At the federal level, the Health and Human Services Department said it was trying to clear things up after women and members of Congress complained that some insurers were refusing to cover the specific contraceptives women’s doctors were recommending.
Insurers can in some cases still impose costs to prod women to use generics rather than brand-name drugs under the new guidance — but if a doctor or hospital recommends a particular drug or contraceptive device out of medical necessity, the plans must cover them without additional cost.
“Today’s announcement is an important step toward making it clear that all insurance companies should follow the rules and provide women with the health care they are entitled to,” said Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, who led dozens of party colleagues this month in urging HHS to ensure compliance.
Insurers too had sought more specifics about what was required under the Affordable Care Act and its contraceptive coverage provisions, which have been among the most controversial parts of the law.
They were supposed to give women free access to birth control, but some insurers were refusing to fully cover all types of contraceptives, meaning women who wanted a particular form of birth control had to pay some or all of the costs, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation and other groups said in recent studies.
Those groups said the new rules were a victory.
“Insurance companies have been breaking the law and, today, the Obama administration underscored that it will not tolerate these violations,” the National Women’s Law Center said. “It is now absolutely clear that all means all — all unique birth control methods for women must be covered.”
Pro-choice groups and others had said insurers were using so-called “medical management” to either skirt the rules or plead ignorance.
For example, an inquiry by the New York attorney general found one plan told a patient she couldn’t get the NuvaRing — for which there is no generic on the market — without cost-sharing because she could use birth control pills with the same chemical formulation.
Holly Lynch, a bioethics experts at Harvard Law School who closely tracks Obamacare’s contraception rules, said that was exactly the type of problem that HHS wanted to erase.
“Just because a pill would be available for free doesn’t mean that an insurer could refuse to make the ring available for free,” she said.
The contraceptive mandate has been controversial from the start, though most of the attention has gone to the marathon court battle between the administration and employers who have religious objections to contraceptives, and who say forcing them to pay for employees’ coverage violates their own rights.
The Supreme Court last year ruled closely held corporations do not have to insure types of birth control that violate their moral beliefs, and the Obama administration is expected to update its rules soon.
Religious nonprofits, meanwhile, are still pursuing their cases through the courts, arguing that the “accommodation” the administration designed for them still leaves them complicit in contraceptive coverage.
HHS’s new guidance, however, looked at the mandate from the perspective of female consumers.
America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s top lobbying group, welcomed Monday’s clarification.
“Today’s guidance takes important steps to support health plans’ use of medical management in providing women with safe, affordable health care services,” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni said. “Health plans are committed to promoting evidenced-based decision-making and to ensuring all consumers understand how their coverage works.”
Under the new rules, insurers must be willing to waive cost sharing if a doctor says a particular drug — brand-name or generic — is medically necessary, although such considerations are limited to serious considerations such as the severity of side effects.
“If a patient simply prefers brand over generic, that wouldn’t fit the bill,” Ms. Lynch said.
The contraception rules were released as part of broader guidance on women’s health services, including insisting on free screenings for women susceptible to certain types of cancer. Also, insurers cannot charge extra for anesthesia services provided with preventive colonoscopies.
HHS said the rewrite would apply to future plan years, saying insurers could have argued they were using “good faith” in more narrowly interpreting the current rules.
Meanwhile, New York’s top lawman tried to tackle the issue on his own, proposing legislation that would write Obamacare’s coverage requirement into state law while piling on extra consumer protections — even to men.
Mr. Schneiderman said his bill would force every state-regulated health policy to cover all methods of FDA-approved contraceptives at no cost, akin to federal guidance, although consumers could also get a year’s worth of contraception at a time.
He also said men’s sterilization procedures should be covered without cost sharing.
“New Yorkers should not be penalized by their insurance companies for using the birth control method that they and their medical provider agree is most appropriate for them,” Mr. Schneiderman said.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
9Fer0zgg66r2jKlE
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/opinions/10-ways-trump-could-win-second-debate-dantonio/index.html
|
OPINION: 10 things Trump could (but probably won't) change at next debate
|
2016-09-29
|
"Michael DAntonio"
|
Michael D'Antonio is the author of the new book , `` The Truth About Trump . '' The opinions expressed in this commentary are his .
( CNN ) Like a football team that must shake off defeat in order to prepare for the next game , Donald Trump has a short time to get over his drubbing in the first presidential debate and get ready for the next . He has , instead , been whining like a kitchen blender about the moderator , the microphone and his opponent while continuing to draw attention to the worst parts of his performance .
Advisors who want Trump to win the next debate , on October 9 , must get him to change . But to do this , they must overcome the candidate 's 40-plus years of doing things his way . To appreciate the daunting nature of this task , consider just 10 things Trump could do to prepare for the next debate , and why it 's likely he wo n't be able to do any of them .
Trump likes to say `` I 'm a winner '' and is not accustomed to losing , which may explain the poor sportsmanship he has shown since Hillary Clinton defeated him . Ignoring real poll results that show he was swamped , Trump has ordered aides to stop saying he lost . Of course , this kind of denial means that no one can ask the emperor to put on some clothes . He wo n't look down to see his own nakedness .
JUST WATCHED Christie may be considered to lead Trump debate prep Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Christie may be considered to lead Trump debate prep 01:56
When he was asked in the first debate what he would say to African-Americans about his scandalous role in the `` birther '' controversy that questioned President Obama 's citizenship , Trump replied , `` I say nothing . '' You will search in vain for an example of Trump ever taking responsibility for the damage he has done to any individual , community or nation , though examples abound . He is not going to learn how to do it now .
Manners may not count when you fire people on reality TV , but they matter in a two-way presidential debate . Trump looked like a 6-year-old as he interrupted with witticisms such as `` Wrong ! '' as Clinton spoke during the first debate . But as Trump told me , he believes he is the same person he was in first grade . His advisers are not going to get him to mature into an adult now .
One of the oddest moments in the first debate saw Trump say that if he loses the election he 'll still get to Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington because he has a new hotel there . Someone who wants to occupy the White House should n't suggest he 'd be satisfied with a hotel down the street . But Trump is first and always a salesman -- not a statesman -- and he will never pass up an opportunity to get free advertising for his business .
During the first debate Trump 's cringe-worthy moments included bragging about not paying any federal taxes and about betting on a housing crisis . As he crowed about his wealth , he added that he was speaking `` not in a braggadocious way . '' But of course he was bragging . Boasting and bragging are off-putting to debate watchers but they are essential elements of Trump 's personality and he will not stop .
On the day after the first debate , body language experts noted Trump 's negative body language and timid facial expression . ( These signals were enough for one reporter to call Trump the loser after viewing the contest with the sound turned off . ) Advisers may want Trump to control his exaggerated nonverbals , but this is not something this rubber-faced man can do .
Always ready to use a little gamesmanship , Trump allowed his campaign staff to broadcast the fact that he was taking a confidently casual approach to the first debate . He said himself , `` I believe you can prep too much for these things . '' The result was obvious , as Trump seemed ill-equipped with either arguments or rhetorical parries to use against his opponent . Could he do differently ? Trump told me that he does n't like to read and prefers to depend on instinct , which makes it 's hard to imagine he will suddenly become open to training . Another person might turn a debate defeat as a moment to learn . This is not Trump 's way .
In the first debate Trump referenced Gen. Douglas MacArthur , who died in 1964 , to make a point about America 's pursuit of the ISIS terror organization . Those who got As in history , know of MacArthur , but the reference surely bypassed millions who watched the debate . Trump must have heard a lot about the general when he attended a military school in the 1960s , but he needs to update himself . Given the evidence that he does n't understand the workings of our most vital technology , the internet , modernizing his knowledge base would be a big challenge .
Despite the evidence showing that recent cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and others emanated from Russia , Trump told the first debate audience , `` She 's [ Clinton ] saying 'Russia , Russia , Russia , ' but I do n't . '' This stand is consistent with Trump 's earlier sloughing off of Russia 's invasion of the Ukraine and his expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin . Because everything is personal for him , Trump likes Putin in part because Putin has said he likes him . Do n't expect him to change his mind about the Russians on the basis of geopolitics . They are going to have to insult him personally before he does that .
In the first debate , Clinton pointed out his penchant for insulting people and Trump talked about `` somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds . '' After the debate , Trump decided to make veiled threats about using President Bill Clinton 's sex scandal against her . Nastiness does n't play well in a general election when a candidate must appeal to those beyond his or her base . However being nasty has always been a key element of Trump 's repertoire , as shown by his feuds with Cher , Bette Midler , Rosie O'Donnell and others . Trump once told me that he does n't respect most people because they do n't deserve it . He is not likely to become respectful overnight .
Among Trump 's advisers there is one , former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani , who shares much in common with him . Like Trump , he poses as a tough man and wants the world to believe that his meanness is a virtue . He is also , like his candidate , a thrice-married man who feels entitled to criticize Hillary Clinton 's lifelong marriage .
Consider Giuliani 's persona and you see someone who understands Trump on a gut level .
|
Michael D'Antonio is the author of the new book , "The Truth About Trump." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
(CNN) Like a football team that must shake off defeat in order to prepare for the next game, Donald Trump has a short time to get over his drubbing in the first presidential debate and get ready for the next. He has, instead, been whining like a kitchen blender about the moderator, the microphone and his opponent while continuing to draw attention to the worst parts of his performance.
Advisors who want Trump to win the next debate, on October 9, must get him to change. But to do this, they must overcome the candidate's 40-plus years of doing things his way. To appreciate the daunting nature of this task, consider just 10 things Trump could do to prepare for the next debate, and why it's likely he won't be able to do any of them.
1) Accept your defeat in the first debate
Trump likes to say "I'm a winner" and is not accustomed to losing, which may explain the poor sportsmanship he has shown since Hillary Clinton defeated him . Ignoring real poll results that show he was swamped, Trump has ordered aides to stop saying he lost. Of course, this kind of denial means that no one can ask the emperor to put on some clothes. He won't look down to see his own nakedness.
2) Learn to apologize
JUST WATCHED Christie may be considered to lead Trump debate prep Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Christie may be considered to lead Trump debate prep 01:56
When he was asked in the first debate what he would say to African-Americans about his scandalous role in the "birther" controversy that questioned President Obama's citizenship, Trump replied , "I say nothing." You will search in vain for an example of Trump ever taking responsibility for the damage he has done to any individual, community or nation, though examples abound. He is not going to learn how to do it now.
3) Play by the rules
Manners may not count when you fire people on reality TV, but they matter in a two-way presidential debate. Trump looked like a 6-year-old as he interrupted with witticisms such as "Wrong!" as Clinton spoke during the first debate. But as Trump told me, he believes he is the same person he was in first grade. His advisers are not going to get him to mature into an adult now.
4) Act like you want the job
One of the oddest moments in the first debate saw Trump say that if he loses the election he'll still get to Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington because he has a new hotel there. Someone who wants to occupy the White House shouldn't suggest he'd be satisfied with a hotel down the street. But Trump is first and always a salesman -- not a statesman -- and he will never pass up an opportunity to get free advertising for his business.
5) Stop bragging
During the first debate Trump's cringe-worthy moments included bragging about not paying any federal taxes and about betting on a housing crisis. As he crowed about his wealth, he added that he was speaking "not in a braggadocious way." But of course he was bragging. Boasting and bragging are off-putting to debate watchers but they are essential elements of Trump's personality and he will not stop.
6) Don't make so many faces
On the day after the first debate, body language experts noted Trump's negative body language and timid facial expression. (These signals were enough for one reporter to call Trump the loser after viewing the contest with the sound turned off.) Advisers may want Trump to control his exaggerated nonverbals, but this is not something this rubber-faced man can do.
7) Prepare and practice
Always ready to use a little gamesmanship, Trump allowed his campaign staff to broadcast the fact that he was taking a confidently casual approach to the first debate. He said himself, "I believe you can prep too much for these things." The result was obvious, as Trump seemed ill-equipped with either arguments or rhetorical parries to use against his opponent. Could he do differently? Trump told me that he doesn't like to read and prefers to depend on instinct, which makes it's hard to imagine he will suddenly become open to training. Another person might turn a debate defeat as a moment to learn. This is not Trump's way.
8) Update your references
In the first debate Trump referenced Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who died in 1964, to make a point about America's pursuit of the ISIS terror organization. Those who got As in history, know of MacArthur, but the reference surely bypassed millions who watched the debate. Trump must have heard a lot about the general when he attended a military school in the 1960s, but he needs to update himself. Given the evidence that he doesn't understand the workings of our most vital technology, the internet, modernizing his knowledge base would be a big challenge.
9) Abandon the Russians
Despite the evidence showing that recent cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and others emanated from Russia, Trump told the first debate audience, "She's [Clinton] saying 'Russia, Russia, Russia,' but I don't." This stand is consistent with Trump's earlier sloughing off of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and his expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin. Because everything is personal for him, Trump likes Putin in part because Putin has said he likes him. Don't expect him to change his mind about the Russians on the basis of geopolitics. They are going to have to insult him personally before he does that.
10) Be nicer
In the first debate, Clinton pointed out his penchant for insulting people and Trump talked about "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds." After the debate, Trump decided to make veiled threats about using President Bill Clinton's sex scandal against her. Nastiness doesn't play well in a general election when a candidate must appeal to those beyond his or her base. However being nasty has always been a key element of Trump's repertoire, as shown by his feuds with Cher, Bette Midler, Rosie O'Donnell and others. Trump once told me that he doesn't respect most people because they don't deserve it. He is not likely to become respectful overnight.
Follow CNN Opinion Join us on Twitter and Facebook
Among Trump's advisers there is one, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who shares much in common with him. Like Trump, he poses as a tough man and wants the world to believe that his meanness is a virtue. He is also, like his candidate, a thrice-married man who feels entitled to criticize Hillary Clinton's lifelong marriage.
Consider Giuliani's persona and you see someone who understands Trump on a gut level.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
ECYvKZyveKdv5LF4
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-elections-republican-field-poll/index.html
|
As campaigns launch, CNN/ORC poll finds GOP field stays tight
|
2015-04-20
|
Jennifer Agiesta, Cnn Polling Director
|
Washington ( CNN ) With the ranks of declared 2016 presidential candidates growing , a new CNN/ORC poll finds the contests for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations solidifying around two key points : Hillary Clinton dominates everyone on the Democratic side , while no one has broken out of the pack on the Republican side .
The recent formal entries into the Republican race by Marco Rubio , Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have stirred up the GOP field somewhat , but still , no clear leader has emerged . The new poll finds Jeb Bush has held on to the top spot among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents , but Bush 's edge is slight and there are multiple contenders for the nomination who could overtake him with just a small increase in support at the same time that some previously strong contenders have faded .
Overall , 17 % of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents back Bush for the GOP nomination , while 12 % support Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker . Paul and Rubio stand at 11 % each , with former Arkansas Gov . Mike Huckabee at 9 % and Cruz at 7 % . Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson and New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie , both of whom placed second in CNN/ORC polls as recently as last fall , are now well behind the leader at 4 % each .
Bush 's edge in the nomination contest extends across several attributes viewed as key to winning the presidency . He is most often named as the candidate with the right experience to be president ( 27 % ) , as the one with the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee in the general election next November ( 26 % ) and as the strongest leader in the large field of GOP contenders ( 21 % ) . He is also more often seen as the candidate with the clearest vision for the country 's future ( 19 % ) , who cares the most about people like you ( 18 % ) , and who most closely shares your values ( 19 % ) .
On one metric , however , Bush has an emerging challenger . While 18 % see Bush as the candidate who best represents the future of the Republican Party , the same share say fellow Floridian Rubio is the best representation of the GOP 's future . Paul , at 10 % , is the only other candidate in double digits on this question .
|
Washington (CNN) With the ranks of declared 2016 presidential candidates growing, a new CNN/ORC poll finds the contests for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations solidifying around two key points: Hillary Clinton dominates everyone on the Democratic side, while no one has broken out of the pack on the Republican side.
The recent formal entries into the Republican race by Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have stirred up the GOP field somewhat, but still, no clear leader has emerged. The new poll finds Jeb Bush has held on to the top spot among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, but Bush's edge is slight and there are multiple contenders for the nomination who could overtake him with just a small increase in support at the same time that some previously strong contenders have faded.
Overall, 17% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents back Bush for the GOP nomination, while 12% support Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Paul and Rubio stand at 11% each, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 9% and Cruz at 7%. Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both of whom placed second in CNN/ORC polls as recently as last fall, are now well behind the leader at 4% each.
Bush's edge in the nomination contest extends across several attributes viewed as key to winning the presidency. He is most often named as the candidate with the right experience to be president (27%), as the one with the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee in the general election next November (26%) and as the strongest leader in the large field of GOP contenders (21%). He is also more often seen as the candidate with the clearest vision for the country's future (19%), who cares the most about people like you (18%), and who most closely shares your values (19%).
On one metric, however, Bush has an emerging challenger. While 18% see Bush as the candidate who best represents the future of the Republican Party, the same share say fellow Floridian Rubio is the best representation of the GOP's future. Paul, at 10%, is the only other candidate in double digits on this question.
Read More
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
IhWfoRN27HD2fWlJ
|
immigration
|
Victor Hanson
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/the-death-of-american-citizenship/
|
The Death of American Citizenship
|
2019-09-26
|
Victor Davis Hanson, Tobias Hoonhout, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Rich Lowry, George Will, Scot Bertram, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Wesley J. Smith, William Z. Nardi
|
Migrants from Honduras approach the U.S.-Mexico border fence in Tijuana , Mexico , December 26 , 2018 . ( Mohammed Salem/Reuters )
Open borders and sanctuary cities are blurring the distinction between illegal immigrants and Americans , and activist judges are eroding the Bill of Rights .
The American Founders institutionalized the best of a long Western tradition of representative government , with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights . These contracts outlined the rare privileges and responsibilities of new American citizens .
Yet the concept of citizenship is being assaulted on the premodern side by the legal blending of mere residency with citizenship .
Estimates on the number of undocumented American residents range from 11 million to more than 20 million . The undocumented are becoming legally indistinguishable from citizens and enjoy exemption from federal immigration law in some 500 sanctuary jurisdictions . An illegal resident of California will pay substantially less tuition at a California public university than will a U.S. citizen of another state .
Multiculturalism has reduced the idea of e pluribus unum to a regressive tribalism . Americans often seem to owe their first allegiance to those who look like they do . Citizens can not even agree over once-hallowed and shared national holidays such as Christmas , Thanksgiving , and the Fourth of July .
It is eerie how such current American retribalization resembles the collapse of Rome , as Goths , Huns , and Vandals all squabbled among themselves over what was left of 1,200 years of Roman citizenship — eager to destroy what they could neither create nor emulate .
Citizenship has always been protected by the middle classes — on the idea that they are more independent and self-reliant than the poor but can stand up to the influence and power of the elite .
Yet until recently , we had seen a decade of stagnant wages and entire regions ossified by outsourcing , offshoring , and unfair global trade . Historically , with the demise of the middle class , the end of constitutional government follows .
But citizenship also faces a quite different and even greater postmodern threat .
Many of our coastal elites see nothing very exceptional in America , past and present . They prefer the culture and values of the European Union , without worrying that the EU ’ s progressive utopian promises have been wrecked by open borders , economically stultifying regulations , and unapologetic and anti-democratic efforts to curb free expression and local autonomy .
Often , such “ citizen of the world ” mentalities fuel shame over the origins and traditions of America . Transnational organizations and accords on climate , criminal justice , and human rights are seen as superior to their American counterparts .
A new progressive iconoclasm seeks to destroy statues , rename streets and buildings , and wipe away art that does not reflect more-global values .
Does voting — the bedrock right of the democratic citizen — matter that much anymore ? In California , tens of thousands of votes were “ harvested ” by paid campaign operatives . There was also abuse in state agencies in sending out voter-registration forms to those who were not legally entitled to vote .
Lone activist federal judges frequently overturn legislation and referenda they find contrary to their own political take or legal theory — without worrying that they are thereby canceling the votes of millions in a nanosecond .
Meanwhile , the proverbial “ swamp ” of the bureaucratic , administrative , and regulatory state is so vast and unaccountable that a few clerks can harass entrepreneurs ; issue edicts with the force of legislation that ruins lives ; and indict , regulate , or audit a targeted individual into legal bankruptcy .
In recent years , we have seen a cake maker , a video maker , and a national-security adviser so hounded by federal bureaucrats that they either were nearly bankrupted , ended up in jail , or were reduced to penury through legal costs .
We still have a Bill of Rights , but many of our constitutional protections are being rendered impotent . If a rural family can not find ammunition at the local Walmart or gun store because of organized boycotts and threats to such establishments , then the constitutional right to bear arms is not always exercisable in a practical sense .
Brett Kavanaugh was nominated , audited , and confirmed by the Senate as a Supreme Court justice . But if the New York Times and cable news can relentlessly charge without proof that nearly 40 years ago he was a teenage sexual pervert , then a distinguished judge can be rendered impotent without legal impeachment .
If a student can not safely express opposition to abortion on demand , question the global-warming narrative , or object to safe spaces , trigger warnings , and race-based theme houses on campuses , does it matter that in theory we still have a First Amendment ?
We are unwinding at both ends . Tribalism , the erosion of the middle class , and de facto open borders are turning Americans into mere residents of a particular North American region between Mexico and Canada .
Yet even more dangerously , thanks to the fiats of unelected bureaucrats and officials , along with the social-media lynch mobs who boycott , harass , and shame us , our constitutional rights are now increasingly optional . They mostly hinge on whether we are judged worthy by an unelected , politically correct , and morally righteous elite .
In theory , American citizenship remains the same ; in reality , it is disappearing fast .
|
Migrants from Honduras approach the U.S.-Mexico border fence in Tijuana, Mexico, December 26, 2018. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)
Open borders and sanctuary cities are blurring the distinction between illegal immigrants and Americans, and activist judges are eroding the Bill of Rights.
The American Founders institutionalized the best of a long Western tradition of representative government, with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. These contracts outlined the rare privileges and responsibilities of new American citizens.
Yet the concept of citizenship is being assaulted on the premodern side by the legal blending of mere residency with citizenship.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Estimates on the number of undocumented American residents range from 11 million to more than 20 million. The undocumented are becoming legally indistinguishable from citizens and enjoy exemption from federal immigration law in some 500 sanctuary jurisdictions. An illegal resident of California will pay substantially less tuition at a California public university than will a U.S. citizen of another state.
Multiculturalism has reduced the idea of e pluribus unum to a regressive tribalism. Americans often seem to owe their first allegiance to those who look like they do. Citizens cannot even agree over once-hallowed and shared national holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, and the Fourth of July.
It is eerie how such current American retribalization resembles the collapse of Rome, as Goths, Huns, and Vandals all squabbled among themselves over what was left of 1,200 years of Roman citizenship — eager to destroy what they could neither create nor emulate.
Advertisement
Citizenship has always been protected by the middle classes — on the idea that they are more independent and self-reliant than the poor but can stand up to the influence and power of the elite.
Advertisement
Yet until recently, we had seen a decade of stagnant wages and entire regions ossified by outsourcing, offshoring, and unfair global trade. Historically, with the demise of the middle class, the end of constitutional government follows.
But citizenship also faces a quite different and even greater postmodern threat.
Many of our coastal elites see nothing very exceptional in America, past and present. They prefer the culture and values of the European Union, without worrying that the EU’s progressive utopian promises have been wrecked by open borders, economically stultifying regulations, and unapologetic and anti-democratic efforts to curb free expression and local autonomy.
Often, such “citizen of the world” mentalities fuel shame over the origins and traditions of America. Transnational organizations and accords on climate, criminal justice, and human rights are seen as superior to their American counterparts.
Advertisement
A new progressive iconoclasm seeks to destroy statues, rename streets and buildings, and wipe away art that does not reflect more-global values.
Advertisement
Does voting — the bedrock right of the democratic citizen — matter that much anymore? In California, tens of thousands of votes were “harvested” by paid campaign operatives. There was also abuse in state agencies in sending out voter-registration forms to those who were not legally entitled to vote.
Lone activist federal judges frequently overturn legislation and referenda they find contrary to their own political take or legal theory — without worrying that they are thereby canceling the votes of millions in a nanosecond.
Meanwhile, the proverbial “swamp” of the bureaucratic, administrative, and regulatory state is so vast and unaccountable that a few clerks can harass entrepreneurs; issue edicts with the force of legislation that ruins lives; and indict, regulate, or audit a targeted individual into legal bankruptcy.
In recent years, we have seen a cake maker, a video maker, and a national-security adviser so hounded by federal bureaucrats that they either were nearly bankrupted, ended up in jail, or were reduced to penury through legal costs.
Advertisement
We still have a Bill of Rights, but many of our constitutional protections are being rendered impotent. If a rural family cannot find ammunition at the local Walmart or gun store because of organized boycotts and threats to such establishments, then the constitutional right to bear arms is not always exercisable in a practical sense.
Brett Kavanaugh was nominated, audited, and confirmed by the Senate as a Supreme Court justice. But if the New York Times and cable news can relentlessly charge without proof that nearly 40 years ago he was a teenage sexual pervert, then a distinguished judge can be rendered impotent without legal impeachment.
If a student cannot safely express opposition to abortion on demand, question the global-warming narrative, or object to safe spaces, trigger warnings, and race-based theme houses on campuses, does it matter that in theory we still have a First Amendment?
We are unwinding at both ends. Tribalism, the erosion of the middle class, and de facto open borders are turning Americans into mere residents of a particular North American region between Mexico and Canada.
Advertisement
Yet even more dangerously, thanks to the fiats of unelected bureaucrats and officials, along with the social-media lynch mobs who boycott, harass, and shame us, our constitutional rights are now increasingly optional. They mostly hinge on whether we are judged worthy by an unelected, politically correct, and morally righteous elite.
Advertisement
In theory, American citizenship remains the same; in reality, it is disappearing fast.
© 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
G1iIGZ9KuQ8AHfDw
|
elections
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300168-five-takeaways-from-second-presidential-debate
|
Five takeaways from second presidential debate
|
2016-10-10
|
Americans tuning in for the second presidential debate on Sunday night got a heaping helping of adult-only television .
The debate started off in the gutter , with Donald Trump Donald John TrumpSessions says he still supports Trump despite ouster as AG House Republicans voice concerns about White House 's impeachment messaging Giuliani consulted with Manafort on Ukraine info : report MORE and Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonGiuliani consulted with Manafort on Ukraine info : report California political donor indicted for 2 overdose deaths at his home Sanders heart procedures shines spotlight on age of top Democrats MORE delving deep into personal details of their private lives . Things got nastier from there .
Here are five takeaways from a jaw-dropping debate in St. Louis .
The candidates and their spouses and families glumly strode into the Washington University in St. Louis auditorium on Sunday night knowing exactly what they were in for .
The first 10 minutes of the debate focused on Trump ’ s obscene remarks that surfaced over the weekend from a 2005 television appearance . The graphic , sexually explicit comments provoked a stampede of Republicans away from his campaign and calls for him to drop out of the race one month before Election Day .
“ You described kissing women without their consent and grabbing their genitals , ” debate moderator Anderson Cooper said . “ That is sexual assault . You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women . Do you understand that ? ”
Trump ’ s wife Melania and his adult children looked on from the crowd .
Trump sought to deflect from that controversy by attacking Clinton for her treatment of the women who have accused former President Bill Clinton William ( Bill ) Jefferson ClintonMcCarthy shares 'Stranger Things ' parody video criticizing impeachment DOJ joins Trump 's side in lawsuit over NY subpoena for tax returns Chelsea Clinton on Trump : 'His whole life has been a scam ' MORE of sexual harassment or rape .
Shortly before the debate , the campaign took a surreal turn as Trump held an impromptu press conference featuring three of those women : Paula Jones , Juanita Broaderrick and Kathleen Willey .
A fourth woman , Kathleen Shelton , was also on hand . Clinton had been appointed to defend the man accused of raping Shelton when she was 12 . The man pleaded to a lesser charge .
The women sat side-by-side in the same auditorium as Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton , to bizarre and dramatic affect .
The gutter talk continued after the debate , as Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway beat back at the Republicans in Congress fleeing Trump ’ s campaign , saying several members may have made unwanted sexual advances on her and have otherwise “ rubbed up against women or stuck their tongues in their mouths uninvited . ”
Both candidates entered the night with horrible favorability ratings . Polls show the public believes the campaign has brought out the worst in people .
The reaction to the first debate was swift and nearly unanimous : Clinton had won in a rout and would get a bump in the polls because of it .
The reaction to the second debate was mixed , with pundits cast into despair over the ugliness and declaring that both candidates had scored points and absorbed damaging blows .
An instant poll from CNN/YouGov found 47 percent viewed Clinton as the winner , with 42 percent saying Trump had won it .
Trump endured an awful opening stretch in which he had to defend his past sexually explicit remarks . But he had a few memorable zingers and stayed on the attack no matter the question — something he failed to do at the first debate .
Clinton struggled through questions about her private emails and server and paid speeches to Wall Street . But she ’ s far more natural in the town-hall setting , warmly approaching the citizen questioners as Trump stalked the stage or lingered awkwardly behind her .
A draw is a win for Clinton , who leads in nearly every battleground state and is the overwhelming favorite among election handicappers to be the next president .
Trump entered the night in free fall . He may have stopped the bleeding , but he didn ’ t alter the dynamics of the race , which are very much against him .
If Trump left points on the table at the last debate , he made up for it on Sunday night , sinking his teeth into attacks against Clinton for her use of a private email account and server while secretary of State .
Clinton has struggled to explain or defend herself on the matter , and Sunday night was no different .
She sought to run out the clock by saying the debate should be about issues people care about . Clinton accused Trump of lying , without addressing any of his claims .
As Clinton tried to move on , Trump came in with the dagger , saying that as president he ’ d appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton .
“ It 's good that somebody with the temperament of Donald Trump is not running this country , ” Clinton responded .
And Trump has a new line of attack over a different set of emails — these published by WikiLeaks on Friday that detail some of the things Clinton said to the Wall Street banks that paid her enormous sums of money for speeches .
Here , moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News asked Clinton if she was “ two-faced ” because one email revealed the Democratic nominee saying one to have “ both a public and private position ” on issues .
Clinton had a prepared response , saying it was similar to how President Abraham Lincoln had different messages for the different members of Congress he worked with to pass the 13th Amendment , abolishing slavery .
“ Now she ’ s blaming the lie on the late , great Abraham Lincoln , ” Trump shot back . “ Honest Abe never lied , and that ’ s the difference between Abraham Lincoln and you . That ’ s a big , big difference . ”
Trump clashed with moderators Raddatz and Anderson Cooper of CNN from the start .
“ One on three , ” an exasperated Trump said at one point , referring to Raddatz , Cooper and Clinton ganging up on him .
Trump repeatedly accused the anchors of interrupting him , of allowing Clinton to go well beyond her allotted time and of trying to quickly move on from issues that were damaging to Clinton .
“ I ’ d like to know , Anderson , why aren ’ t you bringing up the emails ? ” Trump asked after Cooper attempted to segue from Clinton ’ s email controversy to an audience member 's question about healthcare .
That was one of several tense exchanges that left the impression the moderators were tougher on Trump than they were on Clinton .
That has been a recurring theme of the first two debates .
Conservatives have accused NBC anchor Lester Holt of studiously avoiding asking Clinton tough questions about some her emails or Benghazi at the first debate , leading to cries of media bias .
At least this time Trump ’ s microphone appeared to be working on Sunday night .
GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence Michael ( Mike ) Richard PenceTop Pence adviser was on Trump-Zelensky phone call at center of whistleblower complaint : report Democrats probing whether groups booked Trump hotel rooms to earn president 's favor : report Karen Pence launches an Instagram account MORE ripped Trump over the weekend for the scandal surrounding his lewd comments . The Indiana governor also backed out of a campaign event as he fumed over the hugely embarrassing remarks .
Trump on Sunday night was apparently not concerned about losing his running mate , openly breaking with him over whether the United States should attack Russian military targets over the conflict in Syria .
Trump was asked about Pence ’ s support for the military intervention , and the GOP nominee threw his running mate under the bus .
“ He and I have n't spoken and I disagree , ” Trump said .
Still , it appears the two have patched things up , at least publicly .
|
Americans tuning in for the second presidential debate on Sunday night got a heaping helping of adult-only television.
ADVERTISEMENT
The debate started off in the gutter, with Donald Trump Donald John TrumpSessions says he still supports Trump despite ouster as AG House Republicans voice concerns about White House's impeachment messaging Giuliani consulted with Manafort on Ukraine info: report MORE and Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonGiuliani consulted with Manafort on Ukraine info: report California political donor indicted for 2 overdose deaths at his home Sanders heart procedures shines spotlight on age of top Democrats MORE delving deep into personal details of their private lives. Things got nastier from there.
Here are five takeaways from a jaw-dropping debate in St. Louis.
An ugly campaign gets uglier
The candidates and their spouses and families glumly strode into the Washington University in St. Louis auditorium on Sunday night knowing exactly what they were in for.
The first 10 minutes of the debate focused on Trump’s obscene remarks that surfaced over the weekend from a 2005 television appearance. The graphic, sexually explicit comments provoked a stampede of Republicans away from his campaign and calls for him to drop out of the race one month before Election Day.
“You described kissing women without their consent and grabbing their genitals,” debate moderator Anderson Cooper said. “That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?”
Trump’s wife Melania and his adult children looked on from the crowd.
Trump sought to deflect from that controversy by attacking Clinton for her treatment of the women who have accused former President Bill Clinton William (Bill) Jefferson ClintonMcCarthy shares 'Stranger Things' parody video criticizing impeachment DOJ joins Trump's side in lawsuit over NY subpoena for tax returns Chelsea Clinton on Trump: 'His whole life has been a scam' MORE of sexual harassment or rape.
Shortly before the debate, the campaign took a surreal turn as Trump held an impromptu press conference featuring three of those women: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderrick and Kathleen Willey.
A fourth woman, Kathleen Shelton, was also on hand. Clinton had been appointed to defend the man accused of raping Shelton when she was 12. The man pleaded to a lesser charge.
The women sat side-by-side in the same auditorium as Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton, to bizarre and dramatic affect.
The gutter talk continued after the debate, as Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway beat back at the Republicans in Congress fleeing Trump’s campaign, saying several members may have made unwanted sexual advances on her and have otherwise “rubbed up against women or stuck their tongues in their mouths uninvited.”
Both candidates entered the night with horrible favorability ratings. Polls show the public believes the campaign has brought out the worst in people.
Sunday night is likely to exaggerate those sentiments.
This debate is unlikely to change the race
The reaction to the first debate was swift and nearly unanimous: Clinton had won in a rout and would get a bump in the polls because of it.
The reaction to the second debate was mixed, with pundits cast into despair over the ugliness and declaring that both candidates had scored points and absorbed damaging blows.
An instant poll from CNN/YouGov found 47 percent viewed Clinton as the winner, with 42 percent saying Trump had won it.
Trump endured an awful opening stretch in which he had to defend his past sexually explicit remarks. But he had a few memorable zingers and stayed on the attack no matter the question — something he failed to do at the first debate.
Clinton struggled through questions about her private emails and server and paid speeches to Wall Street. But she’s far more natural in the town-hall setting, warmly approaching the citizen questioners as Trump stalked the stage or lingered awkwardly behind her.
A draw is a win for Clinton, who leads in nearly every battleground state and is the overwhelming favorite among election handicappers to be the next president.
Trump entered the night in free fall. He may have stopped the bleeding, but he didn’t alter the dynamics of the race, which are very much against him.
Clinton’s emails are Trump’s best weapon
If Trump left points on the table at the last debate, he made up for it on Sunday night, sinking his teeth into attacks against Clinton for her use of a private email account and server while secretary of State.
Clinton has struggled to explain or defend herself on the matter, and Sunday night was no different.
She sought to run out the clock by saying the debate should be about issues people care about. Clinton accused Trump of lying, without addressing any of his claims.
As Clinton tried to move on, Trump came in with the dagger, saying that as president he’d appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton.
“It's good that somebody with the temperament of Donald Trump is not running this country,” Clinton responded.
“Because you’d be in jail,” Trump shot back.
And Trump has a new line of attack over a different set of emails — these published by WikiLeaks on Friday that detail some of the things Clinton said to the Wall Street banks that paid her enormous sums of money for speeches.
Here, moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News asked Clinton if she was “two-faced” because one email revealed the Democratic nominee saying one to have “both a public and private position” on issues.
Clinton had a prepared response, saying it was similar to how President Abraham Lincoln had different messages for the different members of Congress he worked with to pass the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery.
“Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln,” Trump shot back. “Honest Abe never lied, and that’s the difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference.”
Trump at war with the media
Trump clashed with moderators Raddatz and Anderson Cooper of CNN from the start.
“One on three,” an exasperated Trump said at one point, referring to Raddatz, Cooper and Clinton ganging up on him.
Trump repeatedly accused the anchors of interrupting him, of allowing Clinton to go well beyond her allotted time and of trying to quickly move on from issues that were damaging to Clinton.
“I’d like to know, Anderson, why aren’t you bringing up the emails?” Trump asked after Cooper attempted to segue from Clinton’s email controversy to an audience member's question about healthcare.
“We brought up the emails,” Cooper responded.
“It hasn’t been finished at all,” Trump shot back.
That was one of several tense exchanges that left the impression the moderators were tougher on Trump than they were on Clinton.
That has been a recurring theme of the first two debates.
Conservatives have accused NBC anchor Lester Holt of studiously avoiding asking Clinton tough questions about some her emails or Benghazi at the first debate, leading to cries of media bias.
At least this time Trump’s microphone appeared to be working on Sunday night.
Trump not afraid to break with Pence
Friends like these.
GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence Michael (Mike) Richard PenceTop Pence adviser was on Trump-Zelensky phone call at center of whistleblower complaint: report Democrats probing whether groups booked Trump hotel rooms to earn president's favor: report Karen Pence launches an Instagram account MORE ripped Trump over the weekend for the scandal surrounding his lewd comments. The Indiana governor also backed out of a campaign event as he fumed over the hugely embarrassing remarks.
Trump on Sunday night was apparently not concerned about losing his running mate, openly breaking with him over whether the United States should attack Russian military targets over the conflict in Syria.
Trump was asked about Pence’s support for the military intervention, and the GOP nominee threw his running mate under the bus.
“He and I haven't spoken and I disagree,” Trump said.
Still, it appears the two have patched things up, at least publicly.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
9WSGZfNtFFACOXFX
|
|
holidays
|
CBN
| 22
|
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/november/christian-college-students-have-lost-their-awe-of-thanksgiving-because-they-dont-know-american-history
|
These Christian College Students Lost the Awe of Thanksgiving Because They Don't Know US History
|
2019-11-27
|
I was just reading an article on the World Net Daily website concerning interviews conducted by the newspaper , The College Fix . It showed a video of students at a supposedly Christian college in Minneapolis , MN , who were answering questions about Thanksgiving .
I say `` supposedly '' because I could find no reference to the college 's Christian affiliation on its website . These students were asked if it was ok ( or is that kk ? ) to celebrate Thanksgiving . The answers , mostly in the negative , showed just how ignorant these young people are .
One kid said : `` I think that Thanksgiving has been misconstrued a lot , especially in textbooks . It 's kind of just based off of the genocide of indigenous people , and I do n't really think that we actually give thanks on Thanksgiving . We just eat a bunch of food , and it 's just a bunch of capitalist bull -- -- . ''
To one degree or another , that was how most responded .
But aside from an obvious lack of understanding of their own country 's history , what saddened me most about their responses was their lack of awe . Lack of awe that their country , the United States of America , came into existence at all - despite many dangers and unbelievable hardship - with timely `` coincidences '' that allowed the newcomers to survive and live on to lay the groundwork for the freest , most generous , most prosperous nation on earth .
Indeed , a nation where the oppressed of the world want to come . Yes . It 's the place where the oppressed want to come . It makes me ask : What do these seekers of America know that these young college people do n't ? Something else , for sure , I think , because the kids on this particular campus did n't see anything to celebrate . Instead , they see America as a place only of oppressors and colonizers taking advantage of indigenous peoples .
That 's not what Squanto saw when he came out of the woods to greet the Pilgrims in their native tongue . To me , Squanto 's is one of those `` awe-filled '' stories little known in our history , and one these students obviously are missing .
As a 12-year-old boy in 1614 , years before the Pilgrims landed , Squanto , a Wampanoag Indian , was kidnapped by an English trader and taken to Spain to be sold into slavery along with about two dozen others of his tribe .
`` It caused quite a commotion when this guy showed up trying to sell these people , '' historian Charles Mann , the author of `` 1491 : New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus , '' told The Huffington Post . `` A bunch of people in the church said no way . ''
Squanto , called Tisquantum in his native language , escaped slavery with the help of Christian friars and somehow made his way to England . There he worked for five years as a stable boy with a family named Slaney , waiting for a ship to take him back to the coast of North America , back to his home and family . Finally , his ship really did come in !
In an interview that aired on ███ 's The 700 Club , Eric Metaxas , author of `` Squanto and the Miracle of Thanksgiving , '' tells Squanto 's story and how he saved the Pilgrims .
`` So it 'd be about 1618 , I think . And in that time , of course , he had learned English and he had lived in London . All these years I imagine that he was dreaming and hoping and probably praying that he could come back to his family . And so , miraculously , a ship is provided . He becomes the translator on the ship . They 're going to use him to translate , '' Metaxas recalled .
But upon his return , Squanto found his family and most of his tribe dead , killed off , possibly , by hepatitis or smallpox . Alone , with tragedy striking his life once again , he walked out of the woods that day to greet the Pilgrims , as Metaxes recounted , speaking the King 's English .
`` And it just so happens that he grew up on the very spot where they had settled . This was his home that had been abandoned , and now he was back in his village , and they basically adopted him . He had no place to go . They became his family . And he knew everything there was to know about how you plant corn , '' Metaxes explained .
`` That 's the famous story about planting corn with the fish as the fertilizer - how to plant the gourd around the corn so it goes up the cornstalk . He knew how to get eels out of the streams , out of the muddy streams . He knew where the lobsters were and where the fish were . He knew everything . And the Lord used him truly miraculously . I mean , if you really think about it , it 's too much for us to understand , '' he continued .
But I guess you do n't see the awe unless you see the purpose and the workings of a God who has a plan . I do n't think these kids at a so-called Christian college are getting that . Yes , their country was founded by a flawed , sinful people who made serious mistakes as time went by but by God 's grace , they planted an outpost of freedom and opportunity unlike any seen in world history .
Squanto was n't the only `` coincidence '' in the founding of this country , an encounter or occurrence that happened just in time . American history is full of those coincidences , too many to recount right now . But they ought to be taught in our classrooms today because ... well because they 're awe-inspiring and make you appreciate that America was and is a good plan . And those Pilgrims at Plymouth with their belief in a God who loved everyone and wanted good for all were key to making it happen .
This Thanksgiving , that 's something I 'll be remembering and thanking God for : our friend , Squanto , and the miraculous beginnings of our country .
|
NEWS ANALYSIS
I was just reading an article on the World Net Daily website concerning interviews conducted by the newspaper, The College Fix. It showed a video of students at a supposedly Christian college in Minneapolis, MN, who were answering questions about Thanksgiving.
I say "supposedly" because I could find no reference to the college's Christian affiliation on its website. These students were asked if it was ok (or is that kk?) to celebrate Thanksgiving. The answers, mostly in the negative, showed just how ignorant these young people are.
One kid said: "I think that Thanksgiving has been misconstrued a lot, especially in textbooks. It's kind of just based off of the genocide of indigenous people, and I don't really think that we actually give thanks on Thanksgiving. We just eat a bunch of food, and it's just a bunch of capitalist bull----."
To one degree or another, that was how most responded.
But aside from an obvious lack of understanding of their own country's history, what saddened me most about their responses was their lack of awe. Lack of awe that their country, the United States of America, came into existence at all - despite many dangers and unbelievable hardship - with timely "coincidences" that allowed the newcomers to survive and live on to lay the groundwork for the freest, most generous, most prosperous nation on earth.
Indeed, a nation where the oppressed of the world want to come. Yes. It's the place where the oppressed want to come. It makes me ask: What do these seekers of America know that these young college people don't? Something else, for sure, I think, because the kids on this particular campus didn't see anything to celebrate. Instead, they see America as a place only of oppressors and colonizers taking advantage of indigenous peoples.
That's not what Squanto saw when he came out of the woods to greet the Pilgrims in their native tongue. To me, Squanto's is one of those "awe-filled" stories little known in our history, and one these students obviously are missing.
As a 12-year-old boy in 1614, years before the Pilgrims landed, Squanto, a Wampanoag Indian, was kidnapped by an English trader and taken to Spain to be sold into slavery along with about two dozen others of his tribe.
"It caused quite a commotion when this guy showed up trying to sell these people," historian Charles Mann, the author of "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus," told The Huffington Post. "A bunch of people in the church said no way."
Squanto, called Tisquantum in his native language, escaped slavery with the help of Christian friars and somehow made his way to England. There he worked for five years as a stable boy with a family named Slaney, waiting for a ship to take him back to the coast of North America, back to his home and family. Finally, his ship really did come in!
In an interview that aired on CBN's The 700 Club, Eric Metaxas, author of "Squanto and the Miracle of Thanksgiving," tells Squanto's story and how he saved the Pilgrims.
"So it'd be about 1618, I think. And in that time, of course, he had learned English and he had lived in London. All these years I imagine that he was dreaming and hoping and probably praying that he could come back to his family. And so, miraculously, a ship is provided. He becomes the translator on the ship. They're going to use him to translate," Metaxas recalled.
But upon his return, Squanto found his family and most of his tribe dead, killed off, possibly, by hepatitis or smallpox. Alone, with tragedy striking his life once again, he walked out of the woods that day to greet the Pilgrims, as Metaxes recounted, speaking the King's English.
"And it just so happens that he grew up on the very spot where they had settled. This was his home that had been abandoned, and now he was back in his village, and they basically adopted him. He had no place to go. They became his family. And he knew everything there was to know about how you plant corn," Metaxes explained.
"That's the famous story about planting corn with the fish as the fertilizer - how to plant the gourd around the corn so it goes up the cornstalk. He knew how to get eels out of the streams, out of the muddy streams. He knew where the lobsters were and where the fish were. He knew everything. And the Lord used him truly miraculously. I mean, if you really think about it, it's too much for us to understand," he continued.
Awe.
But I guess you don't see the awe unless you see the purpose and the workings of a God who has a plan. I don't think these kids at a so-called Christian college are getting that. Yes, their country was founded by a flawed, sinful people who made serious mistakes as time went by but by God's grace, they planted an outpost of freedom and opportunity unlike any seen in world history.
Squanto wasn't the only "coincidence" in the founding of this country, an encounter or occurrence that happened just in time. American history is full of those coincidences, too many to recount right now. But they ought to be taught in our classrooms today because...well because they're awe-inspiring and make you appreciate that America was and is a good plan. And those Pilgrims at Plymouth with their belief in a God who loved everyone and wanted good for all were key to making it happen.
This Thanksgiving, that's something I'll be remembering and thanking God for: our friend, Squanto, and the miraculous beginnings of our country.
|
www1.cbn.com
| 1right
|
tfqBgd4bC34py0fq
|
|
healthcare
|
Reason
| 22
|
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/07/the-one-number-that-shows-why-any-health
|
The One Number That Shows Why Any Health Care Reform Effort Will Fail
|
2017-03-07
|
Stephanie Slade, Charles Oliver, Peter Bagge, Josh Blackman, Eric Boehm, Zuri Davis, Ilya Somin, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Shikha Dalmia
|
Congressional Republicans are finally inching forward with a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) , a.k.a . Obamacare . About time , right ? After all , displeasure with the 44th president 's health care overhaul is what sparked the Tea Party movement in 2009–10 and swept the GOP to a majority in the U.S. House . President Obama was dinged with `` lie of the year '' in 2013 by the otherwise left-leaning website PolitiFact for his claim that `` if you like your health care plan , you can keep your health care plan . '' Donald Trump vowed during the campaign to repeal the law and replace it with something where `` everybody 's going to be taken care of much better than they 're taken care of now . '' And since Obamacare went into effect in 2013 , there has never been a time when the polling giant Gallup has found more people approving than disapproving of it .
But the attempt to do away with it completely was never going to be as easy as it looked . Although the public has remained , on the whole , more sour than positive toward the ACA , there were always aspects of it people liked . Now that the Republicans have regained control of both houses of Congress and the White House , they 're realizing that getting rid of those provisions in particular is going to be tough to accomplish politically .
That reality is highlighted by a new poll , out this morning , from CNN and ORC . Support for the law is still outstripped by opposition to it ( 46 percent vs. 49 percent ) . At the same time , though , a whopping 87 percent of Americans favor `` maintaining the protections offered to people with pre-existing conditions under Obamacare . ''
We 've collectively lost sight of what insurance actually is : a way to protect yourself against a possible future outcome . Some of the people who buy the insurance will eventually be affected by that outcome . Others never will be . But since none of us can know beforehand which camp we 're in , we 're willing to pay a little bit now for the peace of mind of knowing we 're covered , just in case .
But if insurers ca n't turn anyone away , there is a strong incentive on the individual level to treat the system as something else entirely—and to not buy in unless you know you 're going to need a lot of expensive care in the near future . If you 're young and mostly healthy , why would you pay premiums every month , potentially for years , while drawing little value out , if you can just wait until you have an imminent use for a lot of coverage and join a plan then ?
Traditional insurance markets do n't have that problem , because a company is n't obligated to sell its coverage to someone who 's already hurt or sick , and it 's definitely not going to sell coverage at roughly the same price it would charge to a healthy customer . Obamacare took that freedom away , but tried to compensate for the bad incentive it was creating by taxing those who chose to go without coverage . The new GOP plan eliminates the individual mandate—the requirement to either sign up for a plan or pay a penalty—but does not appear to do away with the mandate that companies cover people with pre-existing conditions ( and not charge them many times more than they charge everyone else ) . That dramatically increases the chances that we could fall into a so-called death spiral where only sick people buy coverage , and insurance companies have to jack prices way up for everyone just to stay in business .
Keeping protections in place for people with pre-existing conditions seems to many Americans like the compassionate thing to do . In a previous life I conducted focus groups with voters for a living . Over and over again , no matter which city I was in , I heard the same things when it came to health care policy : People did n't like the ACA ; they saw it as big , complicated , and confusing . They believed it would cause disruptions in their lives and worried it would end up costing their families more than they were paying at the time . But they did very much support ensuring people could n't get locked out of the insurance market just because they were already sick .
The poll from CNN/ORC I cited earlier proves that has n't changed . It also suggests that any attempt by Republicans to fix the problems with Obamacare will likely fail the affordability test . Politicians are rarely willing to go against the people who employ them . Unfortunately , the people who employ them want the unattainable in this case : access to unlimited health care with minimal waiting at low prices that does n't `` discriminate '' against people who already know they 're going to use a lot of care . That 's not insurance . It 's a pipe dream .
|
Congressional Republicans are finally inching forward with a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. Obamacare. About time, right? After all, displeasure with the 44th president's health care overhaul is what sparked the Tea Party movement in 2009–10 and swept the GOP to a majority in the U.S. House. President Obama was dinged with "lie of the year" in 2013 by the otherwise left-leaning website PolitiFact for his claim that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Donald Trump vowed during the campaign to repeal the law and replace it with something where "everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now." And since Obamacare went into effect in 2013, there has never been a time when the polling giant Gallup has found more people approving than disapproving of it.
But the attempt to do away with it completely was never going to be as easy as it looked. Although the public has remained, on the whole, more sour than positive toward the ACA, there were always aspects of it people liked. Now that the Republicans have regained control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they're realizing that getting rid of those provisions in particular is going to be tough to accomplish politically.
That reality is highlighted by a new poll, out this morning, from CNN and ORC. Support for the law is still outstripped by opposition to it (46 percent vs. 49 percent). At the same time, though, a whopping 87 percent of Americans favor "maintaining the protections offered to people with pre-existing conditions under Obamacare."
That is, to put it mildly, a problem.
We've collectively lost sight of what insurance actually is: a way to protect yourself against a possible future outcome. Some of the people who buy the insurance will eventually be affected by that outcome. Others never will be. But since none of us can know beforehand which camp we're in, we're willing to pay a little bit now for the peace of mind of knowing we're covered, just in case.
But if insurers can't turn anyone away, there is a strong incentive on the individual level to treat the system as something else entirely—and to not buy in unless you know you're going to need a lot of expensive care in the near future. If you're young and mostly healthy, why would you pay premiums every month, potentially for years, while drawing little value out, if you can just wait until you have an imminent use for a lot of coverage and join a plan then?
Traditional insurance markets don't have that problem, because a company isn't obligated to sell its coverage to someone who's already hurt or sick, and it's definitely not going to sell coverage at roughly the same price it would charge to a healthy customer. Obamacare took that freedom away, but tried to compensate for the bad incentive it was creating by taxing those who chose to go without coverage. The new GOP plan eliminates the individual mandate—the requirement to either sign up for a plan or pay a penalty—but does not appear to do away with the mandate that companies cover people with pre-existing conditions (and not charge them many times more than they charge everyone else). That dramatically increases the chances that we could fall into a so-called death spiral where only sick people buy coverage, and insurance companies have to jack prices way up for everyone just to stay in business.
Keeping protections in place for people with pre-existing conditions seems to many Americans like the compassionate thing to do. In a previous life I conducted focus groups with voters for a living. Over and over again, no matter which city I was in, I heard the same things when it came to health care policy: People didn't like the ACA; they saw it as big, complicated, and confusing. They believed it would cause disruptions in their lives and worried it would end up costing their families more than they were paying at the time. But they did very much support ensuring people couldn't get locked out of the insurance market just because they were already sick.
The poll from CNN/ORC I cited earlier proves that hasn't changed. It also suggests that any attempt by Republicans to fix the problems with Obamacare will likely fail the affordability test. Politicians are rarely willing to go against the people who employ them. Unfortunately, the people who employ them want the unattainable in this case: access to unlimited health care with minimal waiting at low prices that doesn't "discriminate" against people who already know they're going to use a lot of care. That's not insurance. It's a pipe dream.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
JslPfMn7DFu7ka2B
|
white_house
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/06/trump-wants-seen-wartime-president-start-acting-like-one-column/2951684001/
|
If Trump wants to be seen as a 'wartime president,' he should start acting like one
|
2020-04-06
|
In the time it takes you to read this , dozens more Americans will probably have been diagnosed with COVID-19 . By the time you finish it , there ’ s a good chance another American will have died from the disease .
Many of those diagnoses will probably come in New York ; some in California ; others ranging from Louisiana to Florida . While we don ’ t know everything about this virus just yet , what we do know is that it is spreading exponentially . Young , old , rich , poor , black , white , Asian , Latino , you name it — every one of us is in danger . And if we don ’ t take immediate sweeping action many more Americans could die in a pandemic that ’ s already been made far worse by a president who has refused to take obvious measures that could be done with the stroke of a pen .
Recently , Donald Trump crowned himself a “ wartime president. ” If that ’ s the metaphor he wants to use , then his actions have been tantamount to sending his own troops into battle without body armor or a single weapon .
During public health emergencies , time is the most valuable commodity we have . But while public health experts have been sounding the alarm , Donald Trump has spent much of the past few months denying the gravity of the situation , telling lies and stoking xenophobia , preying on our worst instincts in a way that ’ s catapulted us ever closer to a worst-case scenario situation when we once upon a time had an opportunity to minimize the risks this pandemic posed to our nation .
So I was pleasantly surprised when it finally seemed as if he was taking the situation seriously in mid-March when he announced he was invoking the Defense Production Act ( DPA ) , giving him the authority to better organize the supply chain and use American manufacturing capacity to speed up production of the lifesaving , coronavirus-fighting medical equipment our hospitals desperately need .
But since then , he ’ s pivoted so many times , it ’ s a wonder the whole country doesn ’ t have whiplash . Not even a day later he reversed course , saying that states were on their own to figure out how to get the resources necessary to slow the outbreak . Then , in a 24-hour span at the end of March , he went from ( inaccurately , dangerously ) telling Sean Hannity that governors were exaggerating the need for more ventilators to bickering with General Motors ( GM ) on Twitter to declaring that he was finally authorizing the use of the DPA to require GM to produce ventilators — something the company had already committed to doing hours prior .
But late last week , ███ reported that the administration has still refused to actually order a single machine to be manufactured under the DPA . Instead of placing the order , Trump has chosen to spend the past week bragging about his TV ratings and the number of people who follow him on Facebook , while Trump aide Peter Navarro says they ’ re still banking on voluntary updates from GM .
Enough . Lives are on the line . The number of Americans — the number of parents , the number of children — falling gravely ill is only growing while hospital capacity to treat them is diminishing , as there just aren ’ t enough hospital beds or respirators to care for those in need . Last Friday , there were more than 30,000 new cases on American soil alone , while that same day nurses were forced to use plastic bags as protective gowns and doctors nationwide were preparing to have to make one of the most horrible decisions imaginable : who to treat and who to turn away , with simply too few resources to go around .
The president has the power to get people the equipment they need
Our nation badly needs production to match demand . We need Donald Trump to remember to act like he ’ s in charge and actually place the orders to ensure our country can not only manufacture the personal protective equipment our front-line workers need , but that those resources will be delivered where they ’ re needed the most .
The people who are dying in ICUs right now don ’ t have any more time for the president to waste . The Americans who ’ ve been infected since you started reading this likely won ’ t stand a chance if he continues to do the bare minimum .
The good news is we know we can do this , if Trump lets us . After all , we ’ ve mobilized our country , our companies , our workers before . In yesteryear , our leaders didn ’ t throw their hands in the air and say they couldn ’ t produce the technology necessary to beat back the crisis of the day . Past presidents didn ’ t sit back as governors fought among each other for the same limited stockpile of emergency equipment . And they didn ’ t wait until the shortage reached “ crisis proportions ” status to issue empty directives . No , instead , they reoriented the nation ’ s sense of what was possible , repurposing factories and redoubling efforts to get done what needed to be done .
What ’ s worse is that this is an action Donald Trump is clearly willing to take — the Trump administration has invoked the DPA hundreds of thousands of times in the past , including to build up his Space Force — but for some reason , Trump ’ s choosing not to do so today , in the face of a real crisis . Meanwhile , the only beneficiaries here are the major corporations that have reportedly lobbied White House advisers like Jared Kushner to keep the president from fully green-lighting the DPA because they profit from the states ’ bidding wars over respirators and N95 masks — corporations whose deep-pocketed CEOs Trump wants on his side come November ’ s election .
So for me , it ’ s impossible to see Donald Trump as the strong wartime president he claims to be when he refuses to do what ’ s so obviously needed to help defeat this enemy . Wartime presidents don ’ t look out over the trenches and deny the war has begun . They don ’ t spend months refusing to acknowledge the body count because it might spook Wall Street or hurt their poll numbers . And they certainly don ’ t put profits over people , slow-walking policy that could be the difference between life and death for so many because they want to curry favor with rich donors .
It ’ s time for this president to actually lead . It ’ s time for Trump to stop refusing to take any responsibility and to start embracing “ The Buck Stops Here ” mentality that defined the commander in chief who signed the Defense Production Act into law in the first place . It ’ s time for Trump to prove that he will make the kinds of choices that actually help the people he was elected to serve — the people this virus is killing every hour he fails to follow the advice of public health experts and actually do the right thing .
Tammy Duckworth , a Democrat , represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate . Follow her on Twitter : @ SenDuckworth
|
Tammy Duckworth
Opinion contributor
In the time it takes you to read this, dozens more Americans will probably have been diagnosed with COVID-19. By the time you finish it, there’s a good chance another American will have died from the disease.
Many of those diagnoses will probably come in New York; some in California; others ranging from Louisiana to Florida. While we don’t know everything about this virus just yet, what we do know is that it is spreading exponentially. Young, old, rich, poor, black, white, Asian, Latino, you name it — every one of us is in danger. And if we don’t take immediate sweeping action many more Americans could die in a pandemic that’s already been made far worse by a president who has refused to take obvious measures that could be done with the stroke of a pen.
Recently, Donald Trump crowned himself a “wartime president.” If that’s the metaphor he wants to use, then his actions have been tantamount to sending his own troops into battle without body armor or a single weapon.
There's no time for dilly-dallying during a pandemic
During public health emergencies, time is the most valuable commodity we have. But while public health experts have been sounding the alarm, Donald Trump has spent much of the past few months denying the gravity of the situation, telling lies and stoking xenophobia, preying on our worst instincts in a way that’s catapulted us ever closer to a worst-case scenario situation when we once upon a time had an opportunity to minimize the risks this pandemic posed to our nation.
So I was pleasantly surprised when it finally seemed as if he was taking the situation seriously in mid-March when he announced he was invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA), giving him the authority to better organize the supply chain and use American manufacturing capacity to speed up production of the lifesaving, coronavirus-fighting medical equipment our hospitals desperately need.
But since then, he’s pivoted so many times, it’s a wonder the whole country doesn’t have whiplash. Not even a day later he reversed course, saying that states were on their own to figure out how to get the resources necessary to slow the outbreak. Then, in a 24-hour span at the end of March, he went from (inaccurately, dangerously) telling Sean Hannity that governors were exaggerating the need for more ventilators to bickering with General Motors (GM) on Twitter to declaring that he was finally authorizing the use of the DPA to require GM to produce ventilators — something the company had already committed to doing hours prior.
But late last week, USA TODAY reported that the administration has still refused to actually order a single machine to be manufactured under the DPA. Instead of placing the order, Trump has chosen to spend the past week bragging about his TV ratings and the number of people who follow him on Facebook, while Trump aide Peter Navarro says they’re still banking on voluntary updates from GM.
Melinda Gates:In pandemic, your actions can help save lives
Enough. Lives are on the line. The number of Americans — the number of parents, the number of children — falling gravely ill is only growing while hospital capacity to treat them is diminishing, as there just aren’t enough hospital beds or respirators to care for those in need. Last Friday, there were more than 30,000 new cases on American soil alone, while that same day nurses were forced to use plastic bags as protective gowns and doctors nationwide were preparing to have to make one of the most horrible decisions imaginable: who to treat and who to turn away, with simply too few resources to go around.
The president has the power to get people the equipment they need
Our nation badly needs production to match demand. We need Donald Trump to remember to act like he’s in charge and actually place the orders to ensure our country can not only manufacture the personal protective equipment our front-line workers need, but that those resources will be delivered where they’re needed the most.
The people who are dying in ICUs right now don’t have any more time for the president to waste. The Americans who’ve been infected since you started reading this likely won’t stand a chance if he continues to do the bare minimum.
HOTLINE:Share your coronavirus story
The good news is we know we can do this, if Trump lets us. After all, we’ve mobilized our country, our companies, our workers before. In yesteryear, our leaders didn’t throw their hands in the air and say they couldn’t produce the technology necessary to beat back the crisis of the day. Past presidents didn’t sit back as governors fought among each other for the same limited stockpile of emergency equipment. And they didn’t wait until the shortage reached “crisis proportions” status to issue empty directives. No, instead, they reoriented the nation’s sense of what was possible, repurposing factories and redoubling efforts to get done what needed to be done.
What’s worse is that this is an action Donald Trump is clearly willing to take — the Trump administration has invoked the DPA hundreds of thousands of times in the past, including to build up his Space Force — but for some reason, Trump’s choosing not to do so today, in the face of a real crisis. Meanwhile, the only beneficiaries here are the major corporations that have reportedly lobbied White House advisers like Jared Kushner to keep the president from fully green-lighting the DPA because they profit from the states’ bidding wars over respirators and N95 masks — corporations whose deep-pocketed CEOs Trump wants on his side come November’s election.
So for me, it’s impossible to see Donald Trump as the strong wartime president he claims to be when he refuses to do what’s so obviously needed to help defeat this enemy. Wartime presidents don’t look out over the trenches and deny the war has begun. They don’t spend months refusing to acknowledge the body count because it might spook Wall Street or hurt their poll numbers. And they certainly don’t put profits over people, slow-walking policy that could be the difference between life and death for so many because they want to curry favor with rich donors.
Peter Navarro:Trump administration moving swiftly to address ventilator shortages
It’s time for this president to actually lead. It’s time for Trump to stop refusing to take any responsibility and to start embracing “The Buck Stops Here” mentality that defined the commander in chief who signed the Defense Production Act into law in the first place. It’s time for Trump to prove that he will make the kinds of choices that actually help the people he was elected to serve — the people this virus is killing every hour he fails to follow the advice of public health experts and actually do the right thing.
Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat, represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate. Follow her on Twitter: @SenDuckworth
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
VQ0uWXSb2QhEXZlc
|
|
voting_rights_and_voter_fraud
|
The Daily Wire
| 22
|
https://www.dailywire.com/news/meuser-legal-immigrants-sue-california-for-failure-to-verify-voters-citizenship-status
|
Legal Immigrants Sue California For Failure To Verify Voters’ Citizenship Status
|
On Tuesday , the Dhillon Law Group , where I serve as an election law attorney , filed a lawsuit against the state of California . This lawsuit alleges that California is violating federal law by not ensuring that only citizens are on the state ’ s voting rolls . Three California voters brought this lawsuit : Roxanne Hoge , Ali Mazarei , and Corrin Rankin . Both Hoge and Mazarei are legal immigrants who earned the privilege to vote by becoming citizens of the United States .
In 1993 , a Democrat-controlled Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act ( NVRA ) . This law mandated that states create more options for individuals to register to vote . This law also placed restrictions on the states on how they were to maintain their voter rolls . Under the NVRA , the state has a duty to regularly maintain the voter rolls by removing those individuals who had died or moved away .
The NVRA also requires a state ’ s secretary of state to determine the eligibility of each applicant before placing him or her on its voter rolls . Eligibility throughout the NVRA means that there is citizenship . Thus , the NVRA requires the states to ensure that someone is a citizen prior to placing him or her on the voter rolls .
State records show that before the California secretary of state ’ s office places an applicant on the voter rolls , it checks with state administrative records to ensure the individual is not a felon and that the voter application is not a duplicate . The state admits that it does not review state administrative records to determine if an applicant is a citizen of the United States . If California does not even bother to check the citizenship status of voter applicants , it can continue to claim to the media that there is no evidence of non-citizens being placed on its voter rolls .
Last year , the California secretary of state admitted he had no idea how many non-citizens were on the voter rolls . Earlier this year , a state audit was released that showed non-citizens were not only registered to vote , but had voted in California elections . These two news stories made it clear that California did not use state administrative records to ensure that only citizens were being registered to vote . Rather than follow federal law and make a determination of citizenship before placing an applicant on the voter rolls , the state simply waits for a scandal to break before responding by removing a non-citizen from its voter rolls . This is improper .
The California secretary of state has claimed that there is no state administrative record that tracks citizenship of Californians . This is clearly not true , since a state audit was able to determine that non-citizens were not only on the voter rolls but had also actually voted . Contrary to what the secretary of state wants the media to believe , there are multiple state administrative records that contain the citizenship status of voters . Every applicant for a state driver ’ s license is required to provide proof of identity . These proof-of-identity documents include citizenship status . If an individual can not prove that he/she is lawfully a United States citizens , a driver ’ s license is still doled out but that individual is supposedly not simultaneously also registered to vote .
By bringing this lawsuit , the plaintiffs desire to hold the secretary of state ’ s feet to the fire . It is time that California be required to follow federal law and ensure that everyone who is on the voter rolls is actually eligible to vote . This lawsuit is necessary because California has a bad habit of thumbing its nose at federal election laws and dragging its feet as long as possible . When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 — which required states to establish a statewide voter registration list — California was the last state to comply . It did not do so until 2016 .
Earlier this year , Judicial Watch won a major victory against California requiring the state to follow federal law in removing from the voter rolls those who have died and those who have moved . California had chosen to simply not send out the required notices , and the voter rolls were thus bloated with ineligible voters .
Californians deserve the assurance that the state is following federal law and ensuring that only citizens are on the voter rolls . By its own admissions , the state is not verifying voter applicants ’ citizenship status . Since California has claimed that it is not doing anything wrong , this lawsuit had to be brought to force California to follow the NVRA .
Mark Meuser is an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group , which is based in California . You can follow Mark Meuser on Twitter @ markmeuser .
|
On Tuesday, the Dhillon Law Group, where I serve as an election law attorney, filed a lawsuit against the state of California. This lawsuit alleges that California is violating federal law by not ensuring that only citizens are on the state’s voting rolls. Three California voters brought this lawsuit: Roxanne Hoge, Ali Mazarei, and Corrin Rankin. Both Hoge and Mazarei are legal immigrants who earned the privilege to vote by becoming citizens of the United States.
In 1993, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). This law mandated that states create more options for individuals to register to vote. This law also placed restrictions on the states on how they were to maintain their voter rolls. Under the NVRA, the state has a duty to regularly maintain the voter rolls by removing those individuals who had died or moved away.
The NVRA also requires a state’s secretary of state to determine the eligibility of each applicant before placing him or her on its voter rolls. Eligibility throughout the NVRA means that there is citizenship. Thus, the NVRA requires the states to ensure that someone is a citizen prior to placing him or her on the voter rolls.
State records show that before the California secretary of state’s office places an applicant on the voter rolls, it checks with state administrative records to ensure the individual is not a felon and that the voter application is not a duplicate. The state admits that it does not review state administrative records to determine if an applicant is a citizen of the United States. If California does not even bother to check the citizenship status of voter applicants, it can continue to claim to the media that there is no evidence of non-citizens being placed on its voter rolls.
Last year, the California secretary of state admitted he had no idea how many non-citizens were on the voter rolls. Earlier this year, a state audit was released that showed non-citizens were not only registered to vote, but had voted in California elections. These two news stories made it clear that California did not use state administrative records to ensure that only citizens were being registered to vote. Rather than follow federal law and make a determination of citizenship before placing an applicant on the voter rolls, the state simply waits for a scandal to break before responding by removing a non-citizen from its voter rolls. This is improper.
The California secretary of state has claimed that there is no state administrative record that tracks citizenship of Californians. This is clearly not true, since a state audit was able to determine that non-citizens were not only on the voter rolls but had also actually voted. Contrary to what the secretary of state wants the media to believe, there are multiple state administrative records that contain the citizenship status of voters. Every applicant for a state driver’s license is required to provide proof of identity. These proof-of-identity documents include citizenship status. If an individual cannot prove that he/she is lawfully a United States citizens, a driver’s license is still doled out but that individual is supposedly not simultaneously also registered to vote.
By bringing this lawsuit, the plaintiffs desire to hold the secretary of state’s feet to the fire. It is time that California be required to follow federal law and ensure that everyone who is on the voter rolls is actually eligible to vote. This lawsuit is necessary because California has a bad habit of thumbing its nose at federal election laws and dragging its feet as long as possible. When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 — which required states to establish a statewide voter registration list — California was the last state to comply. It did not do so until 2016.
Earlier this year, Judicial Watch won a major victory against California requiring the state to follow federal law in removing from the voter rolls those who have died and those who have moved. California had chosen to simply not send out the required notices, and the voter rolls were thus bloated with ineligible voters.
Californians deserve the assurance that the state is following federal law and ensuring that only citizens are on the voter rolls. By its own admissions, the state is not verifying voter applicants’ citizenship status. Since California has claimed that it is not doing anything wrong, this lawsuit had to be brought to force California to follow the NVRA.
Mark Meuser is an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group, which is based in California. You can follow Mark Meuser on Twitter @markmeuser.
|
www.dailywire.com
| 1right
|
7CNaezv5VMUJJvyp
|
||
us_senate
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/05/democrats-prepare-for-confirmation-battle-over-troublesome-trump-cabinet-nominees
|
Democrats target 'troublesome' Trump cabinet nominees
|
2017-01-05
|
Lauren Gambino, David Smith
|
Democratic senators flag eight of president-elect ’ s picks and are pushing for more time for confirmation hearings
In a new era of Republican-led governance , there is little Democrats can do to prevent Donald Trump ’ s cabinet nominees from being confirmed . But that won ’ t stop them from trying .
Democratic senators are targeting eight of Trump ’ s cabinet nominees whom they view as particularly “ troublesome ” and are pushing for more time to hold hearings on each of them .
“ We have asked for fair hearings on all of those nominees , ” the minority leader , Chuck Schumer , told reporters on Wednesday . “ There are a lot of questions about these nominees . ”
The nominees flagged for extra scrutiny include Steven Mnuchin , a Goldman Sachs banker turned Hollywood movie financier with no government experience , as Treasury secretary ; Rex Tillerson , who headed the biggest oil company in the world , as secretary of state , and the nominee for attorney general , Jeff Sessions , an Alabama senator who has been accused of making racially insensitive comments , which derailed his nomination to be a federal judge under Ronald Reagan .
Democrats have little leverage to prevent Trump ’ s nominees from being confirmed but they can significantly delay the process . Trump ’ s cabinet nominees will need 51 votes in the Senate to be confirmed and Republicans hold 52 seats .
On Wednesday , several Senate Democrats held private meetings with Trump nominees and later shared their initial reactions . Though all declined to say whether they would support the nominee , they signalled what the points of contention might be in the upcoming hearings .
After a private meeting with Sessions on Wednesday , Dick Durbin , the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat , signalled that race and civil rights would be a key topic in his confirmation hearing next week .
“ Certainly there are elements in his background that raise questions , ” Durbin said after their meeting , referring to allegations that Sessions was racially insensitive . “ He said several times , point blank , that this was not an issue as far as he was concerned . ”
Beyond his past comments , Durbin said he was concerned by Sessions ’ views on voter ID laws and immigration . He also said he was dismayed that the Alabama Republican did not commit to following through on the recommendations outlined in a forthcoming report by the justice department ’ s civil rights division on the Chicago police department ’ s use of force .
Before the meeting ended , Durbin said he offered Sessions the book White Rage : The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide by Carol Anderson . “ I ’ m hoping he ’ ll take a look at it , ” he said .
Meanwhile , Tillerson met members of the foreign relations committee on Capitol Hill on Wednesday , one week before he is scheduled to testify before them .
Senator Chris Coons , a Democrat from Delaware , said he was “ generally encouraged ” by his conversation with Tillerson , although he said he wanted to hear more before deciding whether to support his nomination .
Several senators , including Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona , have raised concerns about Tillerson ’ s posture towards Russia and its president , Vladimir Putin .
Coons took issue with the confirmation schedule , saying next week seemed too soon for members to hold a hearing on Tillerson , given Republicans ’ current plans to also vote on repealing Barack Obama ’ s healthcare law .
To rush the confirmation process “ strikes me as trying to get too many things done at the same time ” , he said , adding that he had been up all night preparing for his meeting with Tillerson .
The Democrats ’ list also includes Scott Pruitt , a climate change denier and prospective head of the Environmental Protection Agency , Tom Price , a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act , for secretary of health and human services , Andy Puzder , a fast food executive and critic of raising the minimum wage , as labor secretary , Congressman Mick Mulvaney , a fiscal conservative , as director of the Office of Management and Budget , and Betsy DeVos , a staunch supporter of school choice , Trump ’ s education secretary nominee .
After a meeting with DeVos on Wednesday , Senator Patty Murray , a Democrat from Washington , said in a statement that she continued to have “ serious concerns ” about DeVos ’ s “ long record of working to privatize and defund public education , expand taxpayer-funded private school vouchers , and block accountability for charter schools , including for-profit charter schools ” .
Confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin for Trump ’ s cabinet picks next week , with several already slated for 11 January . But before they get under way , Democrats are demanding at least two days of hearings for each cabinet nominee and have requested that they do not overlap so that members can “ spend a lot of time studying ” for them .
“ I would like to succeed in negotiating something where we get full and fair hearings – we ’ re not trying to be dilatory – and hear what these nominees have to say , ” Schumer said . “ There are so many issues about so many of them that to rush them through would be a disservice to the American people . ”
In response , Republicans are now accusing Democrats of obstructionism , an echo of the charge levied by Democrats against Republicans during the Obama years .
The majority leader , Mitch McConnell , of Kentucky , said he expected the Senate to be ready to confirm a number of Trump ’ s cabinet nominees shortly after Inauguration Day , on 20 January , adding that in 2009 the Senate approved seven of Barack Obama ’ s nominees .
“ I believe all the president-elect ’ s cabinet appointments will be confirmed , ” McConnell told reporters on Wednesday , speaking before Schumer . “ I think it would be great if the Democrats would understand that , particularly with regard to the national security team , the secretary of defense , CIA , homeland security , it would make a lot of sense to have those folks in place on day one and I hope we ’ re getting to the point where that will be possible . ”
Schumer scoffed at the notion of a precedent . “ Leader McConnell has talked about the fact that a lot of nominees were approved in President Obama ’ s first few days after he was inaugurated , but they all had their paperwork in early , their ethics reports , their 90-day plan to extricate themselves from conflicts , their FBI briefings , ” he said .
Absent from the list of nominees Democrats are targeting is Marine General James Mattis , Trump ’ s pick for defense secretary , who will need a congressional waiver to be confirmed .
After meeting privately with Mattis on Capitol Hill on Wednesday , Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand , of New York , said she still opposed a waiver of the law that requires that defense secretaries be removed from the military for at least seven years .
“ He has served our country admirably , ” Gillibrand told reporters after their meeting . “ He is well-regarded as an extraordinary general , and I am very grateful for that service , and I ’ m very grateful that he ’ s willing to continue his service for the president-elect . But I still believe that civilian control of our military is fundamental to the American democracy . ”
The Senate is also preparing for a pitched battle over Trump ’ s future choice to replace Antonin Scalia on the supreme court , which will require 60 votes .
“ Apparently , there ’ s yet a new standard which is to not confirm a supreme court nominee at all , ” McConnell said on Wednesday , referring to a remark Schumer made the previous evening on MSNBC that Democrats would “ absolutely ” keep the vacancy open if the nominee were outside the mainstream . “ I think that ’ s something the American people simply will not tolerate . ”
“ Let ’ s see who they nominate , ” Schumer told reporters . “ If they ’ re in the mainstream , we ’ ll give them a very careful look . If they ’ re out of the mainstream , we ’ ll oppose them tooth and nail . ”
Asked how he would define mainstream , Schumer replied : “ You know it when you see it . ”
Senate Republicans blocked Obama ’ s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Scalia for more than nine months .
|
Democratic senators flag eight of president-elect’s picks and are pushing for more time for confirmation hearings
In a new era of Republican-led governance, there is little Democrats can do to prevent Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees from being confirmed. But that won’t stop them from trying.
Democratic senators are targeting eight of Trump’s cabinet nominees whom they view as particularly “troublesome” and are pushing for more time to hold hearings on each of them.
“We have asked for fair hearings on all of those nominees,” the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, told reporters on Wednesday. “There are a lot of questions about these nominees.”
The nominees flagged for extra scrutiny include Steven Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs banker turned Hollywood movie financier with no government experience, as Treasury secretary; Rex Tillerson, who headed the biggest oil company in the world, as secretary of state, and the nominee for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, an Alabama senator who has been accused of making racially insensitive comments, which derailed his nomination to be a federal judge under Ronald Reagan.
Democrats have little leverage to prevent Trump’s nominees from being confirmed but they can significantly delay the process. Trump’s cabinet nominees will need 51 votes in the Senate to be confirmed and Republicans hold 52 seats.
On Wednesday, several Senate Democrats held private meetings with Trump nominees and later shared their initial reactions. Though all declined to say whether they would support the nominee, they signalled what the points of contention might be in the upcoming hearings.
After a private meeting with Sessions on Wednesday, Dick Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, signalled that race and civil rights would be a key topic in his confirmation hearing next week.
“Certainly there are elements in his background that raise questions,” Durbin said after their meeting, referring to allegations that Sessions was racially insensitive. “He said several times, point blank, that this was not an issue as far as he was concerned.”
Beyond his past comments, Durbin said he was concerned by Sessions’ views on voter ID laws and immigration. He also said he was dismayed that the Alabama Republican did not commit to following through on the recommendations outlined in a forthcoming report by the justice department’s civil rights division on the Chicago police department’s use of force.
Before the meeting ended, Durbin said he offered Sessions the book White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide by Carol Anderson. “I’m hoping he’ll take a look at it,” he said.
Meanwhile, Tillerson met members of the foreign relations committee on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, one week before he is scheduled to testify before them.
Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said he was “generally encouraged” by his conversation with Tillerson, although he said he wanted to hear more before deciding whether to support his nomination.
Several senators, including Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, have raised concerns about Tillerson’s posture towards Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
Coons took issue with the confirmation schedule, saying next week seemed too soon for members to hold a hearing on Tillerson, given Republicans’ current plans to also vote on repealing Barack Obama’s healthcare law.
To rush the confirmation process “strikes me as trying to get too many things done at the same time”, he said, adding that he had been up all night preparing for his meeting with Tillerson.
The Democrats’ list also includes Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier and prospective head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Tom Price, a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, for secretary of health and human services, Andy Puzder, a fast food executive and critic of raising the minimum wage, as labor secretary, Congressman Mick Mulvaney, a fiscal conservative, as director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Betsy DeVos, a staunch supporter of school choice, Trump’s education secretary nominee.
After a meeting with DeVos on Wednesday, Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, said in a statement that she continued to have “serious concerns” about DeVos’s “long record of working to privatize and defund public education, expand taxpayer-funded private school vouchers, and block accountability for charter schools, including for-profit charter schools”.
Confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin for Trump’s cabinet picks next week, with several already slated for 11 January. But before they get under way, Democrats are demanding at least two days of hearings for each cabinet nominee and have requested that they do not overlap so that members can “spend a lot of time studying” for them.
“I would like to succeed in negotiating something where we get full and fair hearings – we’re not trying to be dilatory – and hear what these nominees have to say,” Schumer said. “There are so many issues about so many of them that to rush them through would be a disservice to the American people.”
In response, Republicans are now accusing Democrats of obstructionism, an echo of the charge levied by Democrats against Republicans during the Obama years.
The majority leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, said he expected the Senate to be ready to confirm a number of Trump’s cabinet nominees shortly after Inauguration Day, on 20 January, adding that in 2009 the Senate approved seven of Barack Obama’s nominees.
“I believe all the president-elect’s cabinet appointments will be confirmed,” McConnell told reporters on Wednesday, speaking before Schumer. “I think it would be great if the Democrats would understand that, particularly with regard to the national security team, the secretary of defense, CIA, homeland security, it would make a lot of sense to have those folks in place on day one and I hope we’re getting to the point where that will be possible.”
Schumer scoffed at the notion of a precedent. “Leader McConnell has talked about the fact that a lot of nominees were approved in President Obama’s first few days after he was inaugurated, but they all had their paperwork in early, their ethics reports, their 90-day plan to extricate themselves from conflicts, their FBI briefings,” he said.
Absent from the list of nominees Democrats are targeting is Marine General James Mattis, Trump’s pick for defense secretary, who will need a congressional waiver to be confirmed.
After meeting privately with Mattis on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand, of New York, said she still opposed a waiver of the law that requires that defense secretaries be removed from the military for at least seven years.
“He has served our country admirably,” Gillibrand told reporters after their meeting. “He is well-regarded as an extraordinary general, and I am very grateful for that service, and I’m very grateful that he’s willing to continue his service for the president-elect. But I still believe that civilian control of our military is fundamental to the American democracy.”
The Senate is also preparing for a pitched battle over Trump’s future choice to replace Antonin Scalia on the supreme court, which will require 60 votes.
“Apparently, there’s yet a new standard which is to not confirm a supreme court nominee at all,” McConnell said on Wednesday, referring to a remark Schumer made the previous evening on MSNBC that Democrats would “absolutely” keep the vacancy open if the nominee were outside the mainstream. “I think that’s something the American people simply will not tolerate.”
On Wednesday, Schumer moderated his comments.
“Let’s see who they nominate,” Schumer told reporters. “If they’re in the mainstream, we’ll give them a very careful look. If they’re out of the mainstream, we’ll oppose them tooth and nail.”
Asked how he would define mainstream, Schumer replied: “You know it when you see it.”
Senate Republicans blocked Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Scalia for more than nine months.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
M9iTAeV8iVkCat06
|
immigration
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/723694656/tracking-trump-on-immigration-despite-focus-many-ideas-are-stalled-or-blocked
|
Tracking Trump On Immigration: Despite Focus, Many Ideas Are Stalled Or Blocked
|
2019-05-17
|
Joel Rose
|
Tracking Trump On Immigration : A Relentless Push To Reshape Migration
The Trump administration has pushed to reshape the nation 's approach to immigration — right down to how to read the words engraved on a bronze plaque at the Statue of Liberty .
`` Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge , '' Ken Cuccinelli , acting director of U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services , said in an interview with NPR 's Morning Edition last month .
The administration has tried every tool at its disposal to tighten the nation 's immigration policies — including the so-called `` public charge '' rule that makes it harder for immigrants to get green cards or visas if they use a wide range of public assistance . It also has pushed to ramp up enforcement , carrying out the biggest workplace raids in at least a decade .
At the same time , many of the administration 's efforts have been stalled or blocked by Congress , the courts , or state and local officials . Below is a look at what the White House has accomplished on immigration — and what it has n't .
The southern border is effectively closed to the vast majority of migrants seeking asylum after the Supreme Court allowed a new Trump administration policy to go into effect while a legal challenge plays out in court .
That new asylum rule says that immigration authorities can deny asylum to migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border unless they have first applied for protections in a country they crossed on the way to the United States .
The new policy had been put on hold in part by a federal judge in California , who found it `` inconsistent with the existing asylum laws . '' But the high court stayed that injunction , allowing the new rule to take effect for now .
The asylum rule is one of many of efforts by the administration to discourage migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S . The White House argues that many migrants are abusing generous asylum laws to live and work in the country until their cases are heard in immigration court , which can take years because of extensive backlogs .
The White House says Guatemala has also signed a so-called `` safe third country asylum agreement . '' The deal would require migrants traveling through Guatemala from countries such as Honduras and El Salvador to claim asylum in Guatemala before trying in the U.S . Though it 's not clear whether the agreement is legal , as the Guatemalan Congress is supposed to ratify such treaties , or how it will be implemented .
Courts have previously rejected other policies that would limit asylum , including the administration 's attempt to deny refuge to any migrant who crossed the border illegally . But the Justice Department has succeeded in making it harder to get asylum based on gang or domestic violence , as well as family ties .
The DOJ also pushed to get rid of bond hearings for detained asylum-seekers , but has been blocked from doing so . And the administration wants to hold migrant families with children in detention until their day in immigration court to discourage them from coming .
Federal immigration officials raided seven food-processing plants in Mississippi in August , arresting about 680 people believed to be working in the U.S. without authorization , and also seizing company business records .
More than 600 agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were involved in the operation . They were by far the largest workplace raids of the Trump administration , and the biggest since 2006 .
ICE later released hundreds of those who were arrested with orders to appear in immigration court . But the raids left many of their family members scrambling for support .
The owners of the poultry-processing plants have yet to be charged with any wrongdoing .
The Trump administration is moving to end a long-standing legal agreement known as the Flores settlement that limits how long migrant families with children can be detained .
Under Flores , the government has to release migrant kids from detention centers as quickly as possible , generally within 20 days . New regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would lift that limit and make other major changes as well .
This has been a longtime goal of immigration hardliners in the Trump administration , who argue that Flores has acted as a lure to families in Central America .
Doctors and immigrant advocates argue that detention is extremely harmful to children . A federal judge in California would have to sign off on the new regulations before they take effect .
President Trump has threatened to deport `` millions '' of immigrants living in the country illegally . Arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. spiked during the first two years of the Trump administration — for immigrants with and without criminal records .
But the numbers remain well below the highest figures of President Obama 's first term . And the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement says arrests and deportations declined in early 2019 because the agency is devoting more resources to the southern border .
Also , the administration 's plan to undertake nationwide ICE raids to round up undocumented families failed to materialize .
The administration is expanding the use of so-called expedited removal to fast-track deportations of immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge , unless they can prove they 've been in the U.S. continuously for more than two years .
And immigrant advocates say aggressive enforcement by ICE continues to create a climate of fear among unauthorized migrants .
The White House warned that the U.S. would impose a tariff of 5 % on all products from Mexico and escalate it — unless Mexico agreed to `` substantially '' curtail the flow of Central American migrants
Under pressure from Washington , Mexico agreed to step up enforcement and to take in more migrants waiting for their U.S. asylum hearings . Mexico also deployed thousands of troops to its northern and southern borders .
And the number of migrants taken into custody after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border began to decline . The monthly total fell in August to just over 64,000 after peaking at more than 144,000 in May — though the number still remains higher than the same period a year ago .
President Trump has threatened several times over the past year to close the southern border unless the Mexican government does more to combat illegal immigration . But the White House backed down under pressure from business groups . Those groups — and their allies in Congress — pushed back on the proposed tariffs , as well .
The Department of Homeland Security has sent more than 30,000 migrants back to Mexico to wait for months until a U.S. immigration court decides their asylum cases .
Immigrant advocates , lawyers and former U.S. officials say the country is turning its back on asylum-seekers — vulnerable people who are allowed under U.S. law to seek sanctuary here .
A federal court initially blocked the administration from sending asylum-seekers back to crime-ridden Mexican border towns where many are staying in shelters .
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court 's injunction , allowing the `` Remain in Mexico '' policy to continue while the case plays out .
Meanwhile , immigrant advocates say conditions are worsening for migrants in border towns , targeted by gangs and cartels .
President Trump has laid out sweeping changes he 'd like to make to the legal immigration system . The White House proposal would favor immigrants with higher skills and more education , and it would shift the immigration system away from family reunification , which has been its guiding principle since 1965 .
But the latest proposal is getting little traction on Capitol Hill — particularly among Democrats , whose support would be necessary for the proposal to become law .
Federal courts have widely rejected the Justice Department 's attempts to withhold law enforcement grants from so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with immigration authorities . In April , President Trump threatened to bus migrants from the border and then release them in sanctuary cities . But so far , his administration has not acted on those threats .
The administration 's `` zero tolerance '' policy was intended to deter illegal border crossings by separating migrant parents and children at the border — until President Trump ended the policy under pressure last June .
A federal judge has ordered the administration to reunite nearly 3,000 children with their parents . The same judge has since ordered the administration to identify hundreds of additional families that were separated before the `` zero tolerance '' policy took effect .
The ACLU , which challenged the family separation policy , went back to court in July . In court filings , the ACLU argues that the administration has separated more than 900 parents and children and infants since the judge 's ruling , many on flimsy legal grounds .
The administration concedes that a small number of migrant children are still being separated from their parents at the border — but only if the parent has a criminal record , or there 's another reason that separation is in the best interest of the child .
Immigrant advocates say migrant children are also being routinely separated from caregivers at the border — with older family members being placed in the Remain in Mexico program , while the children they 've brought are taken into U.S. custody .
The Supreme Court handed the White House a victory in July when it allowed the Trump administration to use military construction funds to build some sections of the president 's border wall while litigation is ongoing .
A lower court had initially frozen the $ 2.5 billion in funds , and an appeals court agreed . But the high court ruled that the Pentagon funds can be tapped for now .
The dispute began earlier this year when President Trump declared a national emergency in order to secure funding for his signature immigration policy : the border wall . The Trump administration wants to spend a total of $ 6 billion from military and counter-drug accounts .
That emergency declaration is still being challenged in court by critics who say there is no emergency , and that the president is flouting the will of Congress in order to deliver on a key campaign promise .
Lawmakers also have authorized more than $ 1.3 billion for 55 miles of steel fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border .
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next term about the Trump administration 's efforts to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , or DACA .
In the meantime , nearly 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children are still protected from deportation and allowed to work legally under the program created by President Obama in 2012 . The Trump administration tried to end DACA , but has been blocked from doing so by several federal courts .
Democrats and moderate Republicans are likely to insist on some relief for DACA recipients as part of any comprehensive immigration overhaul , while immigration hardliners are wary of granting `` amnesty '' or a path to citizenship .
The Trump administration 's effort to restrict immigration and travel from several majority-Muslim countries was blocked by lower courts . But a modified version — including the majority-Muslim countries of Libya , Iran , Somalia , Syria and Yemen , plus North Korea and Venezuela — was upheld by the Supreme Court in a major victory for the White House .
Another legal challenge remains after a federal judge in Maryland ruled that lawsuit can go forward . But that could take years , so it may be a long time before people who are affected by the policy see a change , if any .
The administration has moved to wind down Temporary Protected Status , or TPS , for more than 400,000 immigrants from countries wracked by civil conflict or natural disasters.The immigrants are protected from deportation and allowed to work in the U.S .
A number of legal challenges have been filed . For instance , the Department of Homeland Security has been blocked from ending TPS for immigrants from Haiti , El Salvador , Nicaragua and Sudan by a judge in California .
Shortly before the 2018 midterm elections , President Trump threatened to do away with automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States . He brought up the idea again in August 2019 , saying the White House was `` looking very , very seriously '' at abolishing birthright citizenship — even though the vast majority of legal scholars believe it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution .
So far , the president has not followed through on his threats .
The administration has been criticized for ending automatic citizenship for the children of some U.S. military members and government workers overseas . When that policy was first announced , critics of the administration speculated it might be the first step toward ending birthright citizenship — a charge the administration quickly denied .
Homeland Security has released the final version of regulations that would make it easier to deny legal immigrants green cards or visas if they use a wide range of public benefits , such as food stamps and subsidized health insurance .
The Trump administration argues the so-called `` public charge '' rule merely enforces a century-old provision in U.S. immigration law that says immigrants should be self-sufficient .
But critics say the regulations could dramatically reshape the U.S. immigration system by turning away thousands of immigrants from poorer countries . Multiple lawsuits have been filed to block the regulations , including cases brought by state attorneys general and by advocacy groups .
Thousands of families that include undocumented members could be forced out of public housing by a rule proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development . These families include an estimated 55,000 children who are U.S. citizens or legal residents .
The rule is intended to prevent undocumented immigrants or mixed-status families from living in public housing . It 's still in the public comment stage , and critics are pressuring HUD Secretary Ben Carson to reconsider .
The Trump administration has slashed the number of refugees the U.S. will accept . The official cap is set at 30,000 for the year , the lowest figure since the current refugee resettlement program began in 1980 .
That 's forcing refugee resettlement offices across the country to close or suspend their services . And the administration is weighing further cuts to the refugee program next year .
|
Tracking Trump On Immigration: A Relentless Push To Reshape Migration
Enlarge this image Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Updated Sept. 13, 3:55 p.m. ET
The Trump administration has pushed to reshape the nation's approach to immigration — right down to how to read the words engraved on a bronze plaque at the Statue of Liberty.
"Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge," Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in an interview with NPR's Morning Edition last month.
The administration has tried every tool at its disposal to tighten the nation's immigration policies — including the so-called "public charge" rule that makes it harder for immigrants to get green cards or visas if they use a wide range of public assistance. It also has pushed to ramp up enforcement, carrying out the biggest workplace raids in at least a decade.
At the same time, many of the administration's efforts have been stalled or blocked by Congress, the courts, or state and local officials. Below is a look at what the White House has accomplished on immigration — and what it hasn't.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
Asylum Crackdown
The southern border is effectively closed to the vast majority of migrants seeking asylum after the Supreme Court allowed a new Trump administration policy to go into effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
That new asylum rule says that immigration authorities can deny asylum to migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border unless they have first applied for protections in a country they crossed on the way to the United States.
The new policy had been put on hold in part by a federal judge in California, who found it "inconsistent with the existing asylum laws." But the high court stayed that injunction, allowing the new rule to take effect for now.
The asylum rule is one of many of efforts by the administration to discourage migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. The White House argues that many migrants are abusing generous asylum laws to live and work in the country until their cases are heard in immigration court, which can take years because of extensive backlogs.
The White House says Guatemala has also signed a so-called "safe third country asylum agreement." The deal would require migrants traveling through Guatemala from countries such as Honduras and El Salvador to claim asylum in Guatemala before trying in the U.S. Though it's not clear whether the agreement is legal, as the Guatemalan Congress is supposed to ratify such treaties, or how it will be implemented.
Courts have previously rejected other policies that would limit asylum, including the administration's attempt to deny refuge to any migrant who crossed the border illegally. But the Justice Department has succeeded in making it harder to get asylum based on gang or domestic violence, as well as family ties.
The DOJ also pushed to get rid of bond hearings for detained asylum-seekers, but has been blocked from doing so. And the administration wants to hold migrant families with children in detention until their day in immigration court to discourage them from coming.
Workplace Raids
Federal immigration officials raided seven food-processing plants in Mississippi in August, arresting about 680 people believed to be working in the U.S. without authorization, and also seizing company business records.
More than 600 agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were involved in the operation. They were by far the largest workplace raids of the Trump administration, and the biggest since 2006.
ICE later released hundreds of those who were arrested with orders to appear in immigration court. But the raids left many of their family members scrambling for support.
The owners of the poultry-processing plants have yet to be charged with any wrongdoing.
Family Detention
The Trump administration is moving to end a long-standing legal agreement known as the Flores settlement that limits how long migrant families with children can be detained.
Under Flores, the government has to release migrant kids from detention centers as quickly as possible, generally within 20 days. New regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would lift that limit and make other major changes as well.
This has been a longtime goal of immigration hardliners in the Trump administration, who argue that Flores has acted as a lure to families in Central America.
Doctors and immigrant advocates argue that detention is extremely harmful to children. A federal judge in California would have to sign off on the new regulations before they take effect.
Deportations
President Trump has threatened to deport "millions" of immigrants living in the country illegally. Arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. spiked during the first two years of the Trump administration — for immigrants with and without criminal records.
But the numbers remain well below the highest figures of President Obama's first term. And the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement says arrests and deportations declined in early 2019 because the agency is devoting more resources to the southern border.
Also, the administration's plan to undertake nationwide ICE raids to round up undocumented families failed to materialize.
The administration is expanding the use of so-called expedited removal to fast-track deportations of immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge, unless they can prove they've been in the U.S. continuously for more than two years.
And immigrant advocates say aggressive enforcement by ICE continues to create a climate of fear among unauthorized migrants.
Tariffs on Mexico
The White House warned that the U.S. would impose a tariff of 5% on all products from Mexico and escalate it — unless Mexico agreed to "substantially" curtail the flow of Central American migrants
Under pressure from Washington, Mexico agreed to step up enforcement and to take in more migrants waiting for their U.S. asylum hearings. Mexico also deployed thousands of troops to its northern and southern borders.
And the number of migrants taken into custody after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border began to decline. The monthly total fell in August to just over 64,000 after peaking at more than 144,000 in May — though the number still remains higher than the same period a year ago.
President Trump has threatened several times over the past year to close the southern border unless the Mexican government does more to combat illegal immigration. But the White House backed down under pressure from business groups. Those groups — and their allies in Congress — pushed back on the proposed tariffs, as well.
Remain in Mexico
The Department of Homeland Security has sent more than 30,000 migrants back to Mexico to wait for months until a U.S. immigration court decides their asylum cases.
Immigrant advocates, lawyers and former U.S. officials say the country is turning its back on asylum-seekers — vulnerable people who are allowed under U.S. law to seek sanctuary here.
A federal court initially blocked the administration from sending asylum-seekers back to crime-ridden Mexican border towns where many are staying in shelters.
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's injunction, allowing the "Remain in Mexico" policy to continue while the case plays out.
Meanwhile, immigrant advocates say conditions are worsening for migrants in border towns, targeted by gangs and cartels.
Merit-Based System
President Trump has laid out sweeping changes he'd like to make to the legal immigration system. The White House proposal would favor immigrants with higher skills and more education, and it would shift the immigration system away from family reunification, which has been its guiding principle since 1965.
But the latest proposal is getting little traction on Capitol Hill — particularly among Democrats, whose support would be necessary for the proposal to become law.
Sanctuary Cities
Federal courts have widely rejected the Justice Department's attempts to withhold law enforcement grants from so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with immigration authorities. In April, President Trump threatened to bus migrants from the border and then release them in sanctuary cities. But so far, his administration has not acted on those threats.
Family Separation
The administration's "zero tolerance" policy was intended to deter illegal border crossings by separating migrant parents and children at the border — until President Trump ended the policy under pressure last June.
A federal judge has ordered the administration to reunite nearly 3,000 children with their parents. The same judge has since ordered the administration to identify hundreds of additional families that were separated before the "zero tolerance" policy took effect.
The ACLU, which challenged the family separation policy, went back to court in July. In court filings, the ACLU argues that the administration has separated more than 900 parents and children and infants since the judge's ruling, many on flimsy legal grounds.
The administration concedes that a small number of migrant children are still being separated from their parents at the border — but only if the parent has a criminal record, or there's another reason that separation is in the best interest of the child.
Immigrant advocates say migrant children are also being routinely separated from caregivers at the border — with older family members being placed in the Remain in Mexico program, while the children they've brought are taken into U.S. custody.
The Wall
The Supreme Court handed the White House a victory in July when it allowed the Trump administration to use military construction funds to build some sections of the president's border wall while litigation is ongoing.
A lower court had initially frozen the $2.5 billion in funds, and an appeals court agreed. But the high court ruled that the Pentagon funds can be tapped for now.
The dispute began earlier this year when President Trump declared a national emergency in order to secure funding for his signature immigration policy: the border wall. The Trump administration wants to spend a total of $6 billion from military and counter-drug accounts.
That emergency declaration is still being challenged in court by critics who say there is no emergency, and that the president is flouting the will of Congress in order to deliver on a key campaign promise.
Lawmakers also have authorized more than $1.3 billion for 55 miles of steel fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border.
DACA
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next term about the Trump administration's efforts to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
In the meantime, nearly 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children are still protected from deportation and allowed to work legally under the program created by President Obama in 2012. The Trump administration tried to end DACA, but has been blocked from doing so by several federal courts.
Democrats and moderate Republicans are likely to insist on some relief for DACA recipients as part of any comprehensive immigration overhaul, while immigration hardliners are wary of granting "amnesty" or a path to citizenship.
Travel Ban
The Trump administration's effort to restrict immigration and travel from several majority-Muslim countries was blocked by lower courts. But a modified version — including the majority-Muslim countries of Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, plus North Korea and Venezuela — was upheld by the Supreme Court in a major victory for the White House.
Another legal challenge remains after a federal judge in Maryland ruled that lawsuit can go forward. But that could take years, so it may be a long time before people who are affected by the policy see a change, if any.
TPS
The administration has moved to wind down Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for more than 400,000 immigrants from countries wracked by civil conflict or natural disasters.The immigrants are protected from deportation and allowed to work in the U.S.
A number of legal challenges have been filed. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security has been blocked from ending TPS for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Sudan by a judge in California.
Birthright Citizenship
Shortly before the 2018 midterm elections, President Trump threatened to do away with automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States. He brought up the idea again in August 2019, saying the White House was "looking very, very seriously" at abolishing birthright citizenship — even though the vast majority of legal scholars believe it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
So far, the president has not followed through on his threats.
The administration has been criticized for ending automatic citizenship for the children of some U.S. military members and government workers overseas. When that policy was first announced, critics of the administration speculated it might be the first step toward ending birthright citizenship — a charge the administration quickly denied.
Public Benefits
Homeland Security has released the final version of regulations that would make it easier to deny legal immigrants green cards or visas if they use a wide range of public benefits, such as food stamps and subsidized health insurance.
The Trump administration argues the so-called "public charge" rule merely enforces a century-old provision in U.S. immigration law that says immigrants should be self-sufficient.
But critics say the regulations could dramatically reshape the U.S. immigration system by turning away thousands of immigrants from poorer countries. Multiple lawsuits have been filed to block the regulations, including cases brought by state attorneys general and by advocacy groups.
Public Housing
Thousands of families that include undocumented members could be forced out of public housing by a rule proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These families include an estimated 55,000 children who are U.S. citizens or legal residents.
The rule is intended to prevent undocumented immigrants or mixed-status families from living in public housing. It's still in the public comment stage, and critics are pressuring HUD Secretary Ben Carson to reconsider.
Refugee Cap
The Trump administration has slashed the number of refugees the U.S. will accept. The official cap is set at 30,000 for the year, the lowest figure since the current refugee resettlement program began in 1980.
That's forcing refugee resettlement offices across the country to close or suspend their services. And the administration is weighing further cuts to the refugee program next year.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
VqufgYGpRkGzzpRI
|
politics
|
Jonah Goldberg
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/deep-state-canard-spreads-partisan-talking-point/
|
The ‘Deep State’ Canard Spreads
|
2019-11-29
|
Kyle Smith, Sarah Schutte, David Harsanyi, Matthew Continetti, Nicholas Frankovich, Jim Geraghty, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Victor Davis Hanson
|
It ’ s become a partisan talking point in defense of almost everything President Trump does .
I ’ d wager that until fairly recently , few people had ever heard the phrase . I ’ d also bet that roughly 99 percent of those who fling the term around have no idea that it ’ s borrowed from Turkish politics .
The idea of a deep state , or “ state within a state , ” is that there are undemocratic forces within the permanent bureaucracy , the military , and the intelligence services who pursue their own interests rather than those of the people or the agenda that voters desire .
Depending on the country in question , deep states are not only real , they are sometimes as devious as people fear . At various times in the history of the Soviet Union , the secret police ran the government and the Communist party for its own benefit .
In the democratic West , the civil service and other bureaucratic institutions often accumulate enough power and arrogance that they see themselves as immune to the desires of voters or politicians . Prior to a few years ago , some people would call this sort of thing the “ deep state , ” and depending on the context , that was fine .
But now it ’ s become a partisan talking point in defense of almost everything President Trump does . It ’ s a warrant for widespread paranoia and hysteria . People talk as if we live in a Jason Bourne or James Bond movie , with secret deep state organizations plotting to overthrow the government or something .
Impeachment , we ’ re told almost every day , is a “ deep state coup. ” When the Turkish military launched a “ deep state coup , ” it launched an actual , you know , “ coup ” — which the dictionary still defines as an extralegal violent overthrow of a government .
The sort of coup that some on the right are talking about — which , if successful , would result in the vice president lawfully becoming president and Trump ’ s Cabinet staying in place — isn ’ t a coup . It ’ s not particularly deep state-ish either , given that the people leading it are democratically elected legislators publicly following not just the rules but also the wishes of the people who elected them . ( You can be sure that if Democratic voters weren ’ t behind the effort , people such as Representative Adam Schiff wouldn ’ t be pushing impeachment . )
In fairness , impeachment arouses partisan excess , and it ’ s no surprise when partisan rhetoric gets heated . Democrats called the effort to impeach Bill Clinton a coup . And they were wrong , too .
The problem is that this deep state contagion has spread far outside of impeachment .
“ Just this week , I stuck up for three great warriors against the Deep State , ” Trump declared Tuesday night at a rally in Florida .
The crowd loved it , of course . But think about what Trump is saying . The three warriors Trump was referring to were three men charged with committing war crimes . He pardoned all three . One hadn ’ t even received a trial yet . Many great warriors put their careers in peril to testify against the two other men .
Reasonable people can disagree on the specifics of the acts , but military law experts are uniformly aghast at Trump ’ s decision . According to Military.com , Trump ’ s move has “ blown a hole in the military justice system and will make it harder to prosecute future war crimes , military law experts say . ”
Whatever you think of that , the idea that the military justice system is part of the deep state because it sought to enforce prohibitions against war crimes is grotesque . Military leadership wasn ’ t behaving like a bunch of Turkish generals conspiring against the elected government for their own selfish ends .
If anything , the selfishness runs the other way . The president now wants to campaign with the “ three warriors ” for political advantage .
Indeed , the impeachment witnesses defamed as deep state operatives by Trump and his defenders testified that the president was orchestrating an effort in Ukraine for his own self-interest , not the national interest . These people weren ’ t secretly shouting “ Hail Hydra ! ” ; they were doing what they thought the law and patriotic duty required .
Deep staters are now those who follow the rules in ways inconvenient to Trump ’ s personal desires or political ambitions . It would be too confusing to say that Trump is the real deep state operative here since he was lawfully elected . But he does seem to adhere to a view of the state most famously articulated by Louis XIV : L ’ état , c ’ est moi ( I am the state ) . And any obstacle to his unfettered rule is now the deep state and by extension illegitimate .
|
(Larry Downing/Reuters)
It’s become a partisan talking point in defense of almost everything President Trump does.
The deep state is the right’s new bogeyman.
I’d wager that until fairly recently, few people had ever heard the phrase. I’d also bet that roughly 99 percent of those who fling the term around have no idea that it’s borrowed from Turkish politics.
The idea of a deep state, or “state within a state,” is that there are undemocratic forces within the permanent bureaucracy, the military, and the intelligence services who pursue their own interests rather than those of the people or the agenda that voters desire.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Depending on the country in question, deep states are not only real, they are sometimes as devious as people fear. At various times in the history of the Soviet Union, the secret police ran the government and the Communist party for its own benefit.
In the democratic West, the civil service and other bureaucratic institutions often accumulate enough power and arrogance that they see themselves as immune to the desires of voters or politicians. Prior to a few years ago, some people would call this sort of thing the “deep state,” and depending on the context, that was fine.
Advertisement
But now it’s become a partisan talking point in defense of almost everything President Trump does. It’s a warrant for widespread paranoia and hysteria. People talk as if we live in a Jason Bourne or James Bond movie, with secret deep state organizations plotting to overthrow the government or something.
Impeachment, we’re told almost every day, is a “deep state coup.” When the Turkish military launched a “deep state coup,” it launched an actual, you know, “coup” — which the dictionary still defines as an extralegal violent overthrow of a government.
Advertisement
The sort of coup that some on the right are talking about — which, if successful, would result in the vice president lawfully becoming president and Trump’s Cabinet staying in place — isn’t a coup. It’s not particularly deep state-ish either, given that the people leading it are democratically elected legislators publicly following not just the rules but also the wishes of the people who elected them. (You can be sure that if Democratic voters weren’t behind the effort, people such as Representative Adam Schiff wouldn’t be pushing impeachment.)
In fairness, impeachment arouses partisan excess, and it’s no surprise when partisan rhetoric gets heated. Democrats called the effort to impeach Bill Clinton a coup. And they were wrong, too.
Advertisement
The problem is that this deep state contagion has spread far outside of impeachment.
Advertisement
“Just this week, I stuck up for three great warriors against the Deep State,” Trump declared Tuesday night at a rally in Florida.
The crowd loved it, of course. But think about what Trump is saying. The three warriors Trump was referring to were three men charged with committing war crimes. He pardoned all three. One hadn’t even received a trial yet. Many great warriors put their careers in peril to testify against the two other men.
Reasonable people can disagree on the specifics of the acts, but military law experts are uniformly aghast at Trump’s decision. According to Military.com, Trump’s move has “blown a hole in the military justice system and will make it harder to prosecute future war crimes, military law experts say.”
Whatever you think of that, the idea that the military justice system is part of the deep state because it sought to enforce prohibitions against war crimes is grotesque. Military leadership wasn’t behaving like a bunch of Turkish generals conspiring against the elected government for their own selfish ends.
If anything, the selfishness runs the other way. The president now wants to campaign with the “three warriors” for political advantage.
Advertisement
Indeed, the impeachment witnesses defamed as deep state operatives by Trump and his defenders testified that the president was orchestrating an effort in Ukraine for his own self-interest, not the national interest. These people weren’t secretly shouting “Hail Hydra!”; they were doing what they thought the law and patriotic duty required.
Deep staters are now those who follow the rules in ways inconvenient to Trump’s personal desires or political ambitions. It would be too confusing to say that Trump is the real deep state operative here since he was lawfully elected. But he does seem to adhere to a view of the state most famously articulated by Louis XIV: L’état, c’est moi (I am the state). And any obstacle to his unfettered rule is now the deep state and by extension illegitimate.
© 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
ituwQEQSES29ihbm
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.