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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cia
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/06/us/politics/gina-haspel-cia.html
|
Trump’s Nominee for C.I.A. Director Offered to Withdraw Amid Concerns Over Past Role in Torture Program
|
2018-05-06
|
Matthew Rosenberg, Mark Landler
|
Meet Gina , a spy for over 30 years , a devoted public servant and a devotee of Johnny Cash . “ She ’ s dedicated her life to protecting our nation. ” Meet Gina , a spy for over 30 years , an overseer of torture , and a destroyer of valuable documents . “ She believes that waterboarding should be something that we use. ” This is Gina Haspel , the nominee to head the C.I.A . with two distinct storylines about her . A C.I.A . P.R . blitz aimed at bolstering her nomination tells us most of what we know about Haspel . “ Gina Haspel is the best prepared person ever to be nominated for this job. ” “ A nonpartisan person. ” “ She ’ s got a spine of steel. ” “ Her only goal is to live out the agency ’ s mission. ” The C.I.A . tells us that she joined towards the end of the Cold War . She wanted adventure and meaning in her life . We don ’ t get too much detail . We know she first deployed to Africa , then later overseas during the Gulf War . At one point she helped catch two terrorists linked to an embassy bombing . They don ’ t say where . But pretty much everything else about her 33 years at the agency is classified . And all the while , the C.I.A . says she remained a big fan of her alma mater ’ s basketball team : the University of Kentucky Wildcats . Now critics of Haspel are more concerned with what the C.I.A . isn ’ t saying about her . “ America shouldn ’ t be known for torture. ” “ She was supportive of the program. ” “ A cover-up from A to Z. ” “ A dirty past. ” After 9/11 . she managed a secret C.I.A . prison in Thailand . And at that prison she oversaw the torture of a detainee . And then , later , she helped execute an order to destroy videotapes of brutal interrogations . Here ’ s her then-boss explaining why he didn ’ t want the tapes kept : “ It would make the C.I.A . look bad. ” And it would actually , in my view , it almost destroyed the clandestine service because of it. ” The president decided to focus on ‘ good Gina. ’ Gina the trailblazer . “ Gina , by the way , who I know very well – who I worked very closely with ... ” will be the first woman director of the C.I.A. ” Critics worry that the president ’ s embrace of torture won ’ t get any pushback from Haspel . “ What do you think about waterboarding , Mr. Trump ? ” “ I said , I love it. ” “ And I ’ d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. ” “ Torture works , O.K. , folks. ” Haspel recently gave a very rare public appearance on Capitol Hill . Her aim : to woo some of her critics . She smiled and appeared approachable , more public servant than controversial public official .
|
Meet Gina, a spy for over 30 years, a devoted public servant and a devotee of Johnny Cash. “She’s dedicated her life to protecting our nation.” Meet Gina, a spy for over 30 years, an overseer of torture, and a destroyer of valuable documents. “She believes that waterboarding should be something that we use.” This is Gina Haspel, the nominee to head the C.I.A. with two distinct storylines about her. A C.I.A. P.R. blitz aimed at bolstering her nomination tells us most of what we know about Haspel. “Gina Haspel is the best prepared person ever to be nominated for this job.” “A nonpartisan person.” “She’s got a spine of steel.” “Her only goal is to live out the agency’s mission.” The C.I.A. tells us that she joined towards the end of the Cold War. She wanted adventure and meaning in her life. We don’t get too much detail. We know she first deployed to Africa, then later overseas during the Gulf War. At one point she helped catch two terrorists linked to an embassy bombing. They don’t say where. But pretty much everything else about her 33 years at the agency is classified. And all the while, the C.I.A. says she remained a big fan of her alma mater’s basketball team: the University of Kentucky Wildcats. Now critics of Haspel are more concerned with what the C.I.A. isn’t saying about her. “America shouldn’t be known for torture.” “She was supportive of the program.” “A cover-up from A to Z.” “A dirty past.” After 9/11. she managed a secret C.I.A. prison in Thailand. And at that prison she oversaw the torture of a detainee. And then, later, she helped execute an order to destroy videotapes of brutal interrogations. Here’s her then-boss explaining why he didn’t want the tapes kept: “It would make the C.I.A. look bad.” And it would actually, in my view, it almost destroyed the clandestine service because of it.” The president decided to focus on ‘good Gina.’ Gina the trailblazer. “Gina, by the way, who I know very well – who I worked very closely with...” will be the first woman director of the C.I.A.” Critics worry that the president’s embrace of torture won’t get any pushback from Haspel. “What do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump?” “I said, I love it.” “And I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” “Torture works, O.K., folks.” Haspel recently gave a very rare public appearance on Capitol Hill. Her aim: to woo some of her critics. She smiled and appeared approachable, more public servant than controversial public official.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
URNPQbcS3ZAIe6pp
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/trump-outlook/index.html
|
Trump's outlook going from bad to worse
|
2017-03-30
|
Stephen Collinson
|
( CNN ) As the White House scans Washington for a bounce-back win after the Obamacare imbroglio , the political forecast is promising only heavy weather .
An unappetizing list of looming congressional showdowns , complex , months-long legislative challenges and intractable threats to President Donald Trump 's standing threaten to make the failed health care push look like a small setback .
Approaching sagas of a potential government shutdown , raising the debt ceiling and a moment of truth in the Senate over the potential `` nuclear option '' confirmation of Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch will severely test the political alacrity of a White House already exposed by the busted bid to repeal Obamacare .
The administration is promising aggressive efforts to pass a generational tax reform bill and a bipartisan infrastructure package , though the current Washington environment suggests neither effort will be simple .
Throw in the corrosive impact that the thickening cloud of intrigue over Russia 's alleged election meddling is exerting on the White House , and add the challenges posed by the President 's own habit of detonating political explosions that damage his own standing , and it 's tough to predict the administration 's first big political win -- or how much that victory will cost .
`` Nobody ever told me that politics was going to be so much fun , '' Trump declared , perhaps ironically , at a White House reception for senators on Tuesday night .
The challenges facing the new administration are testing enough . But they appear to be compounded by the unorthodox and inexperienced West Wing staff and organizational chaos .
Almost daily , stories seep out of the administration about feuding between top officials and rival centers of power around Trump , including the camp led by political adviser Stephen Bannon and the family inner circle comprising his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka Trump , who announced Wednesday she would take an unpaid staff position
Still , Washington has a habit of writing off presidencies early on if administrations fail to get a fast start . A genuine effort by the Trump team to learn the lessons of its missteps -- and to follow through with the reboot that its public statements suggest is being contemplated -- could improve the odds of getting big things done .
`` It is a very challenging environment but I think these guys have been in office for 60 days or whatever , they have never done it before , '' said Howard Schweitzer , a former Bush administration Treasury official now with Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies . `` If they get smarter , they can turn it around . ''
At the top of the list of political messes for the Republican majority and the White House is the possibility of a government shutdown that could occur on an inauspicious date , April 29 , Trump 's 100th day in office
Congress must pass and the President must sign a spending bill that authorizes federal funding to succeed a current temporary spending bill , known as a continuing resolution , the current version of which expires on April 28 .
The process of framing a bill to do so threatens to expose exactly the same Republican Party fissures between ultra-conservative members and more moderate GOP lawmakers ripped open by the Obamacare duel .
It will also be an immediate test of House Speaker Paul Ryan 's diminished authority after he failed to unite his caucus behind an effort to fulfill the one promise -- repealing Obamacare -- that has united his party this entire decade .
Ryan admitted himself in the wreckage of the health care battle that the GOP House caucus had proven itself so far unsuited to government and retained many of the characteristics of an opposition party .
The key to putting off a government shutdown , and to making progress on other key agenda items relies on Ryan convincing his troops to evolve .
`` I do n't want us to become a factionalized majority . I want us to become a unified majority , and that means we 're going to sit down and talk things out until we get there and that 's exactly what we 're doing , '' Ryan said Tuesday .
To that end , Ryan made clear that the only appropriate way to defund Planned Parenthood -- a key issue of principle for conservatives -- is on a future bill like health care , rather than on federal funding legislation .
Such an approach is designed to ensure that the funding bill does not get weighed down with controversial measures that could delay or kill it .
Meanwhile , Arizona Sen. John McCain vowed Tuesday to do everything he could to force lawmakers to increase military spending in the bill , setting up another fault line .
JUST WATCHED White House moves on from health care failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH White House moves on from health care failure 02:23
Keeping the government running is an obligation -- but Republicans , especially the President , are eager to dispel the unflattering reviews of their performance on Obamacare by moving onto another goal , tax reform .
The effort is likely to be even more complicated than health care , given the complexity of the tax code and the vested interests it touches that are vitally important to the outside lobby groups that turn the screws on lawmakers .
`` If you think this is complicated and controversial , wait until we get into tax reform , '' Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart , R-Florida , said of the health care process .
Tax reform is also going to take time -- and is not therefore the kind of issue that is likely to produce a quick win to turn around a White House rough patch .
The complications of tax reform and funding the government are one reason why the White House is looking for a clean win on the confirmation of Gorsuch -- a process that could be completed by the end of next week .
Yet even this victory will exert a price . If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is forced by Democratic opposition to invoke the nuclear option -- changing Senate rules to get around a Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees -- poisoned feelings could linger in the chamber for years .
Such a step would inflame passions even more in polarized Washington and likely leave Democrats even more resistant to crossing the aisle and working with Trump . Already , there was little incentive to support a struggling GOP President , given his zeal in repealing the Democratic legacy item , Obamacare .
JUST WATCHED Poll : Trump approval ratings hit new low Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Poll : Trump approval ratings hit new low 01:05
Many Democrats are still fuming over what they consider the `` stolen '' nomination of President Barack Obama 's Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland last year . And Trump 's low approval rating -- 36 % in the latest Gallup tracking poll and rock bottom reputation among Democratic voters , means Democrats have little political room to work with Trump even if they wanted to .
Trump , however , has reacted to the defeat of health care by predicting that Democrats will be willing to work with him down the road , especially if Obamacare spirals into decline . Ryan , in turn , is using that prospect to warn his own party about the risk of remaining divided .
`` What I am worried about is ... that if we do n't do this then he will just go work with Democrats to try and change Obamacare -- that 's hardly a conservative thing , '' Ryan told CBS 's `` This Morning '' Thursday .
From its first hours , the administration has been hounded by the question of whether Trump campaign aides cooperated with an alleged Russian effort to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump .
Pressure builds week by week , as revelations emerge over meetings between people in Trump 's orbit and Russian officials -- and as the President 's aides and former aides get drawn deeper into congressional probes into the affair .
This week , Kushner said he would appear before the committee , after it was revealed he met the head of a Russian development bank closely linked to President Vladimir Putin .
While the White House is being accused of trying to knock the House investigation , led by under fire intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes , off-track , it faces a greater challenge with a parallel Senate probe .
The Republican and Democratic leaders of that effort , Sens . Richard Burr and Mark Warner , appeared together on Wednesday to pledge a complete and organized investigation -- implicitly drawing a contrast with the chaotic effort that has been rocked by mistrust and partisan wrangling in the House .
JUST WATCHED Burr on Russia : Saying it does n't make it fact Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Burr on Russia : Saying it does n't make it fact 01:23
`` It 's important for us at least , and I think for all of us here to remember to not lose sight about what this investigation is about : an outside , foreign adversary effectively sought to hijack our most critical democratic process , the election of a president , '' Warner said on Thursday .
`` We 're here to assure you and more importantly , the American people who are watching and listening , that we will get to the bottom of this . ''
If those lofty goals are realized , the Russia issue could get even more difficult for the White House , as it searches in vain for low-hanging political fruit following a fraught start to the President 's tenure .
|
(CNN) As the White House scans Washington for a bounce-back win after the Obamacare imbroglio, the political forecast is promising only heavy weather.
An unappetizing list of looming congressional showdowns, complex, months-long legislative challenges and intractable threats to President Donald Trump's standing threaten to make the failed health care push look like a small setback.
Approaching sagas of a potential government shutdown, raising the debt ceiling and a moment of truth in the Senate over the potential "nuclear option" confirmation of Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch will severely test the political alacrity of a White House already exposed by the busted bid to repeal Obamacare.
The administration is promising aggressive efforts to pass a generational tax reform bill and a bipartisan infrastructure package, though the current Washington environment suggests neither effort will be simple.
Throw in the corrosive impact that the thickening cloud of intrigue over Russia's alleged election meddling is exerting on the White House, and add the challenges posed by the President's own habit of detonating political explosions that damage his own standing, and it's tough to predict the administration's first big political win -- or how much that victory will cost.
"Nobody ever told me that politics was going to be so much fun," Trump declared, perhaps ironically, at a White House reception for senators on Tuesday night.
The challenges facing the new administration are testing enough. But they appear to be compounded by the unorthodox and inexperienced West Wing staff and organizational chaos.
Almost daily, stories seep out of the administration about feuding between top officials and rival centers of power around Trump, including the camp led by political adviser Stephen Bannon and the family inner circle comprising his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka Trump, who announced Wednesday she would take an unpaid staff position
Still, Washington has a habit of writing off presidencies early on if administrations fail to get a fast start. A genuine effort by the Trump team to learn the lessons of its missteps -- and to follow through with the reboot that its public statements suggest is being contemplated -- could improve the odds of getting big things done.
"It is a very challenging environment but I think these guys have been in office for 60 days or whatever, they have never done it before," said Howard Schweitzer, a former Bush administration Treasury official now with Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies. "If they get smarter, they can turn it around."
Already, a shutdown showdown
At the top of the list of political messes for the Republican majority and the White House is the possibility of a government shutdown that could occur on an inauspicious date, April 29, Trump's 100th day in office
Congress must pass and the President must sign a spending bill that authorizes federal funding to succeed a current temporary spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, the current version of which expires on April 28.
The process of framing a bill to do so threatens to expose exactly the same Republican Party fissures between ultra-conservative members and more moderate GOP lawmakers ripped open by the Obamacare duel.
It will also be an immediate test of House Speaker Paul Ryan's diminished authority after he failed to unite his caucus behind an effort to fulfill the one promise -- repealing Obamacare -- that has united his party this entire decade.
Ryan admitted himself in the wreckage of the health care battle that the GOP House caucus had proven itself so far unsuited to government and retained many of the characteristics of an opposition party.
The key to putting off a government shutdown, and to making progress on other key agenda items relies on Ryan convincing his troops to evolve.
"I don't want us to become a factionalized majority. I want us to become a unified majority, and that means we're going to sit down and talk things out until we get there and that's exactly what we're doing," Ryan said Tuesday.
To that end, Ryan made clear that the only appropriate way to defund Planned Parenthood -- a key issue of principle for conservatives -- is on a future bill like health care, rather than on federal funding legislation.
Such an approach is designed to ensure that the funding bill does not get weighed down with controversial measures that could delay or kill it.
Meanwhile, Arizona Sen. John McCain vowed Tuesday to do everything he could to force lawmakers to increase military spending in the bill, setting up another fault line.
Tax reform isn't a quick win, either
JUST WATCHED White House moves on from health care failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH White House moves on from health care failure 02:23
Keeping the government running is an obligation -- but Republicans, especially the President, are eager to dispel the unflattering reviews of their performance on Obamacare by moving onto another goal, tax reform.
The effort is likely to be even more complicated than health care, given the complexity of the tax code and the vested interests it touches that are vitally important to the outside lobby groups that turn the screws on lawmakers.
"If you think this is complicated and controversial, wait until we get into tax reform," Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart , R-Florida, said of the health care process.
Tax reform is also going to take time -- and is not therefore the kind of issue that is likely to produce a quick win to turn around a White House rough patch.
Nuclear over Gorsuch?
The complications of tax reform and funding the government are one reason why the White House is looking for a clean win on the confirmation of Gorsuch -- a process that could be completed by the end of next week.
Yet even this victory will exert a price. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is forced by Democratic opposition to invoke the nuclear option -- changing Senate rules to get around a Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees -- poisoned feelings could linger in the chamber for years.
Such a step would inflame passions even more in polarized Washington and likely leave Democrats even more resistant to crossing the aisle and working with Trump. Already, there was little incentive to support a struggling GOP President, given his zeal in repealing the Democratic legacy item, Obamacare.
JUST WATCHED Poll: Trump approval ratings hit new low Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Poll: Trump approval ratings hit new low 01:05
Many Democrats are still fuming over what they consider the "stolen" nomination of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland last year. And Trump's low approval rating -- 36% in the latest Gallup tracking poll and rock bottom reputation among Democratic voters, means Democrats have little political room to work with Trump even if they wanted to.
Trump, however, has reacted to the defeat of health care by predicting that Democrats will be willing to work with him down the road, especially if Obamacare spirals into decline. Ryan, in turn, is using that prospect to warn his own party about the risk of remaining divided.
"What I am worried about is ... that if we don't do this then he will just go work with Democrats to try and change Obamacare -- that's hardly a conservative thing," Ryan told CBS's "This Morning" Thursday.
Russia isn't going away, either
From its first hours, the administration has been hounded by the question of whether Trump campaign aides cooperated with an alleged Russian effort to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump.
Pressure builds week by week, as revelations emerge over meetings between people in Trump's orbit and Russian officials -- and as the President's aides and former aides get drawn deeper into congressional probes into the affair.
This week, Kushner said he would appear before the committee, after it was revealed he met the head of a Russian development bank closely linked to President Vladimir Putin.
While the White House is being accused of trying to knock the House investigation, led by under fire intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, off-track, it faces a greater challenge with a parallel Senate probe.
The Republican and Democratic leaders of that effort, Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner, appeared together on Wednesday to pledge a complete and organized investigation -- implicitly drawing a contrast with the chaotic effort that has been rocked by mistrust and partisan wrangling in the House.
JUST WATCHED Burr on Russia: Saying it doesn't make it fact Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Burr on Russia: Saying it doesn't make it fact 01:23
"It's important for us at least, and I think for all of us here to remember to not lose sight about what this investigation is about: an outside, foreign adversary effectively sought to hijack our most critical democratic process, the election of a president," Warner said on Thursday.
"We're here to assure you and more importantly, the American people who are watching and listening, that we will get to the bottom of this."
If those lofty goals are realized, the Russia issue could get even more difficult for the White House, as it searches in vain for low-hanging political fruit following a fraught start to the President's tenure.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
wEUaOQV5zbj0hOA5
|
culture
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/355399-trump-ramps-up-the-culture-war
|
Trump ramps up the culture war
|
2017-10-15
|
President Trump is expanding the culture wars , launching new attacks against institutions that he views as liberal , elitist or both .
With his agenda stalled in Congress and his poll numbers sagging , Trump has kept his base engaged and the left inflamed by escalating feuds with key figures in sports , entertainment , tech and media , effectively dragging politics into every corner of public life .
Trump ’ s aim is straightforward : To convince voters that there is a privileged class that scoffs at their patriotism and cares more about political correctness and diversity than ordinary Americans , their traditions and their economic plight .
The president ’ s allies say he ’ s guided in this fight by the same instincts that got him elected . Trump ’ s relentless attacks , they say , cut to the heart of Trump ’ s appeal. “ The reality is that , to the average American voter , esoteric policy is not very digestible , ” said Sam Nunberg , a former Trump aide . “ But culture is policy and the president understands that. ” Democrats argue that the president is doing lasting damage to the country by needlessly stoking divisions at a time of extreme political polarization . They believe time is on their side as older , white voters give way to a more diverse and socially liberal electorate as millennials come of age. “ If he is scoring political points off these culture war issues in the short run , it 's only with a base that is now starting to crack , ” said David Brock , a top Democratic operative . “ Exploiting these divisions is both wrong and , in the longer run , a losing proposition politically given that the broader electorate is more tolerant and diverse. ” Past presidents have similarly stoked cultural divisions . Former President Obama waded into high-profile police brutality cases and once complained about people who “ cling to guns or religion. ” Former President George W. Bush leveraged anti-gay marriage sentiment among evangelical voters to boost turnout on his way to reelection in 2004.But Trump ’ s culture wars differ from his predecessors in both their ferocity and frequency.The president stirs the pot on a near-daily basis at rallies , from the Oval Office and over Twitter , attracting accusations from his critics that he ’ s obsessed with winning empty fights with celebrities because he ’ s been unable to achieve meaningful legislative reforms.And the unabashed ferocity with which Trump has gone after his targets is evidence to his critics that he doesn ’ t care if he alienates or annoys large numbers of Americans , as long as his base sticks by him.Over the past week alone , Trump and his allies have kept the fires burning with fights against the NFL , ESPN , Facebook , late-night comedians and the news media , provoking retaliatory remarks from athletes , anchors , rappers and comics.Following Trump ’ s lead on the issue , Vice President Pence staged a walkout at an Indianapolis Colts football game because players kneeled in protest during the national anthem.Some in the media credited Trump with a culture wars victory when , days later , NFL chief Roger Goodell said in a memo to players that he believes they should stand.Trump took a victory lap on Twitter , but the NFL quickly pushed back on the president ’ s claim that the commissioner had demanded players stand for the anthem.Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan , a top Trump donor and supporter during the 2016 election , accused Trump of muddying the issue and called him a “ divider. ” NFL players initially began kneeling for the national anthem out of protest of racial injustices and police brutality , but Trump has effectively turned the debate into one about patriotism and respect for the country and the troops.While polls show the public does not approve of Trump ’ s handling of the issue , most agree that players should stand during the national anthem.The NFL has seen its ratings decline as the controversy has grown . But the sports league is only one of several weakened or unpopular cultural institutions that Trump has recently targeted for attack.Trump has reignited his feud with ESPN , which had already seen a ratings decline as consumers cut the cord , after the network suspended anchor Jemele Hill , an African-American woman who had called Trump a white supremacist.Trump called Hill out by name to his 40 million Twitter followers , saying that she ’ s the reason ESPN ’ s ratings have “ tanked. ” That came during a week of escalating and increasingly specific threats against the news media , an industry that polls dismally . Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that it ’ s “ disgusting ” that the press gets to write whatever it wants . The president also threatened to pull NBC News ’ s broadcasting license for publishing a story he claimed was false.On Friday , Trump again dived headlong into the culture wars at the Values Voter Summit , a yearly gathering of Christian conservatives in Washington , D.C . There , he accused “ politically correct ” liberals of waging a war against American traditions , like the celebration of Christmas .
Now , Trump has Facebook in his crosshairs , accusing the social media giant of being biased against him . Facebook is in the midst of a massive public relations crisis and has attracted the ire of lawmakers and liberals alike over allegations that Russians used it as a tool during the election to spread fake news and negative ads about Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonDemocrats worry they do n't have right candidate to beat Trump Krystal Ball credits Gabbard 's upswing in 2020 race to 'feckless ' Democratic establishment Outsider candidates outpoll insider candidates MORE .
Tired of being mocked on late-night comedy shows , Trump has demanded equal airtime from “ unfunny ” comics . And Trump ’ s sons have accused hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert of burying the exploding sexual assault scandal around Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein , a major Democratic donor .
To many on the left , Trump ’ s culture war instincts stem from his vanity and the effort to ensure that his core supporters stay energized .
“ Somewhere along the line the president recognized that he only wants to be popular with his base , ” said Sam Fulwood III , a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a columnist for ThinkProgress . “ He ’ s notoriously thin-skinned and egotistical and knows his supporters will stomp and go crazy when they hear things like this . I don ’ t know that it ’ s a win for him in the real world , but in Trump World I guess it ’ s a win . ”
But some Democrats are wary of a president who has successfully capitalized before on liberal and media blind spots .
They say they ’ re not underestimating Trump ’ s ability to turn hot-button social issues into political gains , even as the president struggles with a historically low approval rating and Washington Republicans express frustration over the never-ending controversies and distractions .
“ I ’ m not one to attribute some grand strategic design to Trump or [ former White House chief strategist Stephen ] Bannon and I don ’ t assume they know more than we do , but a little bit of humility is warranted on the left and by the political establishment , ” said Gara LaMarche , the president of the Democracy Alliance , a leading network of liberal donors .
“ At every point we thought Trump couldn ’ t win this election and he did . You would ’ ve lost a lot of money betting against Trump ’ s instincts in that respect . I think in general his views are held by only a minority in American society but he ’ s good at controlling the conversation . By design or by instinct , it ’ s possible he ’ s resonating more than we think . ”
|
President Trump is expanding the culture wars, launching new attacks against institutions that he views as liberal, elitist or both.
With his agenda stalled in Congress and his poll numbers sagging, Trump has kept his base engaged and the left inflamed by escalating feuds with key figures in sports, entertainment, tech and media, effectively dragging politics into every corner of public life.
Trump’s aim is straightforward: To convince voters that there is a privileged class that scoffs at their patriotism and cares more about political correctness and diversity than ordinary Americans, their traditions and their economic plight.
ADVERTISEMENT
The president’s allies say he’s guided in this fight by the same instincts that got him elected. Trump’s relentless attacks, they say, cut to the heart of Trump’s appeal.“The reality is that, to the average American voter, esoteric policy is not very digestible,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide. “But culture is policy and the president understands that.”Democrats argue that the president is doing lasting damage to the country by needlessly stoking divisions at a time of extreme political polarization. They believe time is on their side as older, white voters give way to a more diverse and socially liberal electorate as millennials come of age.“If he is scoring political points off these culture war issues in the short run, it's only with a base that is now starting to crack,” said David Brock, a top Democratic operative. “Exploiting these divisions is both wrong and, in the longer run, a losing proposition politically given that the broader electorate is more tolerant and diverse.”Past presidents have similarly stoked cultural divisions. Former President Obama waded into high-profile police brutality cases and once complained about people who “cling to guns or religion.” Former President George W. Bush leveraged anti-gay marriage sentiment among evangelical voters to boost turnout on his way to reelection in 2004.But Trump’s culture wars differ from his predecessors in both their ferocity and frequency.The president stirs the pot on a near-daily basis at rallies, from the Oval Office and over Twitter, attracting accusations from his critics that he’s obsessed with winning empty fights with celebrities because he’s been unable to achieve meaningful legislative reforms.And the unabashed ferocity with which Trump has gone after his targets is evidence to his critics that he doesn’t care if he alienates or annoys large numbers of Americans, as long as his base sticks by him.Over the past week alone, Trump and his allies have kept the fires burning with fights against the NFL, ESPN, Facebook, late-night comedians and the news media, provoking retaliatory remarks from athletes, anchors, rappers and comics.Following Trump’s lead on the issue, Vice President Pence staged a walkout at an Indianapolis Colts football game because players kneeled in protest during the national anthem.Some in the media credited Trump with a culture wars victory when, days later, NFL chief Roger Goodell said in a memo to players that he believes they should stand.Trump took a victory lap on Twitter, but the NFL quickly pushed back on the president’s claim that the commissioner had demanded players stand for the anthem.Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan, a top Trump donor and supporter during the 2016 election, accused Trump of muddying the issue and called him a “divider.”NFL players initially began kneeling for the national anthem out of protest of racial injustices and police brutality, but Trump has effectively turned the debate into one about patriotism and respect for the country and the troops.While polls show the public does not approve of Trump’s handling of the issue, most agree that players should stand during the national anthem.The NFL has seen its ratings decline as the controversy has grown. But the sports league is only one of several weakened or unpopular cultural institutions that Trump has recently targeted for attack.Trump has reignited his feud with ESPN, which had already seen a ratings decline as consumers cut the cord, after the network suspended anchor Jemele Hill, an African-American woman who had called Trump a white supremacist.Trump called Hill out by name to his 40 million Twitter followers, saying that she’s the reason ESPN’s ratings have “tanked.”That came during a week of escalating and increasingly specific threats against the news media, an industry that polls dismally. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that it’s “disgusting” that the press gets to write whatever it wants. The president also threatened to pull NBC News’s broadcasting license for publishing a story he claimed was false.On Friday, Trump again dived headlong into the culture wars at the Values Voter Summit, a yearly gathering of Christian conservatives in Washington, D.C. There, he accused “politically correct” liberals of waging a war against American traditions, like the celebration of Christmas.
“We’re saying Merry Christmas again,” Trump said.
Now, Trump has Facebook in his crosshairs, accusing the social media giant of being biased against him. Facebook is in the midst of a massive public relations crisis and has attracted the ire of lawmakers and liberals alike over allegations that Russians used it as a tool during the election to spread fake news and negative ads about Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonDemocrats worry they don't have right candidate to beat Trump Krystal Ball credits Gabbard's upswing in 2020 race to 'feckless' Democratic establishment Outsider candidates outpoll insider candidates MORE.
Tired of being mocked on late-night comedy shows, Trump has demanded equal airtime from “unfunny” comics. And Trump’s sons have accused hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert of burying the exploding sexual assault scandal around Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, a major Democratic donor.
To many on the left, Trump’s culture war instincts stem from his vanity and the effort to ensure that his core supporters stay energized.
“Somewhere along the line the president recognized that he only wants to be popular with his base,” said Sam Fulwood III, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a columnist for ThinkProgress. “He’s notoriously thin-skinned and egotistical and knows his supporters will stomp and go crazy when they hear things like this. I don’t know that it’s a win for him in the real world, but in Trump World I guess it’s a win.”
But some Democrats are wary of a president who has successfully capitalized before on liberal and media blind spots.
They say they’re not underestimating Trump’s ability to turn hot-button social issues into political gains, even as the president struggles with a historically low approval rating and Washington Republicans express frustration over the never-ending controversies and distractions.
“I’m not one to attribute some grand strategic design to Trump or [former White House chief strategist Stephen] Bannon and I don’t assume they know more than we do, but a little bit of humility is warranted on the left and by the political establishment,” said Gara LaMarche, the president of the Democracy Alliance, a leading network of liberal donors.
“At every point we thought Trump couldn’t win this election and he did. You would’ve lost a lot of money betting against Trump’s instincts in that respect. I think in general his views are held by only a minority in American society but he’s good at controlling the conversation. By design or by instinct, it’s possible he’s resonating more than we think.”
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
u6Wbh9CENzP2fBzQ
|
|
politics
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/impeachment-2
|
Impeachment
|
“ The prospect of impeaching Trump for all of his impeachable misdeeds is daunting , simply because there are so many of them . But his misconduct can not be ignored simply for the sake of political convenience … “ Polls suggest that in the partisan media landscape , many voters ’ opinions have already calcified , but it remains likely that a full and public accounting of Trump ’ s copious wrongdoing , broadcast on television and covered in detail by the media , could change minds in a way that an abrupt party-line vote on a narrow and esoteric set of issues might not . Trump ’ s violations of the emoluments clause alone would probably provide enough fodder for hearings that could last well into the summer , a political and media event that might drive home to the American people the extent of his corruption and the gravity of the 2020 vote. ” Moira Donegan , The Guardian
Others posit that “ To make clear the full gravity of what Trump tried to do in Ukraine , Democrats need to demonstrate that it was part of a pattern … public opinion on impeachment is unlikely to move much no matter what Democrats do . Nevertheless , they ’ d be mad to let centrist trepidation stop them from making the strongest possible case for Trump ’ s removal . Doing that requires a willingness to put Trump ’ s Ukraine corruption in context. ” Michelle Goldberg , New York Times
Many argue that “ The Democrats would be wise to focus narrowly on Ukraine . Focused impeachment articles would not detract from the power of the charges against Mr. Trump . They would be more persuasive to the many Americans who hesitated to support impeachment before the Ukraine affair emerged — a group that includes Ms. Pelosi and many other top Democrats… the current impeachment process enjoys a legitimacy that it would not otherwise have if Democrats had jumped to impeach based on Mr. Mueller ’ s findings alone . That Ms. Pelosi resisted impeachment for so long lends credibility to the argument that Mr. Trump ’ s conduct toward Ukraine was not just very bad but unique and unacceptable. ” Editorial Board , Washington Post
“ If Mr. Trump is so clear in his own mind that he didn ’ t try to pressure the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 election , why won ’ t he send the secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , to testify under oath that there was no quid pro quo ? Instead , he has issued a blanket refusal to allow officials of his administration to testify or submit documents demanded by Congress… the people clearly need to hear from material witnesses like Mr. Pompeo and the former national security adviser , John Bolton , both of whom have been said by sworn witnesses to have firsthand knowledge of whether President Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to help him win the 2020 election . Their silence is its own form of negligence toward the public ’ s trust. ” Editorial Board , New York Times
“ Witness after witness testified that the president held up desperately needed , congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to extort a personal political favor for himself… [ It is ] highly likely that Trump would be — will be — acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate , and that , rightly or wrongly , he would point to that in his reelection campaign as exoneration . But those concerns must yield to the overwhelming evidence that Trump perverted U.S. foreign policy for his own political gain . That sort of misconduct is outrageous and corrosive of democracy . It can ’ t be ignored by the House , and it merits a full trial by the Senate on whether to remove him from office. ” Editorial Board , Los Angeles Times
“ When Burisma announced [ Hunter ] Biden ’ s appointment to its board in the spring of 2014 , every media outlet under the sun covered the news… were Trump or congressional Republicans actually concerned about corruption in Ukraine , they had years to say something about it . That they ’ re only now speaking up proves perhaps as well as anything that the president ’ s pressure on Ukraine was about nothing but extorting a foreign country to interfere in U.S. politics for Trump ’ s political benefit. ” James Downie , Washington Post
“ Election-related bribery thwarts the very process by which voters can normally check corruption : voting the bums out… The solution to election corruption can not be a corrupt election . Election interference by a public official must instead be met with impeachment-like removal—it ’ s the best way to combat the compounded corruptive threat of bribery aimed at skewing the electoral process. ” Soren J. Schmidt , The Atlantic
The right is critical of impeachment , arguing that it will be politically harmful for Democrats , and condemns Congressman Schiff ’ s decision to release the phone records .
The right is critical of impeachment , arguing that it will be politically harmful for Democrats , and condemns Congressman Schiff ’ s decision to release the phone records .
“ The nation has been watching this drama over two months . How many people do you know who say , ‘ You know , I was on the fence about Trump until I found out about this Ukraine thing . Now I ’ m convinced : He has to be impeached ’ ? I ’ m betting few , if any , Americans think that way . If you believe the president should be ousted because of Ukraine , you probably thought he should be ousted before we heard about Ukraine…
“ On the other hand , if you ’ re convinced that Trump is Trump , for good and ill ; that Democrats have never come to terms with the election of a tempestuous , norm-resistant president who is unpredictable but leans right ( or at least Republican ) on major policy matters ; and that Ukraine is just the latest case of Trump being the Trump we knew he was when the public elected him , you probably didn ’ t want him impeached before and don ’ t want him impeached now . ”
“ According to a new YouGov poll , net support for removing the president from office is down to two points among registered voters . Among likely voters , it ’ s doubtless less than that . Among likely voters in battleground states , the numbers are surely even worse for Dems . In fact , nearly as many registered voters in the poll said that Trump ’ s conduct towards Ukraine was no different from how presidents normally conduct foreign policy as voters who said otherwise…
“ The real worry for Dems is that swing voters who took a chance on electing a Democratic House last fall will conclude that this is all Pelosi and the rest of them really care about . They hate Trump , they wanted to embarrass Trump , and that ’ s all they ’ re good for . The Do-Nothing Democrats ! Better to have Republicans in charge of government since at least then they can pass stuff ! ”
“ Pelosi is speaker today because in 2018 Democrats were able to convince voters in 31 House districts Donald Trump carried two years before to defect and vote for them . Democrats need these voters to stay in their column in 2020 if they are to hold onto the House and win back the White House But in key swing states , large majorities of these 2018 defectors now say they plan to back Trump again in 2020… Now , Pelosi is adding to [ her party ’ s ] woes by forcing [ moderate Democrats ] to vote to recommend the removal of a president that voters in their districts say they plan to reelect…
“ Voters in these Trump districts are already frustrated with their Democratic representatives . They won on promises to work with the president to address issues like health care , prescription drug prices , infrastructure and trade . None of that is getting done , thanks to Democrats ’ focus on impeachment… while [ Pelosi ] can strong-arm the moderates in her caucus , she can ’ t strong-arm the voters in their districts . Her decision to move forward with impeachment means that many of those 31 Democrats seem destined to lose in November . ”
“ To be effective , [ the Democrats ’ legal witnesses ] needed to show lofty objectivity . Instead , we got hours of Pamela Karlan , a Stanford professor , who waxed rhetorical… There was also Noah Feldman , a Harvard professor , who suggested that failure to impeach Trump would mean America was a monarchy or dictatorship . The kind of monarchy or dictatorship where , er , voters will decide in less than a year whether to keep or replace the dictator , and if they keep him around , he 's term-limited out of office four years after that… The fact that Democrats and the # Resistance have cited perhaps a dozen different reasons to impeach Trump makes it clear to reasonable people ( including those who think Trump behaved inappropriately ) that Ukraine is just the latest stretch justification for an unwavering determination to destroy the president . ”
Regarding the release of the phone records , “ if your position is that former Hill columnist John Solomon was smearing former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and pushing a flawed Ukraine narrative , feel free not to read his work anymore . Feel free , in fact , to make a case that his work is conspiratorial rubbish . But Solomon isn ’ t under criminal investigation for bad journalism , and he wasn ’ t a witness in the inquiry . It ’ s none of Schiff ’ s business whom Solomon speaks to over the phone . He is free to call Lev Parnas , or whomever else he pleases , as often as he pleases… what possible national-security concerns would justify unmasking [ these calls ] ? ”
“ If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday—shutting down about 6 percent of world oil production—imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy . In recent decades , the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment . Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors ? … the nation does not want another war . How we avoid it , however , is becoming difficult to see . John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing , but his soul is marching on . ”
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 . ”
|
“The prospect of impeaching Trump for all of his impeachable misdeeds is daunting, simply because there are so many of them. But his misconduct cannot be ignored simply for the sake of political convenience … “Polls suggest that in the partisan media landscape, many voters’ opinions have already calcified, but it remains likely that a full and public accounting of Trump’s copious wrongdoing, broadcast on television and covered in detail by the media, could change minds in a way that an abrupt party-line vote on a narrow and esoteric set of issues might not. Trump’s violations of the emoluments clause alone would probably provide enough fodder for hearings that could last well into the summer, a political and media event that might drive home to the American people the extent of his corruption and the gravity of the 2020 vote.” Moira Donegan, The Guardian
Others posit that “To make clear the full gravity of what Trump tried to do in Ukraine, Democrats need to demonstrate that it was part of a pattern … public opinion on impeachment is unlikely to move much no matter what Democrats do. Nevertheless, they’d be mad to let centrist trepidation stop them from making the strongest possible case for Trump’s removal. Doing that requires a willingness to put Trump’s Ukraine corruption in context.” Michelle Goldberg, New York Times
Many argue that “The Democrats would be wise to focus narrowly on Ukraine. Focused impeachment articles would not detract from the power of the charges against Mr. Trump. They would be more persuasive to the many Americans who hesitated to support impeachment before the Ukraine affair emerged — a group that includes Ms. Pelosi and many other top Democrats… the current impeachment process enjoys a legitimacy that it would not otherwise have if Democrats had jumped to impeach based on Mr. Mueller’s findings alone. That Ms. Pelosi resisted impeachment for so long lends credibility to the argument that Mr. Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine was not just very bad but unique and unacceptable.” Editorial Board, Washington Post
“If Mr. Trump is so clear in his own mind that he didn’t try to pressure the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 election, why won’t he send the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to testify under oath that there was no quid pro quo? Instead, he has issued a blanket refusal to allow officials of his administration to testify or submit documents demanded by Congress… the people clearly need to hear from material witnesses like Mr. Pompeo and the former national security adviser, John Bolton , both of whom have been said by sworn witnesses to have firsthand knowledge of whether President Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to help him win the 2020 election. Their silence is its own form of negligence toward the public’s trust.” Editorial Board, New York Times
“Witness after witness testified that the president held up desperately needed, congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to extort a personal political favor for himself… [It is] highly likely that Trump would be — will be — acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, and that, rightly or wrongly, he would point to that in his reelection campaign as exoneration. But those concerns must yield to the overwhelming evidence that Trump perverted U.S. foreign policy for his own political gain. That sort of misconduct is outrageous and corrosive of democracy. It can’t be ignored by the House , and it merits a full trial by the Senate on whether to remove him from office.” Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times
“When Burisma announced [Hunter] Biden’s appointment to its board in the spring of 2014, every media outlet under the sun covered the news… were Trump or congressional Republicans actually concerned about corruption in Ukraine , they had years to say something about it. That they’re only now speaking up proves perhaps as well as anything that the president’s pressure on Ukraine was about nothing but extorting a foreign country to interfere in U.S. politics for Trump’s political benefit.” James Downie, Washington Post
“Election-related bribery thwarts the very process by which voters can normally check corruption: voting the bums out… The solution to election corruption cannot be a corrupt election . Election interference by a public official must instead be met with impeachment-like removal—it’s the best way to combat the compounded corruptive threat of bribery aimed at skewing the electoral process.” Soren J. Schmidt, The Atlantic
From the Right
The right is critical of impeachment, arguing that it will be politically harmful for Democrats, and condemns Congressman Schiff’s decision to release the phone records.
From the Right
The right is critical of impeachment, arguing that it will be politically harmful for Democrats, and condemns Congressman Schiff’s decision to release the phone records.
“The nation has been watching this drama over two months. How many people do you know who say, ‘You know, I was on the fence about Trump until I found out about this Ukraine thing. Now I’m convinced: He has to be impeached’? I’m betting few, if any, Americans think that way. If you believe the president should be ousted because of Ukraine, you probably thought he should be ousted before we heard about Ukraine…
“On the other hand, if you’re convinced that Trump is Trump, for good and ill; that Democrats have never come to terms with the election of a tempestuous, norm-resistant president who is unpredictable but leans right (or at least Republican) on major policy matters; and that Ukraine is just the latest case of Trump being the Trump we knew he was when the public elected him, you probably didn’t want him impeached before and don’t want him impeached now.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
“According to a new YouGov poll, net support for removing the president from office is down to two points among registered voters. Among likely voters, it’s doubtless less than that. Among likely voters in battleground states, the numbers are surely even worse for Dems. In fact, nearly as many registered voters in the poll said that Trump’s conduct towards Ukraine was no different from how presidents normally conduct foreign policy as voters who said otherwise…
“The real worry for Dems is that swing voters who took a chance on electing a Democratic House last fall will conclude that this is all Pelosi and the rest of them really care about. They hate Trump, they wanted to embarrass Trump, and that’s all they’re good for. The Do-Nothing Democrats! Better to have Republicans in charge of government since at least then they can pass stuff!”
Allahpundit, Hot Air
“Pelosi is speaker today because in 2018 Democrats were able to convince voters in 31 House districts Donald Trump carried two years before to defect and vote for them. Democrats need these voters to stay in their column in 2020 if they are to hold onto the House and win back the White House But in key swing states, large majorities of these 2018 defectors now say they plan to back Trump again in 2020… Now, Pelosi is adding to [her party’s] woes by forcing [moderate Democrats] to vote to recommend the removal of a president that voters in their districts say they plan to reelect…
“Voters in these Trump districts are already frustrated with their Democratic representatives. They won on promises to work with the president to address issues like health care, prescription drug prices, infrastructure and trade. None of that is getting done, thanks to Democrats’ focus on impeachment… while [Pelosi] can strong-arm the moderates in her caucus, she can’t strong-arm the voters in their districts. Her decision to move forward with impeachment means that many of those 31 Democrats seem destined to lose in November.”
Mark Thiessen, Washington Post
“To be effective, [the Democrats’ legal witnesses] needed to show lofty objectivity. Instead, we got hours of Pamela Karlan, a Stanford professor, who waxed rhetorical… There was also Noah Feldman, a Harvard professor, who suggested that failure to impeach Trump would mean America was a monarchy or dictatorship. The kind of monarchy or dictatorship where, er, voters will decide in less than a year whether to keep or replace the dictator, and if they keep him around, he's term-limited out of office four years after that… The fact that Democrats and the #Resistance have cited perhaps a dozen different reasons to impeach Trump makes it clear to reasonable people (including those who think Trump behaved inappropriately) that Ukraine is just the latest stretch justification for an unwavering determination to destroy the president.”
Hugo Gordon, Washington Examiner
Regarding the release of the phone records, “if your position is that former Hill columnist John Solomon was smearing former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and pushing a flawed Ukraine narrative, feel free not to read his work anymore. Feel free, in fact, to make a case that his work is conspiratorial rubbish. But Solomon isn’t under criminal investigation for bad journalism, and he wasn’t a witness in the inquiry. It’s none of Schiff’s business whom Solomon speaks to over the phone. He is free to call Lev Parnas, or whomever else he pleases, as often as he pleases… what possible national-security concerns would justify unmasking [these calls]?”
David Harsanyi, National Review
“If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday—shutting down about 6 percent of world oil production—imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy. In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?… the nation does not want another war. How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see. John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.”
Patrick Buchanan, The American Conservative
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
|
fnrJceNUZtkvGAeq
|
||
federal_budget
|
TheBlaze.com
| 22
|
https://www.theblaze.com/news/government_waste_report_rand_paul?utm_content=bufferc534a&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tw-theblaze
|
Taxpayers paid $22M for Serbian cheese upgrades, according to government waste report
|
2019-12-01
|
Giancarlo Sopo
|
Republican Sen. Rand Paul ( Ky. ) recently published the fall edition of his Waste Report that details prodigal spending by the federal government .
According to Paul 's report , taxpayer spent $ 230 million on items ranging from $ 500,000 for an unused toilet and $ 22 million to bring Serbian cheese up to international standards , Townhall noted .
Once again , The Waste Report takes a closer look at just some of what the federal government is doing with the American people 's hard-earned money , this time including stories of it continuing to turn over so many taxpayer dollars to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority , funding research that involves hooking Zebrafish on nicotine , buying textbooks for Afghan students that are subpar or sitting in warehouses , and more in a list that totals over $ 230 million .
The report states : `` From 2003 to 2017 , according to the OIG , [ DC ] Metro spent 'approximately $ 500,000 maintaining a single self-cleaning toilet located at the Huntington Metro Station . ' ''
`` The OIG can not definitively state how much was spent because Metro lost invoices for 2007 , 2012 , 2013 , and 2014 , '' the report added . `` To make matters worse , the toilet was not user-friendly , a documented experience shared by the news shows — though it did excel at providing some background music for users . ''
The list of absurd spending items listed in the Waste Report was a payment exceeding $ 84,000 to music artist Bob Dylan for a statute for an American embassy .
Spent millions on the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority : $ 153,000,000
Funded debate and Model United Nations competitions in Afghanistan : $ 300,000
Funded research that involves hooking Zebra fish on nicotine : $ 708,466
Bought a statue from Bob Dylan for the embassy in Mozambique : $ 84,375
Studied the connection between drinking alcohol and winding up in the ER : $ 4,658,865
`` Why is the State Department buying art in the first place ? '' the report asked . Apparently , every time the State Department develops a new consulate or embassy , `` 0.5 % of the value of the construction project '' has to be allocated for the acquisition of art , regardless of how large the 0.5 % represents .
|
Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) recently published the fall edition of his Waste Report that details prodigal spending by the federal government.
According to Paul's report, taxpayer spent $230 million on items ranging from $500,000 for an unused toilet and $22 million to bring Serbian cheese up to international standards, Townhall noted.
A press release from Sen. Paul's office stated:
Once again, The Waste Report takes a closer look at just some of what the federal government is doing with the American people's hard-earned money, this time including stories of it continuing to turn over so many taxpayer dollars to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, funding research that involves hooking Zebrafish on nicotine, buying textbooks for Afghan students that are subpar or sitting in warehouses, and more in a list that totals over $230 million.
Half a million dollars for a used toilet
The report states: "From 2003 to 2017, according to the OIG, [DC] Metro spent 'approximately $500,000 maintaining a single self-cleaning toilet located at the Huntington Metro Station.'"
"The OIG cannot definitively state how much was spent because Metro lost invoices for 2007, 2012, 2013, and 2014," the report added. "To make matters worse, the toilet was not user-friendly, a documented experience shared by the news shows — though it did excel at providing some background music for users."
Taxpayers paid Bob Dylan $84,375 for a statue
The list of absurd spending items listed in the Waste Report was a payment exceeding $84,000 to music artist Bob Dylan for a statute for an American embassy.
The full list included:
Spent millions on the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority: $153,000,000
Funded debate and Model United Nations competitions in Afghanistan: $300,000
Funded research that involves hooking Zebra fish on nicotine: $708,466
Bought a statue from Bob Dylan for the embassy in Mozambique: $84,375
Studied the connection between drinking alcohol and winding up in the ER: $4,658,865
Improved the quality of Egyptian schooling: $16,000,000
Bought textbooks for Afghan students: $33,921,175
Brought Serbian cheese up to international standards: $22,000,000
"Why is the State Department buying art in the first place?" the report asked. Apparently, every time the State Department develops a new consulate or embassy, "0.5% of the value of the construction project" has to be allocated for the acquisition of art, regardless of how large the 0.5% represents.
|
www.theblaze.com
| 1right
|
v2ybopTpxIxma7UA
|
race_and_racism
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/20/341666150/with-ferguson-obama-forced-to-confront-race-yet-again
|
With Ferguson, Obama Forced To Confront Race Yet Again
|
2014-08-20
|
Scott Horsley
|
The tense situation in Ferguson , Mo. , following the shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown is another test for President Obama . He has struggled at times over how to navigate long-simmering tensions between police and the African-American community .
Obama says he understands the passions and the anger that have engulfed Ferguson over the past week and a half , but he has carefully avoided taking sides . His warnings against violent confrontation have been directed equally at the protesters and the police .
`` Ours is a nation of laws for the citizens who live under them and for the citizens who enforce them , '' he said at a news conference Monday .
That studied even-handedness disappoints some African-American observers . Paul Butler , who studies race and criminal justice at Georgetown Law school , wants to hear more outrage from the president about the conduct of a nearly all-white police force in a town that 's two-thirds black .
`` With the specter of urban insurrection in an American city that looks more like Fallujah than Ferguson , this is not the time to be detached , '' he says .
Others , however , defended Obama 's cautious approach . Joshua Dubois , who used to head the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships , says now that the Justice Department is investigating the Ferguson shooting , it 's important that the president not appear to be putting his thumb on the scale .
`` There are a lot of folks who want President Obama to be all sorts of things : an activist , a marcher , a poet , a race theorist . But in this case , I need him to be the president , '' Dubois says . `` I need him to make sure that this investigation is carried out in a full and fair way , and that that family and that community in Ferguson has closure in terms of the way the criminal justice system operates . ''
A survey by the Pew Research Center finds sharp differences in the way the shooting and the police crackdown that followed are viewed by blacks and whites and Democrats and Republicans . It 's possible that a more one-sided approach from the president would simply deepen that divide . But Butler argues that 's no reason for Obama to hold back .
`` Look , the president has his haters . And he 's always going to have his haters . I think he 's gone out of his way to try to appease them , '' Butler says . `` And that 's resulted in neglecting not just his political base , but a large sector of the American population , including African-Americans , who need his leadership on these issues . ''
Butler says he had high hopes when the first black president was elected . But Obama quickly learned the perils of speaking bluntly about race and law enforcement . Obama had been in office just six months when he was asked during a news conference about black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr . The professor had been locked out of his house and was arrested when he tried to force his way in .
`` The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home , '' Obama said .
The comment was catnip for cable TV , but the president had to backtrack just two days later : `` To the extent that my choice of words did n't illuminate but rather contributed to more media frenzy , I think that was unfortunate . ''
Obama later hosted a beer summit for the professor and the policeman . Afterward , he scarcely mentioned race for the next three years .
Until Trayvon Martin , the black Florida teenager who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer . `` If I had a son , he 'd look like Trayvon , '' Obama said . And while he was careful not to second-guess the Florida jury that acquitted the shooter , Obama spoke in unusually personal terms about the painful suspicions that nearly every young , black man is confronted with .
`` There are very few African-American men in this country who have n't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping at a department store , '' he said . `` That includes me . ''
While Obama has generally steered clear of programs designed exclusively for African-Americans , he did launch an initiative this year focused on the challenges of young black men . He conceded this week that there 's a lot to do .
`` In too many communities , too many young men of color are left behind and seen only as objects of fear . Through initiatives like My Brother 's Keeper , I 'm personally committed to changing both perception and reality , '' Obama said .
Obama has described the initiative as a long-term project . But observers like Lester Spence of Johns Hopkins University grow more impatient each time another young black man is killed in a place like Ferguson , Mo .
`` I am so tired and frustrated . And I know America 's a better place than it was . But this continues to happen ? And we 've got a black guy as the president ? You 've got to be kidding me , '' Spence says .
|
With Ferguson, Obama Forced To Confront Race Yet Again
Enlarge this image toggle caption Charles Dharapak/AP Charles Dharapak/AP
The tense situation in Ferguson, Mo., following the shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown is another test for President Obama. He has struggled at times over how to navigate long-simmering tensions between police and the African-American community.
Obama says he understands the passions and the anger that have engulfed Ferguson over the past week and a half, but he has carefully avoided taking sides. His warnings against violent confrontation have been directed equally at the protesters and the police.
"Ours is a nation of laws for the citizens who live under them and for the citizens who enforce them," he said at a news conference Monday.
That studied even-handedness disappoints some African-American observers. Paul Butler, who studies race and criminal justice at Georgetown Law school, wants to hear more outrage from the president about the conduct of a nearly all-white police force in a town that's two-thirds black.
"With the specter of urban insurrection in an American city that looks more like Fallujah than Ferguson, this is not the time to be detached," he says.
Others, however, defended Obama's cautious approach. Joshua Dubois, who used to head the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, says now that the Justice Department is investigating the Ferguson shooting, it's important that the president not appear to be putting his thumb on the scale.
"There are a lot of folks who want President Obama to be all sorts of things: an activist, a marcher, a poet, a race theorist. But in this case, I need him to be the president," Dubois says. "I need him to make sure that this investigation is carried out in a full and fair way, and that that family and that community in Ferguson has closure in terms of the way the criminal justice system operates."
A survey by the Pew Research Center finds sharp differences in the way the shooting and the police crackdown that followed are viewed by blacks and whites and Democrats and Republicans. It's possible that a more one-sided approach from the president would simply deepen that divide. But Butler argues that's no reason for Obama to hold back.
"Look, the president has his haters. And he's always going to have his haters. I think he's gone out of his way to try to appease them," Butler says. "And that's resulted in neglecting not just his political base, but a large sector of the American population, including African-Americans, who need his leadership on these issues."
Butler says he had high hopes when the first black president was elected. But Obama quickly learned the perils of speaking bluntly about race and law enforcement. Obama had been in office just six months when he was asked during a news conference about black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. The professor had been locked out of his house and was arrested when he tried to force his way in.
"The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home," Obama said.
The comment was catnip for cable TV, but the president had to backtrack just two days later: "To the extent that my choice of words didn't illuminate but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think that was unfortunate."
Obama later hosted a beer summit for the professor and the policeman. Afterward, he scarcely mentioned race for the next three years.
Until Trayvon Martin, the black Florida teenager who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said. And while he was careful not to second-guess the Florida jury that acquitted the shooter, Obama spoke in unusually personal terms about the painful suspicions that nearly every young, black man is confronted with.
"There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping at a department store," he said. "That includes me."
While Obama has generally steered clear of programs designed exclusively for African-Americans, he did launch an initiative this year focused on the challenges of young black men. He conceded this week that there's a lot to do.
"In too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and seen only as objects of fear. Through initiatives like My Brother's Keeper, I'm personally committed to changing both perception and reality," Obama said.
Obama has described the initiative as a long-term project. But observers like Lester Spence of Johns Hopkins University grow more impatient each time another young black man is killed in a place like Ferguson, Mo.
"I am so tired and frustrated. And I know America's a better place than it was. But this continues to happen? And we've got a black guy as the president? You've got to be kidding me," Spence says.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
6C45m5a3RpKDGKmp
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/02/newspaper-decision-to-out-gun-owners-sparks-all-out-battle/
|
Gunfight: Newspaper's decision to out firearms owners sparks ongoing battle
|
2013-01-02
|
Now it is the advertisers and readers of a New York newspaper who are caught in the crossfire , after its controversial decision to publish the names and addresses of gun owners in its community .
The initial story by the Westchester Journal News on Dec. 22 prompted a bitter backlash by gun advocates , who published the names and addresses of some of the newspaper ’ s staff . Since then , supporters and critics of the newspaper 's controversial stand have been taking potshots at each other in a near-daily exchange that has drawn national attention .
“ The data posted also includes active and retired police officers , judges , battered and stalked individuals , FBI agents , and more , '' the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association said in a release that marked the latest escalation . `` The Journal News has made no credible case , nor offered any valid reason , for releasing the data , and it serves no investigative or journalistic purpose . It merely invites harassment and burglary . ”
The association is calling for a possible boycott of the Gannett-owned newspaper 's national advertisers . But the paper is n't just worried about suffering economic harm . On Dec. 28 , it began posting armed guards outside one of its offices , according to local police , shortly after a blogger published the names and home addresses of the 50 journalists who worked on the interactive map showing who owned legally-registered guns .
And the battle shows no signs of subsiding . Hackers claim to have broken into the Journal News ' online subscriber database and say they 're circulating passwords and user information for 10,000 account holders . They have also made online threats to publish the home addresses and phone numbers of executives at the newspaper ’ s major advertisers .
One New York lawmaker said he plans to introduce legislation making it illegal to obtain gun permit holders ’ information through Freedom of Information Act requests , which is how the Journal News obtained the permit holders ’ information used to create their controversial online database .
“ The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs , ” said Republican State Sen. Greg Ball , in announcing his intent .
There is one apparent beneficiary of all the controversy : The paper 's competitor , the Rockland County Times , claimed in an article to have seen an `` influx of new subscribers who stated they canceled their subscription to the Journal News due to the gun story . ”
|
Now it is the advertisers and readers of a New York newspaper who are caught in the crossfire, after its controversial decision to publish the names and addresses of gun owners in its community.
The initial story by the Westchester Journal News on Dec. 22 prompted a bitter backlash by gun advocates, who published the names and addresses of some of the newspaper’s staff. Since then, supporters and critics of the newspaper's controversial stand have been taking potshots at each other in a near-daily exchange that has drawn national attention.
[pullquote]
“The data posted also includes active and retired police officers, judges, battered and stalked individuals, FBI agents, and more," the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association said in a release that marked the latest escalation. "The Journal News has made no credible case, nor offered any valid reason, for releasing the data, and it serves no investigative or journalistic purpose. It merely invites harassment and burglary.”
The association is calling for a possible boycott of the Gannett-owned newspaper's national advertisers. But the paper isn't just worried about suffering economic harm. On Dec. 28, it began posting armed guards outside one of its offices, according to local police, shortly after a blogger published the names and home addresses of the 50 journalists who worked on the interactive map showing who owned legally-registered guns.
And the battle shows no signs of subsiding. Hackers claim to have broken into the Journal News' online subscriber database and say they're circulating passwords and user information for 10,000 account holders. They have also made online threats to publish the home addresses and phone numbers of executives at the newspaper’s major advertisers.
One New York lawmaker said he plans to introduce legislation making it illegal to obtain gun permit holders’ information through Freedom of Information Act requests, which is how the Journal News obtained the permit holders’ information used to create their controversial online database.
“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Republican State Sen. Greg Ball, in announcing his intent.
There is one apparent beneficiary of all the controversy: The paper's competitor, the Rockland County Times, claimed in an article to have seen an "influx of new subscribers who stated they canceled their subscription to the Journal News due to the gun story.”
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
QIbfMkWRy7j2GCU7
|
|
healthcare
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/28/politics/obamacare-website/index.html?hpt=po_t1
|
The Obamacare question: Can the website handle the volume?
|
2013-11-28
|
Tom Cohen
|
Story highlights Saturday is the administration 's deadline for HealthCare.gov to work for most users
Officials say the website will work better but warn that some problems will persist
Latest snafu : Small businesses ca n't enroll online for a year
Tech expert : Success means high traffic moving fast and smoothly
A moment of truth approaches for President Barack Obama 's signature health care reforms with Saturday 's self-imposed deadline to get the website to work properly for most users .
Obama and officials in charge of HealthCare.gov say the `` vast majority '' of people who go to the website to sign up at the end of the month will have a much improved experience than the crashes , error messages and delays users faced when it launched October 1 .
However , problems continue to plague the system , and technology experts question if the fixes being deployed by a team of government workers , outside contractors and specialists can get it functioning smoothly as soon as Saturday .
Luke Chung , president of Virginia-based software developer FMS Inc. , called the administration 's prediction that HealthCare.gov would work at 80 % capacity on or around November 30 an impractical threshold in the software world .
`` I do n't know how to build something that 's only 80 % complete , '' Chung told CNN . `` I do n't even understand how that works . ''
The website woes raised questions about the viability and security of the system , and opened the reforms known as Obamacare to fresh attacks by conservative Republicans who seek to dismantle or eliminate them .
More bad news emerged Wednesday when the administration announced the website will be unable to enroll small businesses online for another year .
Small businesses can enroll in other ways in the special small business system known as SHOP , but problems with HealthCare.gov have prevented their online enrollment so far . It was the third delay of the SHOP Marketplace component of the website , this time until November 2014 .
JUST WATCHED Insurers fear more Obamacare trouble Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Insurers fear more Obamacare trouble 03:08
JUST WATCHED Obamacare delayed for small businesses Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare delayed for small businesses 02:14
JUST WATCHED Obamacare small business exchange delay Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare small business exchange delay 03:50
JUST WATCHED Tyson : Obamacare rollout did n't work Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Tyson : Obamacare rollout did n't work 01:11
For now , `` small businesses will be able to enroll directly in a SHOP plan through an insurer , agent or broker and can get certified for a tax credit after they enroll , '' said Julie Bataille , a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that oversees the rollout of the reforms .
The Affordable Care Act does n't require companies with fewer than 50 employees to buy insurance for workers , though workers are required to have coverage . Employers who choose to provide coverage for their workers may qualify for subsidies to reduce their costs .
`` We expect that making direct enrollment , tax credit applications and comparison shopping easier will help to ensure that small businesses can take full advantage of the marketplace and tax credits worth up to 50 % of employee premiums in 2014 , '' Bataille said .
However , the head of the International Franchise Association complained the delay in online enrollment made it harder for small business owners to get all the information they need to enroll .
`` With this delay , it will also call into question how the small business tax credit is applied , '' said Steve Caldeira , the group 's president and CEO . `` Not having the ability to apply electronically will now make this process more confusing , cumbersome and time-consuming for employers . ''
Republicans pounced on the news , with House Speaker John Boehner urging Obama to delay implementation of the entire Affordable Care Act .
`` This law has been an absolute disaster , leaving us to ask , 'What 's next ? ' `` the Ohio Republican said in a statement . `` If the President wo n't repeal it , he should at least delay the entire law before it wreaks any more havoc on American families and small businesses as well as our economy . ''
Meanwhile , insurance industry insiders told CNN on condition of not being identified that problems continue with the transmission of data submitted by people signing up for coverage through HealthCare.gov .
`` There 's no part of us that thinks all of this will be fixed in three days from now , '' an industry official said , referring to the November 30 date for the site to run smoothly for most users .
Robert Zirkelbach , a spokesman for the insurance trade group America 's Health Insurance Plans , said that `` there is still a lot of work to be done to make sure that enrollments can be done and processed accurately . ''
Wednesday 's developments came as the Obama administration prepared for a potential surge in online enrollment over the weekend .
JUST WATCHED Do corporations have freedom of religion ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Do corporations have freedom of religion ? 05:09
JUST WATCHED Boehner signs up for Obamacare Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Boehner signs up for Obamacare 02:30
JUST WATCHED One side of Obamacare , failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH One side of Obamacare , failure 01:52
JUST WATCHED One side of Obamacare , success Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH One side of Obamacare , success 01:54
According to a White House official , the administration suggested this week that allied organizations hold off on launching campaigns to drive traffic to the website in the first week of December .
Officials fear another huge surge in volume that the site ca n't handle , which is what occurred around its launch in October .
HealthCare.gov was originally planned to handle 50,000 concurrent users , and will reach that capacity by Saturday , the White House official said .
However , big spikes in traffic -- such as the 200,000 who tried to get on at the same time on October 1 -- would cause users to go into a queue to receive e-mails advising them when to return , the official noted .
Publicly , Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have been urging Americans to give HealthCare.gov another try , though they make clear it remains a work in progress .
The November 30 target for website improvements `` does not represent a relaunch of HealthCare.gov ; it is not a magical date , '' Bataille told reporters . `` There will be times after November 30 when HealthCare.gov does not function properly . ''
Website woes aside , a new CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday showed a majority of Americans believe the current Obamacare problems can be solved , and the figures for overall support and opposition remain little changed from a month ago .
In a conference call Tuesday with state and local officials , Sebelius listed steps taken so far to improve the website 's performance .
`` We 've added hardware , we 've added software ; we 're continuing to work on the parts of the website that were too confusing to people , '' she said , urging the officials `` to not hesitate to recommend that people go to HealthCare.gov and get signed up because that experience is currently working much better and it will continue to work much better . ''
A properly functioning website is crucial to implementing the most vital provisions of the Affordable Care Act that require people to have health coverage .
JUST WATCHED Can the Affordable Care Act be saved ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Can the Affordable Care Act be saved ? 05:59
JUST WATCHED Obamacare subsidies do n't add up Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare subsidies do n't add up 02:44
JUST WATCHED Where 's the anonymous shopping perk ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Where 's the anonymous shopping perk ? 04:31
JUST WATCHED Obamacare fails to attract young people Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare fails to attract young people 02:18
The failure of HealthCare.gov to enable people to enroll when the sign-up period began last month undermined the launch of new health insurance exchanges intended to provide affordable coverage for millions who previously were uninsured or under-insured .
In theory , the exchanges create large pools of customers that include generally healthier and less-costly younger people as well as older folks who tend to require more expensive health care .
Such large markets would hold down prices by allowing insurance companies to offset the higher costs of aging consumers with the money from lower-cost policy holders , the thinking goes .
For the program to work , it needs to sign up younger people less inclined to pay for health coverage they do n't believe they need .
The GOP opposition targets the entire health care law , not just the website woes , as the ultimate example of big government run amok .
Enrollment figures for the first month after the opening of the new insurance exchanges were much lower than initially expected . Now some states have reported stronger numbers .
According to a CNN count based on available figures , a little more than 200,000 people have signed up for new private health insurance under Obamacare -- either through the national system or networks set up in 14 states and the District of Columbia .
In addition , more than 370,000 have signed up for Medicaid under state programs expanded through the health care reforms , the CNN count shows .
The enrollment period runs until March 31 , and officials have said the target for the first year was 7 million people . To ensure they have coverage starting on January 1 , consumers must sign up by December 23 , the administration recently announced .
Chung , the software expert , cited December 23 as the most significant deadline , noting that demand would be huge because people by nature wait until the last minute .
Success for the website would be determined by both the number of users as well as how long they are in the system , Chung said , comparing it to a highway on which 50,000 people traveling 60 mph is smooth traffic while the same number going 10 mph is a jam .
Also Wednesday , seven Democratic senators , including some up for re-election next year , asked Obama to appoint a special health care overseer to ensure continuity in efforts to fix the problems .
Sebelius is technically the top administration official in the implementation of Obamacare , but former White House aide Jeff Zients was brought in last month to oversee efforts to fix the site . Zients will become a top economic adviser to Obama in January .
In a letter , Sens . Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire , Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , Mark Warner of Virginia , Christopher Coons of Delaware , Mary Landrieu of Louisiana , Mark Udall of Colorado and Tim Kaine of Virginia called for Obama to name a successor to Zients .
Separately , an HHS official confirmed the government will go with a new Web-hosting contractor , Hewlett-Packard , for HealthCare.gov early next year . The current contract with Terremark ends in March .
|
Story highlights Saturday is the administration's deadline for HealthCare.gov to work for most users
Officials say the website will work better but warn that some problems will persist
Latest snafu: Small businesses can't enroll online for a year
Tech expert: Success means high traffic moving fast and smoothly
A moment of truth approaches for President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms with Saturday's self-imposed deadline to get the website to work properly for most users.
Obama and officials in charge of HealthCare.gov say the "vast majority" of people who go to the website to sign up at the end of the month will have a much improved experience than the crashes, error messages and delays users faced when it launched October 1.
However, problems continue to plague the system, and technology experts question if the fixes being deployed by a team of government workers, outside contractors and specialists can get it functioning smoothly as soon as Saturday.
Luke Chung, president of Virginia-based software developer FMS Inc., called the administration's prediction that HealthCare.gov would work at 80% capacity on or around November 30 an impractical threshold in the software world.
"I don't know how to build something that's only 80% complete," Chung told CNN. "I don't even understand how that works."
The website woes raised questions about the viability and security of the system, and opened the reforms known as Obamacare to fresh attacks by conservative Republicans who seek to dismantle or eliminate them.
More bad news emerged Wednesday when the administration announced the website will be unable to enroll small businesses online for another year.
Small businesses can enroll in other ways in the special small business system known as SHOP, but problems with HealthCare.gov have prevented their online enrollment so far. It was the third delay of the SHOP Marketplace component of the website, this time until November 2014.
JUST WATCHED Insurers fear more Obamacare trouble Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Insurers fear more Obamacare trouble 03:08
JUST WATCHED Obamacare delayed for small businesses Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare delayed for small businesses 02:14
JUST WATCHED Obamacare small business exchange delay Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare small business exchange delay 03:50
JUST WATCHED Tyson: Obamacare rollout didn't work Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Tyson: Obamacare rollout didn't work 01:11
For now, "small businesses will be able to enroll directly in a SHOP plan through an insurer, agent or broker and can get certified for a tax credit after they enroll," said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that oversees the rollout of the reforms.
The Affordable Care Act doesn't require companies with fewer than 50 employees to buy insurance for workers, though workers are required to have coverage. Employers who choose to provide coverage for their workers may qualify for subsidies to reduce their costs.
"We expect that making direct enrollment, tax credit applications and comparison shopping easier will help to ensure that small businesses can take full advantage of the marketplace and tax credits worth up to 50% of employee premiums in 2014," Bataille said.
However, the head of the International Franchise Association complained the delay in online enrollment made it harder for small business owners to get all the information they need to enroll.
"With this delay, it will also call into question how the small business tax credit is applied," said Steve Caldeira, the group's president and CEO. "Not having the ability to apply electronically will now make this process more confusing, cumbersome and time-consuming for employers."
Republicans pounced on the news, with House Speaker John Boehner urging Obama to delay implementation of the entire Affordable Care Act.
"This law has been an absolute disaster, leaving us to ask, 'What's next?' " the Ohio Republican said in a statement. "If the President won't repeal it, he should at least delay the entire law before it wreaks any more havoc on American families and small businesses as well as our economy."
Meanwhile, insurance industry insiders told CNN on condition of not being identified that problems continue with the transmission of data submitted by people signing up for coverage through HealthCare.gov.
"There's no part of us that thinks all of this will be fixed in three days from now," an industry official said, referring to the November 30 date for the site to run smoothly for most users.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the insurance trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, said that "there is still a lot of work to be done to make sure that enrollments can be done and processed accurately."
Wednesday's developments came as the Obama administration prepared for a potential surge in online enrollment over the weekend.
JUST WATCHED Do corporations have freedom of religion? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Do corporations have freedom of religion? 05:09
JUST WATCHED Boehner signs up for Obamacare Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Boehner signs up for Obamacare 02:30
JUST WATCHED One side of Obamacare, failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH One side of Obamacare, failure 01:52
JUST WATCHED One side of Obamacare, success Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH One side of Obamacare, success 01:54
According to a White House official, the administration suggested this week that allied organizations hold off on launching campaigns to drive traffic to the website in the first week of December.
Officials fear another huge surge in volume that the site can't handle, which is what occurred around its launch in October.
HealthCare.gov was originally planned to handle 50,000 concurrent users, and will reach that capacity by Saturday, the White House official said.
However, big spikes in traffic -- such as the 200,000 who tried to get on at the same time on October 1 -- would cause users to go into a queue to receive e-mails advising them when to return, the official noted.
Publicly, Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have been urging Americans to give HealthCare.gov another try, though they make clear it remains a work in progress.
The November 30 target for website improvements "does not represent a relaunch of HealthCare.gov; it is not a magical date," Bataille told reporters. "There will be times after November 30 when HealthCare.gov does not function properly."
Website woes aside, a new CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday showed a majority of Americans believe the current Obamacare problems can be solved, and the figures for overall support and opposition remain little changed from a month ago.
In a conference call Tuesday with state and local officials, Sebelius listed steps taken so far to improve the website's performance.
"We've added hardware, we've added software; we're continuing to work on the parts of the website that were too confusing to people," she said, urging the officials "to not hesitate to recommend that people go to HealthCare.gov and get signed up because that experience is currently working much better and it will continue to work much better."
A properly functioning website is crucial to implementing the most vital provisions of the Affordable Care Act that require people to have health coverage.
JUST WATCHED Can the Affordable Care Act be saved? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Can the Affordable Care Act be saved? 05:59
JUST WATCHED Obamacare subsidies don't add up Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare subsidies don't add up 02:44
JUST WATCHED Where's the anonymous shopping perk? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Where's the anonymous shopping perk? 04:31
JUST WATCHED Obamacare fails to attract young people Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obamacare fails to attract young people 02:18
The failure of HealthCare.gov to enable people to enroll when the sign-up period began last month undermined the launch of new health insurance exchanges intended to provide affordable coverage for millions who previously were uninsured or under-insured.
In theory, the exchanges create large pools of customers that include generally healthier and less-costly younger people as well as older folks who tend to require more expensive health care.
Such large markets would hold down prices by allowing insurance companies to offset the higher costs of aging consumers with the money from lower-cost policy holders, the thinking goes.
For the program to work, it needs to sign up younger people less inclined to pay for health coverage they don't believe they need.
The GOP opposition targets the entire health care law, not just the website woes, as the ultimate example of big government run amok.
Enrollment figures for the first month after the opening of the new insurance exchanges were much lower than initially expected. Now some states have reported stronger numbers.
According to a CNN count based on available figures, a little more than 200,000 people have signed up for new private health insurance under Obamacare -- either through the national system or networks set up in 14 states and the District of Columbia.
In addition, more than 370,000 have signed up for Medicaid under state programs expanded through the health care reforms, the CNN count shows.
The enrollment period runs until March 31, and officials have said the target for the first year was 7 million people. To ensure they have coverage starting on January 1, consumers must sign up by December 23, the administration recently announced.
Chung, the software expert, cited December 23 as the most significant deadline, noting that demand would be huge because people by nature wait until the last minute.
Success for the website would be determined by both the number of users as well as how long they are in the system, Chung said, comparing it to a highway on which 50,000 people traveling 60 mph is smooth traffic while the same number going 10 mph is a jam.
Also Wednesday, seven Democratic senators, including some up for re-election next year, asked Obama to appoint a special health care overseer to ensure continuity in efforts to fix the problems.
Sebelius is technically the top administration official in the implementation of Obamacare, but former White House aide Jeff Zients was brought in last month to oversee efforts to fix the site. Zients will become a top economic adviser to Obama in January.
In a letter, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Mark Warner of Virginia, Christopher Coons of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Udall of Colorado and Tim Kaine of Virginia called for Obama to name a successor to Zients.
Separately, an HHS official confirmed the government will go with a new Web-hosting contractor, Hewlett-Packard, for HealthCare.gov early next year. The current contract with Terremark ends in March.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
rsuuMezBzGXQ7EZr
|
elections
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0412/Trump-has-turned-election-into-reality-TV-in-ways-beyond-the-obvious/The-reality-rulebook
|
Trump has turned election into reality TV – in ways beyond the obvious
|
2016-04-12
|
Gloria Goodale
|
When commentators pause to describe presidential candidate Donald Trump , they often mention his background in reality TV . Yet for all the puzzling over his ascendency in the Republican presidential race , little attention has been paid to the playbook of a reality show and how that might influence a man who hosted a series that ran for more than a decade .
It ’ s ripe for a closer look . The elements of this artificially “ real ” form of televised drama are actually ubiquitous in Mr. Trump ’ s campaign .
So here it is : from conflict to “ confession rooms , ” a run-down of the obvious and not-so-obvious ways Mr. Trump has internalized reality-show conventions and in turn , how they are playing out across the entire presidential campaign landscape as a result . If a presidential race might earn the title , “ Survivor : Oval Office , ” what Trump is adding is the Hollywood game plan .
“ The Trump campaign has used a whole bunch of tricks from reality television to run his campaign and extend control over other people ’ s campaigns , “ says Robert Thompson , founder of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University in New York . The reason this has worked so well for Trump , Professor Thompson says , is that “ even though it ’ s not exactly like his TV show and he doesn ’ t control everything , he is playing by the rules of reality TV , and the people covering him are largely unconsciously playing by the same reality show rules as well . ”
Of course , this is just one lens through which to view the Trump campaign . His success also reflects the role that nativist and populist insurgencies play as a periodic force in US politics , and voter hunger for “ outsiders ” in an era of frustration with Washington elites . But prominent features of Trump 's candidacy align perfectly with his chosen television genre . Here are six big ways .
|
When commentators pause to describe presidential candidate Donald Trump, they often mention his background in reality TV. Yet for all the puzzling over his ascendency in the Republican presidential race, little attention has been paid to the playbook of a reality show and how that might influence a man who hosted a series that ran for more than a decade.
It’s ripe for a closer look. The elements of this artificially “real” form of televised drama are actually ubiquitous in Mr. Trump’s campaign.
So here it is: from conflict to “confession rooms,” a run-down of the obvious and not-so-obvious ways Mr. Trump has internalized reality-show conventions and in turn, how they are playing out across the entire presidential campaign landscape as a result. If a presidential race might earn the title, “Survivor: Oval Office,” what Trump is adding is the Hollywood game plan.
“The Trump campaign has used a whole bunch of tricks from reality television to run his campaign and extend control over other people’s campaigns,“ says Robert Thompson, founder of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University in New York. The reason this has worked so well for Trump, Professor Thompson says, is that “even though it’s not exactly like his TV show and he doesn’t control everything, he is playing by the rules of reality TV, and the people covering him are largely unconsciously playing by the same reality show rules as well.”
Of course, this is just one lens through which to view the Trump campaign. His success also reflects the role that nativist and populist insurgencies play as a periodic force in US politics, and voter hunger for “outsiders” in an era of frustration with Washington elites. But prominent features of Trump's candidacy align perfectly with his chosen television genre. Here are six big ways.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
5JAXnLSys9Po1z0n
|
world
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/06/emmanuel-macron-donald-trump-d-day-fulfil-promise-of-normandy
|
Macron to Trump at D-day ceremony: fulfil the promise of Normandy
|
2019-06-06
|
Daniel Boffey, Angelique Chrisafis
|
France ’ s president , Emmanuel Macron , has appealed directly to Donald Trump to fulfil the “ promise of Normandy ” by embracing pillars of the postwar peace such as the European Union and Nato as the two leaders marked the D-day landings 75 years ago .
In a speech that trod a fine diplomatic line , Macron offered both sincere expressions of gratitude for the valour of US troops in the second world war and vehement calls for the White House to re-engage with the principles of multilateralism .
Speaking in front of 15,000 people gathered at the American cemetery and memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer , the resting place for 9,387 US troops killed in the Normandy campaign , Macron repeatedly name-checked Trump , even at times turning to face the US president who was sitting behind him .
“ Dear Donald Trump , the United States is never greater than when it is fighting for the freedom of others , ” Macron said from a stage erected by a wall of the missing . “ The United States of America is never greater than when it shows its loyalty . Loyalty to the universal values that the founding fathers defended , when nearly two and a half centuries ago France came to support its independence . What we owe you is to show ourselves worthy of the heritage of peace that you have left us .
“ Being worthy of the promise of Normandy means never forgetting that free people , when they join forces , can surmount any adversity , ” Macron went on . “ We shall never cease to perpetuate the alliance of free peoples . That is what the victorious sides did , when they created the United Nations , the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . That is what a few years later the leaders of Europe did in bringing about the European Union . The lessons of Colleville-sur-Mer are clear : liberty and democracy are inseparable . ”
Trump , who has described Nato as obsolete in the past and had used this week ’ s state visit to the UK to spend time with leading lights of the Brexit camp such as Nigel Farage , offered no visible reaction to Macron ’ s comments beyond an awkward smile .
Macron had leavened his overtly political speech with repeated emphasis of France ’ s thankfulness and sense of obligation to those who fought and died to liberate his country and the rest of Europe from Adolf Hitler ’ s Germany .
“ On behalf of France , I bow down before their bravery , ” Macron said before bestowing five of the veterans at the ceremony , all now in their 90s , with the Légion d ’ honneur , France ’ s highest award . “ We know what we owe to you veterans : our freedom . On behalf of my nation I just want to say : thank you . ”
When it came to Trump ’ s turn to speak , the president told the stories of some of those on the stage who had been part of the D-day landings on 6 June 1944 , when 73,000 US troops landed at Utah and Omaha beaches as part of Operation Overlord , the codename given to the land , naval and air operations that remain the largest amphibious operation ever waged .
Quick guide What happened on D-day ? Show Hide What was D-day ? D-day was an invasion of France by allied forces . It was codenamed Operation Neptune , and it aimed to push Nazi Germany out of occupied France . Five beaches in Normandy , codenamed Omaha , Utah , Juno , Sword and Gold , were the main targets for landing a large number of troops by sea . At 10pm on 5 June 1944 , troops began departing from British shores to head across the Channel . Five assault groups set sail under darkness in an armada of about 7,000 vessels . Just after midnight on 6 June , aerial bombardment of enemy positions on the Normandy coast began . Special operations troops were also parachuted into France . US troops landed on Omaha and Utah beaches at about 6:30am . About an hour later Canadian forces landed at Juno , and British troops landed at Gold and Sword . Soldiers had to get off their boats , wade through the water , and seize control of the beach , all the while under heavy and sustained fire from German defensive positions . How was the plan kept secret ? Despite involving a large number of troops , keeping D-day secret was vital to the success of the operation . A disinformation campaign had led the Germans to believe that Operation Fortitude was the main plan for the allies to invade the continent , via a two-pronged attack involving Norway and Calais . Even once the D-day landings had begun , German commanders were convinced they were just a diversionary tactic before the real invasion . Why is it called D-day ? The D in D-day actually has no particular significance to Operation Neptune . It was common practice in the military to make plans that used the term , where the D stands for the day when operations commenced . Military planners also set H-hour , the time at which a plan was to begin . What happened next ? By the end of the day , the allies had disembarked more than 135,000 men and 10,000 vehicles on to the beaches , and established bridgeheads of varying depths along the Normandy coastline . This came at the cost of 4,400 allied troops being killed , with thousands more injured or missing . There were also heavy casualties among German troops and French civilians . By 19 August , the allied forces had pushed down far enough to begin the battle to liberate Paris . German troops surrendered the French capital on 25 August 1944 , two and a half months after D-day . Martin Belam
The American cemetery , spread across 70 hectares ( 172.5 acres ) of landscaped acres , overlooks Omaha beach , where on D-day alone about 3,000 US troops were killed , wounded or reported missing .
Play Video 1:58 D-day 75th anniversary : world leaders pay their tributes – video highlights
Among the 35 veterans on the stage who stepped on to the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago was Russell Pickett , the sole survivor now of Company A of the 29th Division , 116th Regiment , which suffered 96 % casualties within half an hour of battle on Omaha beach , made infamous by the opening scenes of the Hollywood film Saving Private Ryan .
As the two leaders personally thanked Pickett , Trump steadied and hugged the 94-year-old as the veteran appeared to stumble as he got up from his seat .
Trump also emphasised the achievements of the generation in America that liberated Europe and then went on to defeat communism and put a man on the moon .
“ The men behind me will tell you that they are just the lucky ones , ” he said . “ As one of them recently put it , all the heroes are buried here . But we know what these men did . We know how brave they were . They came here and saved freedom . And then they went home and showed us all what freedom is all about . ”
In typical fashion Trump added : “ And today , America is stronger than ever before . ”
The US president did , however , appear to offer some reassurance to those worried by his scepticism about the value of multilateral organisations .
“ To all of our friends and partners – our cherished alliance was forged in the heat of battle , tested in the trials of war and proven in the blessings of peace , ” he said . “ Our bond is unbreakable . ”
After the speeches , Macron and his wife , Brigitte , walked among the veterans who had sat behind them to hear their stories . The Normandy event , like others in France and the UK , is widely seen as being one of the last great remembrance ceremonies at which the generation involved in the D-day landings is likely to be in attendance in significant numbers .
The Trumps also shook some hands when talking to the veterans but then awkwardly waited at the side of the stage for the Macrons before both couples walked to a vantage point overlooking Omaha beach to spend a minute in silence before watching a flypast of French and US planes .
Trump and Macron held 30 minute private talks in Caen , the nearby French city heavily bombed during the invasion .
A French official said the mood between the two presidents was constructive . Trump stressed that – although the US-France relationship might have had its ups and downs in the past – “ right now it is outstanding ” .
Macron said the legacy of the Normandy beaches lived on in shared values , with the two countries working “ to preserve democracy and freedom ” , in joint military action in west Africa and in Middle East diplomacy .
Issues discussed included the approach to Iran after the US withdrew from a nuclear deal and reimposed harsh economic sanctions .
Addressing reporters , Trump sought to play down differences on Iran , saying neither he nor France wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons .
Macron said : “ We share the same objectives on Iran … First , they don ’ t get nuclear weapons … Second , we want to reduce their ballistic activity , third , to contain them regionally . The fourth common objective , after all , is peace in the region . We want to deliver those objectives together . That is the point and all the other debates are about technicalities . ”
|
France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, has appealed directly to Donald Trump to fulfil the “promise of Normandy” by embracing pillars of the postwar peace such as the European Union and Nato as the two leaders marked the D-day landings 75 years ago.
In a speech that trod a fine diplomatic line, Macron offered both sincere expressions of gratitude for the valour of US troops in the second world war and vehement calls for the White House to re-engage with the principles of multilateralism.
Speaking in front of 15,000 people gathered at the American cemetery and memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, the resting place for 9,387 US troops killed in the Normandy campaign, Macron repeatedly name-checked Trump, even at times turning to face the US president who was sitting behind him.
“Dear Donald Trump, the United States is never greater than when it is fighting for the freedom of others,” Macron said from a stage erected by a wall of the missing. “The United States of America is never greater than when it shows its loyalty. Loyalty to the universal values that the founding fathers defended, when nearly two and a half centuries ago France came to support its independence. What we owe you is to show ourselves worthy of the heritage of peace that you have left us.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Melania and Donald Trump and Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron watch a flypast. Photograph: Carlos Barría/Reuters
“Being worthy of the promise of Normandy means never forgetting that free people, when they join forces, can surmount any adversity,” Macron went on. “We shall never cease to perpetuate the alliance of free peoples. That is what the victorious sides did, when they created the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That is what a few years later the leaders of Europe did in bringing about the European Union. The lessons of Colleville-sur-Mer are clear: liberty and democracy are inseparable.”
Trump, who has described Nato as obsolete in the past and had used this week’s state visit to the UK to spend time with leading lights of the Brexit camp such as Nigel Farage, offered no visible reaction to Macron’s comments beyond an awkward smile.
Macron had leavened his overtly political speech with repeated emphasis of France’s thankfulness and sense of obligation to those who fought and died to liberate his country and the rest of Europe from Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
“On behalf of France, I bow down before their bravery,” Macron said before bestowing five of the veterans at the ceremony, all now in their 90s, with the Légion d’honneur, France’s highest award. “We know what we owe to you veterans: our freedom. On behalf of my nation I just want to say: thank you.”
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The presidents greet veterans. Photograph: Ian Langsdon/Pool/EPA
When it came to Trump’s turn to speak, the president told the stories of some of those on the stage who had been part of the D-day landings on 6 June 1944, when 73,000 US troops landed at Utah and Omaha beaches as part of Operation Overlord, the codename given to the land, naval and air operations that remain the largest amphibious operation ever waged.
Quick guide What happened on D-day? Show Hide What was D-day? D-day was an invasion of France by allied forces. It was codenamed Operation Neptune, and it aimed to push Nazi Germany out of occupied France. Five beaches in Normandy, codenamed Omaha, Utah, Juno, Sword and Gold, were the main targets for landing a large number of troops by sea. At 10pm on 5 June 1944, troops began departing from British shores to head across the Channel. Five assault groups set sail under darkness in an armada of about 7,000 vessels. Just after midnight on 6 June, aerial bombardment of enemy positions on the Normandy coast began. Special operations troops were also parachuted into France. US troops landed on Omaha and Utah beaches at about 6:30am. About an hour later Canadian forces landed at Juno, and British troops landed at Gold and Sword. Soldiers had to get off their boats, wade through the water, and seize control of the beach, all the while under heavy and sustained fire from German defensive positions. How was the plan kept secret? Despite involving a large number of troops, keeping D-day secret was vital to the success of the operation. A disinformation campaign had led the Germans to believe that Operation Fortitude was the main plan for the allies to invade the continent, via a two-pronged attack involving Norway and Calais. Even once the D-day landings had begun, German commanders were convinced they were just a diversionary tactic before the real invasion. Why is it called D-day? The D in D-day actually has no particular significance to Operation Neptune. It was common practice in the military to make plans that used the term, where the D stands for the day when operations commenced. Military planners also set H-hour, the time at which a plan was to begin. What happened next? By the end of the day, the allies had disembarked more than 135,000 men and 10,000 vehicles on to the beaches, and established bridgeheads of varying depths along the Normandy coastline. This came at the cost of 4,400 allied troops being killed, with thousands more injured or missing. There were also heavy casualties among German troops and French civilians. By 19 August, the allied forces had pushed down far enough to begin the battle to liberate Paris. German troops surrendered the French capital on 25 August 1944, two and a half months after D-day. Martin Belam
The American cemetery, spread across 70 hectares (172.5 acres) of landscaped acres, overlooks Omaha beach, where on D-day alone about 3,000 US troops were killed, wounded or reported missing.
Play Video 1:58 D-day 75th anniversary: world leaders pay their tributes – video highlights
Among the 35 veterans on the stage who stepped on to the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago was Russell Pickett, the sole survivor now of Company A of the 29th Division, 116th Regiment, which suffered 96% casualties within half an hour of battle on Omaha beach, made infamous by the opening scenes of the Hollywood film Saving Private Ryan.
As the two leaders personally thanked Pickett, Trump steadied and hugged the 94-year-old as the veteran appeared to stumble as he got up from his seat.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Russell Pickett at Omaha beach. Photograph: Rafael Yaghobzadeh/AP
Trump also emphasised the achievements of the generation in America that liberated Europe and then went on to defeat communism and put a man on the moon.
“The men behind me will tell you that they are just the lucky ones,” he said. “As one of them recently put it, all the heroes are buried here. But we know what these men did. We know how brave they were. They came here and saved freedom. And then they went home and showed us all what freedom is all about.”
In typical fashion Trump added: “And today, America is stronger than ever before.”
The US president did, however, appear to offer some reassurance to those worried by his scepticism about the value of multilateral organisations.
“To all of our friends and partners – our cherished alliance was forged in the heat of battle, tested in the trials of war and proven in the blessings of peace,” he said. “Our bond is unbreakable.”
After the speeches, Macron and his wife, Brigitte, walked among the veterans who had sat behind them to hear their stories. The Normandy event, like others in France and the UK, is widely seen as being one of the last great remembrance ceremonies at which the generation involved in the D-day landings is likely to be in attendance in significant numbers.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Trumps and Macrons at the US cemetery. Photograph: Ian Langsdon/AP
The Trumps also shook some hands when talking to the veterans but then awkwardly waited at the side of the stage for the Macrons before both couples walked to a vantage point overlooking Omaha beach to spend a minute in silence before watching a flypast of French and US planes.
Trump and Macron held 30 minute private talks in Caen, the nearby French city heavily bombed during the invasion.
A French official said the mood between the two presidents was constructive. Trump stressed that – although the US-France relationship might have had its ups and downs in the past – “right now it is outstanding”.
Macron said the legacy of the Normandy beaches lived on in shared values, with the two countries working “to preserve democracy and freedom”, in joint military action in west Africa and in Middle East diplomacy.
Issues discussed included the approach to Iran after the US withdrew from a nuclear deal and reimposed harsh economic sanctions.
Addressing reporters, Trump sought to play down differences on Iran, saying neither he nor France wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Macron said: “We share the same objectives on Iran … First, they don’t get nuclear weapons … Second, we want to reduce their ballistic activity, third, to contain them regionally. The fourth common objective, after all, is peace in the region. We want to deliver those objectives together. That is the point and all the other debates are about technicalities.”
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
SttpSiJIoIWS8li4
|
middle_east
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/
|
Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say
|
2013-05-06
|
Chad Pergram
|
On the night of Sept. 11 , as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks , then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department 's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making , according to a `` whistle-blower '' witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress , ███ has learned .
That witness is Mark I. Thompson , a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency ’ s counterterrorism bureau . Sources tell ███ Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif .
███ has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October .
Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11 , in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya , Chris Stevens , and three other Americans .
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode , the Accountability Review Board ( ARB ) . Thompson 's lawyer , Joseph diGenova , a former U.S. attorney , has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State , in advance of his cooperation with Congress .
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell ███ the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks .
`` You should have seen what ( Clinton ) tried to do to us that night , '' the second official in State 's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October . Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson 's forthcoming testimony .
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials ' allegation `` 100 percent false . '' A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true .
Daniel Benjamin , who ran the department 's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time , also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges .
`` I ran the bureau then , and I can say now with certainty , as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism , that this charge is simply untrue , '' he said . `` Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack , I was in frequent contact with the Department . At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of . ''
He went on to call his bureau a `` central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi . '' He said `` at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks . ''
Documents from the State Department , the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council , first published in the May 13 edition of `` The Weekly Standard , '' showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda 's known involvement in them from `` talking points '' being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly .
Those talking points -- and indeed , the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans ' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry . The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest , as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks . The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points , but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process . Among those involved in prodding the deletions , the documents published by `` The Weekly Standard '' show , was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland , who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy `` my building 's leadership . ''
The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story . Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 , Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks . And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis .
Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year , shortly before leaving office . She had long delayed her testimony , at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report , and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus , a concussion sustained during a fall at home , and a blood clot near her brain , from which she has since recovered . However , Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened .
███ disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department 's Office of Inspector General . A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs , not just the one established after Benghazi .
The two U.S. officials -- former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering -- who oversaw the internal review of the attacks defended their report .
`` From the beginning of the ARB process , we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed . Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened , and that 's what we did , '' they said in a statement Monday .
The counterterrorism officials , however , concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism , and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department 's early decision-making relating to them .
Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks , the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks . Like Thompson , Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower . His attorney , Victoria Toensing , a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee , has charged that Hicks , too , has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State . ( Toensing and diGenova , who are representing their respective clients pro bono , are married . )
Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens , and who upon the ambassador 's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program `` Face the Nation '' on Sunday .
Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack , and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration 's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them , or before U.N . Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16 .
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not , sources close to the committee 's investigation tell ███ .
|
On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.
"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
He went on to call his bureau a "central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi." He said "at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks."
Thompson's attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.
Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.
Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."
The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.
Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.
Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department's Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.
The two U.S. officials -- former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering -- who oversaw the internal review of the attacks defended their report.
"From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that's what we did," they said in a statement Monday.
The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department's early decision-making relating to them.
Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)
Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee's investigation tell Fox News.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
WWvOyffo7hSB7pDF
|
russia
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51120166
|
Russian government resigns as Vladimir Putin plans future
|
Russia 's government has resigned , hours after President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping constitutional changes that could prolong his stay in power .
If approved by the public , the proposals would transfer power from the presidency to parliament .
Mr Putin is due to step down in 2024 when his fourth term of office comes to an end .
But there is speculation he could seek a new role or hold on to power behind the scenes .
Mr Putin put forward his plans in his annual state of the nation address to lawmakers . Later , in an unexpected move , Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that the government was resigning to help facilitate the changes .
Russian government sources told the BBC that ministers did not know about the government 's resignation ahead of the announcement .
The Russian leader said during a speech to both chambers of parliament that there would be a nationwide vote on changes that would shift power from the presidency to parliament .
Constitutional reforms included giving the lower house of parliament , the State Duma , `` greater responsibility '' for the appointment of the prime minister and the cabinet .
Currently , the president appoints the prime minister , and the Duma approves the decision .
Mr Putin also suggested an increased role for an advisory body called the State Council . The council , which is currently chaired by Mr Putin , comprises the heads of Russia 's federal regions . Mr Putin said it had proved to be `` highly effective '' .
Amending the rules that limit presidents to two consecutive terms
Strengthening laws that prohibit presidential candidates who have held foreign citizenship or foreign residency permits
Mr Medvedev made his announcement on state television with President Putin sitting next to him .
`` These changes , when they are adopted ... will introduce substantial changes not only to an entire range of articles of the constitution , but also to the entire balance of power , the power of the executive , the power of the legislature , the power of judiciary , '' Mr Medvedev said of Mr Putin 's proposals .
`` In this context ... the government in its current form has resigned . ''
Mr Putin thanked Mr Medvedev for his work but said `` not everything '' had been accomplished .
He asked Mr Medvedev to become deputy head of the National Security Council , which is chaired by Mr Putin .
The president later nominated tax service chief Mikhail Mishustin to replace Mr Medvedev as prime minister .
Mr Medvedev has been prime minister for several years . He previously served as president from 2008-2012 , switching roles with Mr Putin - a close ally - after the latter served his first two terms as president . Russia 's constitution only allows presidents to serve two consecutive terms .
Even when he was prime minister , Mr Putin was widely seen as the power behind then President Medvedev .
Opposition leader and leading Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny said he believed that any referendum on the constitutional changes would be `` fraudulent crap '' . He said Mr Putin 's goal was to be `` sole leader for life '' .
The last time Russia held a referendum was in 1993 when it adopted the constitution under President Boris Yeltsin , Mr Putin 's predecessor .
Mr Putin became acting president following Mr Yeltsin 's resignation in 1999 and was formally inaugurated a year later . He has held the reins of power - as president or prime minister - ever since .
President Putin likes stability . It 's his thing . So the newsflash that the entire government had resigned was a big surprise . From the online chatter , it seems even the cabinet ministers did n't see it coming . For a moment it was like a flashback to Russia of the 1990s , when President Yeltsin changed prime ministers as readily as his socks . Vladimir Putin is no Yeltsin , though , and this move looks like part of some bigger plan that 's all about consolidating - and extending - his hold on power .
Under the current rules , Mr Putin must step down as president in 2024 and it 's never been clear what he 'd do next . That 's still true . But the constitutional tweaks he 's proposed are hints at some options . He 's bumped up the status of the little-known State Council , which he already heads . Or he could become PM again , now he 's slightly weakened the powers of Russia 's president .
If he is sticking around , perhaps he needs to make that palatable to people given all the social and economic problems he had to list once again in his annual address to the nation . If Mr Putin were to blame for their woes , Russians might well wonder why they should swallow him staying on , post-2024 . Dmitry Medvedev - so often useful to Mr Putin - for now looks like a handy scapegoat .
In his address to parliament , the president unveiled a series of plans to increase the number of children being born in Russia . Like several Eastern European states , Russia has been struggling with a declining birth rate .
Last year Mr Putin promised tax breaks for bigger families .
On Wednesday he pledged state funding for new mothers in a bid to increase the number of children being born from an average of fewer than 1.5 per woman to 1.7 within four years .
So-called `` maternity capital '' has until now only been paid to families with at least two children .
Welfare benefits will also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families , and free school meals will be provided for the first four years of school .
Russia 's population has struggled to recover from a dramatic decline in the 1990s .
|
Image copyright Reuters Image caption President Vladimir Putin announced the proposals in his annual state of the nation address
Russia's government has resigned, hours after President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping constitutional changes that could prolong his stay in power.
If approved by the public, the proposals would transfer power from the presidency to parliament.
Mr Putin is due to step down in 2024 when his fourth term of office comes to an end.
But there is speculation he could seek a new role or hold on to power behind the scenes.
Mr Putin put forward his plans in his annual state of the nation address to lawmakers. Later, in an unexpected move, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that the government was resigning to help facilitate the changes.
Russian government sources told the BBC that ministers did not know about the government's resignation ahead of the announcement.
"It was a complete surprise," one source said.
What is Mr Putin proposing?
The Russian leader said during a speech to both chambers of parliament that there would be a nationwide vote on changes that would shift power from the presidency to parliament.
Constitutional reforms included giving the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, "greater responsibility" for the appointment of the prime minister and the cabinet.
Currently, the president appoints the prime minister, and the Duma approves the decision.
Image copyright EPA Image caption Mr Putin met Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday ahead of the decision that the government would resign
Mr Putin also suggested an increased role for an advisory body called the State Council. The council, which is currently chaired by Mr Putin, comprises the heads of Russia's federal regions. Mr Putin said it had proved to be "highly effective".
Other measures include:
Limiting the supremacy of international law
Amending the rules that limit presidents to two consecutive terms
Strengthening laws that prohibit presidential candidates who have held foreign citizenship or foreign residency permits
What was the response?
Mr Medvedev made his announcement on state television with President Putin sitting next to him.
"These changes, when they are adopted... will introduce substantial changes not only to an entire range of articles of the constitution, but also to the entire balance of power, the power of the executive, the power of the legislature, the power of judiciary," Mr Medvedev said of Mr Putin's proposals.
"In this context... the government in its current form has resigned."
Mr Putin thanked Mr Medvedev for his work but said "not everything" had been accomplished.
He asked Mr Medvedev to become deputy head of the National Security Council, which is chaired by Mr Putin.
The president later nominated tax service chief Mikhail Mishustin to replace Mr Medvedev as prime minister.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Head of the tax service, Mikhail Mishustin (L), has been put forward by Mr Putin as the new prime minister
Mr Medvedev has been prime minister for several years. He previously served as president from 2008-2012, switching roles with Mr Putin - a close ally - after the latter served his first two terms as president. Russia's constitution only allows presidents to serve two consecutive terms.
Even when he was prime minister, Mr Putin was widely seen as the power behind then President Medvedev.
Opposition leader and leading Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny said he believed that any referendum on the constitutional changes would be "fraudulent crap". He said Mr Putin's goal was to be "sole leader for life".
The last time Russia held a referendum was in 1993 when it adopted the constitution under President Boris Yeltsin, Mr Putin's predecessor.
Mr Putin became acting president following Mr Yeltsin's resignation in 1999 and was formally inaugurated a year later. He has held the reins of power - as president or prime minister - ever since.
Part of Putin's bigger plan?
President Putin likes stability. It's his thing. So the newsflash that the entire government had resigned was a big surprise. From the online chatter, it seems even the cabinet ministers didn't see it coming. For a moment it was like a flashback to Russia of the 1990s, when President Yeltsin changed prime ministers as readily as his socks. Vladimir Putin is no Yeltsin, though, and this move looks like part of some bigger plan that's all about consolidating - and extending - his hold on power.
Under the current rules, Mr Putin must step down as president in 2024 and it's never been clear what he'd do next. That's still true. But the constitutional tweaks he's proposed are hints at some options. He's bumped up the status of the little-known State Council, which he already heads. Or he could become PM again, now he's slightly weakened the powers of Russia's president.
If he is sticking around, perhaps he needs to make that palatable to people given all the social and economic problems he had to list once again in his annual address to the nation. If Mr Putin were to blame for their woes, Russians might well wonder why they should swallow him staying on, post-2024. Dmitry Medvedev - so often useful to Mr Putin - for now looks like a handy scapegoat.
What else did Mr Putin say?
In his address to parliament, the president unveiled a series of plans to increase the number of children being born in Russia. Like several Eastern European states, Russia has been struggling with a declining birth rate.
Last year Mr Putin promised tax breaks for bigger families.
On Wednesday he pledged state funding for new mothers in a bid to increase the number of children being born from an average of fewer than 1.5 per woman to 1.7 within four years.
So-called "maternity capital" has until now only been paid to families with at least two children.
Welfare benefits will also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families, and free school meals will be provided for the first four years of school.
Russia's population has struggled to recover from a dramatic decline in the 1990s.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
nTEgr06l9SDiPG83
|
||
elections
|
FiveThirtyEight
| 11
|
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-trump-drive-young-white-evangelicals-away-from-the-gop/
|
Could Trump Drive Young White Evangelicals Away From The GOP?
|
2019-08-20
|
Daniel Cox
|
A central message of President Trump ’ s insurgent candidacy in 2016 boiled down to this : Millions of Americans are losers — economically , culturally and even demographically . Perhaps no group needed less convincing of this proposition than white evangelical Christians , who have long felt embattled . “ Make America Great Again ” was the perfect slogan for Americans who had already embraced the notion that the country ’ s culture and way of life had been deteriorating since the 1950s . Indeed , white evangelical Christians voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton in large numbers , and Trump has maintained their support to an impressive degree .
But there are increasing signs of a generational rift : Younger white evangelicals have not fully bought into Trump ’ s politics and are less receptive to Trump ’ s message of cultural decline . The age gap among white evangelicals in some ways just mirrors the age gap among the public overall with regards to Trump , but in conversations with a number of younger white evangelical Christians , many said they are reexamining the way their faith informs their politics and whether the two have become too tightly intertwined .
If you drill to the center of Trump ’ s political base , a big chunk of those voters are white evangelical Christians . Evangelical leaders are among the first to defend him from criticism and the most ready to forgive his personal behavior . Roughly seven in 10 white evangelical Christians approve of the job Trump is doing as president , and many have been delighted by Trump ’ s first term .
Younger white evangelical Christians , however , express far less enthusiasm for Trump , even if they haven ’ t completely abandoned him . According to the 2019 Voter Study Group survey , only six in 10 younger white evangelical Christians ( between the ages of 18 and 44 ) view Trump favorably , whereas 80 percent of those age 45 or older have a favorable opinion of the president . The intensity gap is even more pronounced . Only one-quarter ( 25 percent ) of younger white evangelical Christians report having a “ very favorable ” opinion of Trump , compared to a majority ( 55 percent ) of older white evangelicals .
No issue exemplifies Trump ’ s influence among white evangelical Christians — and highlights the emerging generational divide — more than immigration . From the start , Trump has made opposition to immigration a central part of his political identity . And white evangelical Christians rallied around Trump in the 2016 election and were quick to embrace his hard-line immigration agenda . During the campaign , white evangelical Christians expressed support for preventing Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. and temporarily banning Muslims from coming to the country . After the election , they coaleseced in support of building a wall along the southern border and blocking immigration from majority Muslim countries .
Indeed , Trump has managed to push the issue of immigration to the center of the evangelical agenda . Seventy-two percent of white evangelical Christians believe immigration should be a top priority , according to a recent Pew Research Center survey . Five years ago , in 2014 , that number was 49 percent .
But , again , the broad policy support masks a growing generational divide in views on immigrants . Two-thirds ( 66 percent ) of young white evangelical Christians ( age 18 to 34 ) say that immigrants coming to the U.S. strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents , a view shared by only 32 percent of white evangelical seniors ( age 65+ ) . A majority ( 54 percent ) of older white evangelical Christians believe that immigrants are a burden on American society .
So why has Trump found younger white evangelicals harder to win over ? Age has a lot to do with it . The president is profoundly unpopular among all young adults . A 2019 Harvard Institute of Politics survey finds that 70 percent of young adults ( age 18 to 24 ) disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president .
But immigration in particular points to another reason young white evangelicals have been less receptive to Trump : Their lives have been dramatically different than their parents ’ .
Most white evangelical Christians say that the U.S. becoming a majority nonwhite country is a negative development . However , the younger white evangelical Christians I spoke to said the immigration debate is complicated . “ Immigration is not as black-and-white as abortion , ” said Lauren Burns , an evangelical student enrolled at Biola University .
First , the young evangelicals told me that demographic change doesn ’ t register as a “ threat ” to them . Like young Americans more generally , racial , ethnic and religious diversity is a normal part of their everyday life . In the U.S. , only half of all evangelical Christians under 30 are white according to a 2016 study . On Christian college campuses , which have seen enrollment gains in recent years , young white evangelical Christians are part of an increasingly diverse student body . White students account for 62 percent of the student body on the roughly 140 campuses affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities , down from 82 percent in 1999 .
And there are other reasons to think younger evangelicals would be less receptive to a message of America in decline . Anecdotally , at least , it seems young white evangelical Christians are less apt to believe their faith is in imminent danger from the broader culture .
In a recent interview with Newsweek , Russell Moore , president of the Southern Baptist Convention ’ s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission , argued that the “ Make America Great Again ” slogan never really resonated with younger white evangelicals . “ Young evangelicals do not feel as if they are losing anything in terms of American culture , ” he wrote . “ They came of age at a time when following Christ seemed countercultural to them anyway . They never expected a nominally Christian culture in which being a church member would be the equivalent of being a good American . ”
Indeed , young adults are upending many of the religious conventions and cultural assumptions that defined American public life in the past . Young people don ’ t feel particularly negatively toward atheists , nor do they view Islam as incompatible with American values . They don ’ t feel especially confident in religious leaders and they don ’ t see religious commitment as synonymous with virtue . The 2018 General Social Survey found that the majority of young adults say that people with strong religious beliefs are often intolerant of others . Even back in 2015 , the overwhelming majority of young adults said they do not believe America is a Christian nation — one in five said it never was — and being Christian is not an important part of being American . The Christian consensus of previous generations , such as there was , is gone .
But critically , for young white evangelical Christians , this is the way it has always been . Numerically , they are already in the minority . Only 8 percent of adults under 30 are white evangelical Protestants . The segment of that age group that ’ s unaffiliated with any religion is nearly five times as large . Among Americans age 65 and older , white evangelicals account for more than one quarter of the population . Not surprisingly , young adults today are actually more likely to say they know an atheist than an evangelical . Growing up in Portland , Oregon , Burns ’ s group of friends in high school included people of color , gay and lesbian people , and atheists . “ If I limited myself to only conservative white Christians , it would be pretty lonely , ” she said .
Rather than yearning for the past , many young white evangelical Christians I spoke with have learned to navigate between an increasingly secular culture and their own deeply held religious commitments . Perhaps nothing defines the experience of young white evangelical Christians more than the conflict between their peers and their faith . Aaryn Marsters , who at the time of the interview was a 33-year-old evangelical Christian living in Charlotte , North Carolina , described the experience to The New York Times : “ As evangelical young people become more liberal , older evangelicals think we ’ ve been brainwashed by the world . And as we continue to hold onto our faith and some more conservative or traditional values , many non-Christians believe we are still brainwashed from our upbringing . ”
For many older white evangelical Christians , Trump ’ s vigorous public defense of conservative Christians remains the most compelling reason to support his reelection . At the Road to Majority Conference , an evangelical grassroots summit , for example , Faith and Freedom Coalition chairman Ralph Reed affirmed evangelicals ’ unwavering commitment to President Trump . “ There has never been anyone who has defended us and fought for us , who we have loved more than Donald J. Trump. ” Jerry Fallwell Jr. , head of Liberty University and a staunch Trump supporter , recently suggested that Christians needed to stop electing “ nice guys ” in favor of “ street fighters ” like Trump . Facing what they see as an increasingly hostile cultural climate , many older white evangelical Christians view Trump as their last and only option .
But this sentiment makes many younger evangelical Christians profoundly uncomfortable and strikes them as practically unnecessary . Aryana Petrosky , an evangelical and recent graduate from a nondenominational Christian school in California , worries about Christians aligning themselves with those in power . She also challenges the notion that conservative Christians need politicians to defend their beliefs in the public square . “ We shouldn ’ t be looking to political leaders to defend our faith , ” she said . It ’ s a view that is entirely consistent with the way younger white evangelicals understand politics . A 2017 Voter Study Group survey found that while nearly three-quarters of older white evangelical Christians agree that “ politics is ultimately a struggle between good and evil , ” younger white evangelicals are far more evenly divided on this issue .
So what about 2020 ? Few young white evangelical Christians who I ’ ve spoken with express enthusiasm about the coming election . For most , Trump is not their preferred candidate , but an increasingly secular and liberal Democratic Party does not present an attractive alternative . Given evangelicals ’ strong pro-life commitment , the Democrats ’ vocal support for abortion access makes the possibility of defection even less likely .
At this stage , a couple of predictions are easy . White evangelical Christians will strongly back Trump ’ s reelection bid , following a decades-old pattern , while young adults will rally to the Democratic nominee , as they have done in every presidential election since 2004 . In a two-way contest , Trump is still likely to make off with the majority of young white evangelical votes . A tepid vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one . Yet Trump is redefining the relationship young evangelical Christians have with the Republican Party . The long-term implications for our politics and evangelical Christianity could be profound .
Kate Stewart was raised in a very civically minded family and had been excited about the prospect of voting in the 2016 election long before her 18th birthday . But she became dismayed and disillusioned by her options . “ Having to choose between these lesser of two evils was really disheartening , ” she said . Looking ahead to 2020 , Stewart for the first time in her voting life has started to look at candidates outside the Republican Party . “ I ’ m cautiously optimistic that the evangelical vote , or at least my evangelical vote , might find a home outside the party of Donald Trump . ”
|
A central message of President Trump’s insurgent candidacy in 2016 boiled down to this: Millions of Americans are losers — economically, culturally and even demographically. Perhaps no group needed less convincing of this proposition than white evangelical Christians, who have long felt embattled. “Make America Great Again” was the perfect slogan for Americans who had already embraced the notion that the country’s culture and way of life had been deteriorating since the 1950s. Indeed, white evangelical Christians voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton in large numbers, and Trump has maintained their support to an impressive degree.
But there are increasing signs of a generational rift: Younger white evangelicals have not fully bought into Trump’s politics and are less receptive to Trump’s message of cultural decline. The age gap among white evangelicals in some ways just mirrors the age gap among the public overall with regards to Trump, but in conversations with a number of younger white evangelical Christians, many said they are reexamining the way their faith informs their politics and whether the two have become too tightly intertwined.
If you drill to the center of Trump’s political base, a big chunk of those voters are white evangelical Christians. Evangelical leaders are among the first to defend him from criticism and the most ready to forgive his personal behavior. Roughly seven in 10 white evangelical Christians approve of the job Trump is doing as president, and many have been delighted by Trump’s first term.
Younger white evangelical Christians, however, express far less enthusiasm for Trump, even if they haven’t completely abandoned him. According to the 2019 Voter Study Group survey, only six in 10 younger white evangelical Christians (between the ages of 18 and 44) view Trump favorably, whereas 80 percent of those age 45 or older have a favorable opinion of the president. The intensity gap is even more pronounced. Only one-quarter (25 percent) of younger white evangelical Christians report having a “very favorable” opinion of Trump, compared to a majority (55 percent) of older white evangelicals.
No issue exemplifies Trump’s influence among white evangelical Christians — and highlights the emerging generational divide — more than immigration. From the start, Trump has made opposition to immigration a central part of his political identity. And white evangelical Christians rallied around Trump in the 2016 election and were quick to embrace his hard-line immigration agenda. During the campaign, white evangelical Christians expressed support for preventing Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. and temporarily banning Muslims from coming to the country. After the election, they coaleseced in support of building a wall along the southern border and blocking immigration from majority Muslim countries.
Indeed, Trump has managed to push the issue of immigration to the center of the evangelical agenda. Seventy-two percent of white evangelical Christians believe immigration should be a top priority, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Five years ago, in 2014, that number was 49 percent.
But, again, the broad policy support masks a growing generational divide in views on immigrants. Two-thirds (66 percent) of young white evangelical Christians (age 18 to 34) say that immigrants coming to the U.S. strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents, a view shared by only 32 percent of white evangelical seniors (age 65+). A majority (54 percent) of older white evangelical Christians believe that immigrants are a burden on American society.
So why has Trump found younger white evangelicals harder to win over? Age has a lot to do with it. The president is profoundly unpopular among all young adults. A 2019 Harvard Institute of Politics survey finds that 70 percent of young adults (age 18 to 24) disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president.
But immigration in particular points to another reason young white evangelicals have been less receptive to Trump: Their lives have been dramatically different than their parents’.
Most white evangelical Christians say that the U.S. becoming a majority nonwhite country is a negative development. However, the younger white evangelical Christians I spoke to said the immigration debate is complicated. “Immigration is not as black-and-white as abortion,” said Lauren Burns, an evangelical student enrolled at Biola University.
First, the young evangelicals told me that demographic change doesn’t register as a “threat” to them. Like young Americans more generally, racial, ethnic and religious diversity is a normal part of their everyday life. In the U.S., only half of all evangelical Christians under 30 are white according to a 2016 study. On Christian college campuses, which have seen enrollment gains in recent years, young white evangelical Christians are part of an increasingly diverse student body. White students account for 62 percent of the student body on the roughly 140 campuses affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, down from 82 percent in 1999.
And there are other reasons to think younger evangelicals would be less receptive to a message of America in decline. Anecdotally, at least, it seems young white evangelical Christians are less apt to believe their faith is in imminent danger from the broader culture.
In a recent interview with Newsweek, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, argued that the “Make America Great Again” slogan never really resonated with younger white evangelicals. “Young evangelicals do not feel as if they are losing anything in terms of American culture,” he wrote. “They came of age at a time when following Christ seemed countercultural to them anyway. They never expected a nominally Christian culture in which being a church member would be the equivalent of being a good American.”
Indeed, young adults are upending many of the religious conventions and cultural assumptions that defined American public life in the past. Young people don’t feel particularly negatively toward atheists, nor do they view Islam as incompatible with American values. They don’t feel especially confident in religious leaders and they don’t see religious commitment as synonymous with virtue. The 2018 General Social Survey found that the majority of young adults say that people with strong religious beliefs are often intolerant of others. Even back in 2015, the overwhelming majority of young adults said they do not believe America is a Christian nation — one in five said it never was — and being Christian is not an important part of being American. The Christian consensus of previous generations, such as there was, is gone.
But critically, for young white evangelical Christians, this is the way it has always been. Numerically, they are already in the minority. Only 8 percent of adults under 30 are white evangelical Protestants. The segment of that age group that’s unaffiliated with any religion is nearly five times as large. Among Americans age 65 and older, white evangelicals account for more than one quarter of the population. Not surprisingly, young adults today are actually more likely to say they know an atheist than an evangelical. Growing up in Portland, Oregon, Burns’s group of friends in high school included people of color, gay and lesbian people, and atheists. “If I limited myself to only conservative white Christians, it would be pretty lonely,” she said.
Rather than yearning for the past, many young white evangelical Christians I spoke with have learned to navigate between an increasingly secular culture and their own deeply held religious commitments. Perhaps nothing defines the experience of young white evangelical Christians more than the conflict between their peers and their faith. Aaryn Marsters, who at the time of the interview was a 33-year-old evangelical Christian living in Charlotte, North Carolina, described the experience to The New York Times: “As evangelical young people become more liberal, older evangelicals think we’ve been brainwashed by the world. And as we continue to hold onto our faith and some more conservative or traditional values, many non-Christians believe we are still brainwashed from our upbringing.”
For many older white evangelical Christians, Trump’s vigorous public defense of conservative Christians remains the most compelling reason to support his reelection. At the Road to Majority Conference, an evangelical grassroots summit, for example, Faith and Freedom Coalition chairman Ralph Reed affirmed evangelicals’ unwavering commitment to President Trump. “There has never been anyone who has defended us and fought for us, who we have loved more than Donald J. Trump.” Jerry Fallwell Jr., head of Liberty University and a staunch Trump supporter, recently suggested that Christians needed to stop electing “nice guys” in favor of “street fighters” like Trump. Facing what they see as an increasingly hostile cultural climate, many older white evangelical Christians view Trump as their last and only option.
But this sentiment makes many younger evangelical Christians profoundly uncomfortable and strikes them as practically unnecessary. Aryana Petrosky, an evangelical and recent graduate from a nondenominational Christian school in California, worries about Christians aligning themselves with those in power. She also challenges the notion that conservative Christians need politicians to defend their beliefs in the public square. “We shouldn’t be looking to political leaders to defend our faith,” she said. It’s a view that is entirely consistent with the way younger white evangelicals understand politics. A 2017 Voter Study Group survey found that while nearly three-quarters of older white evangelical Christians agree that “politics is ultimately a struggle between good and evil,” younger white evangelicals are far more evenly divided on this issue.
So what about 2020? Few young white evangelical Christians who I’ve spoken with express enthusiasm about the coming election. For most, Trump is not their preferred candidate, but an increasingly secular and liberal Democratic Party does not present an attractive alternative. Given evangelicals’ strong pro-life commitment, the Democrats’ vocal support for abortion access makes the possibility of defection even less likely.
At this stage, a couple of predictions are easy. White evangelical Christians will strongly back Trump’s reelection bid, following a decades-old pattern, while young adults will rally to the Democratic nominee, as they have done in every presidential election since 2004. In a two-way contest, Trump is still likely to make off with the majority of young white evangelical votes. A tepid vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one. Yet Trump is redefining the relationship young evangelical Christians have with the Republican Party. The long-term implications for our politics and evangelical Christianity could be profound.
Kate Stewart was raised in a very civically minded family and had been excited about the prospect of voting in the 2016 election long before her 18th birthday. But she became dismayed and disillusioned by her options. “Having to choose between these lesser of two evils was really disheartening,” she said. Looking ahead to 2020, Stewart for the first time in her voting life has started to look at candidates outside the Republican Party. “I’m cautiously optimistic that the evangelical vote, or at least my evangelical vote, might find a home outside the party of Donald Trump.”
|
www.fivethirtyeight.com
| 2center
|
lMpEe11TLR0CeDpn
|
national_security
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47382060
|
Trump Kim talks: What to make of the Hanoi summit collapse?
|
The second summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has ended without any deal or agreement .
Washington insists though that dialogue with Pyongyang will continue and the collapse of the Hanoi summit is not a major disappointment .
Here 's a roundup of North Korea experts looking at the summit and what to make of its sudden end .
The `` no deal '' outcome could have been seen coming a mile away . Indeed , a serious reading of public North Korean statements since last year 's Singapore summit would have revealed the core issue that resulted in a lack of agreement .
The day after the Singapore summit , North Korean state media paraphrased Kim Jong-un as noting Pyongyang would take `` additional good-will measures '' if the US took `` genuine measures . '' By that date , North Korea had dismantled its nuclear testing site at Punggye-ri and announced a moratorium on nuclear tests and intercontinental-range ballistic missile tests .
Weeks later , North Korea would also partially and reversibly dismantle a missile-engine test stand .
When Mr Kim met South Korean President Moon Jae-in for a third summit in Pyongyang last September , they referenced North Korea 's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon as an example of something the North would put on the table in exchange for `` corresponding measures '' from the US .
Finally , on 1 January this year , Kim Jong-un made the same point in his New Year 's address : corresponding measures would lead to progress in the US-North Korea diplomatic relationship . This phrase was misinterpreted to mean any range of US concessions , including a possibly a declaration to end the Korean War , when it really meant sanctions relief .
Critically , the sequence matters to North Korea : the US would have to agree for sanctions relief up front for any further concessions on denuclearization to flow . In effect , Yongbyon will remain off the table until the US provides sanctions relief .
Donald Trump confirmed this is precisely what caused the breakdown of talks at his press conference on the second day of the Hanoi summit .
As long as Washington remains unwilling to take the first step on sanctions relief , this process will likely remain stuck . The longer it remains stuck , the more likely it is to collapse .
It is surprising that they did n't come away with a preliminary deal , as they clearly had the outline for one going into the final round of pre-summit negotiations .
The tone of the press conference was relatively positive , indicating that the administration still sees a way forward and intends to continue negotiations .
That 's encouraging for now , while also offering some relief to those who thought the US would accept a `` bad deal '' .
However , in the meantime , no concrete obligations have been placed on either side and I would suspect that offers of confidence building measures that we 've seen coming from North Korea in the past - such as dismantling of the nuclear test site - are unlikely to continue .
Of all the stakeholders in this process , the lack of movement on the US-North Korea agenda puts South Korea in a very awkward position , unable to secure the sanctions exemptions they were hoping for as part of this deal , which would facilitate the resumption of inter-Korean economic cooperation .
Moreover , despite the president 's stated will to continue negotiating with North Korea , in the current domestic political environment , there is a real risk of the momentum for this issue waning amidst a sea of competing interests .
Fundamentally , this summit was supposed to kick off a process through which the two countries were going to try to move to a more win-win relationship , rather than the zero-sum `` I win , you lose '' frame that has dominated US-North Korea relations since , well , forever .
From Mr Trump 's perspective it will be a loss he can weather , however . A `` bad deal '' in which he gave away a lot would inspire years of debate and pushback from US foreign-policy elites . With this , he 's spun it as save-able through working-level talks and will head home and the news cycle will move on .
Momentum is hard to build between these two countries and there is every chance now that Donald Trump becomes distracted by politics in the US and this window of opportunity closes .
Who knows who the next president will be and what he or she aspires to with North Korea ?
That the North Koreans went into this agreement demanding `` all sanctions '' be lifted , as Trump said , suggests there is an increasing desperation on the part of Pyongyang for relief , and that they see any other kind of deal as essentially pointless - we 'll have to see their response in the coming day .
It is also a major embarrassment for the South Korean government , which had planned a major announcement on the `` Future of Korean peace and prosperity '' tomorrow and had hopes for a major expansion of cooperation with the North in the wake of this summit .
China and Russia , too , will be very frustrated with this outcome .
The mood in Pyongyang may be tempered , however , by Mr Trump 's comments that he will not increase sanctions against the country , and that he would `` love '' to see them lifted in the near future .
The message is that while no formal relief is going to happen anytime soon , the days of `` maximum pressure '' are long gone .
Olivia Enos , policy analyst , Asian Studies Center , The Heritage Foundation
President Trump made the right decision to walk away from a deal .
North Korea 's ask to remove all sanctions was untenable and also illegal . According to US and UN sanctions , sanctions can not be removed until complete , verifiable , irreversible dismantlement of North Korea 's nuclear program takes place and the regime makes human rights improvements .
The 80,000 to 120,000 North Korean people inside those prisons camps are being exploited by Kim Jong-un as free labour to fund and architect his nuclear and missile weapons program .
Reports indicate that some may even have chemical and biological weapons tested on them .
Failure to reach a deal in Hanoi demonstrates the need to craft a more comprehensive policy toward North Korea one that see human rights and denuclearization as interconnected .
Future diplomacy , if it 's even possible , should reflect the multifaceted nature of current US law .
|
Image copyright Reuters Image caption See you at the next summit?
The second summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has ended without any deal or agreement.
Washington insists though that dialogue with Pyongyang will continue and the collapse of the Hanoi summit is not a major disappointment.
Here's a roundup of North Korea experts looking at the summit and what to make of its sudden end.
A predictable 'no deal'
Ankit Panda, senior editor, The Diplomat
The "no deal" outcome could have been seen coming a mile away. Indeed, a serious reading of public North Korean statements since last year's Singapore summit would have revealed the core issue that resulted in a lack of agreement.
The day after the Singapore summit, North Korean state media paraphrased Kim Jong-un as noting Pyongyang would take "additional good-will measures" if the US took "genuine measures." By that date, North Korea had dismantled its nuclear testing site at Punggye-ri and announced a moratorium on nuclear tests and intercontinental-range ballistic missile tests.
Weeks later, North Korea would also partially and reversibly dismantle a missile-engine test stand.
When Mr Kim met South Korean President Moon Jae-in for a third summit in Pyongyang last September, they referenced North Korea's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon as an example of something the North would put on the table in exchange for "corresponding measures" from the US.
Finally, on 1 January this year, Kim Jong-un made the same point in his New Year's address: corresponding measures would lead to progress in the US-North Korea diplomatic relationship. This phrase was misinterpreted to mean any range of US concessions, including a possibly a declaration to end the Korean War, when it really meant sanctions relief.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption All smiles and yet no final deal
Critically, the sequence matters to North Korea: the US would have to agree for sanctions relief up front for any further concessions on denuclearization to flow. In effect, Yongbyon will remain off the table until the US provides sanctions relief.
Donald Trump confirmed this is precisely what caused the breakdown of talks at his press conference on the second day of the Hanoi summit.
As long as Washington remains unwilling to take the first step on sanctions relief, this process will likely remain stuck. The longer it remains stuck, the more likely it is to collapse.
Waning momentum in the US?
Jenny Town, managing editor, 38 North
It is surprising that they didn't come away with a preliminary deal, as they clearly had the outline for one going into the final round of pre-summit negotiations.
The tone of the press conference was relatively positive, indicating that the administration still sees a way forward and intends to continue negotiations.
That's encouraging for now, while also offering some relief to those who thought the US would accept a "bad deal".
However, in the meantime, no concrete obligations have been placed on either side and I would suspect that offers of confidence building measures that we've seen coming from North Korea in the past - such as dismantling of the nuclear test site - are unlikely to continue.
Of all the stakeholders in this process, the lack of movement on the US-North Korea agenda puts South Korea in a very awkward position, unable to secure the sanctions exemptions they were hoping for as part of this deal, which would facilitate the resumption of inter-Korean economic cooperation.
Moreover, despite the president's stated will to continue negotiating with North Korea, in the current domestic political environment, there is a real risk of the momentum for this issue waning amidst a sea of competing interests.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Trump might focus more on domestic policies than North Korea's guns
The risk for North Korea
Andray Abrahamian, Stanford University
Fundamentally, this summit was supposed to kick off a process through which the two countries were going to try to move to a more win-win relationship, rather than the zero-sum "I win, you lose" frame that has dominated US-North Korea relations since, well, forever.
As such, you have to say that everybody lost.
From Mr Trump's perspective it will be a loss he can weather, however. A "bad deal" in which he gave away a lot would inspire years of debate and pushback from US foreign-policy elites. With this, he's spun it as save-able through working-level talks and will head home and the news cycle will move on.
This is the risk for North Korea.
Momentum is hard to build between these two countries and there is every chance now that Donald Trump becomes distracted by politics in the US and this window of opportunity closes.
Who knows who the next president will be and what he or she aspires to with North Korea?
No more 'maximum pressure'
Oliver Hotham, managing editor, NK News
That the North Koreans went into this agreement demanding "all sanctions" be lifted, as Trump said, suggests there is an increasing desperation on the part of Pyongyang for relief, and that they see any other kind of deal as essentially pointless - we'll have to see their response in the coming day.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption North Korea's economy is suffering severely from the sanctions
It is also a major embarrassment for the South Korean government, which had planned a major announcement on the "Future of Korean peace and prosperity" tomorrow and had hopes for a major expansion of cooperation with the North in the wake of this summit.
China and Russia, too, will be very frustrated with this outcome.
The mood in Pyongyang may be tempered, however, by Mr Trump's comments that he will not increase sanctions against the country, and that he would "love" to see them lifted in the near future.
The message is that while no formal relief is going to happen anytime soon, the days of "maximum pressure" are long gone.
'Human rights and denuclearization interconnected'
Olivia Enos, policy analyst, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation
President Trump made the right decision to walk away from a deal.
North Korea's ask to remove all sanctions was untenable and also illegal. According to US and UN sanctions, sanctions cannot be removed until complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program takes place and the regime makes human rights improvements.
The 80,000 to 120,000 North Korean people inside those prisons camps are being exploited by Kim Jong-un as free labour to fund and architect his nuclear and missile weapons program.
Reports indicate that some may even have chemical and biological weapons tested on them.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Authorities brutally crack down on any dissent
Failure to reach a deal in Hanoi demonstrates the need to craft a more comprehensive policy toward North Korea one that see human rights and denuclearization as interconnected.
Future diplomacy, if it's even possible, should reflect the multifaceted nature of current US law.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
Qc4PSdkOgDCvYTbj
|
||
taxes
|
Fox News
| 22
|
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-propose-significant-wealth-tax-expansion
|
Bernie Sanders to propose significant wealth tax expansion
|
Megan Henney
|
Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed a plan on Thursday to dramatically expand the federal estate tax on the wealthy , including a 77 percent tax rate on billionaires ’ estates .
Sanders ’ bill -- dubbed “ For the 99.8 % Act ” -- would tax the estates of the 0.2 percent of Americans who inherit more than $ 3.5 million . If passed , it would also establish a 45 percent tax on the value of an estate between $ 3.5 million and $ 10 million and a 50 percent tax on the value of an estate between $ 10 million and $ 50 million . It ’ s estimated to generate about $ 2.2 trillion from the 588 billionaires in the country .
The Vermont independent , who is currently eyeing a potential 2020 presidential bid as a Democrat , said it would not affect the remainder of the country .
`` Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality , ” Sanders said in a statement . “ From a moral , economic , and political perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little . ''
The bill would also close tax loopholes that allow wealthy families to pass their fortunes to the next generation without paying a tax on it .
Sanders ’ bill follows similar pushes by fellow progressives , including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass . ( who announced her presidential candidacy in January ) . Last week , Warren announced a plan to raise taxes on the country ’ s wealthiest residents , which she said would apply to “ ultra-millionaires ” , or those with more than $ 50 million in assets .
A recent ███ Poll revealed that a majority of respondents ( 51 percent ) favored spending more on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending -- and their preferred method of financing those projects is through taxing the wealthy . Roughly 70 percent of voters favored raising taxes on those making more than $ 10 million each year .
Meanwhile , three republicans senators this week unveiled a plan to entirely repeal the estate tax , according to The Washington Post .
`` At a time of massive wealth and income inequality , when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans , it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 0.2 percent , '' Sanders said .
|
Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed a plan on Thursday to dramatically expand the federal estate tax on the wealthy, including a 77 percent tax rate on billionaires’ estates.
Continue Reading Below
Sanders’ bill -- dubbed “For the 99.8% Act” -- would tax the estates of the 0.2 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. If passed, it would also establish a 45 percent tax on the value of an estate between $3.5 million and $10 million and a 50 percent tax on the value of an estate between $10 million and $50 million. It’s estimated to generate about $2.2 trillion from the 588 billionaires in the country.
The Vermont independent, who is currently eyeing a potential 2020 presidential bid as a Democrat, said it would not affect the remainder of the country.
"Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality,” Sanders said in a statement. “From a moral, economic, and political perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little."
The bill would also close tax loopholes that allow wealthy families to pass their fortunes to the next generation without paying a tax on it.
Sanders’ bill follows similar pushes by fellow progressives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. (who announced her presidential candidacy in January). Last week, Warren announced a plan to raise taxes on the country’s wealthiest residents, which she said would apply to “ultra-millionaires”, or those with more than $50 million in assets.
A recent Fox News Poll revealed that a majority of respondents (51 percent) favored spending more on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending -- and their preferred method of financing those projects is through taxing the wealthy. Roughly 70 percent of voters favored raising taxes on those making more than $10 million each year.
Meanwhile, three republicans senators this week unveiled a plan to entirely repeal the estate tax, according to The Washington Post.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX BUSINESS APP
"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans, it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 0.2 percent," Sanders said.
|
www.foxbusiness.com
| 1right
|
Piug35RGT8qUfhT4
|
|
foreign_policy
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-diplomatic-moderation-1486900801
|
Donald Trump’s Diplomatic Moderation
|
Peter Nicholas, Carol E. Lee, David Rothkopf
|
WEST PALM BEACH , Fla.—President Donald Trump appears to be adopting more conventional positions aligned with decades of U.S. foreign-policy making and diplomacy , pulling back from some of the more unorthodox promises he advanced as a candidate .
In recent dealings with Asia and the Middle East , Russia and European allies , Mr. Trump has showed more deference to the consensus views taken by past Republican and Democratic administrations . The coming week provides another set of tests , with visits by the leaders of Canada and Israel scheduled .
A weekend missile launch from North Korea offered a vivid illustration of how Mr. Trump has abandoned crowd-pleasing campaign rhetoric in the face of real-world threats . As a candidate , Mr. Trump said a U.S. defense agreement with Japan was unfair , permitting the Japanese to sit home and watch “ Sony ” TV while the U.S. was attacked .
With Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visiting his Mar-a-Lago estate , the two men made a joint appearance Saturday night in response to the missile launch and Mr. Trump proclaimed that the “ United States of America stands behind Japan , its great ally , 100 % . ”
Mr. Trump ’ s evolution comes as his foreign-policy team has taken shape , with Jim Mattis and Rex Tillerson confirmed by the Senate and firmly in place at the Defense and State departments , respectively .
“ He ’ s getting more advice and he seems to see wisdom in greater orthodoxy , ” said Jon Alterman , who runs the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies , a think tank .
The early days of the Trump presidency also have proved a reality check for the president , with his campaign messaging and bold assertions of executive power colliding with geopolitical realities and Constitutional checks and balances .
Last week , an appeals court in San Francisco dealt him a setback , upholding suspension of travel restrictions Mr. Trump says are necessary to guard Americans against terrorist attack . In the ruling , the Ninth U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the limits on a president ’ s powers , sweeping aside the government ’ s argument that Mr. Trump ’ s authority when it comes to immigration is “ unreviewable ” by the courts .
Peter Edelman , a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center , said about the court ’ s decision : “ This is a marker . What it shows us is there are boundaries to the power of the executive and that no president can violate them . ”
In the foreign-policy realm meanwhile , Mr. Trump has been tempering , shifting and reversing course on a host of statements he made while campaigning against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
During the race , he had maintained a combative approach to China , and broke protocol after his victory by accepting a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan ’ s leader . He described the “ One China ” policy that grants diplomatic recognition to Beijing but not Taiwan as up for negotiation , a possible bargaining chip as he pressed for concessions from the Chinese in its currency practices .
“ Everything is under negotiation , including ‘ One-China , ’ ” Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal in an interview a week before he was sworn-in .
But on Thursday , Mr. Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping and acquiesced to the status quo , confirming he would abide by the same “ One China ” policy that has underpinned Sino-American relations .
White House officials said Mr. Trump did so to reset relations with the Chinese .
During his campaign , Mr. Trump vowed that his Treasury Department will label China a “ currency manipulator , ” setting in motion “ countervailing duties ” on Chinese imports .
Now , three weeks into his administration , Mr. Trump still has n't slapped China with that designation .
Last week , he also moved to embrace broadly the status quo in U.S.-Asia policy , saying , after a meeting with Mr. Abe in Washington , that he would uphold America ’ s alliances and military agreements in the region .
Even before the report of North Korea ’ s missile launch , Mr. Trump had dropped the tough talk about Japan and gone out of his way to befriend America ’ s ally . He flew Mr. Abe to his Florida home Air Force One and the two golfed together Saturday at the Trump National Jupiter Golf Club .
“ Having a great time hosting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in the United States ! ” Mr. Trump wrote Saturday in a post on his Twitter account , accompanied by a picture of the two men high-fiving on a tee .
Mr. Trump has taken a similar posture toward U.S. alliances in Europe , particularly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . After meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May , he said he would strongly back the alliance . His administration is expected to support Montenegro ’ s bid to join NATO , though Russia opposes the move .
Before taking office , Mr. Trump described the NATO alliance as “ obsolete. ” But key cabinet secretaries have been far more bullish on NATO and Mr. Trump has shown he will heed recommendations from his advisers . Both Messrs. Mattis and Tillerson voiced support for NATO in confirmation hearings .
As a candidate , Mr. Trump advocated waterboarding as a means of fighting terrorists . A week after taking office , Mr. Trump announced that he would reverse course and defer to Mr. Mattis , a retired Marine Corps general , who believes such measures don ’ t work—a position consistent with Obama administration policy .
Mr. Trump also has retreated from his campaign promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv , opting not to do that within days of taking office . What ’ s more , Mr. Trump issued a statement warning Israel that expanding the construction of settlements to new areas could be an impediment to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement . That stance tracks with longstanding U.S. policy toward the Middle East .
Settlements , Mr. Trump told an Israeli newspaper last week , “ don ’ t help the process . I can say that . There is so much land left . And every time you take land for settlements , there is less land left . ”
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to visit Mr. Trump at the White House on Wednesday , the settlement and embassy issues could prove a source of contention .
That , too , wouldn ’ t be unusual . Former President Barack Obama clashed openly with Mr. Netanyahu about settlement construction .
Russia is one glaring piece of Mr. Trump ’ s foreign policy around which there is still little clarity . Mr. Trump has said he wants closer relations with Russia , but it is unclear how he would achieve that . Russia is seen by many U.S. officials from both parties as an adversary , a view that intensified after U.S. intelligence agencies determined Moscow used cyberattacks to try to interfere with the 2016 presidential election . Russia denies involvement in the hacks .
“ These are very early days , but it ’ s clear that Trump is getting a healthy dose of reality . ” —David Rothkopf , former Clinton administration official
Mr. Trump has suggested he might lift sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to the hacks if he can cut a deal with Russia on other issues .
Yet he has fallen in line with European leaders and U.S. lawmakers ’ view that America should maintain sanctions against Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine until Moscow abides by an agreement to end the violence . The White House said recently those sanctions should not be lifted unless Russia holds up its end of that bargain .
David Rothkopf , a former Clinton administration official and author of “ Running the World , ” a book about the U.S. National Security Council , said about the president ’ s trend toward diplomatic conventions : “ These are very early days , but it ’ s clear that Trump is getting a healthy dose of reality . As a consequence of his encounters with both foreign leaders and the professional representatives of the U.S. government , it ’ s becoming clear to him that a lot of his campaign rhetoric was ill-conceived . ”
|
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.—President Donald Trump appears to be adopting more conventional positions aligned with decades of U.S. foreign-policy making and diplomacy, pulling back from some of the more unorthodox promises he advanced as a candidate.
In recent dealings with Asia and the Middle East, Russia and European allies, Mr. Trump has showed more deference to the consensus views taken by past Republican and Democratic administrations. The coming week provides another set of tests, with visits by the leaders of Canada and Israel scheduled.
A weekend missile launch from North Korea offered a vivid illustration of how Mr. Trump has abandoned crowd-pleasing campaign rhetoric in the face of real-world threats. As a candidate, Mr. Trump said a U.S. defense agreement with Japan was unfair, permitting the Japanese to sit home and watch “Sony” TV while the U.S. was attacked.
With Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visiting his Mar-a-Lago estate, the two men made a joint appearance Saturday night in response to the missile launch and Mr. Trump proclaimed that the “United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100%.”
Mr. Trump’s evolution comes as his foreign-policy team has taken shape, with Jim Mattis and Rex Tillerson confirmed by the Senate and firmly in place at the Defense and State departments, respectively.
“He’s getting more advice and he seems to see wisdom in greater orthodoxy,” said Jon Alterman, who runs the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, a think tank.
The early days of the Trump presidency also have proved a reality check for the president, with his campaign messaging and bold assertions of executive power colliding with geopolitical realities and Constitutional checks and balances.
Last week, an appeals court in San Francisco dealt him a setback, upholding suspension of travel restrictions Mr. Trump says are necessary to guard Americans against terrorist attack. In the ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the limits on a president’s powers, sweeping aside the government’s argument that Mr. Trump’s authority when it comes to immigration is “unreviewable” by the courts.
Peter Edelman, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, said about the court’s decision: “This is a marker. What it shows us is there are boundaries to the power of the executive and that no president can violate them.”
Mr. Trump, left, and British Prime Minister Theresa May spoke together at the White House in Washington on Jan. 27. At a joint press conference with Mrs. May, Mr. Trump nodded as if he affirmed her statement that he supported the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which he was critical during his campaign. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
In the foreign-policy realm meanwhile, Mr. Trump has been tempering, shifting and reversing course on a host of statements he made while campaigning against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
During the race, he had maintained a combative approach to China, and broke protocol after his victory by accepting a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s leader. He described the “One China” policy that grants diplomatic recognition to Beijing but not Taiwan as up for negotiation, a possible bargaining chip as he pressed for concessions from the Chinese in its currency practices.
“Everything is under negotiation, including ‘One-China,’ ” Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal in an interview a week before he was sworn-in.
But on Thursday, Mr. Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping and acquiesced to the status quo, confirming he would abide by the same “One China” policy that has underpinned Sino-American relations.
White House officials said Mr. Trump did so to reset relations with the Chinese.
During his campaign, Mr. Trump vowed that his Treasury Department will label China a “currency manipulator,” setting in motion “countervailing duties” on Chinese imports.
Now, three weeks into his administration, Mr. Trump still hasn't slapped China with that designation.
Last week, he also moved to embrace broadly the status quo in U.S.-Asia policy, saying, after a meeting with Mr. Abe in Washington, that he would uphold America’s alliances and military agreements in the region.
Even before the report of North Korea’s missile launch, Mr. Trump had dropped the tough talk about Japan and gone out of his way to befriend America’s ally. He flew Mr. Abe to his Florida home Air Force One and the two golfed together Saturday at the Trump National Jupiter Golf Club.
“Having a great time hosting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in the United States!” Mr. Trump wrote Saturday in a post on his Twitter account, accompanied by a picture of the two men high-fiving on a tee.
Mr. Trump has taken a similar posture toward U.S. alliances in Europe, particularly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May, he said he would strongly back the alliance. His administration is expected to support Montenegro’s bid to join NATO, though Russia opposes the move.
Before taking office, Mr. Trump described the NATO alliance as “obsolete.” But key cabinet secretaries have been far more bullish on NATO and Mr. Trump has shown he will heed recommendations from his advisers. Both Messrs. Mattis and Tillerson voiced support for NATO in confirmation hearings.
As a candidate, Mr. Trump advocated waterboarding as a means of fighting terrorists. A week after taking office, Mr. Trump announced that he would reverse course and defer to Mr. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who believes such measures don’t work—a position consistent with Obama administration policy.
Mr. Trump also has retreated from his campaign promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, opting not to do that within days of taking office. What’s more, Mr. Trump issued a statement warning Israel that expanding the construction of settlements to new areas could be an impediment to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. That stance tracks with longstanding U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Settlements, Mr. Trump told an Israeli newspaper last week, “don’t help the process. I can say that. There is so much land left. And every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left.”
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to visit Mr. Trump at the White House on Wednesday, the settlement and embassy issues could prove a source of contention.
That, too, wouldn’t be unusual. Former President Barack Obama clashed openly with Mr. Netanyahu about settlement construction.
Russia is one glaring piece of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy around which there is still little clarity. Mr. Trump has said he wants closer relations with Russia, but it is unclear how he would achieve that. Russia is seen by many U.S. officials from both parties as an adversary, a view that intensified after U.S. intelligence agencies determined Moscow used cyberattacks to try to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Russia denies involvement in the hacks.
“ These are very early days, but it’s clear that Trump is getting a healthy dose of reality. ” —David Rothkopf, former Clinton administration official
Mr. Trump has suggested he might lift sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to the hacks if he can cut a deal with Russia on other issues.
Yet he has fallen in line with European leaders and U.S. lawmakers’ view that America should maintain sanctions against Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine until Moscow abides by an agreement to end the violence. The White House said recently those sanctions should not be lifted unless Russia holds up its end of that bargain.
David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and author of “Running the World,” a book about the U.S. National Security Council, said about the president’s trend toward diplomatic conventions: “These are very early days, but it’s clear that Trump is getting a healthy dose of reality. As a consequence of his encounters with both foreign leaders and the professional representatives of the U.S. government, it’s becoming clear to him that a lot of his campaign rhetoric was ill-conceived.”
Write to Peter Nicholas at [email protected] and Carol E. Lee at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
mSoGEyyj68rJbCG3
|
|
terrorism
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/15/paris-terrorist-attacks-airstrikes/75837088/
|
'Massive' French airstrikes hit Islamic State to retaliate for attacks
|
2015-11-15
|
Greg Toppo
|
CLOSE France launched `` massive '' air strikes on the Islamic State group 's de-facto capital in Syria on Sunday night , destroying a jihadi training camp and a munitions dump in the city of Raqqa . ( Nov. 15 ) AP
France 's military launched `` massive '' retaliatory airstrikes against Islamic State sites in Syria on Sunday night , saying French aircraft struck a command center and training camp at Raqqa .
The French Air Force posted videos on its Facebook page of the planes embarking on the raid of the extremist group 's de facto capital . The strikes come two days after the worst attacks in Paris since World War II . The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks at six sites that killed 132 people and wounded hundreds more .
The French Defense Ministry said the strikes targeted a command post , a training camp and a weapons depot , dropping 20 bombs on Raqqa . It said 10 fighter jets in the operation came from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan in coordination with U.S. forces .
Speaking in Turkey at the G-20 summit , French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius said , `` France has always said that because she has been threatened and attacked by ( Isis ) it would be normal that she react in the framework of self defense , '' The Financial Times reported . `` It would be normal to take action . That ’ s what we did with the strikes on Raqqa , which is their headquarter . We can not let ( Isis ) act without reacting . ”
A U.S.-led coalition that includes France has been conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria since last year .
A group of anti-Islamic State activists in Syria called Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently reported Sunday that at least 30 airstrikes had hit Raqqa `` so far . ''
`` No civilians hit so far , the hospitals are reporting . Electricity and water shut down . Panic among the civilians , ” the group posted on its website . “ Areas hit : Stadium , museum , hospital , government building ( municipal ) . ”
“ It ’ s sad how it always falls on our heads . Pray for us , ” the group said .
The group was created by 17 Syrian activists in April 2014 to document abuses by the Islamic State after the militant group took over and declared the northern Syrian city of Raqqa to be the caliphate ’ s capital .
Working anonymously for their safety , members of Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently secretly film and report from within the city and send the information to local and outside news media .
|
CLOSE France launched "massive" air strikes on the Islamic State group's de-facto capital in Syria on Sunday night, destroying a jihadi training camp and a munitions dump in the city of Raqqa. (Nov. 15) AP
In this screen grab from the French Air Force Facebook page, warplanes embark on retaliatory strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on Nov. 15, 2015. (Photo: French Air Force)
France's military launched "massive" retaliatory airstrikes against Islamic State sites in Syria on Sunday night, saying French aircraft struck a command center and training camp at Raqqa.
The French Air Force posted videos on its Facebook page of the planes embarking on the raid of the extremist group's de facto capital. The strikes come two days after the worst attacks in Paris since World War II. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks at six sites that killed 132 people and wounded hundreds more.
The French Defense Ministry said the strikes targeted a command post, a training camp and a weapons depot, dropping 20 bombs on Raqqa. It said 10 fighter jets in the operation came from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan in coordination with U.S. forces.
Speaking in Turkey at the G-20 summit, French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius said, "France has always said that because she has been threatened and attacked by (Isis) it would be normal that she react in the framework of self defense," The Financial Times reported. "It would be normal to take action. That’s what we did with the strikes on Raqqa, which is their headquarter. We cannot let (Isis) act without reacting.”
A U.S.-led coalition that includes France has been conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria since last year.
A group of anti-Islamic State activists in Syria called Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently reported Sunday that at least 30 airstrikes had hit Raqqa "so far."
"No civilians hit so far, the hospitals are reporting. Electricity and water shut down. Panic among the civilians,” the group posted on its website. “Areas hit: Stadium, museum, hospital, government building (municipal).”
“It’s sad how it always falls on our heads. Pray for us,” the group said.
The group was created by 17 Syrian activists in April 2014 to document abuses by the Islamic State after the militant group took over and declared the northern Syrian city of Raqqa to be the caliphate’s capital.
Working anonymously for their safety, members of Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently secretly film and report from within the city and send the information to local and outside news media.
Contributing: Jabeen Bhatti
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1NUSYqs
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
ow8OEdBoFb9iWFBe
|
coronavirus
|
Washington Post
| 00
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/power-to-states-and-governors-during-coronavirus/?itid=hp_rhp__hp-top-table-high_reckoning-630pm%3Ahomepage/story-ans
|
As Washington stumbled, governors stepped to the forefront
|
Dan Balz, White House Correspondent, Southwest Correspondent.
|
The history of the United States has generally been written with the states in a subordinate role or cast in a negative light — but no longer . The story of America ’ s confrontation with the coronavirus pandemic is one in which states and their governors have been dominant .
As Washington has stumbled , governors of both parties have acted to fill the void . States have pleaded with Washington for help , and sometimes have gotten it . As often , however , the tensions and disagreements between state leaders and the federal government — especially with President Trump — have come to define the crisis .
Political Reckoning Click previous Click next A series exploring the political dynamics surrounding the coronavirus crisis . Swipe to view more stories .
As Trump dallied , governors moved on their own to order their residents to stay at home . When the president threatened to force states to lift those restrictions , governors resisted . When Trump supported protesters demanding that their states be opened up , many governors — though not all — said they would follow federal guidelines to the letter or even go beyond .
This display of state power is very much as the Founders intended when they established the nation . Just as they created checks and balances at the national level among the legislative , executive and judicial branches , they also wanted checks and balances between the central government and the states . Over time , the federal government has regularly usurped the broad authority given to the states , often to wipe away problems or correct historical injustices .
This spring , the balance of power has been flipped , with states forced to compensate for failings at the national level . Those federal deficiencies reflect an absence of readiness and sometimes a lack of interest and competence on the part of the Trump administration . The deficiencies have been compounded by a president given to issuing conflicting advice , attacking individual governors , and making wildly misleading and outright false statements , as when he suggested that scientists should explore injecting bleach into people to combat the virus .
“ What I can say is we ’ ve had very little leadership with regard to the coronavirus crisis from the federal government , ” said Illinois Gov . J.B. Pritzker ( D ) . The first-term governor recently reviewed the history of presidential leadership in times of crisis . “ Each of them understood the importance and power that the federal government has to move the country in a single direction toward victory , ” he said . “ I have seen nearly none of that out of this president . ”
In contrast to past presidents , Trump has rhetorically claimed vast powers while making clear through his actions that he prefers a system that puts on governors the responsibility for some of the more difficult decisions .
Robert Chesney , a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin , argued that rarely has the president claimed more power while doing less with it . “ Some of the most over-the-top claims we ’ ve seen about the relationship between federal power and state power are happening at the same time that the federal government is shockingly inactive in areas it could and should be , ” he said .
The U.S. Capitol in Washington on April 27 . As the United States matured , the powers of states were steadily chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court . ( Matt McClain/The ███ )
The word “ federalism ” does not appear in the Constitution , but it was always meant to be an essential component of the new American government established in the late 18th century .
“ Federalism is the great constitutional compromise , ” said Abbe Gluck , a professor at Yale Law School . “ It ’ s the way that 13 different small republics came together to form a nation . They were skeptical of federal power , so they formed a union with layers , with a lot of authority reserved to the states . ”
“ In its purest form , federalism is a power-sharing arrangement , ” Michael Leavitt , a former Republican governor of Utah and secretary of health and human services in the administration of President George W. Bush , said in an email .
“ Today , federalism means , at a minimum , viewing both the states and the federal government as legitimate sources of legal and political authority , but little consensus exists as to what that general principle of multiplicity should mean in practice , ” Alison LaCroix , a professor at the University of Chicago Law School , wrote in an essay published in the Yale Law Journal in 2014 .
In ratifying the Constitution , Leavitt said , states agreed to a division of labor in which the national government would have responsibility for roughly two dozen enumerated duties . All other powers were reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment . This was to result in a “ limited , but supreme , national government ” with the states and the federal government there to protect their own powers and prevent either entity from becoming too powerful .
Federalism allows states the freedom to devise solutions that fit their economic , demographic , cultural and geographical realities — as well as offering the country multiple styles of leadership beyond the presidency . Which is why Justice Louis Brandeis coined the description of the states as “ laboratories of democracy . ”
“ The downside [ of federalism ] , ” Gluck said , “ is that it can breed enormous inequality across the country . The South ’ s history of racism is the most obvious example . ”
Gluck said those inequities have continued down to the present , being most notable in the decision by a group of more than a dozen mostly Republican-led states not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act , denying access to health-care coverage to many low-income families .
Zach Stafford adjusts the TV volume at home in Belleville , Ill. , on April 28 as he and his mother , Debra Mize , watch the daily coronavirus briefing by Illinois Gov . J.B. Pritzker ( D ) . ( Jeff Roberson/AP )
The disparate responses to the coronavirus have focused attention on this reality . “ The states have drifted into different camps where the nature of their role in the federal system has increasingly differed and the nature of the government we get depends on where we live , ” said Donald F. Kettl , a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “ The Divided States of America : Why Federalism Doesn ’ t Work . ”
Gary Gerstle , a professor of history at Cambridge University in England and author of “ Liberty and Coercion : The Paradox of American Government , ” noted that states started out with broad powers to regulate virtually all activity within their borders .
States exercised their authority through what is known as police power — though not to be confused with a definition that focuses only on law and order . Instead , this concept of police power derives from English doctrine and practice . This gave states responsibilities over health , safety , welfare and morals within their boundaries , everything from the regulation of businesses to Sunday blue laws to dealing with disasters and epidemics .
“ The police power endows the states with an extraordinary authority to act on almost any issue having to do with the people ’ s welfare for the good of the commonwealth , ” Gerstle said . “ If that means overriding individual choice and individual rights , so be it . ”
As the nation matured , state powers were steadily chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court . The vehicle used most frequently by the high court to give Washington ever-greater power was the Constitution ’ s commerce clause — which grants the federal government power to regulate commerce among the states .
Times of crisis often enhanced federal power . President Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s response to the Great Depression resulted in the creation of the modern and more powerful national government . “ The 20th century is the story of the New Deal and the 1930s reshaping everything about federalism , ” LaCroix said in a recent interview . “ The expansion of the federal commerce power keeps continuing . The scope keeps growing . ”
The civil rights movement of the 1960s proved to be another watershed moment in giving the federal government greater power over the states . The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the cornerstone of the shift , and when the high court ruled unanimously that the act was constitutional , the justices used the commerce clause , rather than the 14th Amendment , to uphold it .
The 1980s and 1990s saw some shift back , as the Rehnquist court sought to prevent continuing erosion . But those changes still left the federal government with significantly more power . “ It turned out to be a lopsided game , ” Leavitt said of the long struggle between Washington and the states . “ States have often been politically anemic in defense of their role . ”
At the April 19 daily briefing by the coronavirus task force , Trump shows video of New York Gov . Andrew M. Cuomo ( D ) thanking his administration for its assistance to New York in managing the health crisis . ( Bill O ’ Leary/The ███ )
States became more dependent on the federal government and more under Washington ’ s thumb as the price for greater financial support . But governors learned this spring that the existing relationship was inadequate to meet the moment . Because of hesitation by the president , they had to act on their own , and those unilateral decisions put them in the spotlight as well as the hot seat .
Ohio ’ s Mike DeWine ( R ) was the first governor in the nation to close schools . Even earlier , before there were any confirmed cases of covid-19 in his state , he prohibited spectator attendance at a popular annual bodybuilding festival .
Disregarding a court decision that went against him , DeWine controversially postponed the state ’ s presidential primary on the eve of voting . He had hoped the courts would order the primary delayed , but his strategy of employing a friendly lawsuit to bring about the desired judicial ruling backfired .
“ We pulled a judge who didn ’ t agree , ” DeWine said . “ It ’ s the luck of the draw . So at that point , I instructed my health director to issue a health order and that ’ s what she did . . . . It was a life-and-death issue . ”
Pritzker was the second governor to order residents to stay at home , acting shortly after California Gov . Gavin Newsom ( D ) and a little ahead of New York Gov . Andrew M. Cuomo ( D ) . Within a 24-hour period , the actions of those three governors put roughly 70 million Americans under orders to stay at home , with only a few exceptions .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “ was issuing guidance , but there was no leadership from Washington , ” Pritzker said . “ Is it hard to do ? Sure . But it ’ s part of the job . That ’ s what leadership is . Leadership is stepping out front and showing people the direction they need to go that they don ’ t necessarily understand or agree with . ”
Cuomo saw his state become the center of the pandemic , with more than 316,000 cases and more than 24,000 deaths . His daily news conferences became must-watch television , with a governor never known for his likability projecting empathy and realism while repeatedly challenging Washington to do more .
The briefings provided a contrast with Trump ’ s often-contentious daily sessions in the White House . Responding to Cuomo , Trump argued that New York did not need all it was asking for and that the federal government supplied New York with everything it did need and more .
Maryland Gov . Larry Hogan ( R ) , left , at an April 22 news conference at Laurel Medical Center in Laurel , Md . ( Salwan Georges/The ███ )
As chairman of the National Governors Association , Maryland Gov . Larry Hogan ( R ) has had to delicately navigate the relationship between the White House and his state , and the relationship between Washington and the governors collectively .
In his public comments about the relationship , Hogan has chosen his words diplomatically but has not hesitated to chart his own course . He shut down his state early — closing schools almost at the same time as Ohio did — and has made clear his differences with the president when he judged that events required doing so .
“ The crisis demanded leadership and demanded action , ” he said . “ It wasn ’ t a time to debate federalism and philosophy , arguing about what powers should rest with the federal government or the state or Congress .
Trump berated governors who criticized him . Governors learned that showing gratitude and praising the president were the price for federal cooperation and aid . Trump was particularly nasty toward Michigan Gov . Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) when she expressed frustration with Washington . He tweeted that Whitmer was “ in way over her head , she doesn ’ t have a clue . ”
Washington Gov . Jay Inslee ( D ) found himself as the first governor on the front lines when the virus began to savage a nursing home in the Seattle area . In pointed language , he begged for help from Washington . Trump called him “ a snake ” and suggested that Vice President Pence , a former governor of Indiana who chairs the White House coronavirus task force , stop dealing with Inslee .
“ I hope this makes it into the story , ” Inslee said . “ The vice president has been continually helpful to us . He talks to us regularly . He has tried to ameliorate some of these problems . He has tried to remove some of the organizational underbrush . We have appreciated his efforts on this . ”
Why was the relationship so bumpy ? “ Well , to be gracious , part of it is the fog of war , ” Inslee said . “ It ’ s people having to do 50 things in five minutes . . . . But it is no secret that the president did not have the intense focus he needed in the first month of this . ”
Trump participates in a teleconference with governors from the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington on March 19 . ( Evan Vucci/AP )
Governors have been in regular contact with the administration . Hogan said there have been nearly a dozen conference calls between the governors and Pence ’ s task force , calls that sometimes include the president .
They are freewheeling and helpful , he said . But he acknowledged that there have been “ rough patches ” where things “ went off the rails. ” He attributed that to mixed messaging from the White House and to the extraordinary nature of the pandemic .
“ There is tension between what the role of the federal government should be and what are the roles of the states , ” he added . “ It ’ s an unprecedented crisis that no one has ever faced before . . . . The federal government was not prepared . States were not prepared . Hospitals were not prepared . Manufacturers were not prepared . ”
Trump has lacked consistency in describing the federal government ’ s responsibilities . When governors were pleading for medical equipment and supplies weeks ago , Trump encouraged them to act on their own . “ The federal government is not supposed to be out there buying vast amounts of items and then shipping , ” he said . “ You know , we ’ re not a shipping clerk . ”
Jeh Johnson , the secretary of homeland security under President Barack Obama , said Trump had it backward . “ He says he ’ s not a shipping clerk . Well , actually , he ’ s the shipping clerk in chief , ” Johnson said .
The lack of preparedness and organization in Washington prompted governors to fend for themselves . Hogan , with the help of his Korean American wife Yumi Hogan , recently acquired 500,000 coronavirus test kits from South Korea . Massachusetts Gov . Charlie Baker ( R ) , frustrated by obstacles thrown up by the federal government , was able to acquire 1.2 million N95 masks from China and had them flown to Boston on the airplane of the New England Patriots .
The Ohio company Battelle developed a process to sanitize N95 masks that allowed the masks to be used many times over , but company officials were having difficulty getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration . One Sunday morning , a frustrated DeWine called the White House and left a message on the switchboard , appealing for help . Later that day , the president called back “ and it got moving , ” he said . “ It still had to go through the process , but it compressed the time . ”
Massachusetts Gov . Charlie Baker ( R ) at Logan Airport on April 2 after a plane owned by the New England Patriots arrived with a shipment of 1.2 million N95 masks from China for use in Massachusetts and New York . ( Jim Davis/Pool/Reuters )
Illinois ’ Pritzker was asked whether his public criticism of the White House had put his state at a disadvantage in getting supplies . “ Every time I ’ ve been outspoken about something we needed , I ’ ve begun to receive calls from the White House and administration officials to try to help us out , ” he said , adding he still hasn ’ t received everything he ’ s requested .
Tensions and frustrations continue . In March , as complaints about the federal government ’ s response mounted , Trump said , “ I don ’ t take any responsibility at all. ” He blamed others , including the Obama administration , for some of the shortages of tests and equipment .
More recently , the president claimed , with no basis in fact , that his “ authority is total ” to deal with the crisis , particularly on the timing for lifting state-ordered restrictions . The next day he backed down , acknowledging to governors in a conference call that the authority to make the decisions was theirs .
To Trump ’ s critics , that reversal was seen as another effort on his part to avoid responsibility , should things go wrong . “ His idea of federalism is when it ’ s all going well , it ’ s us . When [ it ] hits the fan , it ’ s you , ” said Michael Nutter , a former Democratic mayor of Philadelphia .
Testing remains a point of contention . Governors have contradicted the White House repeatedly on the availability of tests , which will be needed in huge numbers as businesses begin to reopen and people leave their homes . “ It was a terrible crisis , ” Hogan said of the shortage of tests . “ It ’ s now better . But it ’ s not even close to where it needs to be . ”
Governors have begun to work together through their joint conference calls and by forming regional alliances to coordinate when to lift restrictions . They have sought to project a united front when dealing with the administration . But the debate over the reopening of the economy has created divisions among them .
Georgia Gov . Brian Kemp ( R ) is turning his state into a laboratory with his decision to start opening businesses , including barber shops , nail salons , tattoo parlors , movie theaters and restaurants , more rapidly than other states , despite warnings that he is putting people at risk of the virus spreading .
If Kemp thought he would earn plaudits from a president who has been eager to restart the economy , he was wrong . Trump , in another whiplash moment , said last week that he took issue with the governor ’ s plan . “ I told the governor very simply that I disagree with his decision , but he has to do what he thinks is right , ” Trump said .
Governors have been making hard decisions for weeks , but equally difficult ones lie ahead . Up to now , governors who ordered the most stringent restrictions on their populations won praise and earned higher approval ratings . But the debate over reopening economies has put the trade-offs involved in those decisions at the forefront of a growing debate .
“ There ’ s the old saying that war ’ s too important to be left to the generals , ” said Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. , a former governor of Indiana and now president of Purdue University . “ Everyone is using the war analogy for this . Then it ’ s too important to be left entirely to the epidemiologists . . . . The trade-off problem is front and center . It took a while , but that ’ s what they ’ re grappling with . ”
An image of a wax figure of Trump in the window of Madame Tussauds in Washington on April 28 . ( Matt McClain/The ███ )
State leaders have exercised their powers often to the fullest , but those powers still are limited . That has focused more attention on , and prompted considerable criticism of , the failure of the administration to exercise the federal government ’ s full powers .
Trump has complained that the federal stockpiles he inherited were inadequate to meet the pandemic ’ s demands . But Lisa Monaco , White House homeland security adviser under Obama , said those stockpiles were meant only to be a bridge . “ It was always envisioned that [ during a pandemic ] , the federal government would step in and activate the supply chain and manufacturing , ” she said .
Only the federal government can use its convening authority and the Defense Production Act to set priorities and make a market for needed resources — and at a scale and a speed that a crisis demands . As Texas law professor Chesney explained , the federal government can compel industries to act in ways no state can do .
“ [ The president ] can say the United States is purchaser number one , ” Chesney said . “ Let ’ s say the net amount of need is 100 masks . He can say the government will buy 100 masks and here ’ s what we ’ re going to pay for them and we ’ ll take possession on such and such a date . ”
Leavitt said that in a pandemic , the federal government should focus as well on other things that states can not do , such as stabilizing the economy , marshaling the development and distribution of a vaccine , becoming the clearing house for information and managing relations with other countries .
He said Washington also should coordinate among the states and supplement supplies as much as possible , but added that on this issue , no level of government comes off clean . “ Emergency planners at every level have been aware for decades that we didn ’ t have a sufficient supply of ventilators , ” he said . “ There is plenty of blame to go around . ”
Trump and Louisiana Gov . John Bel Edwards ( D ) meet in the Oval Office on April 29 . ( Doug Mills/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock )
States have seen their own budgets hemorrhaging money because of the crisis , and governors are looking to Washington for financial relief . “ As a governor , what you ’ re always hoping for from this kind of disaster is that you make all the decisions and have the feds pay for it , ” said former New Jersey governor Chris Christie ( R ) . “ I ’ ve told the White House this . You can print money and they can ’ t . ”
But Christie said this shouldn ’ t mean a blank check for the states . “ Governors have to be held to account for also making some sacrifices and cutting spending in other areas that are not directly related to support for the covid-19 crisis , ” he added . “ Governors can not be left with no hard choices . ”
How this crisis will reshape relations between the states and the federal government already is on the minds of governors and others , who see it as a moment that could revive states in the public ’ s mind . States have formed regional groups , and some governors say that they are more likely to take steps to prepare and protect their states against a future pandemic , rather than just counting on Washington to be ready .
Janet Napolitano , a former governor of Arizona and secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration , said the relationship between Washington and the states in times of crisis should be like a smoothly running automobile . “ The four wheels of a car need to spin in the same direction at the same time , ” she said , something no one thinks has been the case in this battle .
Daniels said the pandemic has shown the vibrancy of federalism but nonetheless could end as another crisis that enlarges the federal government . “ This [ virus ] thing does not manifest itself in the same way everywhere , and that ’ s an argument for a strong federal system and federal assistance that doesn ’ t try to proscribe every detail and constrain local responsiveness , ” he said .
“ On the other side , ” he added , “ as people have been observing , wars have tended to centralize power and lead to bigger central government that never quite goes back to the size it was . ”
Hogan said this was no time for second-guessing the decisions that have been and are being made . In the meantime , he said , one thing seems clear : “ In the biggest crisis of our lifetimes , governors were on the front lines and taking charge . States had to make decisions and use their powers in a way I don ’ t ever remember in my lifetime . ”
|
The history of the United States has generally been written with the states in a subordinate role or cast in a negative light — but no longer. The story of America’s confrontation with the coronavirus pandemic is one in which states and their governors have been dominant.
As Washington has stumbled, governors of both parties have acted to fill the void. States have pleaded with Washington for help, and sometimes have gotten it. As often, however, the tensions and disagreements between state leaders and the federal government — especially with President Trump — have come to define the crisis.
Political Reckoning Click previous Click next A series exploring the political dynamics surrounding the coronavirus crisis. Swipe to view more stories.
As Trump dallied, governors moved on their own to order their residents to stay at home. When the president threatened to force states to lift those restrictions, governors resisted. When Trump supported protesters demanding that their states be opened up, many governors — though not all — said they would follow federal guidelines to the letter or even go beyond.
This display of state power is very much as the Founders intended when they established the nation. Just as they created checks and balances at the national level among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, they also wanted checks and balances between the central government and the states. Over time, the federal government has regularly usurped the broad authority given to the states, often to wipe away problems or correct historical injustices.
This spring, the balance of power has been flipped, with states forced to compensate for failings at the national level. Those federal deficiencies reflect an absence of readiness and sometimes a lack of interest and competence on the part of the Trump administration. The deficiencies have been compounded by a president given to issuing conflicting advice, attacking individual governors, and making wildly misleading and outright false statements, as when he suggested that scientists should explore injecting bleach into people to combat the virus.
“What I can say is we’ve had very little leadership with regard to the coronavirus crisis from the federal government,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D). The first-term governor recently reviewed the history of presidential leadership in times of crisis. “Each of them understood the importance and power that the federal government has to move the country in a single direction toward victory,” he said. “I have seen nearly none of that out of this president.”
In contrast to past presidents, Trump has rhetorically claimed vast powers while making clear through his actions that he prefers a system that puts on governors the responsibility for some of the more difficult decisions.
Robert Chesney, a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin, argued that rarely has the president claimed more power while doing less with it. “Some of the most over-the-top claims we’ve seen about the relationship between federal power and state power are happening at the same time that the federal government is shockingly inactive in areas it could and should be,” he said.
The U.S. Capitol in Washington on April 27. As the United States matured, the powers of states were steadily chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Power to the states
The word “federalism” does not appear in the Constitution, but it was always meant to be an essential component of the new American government established in the late 18th century.
“Federalism is the great constitutional compromise,” said Abbe Gluck, a professor at Yale Law School. “It’s the way that 13 different small republics came together to form a nation. They were skeptical of federal power, so they formed a union with layers, with a lot of authority reserved to the states.”
“In its purest form, federalism is a power-sharing arrangement,” Michael Leavitt, a former Republican governor of Utah and secretary of health and human services in the administration of President George W. Bush, said in an email.
“Today, federalism means, at a minimum, viewing both the states and the federal government as legitimate sources of legal and political authority, but little consensus exists as to what that general principle of multiplicity should mean in practice,” Alison LaCroix, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote in an essay published in the Yale Law Journal in 2014.
[Track the spread of coronavirus across the country]
In ratifying the Constitution, Leavitt said, states agreed to a division of labor in which the national government would have responsibility for roughly two dozen enumerated duties. All other powers were reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment. This was to result in a “limited, but supreme, national government” with the states and the federal government there to protect their own powers and prevent either entity from becoming too powerful.
Federalism allows states the freedom to devise solutions that fit their economic, demographic, cultural and geographical realities — as well as offering the country multiple styles of leadership beyond the presidency. Which is why Justice Louis Brandeis coined the description of the states as “laboratories of democracy.”
“The downside [of federalism],” Gluck said, “is that it can breed enormous inequality across the country. The South’s history of racism is the most obvious example.”
Gluck said those inequities have continued down to the present, being most notable in the decision by a group of more than a dozen mostly Republican-led states not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, denying access to health-care coverage to many low-income families.
Zach Stafford adjusts the TV volume at home in Belleville, Ill., on April 28 as he and his mother, Debra Mize, watch the daily coronavirus briefing by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D). (Jeff Roberson/AP)
The disparate responses to the coronavirus have focused attention on this reality. “The states have drifted into different camps where the nature of their role in the federal system has increasingly differed and the nature of the government we get depends on where we live,” said Donald F. Kettl, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “The Divided States of America: Why Federalism Doesn’t Work.”
Gary Gerstle, a professor of history at Cambridge University in England and author of “Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government,” noted that states started out with broad powers to regulate virtually all activity within their borders.
States exercised their authority through what is known as police power — though not to be confused with a definition that focuses only on law and order. Instead, this concept of police power derives from English doctrine and practice. This gave states responsibilities over health, safety, welfare and morals within their boundaries, everything from the regulation of businesses to Sunday blue laws to dealing with disasters and epidemics.
“The police power endows the states with an extraordinary authority to act on almost any issue having to do with the people’s welfare for the good of the commonwealth,” Gerstle said. “If that means overriding individual choice and individual rights, so be it.”
As the nation matured, state powers were steadily chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court. The vehicle used most frequently by the high court to give Washington ever-greater power was the Constitution’s commerce clause — which grants the federal government power to regulate commerce among the states.
Times of crisis often enhanced federal power. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression resulted in the creation of the modern and more powerful national government. “The 20th century is the story of the New Deal and the 1930s reshaping everything about federalism,” LaCroix said in a recent interview. “The expansion of the federal commerce power keeps continuing. The scope keeps growing.”
The civil rights movement of the 1960s proved to be another watershed moment in giving the federal government greater power over the states. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the cornerstone of the shift, and when the high court ruled unanimously that the act was constitutional, the justices used the commerce clause, rather than the 14th Amendment, to uphold it.
The 1980s and 1990s saw some shift back, as the Rehnquist court sought to prevent continuing erosion. But those changes still left the federal government with significantly more power. “It turned out to be a lopsided game,” Leavitt said of the long struggle between Washington and the states. “States have often been politically anemic in defense of their role.”
At the April 19 daily briefing by the coronavirus task force, Trump shows video of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) thanking his administration for its assistance to New York in managing the health crisis. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)
Governors step up
States became more dependent on the federal government and more under Washington’s thumb as the price for greater financial support. But governors learned this spring that the existing relationship was inadequate to meet the moment. Because of hesitation by the president, they had to act on their own, and those unilateral decisions put them in the spotlight as well as the hot seat.
Ohio’s Mike DeWine (R) was the first governor in the nation to close schools. Even earlier, before there were any confirmed cases of covid-19 in his state, he prohibited spectator attendance at a popular annual bodybuilding festival.
Disregarding a court decision that went against him, DeWine controversially postponed the state’s presidential primary on the eve of voting. He had hoped the courts would order the primary delayed, but his strategy of employing a friendly lawsuit to bring about the desired judicial ruling backfired.
“We pulled a judge who didn’t agree,” DeWine said. “It’s the luck of the draw. So at that point, I instructed my health director to issue a health order and that’s what she did. . . . It was a life-and-death issue.”
Pritzker was the second governor to order residents to stay at home, acting shortly after California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and a little ahead of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D). Within a 24-hour period, the actions of those three governors put roughly 70 million Americans under orders to stay at home, with only a few exceptions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “was issuing guidance, but there was no leadership from Washington,” Pritzker said. “Is it hard to do? Sure. But it’s part of the job. That’s what leadership is. Leadership is stepping out front and showing people the direction they need to go that they don’t necessarily understand or agree with.”
Cuomo saw his state become the center of the pandemic, with more than 316,000 cases and more than 24,000 deaths. His daily news conferences became must-watch television, with a governor never known for his likability projecting empathy and realism while repeatedly challenging Washington to do more.
The briefings provided a contrast with Trump’s often-contentious daily sessions in the White House. Responding to Cuomo, Trump argued that New York did not need all it was asking for and that the federal government supplied New York with everything it did need and more.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), left, at an April 22 news conference at Laurel Medical Center in Laurel, Md. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
As chairman of the National Governors Association, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) has had to delicately navigate the relationship between the White House and his state, and the relationship between Washington and the governors collectively.
In his public comments about the relationship, Hogan has chosen his words diplomatically but has not hesitated to chart his own course. He shut down his state early — closing schools almost at the same time as Ohio did — and has made clear his differences with the president when he judged that events required doing so.
“The crisis demanded leadership and demanded action,” he said. “It wasn’t a time to debate federalism and philosophy, arguing about what powers should rest with the federal government or the state or Congress.
“Every day we waited, people lost their lives.”
[Denial and dysfunction plagued federal response]
Trump berated governors who criticized him. Governors learned that showing gratitude and praising the president were the price for federal cooperation and aid. Trump was particularly nasty toward Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) when she expressed frustration with Washington. He tweeted that Whitmer was “in way over her head, she doesn’t have a clue.”
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) found himself as the first governor on the front lines when the virus began to savage a nursing home in the Seattle area. In pointed language, he begged for help from Washington. Trump called him “a snake” and suggested that Vice President Pence, a former governor of Indiana who chairs the White House coronavirus task force, stop dealing with Inslee.
“I hope this makes it into the story,” Inslee said. “The vice president has been continually helpful to us. He talks to us regularly. He has tried to ameliorate some of these problems. He has tried to remove some of the organizational underbrush. We have appreciated his efforts on this.”
Why was the relationship so bumpy? “Well, to be gracious, part of it is the fog of war,” Inslee said. “It’s people having to do 50 things in five minutes. . . . But it is no secret that the president did not have the intense focus he needed in the first month of this.”
Trump participates in a teleconference with governors from the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington on March 19. (Evan Vucci/AP)
States vs. Washington
Governors have been in regular contact with the administration. Hogan said there have been nearly a dozen conference calls between the governors and Pence’s task force, calls that sometimes include the president.
They are freewheeling and helpful, he said. But he acknowledged that there have been “rough patches” where things “went off the rails.” He attributed that to mixed messaging from the White House and to the extraordinary nature of the pandemic.
“There is tension between what the role of the federal government should be and what are the roles of the states,” he added. “It’s an unprecedented crisis that no one has ever faced before. . . . The federal government was not prepared. States were not prepared. Hospitals were not prepared. Manufacturers were not prepared.”
Trump has lacked consistency in describing the federal government’s responsibilities. When governors were pleading for medical equipment and supplies weeks ago, Trump encouraged them to act on their own. “The federal government is not supposed to be out there buying vast amounts of items and then shipping,” he said. “You know, we’re not a shipping clerk.”
Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security under President Barack Obama, said Trump had it backward. “He says he’s not a shipping clerk. Well, actually, he’s the shipping clerk in chief,” Johnson said.
The lack of preparedness and organization in Washington prompted governors to fend for themselves. Hogan, with the help of his Korean American wife Yumi Hogan, recently acquired 500,000 coronavirus test kits from South Korea. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R), frustrated by obstacles thrown up by the federal government, was able to acquire 1.2 million N95 masks from China and had them flown to Boston on the airplane of the New England Patriots.
The Ohio company Battelle developed a process to sanitize N95 masks that allowed the masks to be used many times over, but company officials were having difficulty getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration. One Sunday morning, a frustrated DeWine called the White House and left a message on the switchboard, appealing for help. Later that day, the president called back “and it got moving,” he said. “It still had to go through the process, but it compressed the time.”
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) at Logan Airport on April 2 after a plane owned by the New England Patriots arrived with a shipment of 1.2 million N95 masks from China for use in Massachusetts and New York. (Jim Davis/Pool/Reuters)
Illinois’ Pritzker was asked whether his public criticism of the White House had put his state at a disadvantage in getting supplies. “Every time I’ve been outspoken about something we needed, I’ve begun to receive calls from the White House and administration officials to try to help us out,” he said, adding he still hasn’t received everything he’s requested.
[What we know about delays in testing]
Tensions and frustrations continue. In March, as complaints about the federal government’s response mounted, Trump said, “I don’t take any responsibility at all.” He blamed others, including the Obama administration, for some of the shortages of tests and equipment.
More recently, the president claimed, with no basis in fact, that his “authority is total” to deal with the crisis, particularly on the timing for lifting state-ordered restrictions. The next day he backed down, acknowledging to governors in a conference call that the authority to make the decisions was theirs.
To Trump’s critics, that reversal was seen as another effort on his part to avoid responsibility, should things go wrong. “His idea of federalism is when it’s all going well, it’s us. When [it] hits the fan, it’s you,” said Michael Nutter, a former Democratic mayor of Philadelphia.
Testing remains a point of contention. Governors have contradicted the White House repeatedly on the availability of tests, which will be needed in huge numbers as businesses begin to reopen and people leave their homes. “It was a terrible crisis,” Hogan said of the shortage of tests. “It’s now better. But it’s not even close to where it needs to be.”
Governors have begun to work together through their joint conference calls and by forming regional alliances to coordinate when to lift restrictions. They have sought to project a united front when dealing with the administration. But the debate over the reopening of the economy has created divisions among them.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) is turning his state into a laboratory with his decision to start opening businesses, including barber shops, nail salons, tattoo parlors, movie theaters and restaurants, more rapidly than other states, despite warnings that he is putting people at risk of the virus spreading.
If Kemp thought he would earn plaudits from a president who has been eager to restart the economy, he was wrong. Trump, in another whiplash moment, said last week that he took issue with the governor’s plan. “I told the governor very simply that I disagree with his decision, but he has to do what he thinks is right,” Trump said.
Governors have been making hard decisions for weeks, but equally difficult ones lie ahead. Up to now, governors who ordered the most stringent restrictions on their populations won praise and earned higher approval ratings. But the debate over reopening economies has put the trade-offs involved in those decisions at the forefront of a growing debate.
“There’s the old saying that war’s too important to be left to the generals,” said Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., a former governor of Indiana and now president of Purdue University. “Everyone is using the war analogy for this. Then it’s too important to be left entirely to the epidemiologists. . . . The trade-off problem is front and center. It took a while, but that’s what they’re grappling with.”
An image of a wax figure of Trump in the window of Madame Tussauds in Washington on April 28. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Unmet demand for action
State leaders have exercised their powers often to the fullest, but those powers still are limited. That has focused more attention on, and prompted considerable criticism of, the failure of the administration to exercise the federal government’s full powers.
Trump has complained that the federal stockpiles he inherited were inadequate to meet the pandemic’s demands. But Lisa Monaco, White House homeland security adviser under Obama, said those stockpiles were meant only to be a bridge. “It was always envisioned that [during a pandemic], the federal government would step in and activate the supply chain and manufacturing,” she said.
Only the federal government can use its convening authority and the Defense Production Act to set priorities and make a market for needed resources — and at a scale and a speed that a crisis demands. As Texas law professor Chesney explained, the federal government can compel industries to act in ways no state can do.
“[The president] can say the United States is purchaser number one,” Chesney said. “Let’s say the net amount of need is 100 masks. He can say the government will buy 100 masks and here’s what we’re going to pay for them and we’ll take possession on such and such a date.”
Leavitt said that in a pandemic, the federal government should focus as well on other things that states cannot do, such as stabilizing the economy, marshaling the development and distribution of a vaccine, becoming the clearing house for information and managing relations with other countries.
He said Washington also should coordinate among the states and supplement supplies as much as possible, but added that on this issue, no level of government comes off clean. “Emergency planners at every level have been aware for decades that we didn’t have a sufficient supply of ventilators,” he said. “There is plenty of blame to go around.”
Trump and Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) meet in the Oval Office on April 29. (Doug Mills/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)
States have seen their own budgets hemorrhaging money because of the crisis, and governors are looking to Washington for financial relief. “As a governor, what you’re always hoping for from this kind of disaster is that you make all the decisions and have the feds pay for it,” said former New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R). “I’ve told the White House this. You can print money and they can’t.”
But Christie said this shouldn’t mean a blank check for the states. “Governors have to be held to account for also making some sacrifices and cutting spending in other areas that are not directly related to support for the covid-19 crisis,” he added. “Governors cannot be left with no hard choices.”
How this crisis will reshape relations between the states and the federal government already is on the minds of governors and others, who see it as a moment that could revive states in the public’s mind. States have formed regional groups, and some governors say that they are more likely to take steps to prepare and protect their states against a future pandemic, rather than just counting on Washington to be ready.
Janet Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona and secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration, said the relationship between Washington and the states in times of crisis should be like a smoothly running automobile. “The four wheels of a car need to spin in the same direction at the same time,” she said, something no one thinks has been the case in this battle.
Daniels said the pandemic has shown the vibrancy of federalism but nonetheless could end as another crisis that enlarges the federal government. “This [virus] thing does not manifest itself in the same way everywhere, and that’s an argument for a strong federal system and federal assistance that doesn’t try to proscribe every detail and constrain local responsiveness,” he said.
“On the other side,” he added, “as people have been observing, wars have tended to centralize power and lead to bigger central government that never quite goes back to the size it was.”
Hogan said this was no time for second-guessing the decisions that have been and are being made. In the meantime, he said, one thing seems clear: “In the biggest crisis of our lifetimes, governors were on the front lines and taking charge. States had to make decisions and use their powers in a way I don’t ever remember in my lifetime.”
|
www.washingtonpost.com
| 0left
|
0t1WO2sxPPQIR7XT
|
|
coronavirus
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2020/0401/Faces-of-the-new-jobs-crisis-from-restaurants-to-real-estate
|
Faces of the new jobs crisis, from restaurants to real estate
|
2020-04-01
|
Laurent Belsie
|
“ I ’ m the captain of my own ship , ” says Dennis Roberson , a divorced and now unemployed father in Georgia , down to his last $ 200 . “ And it ’ s not moving at the moment . ”
In Chicago , food-service workers are offering free food to former colleagues . And a new GoFundMe campaign hopes to raise $ 50,000 to help 100 gig workers on the dole . For people like Jesús Morales , a Chicago hotel worker now relying on unemployment benefits to pay his bills , the top-of-mind concern is when job opportunities will return .
Just as storms typically wreak more havoc on trailer parks than ritzy suburbs , this one appears to have hit the most vulnerable workers first , especially those in close contact with the public . Some help is on the way in the form of onetime federal checks for low- and middle-income adults , and higher and longer-lasting unemployment benefits , with rules loosened to include gig workers and the self-employed .
Three weeks ago , workers like food server Dolly Harris in South Haven , Michigan , and handbill entrepreneur Cam Jennings in Las Vegas had jobs . Suddenly they don ’ t . The threat of the coronavirus has hit the economy like a tempest out of nowhere .
With terrible timing – like buying stocks in 1929 – Cam Jennings started his company , ACTIVATE.vegas , on March 2 . The start-up ’ s mission is printing and distributing handbills for businesses on the Las Vegas Strip . Two weeks later , Nevada ’ s governor ordered all the casinos to close , and Mr. Jennings had no choice but to suspend operations .
“ We kind of hit the ground running on the Strip , but there was no Strip to get running on , ” he says , ruefully .
For Alyson Arnold of Warwick , Rhode Island , the problem was postponements . A ceremony officiant , specializing in outdoor weddings , she was preparing to conduct 60 weddings in 2020 , her best year ever . But in early March , as concerns grew about travel , the postponements began rolling in : two in March , three in April . Of the five ceremonies scheduled in May , two are already being rescheduled .
One of the worst things ? The uncertainty . “ Everyone ’ s sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for what will happen , ” she says .
Three weeks ago , these workers had jobs . Suddenly they don ’ t . The threat of the coronavirus hit the economy like a tempest out of nowhere . And just as storms typically wreak more havoc on trailer parks than ritzy suburbs , this one appears to have hit the most vulnerable workers first . But there ’ s more : Because “ social distancing ” is the essence of the virus response , jobs rooted in social contacts face some of the biggest disruptions .
Those , like Mr. Jennings , in the experiential marketing industry , staffing booths at conventions or handing out branded memorabilia at sporting events , quickly lost gigs when the first restrictions on huge crowds were put in place . Self-employed people reliant on private gatherings , like Ms. Arnold , were next .
Now , the forced closure of nonessential businesses in many parts of the United States has pushed huge numbers of full-time employees – often in low-paid service industries – onto the unemployment rolls .
Dennis Roberson , a divorced father of four , can chuckle about his last paycheck from the Wormhole – a bar and music venue in Savannah , Georgia , that like other nonessential businesses in town was forced to close . The check got torn in half by accident . When he went to cash it Monday , it got a little surreal .
There was a long queue outside the bank . That was a new one . It was “ one in , one out , ” he says . Still , the check cleared . Its amount : $ 195 . “ I realized that ’ s all I have for the foreseeable future , ” he says . “ Pretty wild . ”
Richard Mertens Jesus Morales , who lost his job at The Drake hotel , stands in front of his home in Chicago .
Now , he has arrived at Forsyth Park , sporting a knit cap , sunglasses , and a white beard , after biking to Domino ’ s to pick up a free pizza from a promotion . He sits down under a tree to eat , puts his ear buds in , and closes his eyes .
It ’ s not yet clear how many Americans have been laid off . Last week , the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that a record 3.3 million workers filed a first-time claim for unemployment – more than four times the previous record set in 1982 . This week 's Thursday report set another new record , 6.6 million more for a two-week total near 10 million .
On Wednesday , payroll firm ADP ’ s research institute released a report showing that as early as mid-March , sectors such as retail and wholesale trade , transportation , construction , and administrative support services ( including temp work ) were starting to shed thousands of workers .
“ Much bigger job losses are coming , ” warns Mark Zandi , chief economist of Moody ’ s Analytics . Some 56 % of U.S. counties , representing 80 % of the nation ’ s GDP , are in some form of lockdown , he says , although many employees continue to work from home . In all , about a quarter of the economy is shut down , he estimates , so he expects the unemployment rate to hit 10 % to 13 % this month .
That would be as bad or worse than at the height of the Great Recession . Some economists expect even higher levels of unemployment . The data also suggest that workers in some of the lowest-paid occupations were among the first to be laid off . “ Low and low-middle income households are being hit hardest by the crisis , ” Mr. Zandi says .
In Massachusetts , one of the top five states reporting first-time jobless claims last week , the biggest surge came in the health-care and social assistance sector . These workers run the gamut . Nearly half of them are home health aides , delivering care to the home-bound and earning nationally an average $ 24,000 a year . The rest are licensed nurses ( earning twice as much ) and medical and health services managers ( earning four times as much ) . Last week , more than 18,000 of them filed for unemployment in Massachusetts , up from 440 the week before , a mind-bending 4,000 % increase .
“ Over 37 million U.S. jobs may be vulnerable to potential layoffs in the short term , ” conclude researchers at Cornell University ’ s law school . That ’ s assuming that the current crisis does not result in wider-spread , long-term layoffs . Of those 37 million nonsupervisory jobs , all but 2 million are low-quality , low-paid ones paying less than $ 28,000 a year , as measured by the researchers ’ U.S . Private Sector Job Quality Index . The biggest group , more than a quarter of those at risk : workers in restaurants and other food-service positions .
In the Lake Michigan shoreline community of South Haven , Michigan , Dolly Harris has been a server at downtown ’ s Phoenix Street Café for 19 years . She and her co-workers were laid off March 16 , as Gov . Gretchen Whitmer called on restaurants and bars to close except for takeout or deliveries . Now Ms. Harris will be relying on Social Security and unemployment benefits to help make ends meet . She was able to complete the online process of applying for unemployment after a few frustrating hours of system freeze-ups . As of March 29 , she still did not know how much she will be receiving , but expects to learn this week .
Finances aren ’ t the main concern for Ms. Harris . The virus is top of mind , particularly because her husband has been diagnosed with a pulmonary disease that makes breathing difficult . “ I ’ m afraid to go out and do something in public , ” Ms. Harris says . “ I thought about working a job at Meijer [ a regional supermarket ] , but I really don ’ t want to bring anything home like the virus . ”
The distinguishing feature of the current downturn is its speed . “ It was like bing , bang , boom ! Next day , no restaurants ! ” says Joe Ryal , a bartender at a restaurant on Chicago ’ s North Side . “ We ’ re all unprepared . ”
Courtesy of Kristen Kloostra Kristen Kloostra , a massage therapist , yoga instructor , and small business owner in Wisconsin Dells , Wisconsin , had to shut down her business and has no other source of income . Her situation exemplifies how jobs that normally involve close proximity among people are heavily at risk in the coronavirus emergency .
Retail workers face similar shocks . This week , a slew of chains announced extended closures and furloughs , including Macy ’ s ( a majority of its 125,000 employees ) and JCPenney ( many of its 85,000 workers ) .
And the sudden brake-pedal on economic activity isn ’ t affecting low-paid occupations alone .
“ I ’ m 100 % commission based . When they issue a stay-at-home order , they made us part of that , ” says Eric , a commercial realtor in the southwest part of Michigan who declined to have his last name published . Because of the long lag time between showing a property and closing a sale , “ the impact if you ’ re not working can be severe . ... When you have three months where you can ’ t show any properties , that ’ s more like eight or nine months where you ’ re not making money . ”
How long the virus threat and its economic repercussions will last is a burning question for many of the newly unemployed .
“ To be honest , it ’ s been pretty scary , ” says Ashley D. , a bartender at a major national restaurant chain outlet in Oakland County , Michigan . “ I ’ m hopeful life will be back to normal in a few months , but even if this did all quickly resolve or improve , I ’ m afraid it would take a lot of time for people to feel comfortable coming back , both employees and guests . I know I ’ m leery about coming back right away . ”
“ We are confident , we are thinking hopefully , that business will come back , ” says Jesús Morales , who worked conventions , banquets , and private meetings for 33 years at the Drake , one of Chicago ’ s fanciest hotels , serving the wealthy and occasionally the famous , including Bill Clinton , George W. Bush , and Princess Diana . ( Noticing his name tag , she told him she was delighted to be served by a man named Jesus , he recalls . )
When tips were generous , he could bring home more than $ 1,000 a week . Now , as he relies on unemployment payments to cover his bills , he worries about when the hotel business and other activity will recover .
“ I don ’ t think it will come back as strong as before . I think it ’ s going to take a while , ” he says .
According to Mr. Zandi , the economist , it will take three to four years to get back to something resembling full employment .
Some help is on the way to ease the adjustment . Congress ’ s new $ 2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act authorizes $ 1,200 for adults and $ 500 for children in low- and middle-income families . Checks are expected to go out over the next three weeks . Unemployment benefits also get a boost over the next four months : extra money and extra weeks of eligibility . Crucially , for many of the newly jobless gig workers and self-employed , the guidelines have been loosened so they qualify for the first time .
Ms. Arnold , the wedding officiant in Rhode Island , was able to sign up online on Monday . Mr. Jennings , the Las Vegas handbill entrepreneur , has had too many gigs to file online and so far has only gotten a busy signal when calling in to the unemployment office .
In the meantime , he ’ s serving as spokesman for the Help the Gig Economy – Coronavirus Income Relief fund , a GoFundMe campaign aimed at helping 100 experiential marketing workers , who often travel from state to state to work conventions and other events . The sponsors aim to raise $ 50,000 in 100 days . As of Wednesday , they ’ d raised more than $ 5,400 and helped 12 of the more than 600 people who have applied for aid .
“ It ’ s been very grassroots , ” Mr. Jennings says . “ Most of our donations are people within the industry kicking in 20 bucks . ”
A similar spirit is taking place in Chicago as workers in the food industry rally to help each other . On a warm spring day , the newly jobless Mr. Ryal has just emerged from the Big Star restaurant , which is giving away free food to workers in the service industry from 5 to 7 p.m – a scene repeated at other venues around the city .
“ I ’ ll be able to survive , ” says Mr. Ryal , holding a brown paper bag of groceries and a Styrofoam container holding a serving of carne asada . “ We ’ re leaning on other people . ”
Back in Savannah , Forsyth Park is nearly empty due to the stay-at-home order .
“ I ’ m the captain of my own ship – and it ’ s not moving at the moment , ” says Mr. Roberson , the now-unemployed father . “ Still , my plan for now is just to ride the waves to where they are going to take me . ”
He looks down at the pizza box . His predicament of looming poverty isn ’ t so dire as to exclude consideration for others . “ Want a slice ? ” he asks .
This story was reported by Monitor staff writers Laurent Belsie in Waltham , Massachusetts , and Patrik Jonsson in Savannah , Georgia , and by contributors Lee A . Dean in Plainwell , Michigan , and Richard Mertens in Chicago .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
As a public service , we ’ ve removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage . It ’ s free .
|
“I’m the captain of my own ship,” says Dennis Roberson, a divorced and now unemployed father in Georgia, down to his last $200. “And it’s not moving at the moment.”
In Chicago, food-service workers are offering free food to former colleagues. And a new GoFundMe campaign hopes to raise $50,000 to help 100 gig workers on the dole. For people like Jesús Morales, a Chicago hotel worker now relying on unemployment benefits to pay his bills, the top-of-mind concern is when job opportunities will return.
Just as storms typically wreak more havoc on trailer parks than ritzy suburbs, this one appears to have hit the most vulnerable workers first, especially those in close contact with the public. Some help is on the way in the form of onetime federal checks for low- and middle-income adults, and higher and longer-lasting unemployment benefits, with rules loosened to include gig workers and the self-employed.
Three weeks ago, workers like food server Dolly Harris in South Haven, Michigan, and handbill entrepreneur Cam Jennings in Las Vegas had jobs. Suddenly they don’t. The threat of the coronavirus has hit the economy like a tempest out of nowhere.
With terrible timing – like buying stocks in 1929 – Cam Jennings started his company, ACTIVATE.vegas, on March 2. The start-up’s mission is printing and distributing handbills for businesses on the Las Vegas Strip. Two weeks later, Nevada’s governor ordered all the casinos to close, and Mr. Jennings had no choice but to suspend operations.
“We kind of hit the ground running on the Strip, but there was no Strip to get running on,” he says, ruefully.
For Alyson Arnold of Warwick, Rhode Island, the problem was postponements. A ceremony officiant, specializing in outdoor weddings, she was preparing to conduct 60 weddings in 2020, her best year ever. But in early March, as concerns grew about travel, the postponements began rolling in: two in March, three in April. Of the five ceremonies scheduled in May, two are already being rescheduled.
One of the worst things? The uncertainty. “Everyone’s sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for what will happen,” she says.
Editor’s note: As a public service, we’ve removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.
Three weeks ago, these workers had jobs. Suddenly they don’t. The threat of the coronavirus hit the economy like a tempest out of nowhere. And just as storms typically wreak more havoc on trailer parks than ritzy suburbs, this one appears to have hit the most vulnerable workers first. But there’s more: Because “social distancing” is the essence of the virus response, jobs rooted in social contacts face some of the biggest disruptions.
Those, like Mr. Jennings, in the experiential marketing industry, staffing booths at conventions or handing out branded memorabilia at sporting events, quickly lost gigs when the first restrictions on huge crowds were put in place. Self-employed people reliant on private gatherings, like Ms. Arnold, were next.
Now, the forced closure of nonessential businesses in many parts of the United States has pushed huge numbers of full-time employees – often in low-paid service industries – onto the unemployment rolls.
Dennis Roberson, a divorced father of four, can chuckle about his last paycheck from the Wormhole – a bar and music venue in Savannah, Georgia, that like other nonessential businesses in town was forced to close. The check got torn in half by accident. When he went to cash it Monday, it got a little surreal.
There was a long queue outside the bank. That was a new one. It was “one in, one out,” he says. Still, the check cleared. Its amount: $195. “I realized that’s all I have for the foreseeable future,” he says. “Pretty wild.”
Richard Mertens Jesus Morales, who lost his job at The Drake hotel, stands in front of his home in Chicago.
Now, he has arrived at Forsyth Park, sporting a knit cap, sunglasses, and a white beard, after biking to Domino’s to pick up a free pizza from a promotion. He sits down under a tree to eat, puts his ear buds in, and closes his eyes.
It’s not yet clear how many Americans have been laid off. Last week, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that a record 3.3 million workers filed a first-time claim for unemployment – more than four times the previous record set in 1982. This week's Thursday report set another new record, 6.6 million more for a two-week total near 10 million.
On Wednesday, payroll firm ADP’s research institute released a report showing that as early as mid-March, sectors such as retail and wholesale trade, transportation, construction, and administrative support services (including temp work) were starting to shed thousands of workers.
Biggest effects among low-paying jobs
“Much bigger job losses are coming,” warns Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. Some 56% of U.S. counties, representing 80% of the nation’s GDP, are in some form of lockdown, he says, although many employees continue to work from home. In all, about a quarter of the economy is shut down, he estimates, so he expects the unemployment rate to hit 10% to 13% this month.
That would be as bad or worse than at the height of the Great Recession. Some economists expect even higher levels of unemployment. The data also suggest that workers in some of the lowest-paid occupations were among the first to be laid off. “Low and low-middle income households are being hit hardest by the crisis,” Mr. Zandi says.
In Massachusetts, one of the top five states reporting first-time jobless claims last week, the biggest surge came in the health-care and social assistance sector. These workers run the gamut. Nearly half of them are home health aides, delivering care to the home-bound and earning nationally an average $24,000 a year. The rest are licensed nurses (earning twice as much) and medical and health services managers (earning four times as much). Last week, more than 18,000 of them filed for unemployment in Massachusetts, up from 440 the week before, a mind-bending 4,000% increase.
“Over 37 million U.S. jobs may be vulnerable to potential layoffs in the short term,” conclude researchers at Cornell University’s law school. That’s assuming that the current crisis does not result in wider-spread, long-term layoffs. Of those 37 million nonsupervisory jobs, all but 2 million are low-quality, low-paid ones paying less than $28,000 a year, as measured by the researchers’ U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index. The biggest group, more than a quarter of those at risk: workers in restaurants and other food-service positions.
Concerns beyond finances
In the Lake Michigan shoreline community of South Haven, Michigan, Dolly Harris has been a server at downtown’s Phoenix Street Café for 19 years. She and her co-workers were laid off March 16, as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer called on restaurants and bars to close except for takeout or deliveries. Now Ms. Harris will be relying on Social Security and unemployment benefits to help make ends meet. She was able to complete the online process of applying for unemployment after a few frustrating hours of system freeze-ups. As of March 29, she still did not know how much she will be receiving, but expects to learn this week.
Finances aren’t the main concern for Ms. Harris. The virus is top of mind, particularly because her husband has been diagnosed with a pulmonary disease that makes breathing difficult. “I’m afraid to go out and do something in public,” Ms. Harris says. “I thought about working a job at Meijer [a regional supermarket], but I really don’t want to bring anything home like the virus.”
The distinguishing feature of the current downturn is its speed. “It was like bing, bang, boom! Next day, no restaurants!” says Joe Ryal, a bartender at a restaurant on Chicago’s North Side. “We’re all unprepared.”
Courtesy of Kristen Kloostra Kristen Kloostra, a massage therapist, yoga instructor, and small business owner in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, had to shut down her business and has no other source of income. Her situation exemplifies how jobs that normally involve close proximity among people are heavily at risk in the coronavirus emergency.
Retail workers face similar shocks. This week, a slew of chains announced extended closures and furloughs, including Macy’s (a majority of its 125,000 employees) and JCPenney (many of its 85,000 workers).
And the sudden brake-pedal on economic activity isn’t affecting low-paid occupations alone.
“I’m 100% commission based. When they issue a stay-at-home order, they made us part of that,” says Eric, a commercial realtor in the southwest part of Michigan who declined to have his last name published. Because of the long lag time between showing a property and closing a sale, “the impact if you’re not working can be severe. ... When you have three months where you can’t show any properties, that’s more like eight or nine months where you’re not making money.”
How long the virus threat and its economic repercussions will last is a burning question for many of the newly unemployed.
“To be honest, it’s been pretty scary,” says Ashley D., a bartender at a major national restaurant chain outlet in Oakland County, Michigan. “I’m hopeful life will be back to normal in a few months, but even if this did all quickly resolve or improve, I’m afraid it would take a lot of time for people to feel comfortable coming back, both employees and guests. I know I’m leery about coming back right away.”
“We are confident, we are thinking hopefully, that business will come back,” says Jesús Morales, who worked conventions, banquets, and private meetings for 33 years at the Drake, one of Chicago’s fanciest hotels, serving the wealthy and occasionally the famous, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Princess Diana. (Noticing his name tag, she told him she was delighted to be served by a man named Jesus, he recalls.)
When tips were generous, he could bring home more than $1,000 a week. Now, as he relies on unemployment payments to cover his bills, he worries about when the hotel business and other activity will recover.
“I don’t think it will come back as strong as before. I think it’s going to take a while,” he says.
According to Mr. Zandi, the economist, it will take three to four years to get back to something resembling full employment.
Some help is on the way to ease the adjustment. Congress’s new $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act authorizes $1,200 for adults and $500 for children in low- and middle-income families. Checks are expected to go out over the next three weeks. Unemployment benefits also get a boost over the next four months: extra money and extra weeks of eligibility. Crucially, for many of the newly jobless gig workers and self-employed, the guidelines have been loosened so they qualify for the first time.
Ms. Arnold, the wedding officiant in Rhode Island, was able to sign up online on Monday. Mr. Jennings, the Las Vegas handbill entrepreneur, has had too many gigs to file online and so far has only gotten a busy signal when calling in to the unemployment office.
Helping each other
In the meantime, he’s serving as spokesman for the Help the Gig Economy – Coronavirus Income Relief fund, a GoFundMe campaign aimed at helping 100 experiential marketing workers, who often travel from state to state to work conventions and other events. The sponsors aim to raise $50,000 in 100 days. As of Wednesday, they’d raised more than $5,400 and helped 12 of the more than 600 people who have applied for aid.
“It’s been very grassroots,” Mr. Jennings says. “Most of our donations are people within the industry kicking in 20 bucks.”
A similar spirit is taking place in Chicago as workers in the food industry rally to help each other. On a warm spring day, the newly jobless Mr. Ryal has just emerged from the Big Star restaurant, which is giving away free food to workers in the service industry from 5 to 7 p.m – a scene repeated at other venues around the city.
“I’ll be able to survive,” says Mr. Ryal, holding a brown paper bag of groceries and a Styrofoam container holding a serving of carne asada. “We’re leaning on other people.”
Back in Savannah, Forsyth Park is nearly empty due to the stay-at-home order.
“I’m the captain of my own ship – and it’s not moving at the moment,” says Mr. Roberson, the now-unemployed father. “Still, my plan for now is just to ride the waves to where they are going to take me.”
He looks down at the pizza box. His predicament of looming poverty isn’t so dire as to exclude consideration for others. “Want a slice?” he asks.
This story was reported by Monitor staff writers Laurent Belsie in Waltham, Massachusetts, and Patrik Jonsson in Savannah, Georgia, and by contributors Lee A. Dean in Plainwell, Michigan, and Richard Mertens in Chicago.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Editor’s note: The story was updated on April 2 with new jobless-claim numbers.
As a public service, we’ve removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
jFa3WJhIyapSVd3X
|
foreign_policy
|
Vanity Fair
| 00
|
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/syrian-air-base-donald-trump
|
SYRIA IS ALREADY FLYING MISSIONS OUT OF THE AIR BASE TRUMP ATTACKED
|
Condé Nast, Abigail Tracy, Tina Nguyen, Maya Kosoff
|
The hours after Donald Trump ordered a targeted missile strike against an air base in Syria were among the best of his troubled , 11-week presidency . “ I think Donald Trump became president of the United States , ” gushed CNN ‘ s Fareed Zakaria . Born-again Trump critic Joe Scarborough praised Trump ’ s moral clarity for taking action after Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used sarin gas to kill dozens of his own people . Even The New York Times ’ s Nicholas Kristoff tweeted that Trump “ is right to make Syria pay a price for war crimes , and taking out airfields is the best approach . ”
As the administration and its provisional band of interventionist boosters pointed out Friday morning , the previous night ’ s missile strike was largely symbolic , a limited and proportional affair designed to send Assad—and the world—a message . The attack “ sent an important message to Assad and the people of Syria that America is not going to tolerate these kinds of atrocities , “ noted Jeremy Bash , a former chief of staff in the Department of Defense and the C.I.A . “ The intent here wasn ’ t just to punish ; it was deter future use , ” retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward told ABC 's Good Morning America . White House officials carefully telegraphed the same message , calling the strike “ a warning shot ” .
The danger , as it became increasingly clear , was that the “ warning shot ” may have been even more symbolic than it originally appeared . As the Times reported , the U.S. military had in fact warned the Russian military before attacking the Shayrat Airfield , which serves as a crucial outpost for Russian forces stationed in Syria . “ Military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield , ” Captain Jeff Davis , a Pentagon spokesman , said . Stockpiles of chemical weapons were not the target of the strike , either : only aircraft , aircraft shelters , storage , bunkers housing ammunition supplies and defense systems , were damaged . As ABC News reported later on Friday , the Syrian military had apparently been tipped off to the attack—presumably by its Russian allies—and had largely evacuated by the time several dozen Tomahawk missiles landed . By Friday afternoon , jets were already taking off from the air base again , according to multiple reports .
Assad ’ s taunting Trump by quickly reopening Shayrat Airfield leaves the White House with a dilemma . For one , the symbolic nature of the administration ’ s attack has apparently emboldened Russia . In the immediate aftermath of the attack , Moscow said it plans to buttress Syria ’ s air forces , the Times reports , and announced that it would suspend an agreement between the U.S. and Russia , intended to minimize the possibility of in-air collisions . Assad himself appeared more irritated than cowed , calling the U.S. strike “ irresponsible ” and claiming that U.S. intelligence suggesting he had launched the chemical attack was faulty . ( Both the Assad regime and Russia have blamed Syrian rebels . )
More important , the defiance of both Russia and Syria risk making the U.S. strike appear ineffective , leaving Trump with few good options . The White House could escalate the situation , which U.N . Ambassador Nikki Haley suggested is a possibility , declaring that the U.S. is “ prepared to do more. ” The other possibility would be to leave the egg on its face and move on .
History suggests that Trump isn ’ t likely to take an affront to his ego lying down . But if he chooses to intervene further in Syria , Trump could fall down the slippery slope President Barack Obama—whose interventionist policies Trump regularly derided on the campaign trail—long warned against . As Obama explained to The Atlantic in an interview last April , it was his administration ’ s “ assessment that while we could inflict some damage on Assad , we could not , through a missile strike , eliminate the chemical weapons themselves , and what I would then face was the prospect of Assad having survived the strike and claiming he had successfully defied the United States , that the United States had acted unlawfully in the absence of a U.N. mandate , and that that would have potentially strengthened his hand rather than weakened it. ” It now appears that is precisely the situation confronting President Trump . How he chooses to respond to it will be instructive .
|
The hours after Donald Trump ordered a targeted missile strike against an air base in Syria were among the best of his troubled, 11-week presidency. “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States,” gushed CNN‘s Fareed Zakaria. Born-again Trump critic Joe Scarborough praised Trump’s moral clarity for taking action after Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used sarin gas to kill dozens of his own people. Even The New York Times’s Nicholas Kristoff tweeted that Trump “is right to make Syria pay a price for war crimes, and taking out airfields is the best approach.”
As the administration and its provisional band of interventionist boosters pointed out Friday morning, the previous night’s missile strike was largely symbolic, a limited and proportional affair designed to send Assad—and the world—a message. The attack “sent an important message to Assad and the people of Syria that America is not going to tolerate these kinds of atrocities,“ noted Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff in the Department of Defense and the C.I.A. “The intent here wasn’t just to punish; it was deter future use,” retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward told ABC's Good Morning America. White House officials carefully telegraphed the same message, calling the strike “a warning shot”.
The danger, as it became increasingly clear, was that the “warning shot” may have been even more symbolic than it originally appeared. As the Times reported, the U.S. military had in fact warned the Russian military before attacking the Shayrat Airfield, which serves as a crucial outpost for Russian forces stationed in Syria. “Military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield,” Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said. Stockpiles of chemical weapons were not the target of the strike, either: only aircraft, aircraft shelters, storage, bunkers housing ammunition supplies and defense systems, were damaged. As ABC News reported later on Friday, the Syrian military had apparently been tipped off to the attack—presumably by its Russian allies—and had largely evacuated by the time several dozen Tomahawk missiles landed. By Friday afternoon, jets were already taking off from the air base again, according to multiple reports.
Assad’s taunting Trump by quickly reopening Shayrat Airfield leaves the White House with a dilemma. For one, the symbolic nature of the administration’s attack has apparently emboldened Russia. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Moscow said it plans to buttress Syria’s air forces, the Times reports, and announced that it would suspend an agreement between the U.S. and Russia, intended to minimize the possibility of in-air collisions. Assad himself appeared more irritated than cowed, calling the U.S. strike “irresponsible” and claiming that U.S. intelligence suggesting he had launched the chemical attack was faulty. (Both the Assad regime and Russia have blamed Syrian rebels.)
More important, the defiance of both Russia and Syria risk making the U.S. strike appear ineffective, leaving Trump with few good options. The White House could escalate the situation, which U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley suggested is a possibility, declaring that the U.S. is “prepared to do more.” The other possibility would be to leave the egg on its face and move on.
History suggests that Trump isn’t likely to take an affront to his ego lying down. But if he chooses to intervene further in Syria, Trump could fall down the slippery slope President Barack Obama—whose interventionist policies Trump regularly derided on the campaign trail—long warned against. As Obama explained to The Atlantic in an interview last April, it was his administration’s “assessment that while we could inflict some damage on Assad, we could not, through a missile strike, eliminate the chemical weapons themselves, and what I would then face was the prospect of Assad having survived the strike and claiming he had successfully defied the United States, that the United States had acted unlawfully in the absence of a U.N. mandate, and that that would have potentially strengthened his hand rather than weakened it.” It now appears that is precisely the situation confronting President Trump. How he chooses to respond to it will be instructive.
|
www.vanityfair.com
| 0left
|
mXKKlL2bZEKsRYD1
|
|
white_house
|
New York Post
| 22
|
https://nypost.com/2020/04/12/trump-has-declared-major-disaster-in-all-50-states-at-once-first-time-in-history/?utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow
|
Trump has declared major disaster in all 50 states at once, first time in history
|
2020-04-12
|
Michael Ruiz, Fox News
|
President Trump issued a major disaster declaration for Wyoming on Saturday , meaning that there is now such a declaration within all 50 states due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
It is the first time a president has ever declared a major disaster in all 50 states at once , according to Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere .
The move comes as confirmed cases of the coronavirus reached at least 519,453 as of Saturday afternoon . At least 20,071 people have died in the U.S. due to the disease , a death toll surpassing the one in hard-hit Italy — and a figure that has doubled , from 10,000 to more than 20,000 , in just five days . Worldwide , confirmed cases have surpassed 1.75 million , and more than 100,000 people have died .
Wyoming Gov . Mark Gordon formally sought the declaration on Thursday in a letter to the president . The state had seen more than 200 cases of the coronavirus at that time .
“ Though Wyoming has not reached the dire situations of some states , this declaration will help us to prepare and mobilize resources when we need them , ” Gordon said .
The declarations make federal funding available for state and local governments , as well as some nonprofit organizations , according to the White House . They can also help state governments coordinate with federal resources like the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) and the Army Corps of Engineers .
The virus is highly contagious , and authorities at various levels of government around the country have been urging social distancing guidelines or implementing stay-at-home restrictions in an attempt to slow the spread .
Americans are being urged to avoid close contact with one another , maintain good hand-washing hygiene and avoid leaving their homes as much as possible .
Symptoms can include fever , cough and shortness of breath , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) – and they can range in severity from mild to deadly .
But there are signs that the social distancing guidelines are helping , according to the president .
“ Nationwide , the number of new cases per day is flattening substantially , suggesting that we are near the peak and our comprehensive strategy is working , ” President Trump said Friday at the daily White House coronavirus briefing .
With an eye on the future , the president also said that he would formally convene an “ Opening our Country Council ” next week composed of doctors and business leaders who will aim to help reopen the U.S. economy , which has been snarled by widespread social distancing shutdowns .
|
President Trump issued a major disaster declaration for Wyoming on Saturday, meaning that there is now such a declaration within all 50 states due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is the first time a president has ever declared a major disaster in all 50 states at once, according to Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere.
The move comes as confirmed cases of the coronavirus reached at least 519,453 as of Saturday afternoon. At least 20,071 people have died in the U.S. due to the disease, a death toll surpassing the one in hard-hit Italy — and a figure that has doubled, from 10,000 to more than 20,000, in just five days. Worldwide, confirmed cases have surpassed 1.75 million, and more than 100,000 people have died.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon formally sought the declaration on Thursday in a letter to the president. The state had seen more than 200 cases of the coronavirus at that time.
“Though Wyoming has not reached the dire situations of some states, this declaration will help us to prepare and mobilize resources when we need them,” Gordon said.
The declarations make federal funding available for state and local governments, as well as some nonprofit organizations, according to the White House. They can also help state governments coordinate with federal resources like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The virus is highly contagious, and authorities at various levels of government around the country have been urging social distancing guidelines or implementing stay-at-home restrictions in an attempt to slow the spread.
Americans are being urged to avoid close contact with one another, maintain good hand-washing hygiene and avoid leaving their homes as much as possible.
Symptoms can include fever, cough and shortness of breath, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – and they can range in severity from mild to deadly.
But there are signs that the social distancing guidelines are helping, according to the president.
“Nationwide, the number of new cases per day is flattening substantially, suggesting that we are near the peak and our comprehensive strategy is working,” President Trump said Friday at the daily White House coronavirus briefing.
With an eye on the future, the president also said that he would formally convene an “Opening our Country Council” next week composed of doctors and business leaders who will aim to help reopen the U.S. economy, which has been snarled by widespread social distancing shutdowns.
|
www.nypost.com
| 1right
|
eA4VaAorZ2QgZkMz
|
us_house
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/house-committees-to-probe-report-trump-told-lawyer-to-lie-to-congress-idUSKCN1PC1MW
|
House committees to probe report Trump told lawyer to lie to Congress
|
2019-01-19
|
Karen Freifeld
|
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s office on Friday disputed key elements of a media report that President Donald Trump directed his former lawyer to lie to Congress about a Moscow real estate deal , raising questions about a story that has dominated U.S. news coverage for the past 24 hours .
BuzzFeed News reported late on Thursday that Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s former lawyer who is slated to go to prison for lying to Congress and other crimes , told investigators working for Mueller that Trump had instructed him to lie about efforts to build a skyscraper in Moscow while he was running for president .
“ BuzzFeed ’ s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel ’ s Office , and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office , regarding Michael Cohen ’ s Congressional testimony are not accurate , ” Peter Carr , a spokesman for Mueller , said in the special counsel ’ s first comment on a media report since its probe started 20 months ago .
While Carr did not directly address whether there was evidence that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress , he disputed portions of the story about how BuzzFeed corroborated the explosive allegations against Trump .
Citing information from two federal law enforcement officials , BuzzFeed said Cohen told the special counsel that after the 2016 presidential election Trump instructed him to tell Congress that negotiations over the Moscow project had ended earlier than they had in order to obscure Trump ’ s involvement .
Carr ’ s statement also appeared to dispute BuzzFeed ’ s assertion that the special counsel learned about Trump ’ s directive from interviews with employees of the Trump Organization , emails , text messages and other documents .
BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said in a statement : “ We stand by the reporting and the sources who informed it , and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he ’ s disputing . ”
After the BuzzFeed report was published on Thursday night , investigators in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives said they planned to investigate the allegations , while some Democrats described the report as a game-changer that , if true , could be grounds for impeaching the president .
Earlier on Friday , the White House said the story was false . “ Look , that ’ s absolutely ridiculous , ” spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters .
David Weinstein , a former federal prosecutor , said Mueller ’ s decision to comment highlighted the significance of the allegations made in the BuzzFeed article and the attention it was getting in the media and among lawmakers .
“ They are making a public comment to tell everyone to calm down , ” Weinstein said . “ He doesn ’ t want people to think his silence is confirming the truthfulness of the report . ”
Trump said on Twitter that Cohen was lying to get less prison time . Trump ’ s lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , said in a statement that any suggestion that Trump told Cohen to lie is “ categorically false . ”
Representatives for the Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment on the BuzzFeed report .
Cohen , who once said he was so loyal to Trump that he would “ take a bullet ” for him , is scheduled to begin a three-year prison sentence in March after pleading guilty to charges including campaign finance violations , tax evasion and lying to Congress .
If Trump did tell Cohen to lie , that would constitute criminal activity , said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , a Democrat . He added that he would look into the matter .
“ Directing a subordinate to lie to Congress is a federal crime , ” Nadler said on Twitter .
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the allegation that Trump may have directed Cohen to lie under oath “ is among the most serious to date . ”
Related Coverage Trump says grateful to Mueller for BuzzFeed statement
“ We will do what ’ s necessary to find out if it ’ s true , ” Schiff , also a Democrat , said on Twitter .
Some Senate Intelligence Committee investigators hope to ask Cohen about the BuzzFeed report when he testifies behind closed doors in February , a committee source told ███ . He also will face questions about it in testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 7 .
Yet Mueller ’ s move to push back on the BuzzFeed report could give some lawmakers pause , while also giving ammunition to allies of Trump in their efforts to criticize the media and in their calls for Mueller to complete his probe .
“ Today ’ s development only underscores the need for the special counsel to wrap this investigation up immediately , ” Republican Representative Mark Meadows said on Twittter . “ The constant secrecy and breathless speculation helps no one . ”
Legal experts said the allegation , if true , exposed Trump to a new level of risk in an investigation that has already resulted in convictions of or guilty pleas from four former campaign aides , including ex-campaign chairman Paul Manafort .
If true , “ it ’ s a seismic event , ” Andy Wright , an associate White House counsel under former Democratic President Barack Obama , told ███ .
Cohen , his left arm in a sling , did not comment as he entered his apartment building in New York on Friday . His adviser , Lanny Davis , also declined to comment to ███ , and his lawyer , Guy Petrillo , did not respond to a request for comment .
Trump denounced Cohen as a “ rat ” after he began cooperating with investigators while Cohen , whose duties included making payoffs to two women who said they had affairs with Trump , said on Thursday he regretted giving “ my blind loyalty to a man who doesn ’ t deserve it . ”
Directing or encouraging someone to lie under oath is a crime known as subornation of perjury . The report also raises questions about obstruction of justice and conspiracy .
William Barr , Trump ’ s nominee to be attorney general , said at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday that a president would be committing obstruction if he directed a subordinate to lie under oath . A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment .
While the Justice Department has previously concluded that a sitting president can not be charged while in office , such an allegation , if found true , could fuel impeachment proceedings in Congress .
Trump repeatedly has denied collusion with Russia and slammed Mueller ’ s investigation as a “ witch hunt. ” Russia also has rejected U.S. intelligence findings that Moscow interfered in U.S. politics in the 2016 election in an effort to boost Trump .
Trump said during the presidential campaign that he had no ties or business dealings with Russia .
Democrats , who took over the U.S. House of Representatives this month , have generally been cautious regarding any talk of impeachment to remove Trump from office although some rank-and-file members have pushed for such a resolution .
Impeachment proceedings would face an uphill battle in the Senate , where Trump ’ s fellow Republicans have a majority .
BuzzFeed also reported that Cohen regularly updated Trump ’ s son Donald Trump Jr. and his daughter Ivanka Trump , who is now a top White House adviser , about the Moscow project .
A combination photo shows U.S. President Donald Trump 's onetime personal attorney , Michael Cohen and U.S. President Donald Trump from outside federal court in the Manhattan borough of New York City , New York , U.S. , April 16 , 2018 and in the White House in Washington , U.S. , July 18 , 2018 . ███/Lucas Jackson , Leah Millis/File Photos
A spokesman for Abbe Lowell , a lawyer for Ivanka Trump , said she was minimally involved in the development . Trump Jr. , who has also testified previously before Congress , in a Twitter post called the BuzzFeed report “ fake news . ”
After Mueller ’ s statement disputing the report , Trump Jr. called out the media and Schiff in a series of Twitter posts . “ Hey Adam , turns out it was Full of Schiff ! ” he wrote .
|
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office on Friday disputed key elements of a media report that President Donald Trump directed his former lawyer to lie to Congress about a Moscow real estate deal, raising questions about a story that has dominated U.S. news coverage for the past 24 hours.
BuzzFeed News reported late on Thursday that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer who is slated to go to prison for lying to Congress and other crimes, told investigators working for Mueller that Trump had instructed him to lie about efforts to build a skyscraper in Moscow while he was running for president.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, said in the special counsel’s first comment on a media report since its probe started 20 months ago.
While Carr did not directly address whether there was evidence that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, he disputed portions of the story about how BuzzFeed corroborated the explosive allegations against Trump.
Citing information from two federal law enforcement officials, BuzzFeed said Cohen told the special counsel that after the 2016 presidential election Trump instructed him to tell Congress that negotiations over the Moscow project had ended earlier than they had in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.
Carr’s statement also appeared to dispute BuzzFeed’s assertion that the special counsel learned about Trump’s directive from interviews with employees of the Trump Organization, emails, text messages and other documents.
BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said in a statement: “We stand by the reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he’s disputing.”
After the BuzzFeed report was published on Thursday night, investigators in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives said they planned to investigate the allegations, while some Democrats described the report as a game-changer that, if true, could be grounds for impeaching the president.
Earlier on Friday, the White House said the story was false. “Look, that’s absolutely ridiculous,” spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters.
David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said Mueller’s decision to comment highlighted the significance of the allegations made in the BuzzFeed article and the attention it was getting in the media and among lawmakers.
“They are making a public comment to tell everyone to calm down,” Weinstein said. “He doesn’t want people to think his silence is confirming the truthfulness of the report.”
Trump said on Twitter that Cohen was lying to get less prison time. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said in a statement that any suggestion that Trump told Cohen to lie is “categorically false.”
Representatives for the Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment on the BuzzFeed report.
Cohen, who once said he was so loyal to Trump that he would “take a bullet” for him, is scheduled to begin a three-year prison sentence in March after pleading guilty to charges including campaign finance violations, tax evasion and lying to Congress.
If Trump did tell Cohen to lie, that would constitute criminal activity, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat. He added that he would look into the matter.
“Directing a subordinate to lie to Congress is a federal crime,” Nadler said on Twitter.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the allegation that Trump may have directed Cohen to lie under oath “is among the most serious to date.”
Related Coverage Trump says grateful to Mueller for BuzzFeed statement
“We will do what’s necessary to find out if it’s true,” Schiff, also a Democrat, said on Twitter.
Some Senate Intelligence Committee investigators hope to ask Cohen about the BuzzFeed report when he testifies behind closed doors in February, a committee source told Reuters. He also will face questions about it in testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 7.
Yet Mueller’s move to push back on the BuzzFeed report could give some lawmakers pause, while also giving ammunition to allies of Trump in their efforts to criticize the media and in their calls for Mueller to complete his probe.
“Today’s development only underscores the need for the special counsel to wrap this investigation up immediately,” Republican Representative Mark Meadows said on Twittter. “The constant secrecy and breathless speculation helps no one.”
“SEISMIC EVENT”
Legal experts said the allegation, if true, exposed Trump to a new level of risk in an investigation that has already resulted in convictions of or guilty pleas from four former campaign aides, including ex-campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
If true, “it’s a seismic event,” Andy Wright, an associate White House counsel under former Democratic President Barack Obama, told Reuters.
Cohen, his left arm in a sling, did not comment as he entered his apartment building in New York on Friday. His adviser, Lanny Davis, also declined to comment to Reuters, and his lawyer, Guy Petrillo, did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump denounced Cohen as a “rat” after he began cooperating with investigators while Cohen, whose duties included making payoffs to two women who said they had affairs with Trump, said on Thursday he regretted giving “my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it.”
Directing or encouraging someone to lie under oath is a crime known as subornation of perjury. The report also raises questions about obstruction of justice and conspiracy.
William Barr, Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, said at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday that a president would be committing obstruction if he directed a subordinate to lie under oath. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
While the Justice Department has previously concluded that a sitting president cannot be charged while in office, such an allegation, if found true, could fuel impeachment proceedings in Congress.
Trump repeatedly has denied collusion with Russia and slammed Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt.” Russia also has rejected U.S. intelligence findings that Moscow interfered in U.S. politics in the 2016 election in an effort to boost Trump.
Trump said during the presidential campaign that he had no ties or business dealings with Russia.
Democrats, who took over the U.S. House of Representatives this month, have generally been cautious regarding any talk of impeachment to remove Trump from office although some rank-and-file members have pushed for such a resolution.
Impeachment proceedings would face an uphill battle in the Senate, where Trump’s fellow Republicans have a majority.
BuzzFeed also reported that Cohen regularly updated Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and his daughter Ivanka Trump, who is now a top White House adviser, about the Moscow project.
A combination photo shows U.S. President Donald Trump's onetime personal attorney, Michael Cohen and U.S. President Donald Trump from outside federal court in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., April 16, 2018 and in the White House in Washington, U.S., July 18, 2018. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson, Leah Millis/File Photos
A spokesman for Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Ivanka Trump, said she was minimally involved in the development. Trump Jr., who has also testified previously before Congress, in a Twitter post called the BuzzFeed report “fake news.”
After Mueller’s statement disputing the report, Trump Jr. called out the media and Schiff in a series of Twitter posts. “Hey Adam, turns out it was Full of Schiff!” he wrote.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
b5XKvnx2oxRbKcBY
|
defense
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/obama-im-no-cheney-on-drones-88853.html?hp=t1_3
|
President Obama: I'm no Dick Cheney on drones
|
2013-03-14
|
Manu Raju, Josh Gerstein
|
Obama said he 's not like Cheney during a closed-door Senate Democratic conference . | AP Photos Obama on drones : I 'm not Cheney
President Barack Obama ’ s defense to Democratic senators complaining about how little his administration has told Congress about the legal justifications for his drone policy : Dick Cheney was worse .
That ’ s part of what two senators in the room recounted of Obama ’ s response when , near the outset of his closed-door session with the Senate Democratic conference on Tuesday , Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va. ) confronted the president over the administration ’ s refusal for two years to show congressional intelligence committees Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memos justifying the use of lethal force against American terror suspects abroad .
Obama recently allowed members of those panels to see the memos , but only after senators in both parties threatened to hold up the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director . Brennan was confirmed last week , but lawmakers not on one of the intelligence panels are still being denied access to the memos and several are steamed over being frozen out .
In response to Rockefeller ’ s critique , Obama said he ’ s not involved in drafting such memos , the senators told ███ . He also tried to assure his former colleagues that his administration is more open to oversight than that of President George W. Bush , whom many Democratic senators attacked for secrecy and for expanding executive power in the national security realm .
“ This is not Dick Cheney we ’ re talking about here , ” he said , according to Democratic senators who asked not to be named discussing the private meeting .
Two Obama administration officials , who asked not to be named , confirmed Rockefeller raised the drone oversight issue with the president at the session . The White House had no comment on Obama ’ s alleged reference to the former vice president .
While Obama defended his handling of the issue , he told his former Senate colleagues he understood their concerns about being left out of the loop on such sensitive decisions , senators said . The president noted that he would have “ probably objected ” over the White House ’ s handling of this issue if he were still a senator , they said . But , according to the sources , he noted his viewpoint changed now that he occupies the Oval Office — not a room in a Senate office building .
|
Obama said he's not like Cheney during a closed-door Senate Democratic conference. | AP Photos Obama on drones: I'm not Cheney
President Barack Obama’s defense to Democratic senators complaining about how little his administration has told Congress about the legal justifications for his drone policy: Dick Cheney was worse.
That’s part of what two senators in the room recounted of Obama’s response when, near the outset of his closed-door session with the Senate Democratic conference on Tuesday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) confronted the president over the administration’s refusal for two years to show congressional intelligence committees Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memos justifying the use of lethal force against American terror suspects abroad.
Story Continued Below
Obama recently allowed members of those panels to see the memos, but only after senators in both parties threatened to hold up the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director. Brennan was confirmed last week, but lawmakers not on one of the intelligence panels are still being denied access to the memos and several are steamed over being frozen out.
( PHOTOS: Pro, con: Best quotes about drones)
In response to Rockefeller’s critique, Obama said he’s not involved in drafting such memos, the senators told POLITICO. He also tried to assure his former colleagues that his administration is more open to oversight than that of President George W. Bush, whom many Democratic senators attacked for secrecy and for expanding executive power in the national security realm.
“This is not Dick Cheney we’re talking about here,” he said, according to Democratic senators who asked not to be named discussing the private meeting.
Two Obama administration officials, who asked not to be named, confirmed Rockefeller raised the drone oversight issue with the president at the session. The White House had no comment on Obama’s alleged reference to the former vice president.
( Also on POLITICO: Why Obama is losing the drone war)
While Obama defended his handling of the issue, he told his former Senate colleagues he understood their concerns about being left out of the loop on such sensitive decisions, senators said. The president noted that he would have “probably objected” over the White House’s handling of this issue if he were still a senator, they said. But, according to the sources, he noted his viewpoint changed now that he occupies the Oval Office — not a room in a Senate office building.
Follow @politico
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
AKtcUfiNQdQVsuhA
|
free_speech
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/trump-free-speech-college-1286517
|
Trump's hyped free speech order will ask colleges to do what they already have to
|
2019-03-21
|
Benjamin Wermund, Ben White, Steven Shepard, Rebecca Morin
|
President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon signed his much-hyped executive order on campus free speech — which he deemed a `` historic action to defend American students and American values '' that have `` been under siege '' on campuses .
`` Under the guise of speech codes and safe spaces and trigger warnings , these universities have tried to restrict free thought , impose total conformity and shutdown the voices of great young Americans , '' Trump said Thursday before signing the order .
The order , however , essentially reinforces what schools are already supposed to be doing by formally requiring colleges to agree to promote free inquiry in order to get billions of dollars in federal research funding .
`` While many schools — or all schools — are frankly supposed to follow this currently , it will ensure that grant dollars are associated through the grant-making process , and schools will have to certify that they ’ re following this condition , '' a senior administration official said earlier Thursday .
Still the move , and the president 's rhetoric surrounding it , raised alarms for some civil liberties groups and conservatives — including at least one Republican lawmaker — who expressed concerns about federal overreach .
`` I don ’ t want to see Congress or the president or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus , '' Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) , who chairs the Senate HELP Committee , said in a statement . `` The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech . Federal courts define and enforce it . The Department of Justice can weigh in . Conservatives don ’ t like it when judges try to write laws , and conservatives should not like it when legislators and agencies try to rewrite the Constitution . ”
The order directs 12 federal agencies that fund university research to add language to existing agreements that colleges have to sign to get the money . Public universities will have to vow to uphold the First Amendment — something they already must do — and private universities will have to promise to uphold their own `` stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech , '' essentially setting their own rules .
It will be up to the agencies to enforce the agreements , as they already do .
`` Today we ’ re delivering a clear message to the professors and power structures trying to suppress dissent and keep young Americans — and all Americans , not just young Americans … from challenging rigid , far-left ideology , '' Trump said . `` If the university does n't allow you to speak , we will not give them money — it 's very simple . ''
The president vowed it was `` the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students ' rights . ''
The executive order is `` plainly unnecessary , '' the president of a group of public universities said .
`` Public universities are already bound by the First Amendment and work each day to defend and honor it , '' Peter McPherson , president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities , said . “ As institutions of higher learning , public universities are constantly working to identify new ways to educate students on the importance of free expression , provide venues for free speech , and advance our world through free academic inquiry .
“ This executive order doesn ’ t do much with regard to free speech , '' ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement . `` Instead , it tells public universities to abide by the First Amendment , as they are already required to do , and private universities to abide by their existing policies . ''
Some conservatives , however , believe colleges have n't done that , and are regularly stifling speech — especially conservative speech — by banning speakers , creating speech zones and pushing trigger warnings .
`` College campuses are ground zero in the campaign by the liberal left to shut down conservative dissent , '' said Chandler Thornton , chairman of the College Republican National Committee . `` President Trump 's executive order is critically needed because college and university bureaucrats have absolutely failed to protect free speech on campus . ''
Trump previously threatened to withdraw federal funding to the University of California , Berkeley , after riots on campus led it to cancel an event at which far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak . At Trump 's CPAC speech where he first mentioned the executive order , the president brought to the stage Hayden Williams , a conservative activist who was punched in the face while recruiting on the Berkeley campus for the conservative youth group Turning Point USA .
The Justice Department under the Trump administration , meanwhile , has backed lawsuits against colleges it believes are suppressing speech , including Berkeley .
Donald Trump , Jr. , touted the move on Twitter Thursday morning as `` A big momentous day ! ''
`` Super excited today that @ realDonaldTrump is signing an executive order today to protect free speech rights for ALL students ! '' he wrote . `` Great work by @ TPUSA and @ charliekirk11 who have been pushing this since the first time I met him years ago . ''
Some , however , remained skeptical of federal intrusions into campus speech , especially given the president ’ s framing of the issue . The conservative Charles Koch Institute pointed to a statement the White House issued in which Trump slammed “ oppressive speech codes , censorship , political correctness , and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas . ''
“ We are concerned that wrongly framing censorship as an ideological issue works against efforts to foster open intellectual environments on campus , '' Sarah Ruger , director of Free Speech Initiatives at the Koch Institute , said in a statement . “ The best policies are those that empower the academy to uphold its core ideals of academic independence and free inquiry . ''
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education , which has sued colleges it believes are stifling speech , said in a statement that the order could result in `` unintended consequences that threaten free expression and academic freedom . ''
`` To the extent that today ’ s executive order asks colleges and universities to meet their existing legal obligations , it should be uncontroversial , '' the group said . `` We note that the order does not specify how or by what standard federal agencies will ensure compliance , the order ’ s most consequential component . FIRE has long opposed federal agency requirements that conflict with well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence . We will continue to do so . ''
The American Council on Education , the leading higher education lobbying group , meanwhile , said the order is `` unnecessary and unwelcome , a solution in search of a problem . ''
`` What remains to be seen is the process the administration develops to flesh out these requirements and the extent to which it is willing to consult with the communities most affected — especially research universities , '' said Ted Mitchell , the group 's president , in a statement . `` No matter how this order is implemented , it is neither needed nor desirable , and could lead to unwanted federal micromanagement of the cutting-edge research that is critical to our nation ’ s continued vitality and global leadership . ”
The order makes some moves beyond free speech , as well .
It directs the Education Department to add program-level data , including information on debt , earnings , repayment and default rates , to the existing College Scorecard . In addition , the order directs the department to publish the performance , by college , of PLUS loans for parents and graduate students . It also orders up a report from the department with recommendations on how the administration can put colleges on the hook for how well their students do after graduation .
`` We ’ re going to make them have an incentive to keep their costs down , '' Trump said . `` I ’ ve watched this over a period of time . I figured it out very , very quickly . I just see their numbers go up very rapidly , because they do n't have the burden on them . ''
|
President Donald Trump is set to sign the order at 3:15 p.m. Thursday. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Education Trump's hyped free speech order asks colleges to do what they already have to
President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon signed his much-hyped executive order on campus free speech — which he deemed a "historic action to defend American students and American values" that have "been under siege" on campuses.
"Under the guise of speech codes and safe spaces and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shutdown the voices of great young Americans," Trump said Thursday before signing the order.
Story Continued Below
"All of that changes starting right now."
The order, however, essentially reinforces what schools are already supposed to be doing by formally requiring colleges to agree to promote free inquiry in order to get billions of dollars in federal research funding.
"While many schools — or all schools — are frankly supposed to follow this currently, it will ensure that grant dollars are associated through the grant-making process, and schools will have to certify that they’re following this condition," a senior administration official said earlier Thursday.
Still the move, and the president's rhetoric surrounding it, raised alarms for some civil liberties groups and conservatives — including at least one Republican lawmaker — who expressed concerns about federal overreach.
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201903/2289/1155968404_6016927420001_6016922665001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
"I don’t want to see Congress or the president or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Senate HELP Committee, said in a statement. "The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech. Federal courts define and enforce it. The Department of Justice can weigh in. Conservatives don’t like it when judges try to write laws, and conservatives should not like it when legislators and agencies try to rewrite the Constitution.”
The order directs 12 federal agencies that fund university research to add language to existing agreements that colleges have to sign to get the money. Public universities will have to vow to uphold the First Amendment — something they already must do — and private universities will have to promise to uphold their own "stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech," essentially setting their own rules.
It will be up to the agencies to enforce the agreements, as they already do.
"Today we’re delivering a clear message to the professors and power structures trying to suppress dissent and keep young Americans — and all Americans, not just young Americans … from challenging rigid, far-left ideology," Trump said. "If the university doesn't allow you to speak, we will not give them money — it's very simple."
The president vowed it was "the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students' rights."
The executive order is "plainly unnecessary," the president of a group of public universities said.
"Public universities are already bound by the First Amendment and work each day to defend and honor it," Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, said. “As institutions of higher learning, public universities are constantly working to identify new ways to educate students on the importance of free expression, provide venues for free speech, and advance our world through free academic inquiry.
"No executive order will change that,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union echoed that sentiment.
“This executive order doesn’t do much with regard to free speech," ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement. "Instead, it tells public universities to abide by the First Amendment, as they are already required to do, and private universities to abide by their existing policies."
Some conservatives, however, believe colleges haven't done that, and are regularly stifling speech — especially conservative speech — by banning speakers, creating speech zones and pushing trigger warnings.
"College campuses are ground zero in the campaign by the liberal left to shut down conservative dissent," said Chandler Thornton, chairman of the College Republican National Committee. "President Trump's executive order is critically needed because college and university bureaucrats have absolutely failed to protect free speech on campus."
Trump previously threatened to withdraw federal funding to the University of California, Berkeley, after riots on campus led it to cancel an event at which far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak. At Trump's CPAC speech where he first mentioned the executive order, the president brought to the stage Hayden Williams, a conservative activist who was punched in the face while recruiting on the Berkeley campus for the conservative youth group Turning Point USA.
The Justice Department under the Trump administration, meanwhile, has backed lawsuits against colleges it believes are suppressing speech, including Berkeley.
Donald Trump, Jr., touted the move on Twitter Thursday morning as "A big momentous day!"
"Super excited today that @realDonaldTrump is signing an executive order today to protect free speech rights for ALL students!" he wrote. "Great work by @TPUSA and @charliekirk11 who have been pushing this since the first time I met him years ago."
Some, however, remained skeptical of federal intrusions into campus speech, especially given the president’s framing of the issue. The conservative Charles Koch Institute pointed to a statement the White House issued in which Trump slammed “oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness, and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas."
“We are concerned that wrongly framing censorship as an ideological issue works against efforts to foster open intellectual environments on campus," Sarah Ruger, director of Free Speech Initiatives at the Koch Institute, said in a statement. “The best policies are those that empower the academy to uphold its core ideals of academic independence and free inquiry."
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has sued colleges it believes are stifling speech, said in a statement that the order could result in "unintended consequences that threaten free expression and academic freedom."
"To the extent that today’s executive order asks colleges and universities to meet their existing legal obligations, it should be uncontroversial," the group said. "We note that the order does not specify how or by what standard federal agencies will ensure compliance, the order’s most consequential component. FIRE has long opposed federal agency requirements that conflict with well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence. We will continue to do so."
The American Council on Education, the leading higher education lobbying group, meanwhile, said the order is "unnecessary and unwelcome, a solution in search of a problem."
"What remains to be seen is the process the administration develops to flesh out these requirements and the extent to which it is willing to consult with the communities most affected — especially research universities," said Ted Mitchell, the group's president, in a statement. "No matter how this order is implemented, it is neither needed nor desirable, and could lead to unwanted federal micromanagement of the cutting-edge research that is critical to our nation’s continued vitality and global leadership.”
The order makes some moves beyond free speech, as well.
It directs the Education Department to add program-level data, including information on debt, earnings, repayment and default rates, to the existing College Scorecard. In addition, the order directs the department to publish the performance, by college, of PLUS loans for parents and graduate students. It also orders up a report from the department with recommendations on how the administration can put colleges on the hook for how well their students do after graduation.
"We’re going to make them have an incentive to keep their costs down," Trump said. "I’ve watched this over a period of time. I figured it out very, very quickly. I just see their numbers go up very rapidly, because they don't have the burden on them."
Michael Stratford contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
8HLIQK4zkztGBXTC
|
healthcare
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/news/economy/insurers-white-house/index.html
|
Obama officials meet with insurance CEOs
|
2013-10-23
|
Jennifer Liberto, Jim Acosta
|
As technical issues continue to plague the sign-up for Obamacare , several major health insurer CEOs headed to Washington to talk to White House officials Wednesday .
Aetna ( AET ) CEO Mark Bertolini , Wellpoint ( WLP ) CEO Joseph R. Swedish and Humana Inc. ( HUM ) CEO Bruce Broussard attended the meeting , White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed .
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also met with the CEOs , CNN confirmed .
On Oct. 1 , the Affordable Care Act started allowing consumers to shop and sign up for subsidized health insurance coverage . But the President 's signature healthcare sign-up Web page has not been able to keep up with the traffic volume and been plagued by glitches , making it tough for Americans to sign up for insurance coverage .
Carney said the CEOs were invited to chat with senior White House staff about `` implementation and enrollment , and efforts to address the technical issues identified with healthcare.gov . ''
Wellpoint is one of the larger participants in Obamacare , with health exchanges in 14 states where it operates on Blue Cross Blue Shield licenses .
Related : To fix Obamacare website , blow it up , start over
Aetna offers coverage in 10 states , through Aetna or Coventry Health Care , which was acquired this spring , spokeswoman Cynthia Michener confirmed . The firm is also offering coverage in seven other states , but just in `` limited geographic areas , '' she said .
Aetna has received much criticism for withdrawing from a number of states where it had originally applied to offer health insurance , including California , New York and New Jersey .
Humana is another larger participant offering insurance on state health exchanges in Illinois , Mississippi , Kentucky and Colorado , among others .
Cigna ( CI ) CEO David Cordani was invited but was unable to attend , according to a spokesman .
Carney said other CEOs attending the meeting included Michael Neidorff of Centene Corp. ( CNC ) , James Roosevelt of Tufts Health Plan and Bernard J. Tyson of Kaiser Permanente . Also invited was Karen Ignagni , head of the lobbying group America 's Health Insurance Plans , which represents most of the big health insurers .
In an interview with CNN 's Dr. Sanjay Gupta , Sebelius said Tuesday she and her department are concerned about the technical problems surrounding the Obamacare website 's rollout .
The site was supposed to make it simple for people to search and sign up for new health care policies starting on Oct. 1 . But instead , it has been clunky and , at times , inoperable .
`` We 're not at all satisfied with the workings of the website , '' Sebelius said . `` We want it to be smooth and easy , and let consumers compare plans . ''
The Secretary attributed some of the problems to `` extremely high '' volume , saying nearly 20 million people have come to the Obamacare website in the first three weeks after it launched .
Yet only a fraction of those visitors have signed up for new health-care policies .
In the meantime , a team of high-tech experts from within the government and from Silicon Valley is going to tackle the issues , Sebelius said . Jeff Zients , acting director of the Office of Management and Budget , will lead the team .
Besides Sebelius , the insurance chiefs were meeting with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Valerie Jarrett , a senior adviser to President Obama , Carney said .
`` Obviously these are very important players in this process , and Denis and others look forward to the meeting , '' Carney said .
Asked whether President Obama would take part in the meeting , Carney said he was n't officially scheduled to participate . But , he added , `` it 's a small building . ''
|
As technical issues continue to plague the sign-up for Obamacare, several major health insurer CEOs headed to Washington to talk to White House officials Wednesday.
Aetna (AET) CEO Mark Bertolini, Wellpoint (WLP) CEO Joseph R. Swedish and Humana Inc. (HUM) CEO Bruce Broussard attended the meeting, White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also met with the CEOs, CNN confirmed.
On Oct. 1, the Affordable Care Act started allowing consumers to shop and sign up for subsidized health insurance coverage. But the President's signature healthcare sign-up Web page has not been able to keep up with the traffic volume and been plagued by glitches, making it tough for Americans to sign up for insurance coverage.
Carney said the CEOs were invited to chat with senior White House staff about "implementation and enrollment, and efforts to address the technical issues identified with healthcare.gov."
Wellpoint is one of the larger participants in Obamacare, with health exchanges in 14 states where it operates on Blue Cross Blue Shield licenses.
Related: To fix Obamacare website, blow it up, start over
Aetna offers coverage in 10 states, through Aetna or Coventry Health Care, which was acquired this spring, spokeswoman Cynthia Michener confirmed. The firm is also offering coverage in seven other states, but just in "limited geographic areas," she said.
Aetna has received much criticism for withdrawing from a number of states where it had originally applied to offer health insurance, including California, New York and New Jersey.
Humana is another larger participant offering insurance on state health exchanges in Illinois, Mississippi, Kentucky and Colorado, among others.
Cigna (CI) CEO David Cordani was invited but was unable to attend, according to a spokesman.
Carney said other CEOs attending the meeting included Michael Neidorff of Centene Corp. (CNC), James Roosevelt of Tufts Health Plan and Bernard J. Tyson of Kaiser Permanente. Also invited was Karen Ignagni, head of the lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents most of the big health insurers.
Related: Insurers pledge to help solve HealthCare.gov problems
In an interview with CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Sebelius said Tuesday she and her department are concerned about the technical problems surrounding the Obamacare website's rollout.
The site was supposed to make it simple for people to search and sign up for new health care policies starting on Oct. 1. But instead, it has been clunky and, at times, inoperable.
"We're not at all satisfied with the workings of the website," Sebelius said. "We want it to be smooth and easy, and let consumers compare plans."
The Secretary attributed some of the problems to "extremely high" volume, saying nearly 20 million people have come to the Obamacare website in the first three weeks after it launched.
Related: Errors still bug the website
Yet only a fraction of those visitors have signed up for new health-care policies.
In the meantime, a team of high-tech experts from within the government and from Silicon Valley is going to tackle the issues, Sebelius said. Jeff Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, will lead the team.
Besides Sebelius, the insurance chiefs were meeting with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Obama, Carney said.
"Obviously these are very important players in this process, and Denis and others look forward to the meeting," Carney said.
Asked whether President Obama would take part in the meeting, Carney said he wasn't officially scheduled to participate. But, he added, "it's a small building."
-- CNN's Laura Koran, Kevin Liptak, Greg Botelho and Holly Yan contributed to this report.
|
www.money.cnn.com
| 0left
|
2E3Jk73SSp2cBPiw
|
federal_budget
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/us/politics/republicans-spending-deficits-debt.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
|
OPINION: Republicans Learn to Love Deficit Spending They Once Loathed
|
2018-02-08
|
Alan Rappeport
|
“ With this deal , we will experience trillion-dollar deficits permanently , ” said Andy Roth , vice president of the conservative Club for Growth . “ That sort of behavior , the last time I checked , is not in the Republican platform . ”
The seeds of this ballooning debt load are already taking root — the Treasury Department said last month that it expects to borrow $ 955 billion this fiscal year and more than $ 1 trillion in both 2019 and 2020 . That money appears set to get only more expensive to borrow , as the Federal Reserve looks to continue raising interest rates and investors demand higher returns from an increasingly debt-laden government .
Indeed , the borrowing spree is contributing to recent volatility in financial markets , as investors fret that the additional fiscal stimulus , paired with a strengthening economy , could fuel inflation and translate into higher interest rates more quickly than anticipated . Major stock indexes dropped sharply again late Thursday afternoon , falling into a market correction , or a drop of more than 10 percent from their peak , largely on comments from the Bank of England that it might raise interest rates sooner and higher as it looks to fend off possible inflation . Investors poured into bonds in a flight to safety , pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury bill to a four-year high of 2.88 percent .
For many Republicans , backing the budget agreement is a break with conservative fiscal orthodoxy that carries risk going into the midterm elections . The party ’ s professed commitment to limited government and deficit reduction helped Republicans regain control of the House and Senate during the Obama administration and also helped President Trump win election , with the candidate promising to get federal spending under control .
Last May , the Trump administration released a budget projecting the United States would swing from a deficit of $ 440 billion in 2018 to a surplus of $ 16 billion in 2027 . The budget called for deep cuts to domestic programs and a robust increase in military spending .
|
“With this deal, we will experience trillion-dollar deficits permanently,” said Andy Roth, vice president of the conservative Club for Growth. “That sort of behavior, the last time I checked, is not in the Republican platform.”
The seeds of this ballooning debt load are already taking root — the Treasury Department said last month that it expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year and more than $1 trillion in both 2019 and 2020. That money appears set to get only more expensive to borrow, as the Federal Reserve looks to continue raising interest rates and investors demand higher returns from an increasingly debt-laden government.
Indeed, the borrowing spree is contributing to recent volatility in financial markets, as investors fret that the additional fiscal stimulus, paired with a strengthening economy, could fuel inflation and translate into higher interest rates more quickly than anticipated. Major stock indexes dropped sharply again late Thursday afternoon, falling into a market correction, or a drop of more than 10 percent from their peak, largely on comments from the Bank of England that it might raise interest rates sooner and higher as it looks to fend off possible inflation. Investors poured into bonds in a flight to safety, pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury bill to a four-year high of 2.88 percent.
For many Republicans, backing the budget agreement is a break with conservative fiscal orthodoxy that carries risk going into the midterm elections. The party’s professed commitment to limited government and deficit reduction helped Republicans regain control of the House and Senate during the Obama administration and also helped President Trump win election, with the candidate promising to get federal spending under control.
Last May, the Trump administration released a budget projecting the United States would swing from a deficit of $440 billion in 2018 to a surplus of $16 billion in 2027. The budget called for deep cuts to domestic programs and a robust increase in military spending.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
shUbIUe7poyxUdcm
|
environment
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/rahn-a-carbon-tax-would-make-no-sense/
|
RAHN: A carbon tax would make no sense
|
2013-09-02
|
Richard W. Rahn
|
All too many bad ideas get endlessly recycled — the carbon tax is one of them . A carbon tax could be a tax on coal , oil and gas carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and other sources . Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere ? It is a little less than 400 parts per million . Do you know what the optimum level of carbon dioxide is ? No one does , even though some have the extreme conceit to think they do .
The earth ’ s atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen , about 21 percent oxygen , less than 1 percent argon , and only 0.038 percent carbon dioxide — plus a variable amount of water vapor . The gas is necessary for life . Plants can not grow without it . They absorb it and release oxygen in exchange . Animals exhale carbon dioxide and inhale oxygen . There is evidence that as carbon-dioxide levels have risen , plants are growing faster , which means cheaper food .
The advocates of a carbon tax claim that the tax will help reduce dangerous emissions . The argument is that carbon dioxide is a “ greenhouse ” gas and , everything else being equal , more of it in the atmosphere will result in higher atmospheric temperatures . The operative phrase here is “ everything else being equal. ” When fossil fuels are burned , they produce small amounts of carbon dioxide but large amounts of water vapor . Increases in water vapor show up as more cloud cover . Clouds both trap heat ( which increases warming ) and reflect sunlight ( which reduces warming ) , but there is no consensus about which effect is greater .
What is known with a high degree of certainty is that at times in the past , the Earth has been both warmer and cooler at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere . What is also known is the current climate models have a dreadful record of prediction . Twenty years ago , we were told that the Earth ’ s temperatures would steadily rise from then on , yet there has been no average warming for the past 16 years — oops .
Let ’ s assume for the moment that those who think that global warming is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide , and that man has caused the increase , are correct . Those who think that also have a “ mainstream ” forecast of 3 degrees Celsius of global warming between now and the end of the century . At most , they also estimate that the U.S. contribution will only be about 0.2 degrees Celsius , or about 7 percent of global warming . Does it make sense for the United States to impose a carbon tax , when emissions from the rest of the world — notably , India and China — would be responsible for 93 percent of the temperature rise ? Even with very high taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions , the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on a 50-year time scale .
A carbon tax has real costs to the American economy . Energy prices and food prices would be higher , and virtually everything else that people consume would cost more . The results of higher prices are a lower standard of living , less economic opportunity , lower real wages and fewer jobs . All for what ?
You may have noticed that people who have very strong empirical and theoretical evidence for their point of view usually do not feel a need to suppress dissent . Instead they let the strength of their own arguments and evidence persuade . Yet , the global-warming lobby increasingly exhibits the characteristics of an intolerant religious sect , rather than objective scientists . Rather than admitting that their climate models were flawed , many in the global-warming crowd have resorted to name-calling and active repression of those who have argued that solar activity or other phenomena might be more important than carbon dioxide in determining the earth ’ s temperature .
As an economist , I make no pretense to knowing what the optimum temperature of the earth ought to be and what the optimal level of carbon dioxide should be , other than to note , in general , people tend to prefer warmer over colder climates and less expensive and more plentiful food that comes from more warmth , moisture and carbon dioxide . As an economist , though , I am prepared to make judgments as to whether a proposed tax is likely to have more benefits than costs . Even many proponents of carbon taxes , when pressed , admit that they will have virtually no effect on global warming ( even using their very doubtful assumptions ) . However , we do know that these proposed tax increases will have very real negative effects on people ’ s incomes and job opportunities .
Mankind has adapted to the gradual ups and downs in temperatures and sea levels for thousands of years — without freedom-destroying government mandates and oppressive taxes . The carbon tax idea should be scrapped .
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Attempting to regulate carbon dioxide is folly
All too many bad ideas get endlessly recycled — the carbon tax is one of them. A carbon tax could be a tax on coal, oil and gas carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and other sources. Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? It is a little less than 400 parts per million. Do you know what the optimum level of carbon dioxide is? No one does, even though some have the extreme conceit to think they do.
The earth’s atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, about 21 percent oxygen, less than 1 percent argon, and only 0.038 percent carbon dioxide — plus a variable amount of water vapor. The gas is necessary for life. Plants cannot grow without it. They absorb it and release oxygen in exchange. Animals exhale carbon dioxide and inhale oxygen. There is evidence that as carbon-dioxide levels have risen, plants are growing faster, which means cheaper food.
The advocates of a carbon tax claim that the tax will help reduce dangerous emissions. The argument is that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas and, everything else being equal, more of it in the atmosphere will result in higher atmospheric temperatures. The operative phrase here is “everything else being equal.” When fossil fuels are burned, they produce small amounts of carbon dioxide but large amounts of water vapor. Increases in water vapor show up as more cloud cover. Clouds both trap heat (which increases warming) and reflect sunlight (which reduces warming), but there is no consensus about which effect is greater.
What is known with a high degree of certainty is that at times in the past, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What is also known is the current climate models have a dreadful record of prediction. Twenty years ago, we were told that the Earth’s temperatures would steadily rise from then on, yet there has been no average warming for the past 16 years — oops.
Let’s assume for the moment that those who think that global warming is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide, and that man has caused the increase, are correct. Those who think that also have a “mainstream” forecast of 3 degrees Celsius of global warming between now and the end of the century. At most, they also estimate that the U.S. contribution will only be about 0.2 degrees Celsius, or about 7 percent of global warming. Does it make sense for the United States to impose a carbon tax, when emissions from the rest of the world — notably, India and China — would be responsible for 93 percent of the temperature rise? Even with very high taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions, the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on a 50-year time scale.
A carbon tax has real costs to the American economy. Energy prices and food prices would be higher, and virtually everything else that people consume would cost more. The results of higher prices are a lower standard of living, less economic opportunity, lower real wages and fewer jobs. All for what?
You may have noticed that people who have very strong empirical and theoretical evidence for their point of view usually do not feel a need to suppress dissent. Instead they let the strength of their own arguments and evidence persuade. Yet, the global-warming lobby increasingly exhibits the characteristics of an intolerant religious sect, rather than objective scientists. Rather than admitting that their climate models were flawed, many in the global-warming crowd have resorted to name-calling and active repression of those who have argued that solar activity or other phenomena might be more important than carbon dioxide in determining the earth’s temperature.
As an economist, I make no pretense to knowing what the optimum temperature of the earth ought to be and what the optimal level of carbon dioxide should be, other than to note, in general, people tend to prefer warmer over colder climates and less expensive and more plentiful food that comes from more warmth, moisture and carbon dioxide. As an economist, though, I am prepared to make judgments as to whether a proposed tax is likely to have more benefits than costs. Even many proponents of carbon taxes, when pressed, admit that they will have virtually no effect on global warming (even using their very doubtful assumptions). However, we do know that these proposed tax increases will have very real negative effects on people’s incomes and job opportunities.
Mankind has adapted to the gradual ups and downs in temperatures and sea levels for thousands of years — without freedom-destroying government mandates and oppressive taxes. The carbon tax idea should be scrapped.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
hKeyfsjPq8o4dKS9
|
civil_rights
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/barack-obama-and-martin-luther-king-jr-95866.html?hp=t1
|
Barack Obama and Martin Luther King Jr.
|
2013-08-24
|
Jonathan Allen
|
“ Do I think he ’ s a civil rights leader ? No , ” said Al Sharpton . Obama and King
On this , black civil rights leaders agree : President Barack Obama isn ’ t the second coming of Martin Luther King Jr .
It ’ s tempting to compare the two men – “ inevitable , ” the New York Times said this week – but allies and some critics in the black community say Obama is not the leader of a movement . Instead , Obama is playing a different role in a different time .
“ Do I think he ’ s a civil rights leader ? No , ” said Al Sharpton , who has become close to Obama in part because they are of the same post-movement generation . “ I think he ’ d be the first person to tell you that . ”
So when Obama settles into King ’ s footsteps at the base of the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday , half a century after the 1963 March on Washington , black leaders will be listening not for the inspirational rhetoric of a civil rights icon but for the substance of a president .
“ Those are two different roles , ” said Jesse Jackson , who has had his differences with Obama . “ What we needed from Dr. King was motivation and vision . What we need from the president is appropriation and legislation . ”
In other words , Obama is more Kennedy than King . Obama ’ s background is in organizing but he never promised or sought to be a King-style leader . Indeed , of all the things King envisioned in his famous refrain — “ I have a dream… ” — a black president was not one of them . In that way , Obama is blazing a trail that wasn ’ t publicly contemplated when the original civil rights generation pressured presidents to secure access to public accommodations , voting booths , and housing .
“ The Civil Rights Movement is what created the opportunity to pave the way for the United States to be able to elect the first African American president , ” said Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett . “ So , he stands on the shoulders of those who paved the way , but he also recognizes that as president of the United States he has an enormous responsibility as well to continue – to use Martin Luther King ’ s words – moving the arc of the moral universe , to bend it toward justice . ”
( Also on POLITCO : Race against time on MLK memorial )
Much as Obama treads on new ground , the election and re-election of a black president have forced contemporary black civil rights leaders to confront a challenge that was hard to foresee half a century ago : Their activism is aimed at a fellow person of color .
At times over the past five years , the calculus for civil rights leaders who hope to prod the president to act on a range of issues has proven difficult . Obama has received overwhelming support from black voters in two elections , meaning the leaders of civil rights organizations are risking their own standing if they take him on . There ’ s also the danger that they could hurt the president politically by challenging him publicly . At the same time , Obama ’ s willingness to work around some of those leaders has caused consternation that is typically discussed only in private settings .
Obama has elevated Sharpton and his National Action Network by having one-on-sessions with the MSNBC television host and inviting him to group meetings with leaders of longer-standing civil rights organizations such as the NAACP .
“ We found a respect for each other ’ s different roles , ” Sharpton said . “ He understands that I ’ m an activist and I understand that he ’ s the president [ while ] some of the guys … want him to be the civil rights leader that brings issues to himself . The president can ’ t lead a march on himself . ”
Through his years on the public stage , Obama has navigated the tightrope between embracing King ’ s legacy and appearing to co-opt it , but he has been criticized at times for missing on both sides of that mark .
Obama had spoken during his first campaign of being part of the “ Joshua generation , ” a Biblical reference that casts the vanguard of the civil rights movement as the “ Moses generation ” and Obama and others of his age as the successors obliged to carry on their work .
Five years ago , as he accepted the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination in Denver on the 45th anniversary of King ’ s speech , Obama referred to King not by name but as “ the preacher , ” a rhetorical device that some took as an effort to avoid looking like he hoped to be compared to King .
|
“Do I think he’s a civil rights leader? No,” said Al Sharpton. Obama and King
On this, black civil rights leaders agree: President Barack Obama isn’t the second coming of Martin Luther King Jr.
It’s tempting to compare the two men – “inevitable,” the New York Times said this week – but allies and some critics in the black community say Obama is not the leader of a movement. Instead, Obama is playing a different role in a different time.
Story Continued Below
“Do I think he’s a civil rights leader? No,” said Al Sharpton, who has become close to Obama in part because they are of the same post-movement generation. “I think he’d be the first person to tell you that.”
So when Obama settles into King’s footsteps at the base of the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday, half a century after the 1963 March on Washington, black leaders will be listening not for the inspirational rhetoric of a civil rights icon but for the substance of a president.
( PHOTOS: Scenes from March on Washington)
“Those are two different roles,” said Jesse Jackson, who has had his differences with Obama. “What we needed from Dr. King was motivation and vision. What we need from the president is appropriation and legislation.”
In other words, Obama is more Kennedy than King. Obama’s background is in organizing but he never promised or sought to be a King-style leader. Indeed, of all the things King envisioned in his famous refrain — “I have a dream…” — a black president was not one of them. In that way, Obama is blazing a trail that wasn’t publicly contemplated when the original civil rights generation pressured presidents to secure access to public accommodations, voting booths, and housing.
“The Civil Rights Movement is what created the opportunity to pave the way for the United States to be able to elect the first African American president,” said Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. “So, he stands on the shoulders of those who paved the way, but he also recognizes that as president of the United States he has an enormous responsibility as well to continue – to use Martin Luther King’s words – moving the arc of the moral universe, to bend it toward justice.”
( Also on POLITCO: Race against time on MLK memorial)
Much as Obama treads on new ground, the election and re-election of a black president have forced contemporary black civil rights leaders to confront a challenge that was hard to foresee half a century ago: Their activism is aimed at a fellow person of color.
At times over the past five years, the calculus for civil rights leaders who hope to prod the president to act on a range of issues has proven difficult. Obama has received overwhelming support from black voters in two elections, meaning the leaders of civil rights organizations are risking their own standing if they take him on. There’s also the danger that they could hurt the president politically by challenging him publicly. At the same time, Obama’s willingness to work around some of those leaders has caused consternation that is typically discussed only in private settings.
Obama has elevated Sharpton and his National Action Network by having one-on-sessions with the MSNBC television host and inviting him to group meetings with leaders of longer-standing civil rights organizations such as the NAACP.
( PHOTOS: Highlights from Obama’s first term)
“We found a respect for each other’s different roles,” Sharpton said. “He understands that I’m an activist and I understand that he’s the president [while] some of the guys … want him to be the civil rights leader that brings issues to himself. The president can’t lead a march on himself.”
Through his years on the public stage, Obama has navigated the tightrope between embracing King’s legacy and appearing to co-opt it, but he has been criticized at times for missing on both sides of that mark.
Obama had spoken during his first campaign of being part of the “Joshua generation,” a Biblical reference that casts the vanguard of the civil rights movement as the “Moses generation” and Obama and others of his age as the successors obliged to carry on their work.
Five years ago, as he accepted the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in Denver on the 45th anniversary of King’s speech, Obama referred to King not by name but as “the preacher,” a rhetorical device that some took as an effort to avoid looking like he hoped to be compared to King.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
RJ5yOkVeOHAgXUNV
|
isis
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/28/obama-to-speak-ahead-national-security-meeting/
|
Hitting the Brakes? Obama downplays prospect of imminent strikes in Syria
|
2014-08-28
|
President Obama on Thursday downplayed the prospect of any imminent U.S. airstrikes in Syria , saying `` we do n't have a strategy yet '' and stressing that military advisers are still reviewing options for confronting Islamic State militants .
At the same time , the president bluntly ruled out U.S. military action for dealing with another international crisis -- mounting evidence of Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine . `` We are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian problem , '' Obama said .
The president addressed both crises during remarks in the White House briefing room late Thursday afternoon , as Congress prepares to return from the summer recess . In recent days , lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have demanded that the U.S. strategy for targeting the Islamic State be put to a vote on Capitol Hill , amid speculation the military campaign might expand into Syria .
But Obama stressed Thursday that `` we do n't have a strategy yet '' and pushed back on reports that , he said , suggest the country is about to go `` full scale on an elaborate strategy '' in the Middle East .
`` The suggestion , I guess , has been that we 'll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress , still out of town , is going to be left in the dark , '' he said . `` That 's not what 's going to happen . ''
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest later clarified on CNN that the president referred specifically to Syria when he said there was no strategy yet .
Obama indicated that for the time being , the U.S. will continue to conduct airstrikes in northern Iraq and humanitarian missions , while working politically and diplomatically to `` cobble together '' a coalition for whatever the long-term strategy is .
To that end , he said he is sending Secretary of State John Kerry to the region to build a `` coalition '' to confront the threat .
Reports about a potential expanded military campaign follow calls by some lawmakers to strike the Islamic State , also known as ISIS or ISIL , in Syria as well as Iraq . Military leaders have also said the organization will have to be dealt with in some way on the Syrian side of the border .
Obama acknowledged Thursday that he 's directed military leaders to prepare a `` range of options '' on ISIS . He was heading next into a National Security Council meeting where he was expected to discuss the strategy with advisers .
`` ISIL poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region , '' Obama said , while calling for a `` broader , comprehensive strategy . ''
But he said he does n't want to `` put the cart before the horse . ''
The president said , once a strategy is formed , there `` will be a military aspect to that '' and might be a role for an `` international coalition '' providing air support .
But he was vague on the question of what to do in Syria . Amid speculation over whether the U.S. would ever partner with Bashar Assad to fight ISIS on that side of the border , Obama reiterated his view that `` Assad 's lost legitimacy . ''
He said the U.S. would continue to support the `` moderate opposition '' in the country , giving people a choice other than just Assad or ISIS .
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell , after Obama 's remarks , urged the president to develop a `` regional strategy '' for the Islamic State and present it to Congress and the American people .
`` If the President is prepared to engage Congress with a strategic plan to protect the U.S. and our allies from ISIL , I believe he will have significant congressional support , '' he said . `` But do n't forget , the threat from ISIL is real and it 's growing -- and it is time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response . ''
The president 's remarks also came amid increased tensions between Russia and Ukraine . Officials in Ukraine say two Russian military columns rolled into the southeastern part of the country after missiles were fired at a border post .
Obama on Thursday blamed Russia for the unrest , saying the country deliberately and repeatedly has violated Ukraine 's sovereignty . He said Russia is training , arming and funding pro-Russian separatists in Russia .
Obama , though , said a `` military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming . ''
Rather , he said he wants to continue to mobilize the international community to bring pressure on Russia . `` This ongoing Russian incursion into Ukraine will only bring more costs and consequences for Russia , '' Obama said .
Obama said Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko will visit the White House next month , in what would be his first visit since becoming president . Obama said he also spoke by phone Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel .
In a written statement , though , Sens . John McCain , R-Ariz. , and Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , said Russia 's actions can only be described as a `` cross-border military invasion , '' adding : `` To claim it is anything other than that is to inhabit President Putin 's Orwellian universe . ''
They urged broader `` sectoral '' sanctions and U.S. and European military support for Ukraine .
`` This is a moment to speak and act with clarity . A sovereign nation in the heart of Europe is being invaded by its larger neighbor , '' they said . `` If we will not or can not defend our own values now , as well as friends who share them , the future will be dark and dangerous indeed , not just for Ukraine but for us too . ''
At the end of Thursday 's remarks , Obama briefly addressed ongoing deliberations over possible executive action on immigration .
Republicans have voiced concern he 'll issue a mass reprieve in the coming weeks for illegal immigrants .
Obama did not indicate what he might decide but said : `` In the absence of congressional action , I 'm going to do what I can to make sure the system works better . ''
|
President Obama on Thursday downplayed the prospect of any imminent U.S. airstrikes in Syria, saying "we don't have a strategy yet" and stressing that military advisers are still reviewing options for confronting Islamic State militants.
At the same time, the president bluntly ruled out U.S. military action for dealing with another international crisis -- mounting evidence of Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine. "We are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian problem," Obama said.
The president addressed both crises during remarks in the White House briefing room late Thursday afternoon, as Congress prepares to return from the summer recess. In recent days, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have demanded that the U.S. strategy for targeting the Islamic State be put to a vote on Capitol Hill, amid speculation the military campaign might expand into Syria.
But Obama stressed Thursday that "we don't have a strategy yet" and pushed back on reports that, he said, suggest the country is about to go "full scale on an elaborate strategy" in the Middle East.
"The suggestion, I guess, has been that we'll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress, still out of town, is going to be left in the dark," he said. "That's not what's going to happen."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest later clarified on CNN that the president referred specifically to Syria when he said there was no strategy yet.
Obama indicated that for the time being, the U.S. will continue to conduct airstrikes in northern Iraq and humanitarian missions, while working politically and diplomatically to "cobble together" a coalition for whatever the long-term strategy is.
To that end, he said he is sending Secretary of State John Kerry to the region to build a "coalition" to confront the threat.
Reports about a potential expanded military campaign follow calls by some lawmakers to strike the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, in Syria as well as Iraq. Military leaders have also said the organization will have to be dealt with in some way on the Syrian side of the border.
Obama acknowledged Thursday that he's directed military leaders to prepare a "range of options" on ISIS. He was heading next into a National Security Council meeting where he was expected to discuss the strategy with advisers.
"ISIL poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region," Obama said, while calling for a "broader, comprehensive strategy."
But he said he doesn't want to "put the cart before the horse."
The president said, once a strategy is formed, there "will be a military aspect to that" and might be a role for an "international coalition" providing air support.
But he was vague on the question of what to do in Syria. Amid speculation over whether the U.S. would ever partner with Bashar Assad to fight ISIS on that side of the border, Obama reiterated his view that "Assad's lost legitimacy."
He said the U.S. would continue to support the "moderate opposition" in the country, giving people a choice other than just Assad or ISIS.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, after Obama's remarks, urged the president to develop a "regional strategy" for the Islamic State and present it to Congress and the American people.
"If the President is prepared to engage Congress with a strategic plan to protect the U.S. and our allies from ISIL, I believe he will have significant congressional support," he said. "But don't forget, the threat from ISIL is real and it's growing -- and it is time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response."
The president's remarks also came amid increased tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Officials in Ukraine say two Russian military columns rolled into the southeastern part of the country after missiles were fired at a border post.
Obama on Thursday blamed Russia for the unrest, saying the country deliberately and repeatedly has violated Ukraine's sovereignty. He said Russia is training, arming and funding pro-Russian separatists in Russia.
Obama, though, said a "military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming."
Rather, he said he wants to continue to mobilize the international community to bring pressure on Russia. "This ongoing Russian incursion into Ukraine will only bring more costs and consequences for Russia," Obama said.
Obama said Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko will visit the White House next month, in what would be his first visit since becoming president. Obama said he also spoke by phone Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
In a written statement, though, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Russia's actions can only be described as a "cross-border military invasion," adding: "To claim it is anything other than that is to inhabit President Putin's Orwellian universe."
They urged broader "sectoral" sanctions and U.S. and European military support for Ukraine.
"This is a moment to speak and act with clarity. A sovereign nation in the heart of Europe is being invaded by its larger neighbor," they said. "If we will not or cannot defend our own values now, as well as friends who share them, the future will be dark and dangerous indeed, not just for Ukraine but for us too."
At the end of Thursday's remarks, Obama briefly addressed ongoing deliberations over possible executive action on immigration.
Republicans have voiced concern he'll issue a mass reprieve in the coming weeks for illegal immigrants.
Obama did not indicate what he might decide but said: "In the absence of congressional action, I'm going to do what I can to make sure the system works better."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
5TzFKsq4xbn1kDkW
|
|
civil_rights
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/the_lonesome_death_of_walter_scott_why_michael_thomas_slager_should_share_the_blame/
|
The lonesome death of Walter Scott: Why Michael Thomas Slager should share the blame
|
2015-04-09
|
Soon after video recorded by Feidin Santana showing officer Michael Thomas Slager killing Walter Scott went public , Ed Driggers , the chief of the North Charleston , South Carolina , police force where Slager was once employed , spoke to the press . Like an increasing number of law enforcement officials as of late , Driggers found himself suddenly thrust into the media spotlight , tasked with explaining to an outraged nation why one of his officers used deadly force against an unarmed African-American , a 50-year-old father of four , who posed no threat .
But although Driggers ’ public appearance was , on a superficial level , all too reminiscent of what we recently saw in places as disparate as Ferguson , Missouri ; Cleveland , Ohio ; Staten Island , New York ; and Los Angeles , California , the substance was different . Because rather than mount a defense of officer Slager — who repeatedly claimed that he shot Scott only after a routine stop over a busted taillight led to physical altercation , one during which he feared for his life — Driggers buried him instead . “ I have watched the video and I was sickened by what I saw , ” he said . “ And I have not watched it since . ”
What a difference a smartphone can make . As Judd Legum of Think Progress has noted , if not for the remarkably brave Santana , who used his smartphone to record the final moments of Scott ’ s life , the only version of the story the world would know is the version Slager told . Which , in plain language , was a monstrous lie . There 's no evidence that Scott tried to use Slager ’ s taser against him , as the officer claimed ; the only reason it was found near the dead man ’ s body , it appears , is because that ’ s where Slager put it . And contrary to what Slager said in the official incident report , he never feared for his personal safety ; as he pumps Scott ’ s back full of bullets he is calm , cool and collected .
According to the work of one local reporter , Slager ’ s neighbors didn ’ t suspect him of being especially malevolent or inclined toward violence . To them , he seemed normal — even nice . Driggers responded with a similar mix of sadness and bewilderment . “ I want to believe in my heart of hearts that it was a tragic set of events after a traffic stop , ” Driggers said on CNN . “ I always look for the good in folks , ” he continued , “ and so I would hope that nobody would ever do something like that. ” Keith Summey , the town ’ s mayor , was also fatalistic : “ When you ’ re wrong , you ’ re wrong , ” he told the press . “ And if you make a bad decision … you have to live by that decision . ”
Neither man was interested in damning Slager ; and considering he is now facing charges for murder , that ’ s probably for the best . But both men went further than simply biting their tongues ; they made a point of distancing Slager ’ s behavior from that of the overall North Charleston police force , too . “ The one does not totally throw a blanket across the many , ” Driggers said , according to the Los Angeles Times . The mayor and he noted that the NCPD is composed of more than 340 officers . The video traveling all over the world was hideous , no doubt . But it told us nothing of the overall law enforcement system ; it was merely a single man making a horrible , horrible mistake .
Unfortunately , that wasn ’ t the case , because Slager is not the only officer seen in the video . After Scott had fallen to the ground , prostrate and bleeding , and after Slager had barked at him to put his hands behind his back ( so he could handcuff him before he lost the ability to move his arms ) , officer Clarence Habersham , who is African-American , arrives at the scene . His body language , like Scott ’ s , indicates this was not the first time he ’ d come upon such a scene . He seems unperturbed as he kneels down to check Scott ’ s pulse . He makes no real attempt to save the back-shot man ’ s life . And that ’ s understandable , really ; Scott was likely already dead .
We don ’ t know yet what exactly transpired between Slager , Habersham , or the third , Caucasian one who joins them later . We don ’ t know how much they knew , and we don ’ t know when they knew it . What we do know , though , is plenty . We know that the police department of North Charleston was content to treat Slager ’ s story as fact ; and we know that this was not the first time a member of the force had engaged in acts that we ’ d otherwise describe as thuggery . We know that in the past five years , police officers in South Carolina have used their guns against 209 human beings ; and we know that they were exonerated of wrongdoing every single time .
Lastly , we know that Walter Scott — a father , brother , cousin and veteran ; a man who loved to joke and loved to dance , and who was known as the extrovert of his family — died after being shot multiple times when his back was turned . And we know that if he lived long enough to be conscious as Slager tightened the cuffs around each of his wrists , his spent his final moments on this Earth alone , and enchained .
|
Soon after video recorded by Feidin Santana showing officer Michael Thomas Slager killing Walter Scott went public, Ed Driggers, the chief of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police force where Slager was once employed, spoke to the press. Like an increasing number of law enforcement officials as of late, Driggers found himself suddenly thrust into the media spotlight, tasked with explaining to an outraged nation why one of his officers used deadly force against an unarmed African-American, a 50-year-old father of four, who posed no threat.
But although Driggers’ public appearance was, on a superficial level, all too reminiscent of what we recently saw in places as disparate as Ferguson, Missouri; Cleveland, Ohio; Staten Island, New York; and Los Angeles, California, the substance was different. Because rather than mount a defense of officer Slager — who repeatedly claimed that he shot Scott only after a routine stop over a busted taillight led to physical altercation, one during which he feared for his life — Driggers buried him instead. “I have watched the video and I was sickened by what I saw,” he said. “And I have not watched it since.”
Advertisement:
What a difference a smartphone can make. As Judd Legum of Think Progress has noted, if not for the remarkably brave Santana, who used his smartphone to record the final moments of Scott’s life, the only version of the story the world would know is the version Slager told. Which, in plain language, was a monstrous lie. There's no evidence that Scott tried to use Slager’s taser against him, as the officer claimed; the only reason it was found near the dead man’s body, it appears, is because that’s where Slager put it. And contrary to what Slager said in the official incident report, he never feared for his personal safety; as he pumps Scott’s back full of bullets he is calm, cool and collected.
According to the work of one local reporter, Slager’s neighbors didn’t suspect him of being especially malevolent or inclined toward violence. To them, he seemed normal — even nice. Driggers responded with a similar mix of sadness and bewilderment. “I want to believe in my heart of hearts that it was a tragic set of events after a traffic stop,” Driggers said on CNN. “I always look for the good in folks,” he continued, “and so I would hope that nobody would ever do something like that.” Keith Summey, the town’s mayor, was also fatalistic: “When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” he told the press. “And if you make a bad decision … you have to live by that decision.”
Neither man was interested in damning Slager; and considering he is now facing charges for murder, that’s probably for the best. But both men went further than simply biting their tongues; they made a point of distancing Slager’s behavior from that of the overall North Charleston police force, too. “The one does not totally throw a blanket across the many,” Driggers said, according to the Los Angeles Times. The mayor and he noted that the NCPD is composed of more than 340 officers. The video traveling all over the world was hideous, no doubt. But it told us nothing of the overall law enforcement system; it was merely a single man making a horrible, horrible mistake.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case, because Slager is not the only officer seen in the video. After Scott had fallen to the ground, prostrate and bleeding, and after Slager had barked at him to put his hands behind his back (so he could handcuff him before he lost the ability to move his arms), officer Clarence Habersham, who is African-American, arrives at the scene. His body language, like Scott’s, indicates this was not the first time he’d come upon such a scene. He seems unperturbed as he kneels down to check Scott’s pulse. He makes no real attempt to save the back-shot man’s life. And that’s understandable, really; Scott was likely already dead.
We don’t know yet what exactly transpired between Slager, Habersham, or the third, Caucasian one who joins them later. We don’t know how much they knew, and we don’t know when they knew it. What we do know, though, is plenty. We know that the police department of North Charleston was content to treat Slager’s story as fact; and we know that this was not the first time a member of the force had engaged in acts that we’d otherwise describe as thuggery. We know that in the past five years, police officers in South Carolina have used their guns against 209 human beings; and we know that they were exonerated of wrongdoing every single time.
Lastly, we know that Walter Scott — a father, brother, cousin and veteran; a man who loved to joke and loved to dance, and who was known as the extrovert of his family — died after being shot multiple times when his back was turned. And we know that if he lived long enough to be conscious as Slager tightened the cuffs around each of his wrists, his spent his final moments on this Earth alone, and enchained.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
rXj49E8vILWEkB2o
|
|
campaign_finance
|
The Daily Caller
| 22
|
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/07/elizabeth-warrens-big-dollar-fundraisers/
|
Elizabeth Warren’s Big Money Back Door
|
2019-12-07
|
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made her opposition to pricey fundraisers a staple of her presidential campaign . “ I don ’ t do big-dollar fundraisers at all , ” she told “ Tonight Show ” host Jimmy Fallon on Wednesday .
But Warren has carved out a workaround to her pledge by speaking at high-dollar fundraisers for the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) , whose financial support in the general election will be crucial to Warren if she is the party ’ s nominee .
Warren on Thursday spoke at the DNC ’ s IWillVote Gala fundraiser in Boston . The DNC didn ’ t publicize ticket prices for the event , and didn ’ t return an email inquiring about the costs , but an archived invitation shows the DNC charged up to $ 50,000 per ticket package when it held the same event in Atlanta earlier in 2019 .
Contribution levels for the DNC ’ s IWillVote Gala in Atlanta in June ranged from $ 1,000 to $ 50,000 , with donors receiving better perks for larger donations , according to the Internet Archive ’ s Wayback Machine .
Warren , whose campaign did not return an email seeking comment , also spoke at another high-dollar fundraiser , the DNC ’ s Women ’ s Leadership Forum Conference , which took place over two days in mid-October . ( RELATED : Elizabeth Warren Denied Sending Her Kids To Private School , Despite Sending Son To Elite Private School )
Contribution levels for the event ranged from $ 100 for a “ young professional , ” to $ 50,000 for a “ WLF Ambassador , ” the perks of which included ten VIP tickets to the Women Will Vote Gala , according to an archived version of the invitation page .
The liberal senator in August spoke to party donors at another DNC fundraiser in San Francisco , Politico reported .
Warren in October defended attending high-dollar fundraisers for the DNC . “ I will help the party , ” The Associated Press quoted her saying . “ I am not going to ask Democrats to unilaterally disarm in the face of an onslaught of money . ”
|
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made her opposition to pricey fundraisers a staple of her presidential campaign. “I don’t do big-dollar fundraisers at all,” she told “Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon on Wednesday.
But Warren has carved out a workaround to her pledge by speaking at high-dollar fundraisers for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), whose financial support in the general election will be crucial to Warren if she is the party’s nominee.
Warren on Thursday spoke at the DNC’s IWillVote Gala fundraiser in Boston. The DNC didn’t publicize ticket prices for the event, and didn’t return an email inquiring about the costs, but an archived invitation shows the DNC charged up to $50,000 per ticket package when it held the same event in Atlanta earlier in 2019.
Contribution levels for the DNC’s IWillVote Gala in Atlanta in June ranged from $1,000 to $50,000, with donors receiving better perks for larger donations, according to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
Warren, whose campaign did not return an email seeking comment, also spoke at another high-dollar fundraiser, the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum Conference, which took place over two days in mid-October. (RELATED: Elizabeth Warren Denied Sending Her Kids To Private School, Despite Sending Son To Elite Private School)
Contribution levels for the event ranged from $100 for a “young professional,” to $50,000 for a “WLF Ambassador,” the perks of which included ten VIP tickets to the Women Will Vote Gala, according to an archived version of the invitation page.
The liberal senator in August spoke to party donors at another DNC fundraiser in San Francisco, Politico reported.
Warren in October defended attending high-dollar fundraisers for the DNC. “I will help the party,” The Associated Press quoted her saying. “I am not going to ask Democrats to unilaterally disarm in the face of an onslaught of money.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
|
www.dailycaller.com
| 1right
|
lQeD0qvS4o7HFe3a
|
|
supreme_court
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html?_r=1&ref=politics
|
Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece
|
2012-06-26
|
Adam Liptak
|
Justice Antonin Scalia summarized his dissent from the bench , a rare move that indicated his deep disagreement . Rarer still , he criticized a policy that was not before the court : President Obama ’ s recent announcement that his administration would not deport many illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children .
Justice Scalia ’ s point was a narrow one — that the states should have the right to make immigration policy if the federal government is not enforcing its own policies — but it continued a charged back and forth between the conservative justices and Mr. Obama . In his 2010 State of the Union address , Mr. Obama criticized the court ’ s Citizens United campaign finance ruling , which the court reiterated in a separate ruling on Monday .
The court also announced that it was extending its term until Thursday , signaling that it would issue its much-anticipated ruling on Mr. Obama ’ s health care law then .
Both Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney , the presumptive Republican presidential nominee , quickly responded to the immigration ruling . Mr. Romney — traveling , by coincidence , in Arizona — said in a brief statement that states had the right and the duty to secure their borders .
Mr. Obama emphasized his concern that the remaining provision could lead to racial profiling , an issue that the court may yet consider in a future case . “ No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like , ” Mr. Obama said in a statement , adding that he was “ pleased ” about the parts that were struck down .
In her own statement , Gov . Jan Brewer of Arizona , a Republican , said she welcomed the decision to uphold what she called the heart of the law . The decision , she said , was a “ victory for the rule of law ” and for “ the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens . ”
Still , the ruling was a partial rebuke to state officials who had argued that they were entitled to supplement federal efforts to address illegal immigration .
The Obama administration argued that federal immigration law trumped — or pre-empted , in legal jargon — the state ’ s efforts . Last year , the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , in San Francisco , blocked the four provisions on those grounds , including the one the Supreme Court upheld .
In its challenge , the administration did not argue that it violated equal-protection principles . At the Supreme Court argument in April , Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. acknowledged that the federal case was not based on racial or ethnic profiling .
In the majority opinion , Justice Kennedy wrote that the ruling did not foreclose other “ constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect . ”
Meanwhile , Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on Monday that the federal government would “ continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination . ”
Five other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration , more or less patterned after the Arizona law : Alabama , Georgia , Indiana , South Carolina and Utah . But most states avoided creating new crimes for immigration violations , as Arizona did in two provisions that were struck down .
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 .
Lower courts have stayed the carrying out of parts of those laws , and they will now revisit those decisions .
In upholding the requirement that the police ask to see people ’ s papers , the court emphasized that state law enforcement officials already possessed the discretion to ask about immigration status . The Arizona law merely makes that inquiry mandatory if the police have reason to suspect a person is an illegal immigrant .
In a concurring opinion , Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the administration ’ s attack on the provision “ quite remarkable . ”
“ The United States suggests , ” he wrote , “ that a state law may be pre-empted , not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation , but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency ’ s current enforcement priorities . ”
Justice Kennedy added that the state law contained safeguards , including ones instructing officials not to consider race or national origin unless already permitted by law .
Further restricting the sweep of the majority opinion , Justice Kennedy wrote that “ detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns. ” The decision left open , he said , “ whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or other immigration crime would be a legitimate basis for prolonging a detention , or whether this too would be pre-empted by federal law . ”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kennedy ’ s majority opinion . Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from the case , Arizona v. United States , No . 11-182 , presumably because she had worked on it as the solicitor general .
Had the case ended in a 4-to-4 tie , the appeals court ’ s ruling blocking all four aspects of the Arizona law would have stood .
Three justices dissented in part , each writing separately and only for himself . Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have sustained all three of the blocked provisions . Justice Alito would have sustained two of them while overturning one that makes it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register with the federal government .
The two other provisions blocked by the majority were one making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or to try find work and another allowing the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law .
Scholars who have followed the work of the court for decades said they could not recall an instance similar to Justice Scalia ’ s commentary on a political dispute outside the record of the case under consideration .
“ After this case was argued and while it was under consideration , ” Justice Scalia said in his written dissent , “ the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants. ” This month , the Obama administration said it would let younger immigrants — the administration estimates the number at 800,000 — who came to the United States as children avoid deportation and receive working papers as long as they are not over the age of 30 and have clean criminal records , among other conditions .
“ The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘ the right thing to do ’ in light of Congress ’ s failure to pass the administration ’ s proposed revision of the Immigration Act , ” Justice Scalia went on . “ Perhaps it is , though Arizona may not think so . But to say , as the court does , that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind . ”
He added that Arizona and other states should not be left helpless before the “ evil effects of illegal immigration . ”
Justice Kennedy responded that “ federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation ’ s borders . ”
“ The national government has significant power to regulate immigration , ” he wrote . “ The sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation ’ s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching , thoughtful , rational civic discourse . ”
|
Justice Antonin Scalia summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move that indicated his deep disagreement. Rarer still, he criticized a policy that was not before the court: President Obama ’s recent announcement that his administration would not deport many illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children.
Justice Scalia’s point was a narrow one — that the states should have the right to make immigration policy if the federal government is not enforcing its own policies — but it continued a charged back and forth between the conservative justices and Mr. Obama. In his 2010 State of the Union address, Mr. Obama criticized the court’s Citizens United campaign finance ruling, which the court reiterated in a separate ruling on Monday.
The court also announced that it was extending its term until Thursday, signaling that it would issue its much-anticipated ruling on Mr. Obama’s health care law then.
Both Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney , the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, quickly responded to the immigration ruling. Mr. Romney — traveling, by coincidence, in Arizona — said in a brief statement that states had the right and the duty to secure their borders.
Mr. Obama emphasized his concern that the remaining provision could lead to racial profiling, an issue that the court may yet consider in a future case. “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like,” Mr. Obama said in a statement, adding that he was “pleased” about the parts that were struck down.
In her own statement, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, a Republican, said she welcomed the decision to uphold what she called the heart of the law. The decision, she said, was a “victory for the rule of law” and for “the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens.”
Still, the ruling was a partial rebuke to state officials who had argued that they were entitled to supplement federal efforts to address illegal immigration.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The Obama administration argued that federal immigration law trumped — or pre-empted, in legal jargon — the state’s efforts. Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco , blocked the four provisions on those grounds, including the one the Supreme Court upheld.
In its challenge, the administration did not argue that it violated equal-protection principles. At the Supreme Court argument in April, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. acknowledged that the federal case was not based on racial or ethnic profiling.
In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the ruling did not foreclose other “constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”
Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on Monday that the federal government would “continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination.”
Five other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration, more or less patterned after the Arizona law: Alabama , Georgia , Indiana , South Carolina and Utah . But most states avoided creating new crimes for immigration violations, as Arizona did in two provisions that were struck down.
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.
Lower courts have stayed the carrying out of parts of those laws, and they will now revisit those decisions.
In upholding the requirement that the police ask to see people’s papers, the court emphasized that state law enforcement officials already possessed the discretion to ask about immigration status. The Arizona law merely makes that inquiry mandatory if the police have reason to suspect a person is an illegal immigrant.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the administration’s attack on the provision “quite remarkable.”
“The United States suggests,” he wrote, “that a state law may be pre-empted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency’s current enforcement priorities.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Justice Kennedy added that the state law contained safeguards, including ones instructing officials not to consider race or national origin unless already permitted by law.
Further restricting the sweep of the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that “detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.” The decision left open, he said, “whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or other immigration crime would be a legitimate basis for prolonging a detention, or whether this too would be pre-empted by federal law.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from the case, Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, presumably because she had worked on it as the solicitor general.
Had the case ended in a 4-to-4 tie, the appeals court’s ruling blocking all four aspects of the Arizona law would have stood.
Three justices dissented in part, each writing separately and only for himself. Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have sustained all three of the blocked provisions. Justice Alito would have sustained two of them while overturning one that makes it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register with the federal government.
The two other provisions blocked by the majority were one making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or to try find work and another allowing the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law.
Scholars who have followed the work of the court for decades said they could not recall an instance similar to Justice Scalia’s commentary on a political dispute outside the record of the case under consideration.
“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration,” Justice Scalia said in his written dissent, “the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants.” This month, the Obama administration said it would let younger immigrants — the administration estimates the number at 800,000 — who came to the United States as children avoid deportation and receive working papers as long as they are not over the age of 30 and have clean criminal records, among other conditions.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act,” Justice Scalia went on. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”
He added that Arizona and other states should not be left helpless before the “evil effects of illegal immigration.”
Justice Kennedy responded that “federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation’s borders.”
“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” he wrote. “The sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
56KXPxfO4kQPVsNv
|
taxes
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/27/norquist-and-influential-anti-tax-pledge-at-center-washington-fiscal-debate/
|
Norquist and influential anti-tax pledge at center of Washington fiscal debate
|
2012-11-27
|
For decades , conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist vowed to drive Republicans out of office if they did n't pledge to oppose tax increases . Many lawmakers signed on.But now , several senior Republicans are breaking ranks , willing to consider raising more money through taxes as part of a deal with Democrats to avoid a catastrophic budget meltdown .
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker says the only pledge he will keep is his oath of office . House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says no one in his home state of Virginia is talking about what leaders in Washington refer to simply as `` The Pledge , '' a Norquist invention that dates to 1986 . Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss says he cares more about his country than sticking to Norquist 's pledge .
It 's quite an about-face for senior members of a party that long has stood firmly against almost any notion of tax increases . And while GOP leaders insist they still do n't want to see taxes go up , the reality of a nation in a debt crisis is forcing some to moderate their opposition to any movement on how much Americans pay to fund their government . Republican legislators and Democratic President Barack Obama 's White House are haggling vigorously as they look for ways to reach agreement on detailed tax adjustments and spending cuts before automatic , blunt-force changes occur at the new year .
`` Oh , I signed it , '' Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said on ███ about Norquist 's pledge , adding he still supports its goals . `` But we 've got to deal with the crisis we face . We 've got to deal with the political reality of the president 's victory . ''
The naysaying about the pledge is raising the question of whether Norquist -- a little-known Republican outside Washington -- is losing his position of power within the GOP . It 's a notion he calls ridiculous .
But he indicated he would turn on lawmakers who defy him , starting with Corker , who published an opinion piece Monday in The Washington Post outlining an alternative to the budget breakdown that includes more revenue .
`` Corker was elected to the Senate because he took the pledge , '' Norquist said on ███ . `` He would not be a senator today if he had n't made that commitment . If he breaks it , he 's going to have to have a conversation with the people of Tennessee about his keeping his word . And the same thing with other people who are elected because they made that written commitment to the people of their state . ''
At the White House , spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that the shifting away from Norquist signaled an opportunity for Republicans to work with President Obama .
`` They represent what we hope is a difference in tone and approach to these problems and a recognition that a balanced approach to deficit reduction is the right approach , '' Carney said .
Norquist , the head of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform , opposes tax increases of any kind , whether eliminating deductions , a position some GOP lawmakers say they 're open to , or raising rates . He has insisted on hardline positions from lawmakers and , for years , has held outsized sway in the party for someone who does not hold public office . His pledge does n't allow any change to the tax code that adds a dollar to revenues .
House Speaker John Boehner has called that notion unrealistic and has dismissed Norquist as `` some random person . ''
Nevertheless , Norquist has maintained a certain level of clout for years .
Heading into the 2012 elections , 279 lawmakers had signed Norquist 's ' pledge , according to Americans for Tax Reform .
But some who have signed the pledge are having second thoughts . And when the new House is seated next year , no more than 212 of them consider themselves bound by the promise .
`` I 'm not obligated on the pledge , '' Corker told CBS News . `` I was just elected . The only thing I 'm honoring is the oath I take when I serve when I 'm sworn in this January . ''
`` When I go to the constituents that have re-elected me , it is not about that pledge , '' Cantor said on MSNBC . `` It really is about trying to solve problems . ''
Chambliss , a veteran senator from Georgia , said he signed the pledge during an earlier campaign when the country 's debt was nowhere near its current $ 16 trillion level .
`` Times have changed significantly , and I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge , '' Chambliss told his local television station . `` If we do it ( Norquist 's ) way , then we 'll continue in debt . ''
`` I 'm frankly not concerned about the Norquist pledge , '' Chambliss added .
Raising taxes , whether by closing loopholes or raising tax rates , is seldom a vote-winning strategy .
President George H.W . Bush broke his campaign promise to not raise taxes ; he ended up losing re-election in 1992 .
Other Republicans , however , are now willing to put additional tax revenues on the table as a bargaining chip for a deal with Democrats to get changes in Social Security and Medicare and pare down federal deficits .
`` I agree with Grover , we should n't raise rates . But I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we ca n't cap deductions and buy down debt , '' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Sunday on ABC 's `` This Week . ''
`` I will violate the pledge -- long story short -- for the good of the country , only if Democrats will do entitlement reform , '' he added .
Rep. Peter King of New York told NBC 's `` Meet the Press '' on Sunday that the pledge is good for a two-year term only .
`` A pledge you signed 20 years ago , 18 years ago , is for that Congress , '' King said . `` For instance , if I were in Congress in 1941 , I would have signed a support of declaration of war against Japan . I 'm not going to attack Japan today . The world has changed , and the economic situation is different . ''
Sen. John McCain , the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 , said the pledge is losing its clout .
`` Fewer and fewer people are signing this , quote , pledge , '' he told an audience recently .
|
For decades, conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist vowed to drive Republicans out of office if they didn't pledge to oppose tax increases. Many lawmakers signed on.But now, several senior Republicans are breaking ranks, willing to consider raising more money through taxes as part of a deal with Democrats to avoid a catastrophic budget meltdown.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker says the only pledge he will keep is his oath of office. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says no one in his home state of Virginia is talking about what leaders in Washington refer to simply as "The Pledge," a Norquist invention that dates to 1986. Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss says he cares more about his country than sticking to Norquist's pledge.
It's quite an about-face for senior members of a party that long has stood firmly against almost any notion of tax increases. And while GOP leaders insist they still don't want to see taxes go up, the reality of a nation in a debt crisis is forcing some to moderate their opposition to any movement on how much Americans pay to fund their government. Republican legislators and Democratic President Barack Obama's White House are haggling vigorously as they look for ways to reach agreement on detailed tax adjustments and spending cuts before automatic, blunt-force changes occur at the new year.
"Oh, I signed it," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said on Fox News about Norquist's pledge, adding he still supports its goals. "But we've got to deal with the crisis we face. We've got to deal with the political reality of the president's victory."
The naysaying about the pledge is raising the question of whether Norquist -- a little-known Republican outside Washington -- is losing his position of power within the GOP. It's a notion he calls ridiculous.
"Nobody's turning on me," Norquist said Monday.
But he indicated he would turn on lawmakers who defy him, starting with Corker, who published an opinion piece Monday in The Washington Post outlining an alternative to the budget breakdown that includes more revenue.
"Corker was elected to the Senate because he took the pledge," Norquist said on Fox News. "He would not be a senator today if he hadn't made that commitment. If he breaks it, he's going to have to have a conversation with the people of Tennessee about his keeping his word. And the same thing with other people who are elected because they made that written commitment to the people of their state."
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that the shifting away from Norquist signaled an opportunity for Republicans to work with President Obama.
"They represent what we hope is a difference in tone and approach to these problems and a recognition that a balanced approach to deficit reduction is the right approach," Carney said.
Norquist, the head of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, opposes tax increases of any kind, whether eliminating deductions, a position some GOP lawmakers say they're open to, or raising rates. He has insisted on hardline positions from lawmakers and, for years, has held outsized sway in the party for someone who does not hold public office. His pledge doesn't allow any change to the tax code that adds a dollar to revenues.
House Speaker John Boehner has called that notion unrealistic and has dismissed Norquist as "some random person."
Nevertheless, Norquist has maintained a certain level of clout for years.
Heading into the 2012 elections, 279 lawmakers had signed Norquist's' pledge, according to Americans for Tax Reform.
But some who have signed the pledge are having second thoughts. And when the new House is seated next year, no more than 212 of them consider themselves bound by the promise.
"I'm not obligated on the pledge," Corker told CBS News. "I was just elected. The only thing I'm honoring is the oath I take when I serve when I'm sworn in this January."
He's not alone in his stance on the pledge.
"When I go to the constituents that have re-elected me, it is not about that pledge," Cantor said on MSNBC. "It really is about trying to solve problems."
Chambliss, a veteran senator from Georgia, said he signed the pledge during an earlier campaign when the country's debt was nowhere near its current $16 trillion level.
"Times have changed significantly, and I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," Chambliss told his local television station. "If we do it (Norquist's) way, then we'll continue in debt."
"I'm frankly not concerned about the Norquist pledge," Chambliss added.
Raising taxes, whether by closing loopholes or raising tax rates, is seldom a vote-winning strategy.
President George H.W. Bush broke his campaign promise to not raise taxes; he ended up losing re-election in 1992.
Other Republicans, however, are now willing to put additional tax revenues on the table as a bargaining chip for a deal with Democrats to get changes in Social Security and Medicare and pare down federal deficits.
"I agree with Grover, we shouldn't raise rates. But I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can't cap deductions and buy down debt," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
"I will violate the pledge -- long story short -- for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform," he added.
Rep. Peter King of New York told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that the pledge is good for a two-year term only.
"A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress," King said. "For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a support of declaration of war against Japan. I'm not going to attack Japan today. The world has changed, and the economic situation is different."
Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, said the pledge is losing its clout.
"Fewer and fewer people are signing this, quote, pledge," he told an audience recently.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
Jt522aMKFjnGy8ae
|
|
trade
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/shinzo-abe-congress-trade-pact-117477.html?hp=r1_4
|
Shinzo Abe to Congress: Japan won’t shy away from reforms needed for trade pact
|
2015-04-29
|
Adam Behsudi
|
Abe to Congress : Japan wo n't shy away from reforms needed for trade pact
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country will not shy away from domestic reforms vital for its participation in a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal Tokyo is trying to close with the U.S. and other Asia-Pacific countries .
“ Japan ’ s agriculture is at a crossroads , ” Abe said in his historic address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday , the first by a Japanese prime minister . “ In order for it to survive , it has to change now . ”
The U.S. is pressing Tokyo to open access to a number of so-called sacred sectors , such as rice , dairy , beef and pork , through the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks . Japan has been cautious in meeting those demands , and Abe ’ s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is seen as tightly under the grip of the country ’ s powerful agriculture lobby .
The Japanese leader , however , said he is bringing “ great reforms ” to agricultural policy , noting that the average Japanese farmer is older than 66 and Japanese farming is shrinking as a percentage of the country ’ s economy .
Abe also said he is committed to overhauling regulations in medicine , energy and other areas .
“ Please do come and see the new Japan , where we have regained our spirit of reform and our sense of speed , ” he said . “ Japan will not run away from any reforms . ”
The prime minister has sought to turn around Japan ’ s stagnant economy through his “ Abenomics ” plan , which rests on regulatory reforms and participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal . The “ goal is near ” in the U.S. and Japan ’ s talks on agriculture and auto trade issues important for the success of the broader Asia-Pacific pact , he said .
“ Let us bring the TPP to a successful conclusion through our joint leadership , ” he said . U.S. lawmakers are currently considering trade promotion authority legislation considered vital to closing the trade deal and expediting its passage in Congress .
Abe also stressed the strategic importance of the trade deal , highlighting its role in spreading the shared values of rule of law and democracy in the region .
“ We must take the lead to build a market that is fair , dynamic , sustainable and is also free from the arbitrary intentions of any nation , ” he said , an apparent reference to China ’ s growing dominance in the region .
“ In the Pacific market , we can not overlook sweatshops or burdens on the environment , ” he said . “ Nor can we simply allow free riders on intellectual property . ”
Abe ’ s trip to Washington this week also focused on strengthening security ties with the U.S. through new defense cooperation guidelines .
In a meeting with President Barack Obama on Tuesday , Abe said the two leaders fully agreed on the significance of the new defense policy .
The reforms , which will be fully implemented by this summer , will give the East Asian country more leeway to deploy its military forces to intervene in foreign conflicts and move away from constitutional self-defense restrictions .
Japan is keen to expand its military operations to counter China ’ s claims over a group of islands in the East China Sea and respond to North Korea ’ s growing nuclear arsenal .
Abe capped his visit to Washington with the speech to Congress — the first time a Japanese leader has addressed both chambers — where he also spent some time addressing his country ’ s past transgressions during World War II .
“ Our actions brought suffering to the peoples in Asian countries , ” he said . “ We must not avert our eyes from that . ”
The conciliatory statements to U.S. lawmakers , however , stopped short of a full apology for Japan ’ s wartime conduct in the Asia-Pacific region , including its World War II practice of providing so-called comfort women , by and large non-Japanese sex slaves , to Japanese soldiers .
“ History is harsh , ” he said . “ What is done can not be undone . ”
|
Abe to Congress: Japan won't shy away from reforms needed for trade pact
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country will not shy away from domestic reforms vital for its participation in a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal Tokyo is trying to close with the U.S. and other Asia-Pacific countries.
“Japan’s agriculture is at a crossroads,” Abe said in his historic address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, the first by a Japanese prime minister. “In order for it to survive, it has to change now.”
Story Continued Below
The U.S. is pressing Tokyo to open access to a number of so-called sacred sectors, such as rice, dairy, beef and pork, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks. Japan has been cautious in meeting those demands, and Abe’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is seen as tightly under the grip of the country’s powerful agriculture lobby.
The Japanese leader, however, said he is bringing “great reforms” to agricultural policy, noting that the average Japanese farmer is older than 66 and Japanese farming is shrinking as a percentage of the country’s economy.
Abe also said he is committed to overhauling regulations in medicine, energy and other areas.
“Please do come and see the new Japan, where we have regained our spirit of reform and our sense of speed,” he said. “Japan will not run away from any reforms.”
The prime minister has sought to turn around Japan’s stagnant economy through his “Abenomics” plan, which rests on regulatory reforms and participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. The “goal is near” in the U.S. and Japan’s talks on agriculture and auto trade issues important for the success of the broader Asia-Pacific pact, he said.
“Let us bring the TPP to a successful conclusion through our joint leadership,” he said. U.S. lawmakers are currently considering trade promotion authority legislation considered vital to closing the trade deal and expediting its passage in Congress.
Abe also stressed the strategic importance of the trade deal, highlighting its role in spreading the shared values of rule of law and democracy in the region.
“We must take the lead to build a market that is fair, dynamic, sustainable and is also free from the arbitrary intentions of any nation,” he said, an apparent reference to China’s growing dominance in the region.
“In the Pacific market, we cannot overlook sweatshops or burdens on the environment,” he said. “Nor can we simply allow free riders on intellectual property.”
Abe’s trip to Washington this week also focused on strengthening security ties with the U.S. through new defense cooperation guidelines.
In a meeting with President Barack Obama on Tuesday, Abe said the two leaders fully agreed on the significance of the new defense policy.
The reforms, which will be fully implemented by this summer, will give the East Asian country more leeway to deploy its military forces to intervene in foreign conflicts and move away from constitutional self-defense restrictions.
Japan is keen to expand its military operations to counter China’s claims over a group of islands in the East China Sea and respond to North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal.
Abe capped his visit to Washington with the speech to Congress — the first time a Japanese leader has addressed both chambers — where he also spent some time addressing his country’s past transgressions during World War II.
“Our actions brought suffering to the peoples in Asian countries,” he said. “We must not avert our eyes from that.”
The conciliatory statements to U.S. lawmakers, however, stopped short of a full apology for Japan’s wartime conduct in the Asia-Pacific region, including its World War II practice of providing so-called comfort women, by and large non-Japanese sex slaves, to Japanese soldiers.
“History is harsh,” he said. “What is done cannot be undone.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
0bDIcmnQnwAdDgba
|
justice_department
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/11/justice-department-backs-away-stiff-sentence-roger-stone-114006
|
Justice Dept backs off stiff sentence recommendation for Roger Stone
|
2020-02-11
|
The sudden withdrawal of the entire prosecution team assigned to Stone ’ s case — including two veterans of former special counsel Robert Mueller 's office — following the Justice Department ’ s decision to back away from the government ’ s original sentencing proposal seemed to embolden and energize Trump . A jubilant president took to Twitter on Tuesday night to celebrate and settle more scores .
“ All starting to unravel with the ridiculous 9 year sentence recommendation ! ” Trump wrote before retweeting a perennial favorite : “ DRAIN THE SWAMP ! ”
The president ’ s tweets fueled an ongoing furor among Justice Department veterans and Democrats that broke out earlier in the day after the department backed off a recommendation for a lengthy prison term for Stone , a longtime informal political adviser to Trump .
All starting to unravel with the ridiculous 9 year sentence recommendation ! https : //t.co/6baxv3Lvuk — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 12 , 2020
Jonathan Kravis , the deputy chief of the fraud and public corruption section in the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office in Washington , said in a court filing on Tuesday afternoon that he had resigned his government job . Two former prosecutors for Mueller , Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed , also notified the court that they were stepping off the case , as did a D.C.-based prosecutor , Michael Marando .
The extraordinary exit of every prosecutor who shepherded the Stone case came one day after they urged that he be sentenced to between about seven and nine years in prison on his conviction on charges of impeding congressional and FBI investigations into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia .
That prompted Trump to blast federal prosecutors on Twitter just before 2 a.m. Tuesday for urging such a long prison sentence for Stone , the veteran GOP political consultant and provocateur found guilty by a jury last year on seven felony counts brought by Mueller .
`` This is a horrible and very unfair situation , '' Trump wrote . `` The real crimes were on the other side , as nothing happens to them . Can not allow this miscarriage of justice ! ''
Trump expanded on his view while speaking to reporters late Tuesday afternoon , but he denied that he had asked the Justice Department to change the sentence recommendation .
“ I thought the recommendation was ridiculous . I thought the whole prosecution was ridiculous , “ the president said . “ I thought it was an insult to our country and it shouldn ‘ t happen. “
He also indicated that he viewed the case against Stone as a vendetta that Mueller ‘ s prosecutors carried on even after his departure last May .
“ These were the same Mueller people that put everybody through hell and I think it 's a disgrace , “ the president said . “ They ought to be ashamed of themselves. “
Later , Trump used Twitter to take a swipe at the judge scheduled to sentence Stone , Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointee who has overseen several other Mueller-related cases .
“ Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT , something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure ? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton ? Just asking ! “ Trump wrote .
While Jackson revoked Manafort ‘ s bail over allegations of witness tampering , she did not order him put in solitary confinement . U.S . Marshals personnel made a decision to isolate the former Trump adviser from the general inmate population because of concerns about his safety , the judge has said .
And Trump on Tuesday afternoon escalated his vendetta against Vindman , one of the prime targets of the president 's still-emerging revenge tour .
Speaking to reporters at a veterans event , Trump said the military will likely look at disciplinary action against Vindman , just days after the National Security Council official was ousted from the White House after giving damaging testimony during the House impeachment hearings .
“ That ’ s going to be up to the military , we ’ ll have to see , but if you look at what happened , they ’ re going to certainly , I would imagine , take a look at that , ” Trump said in response to a follow-up question about what he meant when he said , “ the military can handle him . ”
Trump , without providing evidence or specific examples , accused Vindman of reporting “ very inaccurate things ” about the “ perfect ” call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
Around the same time Trump was speaking at the White House , the Justice Department submitted a revised sentencing filing that offered no specific recommendation for Stone ‘ s sentence , but said a term on the order of seven to nine years “ could be considered excessive and unwarranted. “
“ The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months ’ imprisonment would be reasonable under the circumstances , “ the prosecution ‘ s new submission said . “ Ultimately , the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. “
“ Coupled with the president ’ s blatant retaliation against those who helped expose his wrongdoing , the Trump administration poses the gravest threat to the rule of law in America in a generation , ” said Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter on Tuesday to the Justice Department inspector general , Michael Horowitz , requesting an investigation into the reversal .
A senior Justice Department official said on Tuesday afternoon that department leaders were taken by surprise by the initial recommendation contained in the prosecution ‘ s Monday evening filing . The official , who spoke on condition of anonymity , said the decision to revise the submission was unrelated to Trump 's tweet and took place prior to the president ’ s sending the message .
“ The department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the Stone case last night , “ said the official . “ That recommendation was not the recommendation that had been briefed to the department . The department found the recommendation to be extreme and excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone ’ s offenses and the department will clarify its position in court later today. “
The official declined to elaborate on who in the Justice Department hierarchy was aware of the actual contents of the recommendation submitted to Jackson , who is set to sentence Stone on Feb. 20 . However , the official insisted that the White House played no role in the reversal and that there was no contact between department leaders and Trump about Stone 's potential sentence prior to the decision .
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney 's Office declined to address questions about whether the prosecution team was dismissed or quit in protest .
Former Attorney General Eric Holder praised two of the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case .
“ AUSA ‘ s Kravis and Zelinsky have shown more guts — and an adherence to the rule of law — than too many now serving in Washington , ” he wrote on Twitter . “ What Main DOJ is trying to do — and at whose behest ? — is unprecedented , wrong and ultimately dangerous . DOJ independence is critical . ”
Grant Smith , an attorney for Stone , said in a statement : “ We have read with interest the new reporting on Roger Stone ’ s case . Our sentencing memo outlined our position on the recommendation made yesterday by the government . We look forward to reviewing the government ’ s supplemental filing. “
`` Isn ’ t it lovely when the swamp drains itself ? '' Stone backer and GOP communications adviser Michael Caputo tweeted .
Isn ’ t it lovely when the swamp drains itself ? Zelinsky is Beelzebub . 👿 https : //t.co/1doCgFWo6N — Michael R. Caputo 🇺🇸🇺🇦 ( @ MichaelRCaputo ) February 11 , 2020
After the closure of Mueller ‘ s office last May , Stone ‘ s prosecution was taken over by lawyers in the U.S. Attorney ‘ s Office in Washington , who handled the weeklong jury trial last November in which Stone was convicted on five counts of making false statements to investigators , one count of obstructing Congress and one count of witness tampering .
At the time of the trial , the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was Jessie Liu , but she was replaced in that post last month on an interim basis by a former top aide to Attorney General Bill Barr , Tim Shea . Shea ‘ s name appeared on Monday 's filing , although such filings are typically prepared by the line prosecutors on the case .
Liu also appeared to become a casualty of the latest developments in the Stone case , as the White House abruptly withdrew her nomination as the Treasury Department ‘ s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes , according to a former Trump administration official and another person familiar with the situation .
It was not immediately clear why Trump pulled her nomination , but her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee had been scheduled for Thursday morning . A White House spokesman declined to comment on the move .
A former Trump administration official said on Tuesday night : “ It was unusual to ask her to step down ahead of her confirmation. “
Even before the new and extraordinary events in the Stone case , Liu was virtually certain to face questions at the hearing about her office ‘ s handling of various politically sensitive cases and investigations , including those of Stone , former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former the former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe .
The prosecution ‘ s initial proposal for a lengthy prison term for Stone was driven by the witness tampering charge and by allegations that Stone threatened violence in order to discourage an associate , Randy Credico , from cooperating with Congress and the FBI . Stone insisted that the messages — including such colorful missives as “ Prepare to die cocksucker “ — were part of outlandish banter between the two .
Credico said in a letter to the judge last month that he didn ‘ t think Stone posed a physical threat , but acknowledged during the trial that he was concerned that Stone ‘ s language could prompt other people to act out .
Stone ‘ s statements alleged to threaten or encourage violence upped the prosecution ‘ s calculation of the sentencing guidelines in Stone ‘ s case by about four or five years , according to the government ‘ s filing Monday . Stone ‘ s defense calculates the guidelines to call for a 15- to 21-month sentence .
Trump has the power to see that Stone serves no prison time by issuing a pardon , as many of Stone ‘ s supporters are urging . The president rebuffed a question about a pardon on Tuesday .
Jed and Kravis offered no hint of the mushrooming controversy during the more than two hours they spent in court on Tuesday handling another case that emerged from the Mueller probe : the prosecution of a Russian company accused of using social media activity and advertising to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential contest . That case is set for trial in April .
███ NEWSLETTERS ███ Playbook Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics . Sign Up Loading 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 .
Zelinsky 's filing with the court said he was giving up his temporary post as a special assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland is apparently returning to his job in the state . Jed and Marando included no information about their status beyond that they were withdrawing from the Stone case .
Late Friday afternoon , the acting chief of the criminal division in the D.C. U.S. Attorney 's Office , John Crabb , formally notified the court that he was entering the case . His and Shea ‘ s names are the only ones in the signature block of the revised sentencing recommendation .
|
The sudden withdrawal of the entire prosecution team assigned to Stone’s case — including two veterans of former special counsel Robert Mueller's office — following the Justice Department’s decision to back away from the government’s original sentencing proposal seemed to embolden and energize Trump. A jubilant president took to Twitter on Tuesday night to celebrate and settle more scores.
“All starting to unravel with the ridiculous 9 year sentence recommendation!” Trump wrote before retweeting a perennial favorite: “DRAIN THE SWAMP!”
The president’s tweets fueled an ongoing furor among Justice Department veterans and Democrats that broke out earlier in the day after the department backed off a recommendation for a lengthy prison term for Stone, a longtime informal political adviser to Trump.
All starting to unravel with the ridiculous 9 year sentence recommendation! https://t.co/6baxv3Lvuk — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2020
Jonathan Kravis, the deputy chief of the fraud and public corruption section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, said in a court filing on Tuesday afternoon that he had resigned his government job. Two former prosecutors for Mueller, Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed, also notified the court that they were stepping off the case, as did a D.C.-based prosecutor, Michael Marando.
The extraordinary exit of every prosecutor who shepherded the Stone case came one day after they urged that he be sentenced to between about seven and nine years in prison on his conviction on charges of impeding congressional and FBI investigations into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
That prompted Trump to blast federal prosecutors on Twitter just before 2 a.m. Tuesday for urging such a long prison sentence for Stone, the veteran GOP political consultant and provocateur found guilty by a jury last year on seven felony counts brought by Mueller.
"This is a horrible and very unfair situation," Trump wrote. "The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"
Trump expanded on his view while speaking to reporters late Tuesday afternoon, but he denied that he had asked the Justice Department to change the sentence recommendation.
“I thought the recommendation was ridiculous. I thought the whole prosecution was ridiculous,“ the president said. “I thought it was an insult to our country and it shouldn‘t happen.“
He also indicated that he viewed the case against Stone as a vendetta that Mueller‘s prosecutors carried on even after his departure last May.
“These were the same Mueller people that put everybody through hell and I think it's a disgrace,“ the president said. “They ought to be ashamed of themselves.“
Later, Trump used Twitter to take a swipe at the judge scheduled to sentence Stone, Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee who has overseen several other Mueller-related cases.
“Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!“ Trump wrote.
While Jackson revoked Manafort‘s bail over allegations of witness tampering, she did not order him put in solitary confinement. U.S. Marshals personnel made a decision to isolate the former Trump adviser from the general inmate population because of concerns about his safety, the judge has said.
And Trump on Tuesday afternoon escalated his vendetta against Vindman, one of the prime targets of the president's still-emerging revenge tour.
Speaking to reporters at a veterans event, Trump said the military will likely look at disciplinary action against Vindman, just days after the National Security Council official was ousted from the White House after giving damaging testimony during the House impeachment hearings.
“That’s going to be up to the military, we’ll have to see, but if you look at what happened, they’re going to certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that,” Trump said in response to a follow-up question about what he meant when he said, “the military can handle him.”
Trump, without providing evidence or specific examples, accused Vindman of reporting “very inaccurate things” about the “perfect” call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Around the same time Trump was speaking at the White House, the Justice Department submitted a revised sentencing filing that offered no specific recommendation for Stone‘s sentence, but said a term on the order of seven to nine years “could be considered excessive and unwarranted.“
“The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment would be reasonable under the circumstances,“ the prosecution‘s new submission said. “Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case.“
Congressional Democrats erupted in outrage over the Stone episode.
“Coupled with the president’s blatant retaliation against those who helped expose his wrongdoing, the Trump administration poses the gravest threat to the rule of law in America in a generation,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter on Tuesday to the Justice Department inspector general, Michael Horowitz, requesting an investigation into the reversal.
A senior Justice Department official said on Tuesday afternoon that department leaders were taken by surprise by the initial recommendation contained in the prosecution‘s Monday evening filing. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision to revise the submission was unrelated to Trump's tweet and took place prior to the president’s sending the message.
“The department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the Stone case last night,“ said the official. “That recommendation was not the recommendation that had been briefed to the department. The department found the recommendation to be extreme and excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses and the department will clarify its position in court later today.“
The official declined to elaborate on who in the Justice Department hierarchy was aware of the actual contents of the recommendation submitted to Jackson, who is set to sentence Stone on Feb. 20. However, the official insisted that the White House played no role in the reversal and that there was no contact between department leaders and Trump about Stone's potential sentence prior to the decision.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to address questions about whether the prosecution team was dismissed or quit in protest.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder praised two of the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case.
“AUSA‘s Kravis and Zelinsky have shown more guts — and an adherence to the rule of law — than too many now serving in Washington,” he wrote on Twitter. “What Main DOJ is trying to do — and at whose behest? — is unprecedented, wrong and ultimately dangerous. DOJ independence is critical.”
Grant Smith, an attorney for Stone, said in a statement: “We have read with interest the new reporting on Roger Stone’s case. Our sentencing memo outlined our position on the recommendation made yesterday by the government. We look forward to reviewing the government’s supplemental filing.“
Other Stone allies hailed Tuesday's developments.
"Isn’t it lovely when the swamp drains itself?" Stone backer and GOP communications adviser Michael Caputo tweeted.
Isn’t it lovely when the swamp drains itself? Zelinsky is Beelzebub. 👿 https://t.co/1doCgFWo6N — Michael R. Caputo 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@MichaelRCaputo) February 11, 2020
After the closure of Mueller‘s office last May, Stone‘s prosecution was taken over by lawyers in the U.S. Attorney‘s Office in Washington, who handled the weeklong jury trial last November in which Stone was convicted on five counts of making false statements to investigators, one count of obstructing Congress and one count of witness tampering.
At the time of the trial, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was Jessie Liu, but she was replaced in that post last month on an interim basis by a former top aide to Attorney General Bill Barr, Tim Shea. Shea‘s name appeared on Monday's filing, although such filings are typically prepared by the line prosecutors on the case.
Liu also appeared to become a casualty of the latest developments in the Stone case, as the White House abruptly withdrew her nomination as the Treasury Department‘s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes, according to a former Trump administration official and another person familiar with the situation.
It was not immediately clear why Trump pulled her nomination, but her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee had been scheduled for Thursday morning. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the move.
A former Trump administration official said on Tuesday night: “It was unusual to ask her to step down ahead of her confirmation.“
Even before the new and extraordinary events in the Stone case, Liu was virtually certain to face questions at the hearing about her office‘s handling of various politically sensitive cases and investigations, including those of Stone, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former the former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.
The prosecution‘s initial proposal for a lengthy prison term for Stone was driven by the witness tampering charge and by allegations that Stone threatened violence in order to discourage an associate, Randy Credico, from cooperating with Congress and the FBI. Stone insisted that the messages — including such colorful missives as “Prepare to die cocksucker“ — were part of outlandish banter between the two.
Credico said in a letter to the judge last month that he didn‘t think Stone posed a physical threat, but acknowledged during the trial that he was concerned that Stone‘s language could prompt other people to act out.
Stone‘s statements alleged to threaten or encourage violence upped the prosecution‘s calculation of the sentencing guidelines in Stone‘s case by about four or five years, according to the government‘s filing Monday. Stone‘s defense calculates the guidelines to call for a 15- to 21-month sentence.
Trump has the power to see that Stone serves no prison time by issuing a pardon, as many of Stone‘s supporters are urging. The president rebuffed a question about a pardon on Tuesday.
Jed and Kravis offered no hint of the mushrooming controversy during the more than two hours they spent in court on Tuesday handling another case that emerged from the Mueller probe: the prosecution of a Russian company accused of using social media activity and advertising to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential contest. That case is set for trial in April.
POLITICO NEWSLETTERS POLITICO Playbook Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics. Sign Up Loading 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.
Zelinsky's filing with the court said he was giving up his temporary post as a special assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland is apparently returning to his job in the state. Jed and Marando included no information about their status beyond that they were withdrawing from the Stone case.
Late Friday afternoon, the acting chief of the criminal division in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, John Crabb, formally notified the court that he was entering the case. His and Shea‘s names are the only ones in the signature block of the revised sentencing recommendation.
Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
li8E7owpXS9FONkU
|
|
supreme_court
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/05/654600596/will-the-kavanaugh-saga-leave-bruises-that-heal-or-permanent-scars
|
Will The Kavanaugh Saga Leave Bruises That Heal Or Permanent Scars?
|
2018-10-05
|
Ron Elving
|
Will The Kavanaugh Saga Leave Bruises That Heal Or Permanent Scars ?
President Trump 's choice of Brett Kavanaugh is already the most contentious nomination to the Supreme Court since Clarence Thomas won a 52-48 confirmation vote in 1991 .
Thomas ' was the closest vote confirming a justice since the 1800s , and it followed a stormy hearing and an adverse vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee . The process nearly foundered on accusations of sexual harassment and racial prejudice .
But the Senate in that day settled down , and Thomas has served on the court for 27 years – a nearly always silent anchor on the court 's right .
The Kavanaugh controversy did not have a racial element , but at times has seemed equally bruising . It has divided the Senate just as evenly .
And it may prove to be more permanently divisive , not only for the Senate 's confirmation process but for the Senate itself and for the Court as well .
It must be said that the atmosphere of collegiality has been deteriorating in both institutions for some time . But the Kavanaugh confrontation has featured more raw partisanship on all sides than even the Thomas affair .
`` Boy , you all want power , '' said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , his voice rising to a shout at the Democrats across from him in a public hearing . `` God , I hope you never get it ! ''
That came from a Republican who had twice voted to confirm Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court and who was once considered something of a bridge between the parties .
It is one more manifestation of the emotional cauldron that boiled throughout the 2016 presidential campaign and has simmered ever since . And it may poison relationships in the Capitol and the Courthouse for some time to come .
By tradition , both the Senate and the Supreme Court have been thought of as elevated plateaus in American political life . In these hallowed spaces , the air was rarefied . Party ties existed but mattered less .
Ideology was present and contentious , but it was not always salient . Much if not most of the time , differences were expressed and explored in a calm atmosphere . A belief in tradition and the power of compromise prevailed .
Perhaps this memory owes much to myth . Nations , like people , are inclined to idealize and sanitize their pasts . Some , too , may be attributable to the lower profile of both Senate and Court in the generations before C-SPAN , cable TV news and social media .
But there surely has existed a keen sense that being the Senate — and acting accordingly — mattered for its own sake . Some of this can be seen in the courtly way senators address each other in the chamber even now .
They do not use names but refer to each other as `` the distinguished '' gentleman or `` gentle lady '' or as the senator from such and such state . What is said in the cloakroom , or behind closed doors , does not get repeated on the Senate floor .
The ambience of this more bipartisan Senate was on display last month in the tributes to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona , a Republican to be sure but one with many friends across the aisle .
This notion of Senate decorum was visible at times in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing a week ago , primarily in exchanges between the two most senior members of each party – a quartet that has served a combined century-and-a-half in the Senate . Even in anger they spoke to each other in a familiar , almost familial manner . Such courtliness was not shared by most of the rest of the committee on either side .
When the Senate convenes to vote on Kavanaugh , which style will predominate ? And when the Senate returns to business after these tense midterm elections , what atmosphere will prevail ?
On what of the new session of the court with Kavanaugh installed ? Older notions of institutional dignity and balance have been , if anything , even more powerful on what we so often call `` the highest court in the land . '' ( Those last three words , faintly antique , suggest again that poetic-mythic quality emanating from these institutions . )
In this conception of the Senate and Supreme Court , one often cited that old adage about politics making strange bedfellows . It was apt , and often applied to positive and productive things that happened .
Relationships beyond party made possible the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . The historic breakthrough relied as much on Republicans as Democrats , as the latter party 's Southern `` Dixiecrat '' wing was adamantly opposed to the legislation .
That was still the case 20 years later when Republicans and Democrats in the Senate worked together on a tax overhaul both could applaud . They overcame the more fractious folks from the House and gave President Reagan a bill he could happily sign into law . All that actually happened .
And four years after that , Republican President George H. W. Bush worked with a Democratic Congress to slim the federal deficit by raising taxes ( as well as reducing some forms of spending ) . That budget deal , and other similarly bipartisan budgets hammered out in the 1990s , actually managed to bring federal revenues and outlays into rough balance by the end of the decade . ( It did n't last , but that was largely because one party took control thereafter and pressed its own fiscal agenda . )
The Senate in those times was scarcely a love fest , but individual Democrats and Republicans typically had friends – even really good ones — in both camps .
Something like this spirit has characterized the Supreme Court , at least in the popular imagination . We had the friendship of Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg , for example . Although at ideological loggerheads , they and other justices shared interests in music and art . The justices were known to spend social time together , as did their clerks .
Here again , the institutions and their denizens had an interest in promoting this kinder , gentler image . It surely served their own self-concepts of superiority . But it also helped them fulfill their functions and maintain a higher degree of public respect for them and their work product .
Perhaps the quickening of the pace of life , the endless siege of media attention , the coarsening of our political discourse and the deepening of divisions between the parties and the regions of the country have simply made that pleasant illusion too difficult to sustain .
Surely the tensions brought out by the clash over Kavanaugh are testament to this . And not least in these considerations is the confrontation of two powerful movements – the emergent # MeToo and the ascendant Federalist Society – whose energies collided so dramatically with the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford .
Friday 's vote to advance Kavanaugh 's nomination to its final phase falls precisely on # MeToo 's birthday , the anniversary of the New York Times expose of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein .
In the intervening twelve months , more than a dozen men in pinnacle positions in entertainment , news and business have been toppled by credible accusations of sexual harassment , abuse or assault . Inspired by these examples , women have come forward to tell their stories in countless organizations , workplaces and institutions .
But in this latest high-profile confrontation , this impressive movement collides with another that has also been enormously transformative . That is the four-decade effort to remake the federal judiciary in accordance with more conservative ideas of legal policy and constitutional interpretation .
As one appeal for donations from one longtime conservative group spelled it out Thursday night : `` This is the moment we 've been waiting for now for half a century ... ''
That effort has largely been organized and driven by the Federalist Society ( formally the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies ) , founded by law students and legal scholars at Yale and the University of Chicago in 1982 .
But even before the Society took form , conservatives and libertarians were talking about the need to restock the federal courts with judges who would read laws as literally as possible and not be tempted to use their power to redress perceived wrongs or bring about social change . The terms originalism and textualism came into common usage .
The critique of `` activist judges '' had begun many years earlier , of course , after the landmark decisions of the high court under Chief Justice Earl Warren . Those included Brown vs. Board of Education , mandating desegregation of public schools , and Baker v. Carr , establishing the principle of one-person-one-vote in drawing election maps . The Warren Court also ruled against prayer in public schools and underscored the rights of criminal suspects .
But perhaps the most explosive decision from the court came after a new Chief Justice , Warren Burger , took over in 1969 . Appointed by President Richard Nixon , Burger was presumed to be about reversing the court 's liberal drift . But in the 1973 , he sided with the majority in the Roe v. Wade decision , when the court voted 7-2 to legalize abortion in all 50 states .
Unlike the reaction to other Supreme Court bombshells before and since , the pushback against Roe did not subside over time . If anything , it grew . By 1980 , with the election of President Ronald Reagan , opposition to Roe had become a focal point for most Republican candidates . As time passed , the party platform became ever-more definitively anti-abortion , while Republicans who favored abortion rights were increasingly rare . And the Federalist Society became a force in its own right .
When President Trump was running in 2016 , he repeatedly pledged to appoint only justices whose commitment to overturning Roe was clear . He campaigned on a pledge to choose only from a list of prospective nominees presented by the Federalist Society .
He has since done exactly that with his appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch ( who was confirmed with all Republicans and three Democrats voting aye ) , and Kavanaugh .
The last two previous appointees of a Republican president , John Roberts and Samuel Alito , were also Federalist Society alumni , along with 1991 appointee Clarence Thomas . So Kavanaugh would complete the court 's first Federalist Society majority .
The Federalist Society is about restoring a set of values from the past and defending settled arrangements . The # MeToo movement is about challenging such values and renegotiating such arrangements .
Whatever happens to Kavanaugh , or the comity of this Senate and this Court , that larger struggle will be with us all for the foreseeable future .
|
Will The Kavanaugh Saga Leave Bruises That Heal Or Permanent Scars?
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tom Williams/AP Tom Williams/AP
President Trump's choice of Brett Kavanaugh is already the most contentious nomination to the Supreme Court since Clarence Thomas won a 52-48 confirmation vote in 1991.
Thomas' was the closest vote confirming a justice since the 1800s, and it followed a stormy hearing and an adverse vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The process nearly foundered on accusations of sexual harassment and racial prejudice.
But the Senate in that day settled down, and Thomas has served on the court for 27 years – a nearly always silent anchor on the court's right.
The Kavanaugh controversy did not have a racial element, but at times has seemed equally bruising. It has divided the Senate just as evenly.
And it may prove to be more permanently divisive, not only for the Senate's confirmation process but for the Senate itself and for the Court as well.
It must be said that the atmosphere of collegiality has been deteriorating in both institutions for some time. But the Kavanaugh confrontation has featured more raw partisanship on all sides than even the Thomas affair.
"Boy, you all want power," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, his voice rising to a shout at the Democrats across from him in a public hearing. "God, I hope you never get it!"
That came from a Republican who had twice voted to confirm Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court and who was once considered something of a bridge between the parties.
It is one more manifestation of the emotional cauldron that boiled throughout the 2016 presidential campaign and has simmered ever since. And it may poison relationships in the Capitol and the Courthouse for some time to come.
By tradition, both the Senate and the Supreme Court have been thought of as elevated plateaus in American political life. In these hallowed spaces, the air was rarefied. Party ties existed but mattered less.
Ideology was present and contentious, but it was not always salient. Much if not most of the time, differences were expressed and explored in a calm atmosphere. A belief in tradition and the power of compromise prevailed.
Perhaps this memory owes much to myth. Nations, like people, are inclined to idealize and sanitize their pasts. Some, too, may be attributable to the lower profile of both Senate and Court in the generations before C-SPAN, cable TV news and social media.
But there surely has existed a keen sense that being the Senate — and acting accordingly — mattered for its own sake. Some of this can be seen in the courtly way senators address each other in the chamber even now.
They do not use names but refer to each other as "the distinguished" gentleman or "gentle lady" or as the senator from such and such state. What is said in the cloakroom, or behind closed doors, does not get repeated on the Senate floor.
The ambience of this more bipartisan Senate was on display last month in the tributes to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican to be sure but one with many friends across the aisle.
This notion of Senate decorum was visible at times in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing a week ago, primarily in exchanges between the two most senior members of each party – a quartet that has served a combined century-and-a-half in the Senate. Even in anger they spoke to each other in a familiar, almost familial manner. Such courtliness was not shared by most of the rest of the committee on either side.
When the Senate convenes to vote on Kavanaugh, which style will predominate? And when the Senate returns to business after these tense midterm elections, what atmosphere will prevail?
On what of the new session of the court with Kavanaugh installed? Older notions of institutional dignity and balance have been, if anything, even more powerful on what we so often call "the highest court in the land." (Those last three words, faintly antique, suggest again that poetic-mythic quality emanating from these institutions.)
In this conception of the Senate and Supreme Court, one often cited that old adage about politics making strange bedfellows. It was apt, and often applied to positive and productive things that happened.
Relationships beyond party made possible the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The historic breakthrough relied as much on Republicans as Democrats, as the latter party's Southern "Dixiecrat" wing was adamantly opposed to the legislation.
That was still the case 20 years later when Republicans and Democrats in the Senate worked together on a tax overhaul both could applaud. They overcame the more fractious folks from the House and gave President Reagan a bill he could happily sign into law. All that actually happened.
And four years after that, Republican President George H. W. Bush worked with a Democratic Congress to slim the federal deficit by raising taxes (as well as reducing some forms of spending). That budget deal, and other similarly bipartisan budgets hammered out in the 1990s, actually managed to bring federal revenues and outlays into rough balance by the end of the decade. (It didn't last, but that was largely because one party took control thereafter and pressed its own fiscal agenda.)
The Senate in those times was scarcely a love fest, but individual Democrats and Republicans typically had friends – even really good ones — in both camps.
Something like this spirit has characterized the Supreme Court, at least in the popular imagination. We had the friendship of Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example. Although at ideological loggerheads, they and other justices shared interests in music and art. The justices were known to spend social time together, as did their clerks.
Here again, the institutions and their denizens had an interest in promoting this kinder, gentler image. It surely served their own self-concepts of superiority. But it also helped them fulfill their functions and maintain a higher degree of public respect for them and their work product.
Perhaps the quickening of the pace of life, the endless siege of media attention, the coarsening of our political discourse and the deepening of divisions between the parties and the regions of the country have simply made that pleasant illusion too difficult to sustain.
Surely the tensions brought out by the clash over Kavanaugh are testament to this. And not least in these considerations is the confrontation of two powerful movements – the emergent #MeToo and the ascendant Federalist Society – whose energies collided so dramatically with the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.
Friday's vote to advance Kavanaugh's nomination to its final phase falls precisely on #MeToo's birthday, the anniversary of the New York Times expose of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.
In the intervening twelve months, more than a dozen men in pinnacle positions in entertainment, news and business have been toppled by credible accusations of sexual harassment, abuse or assault. Inspired by these examples, women have come forward to tell their stories in countless organizations, workplaces and institutions.
But in this latest high-profile confrontation, this impressive movement collides with another that has also been enormously transformative. That is the four-decade effort to remake the federal judiciary in accordance with more conservative ideas of legal policy and constitutional interpretation.
As one appeal for donations from one longtime conservative group spelled it out Thursday night: "This is the moment we've been waiting for now for half a century..."
That effort has largely been organized and driven by the Federalist Society (formally the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies), founded by law students and legal scholars at Yale and the University of Chicago in 1982.
But even before the Society took form, conservatives and libertarians were talking about the need to restock the federal courts with judges who would read laws as literally as possible and not be tempted to use their power to redress perceived wrongs or bring about social change. The terms originalism and textualism came into common usage.
The critique of "activist judges" had begun many years earlier, of course, after the landmark decisions of the high court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. Those included Brown vs. Board of Education, mandating desegregation of public schools, and Baker v. Carr, establishing the principle of one-person-one-vote in drawing election maps. The Warren Court also ruled against prayer in public schools and underscored the rights of criminal suspects.
But perhaps the most explosive decision from the court came after a new Chief Justice, Warren Burger, took over in 1969. Appointed by President Richard Nixon, Burger was presumed to be about reversing the court's liberal drift. But in the 1973, he sided with the majority in the Roe v. Wade decision, when the court voted 7-2 to legalize abortion in all 50 states.
Unlike the reaction to other Supreme Court bombshells before and since, the pushback against Roe did not subside over time. If anything, it grew. By 1980, with the election of President Ronald Reagan, opposition to Roe had become a focal point for most Republican candidates. As time passed, the party platform became ever-more definitively anti-abortion, while Republicans who favored abortion rights were increasingly rare. And the Federalist Society became a force in its own right.
When President Trump was running in 2016, he repeatedly pledged to appoint only justices whose commitment to overturning Roe was clear. He campaigned on a pledge to choose only from a list of prospective nominees presented by the Federalist Society.
He has since done exactly that with his appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch (who was confirmed with all Republicans and three Democrats voting aye), and Kavanaugh.
The last two previous appointees of a Republican president, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, were also Federalist Society alumni, along with 1991 appointee Clarence Thomas. So Kavanaugh would complete the court's first Federalist Society majority.
The Federalist Society is about restoring a set of values from the past and defending settled arrangements. The #MeToo movement is about challenging such values and renegotiating such arrangements.
Whatever happens to Kavanaugh, or the comity of this Senate and this Court, that larger struggle will be with us all for the foreseeable future.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
WEmVxnukP6a7O3mz
|
elections
|
The Atlantic
| 00
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/when-michelle-obama-talks-do-women-listen/264056/
|
When Michelle Obama Talks, Do Women Listen?
|
2012-10-24
|
Sophie Quinton
|
While Burns said that it 's more typical for a first lady to be raising money on her husband 's behalf rather than holding rallies , in `` such a close race , they need as many people out there trying to get votes as possible . ''
Michelle Obama 's electrifying speech at the Democratic convention left no doubt that she 's just as good -- if not better -- at whipping up a liberal crowd than her husband . `` Today , I have none of those worries from four years ago , no . Not about whether Barack and I were doing what was best for our girls , '' she told Democrats , explaining that her husband 's reelection is the best way to ensure a better future for her daughters . When she closed , with an exhortation to Democrats to `` work like never before , '' the cheers in the hall were deafening .
The first lady 's broad popularity makes her a particularly good surrogate . Sixty-nine percent of the public approve of her , according to an October ABC News/Washington Post poll , a rating comparable to that of her popular predecessors Barbara and Laura Bush .
For many women , particularly minorities , Michelle Obama is an inspiration and a role model . That 's a persona that can only help her husband as he fights for female votes . `` There 's not even a question '' that when Michelle Obama talks to other women , they listen , said Myra Gutin , professor of communications at Rider University .
But she has n't always been so popular . During the 2008 campaign , Michelle Obama faced enormous criticism for telling a Wisconsin crowd `` for the first time in my adult lifetime , I 'm really proud of my country . '' There were concerns that she would be a first lady in the mold of Hillary Rodham Clinton , a wife pushing her own policy agenda behind the scenes .
Instead , she has been a first lady more in the mold of Laura Bush , advocating for mom-friendly issues that do n't distract from her husband 's agenda . Unlike Laura Bush , however , Michelle Obama has n't kept her advocacy behind the scenes .
Romney 's wife , Ann , is also well-liked , capable of giving a strong speech and delivering personal anecdotes that soften her husband 's image . Ann Romney has also been an important conduit to female voters : her speech at the Republican convention , which included an ode to women and the burdens they bear , is a case in point .
But while Ann Romney tends to talk more generally about her husband 's kindness and leadership , Michelle Obama has made the case that the president deeply understands what women 's lives are like .
`` It 's the moms of this nation -- single , married , widowed -- who really hold this country together , '' Ann Romney told Republican delegates . The mother of five boys went on to suggest that there 's a gulf between men and women that ca n't be bridged . `` I 'm not sure if men really understand this , but I do n't think there 's a woman in America who really expects her life to be easy , '' she said .
|
While Burns said that it's more typical for a first lady to be raising money on her husband's behalf rather than holding rallies, in "such a close race, they need as many people out there trying to get votes as possible."
Michelle Obama's electrifying speech at the Democratic convention left no doubt that she's just as good -- if not better -- at whipping up a liberal crowd than her husband. "Today, I have none of those worries from four years ago, no. Not about whether Barack and I were doing what was best for our girls," she told Democrats, explaining that her husband's reelection is the best way to ensure a better future for her daughters. When she closed, with an exhortation to Democrats to "work like never before," the cheers in the hall were deafening.
The first lady's broad popularity makes her a particularly good surrogate. Sixty-nine percent of the public approve of her, according to an October ABC News/Washington Post poll, a rating comparable to that of her popular predecessors Barbara and Laura Bush.
For many women, particularly minorities, Michelle Obama is an inspiration and a role model. That's a persona that can only help her husband as he fights for female votes. "There's not even a question" that when Michelle Obama talks to other women, they listen, said Myra Gutin, professor of communications at Rider University.
But she hasn't always been so popular. During the 2008 campaign, Michelle Obama faced enormous criticism for telling a Wisconsin crowd "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." There were concerns that she would be a first lady in the mold of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a wife pushing her own policy agenda behind the scenes.
Instead, she has been a first lady more in the mold of Laura Bush, advocating for mom-friendly issues that don't distract from her husband's agenda. Unlike Laura Bush, however, Michelle Obama hasn't kept her advocacy behind the scenes.
Romney's wife, Ann, is also well-liked, capable of giving a strong speech and delivering personal anecdotes that soften her husband's image. Ann Romney has also been an important conduit to female voters: her speech at the Republican convention, which included an ode to women and the burdens they bear, is a case in point.
But while Ann Romney tends to talk more generally about her husband's kindness and leadership, Michelle Obama has made the case that the president deeply understands what women's lives are like.
"It's the moms of this nation -- single, married, widowed -- who really hold this country together," Ann Romney told Republican delegates. The mother of five boys went on to suggest that there's a gulf between men and women that can't be bridged. "I'm not sure if men really understand this, but I don't think there's a woman in America who really expects her life to be easy," she said.
|
www.theatlantic.com
| 0left
|
6oJvm9v3yJEsslr6
|
impeachment
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/if-the-house-wants-to-impeach-trump-they-have-to-face-nancy-pelosi-first/
|
If the House Wants to Impeach Trump, They Have to Face Nancy Pelosi First
|
2019-05-21
|
Jim Geraghty, Rich Lowry, Kyle Smith, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Victor Davis Hanson, Kevin D. Williamson, Katherine Timpf, Zachary Evans, David Harsanyi
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D. , Calif. ) speaks during a press briefing in Washington , D.C. , January 17 , 2019 . ( Joshua Roberts/REUTERS )
It ’ s only Tuesday , and it feels like a full week already . The biggest obstacle to the U.S. House of Representatives impeaching President Trump is Speaker Nancy Pelosi , and she ’ s refusing to budge ; the Russians cooked up even more ambitious plans to stir up racial hostility in the United States ; and another account from an Obama administration official that suggests Jim Comey exaggerates and stretches the truth when he wants to make himself look good .
The Rampart Blocking the Impeachment of Trump Is . . . Nancy Pelosi ?
At this rate , Nancy Pelosi is going to regret winning the House of Representatives in 2018 :
Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island , Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Joe Neguse of Colorado — all members of Democratic leadership — pushed to begin impeachment proceedings during a leadership meeting in Pelosi ’ s office , said the sources . Pelosi and Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut , Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico , Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Cheri Bustos of Illinois — some of her key allies — rejected their calls , saying Democrats ’ message is being drowned out by the fight over possibly impeaching Trump . Raskin — a former law professor — said he wasn ’ t advocating impeaching Trump but suggested that opening an impeachment inquiry would strengthen their legal position while allowing Democrats to move forward with their legislative agenda . Pelosi dismissed this argument , asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee . “ You want to tell Elijah Cummings to go home ? ” Pelosi quipped , referring to the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee .
These little anecdotes are reassuring , because they indicate to those of us on the right that Democrats don ’ t keep all of their condescension , self-righteousness , sneers , disdain , and contempt stored up to use on us . No , this is just how they talk to everyone , including each other . According to Politico , Steve Cohen basically called Pelosi a coward to her face .
During the Steering and Policy Committee meeting , Cohen said President Bill Clinton faced impeachment proceedings “ over sex ” while Trump is “ raping the country , ” according to two sources in the room . Cohen later confirmed his remarks . Pelosi pushed back on Cohen during the meeting and his assertion that she was simply afraid impeachment would cost her the House majority . “ This isn ’ t about politics at all . It ’ s about patriotism . It ’ s about the strength we need to have to see things through , ” Pelosi said , according to an aide in the room .
Cohen ’ s not alone . One of President Obama ’ s old HUD guys , Brandon Friedman , is out there proclaiming , “ Democrats were sold a bill of goods by Pelosi : Vote for us so we can become the majority and hold Trump accountable . When voters did that , the argument became , ‘ We can ’ t hold Trump accountable because it could jeopardize our majority ! ’ ”
What happens to Pelosi when she ’ s opposed by the pro-impeachment Left and the anti-impeachment Right ?
New Papers : Russians Wanted to Create African-American Separatist Group for Sabotage
This month turned out a good time to be focus on Russian disinformation . NBC News offers a new look at some of the ambitions of the Russians at the Internet Research Agency , beyond the 2016 U.S. elections :
The documents — communications between associates of Yevgeny Prigozhin , a Kremlin-linked oligarch indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for previous influence operations against the U.S. — laid out a new plot to manipulate and radicalize African-Americans . The documents contained proposals for several ways to further exacerbate racial discord in the future , including a suggestion to recruit African-Americans and transport them to camps in Africa “ for combat prep and training in sabotage. ” Those recruits would then be sent back to America to foment violence and work to establish a pan-African state in the Southern U.S. , including South Carolina , Georgia , Alabama , Mississippi and Louisiana . There is no indication that the plan — which is light on details — was ever put into action , but it offers a fresh example of the mindset around Russian efforts to sow discord in the U.S .
One aspect of the mindset it reveals is that ethno-nationalists think everyone else sees the world in ethno-nationalist terms .
There are roughly 47 million African-Americans in the United States . No doubt somewhere in that mix you could find some who be attracted to the idea of a pan-African state spread across five southern states . I ’ m not African-American and shouldn ’ t presume to know how every member of this group would react . But I suspect quite a few would think , “ Wait , why would I want that ? I already have a country . I ’ ve already put a lot into building my life in this country . We put a lot of blood , sweat and tears into ending separate but equal , particularly in those five states ! Why would I want to create my own separate country through violence instead of trying to change and improve the one I ’ m in ? ”
Also note that while the Russians were discussing this idea , they were also promoting the secession of Texas and other Southern states through the Facebook group “ Heart of Texas. ” No doubt , they would love to see the United States paralyzed by warring internal factions , each refusing to compromise and attempting to break away .
A key point in my talk is that when you ’ re trying to differentiate between foreign disinformation or propaganda efforts and genuine homegrown political activism , foreign disinformation rarely focuses on any solutions , and when they do , it ’ s the most extreme option .
A significant portion of the IRA ’ s efforts targeted African-Americans and focused on the issue of police brutality and shootings . The examples of Philando Castile , Eric Garner , and Walter Scott make clear that when African Americans face an encounter with the police , they have reason to fear that even the smallest misunderstanding or misstep could have unjust and deadly consequences . But most African-Americans deeply upset about this are thinking about the best way to address it . More African-American police officers ? A country where every cop wears a body camera ? Federal civil-rights prosecutions , as seen in South Carolina ? More police training ? Some mix of all of these ?
What you haven ’ t heard is African-Americans declaring that the appropriate response is to form their own country .
One of my big points in my talk last week was that the Russians at the Internet Research Agency had only studied American culture from a distance . They ’ re trying to manipulate us , but they don ’ t really understand us — and as a result , their efforts are going to be a little clumsy , heavy-handed , and not quite sound right to American ears .
One last point : In addition to his ties to the Internet Research Agency , Yevgeny Prigozhin is also tied to the Wagner Group . Depending upon who you ask , the Wagner group is a private military contractor like Blackwater , or an off-the-books army of Vladimir Putin , deploying to places like Ukraine , Syria , Libya , Sudan , and perhaps Venezuela .
A murky aura persists around Wagner and the man who is thought to own it . A balding 57-year-old who often manages to be photographed scowling , Yevgeny Prigozhin is an example of how people close to Putin build their wealth — and then are deployed as useful tools . He was a little-known restaurateur until he appeared in Putin ’ s orbit in the early 2000s and began serving the autocrat during visits by foreign dignitaries . Prigozhin became a powerful businessman as he received a steady stream of catering contracts from the state . Often referred to in the local press as “ Putin ’ s chef , ” he is now seen as a key member of Putin ’ s inner circle .
These perks come with strings attached , according to Stephen Blank , a Russia expert who has been researching the Wagner Group for the U.S , Army War College . He sees Prigozhin as an example of how Putin has weaponized Russia ’ s wealthy elites . “ They ’ re subordinate to the state , and they keep their money and their positions on the condition that they serve the state , ” he said .
Loretta Lynch : I Never Wanted to Create the Federal Bureau of Matters
Remember Jim Comey ’ s anecdote of attorney general Loretta Lynch telling him to refer the investigation of Hillary Clinton as a “ matter ” and not as and “ investigation ” ?
For what it ’ s worth , Lynch says it didn ’ t happen the way Comey described :
Q : Are you familiar with his — I think he ’ s testified to this — that you instructed , I believe in September of 2015 , Director Comey to call the Midyear Exam investigation a matter ? Lynch : I heard his testimony on it and that was the first time that he had ever indicated to me , in my understanding — he may have told 17 others — that he had that impression of our conversation . Q : So you do not believe you ever instructed him to call it a matter ? Lynch : I did not . I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically . Never have , never will… I didn ’ t direct anyone to use specific phraseology . When the Director asked me how to best to handle that , I said : What I have been saying is we have received a referral and we are working on the matter , working on the issue , or we have all the resources we need to handle the matter , handle the issue . So that was the suggestion that I made to him .
Oh , come on . What are the odds that Jim Comey would exaggerate or stretch the truth a little to create a story that paints him as the last honest man in Washington ?
ADDENDUM : In case you missed it late yesterday , ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro , who took over running the network in March 2018 , told the Los Angeles Times , “ Without question our data tells us our fans do not want us to cover politics . My job is to provide clarity . I really believe that some of our talent was confused on what was expected of them . If you fast-forward to today , I don ’ t believe they are confused . ”
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) speaks during a press briefing in Washington, D.C., January 17, 2019. (Joshua Roberts/REUTERS)
It’s only Tuesday, and it feels like a full week already. The biggest obstacle to the U.S. House of Representatives impeaching President Trump is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and she’s refusing to budge; the Russians cooked up even more ambitious plans to stir up racial hostility in the United States; and another account from an Obama administration official that suggests Jim Comey exaggerates and stretches the truth when he wants to make himself look good.
The Rampart Blocking the Impeachment of Trump Is . . . Nancy Pelosi?
At this rate, Nancy Pelosi is going to regret winning the House of Representatives in 2018:
Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Joe Neguse of Colorado — all members of Democratic leadership — pushed to begin impeachment proceedings during a leadership meeting in Pelosi’s office, said the sources. Pelosi and Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Cheri Bustos of Illinois — some of her key allies — rejected their calls, saying Democrats’ message is being drowned out by the fight over possibly impeaching Trump. Raskin — a former law professor — said he wasn’t advocating impeaching Trump but suggested that opening an impeachment inquiry would strengthen their legal position while allowing Democrats to move forward with their legislative agenda. Pelosi dismissed this argument, asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee. “You want to tell Elijah Cummings to go home?” Pelosi quipped, referring to the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee.
These little anecdotes are reassuring, because they indicate to those of us on the right that Democrats don’t keep all of their condescension, self-righteousness, sneers, disdain, and contempt stored up to use on us. No, this is just how they talk to everyone, including each other. According to Politico, Steve Cohen basically called Pelosi a coward to her face.
During the Steering and Policy Committee meeting, Cohen said President Bill Clinton faced impeachment proceedings “over sex” while Trump is “raping the country,” according to two sources in the room. Cohen later confirmed his remarks. Pelosi pushed back on Cohen during the meeting and his assertion that she was simply afraid impeachment would cost her the House majority. “This isn’t about politics at all. It’s about patriotism. It’s about the strength we need to have to see things through,” Pelosi said, according to an aide in the room.
Cohen’s not alone. One of President Obama’s old HUD guys, Brandon Friedman, is out there proclaiming, “Democrats were sold a bill of goods by Pelosi: Vote for us so we can become the majority and hold Trump accountable. When voters did that, the argument became, ‘We can’t hold Trump accountable because it could jeopardize our majority!’”
What happens to Pelosi when she’s opposed by the pro-impeachment Left and the anti-impeachment Right?
New Papers: Russians Wanted to Create African-American Separatist Group for Sabotage
This month turned out a good time to be focus on Russian disinformation. NBC News offers a new look at some of the ambitions of the Russians at the Internet Research Agency, beyond the 2016 U.S. elections:
The documents — communications between associates of Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Kremlin-linked oligarch indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for previous influence operations against the U.S. — laid out a new plot to manipulate and radicalize African-Americans. The documents contained proposals for several ways to further exacerbate racial discord in the future, including a suggestion to recruit African-Americans and transport them to camps in Africa “for combat prep and training in sabotage.” Those recruits would then be sent back to America to foment violence and work to establish a pan-African state in the Southern U.S., including South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. There is no indication that the plan — which is light on details — was ever put into action, but it offers a fresh example of the mindset around Russian efforts to sow discord in the U.S.
One aspect of the mindset it reveals is that ethno-nationalists think everyone else sees the world in ethno-nationalist terms.
There are roughly 47 million African-Americans in the United States. No doubt somewhere in that mix you could find some who be attracted to the idea of a pan-African state spread across five southern states. I’m not African-American and shouldn’t presume to know how every member of this group would react. But I suspect quite a few would think, “Wait, why would I want that? I already have a country. I’ve already put a lot into building my life in this country. We put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into ending separate but equal, particularly in those five states! Why would I want to create my own separate country through violence instead of trying to change and improve the one I’m in?”
Also note that while the Russians were discussing this idea, they were also promoting the secession of Texas and other Southern states through the Facebook group “Heart of Texas.” No doubt, they would love to see the United States paralyzed by warring internal factions, each refusing to compromise and attempting to break away.
A key point in my talk is that when you’re trying to differentiate between foreign disinformation or propaganda efforts and genuine homegrown political activism, foreign disinformation rarely focuses on any solutions, and when they do, it’s the most extreme option.
A significant portion of the IRA’s efforts targeted African-Americans and focused on the issue of police brutality and shootings. The examples of Philando Castile, Eric Garner, and Walter Scott make clear that when African Americans face an encounter with the police, they have reason to fear that even the smallest misunderstanding or misstep could have unjust and deadly consequences. But most African-Americans deeply upset about this are thinking about the best way to address it. More African-American police officers? A country where every cop wears a body camera? Federal civil-rights prosecutions, as seen in South Carolina? More police training? Some mix of all of these?
What you haven’t heard is African-Americans declaring that the appropriate response is to form their own country.
One of my big points in my talk last week was that the Russians at the Internet Research Agency had only studied American culture from a distance. They’re trying to manipulate us, but they don’t really understand us — and as a result, their efforts are going to be a little clumsy, heavy-handed, and not quite sound right to American ears.
One last point: In addition to his ties to the Internet Research Agency, Yevgeny Prigozhin is also tied to the Wagner Group. Depending upon who you ask, the Wagner group is a private military contractor like Blackwater, or an off-the-books army of Vladimir Putin, deploying to places like Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and perhaps Venezuela.
A murky aura persists around Wagner and the man who is thought to own it. A balding 57-year-old who often manages to be photographed scowling, Yevgeny Prigozhin is an example of how people close to Putin build their wealth — and then are deployed as useful tools. He was a little-known restaurateur until he appeared in Putin’s orbit in the early 2000s and began serving the autocrat during visits by foreign dignitaries. Prigozhin became a powerful businessman as he received a steady stream of catering contracts from the state. Often referred to in the local press as “Putin’s chef,” he is now seen as a key member of Putin’s inner circle.
These perks come with strings attached, according to Stephen Blank, a Russia expert who has been researching the Wagner Group for the U.S, Army War College. He sees Prigozhin as an example of how Putin has weaponized Russia’s wealthy elites. “They’re subordinate to the state, and they keep their money and their positions on the condition that they serve the state,” he said.
Loretta Lynch: I Never Wanted to Create the Federal Bureau of Matters
Remember Jim Comey’s anecdote of attorney general Loretta Lynch telling him to refer the investigation of Hillary Clinton as a “matter” and not as and “investigation”?
For what it’s worth, Lynch says it didn’t happen the way Comey described:
Q: Are you familiar with his — I think he’s testified to this — that you instructed, I believe in September of 2015, Director Comey to call the Midyear Exam investigation a matter? Lynch: I heard his testimony on it and that was the first time that he had ever indicated to me, in my understanding — he may have told 17 others — that he had that impression of our conversation. Q: So you do not believe you ever instructed him to call it a matter? Lynch: I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will… I didn’t direct anyone to use specific phraseology. When the Director asked me how to best to handle that, I said: What I have been saying is we have received a referral and we are working on the matter, working on the issue, or we have all the resources we need to handle the matter, handle the issue. So that was the suggestion that I made to him.
Oh, come on. What are the odds that Jim Comey would exaggerate or stretch the truth a little to create a story that paints him as the last honest man in Washington?
ADDENDUM: In case you missed it late yesterday, ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro, who took over running the network in March 2018, told the Los Angeles Times, “Without question our data tells us our fans do not want us to cover politics. My job is to provide clarity. I really believe that some of our talent was confused on what was expected of them. If you fast-forward to today, I don’t believe they are confused.”
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
OzIl1PItegJlTJ0q
|
middle_east
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/mike-pence-vice-president-white-house-evaluating-p/
|
Vice President Mike Pence: White House ‘evaluating’ President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal
|
2017-02-05
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
The Trump administration put Iran “ on notice ” last week , but Vice President Mike Pence said Sunday that the White House right now is evaluating whether to keep in place the nuclear deal with Tehran that President Trump said he ’ d shred if elected .
In an interview with ABC News that aired Sunday , the vice president said no decisions have been made as to whether the U.S. will honor the agreement made between the Obama administration , Iran and other world powers . The deal aims to halt Iran ’ s nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions .
“ The Iranians got a deal from the international community that again , the president and I and our administration think was a terrible deal . It essentially allows Iran to develop a nuclear weapon — in the years ahead at a date certain . And they received hundreds of millions of dollars in cash ” in exchange , Mr. Pence said .
Asked whether that deal will remain , Mr. Pence said , “ We ’ re evaluating that as we speak . ”
The U.S. slapped renewed sanctions on Iran last week after the country , considered a leading state sponsor of terrorism , defied the international community by conducting ballistic missile tests .
Top Democrats have joined the White House in condemning those tests .
“ I think Iran is wrong on this , ” Sen. Dianne Feinstein , California Democrat , told “ Fox News Sunday . ”
As for the nuclear deal , House Speaker Paul Ryan on Sunday seemed to indicate that it would be unwise — and perhaps logistically impossible — to undo the deal entirely , specifically when it comes to reimposing multilateral economic sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the agreement .
“ A lot of that toothpaste is already out of the tube . I never supported the deal in the first place . I thought it was a huge mistake . But the multilateral sanctions are done , ” the speaker told NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press. ” “ I don ’ t think you ’ re going to go back and reconstitute the multilateral sanctions that were in place . ”
|
The Trump administration put Iran “on notice” last week, but Vice President Mike Pence said Sunday that the White House right now is evaluating whether to keep in place the nuclear deal with Tehran that President Trump said he’d shred if elected.
In an interview with ABC News that aired Sunday, the vice president said no decisions have been made as to whether the U.S. will honor the agreement made between the Obama administration, Iran and other world powers. The deal aims to halt Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
“The Iranians got a deal from the international community that again, the president and I and our administration think was a terrible deal. It essentially allows Iran to develop a nuclear weapon — in the years ahead at a date certain. And they received hundreds of millions of dollars in cash” in exchange, Mr. Pence said.
Asked whether that deal will remain, Mr. Pence said, “We’re evaluating that as we speak.”
The U.S. slapped renewed sanctions on Iran last week after the country, considered a leading state sponsor of terrorism, defied the international community by conducting ballistic missile tests.
Top Democrats have joined the White House in condemning those tests.
“I think Iran is wrong on this,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, told “Fox News Sunday.”
As for the nuclear deal, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Sunday seemed to indicate that it would be unwise — and perhaps logistically impossible — to undo the deal entirely, specifically when it comes to reimposing multilateral economic sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the agreement.
“A lot of that toothpaste is already out of the tube. I never supported the deal in the first place. I thought it was a huge mistake. But the multilateral sanctions are done,” the speaker told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I don’t think you’re going to go back and reconstitute the multilateral sanctions that were in place.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
eLhMs5BrOEIWepes
|
politics
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-cohens-newly-revealed-book-proposal-blows-up-testimony-totally-discredited
|
Trump says Cohen’s newly revealed book proposal blows up testimony: ‘Totally discredited!’
|
Brooke Singman
|
President Trump on Friday blasted Michael Cohen over a newly reported book proposal that apparently painted the president in a positive light , saying his former lawyer 's pitch contradicts this week 's congressional testimony and renders him “ totally discredited . ”
“ Wow , just revealed that Michael Cohen wrote ‘ a love letter to Trump ’ manuscript for a new book that he was pushing . Written and submitted long after Charlottesville and Helsinki , his phony reasons for going rogue . Book is exact opposite of his fake testimony , which is now a lie ! ” Trump tweeted Friday .
“ Congress must demand the transcript of Michael Cohen ’ s new book , given to publishers a short time ago . Your heads will spin when you see the lies , misrepresentations and contradictions against his Thursday testimony . Like a different person ! He is totally discredited ! ” he continued .
The president ’ s tweets come after the Daily Mail exclusively obtained a proposal reportedly dated Jan. 24 , 2018 and titled “ Trump Revolution : From The Tower to the White House. ” Cohen reportedly was shopping the pitch to publishers just weeks before the FBI raided his office as part of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York ’ s criminal investigation into his personal business dealings .
According to the Daily Mail , Cohen ’ s book would have touted Trump , countering descriptions of his then-boss as `` crazy , '' `` dumb , '' `` paranoid '' and hateful toward the media .
The pitch reportedly said : `` All of these things have been said about my longtime boss , Donald J. Trump . None of it is true . Except maybe that last one – about the media . Trump does believe that reporters are out to get him , and for a very good reason . Many of them are . ''
The Mail reported that Cohen promised chapters would focus on first lady Melania Trump and Trump ’ s children , as well as the “ unfortunate saga ” of Stormy Daniels .
`` By offering my point-of-view , it is my sincere hope that I can help close or at least narrow the knowledge gap , '' he reportedly wrote .
The book deal was reportedly being negotiated with Hachette ’ s Center Street , but ultimately collapsed when Cohen was charged by SDNY .
But the revelation of Cohen ’ s proposal comes after the now-disbarred attorney delivered scathing testimony about Trump before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday . Cohen called Trump a “ racist , ” a “ conman ” and “ a cheat . ”
“ Since taking office , he has become the worst version of himself . He is capable of behaving kindly , but he is not kind . He is capable of committing acts of generosity , but he is not generous . He is capable of being loyal , but he is fundamentally disloyal , ” Cohen said in his opening statement Wednesday , adding that “ to our nation , I am sorry for actively working to hide from you the truth about Mr. Trump when you needed it most . ”
Yet he also testified he started having his doubts about the president after the summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and Trump 's handling of white supremacist violence and rallies in Charlottesville , Va . While the book proposal came before the Helsinki summit , it came well after the Charlottesville violence , and a full year into Trump 's presidency .
Republicans on the oversight committee , like Ranking Member Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , blasted Cohen , questioning why he continued to work for Trump for 10 years and claiming that Cohen turned on the president after he did n't get a job in the White House . Cohen denied wanting to work in the administration .
Cohen ’ s high-profile congressional testimony came after he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about a Trump real estate project in Russia as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates . Cohen also pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion , one count of making false statements to a financial institution , one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution , and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution .
He is reporting in May to serve a three-year prison sentence .
GOP REPS REFER MICHAEL COHEN TO DOJ FOR ALLEGED PERJURY DURING HEARING
Trump on Friday also complained that Democrats are now using the testimony to expand and pursue their own investigations .
“ Oh ’ I see ! Now that the 2 year Russian Collusion case has fallen apart , there was no Collusion except bye [ sic ] Crooked Hillary and the Democrats , they say , ‘ gee , I have an idea , let ’ s look at Trump ’ s finances and every deal he has ever done . Let ’ s follow discredited Michael Cohen and the fraudulent and dishonest statements he made on Wednesday , ” Trump tweeted Friday .
“ No way , it ’ s time to stop this corrupt and illegally brought Witch Hunt . Time to start looking at the other side where real crimes were committed . Republicans have been abused long enough . Must end now ! ” he continued .
During his testimony , Cohen said he brought evidence to support previous claims that Trump organized the hush-money payments to two women—Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal . Cohen accused Trump of being involved in a “ criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. ” Cohen testified Wednesday that Trump repaid him in $ 35,000 installments .
“ Michael Cohen ’ s book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before . He must have forgotten about his book when he testified . What does Hillary Clinton ’ s lawyer , Lanny Davis , say about this one . Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary . Using her lawyer ? ” Trump tweeted Friday morning .
Cohen is represented by Lanny Davis , a longtime Clinton ally .
On Friday , Davis responded to Trump in a statement : “ Sometime in early 2018 , Mr. Cohen was offered a substantial advance for a proposal regarding a book on understanding Donald Trump . Mr. Cohen ultimately elected not to proceed . In other words , POTUS has yet lied again ... but what ’ s the difference between 9000 or 9001 lies ? ”
House Oversight Committee Republicans on Thursday referred Cohen to the Justice Department , claiming he committed perjury during his testimony over several statements made regarding his aspirations of working in the Trump administration and his foreign business contracts . Davis countered in a statement Thursday that his client testified `` truthfully '' before the committee , calling the complaint a `` baseless criminal referral '' and `` sad misuse of the criminal justice system with the aura of pure partisanship . ”
Cohen also testified Wednesday that he would not commit to rejecting any type of book , movie , or television deal when his prison sentence is complete .
|
President Trump on Friday blasted Michael Cohen over a newly reported book proposal that apparently painted the president in a positive light, saying his former lawyer's pitch contradicts this week's congressional testimony and renders him “totally discredited.”
“Wow, just revealed that Michael Cohen wrote ‘a love letter to Trump’ manuscript for a new book that he was pushing. Written and submitted long after Charlottesville and Helsinki, his phony reasons for going rogue. Book is exact opposite of his fake testimony, which is now a lie!” Trump tweeted Friday.
FORMER TRUMP LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN DISBARRED IN NEW YORK
“Congress must demand the transcript of Michael Cohen’s new book, given to publishers a short time ago. Your heads will spin when you see the lies, misrepresentations and contradictions against his Thursday testimony. Like a different person! He is totally discredited!” he continued.
The president’s tweets come after the Daily Mail exclusively obtained a proposal reportedly dated Jan. 24, 2018 and titled “Trump Revolution: From The Tower to the White House.” Cohen reportedly was shopping the pitch to publishers just weeks before the FBI raided his office as part of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s criminal investigation into his personal business dealings.
According to the Daily Mail, Cohen’s book would have touted Trump, countering descriptions of his then-boss as "crazy," "dumb," "paranoid" and hateful toward the media.
The pitch reportedly said: "All of these things have been said about my longtime boss, Donald J. Trump. None of it is true. Except maybe that last one – about the media. Trump does believe that reporters are out to get him, and for a very good reason. Many of them are."
The Mail reported that Cohen promised chapters would focus on first lady Melania Trump and Trump’s children, as well as the “unfortunate saga” of Stormy Daniels.
"By offering my point-of-view, it is my sincere hope that I can help close or at least narrow the knowledge gap," he reportedly wrote.
The book deal was reportedly being negotiated with Hachette’s Center Street, but ultimately collapsed when Cohen was charged by SDNY.
But the revelation of Cohen’s proposal comes after the now-disbarred attorney delivered scathing testimony about Trump before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. Cohen called Trump a “racist,” a “conman” and “a cheat.”
“Since taking office, he has become the worst version of himself. He is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not kind. He is capable of committing acts of generosity, but he is not generous. He is capable of being loyal, but he is fundamentally disloyal,” Cohen said in his opening statement Wednesday, adding that “to our nation, I am sorry for actively working to hide from you the truth about Mr. Trump when you needed it most.”
Yet he also testified he started having his doubts about the president after the summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and Trump's handling of white supremacist violence and rallies in Charlottesville, Va. While the book proposal came before the Helsinki summit, it came well after the Charlottesville violence, and a full year into Trump's presidency.
Republicans on the oversight committee, like Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, blasted Cohen, questioning why he continued to work for Trump for 10 years and claiming that Cohen turned on the president after he didn't get a job in the White House. Cohen denied wanting to work in the administration.
Cohen’s high-profile congressional testimony came after he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about a Trump real estate project in Russia as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates. Cohen also pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.
He is reporting in May to serve a three-year prison sentence.
GOP REPS REFER MICHAEL COHEN TO DOJ FOR ALLEGED PERJURY DURING HEARING
Trump on Friday also complained that Democrats are now using the testimony to expand and pursue their own investigations.
“Oh’ I see! Now that the 2 year Russian Collusion case has fallen apart, there was no Collusion except bye[sic] Crooked Hillary and the Democrats, they say, ‘gee, I have an idea, let’s look at Trump’s finances and every deal he has ever done. Let’s follow discredited Michael Cohen and the fraudulent and dishonest statements he made on Wednesday,” Trump tweeted Friday.
“No way, it’s time to stop this corrupt and illegally brought Witch Hunt. Time to start looking at the other side where real crimes were committed. Republicans have been abused long enough. Must end now!” he continued.
During his testimony, Cohen said he brought evidence to support previous claims that Trump organized the hush-money payments to two women—Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Cohen accused Trump of being involved in a “criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws.” Cohen testified Wednesday that Trump repaid him in $35,000 installments.
“Michael Cohen’s book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?” Trump tweeted Friday morning.
Cohen is represented by Lanny Davis, a longtime Clinton ally.
On Friday, Davis responded to Trump in a statement: “Sometime in early 2018, Mr. Cohen was offered a substantial advance for a proposal regarding a book on understanding Donald Trump. Mr. Cohen ultimately elected not to proceed. In other words, POTUS has yet lied again...but what’s the difference between 9000 or 9001 lies?”
House Oversight Committee Republicans on Thursday referred Cohen to the Justice Department, claiming he committed perjury during his testimony over several statements made regarding his aspirations of working in the Trump administration and his foreign business contracts. Davis countered in a statement Thursday that his client testified "truthfully" before the committee, calling the complaint a "baseless criminal referral" and "sad misuse of the criminal justice system with the aura of pure partisanship.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Cohen also testified Wednesday that he would not commit to rejecting any type of book, movie, or television deal when his prison sentence is complete.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
S6uUL8A87IJQ71rD
|
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/30/wasserman-schultz-fights-to-hold-onto-house-seat-on-big-primary-day.html
|
Wasserman Schultz fights to hold onto House seat, on big primary day
|
2016-08-30
|
Joseph Weber
|
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is fighting Tuesday to hold onto her House seat after losing her post atop the Democratic National Committee last month over a leaked email scandal , amid warnings from her primary challenger that she ’ s taken her base “ for granted . ”
First-time candidate Tim Canova , a law professor backed by Bernie Sanders , is trying to unseat the incumbent Tuesday , in one of several big end-of-the-season primaries .
Canova ’ s longshot bid to upset Wasserman Schultz got a huge boost this spring when Sanders endorsed him and even hinted at coming to Florida to campaign for him . He benefited again when Wasserman Schultz was caught up in the leak of emails showing top DNC officials criticizing and discussing ways to undermine Sanders ’ presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton .
In the end , Sanders never did show up to stump for Canova . But the candidate was able to mount a considerable campaign on his own , amassing $ 3.8 million to advertise across south Florida and assemble a grassroots organization that has made the race surprisingly close .
A recent South Florida Sun Sentinel/Florida Atlantic University poll shows him trailing Wasserman Schultz 40-to-50 percent . Wasserman Schultz remains the favorite to win , but Canova maintained she ’ s vulnerable .
“ Debbie has been reading her press clippings for too long , ” Canova said in an interview with FoxNews.com . “ And she started to take her core base for granted . ”
He said investing early in what he called a “ very large ” field operation has been key .
“ It ’ s such a big army , ” Canova said Monday . “ This has been a very local race . ”
Wasserman Schultz ’ s bid for a seventh term in Florida ’ s 23rd Congressional District is just one of several high-profile congressional primaries Tuesday in which incumbents are facing formidable challenges .
In Arizona , GOP Sen. John McCain is facing a primary challenge from former state Sen. Kelli Ward in his bid for a sixth term .
McCain is again answering questions about his conservative credentials and age , which Ward has made a campaign issue , vowing to “ retire ” him Tuesday , a day after McCain turns 80 .
Ward has recently received some backing from groups outside the state , including gun rights organizations . But McCain , a former Navy officer and prisoner of war in North Vietnam , has drawn large support from the state ’ s retired military as well as community and business leaders -- including more than $ 1 million from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .
The polling varies widely . But Jennifer Duffy , who analyzes Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report , thinks McCain will win .
“ Ward never got the support from the national Tea Party groups that she needed , ” Duffy said Monday .
The winner will face a strong challenge in November from popular Arizona Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick , in a race that could decide whether Democrats retake control of the Senate .
Also in Arizona , embattled Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is running for a seventh term against three GOP challengers .
The election comes less than two weeks after a federal judge recommended criminal contempt-of-court charges against the 84-year-old Arpaio for ignoring an order to halt his signature anti-illegal immigrant patrols . The winner will face Democrat Paul Penzone .
The other big Senate primary is in Florida -- Democratic Reps. Alan Grayson and Patrick Murphy competing to take on incumbent GOP Sen. Marco Rubio .
Murphy is the Democratic establishment ’ s choice and joined Congress after upsetting Tea Party favorite GOP Rep. Allen West in a 2012 race eventually decided by a partial recount .
Despite Grayson ’ s lack of support -- including calls from Senate Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer to leave the race -- he has refused to quit .
Whatever support the combative Grayson had appeared to dwindle after the House ethics committee decided in April to expand its probe into allegations he committed financial improprieties and used congressional staff for campaign purposes .
Allegations then surfaced last month about domestic abuse , which prompted Schumer , in line to replace Reid as Senate minority leader , to call on Grayson to quit the race .
“ Once the allegations about domestic abuse surfaced and progressive groups dropped their endorsement , what was already a difficult path for Grayson became impossible , ” Duffy said .
The three-term congressman and his team have denied any wrongdoing , suggesting the probe is politically motivated and that the ex-wife who made the abuse allegations is “ disturbed . ”
The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Murphy leading Grayson by roughly 8 percentage points .
In his primary race , Rubio mostly cleared the field when he reversed course and ran for re-election following an unsuccessful presidential bid – but still faces homebuilder Carlos Beruff in Tuesday ’ s contest .
Despite the attention on the Sanders connection , Canova , meanwhile , argues his House primary race is largely about Wasserman Schultz losing contact with her constituents and such local issues as the recent algae bloom in south Florida hurting tourism and “ just putting food on the table . ”
Still , Nathan Gonzales , editor and publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report , thinks the advantage goes to the incumbent .
“ It ’ s up to the challenger to prove he can actually get over the top in the primary , ” he said . “ It takes extraordinary circumstances . I know Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made a lot of national headlines recently . But I ’ m still skeptical about the level of dissent in her district . ”
|
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is fighting Tuesday to hold onto her House seat after losing her post atop the Democratic National Committee last month over a leaked email scandal, amid warnings from her primary challenger that she’s taken her base “for granted.”
First-time candidate Tim Canova, a law professor backed by Bernie Sanders, is trying to unseat the incumbent Tuesday, in one of several big end-of-the-season primaries.
Canova’s longshot bid to upset Wasserman Schultz got a huge boost this spring when Sanders endorsed him and even hinted at coming to Florida to campaign for him. He benefited again when Wasserman Schultz was caught up in the leak of emails showing top DNC officials criticizing and discussing ways to undermine Sanders’ presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton.
In the end, Sanders never did show up to stump for Canova. But the candidate was able to mount a considerable campaign on his own, amassing $3.8 million to advertise across south Florida and assemble a grassroots organization that has made the race surprisingly close.
A recent South Florida Sun Sentinel/Florida Atlantic University poll shows him trailing Wasserman Schultz 40-to-50 percent. Wasserman Schultz remains the favorite to win, but Canova maintained she’s vulnerable.
“Debbie has been reading her press clippings for too long,” Canova said in an interview with FoxNews.com. “And she started to take her core base for granted.”
He said investing early in what he called a “very large” field operation has been key.
“It’s such a big army,” Canova said Monday. “This has been a very local race.”
Wasserman Schultz’s bid for a seventh term in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District is just one of several high-profile congressional primaries Tuesday in which incumbents are facing formidable challenges.
In Arizona, GOP Sen. John McCain is facing a primary challenge from former state Sen. Kelli Ward in his bid for a sixth term.
McCain is again answering questions about his conservative credentials and age, which Ward has made a campaign issue, vowing to “retire” him Tuesday, a day after McCain turns 80.
Ward has recently received some backing from groups outside the state, including gun rights organizations. But McCain, a former Navy officer and prisoner of war in North Vietnam, has drawn large support from the state’s retired military as well as community and business leaders -- including more than $1 million from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The polling varies widely. But Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, thinks McCain will win.
“Ward never got the support from the national Tea Party groups that she needed,” Duffy said Monday.
The winner will face a strong challenge in November from popular Arizona Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, in a race that could decide whether Democrats retake control of the Senate.
Also in Arizona, embattled Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is running for a seventh term against three GOP challengers.
The election comes less than two weeks after a federal judge recommended criminal contempt-of-court charges against the 84-year-old Arpaio for ignoring an order to halt his signature anti-illegal immigrant patrols. The winner will face Democrat Paul Penzone.
The other big Senate primary is in Florida -- Democratic Reps. Alan Grayson and Patrick Murphy competing to take on incumbent GOP Sen. Marco Rubio.
Murphy is the Democratic establishment’s choice and joined Congress after upsetting Tea Party favorite GOP Rep. Allen West in a 2012 race eventually decided by a partial recount.
Despite Grayson’s lack of support -- including calls from Senate Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer to leave the race -- he has refused to quit.
Whatever support the combative Grayson had appeared to dwindle after the House ethics committee decided in April to expand its probe into allegations he committed financial improprieties and used congressional staff for campaign purposes.
Allegations then surfaced last month about domestic abuse, which prompted Schumer, in line to replace Reid as Senate minority leader, to call on Grayson to quit the race.
“Once the allegations about domestic abuse surfaced and progressive groups dropped their endorsement, what was already a difficult path for Grayson became impossible,” Duffy said.
The three-term congressman and his team have denied any wrongdoing, suggesting the probe is politically motivated and that the ex-wife who made the abuse allegations is “disturbed.”
The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Murphy leading Grayson by roughly 8 percentage points.
In his primary race, Rubio mostly cleared the field when he reversed course and ran for re-election following an unsuccessful presidential bid – but still faces homebuilder Carlos Beruff in Tuesday’s contest.
Despite the attention on the Sanders connection, Canova, meanwhile, argues his House primary race is largely about Wasserman Schultz losing contact with her constituents and such local issues as the recent algae bloom in south Florida hurting tourism and “just putting food on the table.”
Still, Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, thinks the advantage goes to the incumbent.
“It’s up to the challenger to prove he can actually get over the top in the primary,” he said. “It takes extraordinary circumstances. I know Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made a lot of national headlines recently. But I’m still skeptical about the level of dissent in her district.”
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
qczojaWvSdGnD9sT
|
technology
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/12/14/16776236/net-neutrality-made-internet-awesome-fcc-vote
|
“Net neutrality is the secret sauce that has made the internet awesome”
|
2017-12-14
|
Eric Allen Been, Alissa Wilkinson, Sigal Samuel, Terry Nguyen, Rebecca Jennings, Hannah Brown, Lauren Katz
|
The internet as we know it is about to change drastically .
Net neutrality — the standard that internet service providers , or ISPs , must treat all traffic equally — was repealed Thursday in a party-line vote by the Federal Communications Commission in Washington . FCC chair Ajit Pai , flanked by two Republican allies , has a majority on the commission .
Commercial ISPs like Comcast , AT & T , and Verizon will be free to block content , throttle users ’ internet use , and prioritize their own services at the expense of competitors ’ . It ’ s a wide-reaching and controversial issue that some have called one of the “ biggest corporate giveaways in history . ”
As net neutrality proponents see it , these protections are essential to providing open and equal access to the internet . The plan by Pai , a former Verizon attorney , is a wide-ranging dismantling of not only the safeguards put in place by the Obama administration but ones that have been embedded in the World Wide Web since its invention in 1989 .
Pai maintains that his proposal is a standard rollback in government regulation that gives ISPs more freedom for things like infrastructure investments . But critics argue that this would result in fast and slow lanes for internet access and could lead to favoritism and the entrenchment of wealthy players . In other words , nothing could stop AT & T from slowing down Netflix in an effort to prioritize its own cable TV package , or outright blocking a website that ’ s critical of its business practices .
To better understand what ’ s at stake , I spoke to Barbara van Schewick , a net neutrality expert and a professor at Stanford Law School , before the vote . The conversation has been lightly edited and condensed .
Why should ordinary people care about net neutrality , which can seem very complicated ?
The internet is n't a specialized service for geeks anymore . It 's long become woven into everyone 's daily lives and every sector of the economy . Net neutrality is the secret sauce that has made the internet awesome . It ensures that we , not Comcast or Verizon , get to choose what content we read , what websites we go to , and what services we use on the internet .
That 's been the case since the beginning of the internet in the US , and it has stayed that way because the FCC , under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans alike , ensured that the companies we pay to get online could not interfere with the free markets and free marketplaces of ideas .
Pai 's proposal will change that . It will allow broadband providers to block websites on content grounds , decide which apps we can use , charge online services simply to reach subscribers at all , create fast lanes that favor companies and speakers with deep pockets , and make it more expensive for local and niche sites to reach readers .
Americans understand this . That ’ s why Pai 's move to abolish net neutrality protections that date [ to ] long before 2015 has led to such a loud and sustained outcry by Americans of all political affiliations . Americans filed millions of comments with the FCC , even more than were filed in 2014 . Startups , small businesses , investors , faith groups , musicians , and community activists have filed comments , held rallies , written op-eds , and called and met with their members of Congress . Americans have placed more than 1 million calls to Congress urging that the protections stay in place , and that 's just through BattleForTheNet.com alone .
If net neutrality protections are stripped , ISPs in theory would have the right to block any website or content they see fit , even a newspaper whose editorials it doesn ’ t like . But do you think that 's something they would ever do ? That ISPs would go that far ?
Blocking and throttling , like how Comcast once restricted the peer-to-peer file sharing application BitTorrent , really is a concern . [ And while P2P programs have been stigmatized as a means for distributing copyrighted materials , it ’ s also become a popular protocol for sharing things like open source operating systems and other large legal files . ]
The regime that Pai is now proposing , which is that the Federal Trade Commission will now police ISPs — that ’ s putting our internet under an agency that has no rules against blocking or discrimination . The only protection that will remain is the rule that says if you block or discriminate , or you offer “ paid pass lanes ” to websites [ that is , solicit payments for faster service ] , then you have to tell your customers about it .
The markets for internet access in Europe are a lot more competitive than the markets in the United States . Here , 51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from . So those people have no other option if they don ’ t like how their ISP is behaving .
But Europe has a lot more competition because they require the phone companies to open their networks to independent ISPs . So the Europeans said , `` We think net neutrality is a problem that can be fixed with competition . '' So if ISPs said to customers that they are blocking or slowing down websites , then customers who do n't like that can go to another ISP that does n't do the same . And this threat of people switching providers would discipline the ISPs and ultimately prevent blocking and discrimination . That won ’ t work in the US , and it didn ’ t in Europe .
And that 's exactly the rhetoric Pai is using : that competition will keep ISPs honest .
So that 's his argument . And it sounds really nice in theory , but it does n't work in practice because there are so few ISPs available to many people in the US . We know that because the European Union ran this experiment for us . After they adopted their regime , they had widespread blocking and discrimination [ even with the additional competition ] . Looking to Europe , we can see what a world without net neutrality looks like .
In the Netherlands , the telecommunication company KPN was losing a lot of money because so many people were using online text messaging apps like WhatsApp . People were n't paying for the traditional , expensive text messages over a cellular network .
KPN said , `` We are losing all this money . That 's not sustainable . We will switch to plans that do not include the right to use online text messaging . '' And if someone wanted to use online text messaging , they had to buy an online text messaging option . That got such a huge outcry in the Netherlands that they became the first country to adopt a net neutrality law that banned blocking and slowing down and speeding up websites .
And we had a German ISP that blocked access to websites that were criticizing its business practices . We have never seen this in the US because under our net neutrality regime , that would n't be legal . Our regime says an ISP can not block legal content , applications , and services . That means if it 's legal , the ISP ca n't block it . Let 's say we do n't like online gun sales or whatever it is . The ISP can only say , `` Look I ca n't do anything about it , because as long as it 's legal , we have to transmit it . ''
A lot of ISPs have been touting their own net neutrality pledges and saying that even if these regulations are stripped , they will still abide by net neutrality guidelines . But Comcast , for instance , recently deleted their original net neutrality pledge the same day the FCC announced its first draft to appeal these regulations . And then the new one they put up contained no promise related to not engaging in paid priority . Can we take these corporate pledges seriously ?
I would not want the future of the internet to depend on an ISP 's willingness to voluntarily behave in a good way . We have seen in Europe that it 's not necessarily in the ISP 's interest to behave in the way that 's required by net neutrality . And ISPs can change their promises , and already the promises are so much narrower than what the net neutrality protections require .
None of the ISPs talk about a promise to manage networks in a way that does not single out applications or classes of applications . None of them commit to not charging websites for access . These are essential components for net neutrality , and so I do not think at all that we should leave the future of this really critical infrastructure to promises by the ISPs that can change at any time .
Pai has claimed that the real threat to the open internet is from social media companies like Twitter because it moderates and has removed conservative content from its platform . Do you think there ’ s any truth there ?
I think that 's really just an effort to distract people . I know there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the specific way in which companies like Twitter or Google or Facebook manage their services and how they limit certain content on their site . We can have a long debate about that . But there is a key difference between the website that runs on top of the internet and the actual internet . And the difference is , if a website blocks certain content , I can go to a different website . But if my ISP blocks access to a certain website , then there 's no way to get around that .
And I think part of what was so surprising about Pai using this example is because if people are concerned and unhappy that companies like Twitter or other internet platform companies are policing certain content on their sites , these people should really be fighting for net neutrality protections . They are the only thing that prevents the ISPs from engaging in the same behavior .
The debate about net neutrality has been increasingly cast as a liberal versus conservative issue . Do you think that ’ s a good or bad thing for protecting the open internet ?
It 's really misleading . Net neutrality is n't a partisan issue . Polls consistently show that Americans , whether Republican or Democrat , support the current net neutrality protections . A poll that was published in July shows that 77 percent of Americans support the current protections at the FCC — and that 73 percent of Republicans , 80 percent of Democrats , and 76 percent of independents want to keep the current protections . And if you look on some of the more conservative subreddits on Reddit or even Breitbart , there was huge , vibrant opposition to Pai 's plan .
Net neutrality protections are absolutely consistent with a free market framework . They are really a way to protect all these free markets that arose from and depend on the internet .
Tim Wu , the Columbia professor who coined the term “ net neutrality , ” has argued that the judiciary will in the end have to save net neutrality . You , on the other hand , advocated in a piece that Congress should intervene . Do you think there ’ s still a chance to stop the FCC order before it ’ s adopted , and what do you fear will happen if it isn ’ t ?
Wu is right that the FCC ’ s draft order is based on a shaky legal foundation and is likely to be struck down in court . But that shouldn ’ t have made people complacent in the first place . And the hope is Congress would have intervened before this ruling .
Up until the vote , there is still a chance to stop the order in the first place . [ If it passes ] , it will immediately cause uncertainty for angel investors and venture capitalists , chilling their investments in startups . Then when the order goes into effect , after being published in the Federal Register , broadband providers will be free to start charging fees for access to users and pay-to-play fast lanes . Even if a court stays the order , the uncertainty for investors will remain .
Eric Allen Been is a freelance writer who has written for the Wall Street Journal , the Boston Globe , Vice , Playboy , the New Republic , the Los Angeles Review of Books , and TheAtlantic.com .
|
The internet as we know it is about to change drastically.
Net neutrality — the standard that internet service providers, or ISPs, must treat all traffic equally — was repealed Thursday in a party-line vote by the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. FCC chair Ajit Pai, flanked by two Republican allies, has a majority on the commission.
Commercial ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon will be free to block content, throttle users’ internet use, and prioritize their own services at the expense of competitors’. It’s a wide-reaching and controversial issue that some have called one of the “biggest corporate giveaways in history.”
As net neutrality proponents see it, these protections are essential to providing open and equal access to the internet. The plan by Pai, a former Verizon attorney, is a wide-ranging dismantling of not only the safeguards put in place by the Obama administration but ones that have been embedded in the World Wide Web since its invention in 1989.
Pai maintains that his proposal is a standard rollback in government regulation that gives ISPs more freedom for things like infrastructure investments. But critics argue that this would result in fast and slow lanes for internet access and could lead to favoritism and the entrenchment of wealthy players. In other words, nothing could stop AT&T from slowing down Netflix in an effort to prioritize its own cable TV package, or outright blocking a website that’s critical of its business practices.
To better understand what’s at stake, I spoke to Barbara van Schewick, a net neutrality expert and a professor at Stanford Law School, before the vote. The conversation has been lightly edited and condensed.
Eric Allen Been
Why should ordinary people care about net neutrality, which can seem very complicated?
Barbara van Schewick
The internet isn't a specialized service for geeks anymore. It's long become woven into everyone's daily lives and every sector of the economy. Net neutrality is the secret sauce that has made the internet awesome. It ensures that we, not Comcast or Verizon, get to choose what content we read, what websites we go to, and what services we use on the internet.
That's been the case since the beginning of the internet in the US, and it has stayed that way because the FCC, under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans alike, ensured that the companies we pay to get online could not interfere with the free markets and free marketplaces of ideas.
Pai's proposal will change that. It will allow broadband providers to block websites on content grounds, decide which apps we can use, charge online services simply to reach subscribers at all, create fast lanes that favor companies and speakers with deep pockets, and make it more expensive for local and niche sites to reach readers.
Americans understand this. That’s why Pai's move to abolish net neutrality protections that date [to] long before 2015 has led to such a loud and sustained outcry by Americans of all political affiliations. Americans filed millions of comments with the FCC, even more than were filed in 2014. Startups, small businesses, investors, faith groups, musicians, and community activists have filed comments, held rallies, written op-eds, and called and met with their members of Congress. Americans have placed more than 1 million calls to Congress urging that the protections stay in place, and that's just through BattleForTheNet.com alone.
Eric Allen Been
If net neutrality protections are stripped, ISPs in theory would have the right to block any website or content they see fit, even a newspaper whose editorials it doesn’t like. But do you think that's something they would ever do? That ISPs would go that far?
Barbara van Schewick
Blocking and throttling, like how Comcast once restricted the peer-to-peer file sharing application BitTorrent, really is a concern. [And while P2P programs have been stigmatized as a means for distributing copyrighted materials, it’s also become a popular protocol for sharing things like open source operating systems and other large legal files.]
The regime that Pai is now proposing, which is that the Federal Trade Commission will now police ISPs — that’s putting our internet under an agency that has no rules against blocking or discrimination. The only protection that will remain is the rule that says if you block or discriminate, or you offer “paid pass lanes” to websites [that is, solicit payments for faster service], then you have to tell your customers about it.
The markets for internet access in Europe are a lot more competitive than the markets in the United States. Here, 51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from. So those people have no other option if they don’t like how their ISP is behaving.
But Europe has a lot more competition because they require the phone companies to open their networks to independent ISPs. So the Europeans said, "We think net neutrality is a problem that can be fixed with competition." So if ISPs said to customers that they are blocking or slowing down websites, then customers who don't like that can go to another ISP that doesn't do the same. And this threat of people switching providers would discipline the ISPs and ultimately prevent blocking and discrimination. That won’t work in the US, and it didn’t in Europe.
Eric Allen Been
And that's exactly the rhetoric Pai is using: that competition will keep ISPs honest.
Barbara van Schewick
So that's his argument. And it sounds really nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice because there are so few ISPs available to many people in the US. We know that because the European Union ran this experiment for us. After they adopted their regime, they had widespread blocking and discrimination [even with the additional competition]. Looking to Europe, we can see what a world without net neutrality looks like.
In the Netherlands, the telecommunication company KPN was losing a lot of money because so many people were using online text messaging apps like WhatsApp. People weren't paying for the traditional, expensive text messages over a cellular network.
KPN said, "We are losing all this money. That's not sustainable. We will switch to plans that do not include the right to use online text messaging." And if someone wanted to use online text messaging, they had to buy an online text messaging option. That got such a huge outcry in the Netherlands that they became the first country to adopt a net neutrality law that banned blocking and slowing down and speeding up websites.
And we had a German ISP that blocked access to websites that were criticizing its business practices. We have never seen this in the US because under our net neutrality regime, that wouldn't be legal. Our regime says an ISP cannot block legal content, applications, and services. That means if it's legal, the ISP can't block it. Let's say we don't like online gun sales or whatever it is. The ISP can only say, "Look I can't do anything about it, because as long as it's legal, we have to transmit it."
Eric Allen Been
A lot of ISPs have been touting their own net neutrality pledges and saying that even if these regulations are stripped, they will still abide by net neutrality guidelines. But Comcast, for instance, recently deleted their original net neutrality pledge the same day the FCC announced its first draft to appeal these regulations. And then the new one they put up contained no promise related to not engaging in paid priority. Can we take these corporate pledges seriously?
Barbara van Schewick
I would not want the future of the internet to depend on an ISP's willingness to voluntarily behave in a good way. We have seen in Europe that it's not necessarily in the ISP's interest to behave in the way that's required by net neutrality. And ISPs can change their promises, and already the promises are so much narrower than what the net neutrality protections require.
None of the ISPs talk about a promise to manage networks in a way that does not single out applications or classes of applications. None of them commit to not charging websites for access. These are essential components for net neutrality, and so I do not think at all that we should leave the future of this really critical infrastructure to promises by the ISPs that can change at any time.
Eric Allen Been
Pai has claimed that the real threat to the open internet is from social media companies like Twitter because it moderates and has removed conservative content from its platform. Do you think there’s any truth there?
Barbara van Schewick
I think that's really just an effort to distract people. I know there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the specific way in which companies like Twitter or Google or Facebook manage their services and how they limit certain content on their site. We can have a long debate about that. But there is a key difference between the website that runs on top of the internet and the actual internet. And the difference is, if a website blocks certain content, I can go to a different website. But if my ISP blocks access to a certain website, then there's no way to get around that.
And I think part of what was so surprising about Pai using this example is because if people are concerned and unhappy that companies like Twitter or other internet platform companies are policing certain content on their sites, these people should really be fighting for net neutrality protections. They are the only thing that prevents the ISPs from engaging in the same behavior.
Eric Allen Been
The debate about net neutrality has been increasingly cast as a liberal versus conservative issue. Do you think that’s a good or bad thing for protecting the open internet?
Barbara van Schewick
It's really misleading. Net neutrality isn't a partisan issue. Polls consistently show that Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, support the current net neutrality protections. A poll that was published in July shows that 77 percent of Americans support the current protections at the FCC — and that 73 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of independents want to keep the current protections. And if you look on some of the more conservative subreddits on Reddit or even Breitbart, there was huge, vibrant opposition to Pai's plan.
Net neutrality protections are absolutely consistent with a free market framework. They are really a way to protect all these free markets that arose from and depend on the internet.
Eric Allen Been
Tim Wu, the Columbia professor who coined the term “net neutrality,” has argued that the judiciary will in the end have to save net neutrality. You, on the other hand, advocated in a piece that Congress should intervene. Do you think there’s still a chance to stop the FCC order before it’s adopted, and what do you fear will happen if it isn’t?
Barbara van Schewick
Wu is right that the FCC’s draft order is based on a shaky legal foundation and is likely to be struck down in court. But that shouldn’t have made people complacent in the first place. And the hope is Congress would have intervened before this ruling.
Up until the vote, there is still a chance to stop the order in the first place. [If it passes], it will immediately cause uncertainty for angel investors and venture capitalists, chilling their investments in startups. Then when the order goes into effect, after being published in the Federal Register, broadband providers will be free to start charging fees for access to users and pay-to-play fast lanes. Even if a court stays the order, the uncertainty for investors will remain.
Eric Allen Been is a freelance writer who has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, Vice, Playboy, the New Republic, the Los Angeles Review of Books, and TheAtlantic.com.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
IZqWFLzNpVkQodKI
|
immigration
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/06/516408650/trump-signs-new-order-blocking-arrivals-from-6-majority-muslim-countries
|
Trump Signs New Order Blocking Arrivals From 6 Majority-Muslim Countries
|
2017-03-06
|
Camila Domonoske
|
Trump Signs New Order Blocking Arrivals From 6 Majority-Muslim Countries
President Trump has signed a new executive order that temporarily blocks visas from being issued to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries , revoking and replacing a controversial , now-suspended executive order known as the travel ban .
Like the initial order signed Jan. 27 , the new executive order bars arrivals from specific majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days . It also caps the total number of refugees admitted this fiscal year at 50,000 , instead of 110,000 .
But there are a series of differences . The ban announced Monday no longer includes Iraq . It explicitly does n't apply to lawful permanent residents ( green card holders ) or existing visa holders . Syrian refugees are not banned indefinitely . Refugees already formally scheduled for travel to the U.S. will be permitted to enter the country .
The new order also omits a section about prioritizing refugees from minority religions in their home countries . That 's the part of the initial order that , as NPR 's Domenico Montanaro has reported , `` indicates prioritizing Christians , '' and was one reason the order was challenged as a form of `` Muslim ban . ''
The order signed Monday will have a delayed implementation — going into effect at 12:01 a.m . ET on March 16 — to avoid the chaotic situation created by the initial order , with people in transit when their visas were nullified .
The new order blocks people traveling from Sudan , Syria , Iran , Libya , Somalia and Yemen . Iraq is no longer included because , the administration says , it has pledged to `` increase cooperation with the U.S. '' and share more information about its citizens .
A senior administration official told reporters about another reason : Iraq has agreed to the `` timely repatriation '' of Iraqi citizens in the U.S. who are slated for deportation , the official said . As of last summer , Iraq was one of 23 countries considered `` recalcitrant '' for refusing to cooperate with the U.S. in deporting their citizens .
`` Recalcitrant countries '' were raised as an issue in a separate executive order , but were n't mentioned in either of the orders on visas and travel . Some `` recalcitrant '' countries , including Iran and Libya , are affected by the visa ban ; most are not .
Administration officials left open the possibility that other countries could be added to future visa-issuance bans , or that countries currently on the list could be removed .
The White House has consistently said that the travel ban was not and is not a `` Muslim ban , '' but a policy designed to reduce the threat of a terrorist attack .
Critics of the travel ban have challenged the selection of the seven ( now six ) countries , questioning whether it can be justified on any fact-based national security grounds . The seven countries were on an Obama administration list of `` countries of concern '' for the Visa Waiver Program , which had nothing to do with blocking travel entirely .
As NPR 's Greg Myre has reported , the list `` does n't include any countries from which radicalized Muslims have actually killed Americans in the U.S. since Sept. 11 , 2001 '' — like Saudi Arabia , Egypt , Pakistan or Russia .
The latest executive order apparently attempts to address this with a paragraph about `` conditions '' in each targeted country , and the terrorist groups with a presence or connection there .
`` Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism , has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations , or contains active conflict zones , '' the new order states , alleging that the countries pose `` heightened risks '' to U.S. security .
The suspension of the U.S. refugee program has been similarly criticized . Since the Refugee Act of 1980 , there have been no deadly terror attacks by refugees . Nine people were injured in an attack by a Somali refugee last year , which is still under investigation .
In Monday 's executive order , the administration offered three examples of people who entered the U.S. as refugees and were convicted of terrorism-related offenses .
Two came from Iraq ; they are the men who lived in Bowling Green , Ky. , and were charged with supporting a terrorist group .
Another came from Somalia as a child refugee and was arrested for plotting an attack on a holiday event in Portland , Ore . He was a naturalized U.S. citizen by the time of his arrest .
Speaking on Monday , Attorney General Jeff Sessions also said that `` people seeking to support or commit terrorist attacks here will try to enter through our refugee program . '' He said hundreds of people who arrived as refugees are under FBI investigation for possible terrorism-related crimes , although the Department of Justice has refused to provide any details about these reported investigations .
The White House insists the first order was legal and appropriate , even though it 's being replaced by the new order .
That original order prompted chaos at airports and inspired protests — and dozens of lawsuits .
The suits were filed by `` doctors , professors , students , people fleeing violence and Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. military , '' as NPR 's Joel Rose and journalist Parker Yesko reported last month . They continued :
`` Some [ of the plaintiffs ] were detained in American airports for hours over the weekend ; others were barred overseas from boarding planes bound for the U.S. Two Syrian brothers with visas to enter the country say they were turned around at Philadelphia International Airport and sent back to Damascus . `` Human rights organizations and attorneys general in five states jumped aboard some of the suits , and their lists of legal grievances were long . They alleged violations of the First , Fifth and 14th Amendments , which guarantee religious equality , due process and equal protection under the law , as well as denials of asylum and discriminatory visa processing . ''
One of the suits , brought by the state of Washington and joined by the state of Minnesota , prompted a federal judge to issue a nationwide temporary stay of Trump 's executive order on Feb. 3 .
The Department of Justice challenged the stay in a U.S. appeals court , but a panel of three judges upheld the suspension . As a result , the initial executive order has not been in effect for more than a month .
The new order , which is twice as long as the original , is meant to `` address previous concerns '' from the courts , according to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly . But it 's not likely to be the end of legal challenges .
`` I think everyone — and I assume the government as well — expects that there will be a new round of litigation , '' Omar Jadwat , director of the Immigrants ' Rights Project at the ACLU , told NPR before the new order was released .
In a statement Monday , he said the new order is `` a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws . ''
Meanwhile , the signing of a new executive order does n't necessarily spell the end of lawsuits against the old order .
White House press secretary Sean Spicer has repeatedly said the administration plans follow a `` dual track '' strategy of continuing to defend the old order from legal challenges even as a new order replaces it .
However , the executive order signed Monday formally revokes the Jan. 27 order as of March 16 , and a senior official at the Department of Justice told reporters on Monday that the DOJ believes a majority of the pending cases are now moot .
That may well spell the end for many of those suits , especially those brought on more narrow grounds . But whether or not a lawsuit is still valid will be decided case by case .
Judges might not necessarily be persuaded by the Justice Department 's arguments that a case is no longer relevant , says Catherine Kim , a law professor at the University of North Carolina Law School . She joined other law professors in signing an amicus brief against Trump 's initial order , and spoke to NPR before the new order was announced .
Even for cases where the original complaint is no longer an issue under the new order — like , for instance , a case involving a lawful permanent resident — `` the courts may be worried that as soon as the case is dismissed the administration would just go back and reissue the [ original ] executive order , '' Kim says .
Other , broader challenges to the original order could apply equally to the new order , she says — such as the allegation that the order was `` done in bad faith , '' she says .
`` I do n't think that there is anything that the new executive order could do to address concerns raised by the courts [ that ] this was really motivated by animus , not by national security concerns , '' she says .
The Trump administration maintains that it will eventually triumph in the legal battle over the original executive action , based on the president 's broad authority on immigration issues . Some legal scholars , including Alan Dershowitz , believe the administration could win at least a partial victory on those grounds .
`` I do n't think the ban is unconstitutional as it affects a family in Yemen who has had no contact with the United States and simply applies for a tourist visa to come see the Statue of Liberty , '' he told NPR in early February . But , Dershowitz said , other elements of the ban — especially the initial interpretation that it applied to green card holders — are harder to defend .
The issue could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court .
|
Trump Signs New Order Blocking Arrivals From 6 Majority-Muslim Countries
Enlarge this image toggle caption Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET
President Trump has signed a new executive order that temporarily blocks visas from being issued to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries, revoking and replacing a controversial, now-suspended executive order known as the travel ban.
Like the initial order signed Jan. 27, the new executive order bars arrivals from specific majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days. It also caps the total number of refugees admitted this fiscal year at 50,000, instead of 110,000.
But there are a series of differences. The ban announced Monday no longer includes Iraq. It explicitly doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents (green card holders) or existing visa holders. Syrian refugees are not banned indefinitely. Refugees already formally scheduled for travel to the U.S. will be permitted to enter the country.
The new order also omits a section about prioritizing refugees from minority religions in their home countries. That's the part of the initial order that, as NPR's Domenico Montanaro has reported, "indicates prioritizing Christians," and was one reason the order was challenged as a form of "Muslim ban."
The order signed Monday will have a delayed implementation — going into effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on March 16 — to avoid the chaotic situation created by the initial order, with people in transit when their visas were nullified.
The new order blocks people traveling from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Iraq is no longer included because, the administration says, it has pledged to "increase cooperation with the U.S." and share more information about its citizens.
A senior administration official told reporters about another reason: Iraq has agreed to the "timely repatriation" of Iraqi citizens in the U.S. who are slated for deportation, the official said. As of last summer, Iraq was one of 23 countries considered "recalcitrant" for refusing to cooperate with the U.S. in deporting their citizens.
"Recalcitrant countries" were raised as an issue in a separate executive order, but weren't mentioned in either of the orders on visas and travel. Some "recalcitrant" countries, including Iran and Libya, are affected by the visa ban; most are not.
Administration officials left open the possibility that other countries could be added to future visa-issuance bans, or that countries currently on the list could be removed.
"Heightened Risks"
The White House has consistently said that the travel ban was not and is not a "Muslim ban," but a policy designed to reduce the threat of a terrorist attack.
Critics of the travel ban have challenged the selection of the seven (now six) countries, questioning whether it can be justified on any fact-based national security grounds. The seven countries were on an Obama administration list of "countries of concern" for the Visa Waiver Program, which had nothing to do with blocking travel entirely.
As NPR's Greg Myre has reported, the list "doesn't include any countries from which radicalized Muslims have actually killed Americans in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001" — like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan or Russia.
The latest executive order apparently attempts to address this with a paragraph about "conditions" in each targeted country, and the terrorist groups with a presence or connection there.
"Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones," the new order states, alleging that the countries pose "heightened risks" to U.S. security.
The suspension of the U.S. refugee program has been similarly criticized. Since the Refugee Act of 1980, there have been no deadly terror attacks by refugees. Nine people were injured in an attack by a Somali refugee last year, which is still under investigation.
In Monday's executive order, the administration offered three examples of people who entered the U.S. as refugees and were convicted of terrorism-related offenses.
Two came from Iraq; they are the men who lived in Bowling Green, Ky., and were charged with supporting a terrorist group.
Another came from Somalia as a child refugee and was arrested for plotting an attack on a holiday event in Portland, Ore. He was a naturalized U.S. citizen by the time of his arrest.
Speaking on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions also said that "people seeking to support or commit terrorist attacks here will try to enter through our refugee program." He said hundreds of people who arrived as refugees are under FBI investigation for possible terrorism-related crimes, although the Department of Justice has refused to provide any details about these reported investigations.
Rounds of litigation
The White House insists the first order was legal and appropriate, even though it's being replaced by the new order.
That original order prompted chaos at airports and inspired protests — and dozens of lawsuits.
The suits were filed by "doctors, professors, students, people fleeing violence and Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. military," as NPR's Joel Rose and journalist Parker Yesko reported last month. They continued:
"Some [of the plaintiffs] were detained in American airports for hours over the weekend; others were barred overseas from boarding planes bound for the U.S. Two Syrian brothers with visas to enter the country say they were turned around at Philadelphia International Airport and sent back to Damascus. "Human rights organizations and attorneys general in five states jumped aboard some of the suits, and their lists of legal grievances were long. They alleged violations of the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments, which guarantee religious equality, due process and equal protection under the law, as well as denials of asylum and discriminatory visa processing."
One of the suits, brought by the state of Washington and joined by the state of Minnesota, prompted a federal judge to issue a nationwide temporary stay of Trump's executive order on Feb. 3.
The Department of Justice challenged the stay in a U.S. appeals court, but a panel of three judges upheld the suspension. As a result, the initial executive order has not been in effect for more than a month.
The new order, which is twice as long as the original, is meant to "address previous concerns" from the courts, according to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. But it's not likely to be the end of legal challenges.
"I think everyone — and I assume the government as well — expects that there will be a new round of litigation," Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants' Rights Project at the ACLU, told NPR before the new order was released.
In a statement Monday, he said the new order is "a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws."
A "dual track" strategy?
Meanwhile, the signing of a new executive order doesn't necessarily spell the end of lawsuits against the old order.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer has repeatedly said the administration plans follow a "dual track" strategy of continuing to defend the old order from legal challenges even as a new order replaces it.
However, the executive order signed Monday formally revokes the Jan. 27 order as of March 16, and a senior official at the Department of Justice told reporters on Monday that the DOJ believes a majority of the pending cases are now moot.
That may well spell the end for many of those suits, especially those brought on more narrow grounds. But whether or not a lawsuit is still valid will be decided case by case.
Judges might not necessarily be persuaded by the Justice Department's arguments that a case is no longer relevant, says Catherine Kim, a law professor at the University of North Carolina Law School. She joined other law professors in signing an amicus brief against Trump's initial order, and spoke to NPR before the new order was announced.
Even for cases where the original complaint is no longer an issue under the new order — like, for instance, a case involving a lawful permanent resident — "the courts may be worried that as soon as the case is dismissed the administration would just go back and reissue the [original] executive order," Kim says.
Other, broader challenges to the original order could apply equally to the new order, she says — such as the allegation that the order was "done in bad faith," she says.
"I don't think that there is anything that the new executive order could do to address concerns raised by the courts [that] this was really motivated by animus, not by national security concerns," she says.
The Trump administration maintains that it will eventually triumph in the legal battle over the original executive action, based on the president's broad authority on immigration issues. Some legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, believe the administration could win at least a partial victory on those grounds.
"I don't think the ban is unconstitutional as it affects a family in Yemen who has had no contact with the United States and simply applies for a tourist visa to come see the Statue of Liberty," he told NPR in early February. But, Dershowitz said, other elements of the ban — especially the initial interpretation that it applied to green card holders — are harder to defend.
The issue could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
6Sl8KBFu6KIcVARh
|
cia
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/trump-to-cia-i-am-so-behind-you/index.html
|
Ex-CIA chief Brennan bashes Trump over speech during CIA visit
|
2017-01-21
|
Ryan Browne
|
Washington ( CNN ) Former CIA Director John Brennan is `` deeply saddened and angered '' at President Donald Trump after the commander in chief addressed CIA employees at their headquarters in Langley , Virginia , on Saturday , Brennan 's former deputy chief of staff says .
Trump spent much of his speech -- which he gave in front of a memorial wall that honors the 117 CIA officers who have fallen in the line of duty -- focusing on the size of the crowd size at his inauguration , his appearance on magazine covers and saying he `` has a running war with the media . ''
`` Former CIA Director Brennan is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump 's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of CIA 's Memorial Wall of Agency heroes , '' Nick Shapiro said in a statement . `` Brennan says that Trump should be ashamed of himself . ''
One source who attended Trump 's appearance said many people there were troubled by the political aspect of the remarks , in which the president speculated about how many people in the room may have voted for him .
`` We are not political in that way , '' the source said . `` Talking about whether we voted for Trump is offensive and foreign to us by the president ... Many people felt used and awkward throughout . Of course there was applause , but it was uncomfortable . ''
Barack Obama waves as he boards a military helicopter to depart Washington on Friday , January 20 , following the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump . Post-presidency , Obama said he wants to begin writing a book with the help of his White House speechwriter , Cody Keenan . He 's also named a senior adviser and a chief of staff for his private office , and on Friday a website that allows users to inquire about his upcoming speaking engagements went live .
The White House is seen through morning fog on Wednesday , January 18 .
The White House is seen through morning fog on Wednesday , January 18 .
Sen. Chris Coons meets with Nikki Haley , President Donald Trump 's pick for US ambassador to the United Nations , in Washington on Tuesday , January 17 .
Sen. Chris Coons meets with Nikki Haley , President Donald Trump 's pick for US ambassador to the United Nations , in Washington on Tuesday , January 17 .
Donald Trump and his wife , Melania , visit the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday , January 19 .
Donald Trump and his wife , Melania , visit the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday , January 19 .
Ben Carson , President Donald Trump 's pick to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development , speaks on his cell phone during the Traditional Values Coalition 's Christian Inaugural Gala in Washington on Thursday , January 19 .
Ben Carson , President Donald Trump 's pick to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development , speaks on his cell phone during the Traditional Values Coalition 's Christian Inaugural Gala in Washington on Thursday , January 19 .
Betsy DeVos , President Donald Trump 's pick to lead the Education Department , attends her confirmation hearing on Tuesday , January 17 . DeVos , who has spent millions to advance conservative causes in her home state of Michigan and across the country , was questioned by Democratic senators who believe she is not qualified to lead the nation 's education system .
Donald Trump shakes hands with Martin Luther King III after their meeting at Trump Tower in New York on Monday , January 16 . Trump called on Americans to observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day and `` celebrate all of the many wonderful things that he stood for . ''
Hillary Clinton , who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee , smiles before the start of Donald Trump 's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday , January 20 . Around her are former President Bill Clinton , former President Jimmy Carter and his wife , Rosalynn , as well as former President George W. Bush and his wife , Laura .
Hillary Clinton , who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee , smiles before the start of Donald Trump 's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday , January 20 . Around her are former President Bill Clinton , former President Jimmy Carter and his wife , Rosalynn , as well as former President George W. Bush and his wife , Laura .
Donald Trump holds the hand of Kellyanne Conway , his senior adviser , as she takes a bow during a VIP reception and dinner with donors in Washington on Thursday , January 19 , the night before Trump 's presidential inauguration .
Donald Trump holds the hand of Kellyanne Conway , his senior adviser , as she takes a bow during a VIP reception and dinner with donors in Washington on Thursday , January 19 , the night before Trump 's presidential inauguration .
Rick Perry , President Trump 's nominee for secretary of energy , is sworn in before his confirmation hearing in on Thursday , January 19 . Perry , who once felt the Department of Energy should be shut down , said at the hearing that he regrets calling for the agency 's elimination .
A protester is carried off by authorities prior to the start of Donald Trump 's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday , January 20 .
A protester is carried off by authorities prior to the start of Donald Trump 's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday , January 20 .
President Donald Trump and his wife , First Lady Melania Trump , kiss and dance on stage during A Salute To Our Armed Services Inaugural Ball at the National Building Museum on Friday , January 20 , in Washington , DC .
President Donald Trump and his wife , First Lady Melania Trump , kiss and dance on stage during A Salute To Our Armed Services Inaugural Ball at the National Building Museum on Friday , January 20 , in Washington , DC .
Then-President Barack Obama and his wife , Michelle , walk with a group of children at the `` Jobs Have Priority '' Naylor Road Family Shelter in Washington on Monday , January 16 -- Martin Luther King Jr. Day . The Obamas donated a swingset formerly used by their two daughters , Sasha and Malia , to the DC shelter .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse points to a chart as he questions Scott Pruitt , President Donald Trump 's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency , during Pruitt 's confirmation hearing on Wednesday , January 18 . Although Pruitt broke with Trump and said he does n't believe climate change is a hoax , he did not indicate he would take swift action to address environmental issues that may contribute to climate change .
Tom Price , President Donald Trump 's nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services , pauses during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday , January 18 . During his four-hour hearing , Price defended himself from accusations of inappropriate financial investments and fielded plenty of questions regarding his views on the health-care system .
Photos of Barack Obama and his family , which lined walls in the West Wing of the White House , are removed on Thursday , January 19 . Obama 's presidency came to an end the following day , when Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president . The Obamas are moving to a house in Washington 's Kalorama neighborhood .
Donald Trump arrives on the West Front of the Capitol prior to being sworn-in as president on Friday , January 20 .
Donald Trump arrives on the West Front of the Capitol prior to being sworn-in as president on Friday , January 20 .
Trump supporters listen during the inauguration in Washington on Friday , January 20 .
Trump supporters listen during the inauguration in Washington on Friday , January 20 .
Protesters stream onto Independence Avenue at the Women 's March on Washington during the first full day of Donald Trump 's presidency , Saturday , January 21 , in Washington DC .
Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States as his wife , Melania , looks on during the inauguration ceremony in Washington on Friday , January 20 . He used a family bible and one that belonged to Abraham Lincoln .
Trump 's visit , his first official one since becoming President , was seen as part of a bid to mend fences after he strained relations with intelligence officials by repeatedly casting doubt on their assessment that Russia had carried out cyberattacks during the campaign . He also suggested that the intelligence community was leaking information about the investigation to the press , taking to Twitter to slam Brennan , a 25-year veteran of the agency .
The President sought to send a message of support to the intelligence community following the turbulent transition , telling the 300 employees in attendance , `` I am so behind you . ''
`` I am with you 1,000 % , '' Trump said after receiving intelligence briefings from top agency officials .
`` There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump , '' he said to applause , adding at the end of his remarks , `` I love you . I respect you . We 're going to start winning again , and you 're going to be leading the charge . ''
Trump blamed the `` dishonest '' media for the perceived rift with the intelligence community .
Many observers had commented on the unmatched level of skepticism Trump had directed at the US intelligence apparatus , and other speakers Saturday addressed the relationship between presidents and the intelligence community .
`` CIA 's relationship with the president has been essential to our nation 's strength and security , '' acting director Meroe Park said prior to introducing Trump and Vice President Mike Pence .
JUST WATCHED Trump visits CIA on day two of presidency Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump visits CIA on day two of presidency 03:53
`` I can assure you this new President and our entire team recognizes and appreciates the sacrifices of all of the men and women of the intelligence community of the United States of America , '' Pence told the assembled group .
Trump echoed Pence 's praise but drew the ire of Brennan as well as Democrats for using the platform to address political issues entirely unrelated to the CIA .
The backlash from a agency veteran like Brennan could undermine Trump 's latest push to foster a strong relationship between the White House and the intelligence community .
The President did take a moment to acknowledge the memorial behind him , saying , `` The wall behind me is very , very special . ''
Trump also spoke about his desire to `` eradicate radical Islamic terrorism ... off the face of the earth . This is evil . ''
And he said about Iraq , `` We should have kept the oil . Maybe we 'll have another chance . ''
But Trump 's off-the-cuff remarks veered into political territory at times , something not typically seen in addresses to intelligence professionals who pride themselves on being non-partisan and which drew a quick attack from Democrats .
The CIA audience was separated into two sections : a main area of all agency staff and a separate section directly in front of the stage that consisted of senior agency leadership , including agents . During Trump 's address , the senior leadership stood the entire time . When Trump began drifting into political topics , the main crowd broke into cheers and applause at points . The senior leadership remained stoic , and did not applaud the political lines .
The president also repeatedly slammed the media , saying , `` I have a running war with the media '' and accusing news organizations of misrepresenting the size of the crowds at his inauguration speech on Friday .
He talked about the number of times he has been on the cover of Time magazine .
The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee issued a statement shortly after Trump 's visit ripping the new president .
`` While standing in front of the stars representing CIA personnel who lost their lives in the service of their country -- hallowed ground -- Trump gave little more than a perfunctory acknowledgment of their service and sacrifice , '' Rep. Adam Schiff said , adding that Trump `` meandered through a variety of other topics unrelated to intelligence . ''
`` He will need to do more than use the agency memorial as a backdrop if he wants to earn the respect of the men and women who provide the best intelligence in the world , '' Schiff added .
The visit comes amid questions regarding the status of Trump 's choice to run the agency , Rep. Mike Pompeo .
The CIA , currently being led by Park , is lacking a permanent chief as the Senate has delayed Pompeo 's confirmation vote until Monday , with Democrats citing concerns about his positions on surveillance and other issues .
Pompeo , who was at the CIA with Trump , has encountered some controversy after he submitted responses to a Senate questionnaire where he said he would consider bringing back waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation measures under certain circumstances .
JUST WATCHED Nunes : Pompeo metadata issue will not be revisited Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Nunes : Pompeo metadata issue will not be revisited 00:54
Republicans have slammed the delay , with Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas issuing a statement , saying , `` The Democrats are obstructing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as CIA director for no good reason . ''
`` I hope the jihadists take the weekend off from trying to kill Americans , '' Cotton added .
|
Washington (CNN) Former CIA Director John Brennan is "deeply saddened and angered" at President Donald Trump after the commander in chief addressed CIA employees at their headquarters in Langley, Virginia, on Saturday, Brennan's former deputy chief of staff says.
Trump spent much of his speech -- which he gave in front of a memorial wall that honors the 117 CIA officers who have fallen in the line of duty -- focusing on the size of the crowd size at his inauguration, his appearance on magazine covers and saying he "has a running war with the media."
"Former CIA Director Brennan is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of CIA's Memorial Wall of Agency heroes," Nick Shapiro said in a statement. "Brennan says that Trump should be ashamed of himself."
One source who attended Trump's appearance said many people there were troubled by the political aspect of the remarks, in which the president speculated about how many people in the room may have voted for him.
"We are not political in that way," the source said. "Talking about whether we voted for Trump is offensive and foreign to us by the president ... Many people felt used and awkward throughout. Of course there was applause, but it was uncomfortable."
Barack Obama waves as he boards a military helicopter to depart Washington on Friday, January 20, following the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. Post-presidency , Obama said he wants to begin writing a book with the help of his White House speechwriter, Cody Keenan. He's also named a senior adviser and a chief of staff for his private office, and on Friday a website that allows users to inquire about his upcoming speaking engagements went live.
The White House is seen through morning fog on Wednesday, January 18.
The White House is seen through morning fog on Wednesday, January 18.
Sen. Chris Coons meets with Nikki Haley, President Donald Trump's pick for US ambassador to the United Nations, in Washington on Tuesday, January 17.
Sen. Chris Coons meets with Nikki Haley, President Donald Trump's pick for US ambassador to the United Nations, in Washington on Tuesday, January 17.
Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, visit the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday, January 19.
Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, visit the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday, January 19.
Ben Carson, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, speaks on his cell phone during the Traditional Values Coalition's Christian Inaugural Gala in Washington on Thursday, January 19.
Ben Carson, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, speaks on his cell phone during the Traditional Values Coalition's Christian Inaugural Gala in Washington on Thursday, January 19.
Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Education Department, attends her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, January 17. DeVos, who has spent millions to advance conservative causes in her home state of Michigan and across the country, was questioned by Democratic senators who believe she is not qualified to lead the nation's education system.
Donald Trump shakes hands with Martin Luther King III after their meeting at Trump Tower in New York on Monday, January 16. Trump called on Americans to observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day and "celebrate all of the many wonderful things that he stood for."
Hillary Clinton, who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, smiles before the start of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday, January 20. Around her are former President Bill Clinton, former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, as well as former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.
Hillary Clinton, who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, smiles before the start of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday, January 20. Around her are former President Bill Clinton, former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, as well as former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.
Donald Trump holds the hand of Kellyanne Conway, his senior adviser, as she takes a bow during a VIP reception and dinner with donors in Washington on Thursday, January 19, the night before Trump's presidential inauguration.
Donald Trump holds the hand of Kellyanne Conway, his senior adviser, as she takes a bow during a VIP reception and dinner with donors in Washington on Thursday, January 19, the night before Trump's presidential inauguration.
Rick Perry, President Trump's nominee for secretary of energy, is sworn in before his confirmation hearing in on Thursday, January 19. Perry, who once felt the Department of Energy should be shut down, said at the hearing that he regrets calling for the agency's elimination.
A protester is carried off by authorities prior to the start of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday, January 20.
A protester is carried off by authorities prior to the start of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration in Washington on Friday, January 20.
President Donald Trump and his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, kiss and dance on stage during A Salute To Our Armed Services Inaugural Ball at the National Building Museum on Friday, January 20, in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump and his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, kiss and dance on stage during A Salute To Our Armed Services Inaugural Ball at the National Building Museum on Friday, January 20, in Washington, DC.
Then-President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, walk with a group of children at the "Jobs Have Priority" Naylor Road Family Shelter in Washington on Monday, January 16 -- Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The Obamas donated a swingset formerly used by their two daughters, Sasha and Malia, to the DC shelter.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse points to a chart as he questions Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, during Pruitt's confirmation hearing on Wednesday, January 18. Although Pruitt broke with Trump and said he doesn't believe climate change is a hoax, he did not indicate he would take swift action to address environmental issues that may contribute to climate change.
Tom Price, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, pauses during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, January 18. During his four-hour hearing, Price defended himself from accusations of inappropriate financial investments and fielded plenty of questions regarding his views on the health-care system.
Photos of Barack Obama and his family, which lined walls in the West Wing of the White House, are removed on Thursday, January 19. Obama's presidency came to an end the following day, when Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president. The Obamas are moving to a house in Washington's Kalorama neighborhood.
Donald Trump arrives on the West Front of the Capitol prior to being sworn-in as president on Friday, January 20.
Donald Trump arrives on the West Front of the Capitol prior to being sworn-in as president on Friday, January 20.
Trump supporters listen during the inauguration in Washington on Friday, January 20.
Trump supporters listen during the inauguration in Washington on Friday, January 20.
Protesters stream onto Independence Avenue at the Women's March on Washington during the first full day of Donald Trump's presidency, Saturday, January 21, in Washington DC.
Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States as his wife, Melania, looks on during the inauguration ceremony in Washington on Friday, January 20. He used a family bible and one that belonged to Abraham Lincoln.
Trump's visit, his first official one since becoming President, was seen as part of a bid to mend fences after he strained relations with intelligence officials by repeatedly casting doubt on their assessment that Russia had carried out cyberattacks during the campaign. He also suggested that the intelligence community was leaking information about the investigation to the press, taking to Twitter to slam Brennan, a 25-year veteran of the agency.
The President sought to send a message of support to the intelligence community following the turbulent transition, telling the 300 employees in attendance, "I am so behind you."
"I am with you 1,000%," Trump said after receiving intelligence briefings from top agency officials.
"There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump," he said to applause, adding at the end of his remarks, "I love you. I respect you. We're going to start winning again, and you're going to be leading the charge."
Trump blamed the "dishonest" media for the perceived rift with the intelligence community.
Many observers had commented on the unmatched level of skepticism Trump had directed at the US intelligence apparatus, and other speakers Saturday addressed the relationship between presidents and the intelligence community.
"CIA's relationship with the president has been essential to our nation's strength and security," acting director Meroe Park said prior to introducing Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
JUST WATCHED Trump visits CIA on day two of presidency Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump visits CIA on day two of presidency 03:53
"I can assure you this new President and our entire team recognizes and appreciates the sacrifices of all of the men and women of the intelligence community of the United States of America," Pence told the assembled group.
Trump echoed Pence's praise but drew the ire of Brennan as well as Democrats for using the platform to address political issues entirely unrelated to the CIA.
The backlash from a agency veteran like Brennan could undermine Trump's latest push to foster a strong relationship between the White House and the intelligence community.
The President did take a moment to acknowledge the memorial behind him, saying, "The wall behind me is very, very special."
Trump also spoke about his desire to "eradicate radical Islamic terrorism ... off the face of the earth. This is evil."
And he said about Iraq, "We should have kept the oil. Maybe we'll have another chance."
But Trump's off-the-cuff remarks veered into political territory at times, something not typically seen in addresses to intelligence professionals who pride themselves on being non-partisan and which drew a quick attack from Democrats.
The CIA audience was separated into two sections: a main area of all agency staff and a separate section directly in front of the stage that consisted of senior agency leadership, including agents. During Trump's address, the senior leadership stood the entire time. When Trump began drifting into political topics, the main crowd broke into cheers and applause at points. The senior leadership remained stoic, and did not applaud the political lines.
The president also repeatedly slammed the media, saying, "I have a running war with the media" and accusing news organizations of misrepresenting the size of the crowds at his inauguration speech on Friday.
He talked about the number of times he has been on the cover of Time magazine.
The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee issued a statement shortly after Trump's visit ripping the new president.
"While standing in front of the stars representing CIA personnel who lost their lives in the service of their country -- hallowed ground -- Trump gave little more than a perfunctory acknowledgment of their service and sacrifice," Rep. Adam Schiff said, adding that Trump "meandered through a variety of other topics unrelated to intelligence."
"He will need to do more than use the agency memorial as a backdrop if he wants to earn the respect of the men and women who provide the best intelligence in the world," Schiff added.
The visit comes amid questions regarding the status of Trump's choice to run the agency, Rep. Mike Pompeo.
The CIA, currently being led by Park, is lacking a permanent chief as the Senate has delayed Pompeo's confirmation vote until Monday, with Democrats citing concerns about his positions on surveillance and other issues.
Pompeo, who was at the CIA with Trump, has encountered some controversy after he submitted responses to a Senate questionnaire where he said he would consider bringing back waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation measures under certain circumstances.
JUST WATCHED Nunes: Pompeo metadata issue will not be revisited Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Nunes: Pompeo metadata issue will not be revisited 00:54
Republicans have slammed the delay, with Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas issuing a statement, saying, "The Democrats are obstructing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as CIA director for no good reason."
"I hope the jihadists take the weekend off from trying to kill Americans," Cotton added.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
rLOuaLNdi68aQRa3
|
elections
|
RealClearPolitics
| 11
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/hannity_wikileaks_proves_everything_that_conspiracy_theorists_said_was_true.html
|
Hannity: WikiLeaks Proves That "Everything The Conspiracy Theorists Said" Was True
|
2016-10-12
|
Radio host Sean Hannity said on his show Wednesday that the latest revelations about Hillary Clinton 's campaign from WikiLeaks prove that `` everything that conspiracy theorists have said over the years '' is true .
-- `` Hillary knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS . ''
-- `` Hillary Clinton ’ s dream of a hemispheric common market ; open trade and open borders . ''
-- `` Left wing activists plot [ ting ] a Catholic Spring and [ infiltrating ] the Catholic Church . ''
-- The media `` conspiring to release [ debate ] quesitons to Hillary Clinton ahead of time . ''
`` They ’ re propagandizing you , they ’ re posing as objective journalists and they are not , '' he said about CNN , the New York Times , CNBC and the Boston Globe . `` This is a mass media assault on your mind . ''
`` This is like , you know , Communism in the Soviet Union propaganda , '' he said . `` It ’ s really sad but it 's also true and it 's also reality and it 's also the world you live in . ''
SEAN HANNITY ( HOST ) : I want to go over this , what I 'm calling a Republican establishment , Democratic establishment , media establishment , globalist , lobbyist , UN establishment .
It 's everything that conspiracy theorists have said over the years , and all of this is out there now in the open , in terms of what Hillary Clinton thinks and what she believes and what John Podesta thinks about Catholics and well let 's have left wing activists plot a Catholic Spring and lets infiltrate the Catholic Church . Let 's advance our progressive ideology to foment revolution . Who thinks like this ? This is like , you know , Communism in the Soviet Union propaganda . It ’ s really sad but it 's also true and it 's also reality and it 's also the world you live in .
You know , Hillary Clinton ’ s dream of a hemispheric common market , open trade and open borders . She said that in one of her speeches . Hillary Clinton campaign said they wanted to face Trump in the general election .
Okay , let 's see what happens in 27 days . I still think Trump can win . Now for the Nate Silvers of the world who say “ Hannity does n't believe in polls , he only cites online polling after Trump wins the debate . ”
No , that ’ s not true . The polls right now are not accurate , because the polls out now reflect 72 straight hours more coverage of the Access Hollywood tapes that we now know that NBC purposely delayed the release of , to time it before the debate as TMZ reports .
So it does n't reflect Donald Trump 's incredible debate performance , it does n't reflect yet another 1200 WikiLeak drops today , it does n't reflect what we 've learned from the previous Wikileaks drops , it does n't reflect that , you know , that Hillary knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS , it does n't reflect the media -- you know what this is , this is a media assault on your mind .
Cause they ’ re propagandizing you , they ’ re posing as objective journalists and they are not as we know about Univision , as we know about NBC , as we know about CNBC , as we know about the New York Times and the Boston Globe and CNN . And we also know that they conspire and release questions to Hillary ahead of time . We know all of this is true .
|
Radio host Sean Hannity said on his show Wednesday that the latest revelations about Hillary Clinton's campaign from WikiLeaks prove that "everything that conspiracy theorists have said over the years" is true.
His examples:
-- "Hillary knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS."
-- "Hillary Clinton’s dream of a hemispheric common market; open trade and open borders."
-- "Left wing activists plot[ting] a Catholic Spring and [infiltrating] the Catholic Church."
-- The media "conspiring to release [debate] quesitons to Hillary Clinton ahead of time."
-- Clinton aides "advancing progressive ideology to foment revolution."
"They’re propagandizing you, they’re posing as objective journalists and they are not," he said about CNN, the New York Times, CNBC and the Boston Globe. "This is a mass media assault on your mind."
"This is like, you know, Communism in the Soviet Union propaganda," he said. "It’s really sad but it's also true and it's also reality and it's also the world you live in."
SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I want to go over this, what I'm calling a Republican establishment, Democratic establishment, media establishment, globalist, lobbyist, UN establishment.
It's everything that conspiracy theorists have said over the years, and all of this is out there now in the open, in terms of what Hillary Clinton thinks and what she believes and what John Podesta thinks about Catholics and well let's have left wing activists plot a Catholic Spring and lets infiltrate the Catholic Church. Let's advance our progressive ideology to foment revolution. Who thinks like this? This is like, you know, Communism in the Soviet Union propaganda. It’s really sad but it's also true and it's also reality and it's also the world you live in.
You know, Hillary Clinton’s dream of a hemispheric common market, open trade and open borders. She said that in one of her speeches. Hillary Clinton campaign said they wanted to face Trump in the general election.
Okay, let's see what happens in 27 days. I still think Trump can win. Now for the Nate Silvers of the world who say “Hannity doesn't believe in polls, he only cites online polling after Trump wins the debate.”
No, that’s not true. The polls right now are not accurate, because the polls out now reflect 72 straight hours more coverage of the Access Hollywood tapes that we now know that NBC purposely delayed the release of, to time it before the debate as TMZ reports.
So it doesn't reflect Donald Trump's incredible debate performance, it doesn't reflect yet another 1200 WikiLeak drops today, it doesn't reflect what we've learned from the previous Wikileaks drops, it doesn't reflect that, you know, that Hillary knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS, it doesn't reflect the media -- you know what this is, this is a media assault on your mind.
What you mean by that Hannity?
Cause they’re propagandizing you, they’re posing as objective journalists and they are not as we know about Univision, as we know about NBC, as we know about CNBC, as we know about the New York Times and the Boston Globe and CNN. And we also know that they conspire and release questions to Hillary ahead of time. We know all of this is true.
(Video via Media Matters
|
www.realclearpolitics.com
| 2center
|
4iLo2x6nLFpV7sYs
|
|
economy_and_jobs
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/trump-is-more-unpopular-than-any-president-with-a-strong-economy?srnd=premium
|
There’s Never Been a President This Unpopular With an Economy This Good
|
2018-09-12
|
Alexandre Tanzi, Rich Miller
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 2:55 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
President Donald Trump ’ s unpopularity is unprecedented given the strength of the economy .
That ’ s according to a ███ analysis of polling data . It shows that Trump is the first U.S. leader dating back to at least Ronald Reagan whose approval rating is consistently low and lagging consumers ’ favorable assessment of the economy .
Trump Drag Unlike his predecessors , Trump 's popularity has persistently trailed sentiment about the economy Sources : ███ CCI national economy subindex and Gallup Poll
“ There ’ s a huge disconnect , ” said Karlyn Bowman , a senior fellow and public opinion polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative think tank based in Washington . “ The economy doesn ’ t seem to be dominating in a way that it often does in elections . ”
That ’ s a big problem for Republicans as they try to maintain control of Congress . White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney acknowledged as much last week , telling Republican backers in a private meeting that they needed to get voters to focus on the economy and not on Trump in November , according to the New York Times .
There ’ s little doubt that the economy is on a roll -- though it ’ s not doing quite as well as the president maintained in a hyperbolic tweet on Monday suggesting its performance may be the best ever . Gross domestic product expanded at its fastest clip in four years in the second quarter . Unemployment is a near the lowest since the 1960s and wages look to be finally on the rise .
What ’ s more , households agree that the economy is doing well , according to the weekly ███ Consumer Comfort poll .
The trouble for Trump : While consumer sentiment on the economy is currently higher than the average of any president since the poll started in the 1980 ’ s , his approval rating as measured by a separate Washington Post/ABC News survey is the lowest of the lot . That ’ s according to calculations by Langer Research Associates , which oversees polling for the ███ Consumer Comfort Index .
Unprecedented Times Trump is the only leader in recent history whose approval rating has lagged economic sentiment Source : Langer Research Associates , citing Washington Post/ABC News | ███ Consumer Comfort Index
“ The economy booms , but President Donald Trump ’ s numbers are a bust , ” said Quinnipiac University pollster Tim Malloy .
AEI ’ s Bowman attributed Americans ’ differing assessments of the economy and the president to “ Trump ’ s personality and the circus in Washington , which seems to daily drown out everything else . ”
The result of all the ramped-up rhetoric in the nation ’ s capital : Republicans and Democrats are as divided as they ’ ve been for 14 years when it comes to their overall assessment of how they ’ re doing .
A polarization index , which measures the difference in sentiment between supporters of the two parties in the Consumer Comfort poll , shows the gap widening rapidly since Trump took office in January 2017 . It ’ s now approaching levels last seen in 2004 during the height of the war in Iraq .
One bright spot for Trump and the Republicans does shine through in the ███ Consumer Comfort survey . Unlike Democrats , political independents have grown more optimistic as the economy has forged ahead .
Two caveats , however : Independents are not nearly as upbeat as Republicans are and a clear majority of them still disapprove of the president ’ s overall performance , according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll .
Clearly , “ a strong economy does not guarantee a popular presidency , ” said Gary Langer of New York-based Langer Research Associates .
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 2:55 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
President Donald Trump’s unpopularity is unprecedented given the strength of the economy.
That’s according to a Bloomberg analysis of polling data. It shows that Trump is the first U.S. leader dating back to at least Ronald Reagan whose approval rating is consistently low and lagging consumers’ favorable assessment of the economy.
Trump Drag Unlike his predecessors, Trump's popularity has persistently trailed sentiment about the economy Sources: Bloomberg CCI national economy subindex and Gallup Poll
“There’s a huge disconnect,” said Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow and public opinion polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington. “The economy doesn’t seem to be dominating in a way that it often does in elections.”
That’s a big problem for Republicans as they try to maintain control of Congress. White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney acknowledged as much last week, telling Republican backers in a private meeting that they needed to get voters to focus on the economy and not on Trump in November, according to the New York Times.
There’s little doubt that the economy is on a roll -- though it’s not doing quite as well as the president maintained in a hyperbolic tweet on Monday suggesting its performance may be the best ever. Gross domestic product expanded at its fastest clip in four years in the second quarter. Unemployment is a near the lowest since the 1960s and wages look to be finally on the rise.
What’s more, households agree that the economy is doing well, according to the weekly Bloomberg Consumer Comfort poll.
The trouble for Trump: While consumer sentiment on the economy is currently higher than the average of any president since the poll started in the 1980’s, his approval rating as measured by a separate Washington Post/ABC News survey is the lowest of the lot. That’s according to calculations by Langer Research Associates, which oversees polling for the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index.
Unprecedented Times Trump is the only leader in recent history whose approval rating has lagged economic sentiment Source: Langer Research Associates, citing Washington Post/ABC News | Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index
“The economy booms, but President Donald Trump’s numbers are a bust,” said Quinnipiac University pollster Tim Malloy.
AEI’s Bowman attributed Americans’ differing assessments of the economy and the president to “Trump’s personality and the circus in Washington, which seems to daily drown out everything else.”
The result of all the ramped-up rhetoric in the nation’s capital: Republicans and Democrats are as divided as they’ve been for 14 years when it comes to their overall assessment of how they’re doing.
A polarization index, which measures the difference in sentiment between supporters of the two parties in the Consumer Comfort poll, shows the gap widening rapidly since Trump took office in January 2017. It’s now approaching levels last seen in 2004 during the height of the war in Iraq.
One bright spot for Trump and the Republicans does shine through in the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort survey. Unlike Democrats, political independents have grown more optimistic as the economy has forged ahead.
Two caveats, however: Independents are not nearly as upbeat as Republicans are and a clear majority of them still disapprove of the president’s overall performance, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Clearly, “a strong economy does not guarantee a popular presidency,” said Gary Langer of New York-based Langer Research Associates.
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
TcPfkuQeJXwPgu7W
|
us_house
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/steve-bannon-house-russia-trump
|
Trump-Russia: Steve Bannon to face grilling by House investigators
|
2018-01-16
|
Sabrina Siddiqui, Ben Jacobs
|
The House intelligence committee on Tuesday questioned Steve Bannon , the one-time confidant to Donald Trump . The New York Times reported , meanwhile , that Bannon has been subpoenaed by the special counsel , Robert Mueller , as part of his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election .
'It 's all explosive ' : Michael Wolff on Donald Trump Read more
The House panel is speeding toward a conclusion of its investigation into Russian meddling and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow .
Mueller ’ s investigation , which has led to two indictments and two guilty pleas from Trump campaign aides , has shown no sign of flagging . According to the Times , the subpoena for Bannon to appear before a grand jury was issued last week .
A spokesperson for the former White House aide did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Bannon lost the backing of key Republican donors and his position at the hard-right Breitbart News after the publication , first reported by ███ , of an explosive book on the Trump White House by the journalist Michael Wolff .
The former White House strategist was a key source for the book , in which he was quoted as calling a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Trump aides including Donald Trump Jr and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner “ treasonous ” , “ unpatriotic ” and “ bad shit ” .
Quick guide What are the Trump-Russia congressional inquiries ? Show Hide Beyond Mueller Three separate congressional committees are investigating Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign : the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees , and the House intelligence committee . The committees have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents . The list of witnesses to have been interviewed so far is long , and includes Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner , as well as lesser figures such as former adviser Carter Page ; Glenn Simpson , the co-founder of Fusion GPS , which commissioned the Steele dossier ; and Ben Rhodes , the former Obama adviser . Senate intelligence committee The most aggressive of the three committees so far , with a reasonable appearance of bipartisanship . Republican chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina said in October that the question of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives remained open . But Burr has also said the committee was not focused on “ criminal acts ” but a larger picture . The committee notably heard testimony from James Comey after the former FBI director was fired . Senate judiciary committee Hampered early on by partisan disagreement about the scope of its investigation , the committee has interviewed top witnesses including Donald Trump Jr and has taken a particular focus on the firing of James Comey . But the committee has deferred to Mueller in the investigation of Paul Manafort and has interviewed fewer witnesses than others .
House intelligence committee Riven by partisan conflict , the committee appears to be on track to produce two reports – one from each party . Chairman Devin Nunes recused himself from the inquiry in March after Trump tweeted that Barack Obama had `` tapp [ ed ] my phones '' and Nunes , in an apparent attempt to defend the president , revealed that some communications involving Trump aides had been intercepted by US surveillance programs .
The Trump aides believed the Russians at the meeting had “ dirt ” on Hillary Clinton , the Democratic candidate for president .
“ The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers , ” Bannon is quoted as saying in the book , Fire and Fury .
“ They didn ’ t have any lawyers . Even if you thought that this was not treasonous , or unpatriotic , or bad shit , and I happen to think it ’ s all of that , you should have called the FBI immediately . ”
Bannon also gave a prescription for how such a meeting should have been set up and said he believed the Russians would probably have been introduced to Donald Trump .
“ The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father ’ s office on the 26th floor is zero , ” he said .
The Trump White House was now “ sitting on a beach trying to stop a category five ” hurricane , he said , adding that Mueller ’ s investigators would “ crack Don Jr like an egg on national TV ” .
Bannon ’ s interview with the House panel was held behind closed doors . It was be his first appearance before any committees investigating Russian interference .
Trump Jr was interviewed by the House intelligence panel in December , behind closed doors and for roughly seven hours . He was pressed in particular on the nature of the meeting at Trump Tower and his contacts with WikiLeaks , which published hacked emails from the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee .
Trump Jr reportedly shared with senior Trump officials , including Bannon , details of his correspondence with WikiLeaks . Democrats on the House committee have expressed a desire to hear from Bannon about what he observed , and why he suggested to Wolff that Mueller would focus on money laundering .
Bannon ’ s name has also surfaced in other aspects of the investigation . The fiancée of George Papadopoulos , the former foreign policy aide who has been cooperating with Mueller since July , said Bannon was informed by Papadopoulos of his contacts with Russians .
During the transition , Bannon was forwarded an email pertaining to a pending discussion about US sanctions between then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Michael Flynn , who had been appointed as national security adviser .
Flynn , who was fired last February for misleading vice-president Mike Pence about his communications with Kislyak , reached a plea deal with Mueller in December . He was charged with lying to the FBI .
How Bannon turned on Trump … and where the nationalist right goes next Read more
Prior to the fallout from Wolff ’ s book , Bannon was also closely connected to Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah , billionaire backers of Trump and conservative causes . The Mercers family is a major investor in Cambridge Analytica , a company that contacted WikiLeaks about Clinton ’ s emails just before it was hired by the Trump campaign .
Bannon , who also told Wolff he knows no Russians , would not be a witness in any investigations , would not hire a lawyer and would not appear on national TV answering questions , recently retained the same lawyer being used by former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus .
In the explosion of controversy from Wolff ’ s book , Trump disavowed “ Sloppy Steve ” and argued there was no evidence of collusion between his presidential campaign and operatives tied to Vladimir Putin .
Bannon rowed back , saying his remarks about the “ treasonous ” meeting had only referred to Paul Manafort , his predecessor in charge of the Trump campaign who is one of the four aides indicted by Mueller . Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money-laundering charges . A hearing in that case was also scheduled for Tuesday .
|
The House intelligence committee on Tuesday questioned Steve Bannon, the one-time confidant to Donald Trump. The New York Times reported, meanwhile, that Bannon has been subpoenaed by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, as part of his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
'It's all explosive': Michael Wolff on Donald Trump Read more
The House panel is speeding toward a conclusion of its investigation into Russian meddling and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
Mueller’s investigation, which has led to two indictments and two guilty pleas from Trump campaign aides, has shown no sign of flagging. According to the Times, the subpoena for Bannon to appear before a grand jury was issued last week.
A spokesperson for the former White House aide did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Bannon lost the backing of key Republican donors and his position at the hard-right Breitbart News after the publication, first reported by the Guardian, of an explosive book on the Trump White House by the journalist Michael Wolff.
The former White House strategist was a key source for the book, in which he was quoted as calling a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Trump aides including Donald Trump Jr and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner “treasonous”, “unpatriotic” and “bad shit”.
Quick guide What are the Trump-Russia congressional inquiries? Show Hide Beyond Mueller Three separate congressional committees are investigating Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign: the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees, and the House intelligence committee. The committees have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. The list of witnesses to have been interviewed so far is long, and includes Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner, as well as lesser figures such as former adviser Carter Page; Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, which commissioned the Steele dossier; and Ben Rhodes, the former Obama adviser. Senate intelligence committee The most aggressive of the three committees so far, with a reasonable appearance of bipartisanship. Republican chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina said in October that the question of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives remained open. But Burr has also said the committee was not focused on “criminal acts” but a larger picture. The committee notably heard testimony from James Comey after the former FBI director was fired. Senate judiciary committee Hampered early on by partisan disagreement about the scope of its investigation, the committee has interviewed top witnesses including Donald Trump Jr and has taken a particular focus on the firing of James Comey. But the committee has deferred to Mueller in the investigation of Paul Manafort and has interviewed fewer witnesses than others.
House intelligence committee Riven by partisan conflict, the committee appears to be on track to produce two reports – one from each party. Chairman Devin Nunes recused himself from the inquiry in March after Trump tweeted that Barack Obama had "tapp[ed] my phones" and Nunes, in an apparent attempt to defend the president, revealed that some communications involving Trump aides had been intercepted by US surveillance programs.
The Trump aides believed the Russians at the meeting had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president.
“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers,” Bannon is quoted as saying in the book, Fire and Fury.
“They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Bannon also gave a prescription for how such a meeting should have been set up and said he believed the Russians would probably have been introduced to Donald Trump.
“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the 26th floor is zero,” he said.
The Trump White House was now “sitting on a beach trying to stop a category five” hurricane, he said, adding that Mueller’s investigators would “crack Don Jr like an egg on national TV”.
Bannon’s interview with the House panel was held behind closed doors. It was be his first appearance before any committees investigating Russian interference.
Trump Jr was interviewed by the House intelligence panel in December, behind closed doors and for roughly seven hours. He was pressed in particular on the nature of the meeting at Trump Tower and his contacts with WikiLeaks, which published hacked emails from the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.
Trump Jr reportedly shared with senior Trump officials, including Bannon, details of his correspondence with WikiLeaks. Democrats on the House committee have expressed a desire to hear from Bannon about what he observed, and why he suggested to Wolff that Mueller would focus on money laundering.
Bannon’s name has also surfaced in other aspects of the investigation. The fiancée of George Papadopoulos, the former foreign policy aide who has been cooperating with Mueller since July, said Bannon was informed by Papadopoulos of his contacts with Russians.
During the transition, Bannon was forwarded an email pertaining to a pending discussion about US sanctions between then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Michael Flynn, who had been appointed as national security adviser.
Flynn, who was fired last February for misleading vice-president Mike Pence about his communications with Kislyak, reached a plea deal with Mueller in December. He was charged with lying to the FBI.
How Bannon turned on Trump … and where the nationalist right goes next Read more
Prior to the fallout from Wolff’s book, Bannon was also closely connected to Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, billionaire backers of Trump and conservative causes. The Mercers family is a major investor in Cambridge Analytica, a company that contacted WikiLeaks about Clinton’s emails just before it was hired by the Trump campaign.
Bannon, who also told Wolff he knows no Russians, would not be a witness in any investigations, would not hire a lawyer and would not appear on national TV answering questions, recently retained the same lawyer being used by former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus.
In the explosion of controversy from Wolff’s book, Trump disavowed “Sloppy Steve” and argued there was no evidence of collusion between his presidential campaign and operatives tied to Vladimir Putin.
Bannon rowed back, saying his remarks about the “treasonous” meeting had only referred to Paul Manafort, his predecessor in charge of the Trump campaign who is one of the four aides indicted by Mueller. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money-laundering charges. A hearing in that case was also scheduled for Tuesday.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
W7NMg0xIETDwJ6SE
|
immigration
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094
|
Government shutdown: Is there a crisis on the US-Mexico border?
|
Congress approved a humanitarian aid plan for migrants at the US-Mexico border , but the political crisis over how to deal with migrants attempting to reach the US continues .
Migrants continue to die en route to the border , including a Salvadorean father and daughter whose bodies were photographed lying face down in a river near the border . The photo has led to condemnation .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly used the term `` invasion '' to describe the situation on the US southern border .
In February he declared a `` national emergency '' in order to force through funding for his planned border wall .
However his opponents say his government has created a `` manufactured crisis '' .
The number of border apprehensions dropped by 28 % in June , according to US authorities .
The decline follows a record number of apprehensions between ports of entry in May - the highest in over a decade .
Apprehensions on US-Mexico border in 2019 Between ports of entry
Drops in migrations are typical during the summer months , where temperatures can soar above 32C , but this June saw a sharper decline than previous years .
Trump administration officials have attributed the decrease to new policies with Mexico to curb migration .
It 's impossible to say for certain , but US Border Patrol says it has made 688,375 southwest border apprehensions since October 2018 . The previous US fiscal year there were 303,916 , according to US Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) .
The number fell dramatically in President Trump 's first year but rose again last year .
The number of migrants apprehended at the border surged in May to the highest level since 2006 , with 132,887 detained - including 11,507 unaccompanied children . It was the first time that detentions had exceeded 100,000 since April 2007 .
The UN Missing Migrants project reports that 170 migrants have died or are missing on the US-Mexico border so far in 2019 - including 13 children . Border Patrol figures show that 283 died last year , but human rights activists say the number is likely to be higher .
Looking at the wider picture , until numbers rose this spring , there has been a sharp fall in the number of people arrested in the last 18 years .
But even before the 2019 spike , when migration numbers were in fact at historic lows , Mr Trump described the situation on the border as a national security crisis .
This year 's surge in migration is significant , if not the highest ever .
And changing migrant demographics have undoubtedly overwhelmed US agencies - but the situation along the border is a different kind of crisis than what the president described for years .
Apprehension numbers released by the CBP include asylum seekers ( a person who applies for refugee status at a US port of entry or from within the country ) .
In fiscal year 2018 , 92,959 people were deemed to have made claims of credible fear '' and asked for asylum at the border . That 's a pretty big jump from fiscal year 2017 , when 55,584 claims were made .
Kate Jastram , senior staff attorney for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law , says that families fleeing violence in Central America began to make up a much larger part of border crossings beginning in 2014 .
She says that has more to do with conditions in those countries than any immigration policy implemented by the Trump administration .
`` Single men from Mexico were by and large not seeking asylum , they were looking for work , '' says Jastram . `` [ Now ] we have families and children specifically seeking protection . ''
In November 2018 , a caravan of 7,000 migrants arrived at the US-Mexico border , many claiming to be fleeing violence in countries like Honduras , Guatemala and El Salvador . Mr Trump labelled the caravan an `` invasion '' .
Overall , the rate of asylum denials is on the rise in the US and has been for the past six years .
What has the Trump administration done to address all this ?
President Trump and his administration have tried a variety of deterrent measures affecting both illegal entrants and asylum seekers in recent years .
asylum seekers caught crossing illegally must wait across the border in Mexico for adjudication
border officials have decreased the number of asylum cases they process each day , a strategy called `` metering ''
last June , then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that claims of domestic and gang violence would no longer qualify as grounds for asylum in the US - this was defeated in court
most controversially , in spring , thousands of migrant children were separated from their parents at the border as a part of a `` zero tolerance policy '' that prosecuted anyone found crossing illegally
`` This situation is child abuse , '' Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of the government 's policy .
`` It is an atrocity that violates every value we have , not only as Americans , but as moral beings . ''
In May , an inspection at an El Paso Border Patrol station found that at one point 900 migrants had been crammed into the 125-person facility .
Do most illegal entries take place at the southern border ?
Illegal border crossings are not limited to the southern border - in 2017 , for example , there were also 3,027 illegal apprehensions along the Canadian border and 3,588 from the coastal border .
While cross-border migrants often make headlines , the largest number of illegal migrants settling in the US each year is those who stay in the country after their visas expire . This has been the case since 2007 , official statistics say .
In 2016 , there were a total of 739,478 overstays , compared to 563,204 illegal border crossings .
It 's also important to note that , according to the Pew Research Center , overall the number of immigrants living in the US illegally has actually declined since 2007 , in large part due to a dip in the number of people coming from Mexico . Apprehensions at the south-western border peaked at 1.64 million in 2000 .
In total , Pew estimates that in 2017 there were 10.5 million unauthorised immigrants living in the US .
A White House briefing report on immigration says 3,755 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US in the fiscal year 2017 .
But that includes terror suspects who have been stopped at any US border , and the vast majority are stopped at airports .
|
Image copyright Reuters Image caption The number of migrants detained in May was the highest since 2006
Congress approved a humanitarian aid plan for migrants at the US-Mexico border, but the political crisis over how to deal with migrants attempting to reach the US continues.
Migrants continue to die en route to the border, including a Salvadorean father and daughter whose bodies were photographed lying face down in a river near the border. The photo has led to condemnation.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly used the term "invasion" to describe the situation on the US southern border.
In February he declared a "national emergency" in order to force through funding for his planned border wall.
However his opponents say his government has created a "manufactured crisis".
So what's really happening?
What's happening at the border now?
The number of border apprehensions dropped by 28% in June, according to US authorities.
The decline follows a record number of apprehensions between ports of entry in May - the highest in over a decade.
Apprehensions on US-Mexico border in 2019 Between ports of entry
Drops in migrations are typical during the summer months, where temperatures can soar above 32C, but this June saw a sharper decline than previous years.
Trump administration officials have attributed the decrease to new policies with Mexico to curb migration.
How many people are crossing the border illegally?
It's impossible to say for certain, but US Border Patrol says it has made 688,375 southwest border apprehensions since October 2018. The previous US fiscal year there were 303,916, according to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The number fell dramatically in President Trump's first year but rose again last year.
The number of migrants apprehended at the border surged in May to the highest level since 2006, with 132,887 detained - including 11,507 unaccompanied children. It was the first time that detentions had exceeded 100,000 since April 2007.
The UN Missing Migrants project reports that 170 migrants have died or are missing on the US-Mexico border so far in 2019 - including 13 children. Border Patrol figures show that 283 died last year, but human rights activists say the number is likely to be higher.
Looking at the wider picture, until numbers rose this spring, there has been a sharp fall in the number of people arrested in the last 18 years.
But even before the 2019 spike, when migration numbers were in fact at historic lows, Mr Trump described the situation on the border as a national security crisis.
This year's surge in migration is significant, if not the highest ever.
And changing migrant demographics have undoubtedly overwhelmed US agencies - but the situation along the border is a different kind of crisis than what the president described for years.
What's different about migration now?
Apprehension numbers released by the CBP include asylum seekers (a person who applies for refugee status at a US port of entry or from within the country).
In fiscal year 2018, 92,959 people were deemed to have made claims of credible fear" and asked for asylum at the border. That's a pretty big jump from fiscal year 2017, when 55,584 claims were made.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Justice department says toothbrush and soap 'not required' for migrants
Kate Jastram, senior staff attorney for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, says that families fleeing violence in Central America began to make up a much larger part of border crossings beginning in 2014.
She says that has more to do with conditions in those countries than any immigration policy implemented by the Trump administration.
"Single men from Mexico were by and large not seeking asylum, they were looking for work," says Jastram. "[Now] we have families and children specifically seeking protection."
In November 2018, a caravan of 7,000 migrants arrived at the US-Mexico border, many claiming to be fleeing violence in countries like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Mr Trump labelled the caravan an "invasion".
Overall, the rate of asylum denials is on the rise in the US and has been for the past six years.
What has the Trump administration done to address all this?
President Trump and his administration have tried a variety of deterrent measures affecting both illegal entrants and asylum seekers in recent years.
They are:
asylum seekers caught crossing illegally must wait across the border in Mexico for adjudication
border officials have decreased the number of asylum cases they process each day, a strategy called "metering"
last June, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that claims of domestic and gang violence would no longer qualify as grounds for asylum in the US - this was defeated in court
most controversially, in spring, thousands of migrant children were separated from their parents at the border as a part of a "zero tolerance policy" that prosecuted anyone found crossing illegally
"This situation is child abuse," Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of the government's policy.
"It is an atrocity that violates every value we have, not only as Americans, but as moral beings."
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US migrant children "hungry, dirty, sick and scared" – lawyer Elora Mukherjee
In May, an inspection at an El Paso Border Patrol station found that at one point 900 migrants had been crammed into the 125-person facility.
Do most illegal entries take place at the southern border?
Illegal border crossings are not limited to the southern border - in 2017, for example, there were also 3,027 illegal apprehensions along the Canadian border and 3,588 from the coastal border.
While cross-border migrants often make headlines, the largest number of illegal migrants settling in the US each year is those who stay in the country after their visas expire. This has been the case since 2007, official statistics say.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What happens if Mexico doesn't stem the migrant flow?
In 2016, there were a total of 739,478 overstays, compared to 563,204 illegal border crossings.
It's also important to note that, according to the Pew Research Center, overall the number of immigrants living in the US illegally has actually declined since 2007, in large part due to a dip in the number of people coming from Mexico. Apprehensions at the south-western border peaked at 1.64 million in 2000.
In total, Pew estimates that in 2017 there were 10.5 million unauthorised immigrants living in the US.
What about terrorists?
A White House briefing report on immigration says 3,755 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US in the fiscal year 2017.
But that includes terror suspects who have been stopped at any US border, and the vast majority are stopped at airports.
Image copyright Reuters
Reporting by Micah Luxen, Jessica Lussenhop and Rajini Vaidyanathan
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
i1v6WUMBjWDvTEoQ
|
||
sexual_misconduct
|
New York Times - Opinion
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-jennifer-araoz.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
|
I Was Raped by Jeffrey Epstein When I Was 15
|
2019-08-14
|
Jennifer Araoz
|
During my freshman y ear , on e of Epstein ’ s recruiters , a stranger , approached me on the sidewalk outside my high school . Epstein never operated alone . He had a ring of enablers and surrounded himself with influential people . I was attending a performing arts school on the Upper East Side , studying musical theater . I wanted to be an actress and a singer .
The recruiter told me about a wealthy man she knew named Jeffrey Epstein . Meeting him would be beneficial , and he could introduce me to the right people for my career , she said . When I confided that I had recently lost my father and that my family was living on food stamps , she told me he was very caring and wanted to help us financially .
The visits during the first month felt b enign , at l east at the time . On my second visit , Epstein also gave me a digital camera as a gift . The visits were about one to two hours long and we would spend the time talking . After each visit , he or his secretary would hand me $ 300 in cash , supposedly to help my family .
But within about a month , he started asking me for massages and instructed me to take my top off . He said he would need to see my body if he was going to help me break into modeling . I felt uncomfortable and intimidated , but I did as he said . The assault escalated when , during these massages , he would flip over and sexually gratify himself and touch me inappropriately . For a little over a year , I went to Epstein ’ s home once or twice a week .
Image Jeffrey Epstein Credit ... Registro de Ofensores Sexuales en el Estado de Nueva York vía Associated Press
The last day I went to his house was during the fall of my sophomore year . This time , when I was giving him the massage , he told me to take off my underwear and get on top of him . When I said no , he got more aggressive , held me tightly and raped me .
|
During my freshman y ear, on e of Epstein ’s recruiters, a stranger, approached me on the sidewalk outside my high school. Epstein never operated alone. He had a ring of enablers and surrounded himself with influential people. I was attending a performing arts school on the Upper East Side, studying musical theater. I wanted to be an actress and a singer.
The recruiter told me about a wealthy man she knew named Jeffrey Epstein. Meeting him would be beneficial, and he could introduce me to the right people for my career, she said. When I confided that I had recently lost my father and that my family was living on food stamps, she told me he was very caring and wanted to help us financially.
The trap was set.
The visits during the first month felt b enign, at l east at the time. On my second visit, Epstein also gave me a digital camera as a gift. The visits were about one to two hours long and we would spend the time talking. After each visit, he or his secretary would hand me $300 in cash, supposedly to help my family.
But within about a month, he started asking me for massages and instructed me to take my top off. He said he would need to see my body if he was going to help me break into modeling. I felt uncomfortable and intimidated, but I did as he said. The assault escalated when, during these massages, he would flip over and sexually gratify himself and touch me inappropriately. For a little over a year, I went to Epstein’s home once or twice a week.
Image Jeffrey Epstein Credit... Registro de Ofensores Sexuales en el Estado de Nueva York vía Associated Press
The last day I went to his house was during the fall of my sophomore year. This time, when I was giving him the massage, he told me to take off my underwear and get on top of him. When I said no, he got more aggressive, held me tightly and raped me.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
8IzVL3Hnvt4e8T4j
|
education
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/09/200447019/congress-still-squabbling-over-student-loan-rate-increase
|
Congress Still Squabbling Over Student Loan Rate Increase
|
2013-07-09
|
Ailsa Chang
|
The Senate is planning to vote Wednesday on a plan to bring interest rates on subsidized federal student loans back down to 3.4 percent for one more year . The rate doubled on July 1 when the chamber failed to agree on a plan .
While the Senate prepares to take the issue back up , college students are left staring at several competing proposals .
This fight has been all about what 's best for those students . To make that point , House Republicans recently gathered more than 100 of them to sweat and squint under the summer sun for a press conference on the Capitol steps . The guys were wrapped in wool suits and ties — most of them congressional interns plucked from offices just that afternoon .
One of them was Wes Hodgin , who said he kept thinking one thing while he waited 45 minutes for House leaders to arrive : Do not faint .
`` I 'm just going to try to stand out here , sweat all I can , and just not faint today , '' he said .
Hodgin 's going to be a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this fall . He has student loans , but not the subsidized kind , so the rate doubling on July 1 technically did n't affect him .
Nevertheless , House Republicans had one central message : The Senate still has n't passed a student loan plan .
`` They 've been more involved in internal bickering rather than actually addressing the issue , '' said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers , chairwoman of the House Republican Conference . `` And the students that are surrounded with us today — they 're all suffering because of it . ''
Well , not quite yet . Most student loans are issued in August and September — a couple of weeks before classes begin — so as long as a deal goes through before then , the only students affected are the small group who borrowed money for summer school , and anything the Senate passes will likely retroactively apply to them anyway .
The holdup now in the Senate is where exactly to set interest rates and whether there should be a cap on those rates . The House plan has a cap . President Obama 's plan does n't . But Senate Democrats insist on a cap . So do student advocates , like Rory O'Sullivan of Young Invincibles .
`` We do n't believe that the federal government should be charging students higher interest rates to pay down the federal deficit , '' O'Sullivan says . `` In that case , you 're essentially trading government debt for student debt . ''
But there 's a catch with a cap : It 's expensive . You have to factor in the added cost if market rates exceed that cap one day . And if you want to make sure the federal student loan plan is budget-neutral , you 'll have to set student loan rates a little higher .
Chris Lindstrom of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group compares the federal student loan program to a balloon filled with air . `` If you squeeze the balloon in one part to make it thinner , it expands and gets fatter in another part of the balloon , '' Lindstrom explains . `` It 's a zero-sum game . You 're not putting any air into it . ''
No lawmaker wants to be accused of setting rates too high . But every long-term proposal pegs rates to the 10-year Treasury note . So that means the rates under almost all of those plans is expected to exceed 6.8 percent before 10 years , based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office . That 6.8 percent figure is what the rate for subsidized loans became after rates doubled on July 1 .
As for what proposal offers the lowest interest rate — whether it 's the House plan , the president 's plan , or one of the Senate proposals — the differences come down to 1 or 2 percentage points at most .
Jason Delisle of the New America Foundation says it makes sense to care about those percentage points when you 're talking about home mortgage rates , `` but a home mortgage is $ 200,000 , $ 300,000 , $ 400,000 . So moving the interest rate a little bit lower makes a big difference in your monthly payment . That 's not so on a $ 20,000 student loan .
Delisle says in that case , you 're talking about a difference of $ 10 , maybe $ 20 , a month . He says what people are really worried about is how unaffordable college is — and how much you actually have to borrow in the first place has a lot more to do with that problem than what your interest rate is .
|
Congress Still Squabbling Over Student Loan Rate Increase
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mario Tama/Getty Images Mario Tama/Getty Images
The Senate is planning to vote Wednesday on a plan to bring interest rates on subsidized federal student loans back down to 3.4 percent for one more year. The rate doubled on July 1 when the chamber failed to agree on a plan.
While the Senate prepares to take the issue back up, college students are left staring at several competing proposals.
This fight has been all about what's best for those students. To make that point, House Republicans recently gathered more than 100 of them to sweat and squint under the summer sun for a press conference on the Capitol steps. The guys were wrapped in wool suits and ties — most of them congressional interns plucked from offices just that afternoon.
One of them was Wes Hodgin, who said he kept thinking one thing while he waited 45 minutes for House leaders to arrive: Do not faint.
"I'm just going to try to stand out here, sweat all I can, and just not faint today," he said.
Hodgin's going to be a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this fall. He has student loans, but not the subsidized kind, so the rate doubling on July 1 technically didn't affect him.
Nevertheless, House Republicans had one central message: The Senate still hasn't passed a student loan plan.
"They've been more involved in internal bickering rather than actually addressing the issue," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference. "And the students that are surrounded with us today — they're all suffering because of it."
Well, not quite yet. Most student loans are issued in August and September — a couple of weeks before classes begin — so as long as a deal goes through before then, the only students affected are the small group who borrowed money for summer school, and anything the Senate passes will likely retroactively apply to them anyway.
The holdup now in the Senate is where exactly to set interest rates and whether there should be a cap on those rates. The House plan has a cap. President Obama's plan doesn't. But Senate Democrats insist on a cap. So do student advocates, like Rory O'Sullivan of Young Invincibles.
"We don't believe that the federal government should be charging students higher interest rates to pay down the federal deficit," O'Sullivan says. "In that case, you're essentially trading government debt for student debt."
But there's a catch with a cap: It's expensive. You have to factor in the added cost if market rates exceed that cap one day. And if you want to make sure the federal student loan plan is budget-neutral, you'll have to set student loan rates a little higher.
Chris Lindstrom of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group compares the federal student loan program to a balloon filled with air. "If you squeeze the balloon in one part to make it thinner, it expands and gets fatter in another part of the balloon," Lindstrom explains. "It's a zero-sum game. You're not putting any air into it."
No lawmaker wants to be accused of setting rates too high. But every long-term proposal pegs rates to the 10-year Treasury note. So that means the rates under almost all of those plans is expected to exceed 6.8 percent before 10 years, based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. That 6.8 percent figure is what the rate for subsidized loans became after rates doubled on July 1.
As for what proposal offers the lowest interest rate — whether it's the House plan, the president's plan, or one of the Senate proposals — the differences come down to 1 or 2 percentage points at most.
Jason Delisle of the New America Foundation says it makes sense to care about those percentage points when you're talking about home mortgage rates, "but a home mortgage is $200,000, $300,000, $400,000. So moving the interest rate a little bit lower makes a big difference in your monthly payment. That's not so on a $20,000 student loan.
Delisle says in that case, you're talking about a difference of $10, maybe $20, a month. He says what people are really worried about is how unaffordable college is — and how much you actually have to borrow in the first place has a lot more to do with that problem than what your interest rate is.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
wwo2shAeI4kLRlgR
|
terrorism
|
Vox
| 00
|
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9850570/san-bernardino-shooting-isis-reports
|
ISIS’s links to the San Bernardino shooting: what we actually know
|
2015-12-04
|
Zack Beauchamp, Ella Nilsen, Nicole Narea, German Lopez, Brian Resnick
|
Friday morning , multiple news outlets reported some disturbing news : One of the San Bernardino shooters , 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik , apparently pledged allegiance to ISIS in a Facebook post before the shooting .
These reports cite unnamed federal law enforcement officials , so it 's important to exercise caution about their veracity at this point . And even if they do turn out to be true , it 's important to be cautious about what they mean : The fact that a shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS does not mean ISIS planned the attack . Nor does it necessarily mean that ISIS is the reason the attack happened .
What follows is a brief guide to what we know about the shooters ' ISIS links — and what that tells us about the shootings themselves .
Before Friday , the evidence linking Malik and her husband/fellow shooter , Syed Rizwan Farook to Islamist extremism had been sketchy at best . As the Soufan Group , a private consulting firm that studies terrorism , explains , their stockpile of ammunition and bombs matches the pattern of terrorist groups — but the fact that Farook used to work in the same government department as the targets suggested a more personal motive .
But today 's reports , from the New York Times and the Associated Press , are the best evidence yet that the shooting was in some way linked to ISIS .
Both pieces cited anonymous US law enforcement officials saying that Malik had posted a now-deleted pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on her personal Facebook page . The reports did n't disclose how federal authorities found it , though we know that they had been conducting an extensive investigation into the now-deceased shooters ' electronic histories .
As the New York Times piece notes , `` In the days leading up to the shooting , the couple in San Bernardino took several steps to delete their electronic information , in an apparent effort to cover their tracks , officials said . Those efforts have led authorities to believe that the shooting was premeditated . ''
ISIS asks people committing terrorist attacks in its name for such pledges — called `` bayat '' in jihadi parlance — before the attack . As they explain in the most recent issue of their English-language magazine , Dabiq :
Let him record his will , renew his bayat , carry the Khilfah banner , and strike the crusaders and their pagan and apostate allies wherever he can find them , even if he is alone .
`` This MAY be what Tashfeen Malik did , '' Thomas Joscelyn , a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies , tweeted . `` Record her bayat ( allegiance ) for death . ''
Emphasis on `` may '' there : `` [ I ] have n't seen her recording , so do n't know for sure , '' Joscelyn concluded . More broadly , anonymous comments by federal officials to newspapers are n't definitive proof . So while Friday 's reports are the strongest evidence yet of an ISIS link , we still can not be certain that Malik and Farook were jihadis . The publicly available evidence is still too mixed .
If the message is real , it does not prove that the attack was directed by ISIS . According to the New York Times , US officials currently believe that the attackers had no links to ISIS headquarters in Iraq and Syria .
`` At this point we believe they were more self-radicalized and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting , '' one of the officials told the Times .
This is an important distinction : There is a very big difference between random people choosing to take up the ISIS banner and ISIS having the organizational wherewithal to plan and execute attacks from its home base . Random individuals inspired by ISIS are , fundamentally , less scary than an ISIS that 's centrally planning and launching attacks from a continent away . ISIS has a lot more money at its command , and far more experience , than individual attackers . That means it could pull off bigger attacks .
This became a major conversation topic after November 's Paris attacks , as it was n't obvious whether those attacks were planned by ISIS or inspired by the group ( the evidence now suggests at least some central planning ) . I asked Will McCants , the director of the Brookings Institution 's Project on US Relations With the Islamic World and the author of The ISIS Apocalypse , about it just after those attacks . He said that ISIS centrally planning attacks is definitely scarier .
`` ISIS is a state that has millions of dollars that it can spend on these kinds of operations , '' He said . `` We 're talking about an actual government that has money to put behind plots and has very motivated people . ''
That said , it 's plenty scary if the San Bernardino attacks were merely inspired by ISIS . It 's harder for law enforcement to track people who are operating independently of ISIS home base , so if those kinds of independent or `` lone wolf '' attacks become more common and sophisticated it could become a serious problem .
`` If [ ISIS Central is n't ] even trying to coordinate this kind of stuff , and their affiliates or fanboys can do it on their own , it 's quite troubling , '' McCants told me after Paris .
One final word of caution : Even if Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS before the attack , it does n't mean that ISIS is the key reason she and her husband decided to slaughter 14 innocent people . It could be that Farook had other reasons , as a result of his employment , to be angry at his former co-workers — and he and his wife latched onto ISIS ideology as a justification for something they wanted to do already .
Radicalization is a very complicated process ; ideology matters , but so do personal grievances . `` No one disputes the importance of factors other than ideology in the process of radicalization , '' Peter Neumann , the director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence , wrote in a 2013 paper . It 's just very hard to figure out the motivations behind violent attacks , especially with limited public information .
Bottom line : Malik 's pledge to ISIS , if real , suggests that ISIS may have played some role in motivating the San Bernardino shooting . But it 's far from obvious what that role might have been .
|
Friday morning, multiple news outlets reported some disturbing news: One of the San Bernardino shooters, 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik, apparently pledged allegiance to ISIS in a Facebook post before the shooting.
These reports cite unnamed federal law enforcement officials, so it's important to exercise caution about their veracity at this point. And even if they do turn out to be true, it's important to be cautious about what they mean: The fact that a shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS does not mean ISIS planned the attack. Nor does it necessarily mean that ISIS is the reason the attack happened.
What follows is a brief guide to what we know about the shooters' ISIS links — and what that tells us about the shootings themselves.
What we know about the reports
Before Friday, the evidence linking Malik and her husband/fellow shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook to Islamist extremism had been sketchy at best. As the Soufan Group, a private consulting firm that studies terrorism, explains, their stockpile of ammunition and bombs matches the pattern of terrorist groups — but the fact that Farook used to work in the same government department as the targets suggested a more personal motive.
But today's reports, from the New York Times and the Associated Press, are the best evidence yet that the shooting was in some way linked to ISIS.
Both pieces cited anonymous US law enforcement officials saying that Malik had posted a now-deleted pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on her personal Facebook page. The reports didn't disclose how federal authorities found it, though we know that they had been conducting an extensive investigation into the now-deceased shooters' electronic histories.
As the New York Times piece notes, "In the days leading up to the shooting, the couple in San Bernardino took several steps to delete their electronic information, in an apparent effort to cover their tracks, officials said. Those efforts have led authorities to believe that the shooting was premeditated."
ISIS asks people committing terrorist attacks in its name for such pledges — called "bayat" in jihadi parlance — before the attack. As they explain in the most recent issue of their English-language magazine, Dabiq:
Let him record his will, renew his bayat, carry the Khilfah banner, and strike the crusaders and their pagan and apostate allies wherever he can find them, even if he is alone.
"This MAY be what Tashfeen Malik did," Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, tweeted. "Record her bayat (allegiance) for death."
Emphasis on "may" there: "[I] haven't seen her recording, so don't know for sure," Joscelyn concluded. More broadly, anonymous comments by federal officials to newspapers aren't definitive proof. So while Friday's reports are the strongest evidence yet of an ISIS link, we still cannot be certain that Malik and Farook were jihadis. The publicly available evidence is still too mixed.
What an ISIS pledge of allegiance means
If the message is real, it does not prove that the attack was directed by ISIS. According to the New York Times, US officials currently believe that the attackers had no links to ISIS headquarters in Iraq and Syria.
"At this point we believe they were more self-radicalized and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting," one of the officials told the Times.
This is an important distinction: There is a very big difference between random people choosing to take up the ISIS banner and ISIS having the organizational wherewithal to plan and execute attacks from its home base. Random individuals inspired by ISIS are, fundamentally, less scary than an ISIS that's centrally planning and launching attacks from a continent away. ISIS has a lot more money at its command, and far more experience, than individual attackers. That means it could pull off bigger attacks.
This became a major conversation topic after November's Paris attacks, as it wasn't obvious whether those attacks were planned by ISIS or inspired by the group (the evidence now suggests at least some central planning). I asked Will McCants, the director of the Brookings Institution's Project on US Relations With the Islamic World and the author of The ISIS Apocalypse, about it just after those attacks. He said that ISIS centrally planning attacks is definitely scarier.
"ISIS is a state that has millions of dollars that it can spend on these kinds of operations," He said. "We're talking about an actual government that has money to put behind plots and has very motivated people."
That said, it's plenty scary if the San Bernardino attacks were merely inspired by ISIS. It's harder for law enforcement to track people who are operating independently of ISIS home base, so if those kinds of independent or "lone wolf" attacks become more common and sophisticated it could become a serious problem.
"If [ISIS Central isn't] even trying to coordinate this kind of stuff, and their affiliates or fanboys can do it on their own, it's quite troubling," McCants told me after Paris.
One final word of caution: Even if Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS before the attack, it doesn't mean that ISIS is the key reason she and her husband decided to slaughter 14 innocent people. It could be that Farook had other reasons, as a result of his employment, to be angry at his former co-workers — and he and his wife latched onto ISIS ideology as a justification for something they wanted to do already.
Radicalization is a very complicated process; ideology matters, but so do personal grievances. "No one disputes the importance of factors other than ideology in the process of radicalization," Peter Neumann, the director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, wrote in a 2013 paper. It's just very hard to figure out the motivations behind violent attacks, especially with limited public information.
Bottom line: Malik's pledge to ISIS, if real, suggests that ISIS may have played some role in motivating the San Bernardino shooting. But it's far from obvious what that role might have been.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
hAksJsH17DfBACZo
|
environment
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/07/803835452/it-was-65-degrees-in-antarctica-this-week
|
It Was 65 Degrees In Antarctica This Week
|
2020-02-07
|
Colin Dwyer
|
At least , that 's what scientists reported at Argentina 's Esperanza research station , on the very northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula . The finding , announced Thursday by Argentina 's national meteorological service , placed the temperature at 18.3 degrees Celsius — or just about 65 degrees Fahrenheit .
`` That would make it the hottest temperature that we have seen over the length of record that we have for Antarctica , '' says Randall Cerveny , the World Meteorological Organization 's rapporteur of weather and climate extremes .
The WMO has not officially verified the finding yet . That will require a panel of atmospheric science experts from around the world to parse and discuss the station 's data for as long as nine months , before submitting their recommendation to Cerveny .
But at the moment , there 's little reason to doubt the preliminary findings .
`` This is unfortunately a continuing trend , '' Cerveny tells NPR . `` This station just set the existing record only just a few years ago in 2015 . So we are seeing these high temperature records — not only in Antarctica , but across the entire world — fall , whereas we just do n't see cold temperature records anymore . ''
It 's important to note that Thursday 's finding is just one data point , the result of particular weather conditions that day on the northern Antarctic Peninsula .
But as Cerveny and others note , the positively balmy weather this week does match up with broader changes to the climate over time , both on the peninsula and globally . Last year was the world 's second hottest year on record , and it just capped Earth 's hottest decade ever recorded .
Even seen in this context , the Antarctic Peninsula is `` one of the fastest warming areas on the planet , '' according to Alexandra Isern , head of Antarctic sciences at the National Science Foundation .
That can mean simple , logistical concerns that may not immediately come to mind — such as different gear for researchers , who have to deal with the wetter weather the warming brings . `` We 've definitely had to have to kind of rethink a bit what we provide people with , '' Isern observes .
`` I 've been going down for 10 years , and even I have seen the changes , '' she adds . `` I bring different clothes . ''
Isern also points out that there are other , bigger consequences of the changing climate . Namely , there 's a vicious cycle at work : Warmer weather in Antarctica contributes to warmer seawater in general , which contributes to melting glaciers and rising sea levels worldwide — which , in turn , leads to further warming .
This also means more extreme weather events for Cerveny and his team to verify .
`` When I started this project all the way back in 2007 , I thought we would have maybe an evaluation once every few years , and now we 're having MULTIPLE observations of extreme climate every year , '' the WMO rapporteur says .
`` The climate is changing , and this is something that we have to be aware of . ''
|
It Was 65 Degrees In Antarctica This Week
Enlarge this image toggle caption Natacha Pisarenko/AP Natacha Pisarenko/AP
Antarctica experienced its hottest day on record Thursday.
At least, that's what scientists reported at Argentina's Esperanza research station, on the very northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. The finding, announced Thursday by Argentina's national meteorological service, placed the temperature at 18.3 degrees Celsius — or just about 65 degrees Fahrenheit.
"That would make it the hottest temperature that we have seen over the length of record that we have for Antarctica," says Randall Cerveny, the World Meteorological Organization's rapporteur of weather and climate extremes.
The WMO has not officially verified the finding yet. That will require a panel of atmospheric science experts from around the world to parse and discuss the station's data for as long as nine months, before submitting their recommendation to Cerveny.
But at the moment, there's little reason to doubt the preliminary findings.
"This is unfortunately a continuing trend," Cerveny tells NPR. "This station just set the existing record only just a few years ago in 2015. So we are seeing these high temperature records — not only in Antarctica, but across the entire world — fall, whereas we just don't see cold temperature records anymore."
It's important to note that Thursday's finding is just one data point, the result of particular weather conditions that day on the northern Antarctic Peninsula.
But as Cerveny and others note, the positively balmy weather this week does match up with broader changes to the climate over time, both on the peninsula and globally. Last year was the world's second hottest year on record, and it just capped Earth's hottest decade ever recorded.
Even seen in this context, the Antarctic Peninsula is "one of the fastest warming areas on the planet," according to Alexandra Isern, head of Antarctic sciences at the National Science Foundation.
That can mean simple, logistical concerns that may not immediately come to mind — such as different gear for researchers, who have to deal with the wetter weather the warming brings. "We've definitely had to have to kind of rethink a bit what we provide people with," Isern observes.
"I've been going down for 10 years, and even I have seen the changes," she adds. "I bring different clothes."
Isern also points out that there are other, bigger consequences of the changing climate. Namely, there's a vicious cycle at work: Warmer weather in Antarctica contributes to warmer seawater in general, which contributes to melting glaciers and rising sea levels worldwide — which, in turn, leads to further warming.
This also means more extreme weather events for Cerveny and his team to verify.
"When I started this project all the way back in 2007, I thought we would have maybe an evaluation once every few years, and now we're having MULTIPLE observations of extreme climate every year," the WMO rapporteur says.
"The climate is changing, and this is something that we have to be aware of."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
8QK686IhoogBuxiw
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/democratic-debate-fact-check/index.html
|
Democratic debate: CNN's Reality Check team inspects the claims
|
2015-11-14
|
Washington The Democratic candidates for president gathered in Des Moines , Iowa , for their second debate Saturday , and CNN 's Reality Check team spent the night putting their statements and assertions to the test .
The team of reporters , researchers and editors across CNN selected key statements and rated them : True ; Mostly True ; True , but Misleading ; False ; or It 's Complicated .
Previous CNN Reality Check coverage of the Democratic and Republican candidates can be found here . This story will be updated throughout the night .
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw her support behind a $ 12 hourly minimum wage at Saturday 's debate . That 's lower than the $ 15 an hour minimum backed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley , as well many progressive activists nationwide .
Clinton defended her stance , saying : `` If you go to $ 12 , it would be the highest historical average we 've ever had . '' That 's the `` smartest '' way to move forward , she added .
So has the minimum wage ever reached $ 12 , even after adjusting for inflation ? The answer is no . The highest it ever got was way back in 1968 when it was $ 1.60 . That may seem low , but in today 's dollars it was $ 10.86 .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said , `` When you talk about the long-term consequences of war , let 's talk about the men and women who came home from war , the 500,000 who came home with PTSD and traumatic brain injury . ''
Roughly 2.6 million veterans served in Iraq and Afghanistan , and the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs says 11 % to 20 % of military members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD .
According to a Veteran Affairs independent study on traumatic brain injury , self-reported data found 15 % of troops who were engaged in active combat in Afghanistan and Iraq `` may have suffered '' a mild traumatic brain injury . This falls in line with a report from the Brain Trauma Foundation , which found between 10 % to 20 % of Iraq veterans suffer from some level of traumatic brain disorder .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said , `` The Muslim nations in the region -- Saudi Arabia , Iran , Turkey , Jordan -- all of these nations , they 're going to have to get their hands dirty , their boots on the ground . They are going to have to take on ISIS . ... Those Muslim countries are going to have to lead the effort . They are not doing it now . ''
Launched in September 2014 , the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS consists of more than 60 coalition partners , including more than a dozen Muslim-majority countries . All of the countries Sanders mentioned are part of that coalition -- with the exception of Iran , which has been countering ISIS in separate initiatives that include training , advising , and supporting Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIS .
The actual contributions of each member of the U.S.-led coalition vary widely . As of October 2014 , Saudi Arabia 's contribution consisted of warplanes and training for Syrian rebels fighting ISIS . They also donated $ 500 million to UN humanitarian efforts in Iraq . Turkey has allowed foreign troops to launch attacks against ISIS from within its borders , and in July , began launching its own airstrikes against ISIS in Syria . Jordan launched airstrikes against ISIS early in the campaign , but later suspended its participation when one of its aircraft went down in Syria and one of its pilots was taken hostage . Jordanian strikes resumed after ISIS announced it had killed the Jordanian pilot .
Few of the coalition 's members have contributed active ground troops . In 2014 , Egypt sent forces to Libya to bomb ISIS positions there . In late October , the United States authorized the deployment of about 50 special operations forces to northern Syria to fight ISIS . The Obama administration is also considering a special forces task force to fight ISIS in Iraq .
In June of 2014 , Iraqi officials said that Iran had sent about 500 Revolutionary Guard troops to fight alongside Iraqi troops against ISIS . The Iranian Foreign Ministry denied this , but Iran 's president said Iran was prepared to help advise Iraq if asked .
Sanders is correct that , at present , the primary coalition fighting ISIS is led by the United States . But several of the Muslim countries in the coalition have lost soldiers and civilians in the battle against ISIS .
Former Gov . Martin O'Malley said , `` The truth of the matter is net immigration from Mexico last year was zero . '' He then challenged viewers to fact-check him , and we could n't resist .
According to the Pew Research Center , net migration from Mexico probably reached zero in 2010 , and more Mexicans have left the United States than arrived since then .
Additionally , the actual number of Mexicans living in the United States consistently declined throughout 2014 . The U.S. Border Patrol also reported that in the 2014 fiscal year , the number of Mexicans apprehended along the border decreased 14 % when compared to the 2013 fiscal year .
The information we have suggests that the net immigration rate is negative -- which is actually not zero -- but it is close , and probably still supports O'Malley 's point .
Former Maryland Gov . Martin O'Malley often goes back to his record as governor to explain how he would best shepherd the nation 's economy in the White House . But he went a step further than he typically does during Saturday night 's debate and took credit for Maryland 's high median incomes .
O'Malley was answering a question of how precisely he would freeze college tuition around the nation and whether his blueprint from Maryland would work across the U.S .
`` The blueprint in Maryland that we followed is we raised the sales tax by a penny and made our public schools the best public schools in America for five years in a row with that investment . And yes , we did ask everyone -- the top 14 % of earners in our state -- to pay more in their income tax and we were the only state to go four years in a row without a penny 's increase to college tuitions , '' O'Malley said .
The answer , nationwide , is paying for priorities by taxing capital gains income like normal income , he said .
`` I believe capital gains , for the most part , should be taxed the same way we tax income from hard work , sweat and toil , '' O'Malley said . `` And if we do those things , we can be a country that actually can afford debt-free college again . ''
But in the exchange he also took credit for the state 's median income level -- long the highest in the nation .
`` So while other candidates will talk about the things they would like to do , I actually got these things they would like to do . I actually got these things done in a state that defended not only a AAA bond rating , but the highest median income in America , '' O'Malley said .
There 's no question that Marylanders have done , on average , much better than those in other states since the recession . It 's actually had the highest median income every year since 2006 , when the median income was $ 65,144 , to last year , when it was $ 73,971 .
In his answer , O'Malley did not explain how his economic plan kept high-wage jobs in Maryland .
But President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush may be better able to make that claim because of the large share of federal employees in Maryland . A `` Governing '' magazine analysis of federal employment statistics from 2013 determined that Maryland had the largest share of federal workers for the total workforce of any state , something that the governor has nothing to do with .
Maryland had 145,300 people working for the government , equal to 5.5 % of the state 's total non-farm employment . Virginia had more federal employees -- 172,500 -- but they only accounted for 4.6 % of the total state employment .
And a Washington Post review of federal salaries found that federal workers do quite well compared to many other industries -- earning an average salary of $ 78,500 as of 2012 .
|
Washington The Democratic candidates for president gathered in Des Moines, Iowa, for their second debate Saturday, and CNN's Reality Check team spent the night putting their statements and assertions to the test.
The team of reporters, researchers and editors across CNN selected key statements and rated them: True; Mostly True; True, but Misleading; False; or It's Complicated.
Previous CNN Reality Check coverage of the Democratic and Republican candidates can be found here . This story will be updated throughout the night.
Hillary Clinton
Reality Check: Clinton on minimum wage
By Tami Luhby, CNN Money
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw her support behind a $12 hourly minimum wage at Saturday's debate. That's lower than the $15 an hour minimum backed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, as well many progressive activists nationwide.
Clinton defended her stance, saying: "If you go to $12, it would be the highest historical average we've ever had." That's the "smartest" way to move forward, she added.
So has the minimum wage ever reached $12, even after adjusting for inflation? The answer is no. The highest it ever got was way back in 1968 when it was $1.60. That may seem low, but in today's dollars it was $10.86.
Verdict: True
Bernie Sanders
Reality Check: Sanders on vets with PTSD
By Debra Goldschmidt, CNN Health
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "When you talk about the long-term consequences of war, let's talk about the men and women who came home from war, the 500,000 who came home with PTSD and traumatic brain injury."
Roughly 2.6 million veterans served in Iraq and Afghanistan , and the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs says 11% to 20% of military members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD.
According to a Veteran Affairs independent study on traumatic brain injury, self-reported data found 15% of troops who were engaged in active combat in Afghanistan and Iraq "may have suffered" a mild traumatic brain injury. This falls in line with a report from the Brain Trauma Foundation, which found between 10% to 20% of Iraq veterans suffer from some level of traumatic brain disorder.
Verdict: True
Reality Check: Sanders on Muslim countries fighting ISIS
By Eve Bower, CNN
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "The Muslim nations in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Jordan -- all of these nations, they're going to have to get their hands dirty, their boots on the ground. They are going to have to take on ISIS. ... Those Muslim countries are going to have to lead the effort. They are not doing it now."
Launched in September 2014, the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS consists of more than 60 coalition partners, including more than a dozen Muslim-majority countries. All of the countries Sanders mentioned are part of that coalition -- with the exception of Iran, which has been countering ISIS in separate initiatives that include training, advising, and supporting Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIS.
The actual contributions of each member of the U.S.-led coalition vary widely. As of October 2014, Saudi Arabia's contribution consisted of warplanes and training for Syrian rebels fighting ISIS. They also donated $500 million to UN humanitarian efforts in Iraq. Turkey has allowed foreign troops to launch attacks against ISIS from within its borders, and in July, began launching its own airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Jordan launched airstrikes against ISIS early in the campaign, but later suspended its participation when one of its aircraft went down in Syria and one of its pilots was taken hostage. Jordanian strikes resumed after ISIS announced it had killed the Jordanian pilot.
Few of the coalition's members have contributed active ground troops. In 2014, Egypt sent forces to Libya to bomb ISIS positions there. In late October, the United States authorized the deployment of about 50 special operations forces to northern Syria to fight ISIS. The Obama administration is also considering a special forces task force to fight ISIS in Iraq.
In June of 2014, Iraqi officials said that Iran had sent about 500 Revolutionary Guard troops to fight alongside Iraqi troops against ISIS. The Iranian Foreign Ministry denied this, but Iran's president said Iran was prepared to help advise Iraq if asked.
Sanders is correct that, at present, the primary coalition fighting ISIS is led by the United States. But several of the Muslim countries in the coalition have lost soldiers and civilians in the battle against ISIS.
Verdict: True, but misleading
Martin O'Malley
Reality Check: O'Malley on net immigration from Mexico
By Sonam Vashi, CNN
Former Gov. Martin O'Malley said, "The truth of the matter is net immigration from Mexico last year was zero." He then challenged viewers to fact-check him, and we couldn't resist.
According to the Pew Research Center , net migration from Mexico probably reached zero in 2010, and more Mexicans have left the United States than arrived since then.
Additionally, the actual number of Mexicans living in the United States consistently declined throughout 2014. The U.S. Border Patrol also reported that in the 2014 fiscal year, the number of Mexicans apprehended along the border decreased 14% when compared to the 2013 fiscal year.
The information we have suggests that the net immigration rate is negative -- which is actually not zero -- but it is close, and probably still supports O'Malley's point.
Verdict: True
Reality Check: O'Malley on Maryland's median income
By Tom LoBianco and Tami Luhby, CNN
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley often goes back to his record as governor to explain how he would best shepherd the nation's economy in the White House. But he went a step further than he typically does during Saturday night's debate and took credit for Maryland's high median incomes.
O'Malley was answering a question of how precisely he would freeze college tuition around the nation and whether his blueprint from Maryland would work across the U.S.
"The blueprint in Maryland that we followed is we raised the sales tax by a penny and made our public schools the best public schools in America for five years in a row with that investment. And yes, we did ask everyone -- the top 14% of earners in our state -- to pay more in their income tax and we were the only state to go four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuitions," O'Malley said.
The answer, nationwide, is paying for priorities by taxing capital gains income like normal income, he said.
"I believe capital gains, for the most part, should be taxed the same way we tax income from hard work, sweat and toil," O'Malley said. "And if we do those things, we can be a country that actually can afford debt-free college again."
But in the exchange he also took credit for the state's median income level -- long the highest in the nation.
"So while other candidates will talk about the things they would like to do, I actually got these things they would like to do. I actually got these things done in a state that defended not only a AAA bond rating, but the highest median income in America," O'Malley said.
There's no question that Marylanders have done, on average, much better than those in other states since the recession. It's actually had the highest median income every year since 2006, when the median income was $65,144, to last year, when it was $73,971.
In his answer, O'Malley did not explain how his economic plan kept high-wage jobs in Maryland.
But President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush may be better able to make that claim because of the large share of federal employees in Maryland. A "Governing" magazine analysis of federal employment statistics from 2013 determined that Maryland had the largest share of federal workers for the total workforce of any state, something that the governor has nothing to do with.
Maryland had 145,300 people working for the government, equal to 5.5% of the state's total non-farm employment. Virginia had more federal employees -- 172,500 -- but they only accounted for 4.6% of the total state employment.
And a Washington Post review of federal salaries found that federal workers do quite well compared to many other industries -- earning an average salary of $78,500 as of 2012.
Verdict: False
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
G9LgR53gNWv2dbtd
|
|
bridging_divides
|
John Stossel
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/22/john-stossel-this-thanksgiving-thank-private-property-every-day-it-protects-us-from-tragedy-commons.html
|
OPINION: This Thanksgiving, thank private property. Every day, it protects us from the tragedy of the commons
|
11/22/17
|
Ready for Thanksgiving ? Before you eat that turkey , I hope you think about why America has turkeys for you to eat . Most people do n't know .
Everyone 's heard about that first Thanksgiving feast -- Pilgrims and Indians sharing the harvest . We like the drawings of it we saw in schoolbooks -- shared bounty .
Fewer people know that before that first feast , the Pilgrims nearly starved .
They almost starved because they acted the way some Bernie Sanders fans want people to act . They farmed collectively .
But communal farming creates what economists call `` the tragedy of the commons . ''
Think about what happens if a bunch of ranchers hold land in common . Everyone brings cattle to graze . While that sounds nice , it also means every rancher has an incentive to bring lots of cattle to the pasture . They bring cow after cow until the pasture is overgrazed -- destroyed .
For this week 's YouTube video , I repeated an experiment economics teachers sometimes do to demonstrate the tragedy of the commons .
I assembled a group of people , put coins on the floor in front of them and said , `` I 'll give you a dollar for each coin you pick up . But if you leave them down there for a minute , I 'll give you two bucks per coin , and then three bucks . Each minute the coins increase in value by a dollar . ''
As soon as I said `` Go ! '' everyone frantically grabbed for coins . No one wanted to wait because someone else would have gotten the money .
Collective action makes people more greedy and short-sighted , not less .
Then I changed the rules of the game . I divided the floor into segments , so each person had his or her own property . Then we played the game again .
This time there was no coin-grabbing frenzy . Now patient people anticipated the future .
`` I want to reap the most benefit , '' said one . `` ( On the previous test ) I wanted it now , whereas this is going up , and it 's mine . ''
Exactly . When you own property , you want to preserve it , to allow it to keep producing good things .
That beneficial pattern disappears under collectivism , even if the collectivists are nice people . The Pilgrims started out sharing their land . When crops were ready to harvest , they behaved like the people in my experiment .
Some Pilgrims sneaked out at night and grabbed extra food . Some picked corn before it was fully ready . The result ?
`` By the spring , '' Pilgrim leader William Bradford wrote in his diary , `` our food stores were used up and people grew weak and thin . Some swelled with hunger . ''
Adding to the problem , when people share the results of your work , some do n't work hard . The chance to take advantage of others ' joint labor is too tempting . Teenage Pilgrims were especially likely to steal the commune 's crops .
Had the Pilgrims continued communal farming , this Thursday might be known as `` Starvation Day '' instead of Thanksgiving .
Fortunately , the Pilgrims were led not by Bernie Sanders fans or other commons-loving socialists , but by Governor Bradford , who wrote that he `` began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could ... that they might not still thus languish in misery ... After much debate ( I ) assigned each family a parcel of land ... ( T ) his had very good success , because it made every hand industrious . ''
There 's nothing like private ownership to make `` every hand industrious . ''
The Pilgrims never returned to shared planting . Owning plots of land allowed them to prosper and have feasts like the ones we 'll have Thursday .
Private property became the foundation for building the most prosperous nation in the history of the world , a place where people have individual rights instead of group plans forced on everyone .
When an entire economy is based on collectivism , like the Soviet Union was , it eventually collapses from inefficiency and misuse of resources .
So this Thanksgiving , thank private property . Every day , it protects us from the tragedy of the commons .
|
Ready for Thanksgiving? Before you eat that turkey, I hope you think about why America has turkeys for you to eat. Most people don't know.
Everyone's heard about that first Thanksgiving feast -- Pilgrims and Indians sharing the harvest. We like the drawings of it we saw in schoolbooks -- shared bounty.
Fewer people know that before that first feast, the Pilgrims nearly starved.
They almost starved because they acted the way some Bernie Sanders fans want people to act. They farmed collectively.
But communal farming creates what economists call "the tragedy of the commons."
Think about what happens if a bunch of ranchers hold land in common. Everyone brings cattle to graze. While that sounds nice, it also means every rancher has an incentive to bring lots of cattle to the pasture. They bring cow after cow until the pasture is overgrazed -- destroyed.
For this week's YouTube video, I repeated an experiment economics teachers sometimes do to demonstrate the tragedy of the commons.
I assembled a group of people, put coins on the floor in front of them and said, "I'll give you a dollar for each coin you pick up. But if you leave them down there for a minute, I'll give you two bucks per coin, and then three bucks. Each minute the coins increase in value by a dollar."
If the group waited, they'd make more money.
Did they wait? No.
As soon as I said "Go!" everyone frantically grabbed for coins. No one wanted to wait because someone else would have gotten the money.
Collective action makes people more greedy and short-sighted, not less.
Then I changed the rules of the game. I divided the floor into segments, so each person had his or her own property. Then we played the game again.
This time there was no coin-grabbing frenzy. Now patient people anticipated the future.
"I want to reap the most benefit," said one. "(On the previous test) I wanted it now, whereas this is going up, and it's mine."
Exactly. When you own property, you want to preserve it, to allow it to keep producing good things.
That beneficial pattern disappears under collectivism, even if the collectivists are nice people. The Pilgrims started out sharing their land. When crops were ready to harvest, they behaved like the people in my experiment.
Some Pilgrims sneaked out at night and grabbed extra food. Some picked corn before it was fully ready. The result?
"By the spring," Pilgrim leader William Bradford wrote in his diary, "our food stores were used up and people grew weak and thin. Some swelled with hunger."
Adding to the problem, when people share the results of your work, some don't work hard. The chance to take advantage of others' joint labor is too tempting. Teenage Pilgrims were especially likely to steal the commune's crops.
Had the Pilgrims continued communal farming, this Thursday might be known as "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving.
Fortunately, the Pilgrims were led not by Bernie Sanders fans or other commons-loving socialists, but by Governor Bradford, who wrote that he "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could ... that they might not still thus languish in misery ... After much debate (I) assigned each family a parcel of land ... (T)his had very good success, because it made every hand industrious."
There's nothing like private ownership to make "every hand industrious."
The Pilgrims never returned to shared planting. Owning plots of land allowed them to prosper and have feasts like the ones we'll have Thursday.
Private property became the foundation for building the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, a place where people have individual rights instead of group plans forced on everyone.
When an entire economy is based on collectivism, like the Soviet Union was, it eventually collapses from inefficiency and misuse of resources.
So this Thanksgiving, thank private property. Every day, it protects us from the tragedy of the commons.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
ZGggIO7ECOiip6BQ
|
|
fbi
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/05/gregg-jarrett-fbi-director-calls-clinton-careless-his-recommendations-make-no-sense.html
|
OPINION: FBI Director calls Clinton ‘careless’. His recommendations make no sense
|
2016-07-05
|
Gregg Jarrett
|
It makes no legal sense . I suspect attorneys across America are scratching their heads .
James Comey , Director of the FBI , declared Tuesday that Hillary Clinton was “ extremely careless ” in her handling of very sensitive and highly classified information on her unauthorized and unsecured email server while serving as Secretary of State .
Those words , “ extremely careless ” mean something important in the law . Consider the relevant federal criminal statute which reads :
“ Whoever , being entrusted with… any document relating to the national defense… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years , or both. ” ( 18 U.S.C. , section 793-f )
James Comey is a former U.S. Attorney . Yet , he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the law . He laid out a case of gross negligence constituting a crime , defined it with the words “ extremely careless ” and then promptly proceeded to ignore the law .
The key phrase is “ gross negligence ” . What does it mean ? Every lawyer and judge in America knows its meaning . It is defined in standard jury instructions and just about every legal treatise that exists .
Black ’ s Law Dictionary is the legal bible upon which attorneys rely . Check it out . You ’ ll find that gross negligence is described and defined as extreme carelessness . At least , my edition does .
Even a layman ’ s contemporary resource , Wikipedia , is instructive . Google the words , “ gross negligence ” . The first sentence reads , “ Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness ” . Close enough .
Since Comey , by his own words , all but declared that Clinton broke a criminal law , how could he then say he would not recommend criminal prosecution ? Again , it makes no sense .
Comey is a former U.S. Attorney . Yet , he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the law . He laid out a case of gross negligence constituting a crime , defined it with the words “ extremely careless ” and then promptly proceeded to ignore the law .
I have been a lawyer for 36 years . Never have I witnessed such an illogical rationale and conclusion .
It makes me wonder whether Comey slept through his first year course entitled , “ Criminal Law . ”
|
It makes no legal sense. I suspect attorneys across America are scratching their heads.
James Comey, Director of the FBI, declared Tuesday that Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of very sensitive and highly classified information on her unauthorized and unsecured email server while serving as Secretary of State.
Those words, “extremely careless” mean something important in the law. Consider the relevant federal criminal statute which reads:
“Whoever, being entrusted with… any document relating to the national defense… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)
James Comey is a former U.S. Attorney. Yet, he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the law. He laid out a case of gross negligence constituting a crime, defined it with the words “extremely careless” and then promptly proceeded to ignore the law.
The key phrase is “gross negligence”. What does it mean? Every lawyer and judge in America knows its meaning. It is defined in standard jury instructions and just about every legal treatise that exists.
It means extremely careless.
Black’s Law Dictionary is the legal bible upon which attorneys rely. Check it out. You’ll find that gross negligence is described and defined as extreme carelessness. At least, my edition does.
Even a layman’s contemporary resource, Wikipedia, is instructive. Google the words, “gross negligence”. The first sentence reads, “Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness”. Close enough.
Since Comey, by his own words, all but declared that Clinton broke a criminal law, how could he then say he would not recommend criminal prosecution? Again, it makes no sense.
Comey is a former U.S. Attorney. Yet, he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the law. He laid out a case of gross negligence constituting a crime, defined it with the words “extremely careless” and then promptly proceeded to ignore the law.
I have been a lawyer for 36 years. Never have I witnessed such an illogical rationale and conclusion.
It makes me wonder whether Comey slept through his first year course entitled, “Criminal Law.”
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
WmxmWWI5nneLIylW
|
elections
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/electoral-college
|
Electoral College
|
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
Finally , `` many rural states are ignored due to the Electoral College . Candidates don ’ t campaign in Montana , Kansas , or West Virginia . They spend time in big cities in Florida , Pennsylvania , and Ohio . The Electoral College keeps candidates away from most states . '' Renato Mariotti , Twitter
Dated But Relevant : “ The electoral college is , essentially , a vestigial structure — a leftover from a bygone era in which the founding fathers specifically did not want a nationwide vote of the American people to choose their next president… “ A national popular vote system wouldn ’ t devalue the votes of people who live in rural states and small towns . It would accurately value them by treating them equal to people who live in cities . Furthermore , small-state interests are built into the Senate ’ s math ( where Delaware absurdly gets as many senators as California ) , and many House districts are rural . So rural and small-state areas are hardly hurting for national political representation . Sure , candidates might end up spending less time stumping in the rural areas that currently happen to be lucky enough to fall within the borders of swing states , and more time in urban centers . But is that really a convincing rebuttal to the pretty basic and obvious argument that in the most important electoral choice Americans make , their votes should be treated equally ? ” Andrew Prokop , Vox
Many dispute Iowa Senator Jodi Ernst ’ s `` claim that giving voters everywhere the exact same power to elect a president is going to ‘ silence ’ anyone… it ’ s true that the ‘ losers ’ — relatively speaking — in a shift from Electoral College to a popular-vote system would be closely contested ‘ battleground states ’ that naturally attract candidate attention more than safely Democratic or Republican states… But the real howler about this is that Ernst is talking about preserving the power in presidential elections of Iowa , for God ’ s sake . This is the state where caucuses stand at the gateway to the presidential nominating process … Iowa , maker of legends and breaker of hearts . Candidates may secretly hate the Hawkeye State for the time and money it consumes , or for the winter weather , but they are going to pay it attention and hear its voters ’ voices over and over again. ” Ed Kilgore , New York Magazine
“ Statewide offices such as governor and senator take place all the time ; all of them use a simple statewide vote ; and yet lots and lots of statewide candidates nevertheless campaign in rural areas all the time , including in states where the rural vote is just a fraction of the overall vote . Others have noted that there are plenty of rural voters in California and other states – including , at least recently , Texas – that are uncontested and therefore get no candidate attention under the current rules… “ There ’ s going to be a president elected , whether with a majority or a minority of the vote . It ’ s bad if the majority is rewarded with absolute rule , but it ’ s quite a bit worse – I ’ m not even aware of any vaguely plausible argument otherwise – if the minority is rewarded with absolute rule . And no , it doesn ’ t matter a bit if that minority is the one that Crenshaw ( or anyone else ) happens to like . The remedy for majority tyranny isn ’ t to tabulate the votes in some convoluted way to get a preferred minority to win . The Madisonian remedies for majority tyranny are such things as having multiple branches of government ( each with a different form of election ) , meaningful federalism , separated institutions sharing powers , and so on. ” Jonathan Bernstein , Bloomberg
“ A presidential candidate who focused only on America ’ s cities and urban centers would lose — there just aren ’ t enough votes . Republicans live in cities just as Democrats live in rural areas . Under a popular vote , candidates would still have to build national coalitions across demographic and geographic lines . The difference is that those coalitions would involve every region of the country instead of a handful of competitive states in the Rust Belt and parts of the South… “ The founders feared ‘ direct democracy ’ and accounted for its dangers with a system of ‘ representative democracy. ’ Yes , this ‘ republic ’ had counter-majoritarian aspects , like equal representation of states in the Senate , the presidential veto and the Supreme Court . But it was not designed for minority rule . Virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country — to diminish ‘ faction ’ in favor of consensus. ” Jamelle Bouie , New York Times
“ Presidential elections are currently decided by swing states , ones that are less racially diverse than the country as a whole and , in 2016 , represented only 35 percent of eligible voters . Last presidential election , 95 percent of candidate appearances and 99 percent of campaign spending went to fourteen states . None of them are particularly rural nor , with the exception of New Hampshire , remotely small . The swing states , due to their electoral significance , also have a stranglehold on national policies . The coal industry , for example , has outsize influence because of its prominence in Pennsylvania . So , too , does the ethanol industry because of Iowa . Moreover , U.S. tariffs have disproportionately benefited industries located in swing states , and the battleground states have historically received more in federal grants than the rest of the country. ” Adam Eichen , The New Republic
The right opposes eliminating the electoral college , arguing that it incentivizes candidates to appeal to diverse coalitions of voters .
The right opposes eliminating the electoral college , arguing that it incentivizes candidates to appeal to diverse coalitions of voters .
“ Ultimately , and as a matter of history , the Electoral College rewards those presidential candidates or political parties that do the best job of listening to a wide variety of voters . Those who decided to double down with their base and ignore the rest of the country usually end up losing… Recent close elections have come about because everyone keeps forgetting these important underlying purposes of the Electoral College . Many have neglected to build coalitions . Both parties are instead catering to their bases . Consequently , the first party to reach out to create broad coalitions will also start winning presidential elections in landslides . ”
“ In our current system , candidates campaign in every state in which there is a close contest , whether those states are large or small , rural or urban , demographically diverse or homogenous . And it ’ s extremely difficult to become president without building a large coalition of voters from many parts of the country , many of which have very different cultures , ideas , religious beliefs , ideological beliefs and economic interests . The Electoral College system isn ’ t perfect , but it ’ s certainly not racist , as Ocasio-Cortez suggested . Sparsely populated racially diverse states – including liberal states like Rhode Island – benefit from the Electoral College just as much as states like Montana do . The purpose of the Electoral College isn ’ t to help white people ; it ’ s to elevate the power of voters in states that otherwise would be completely forgotten and disenfranchised . ”
“ Campaigning in New Hampshire is very different from campaigning in California , and representing ‘ all the people ’ means representing them no less as Texans or New Yorkers than as citizens of an undifferentiated whole . Once the states are removed from the presidential election system , these important and celebrated features of political locale will lose much of their significance . Voters in the less populous states , indeed in any area that can not be readily subsumed in a mass media market , will be of decidedly secondary importance to presidential candidates… Under direct election , the media mavens will not have to leave their offices in New York , Washington , or Los Angeles to run a presidential campaign . Why should they ? …
“ As John F. Kennedy said in defending the Electoral College in the 1950s , changing the mode of presidential election affects not only presidential candidates , but the whole solar system of our constitutional and political arrangements—in ways that are difficult to predict but unlikely to be beneficial . With a national plebiscite , the customary ties that bind state and local party units to national campaigns will necessarily dissolve . The national party committees will have to be radically restructured , with state party representatives being displaced by political operatives bearing little or no allegiance to any state . Their loyalties run instead to the personal campaign apparatus of wealthy or powerful candidates . ”
Some point out that , “ In most states , a candidate who receives 51 % of the vote receives 100 % of the Electoral College votes . If you ’ re a member of the 49 % , your vote becomes a footnote , and is not reflected in the final national electoral outcome… we can achieve a more representative electoral system without completely abandoning the Electoral College… States should choose to assign their Electoral College votes on a proportional basis , rather than according to a winner-take-all approach . This would mean that if a Democrat carries the state with 70 % of the vote , they win most of the electors ’ votes , but 30 % still go to the Republican candidate , making the minority vote count too . ”
Dated But Relevant : “ What ’ s essential [ about the electoral college ] is the ability to have some check on direct democracy and the centralization of power that comes with it… “ All extreme political movements are hostile to restraints on their will . This is what unites the progressives who want to pack the Supreme Court , abolish the Electoral College , and ‘ reform ’ the ‘ undemocratic ’ Senate with those on the right who celebrate President Trump ’ s emergency declaration and other attempts to rule by fiat . In a healthy democracy , leaders are answerable not just to voters but to legislatures , the courts , the states , and parties . The decades-long trend has been to dismantle this arrangement to make presidents answerable to no one but the slice of electorate that voted for them . And even there , those voters are increasingly more interested in seeing their leader ‘ win ’ than in holding them accountable . ”
“ Democrats need to stop bashing the Electoral College when they lose… [ the ] 2016 election was winnable . You all know this . The Democrats could ’ ve easily beaten Trump , but their people stayed home . With Hillary Clinton on the ticket , there was just no excitement really . None . Just compare the results from 2012 and 2016 in Wayne County , Michigan ( Detroit ) —it ’ s quite stark and decisive . All Clinton had to do was match Obama ’ s totals and she would ’ ve won . All she had to do was not tell coal miners that her mission would be to throw them on the street . All she had to do was reach out to rural and working-class voters—she didn ’ t . When you don ’ t do the leg work—you only have yourself to blame . ”
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
Finally, " many rural states are ignored due to the Electoral College . Candidates don’t campaign in Montana, Kansas, or West Virginia. They spend time in big cities in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The Electoral College keeps candidates away from most states." Renato Mariotti, Twitter
Dated But Relevant: “The electoral college is, essentially, a vestigial structure — a leftover from a bygone era in which the founding fathers specifically did not want a nationwide vote of the American people to choose their next president… “A national popular vote system wouldn’t devalue the votes of people who live in rural states and small towns. It would accurately value them by treating them equal to people who live in cities. Furthermore, small-state interests are built into the Senate’s math (where Delaware absurdly gets as many senators as California), and many House districts are rural. So rural and small-state areas are hardly hurting for national political representation. Sure, candidates might end up spending less time stumping in the rural areas that currently happen to be lucky enough to fall within the borders of swing states, and more time in urban centers. But is that really a convincing rebuttal to the pretty basic and obvious argument that in the most important electoral choice Americans make, their votes should be treated equally?” Andrew Prokop, Vox
Many dispute Iowa Senator Jodi Ernst’s "claim that giving voters everywhere the exact same power to elect a president is going to ‘silence’ anyone… it’s true that the ‘losers’ — relatively speaking — in a shift from Electoral College to a popular-vote system would be closely contested ‘battleground states’ that naturally attract candidate attention more than safely Democratic or Republican states… But the real howler about this is that Ernst is talking about preserving the power in presidential elections of Iowa, for God’s sake. This is the state where caucuses stand at the gateway to the presidential nominating process … Iowa, maker of legends and breaker of hearts. Candidates may secretly hate the Hawkeye State for the time and money it consumes, or for the winter weather, but they are going to pay it attention and hear its voters’ voices over and over again.” Ed Kilgore, New York Magazine
“Statewide offices such as governor and senator take place all the time; all of them use a simple statewide vote; and yet lots and lots of statewide candidates nevertheless campaign in rural areas all the time, including in states where the rural vote is just a fraction of the overall vote. Others have noted that there are plenty of rural voters in California and other states – including, at least recently, Texas – that are uncontested and therefore get no candidate attention under the current rules… “There’s going to be a president elected, whether with a majority or a minority of the vote. It’s bad if the majority is rewarded with absolute rule, but it’s quite a bit worse – I’m not even aware of any vaguely plausible argument otherwise – if the minority is rewarded with absolute rule . And no, it doesn’t matter a bit if that minority is the one that Crenshaw (or anyone else) happens to like. The remedy for majority tyranny isn’t to tabulate the votes in some convoluted way to get a preferred minority to win. The Madisonian remedies for majority tyranny are such things as having multiple branches of government (each with a different form of election), meaningful federalism, separated institutions sharing powers, and so on.” Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg
“A presidential candidate who focused only on America’s cities and urban centers would lose — there just aren’t enough votes. Republicans live in cities just as Democrats live in rural areas. Under a popular vote, candidates would still have to build national coalitions across demographic and geographic lines . The difference is that those coalitions would involve every region of the country instead of a handful of competitive states in the Rust Belt and parts of the South… “The founders feared ‘direct democracy’ and accounted for its dangers with a system of ‘representative democracy.’ Yes, this ‘republic’ had counter-majoritarian aspects, like equal representation of states in the Senate, the presidential veto and the Supreme Court. But it was not designed for minority rule. Virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country — to diminish ‘faction’ in favor of consensus.” Jamelle Bouie, New York Times
“Presidential elections are currently decided by swing states, ones that are less racially diverse than the country as a whole and, in 2016, represented only 35 percent of eligible voters. Last presidential election , 95 percent of candidate appearances and 99 percent of campaign spending went to fourteen states. None of them are particularly rural nor, with the exception of New Hampshire, remotely small. The swing states, due to their electoral significance, also have a stranglehold on national policies. The coal industry, for example, has outsize influence because of its prominence in Pennsylvania. So, too, does the ethanol industry because of Iowa. Moreover, U.S. tariffs have disproportionately benefited industries located in swing states, and the battleground states have historically received more in federal grants than the rest of the country.” Adam Eichen, The New Republic
From the Right
The right opposes eliminating the electoral college, arguing that it incentivizes candidates to appeal to diverse coalitions of voters.
From the Right
The right opposes eliminating the electoral college, arguing that it incentivizes candidates to appeal to diverse coalitions of voters.
“Ultimately, and as a matter of history, the Electoral College rewards those presidential candidates or political parties that do the best job of listening to a wide variety of voters. Those who decided to double down with their base and ignore the rest of the country usually end up losing… Recent close elections have come about because everyone keeps forgetting these important underlying purposes of the Electoral College. Many have neglected to build coalitions. Both parties are instead catering to their bases. Consequently, the first party to reach out to create broad coalitions will also start winning presidential elections in landslides.”
Tara Ross, Daily Signal
“In our current system, candidates campaign in every state in which there is a close contest, whether those states are large or small, rural or urban, demographically diverse or homogenous. And it’s extremely difficult to become president without building a large coalition of voters from many parts of the country, many of which have very different cultures, ideas, religious beliefs, ideological beliefs and economic interests. The Electoral College system isn’t perfect, but it’s certainly not racist, as Ocasio-Cortez suggested. Sparsely populated racially diverse states – including liberal states like Rhode Island – benefit from the Electoral College just as much as states like Montana do. The purpose of the Electoral College isn’t to help white people; it’s to elevate the power of voters in states that otherwise would be completely forgotten and disenfranchised.”
Justin Haskins, Fox News
“Campaigning in New Hampshire is very different from campaigning in California, and representing ‘all the people’ means representing them no less as Texans or New Yorkers than as citizens of an undifferentiated whole. Once the states are removed from the presidential election system, these important and celebrated features of political locale will lose much of their significance. Voters in the less populous states, indeed in any area that cannot be readily subsumed in a mass media market, will be of decidedly secondary importance to presidential candidates… Under direct election, the media mavens will not have to leave their offices in New York, Washington, or Los Angeles to run a presidential campaign. Why should they?…
“As John F. Kennedy said in defending the Electoral College in the 1950s, changing the mode of presidential election affects not only presidential candidates, but the whole solar system of our constitutional and political arrangements—in ways that are difficult to predict but unlikely to be beneficial. With a national plebiscite, the customary ties that bind state and local party units to national campaigns will necessarily dissolve. The national party committees will have to be radically restructured, with state party representatives being displaced by political operatives bearing little or no allegiance to any state. Their loyalties run instead to the personal campaign apparatus of wealthy or powerful candidates.”
Michael M. Uhlmann, The American Mind
Some point out that, “In most states, a candidate who receives 51% of the vote receives 100% of the Electoral College votes. If you’re a member of the 49%, your vote becomes a footnote, and is not reflected in the final national electoral outcome… we can achieve a more representative electoral system without completely abandoning the Electoral College… States should choose to assign their Electoral College votes on a proportional basis, rather than according to a winner-take-all approach. This would mean that if a Democrat carries the state with 70% of the vote, they win most of the electors’ votes, but 30% still go to the Republican candidate, making the minority vote count too.”
Brad Polumbo, Washington Examiner
Dated But Relevant: “What’s essential [about the electoral college] is the ability to have some check on direct democracy and the centralization of power that comes with it… “All extreme political movements are hostile to restraints on their will. This is what unites the progressives who want to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, and ‘reform’ the ‘undemocratic’ Senate with those on the right who celebrate President Trump’s emergency declaration and other attempts to rule by fiat. In a healthy democracy, leaders are answerable not just to voters but to legislatures, the courts, the states, and parties. The decades-long trend has been to dismantle this arrangement to make presidents answerable to no one but the slice of electorate that voted for them. And even there, those voters are increasingly more interested in seeing their leader ‘win’ than in holding them accountable.”
Jonah Goldberg, National Review
“Democrats need to stop bashing the Electoral College when they lose… [the] 2016 election was winnable. You all know this. The Democrats could’ve easily beaten Trump, but their people stayed home. With Hillary Clinton on the ticket, there was just no excitement really. None. Just compare the results from 2012 and 2016 in Wayne County, Michigan (Detroit)—it’s quite stark and decisive. All Clinton had to do was match Obama’s totals and she would’ve won. All she had to do was not tell coal miners that her mission would be to throw them on the street. All she had to do was reach out to rural and working-class voters—she didn’t. When you don’t do the leg work—you only have yourself to blame.”
Matt Vespa, Townhall
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
|
fecu7J5LBkdUDPGO
|
||
immigration
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/02/11/275254669/immigration-turbulence-buffets-boehner
|
Immigration Turbulence Buffets Boehner
|
2014-02-11
|
Ron Elving
|
Just a dozen days ago , Speaker Boehner and his GOP leadership team embraced a set of principles for updating the nation 's immigration laws .
In that moment , the House seemed about to acknowledge the most pressing issue before the Congress – the elephant in the room , if you will . But then , last week , the Ohio Republican who presides over the House majority went public with grave doubts about the feasibility of that overhaul .
Why the whiplash ? Boehner said a thorough-going revamp could not be done because House Republicans did not trust President Obama to carry it out once enacted . That could be a reason not to pass any legislation of any kind on any subject , of course , but Boehner seemed to lack an alternative explanation . He did not want to say that the wind had shifted after just one week .
The truth is , the wind had shifted ; and it had taken only a weekend . Within hours of leadership bringing forth its principles on Jan. 30 , they were being denounced by conservative activists , bloggers and radio talk shows . The central objection : the idea that those now in the country illegally should have a path , albeit a difficult one , to legal status .
To be clear , this was not a path to citizenship , with full rights and voting privileges . This was a path to not being arrested and deported . But that notion was immediately labeled amnesty for lawbreakers . And if there is one thing we 've learned from every effort toward immigration reform since 1986 , once the amnesty charge sticks the bill is dead . This time , the amnesty charge appears to have been fatal before the bill was even a bill .
It can surely be argued that the terms of the Jan. 30 principles had little in common with the 1986 legislation , which did mean amnesty for millions . But Boehner did not make that argument . He scarcely mounted a defense at all .
So will the real John Boehner stand up ? Probably not . He 's just had his legs cut out from under him .
Democrats immediately seized the moment as proof Boehner never really intended to press ahead on immigration this year . New York Democrat Charles Schumer , one of the authors of the 2013 deal by which the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration overhaul , saw Boehner 's `` ca n't trust Obama '' riff as a bluff . Fine , Schumer said , pass the law and make it effective on Jan. 20 , 2017 , the day Obama leaves office .
Or did you mean you would n't trust any president to enforce the law ?
It could be that Boehner is merely playing for time . Having offered a bit of an overture to immigrant groups on one hand , he then placates his intraparty protestors on the other . Time will pass , the issue will languish for another year and the Senate bill will die with the 113th Congress .
Next year , there will be more Republicans in the Senate — perhaps even a Republican majority . Then the GOP could update the nation 's decrepit immigration laws in a fashion more to its liking . And if that fashion has some appeal for the target immigrant groups — the Hispanics and Asians who voted more than 70 % for Obama in 2012 – then it makes some sense to do it closer to the presidential election of 2016 .
That all makes for good politics , except that whenever the GOP leadership really does get serious about immigration , it will still have to face its rank and file 's aversion to anything that smacks of amnesty . Some say that aversion may be abating , but if so it was not evident last week in the blogosphere .
In all likelihood , Boehner understands the great opportunity his party is in danger of wasting . If Republicans offered some form of legalization , polls and other evidence suggest most immigrants would go for it . They want the chance to become citizens eventually , to be sure , but for the moment the most pressing need is the legal right to live and work here . One step at a time .
And if Democrats blocked such a legalization bill , holding out for citizenship , they could be cast as the obstructionists . They might well blunt their advantage with immigrant voters – now and for some time to come . It would , at the very least , pose an excruciating choice .
The chance to force the Democrats into that box would seem awfully tempting . The Speaker has seemed , at times , tempted . But so far at least , the watchdogs to his right have kept him from yielding .
|
Immigration Turbulence Buffets Boehner
toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Will the real John Boehner please stand up?
Just a dozen days ago, Speaker Boehner and his GOP leadership team embraced a set of principles for updating the nation's immigration laws.
In that moment, the House seemed about to acknowledge the most pressing issue before the Congress – the elephant in the room, if you will. But then, last week, the Ohio Republican who presides over the House majority went public with grave doubts about the feasibility of that overhaul.
Why the whiplash? Boehner said a thorough-going revamp could not be done because House Republicans did not trust President Obama to carry it out once enacted. That could be a reason not to pass any legislation of any kind on any subject, of course, but Boehner seemed to lack an alternative explanation. He did not want to say that the wind had shifted after just one week.
The truth is, the wind had shifted; and it had taken only a weekend. Within hours of leadership bringing forth its principles on Jan. 30, they were being denounced by conservative activists, bloggers and radio talk shows. The central objection: the idea that those now in the country illegally should have a path, albeit a difficult one, to legal status.
To be clear, this was not a path to citizenship, with full rights and voting privileges. This was a path to not being arrested and deported. But that notion was immediately labeled amnesty for lawbreakers. And if there is one thing we've learned from every effort toward immigration reform since 1986, once the amnesty charge sticks the bill is dead. This time, the amnesty charge appears to have been fatal before the bill was even a bill.
It can surely be argued that the terms of the Jan. 30 principles had little in common with the 1986 legislation, which did mean amnesty for millions. But Boehner did not make that argument. He scarcely mounted a defense at all.
So will the real John Boehner stand up? Probably not. He's just had his legs cut out from under him.
Democrats immediately seized the moment as proof Boehner never really intended to press ahead on immigration this year. New York Democrat Charles Schumer, one of the authors of the 2013 deal by which the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration overhaul, saw Boehner's "can't trust Obama" riff as a bluff. Fine, Schumer said, pass the law and make it effective on Jan. 20, 2017, the day Obama leaves office.
Or did you mean you wouldn't trust any president to enforce the law?
It could be that Boehner is merely playing for time. Having offered a bit of an overture to immigrant groups on one hand, he then placates his intraparty protestors on the other. Time will pass, the issue will languish for another year and the Senate bill will die with the 113th Congress.
Next year, there will be more Republicans in the Senate — perhaps even a Republican majority. Then the GOP could update the nation's decrepit immigration laws in a fashion more to its liking. And if that fashion has some appeal for the target immigrant groups — the Hispanics and Asians who voted more than 70% for Obama in 2012 – then it makes some sense to do it closer to the presidential election of 2016.
That all makes for good politics, except that whenever the GOP leadership really does get serious about immigration, it will still have to face its rank and file's aversion to anything that smacks of amnesty. Some say that aversion may be abating, but if so it was not evident last week in the blogosphere.
In all likelihood, Boehner understands the great opportunity his party is in danger of wasting. If Republicans offered some form of legalization, polls and other evidence suggest most immigrants would go for it. They want the chance to become citizens eventually, to be sure, but for the moment the most pressing need is the legal right to live and work here. One step at a time.
And if Democrats blocked such a legalization bill, holding out for citizenship, they could be cast as the obstructionists. They might well blunt their advantage with immigrant voters – now and for some time to come. It would, at the very least, pose an excruciating choice.
The chance to force the Democrats into that box would seem awfully tempting. The Speaker has seemed, at times, tempted. But so far at least, the watchdogs to his right have kept him from yielding.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
iFTwoAthqm5WHrqT
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82513.html?hp=t1
|
6 takeaways from the debate
|
2012-10-17
|
Maggie Haberman
|
Mitt Romney and President Obama sparred at Hofstra University in New York . | REUTERS 6 takeaways from the debate
NEW YORK — President Barack Obama stopped the bleeding , Mitt Romney stayed in the game , and the 2012 race remains very competitive after the second presidential debate .
The two men sparred at Long Island ’ s Hofstra University in front of a crowd of undecided voters who got to ask questions during a spirited and often angry exchange over 90 minutes .
The president clearly realized this second debate was not a drill ( one actually has to seem like he wants the job in order to get reelected ) .
After taking a bit to find his groove , Obama unleashed attacks against Romney early and often , growing more forceful as the 90 minutes wore on . If anyone doubted that his internal polls showed him slipping and Romney rising , the forcefulness of his offensive should have erased that notion .
Obama tossed out kitchen-sink type opposition research data , including Romney ’ s personal investments in certain China-based companies . He hit the GOP nominee as an “ outsourcer ” of jobs and over his personal tax rate . He unloaded the clip , including calling Romney “ extreme ” and saying his tax plan doesn ’ t add up .
Obama was clearly making up for lost time ( and lost poll support ) . Romney was also aggressive , but Obama ’ s performance was more notable for the contrast to the first debate . Romney ’ s attack lines , while also predictable , were less surprising because he used a number of them last time , and he got tripped up by Obama a few times and seemed too defensive at others .
The problem for a more aggressive Obama is how this style meshes with a candidate whose calling card is personal likability , but the president did what he had to do .
Democrats are calling the debate a clear win for Obama , and there ’ s a strong case that the president won on points . Republicans were not making nearly as forceful a case for a Romney triumph in the immediate post-debate spin , and Romney missed some opportunities .
Obama reversed course from Denver and paved the way to grab the momentum back from Romney in the next three weeks — the last of the campaign . In the spin room afterward , his aides looked as though they had all just let out a huge gasp of air .
But for the first 20 minutes of the debate , Obama seemed nervous , and Romney seemed sure-footed .
Obama didn ’ t smile enough early on , and Romney sounded effective making a case against the president ’ s economic policies . Obama seemed testy and a bit beaten-down by Romney at the outset .
“ ( The ) first debate , there was one guy on stage who looked like a president . Second debate , two guys on stage look like a president , ” said Republican strategist Bruce Haynes of Purple Strategies . “ They ’ ve battled to a draw . I suspect the snap polls will give a small advantage to Obama because he improved so substantially over the last debate. ” Haynes gave points to Romney for some of his more tactical answers to specific audiences , especially on coal and on energy .
While Romney didn ’ t have many breakout moments , he did generally project a presidential image and for the second debate in a row , he offered voters a plausible alternative .
The bottom line : Both candidates gave strong performances , but needed different things and how they are viewed by voters will depend largely on what qualities and issues mean most to those watching at home . This format didn ’ t particularly favor Romney , but he generally handled questions about the economy and Obama ’ s vision well .
|
Mitt Romney and President Obama sparred at Hofstra University in New York. | REUTERS 6 takeaways from the debate
NEW YORK — President Barack Obama stopped the bleeding, Mitt Romney stayed in the game, and the 2012 race remains very competitive after the second presidential debate.
The two men sparred at Long Island’s Hofstra University in front of a crowd of undecided voters who got to ask questions during a spirited and often angry exchange over 90 minutes.
Story Continued Below
( PHOTOS: The in-your-face debate)
Below, POLITICO’s six takeaways:
1. Offense is the best defense
The president clearly realized this second debate was not a drill (one actually has to seem like he wants the job in order to get reelected).
After taking a bit to find his groove, Obama unleashed attacks against Romney early and often, growing more forceful as the 90 minutes wore on. If anyone doubted that his internal polls showed him slipping and Romney rising, the forcefulness of his offensive should have erased that notion.
( Also on POLITICO: Obama fights back)
Obama tossed out kitchen-sink type opposition research data, including Romney’s personal investments in certain China-based companies. He hit the GOP nominee as an “outsourcer” of jobs and over his personal tax rate. He unloaded the clip, including calling Romney “extreme” and saying his tax plan doesn’t add up.
Obama was clearly making up for lost time (and lost poll support). Romney was also aggressive, but Obama’s performance was more notable for the contrast to the first debate. Romney’s attack lines, while also predictable, were less surprising because he used a number of them last time, and he got tripped up by Obama a few times and seemed too defensive at others.
( Also on POLITICO: Debate transcript (text, video)
The problem for a more aggressive Obama is how this style meshes with a candidate whose calling card is personal likability, but the president did what he had to do.
2. One stage, two potential presidents
Democrats are calling the debate a clear win for Obama, and there’s a strong case that the president won on points. Republicans were not making nearly as forceful a case for a Romney triumph in the immediate post-debate spin, and Romney missed some opportunities.
( See also: Complete coverage of 2012 presidential debates)
Obama reversed course from Denver and paved the way to grab the momentum back from Romney in the next three weeks — the last of the campaign. In the spin room afterward, his aides looked as though they had all just let out a huge gasp of air.
But for the first 20 minutes of the debate, Obama seemed nervous, and Romney seemed sure-footed.
Obama didn’t smile enough early on, and Romney sounded effective making a case against the president’s economic policies. Obama seemed testy and a bit beaten-down by Romney at the outset.
“(The) first debate, there was one guy on stage who looked like a president. Second debate, two guys on stage look like a president,” said Republican strategist Bruce Haynes of Purple Strategies. “They’ve battled to a draw. I suspect the snap polls will give a small advantage to Obama because he improved so substantially over the last debate.” Haynes gave points to Romney for some of his more tactical answers to specific audiences, especially on coal and on energy.
( Also on POLITICO: Liberals relieved by Obama’s performance)
While Romney didn’t have many breakout moments, he did generally project a presidential image and for the second debate in a row, he offered voters a plausible alternative.
The bottom line: Both candidates gave strong performances, but needed different things and how they are viewed by voters will depend largely on what qualities and issues mean most to those watching at home. This format didn’t particularly favor Romney, but he generally handled questions about the economy and Obama’s vision well.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
6xtNH1L2TwZDbo0s
|
russia
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/world/moscow-police-arrests-740-protests
|
Moscow police arrest hundreds during protest calling for fair elections, group claims
|
David Aaro
|
Police in Moscow arrested more than 750 people during a demonstration outside city hall on Saturday , where they were calling for fair elections after the upcoming city council elections on Sept. 8 excluded opposition candidates from being on the ballot , according to a Russian organization that monitors political arrests .
OVD-Info said 779 people were detained . Moscow police earlier said 295 people had been taken in , but did not immediately give a final figure .
The protest was organized by opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny , 43 , who was arrested Wednesday and sentenced to 30 days in jail . Other opposition politicians were detained on Saturday , including Ilya Yashin , Dmitry Gudkov and Ivan Zhdanov .
Yashin 's Facebook page said that 10 masked officers took him from his apartment in Moscow the night before the demonstration . After being arrested , Navalny said on Instagram , `` I have been detained and am now at a police station wearing shorts like a stupid man , ''
Moscow police estimated the number of protesters at 3,500 . They were originally set up near the mayor 's office before being relocated by police towards the side streets . The protest was reportedly unauthorized by the government , and people were seen scrapping with police officers and shouting `` Russia will be free ! '' and `` Who are you beating ? ''
The opposition politician names were reportedly not included on the ballot because they had not received enough signatures to qualify , according to election officials . Supporters of the opposition party say the government is forcing them out , so they wo n't be able to participate in the elections .
Helmeted police barged into Navalny 's video studio as it was conducting a YouTube broadcast of the protest and arrested program leader Vladimir Milonov . Police also searched Dozhd , an internet TV station that was covering the protest , and its editor in chief Alexandra Perepelova was ordered to undergo questioning at the Investigative Committee .
RUSSIAN SUSPECT IN $ 4B BITCOIN FRAUD IS SUED IN CALIFORNIA ; US , RUSSIA SEEK HIS EXTRADITION FROM GREECE
There was no immediate information on what charges the detainees might face .
Once a local , low-key affair , the September vote for Moscow 's city council has shaken up Russia 's political scene as the Kremlin struggles with how to deal with strongly opposing views in its sprawling capital of 12.6 million .
The decision by electoral authorities to bar some opposition candidates from running for having allegedly insufficient signatures on their nominating petitions had already sparked several days of demonstrations even before Saturday 's clashes in Moscow .
The city council , which has 45 seats , is responsible for a large municipal budget and is now controlled by the pro-Kremlin United Russia party . All of its seats , which have a five-year-term , are up for grabs in the Sept. 8 vote .
Over 22,000 people gathered for a protest in downtown Moscow last Saturday , the largest in years .
|
Police in Moscow arrested more than 750 people during a demonstration outside city hall on Saturday, where they were calling for fair elections after the upcoming city council elections on Sept. 8 excluded opposition candidates from being on the ballot, according to a Russian organization that monitors political arrests.
OVD-Info said 779 people were detained. Moscow police earlier said 295 people had been taken in, but did not immediately give a final figure.
The protest was organized by opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny, 43, who was arrested Wednesday and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Other opposition politicians were detained on Saturday, including Ilya Yashin, Dmitry Gudkov and Ivan Zhdanov.
Yashin's Facebook page said that 10 masked officers took him from his apartment in Moscow the night before the demonstration. After being arrested, Navalny said on Instagram, "I have been detained and am now at a police station wearing shorts like a stupid man,"
DOZENS DETAINED AT CATHEDRAL PROTEST IN RUSSIAN CITY
Moscow police estimated the number of protesters at 3,500. They were originally set up near the mayor's office before being relocated by police towards the side streets. The protest was reportedly unauthorized by the government, and people were seen scrapping with police officers and shouting "Russia will be free!" and "Who are you beating?"
The opposition politician names were reportedly not included on the ballot because they had not received enough signatures to qualify, according to election officials. Supporters of the opposition party say the government is forcing them out, so they won't be able to participate in the elections.
Helmeted police barged into Navalny's video studio as it was conducting a YouTube broadcast of the protest and arrested program leader Vladimir Milonov. Police also searched Dozhd, an internet TV station that was covering the protest, and its editor in chief Alexandra Perepelova was ordered to undergo questioning at the Investigative Committee.
RUSSIAN SUSPECT IN $4B BITCOIN FRAUD IS SUED IN CALIFORNIA; US, RUSSIA SEEK HIS EXTRADITION FROM GREECE
There was no immediate information on what charges the detainees might face.
Once a local, low-key affair, the September vote for Moscow's city council has shaken up Russia's political scene as the Kremlin struggles with how to deal with strongly opposing views in its sprawling capital of 12.6 million.
The decision by electoral authorities to bar some opposition candidates from running for having allegedly insufficient signatures on their nominating petitions had already sparked several days of demonstrations even before Saturday's clashes in Moscow.
The city council, which has 45 seats, is responsible for a large municipal budget and is now controlled by the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. All of its seats, which have a five-year-term, are up for grabs in the Sept. 8 vote.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Over 22,000 people gathered for a protest in downtown Moscow last Saturday, the largest in years.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
1Cz3Ohi3a18uUXrW
|
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82398.html?hp=t1
|
Inside the campaign: How Mitt Romney preps
|
2012-10-15
|
Mike Allen
|
Mitt Romney is working on connecting with the audience during his debate prep . | REUTERS Inside the campaign : How Mitt preps
In the days leading up to Mitt Romney ’ s Denver debate triumph , the team helping him prepare reached a breakthrough with one critical insight : The candidate did best when he felt free to talk like a businessman , pitching voters as though he were pitching investors .
Stop trying to edit your answers for political effect—a habit Romney had internalized , of necessity , in the long fight for the GOP nomination—his advisers urged him . Trust language that comes naturally to you .
The result was a debate performance in Denver that relied heavily on litanies of numbered points— “ My plan has five basic parts , ” he said in his first answer to moderator Jim Lehrer—and drew a sharp contrast with an unusually listless appearance with President Barack Obama .
Over this past weekend , Romney advisers and the candidate himself were grappling with a new challenge . It was how to repeat the success of Denver—when Romney at last managed to find something like his authentic voice—on Tuesday in a debate with a town-hall format that will push Romney much further out of his newfound comfort zone .
Practice sessions for the second round , according to Republicans familiar with the preparations , have been focused almost entirely on the stagecraft and body language of engaging with the questioners . Romney has been warned not to physically back away from a questioner , but to lean in as if having a one-on-one conversation that just happens to have 50 million or so eavesdroppers .
Obama aides , for their part , have signaled that he plans to be much more aggressive this time , including raising questions about Romney ’ s work at Bain Capital , the private-equity firm he helped found . In fact , Obama is so primed for a comeback that the number one piece of advice he is getting , according to a Democrat familiar with the president ’ s debate preparation , is “ not to overreact , not to overcompensate . ”
“ You ’ ve got to take on this guy and challenge him , but you can ’ t seem like a bully , ” the Democrat said .
If Obama needs to recover from a flat performance in Denver , it is still Romney—as the candidate facing a steeper Electoral College path to victory—who has the most pressure on him , particularly as his strong first debate has heightened expectations for an even stronger second .
It is a sign of Romney ’ s idiosyncrasies as a politician that the most commonplace and even obvious advice—just be yourself—summoned forth in Denver a recital of crisp , multi-pronged arguments : four numbered reasons he was against “ Obamacare ” ; three numbered points about his tax plan , how he would cut the deficit and how he would rein in spending ; and two numbered about his Medicare plan , and about how he would replace the health-care law .
A blizzard of data isn ’ t the classic strategy for a politician trying to highlight his human side . But Sen . Rob Portman ( R-Ohio ) —who started out as the sparring partner , playing Obama in debate practice , but gradually took on a broader role as debate strategist—observed that it was precisely when Romney channeled the language and cadences of his business career that he seemed most at ease , and most credible .
Romney advisers familiar with debate preparations and Portman ’ s role said an ideological repositioning , from severe conservative to reassuring moderate , was not part of the strategy , but that when Romney speaks from the heart he naturally sounds more pragmatic and less doctrinaire .
|
Mitt Romney is working on connecting with the audience during his debate prep. | REUTERS Inside the campaign: How Mitt preps
In the days leading up to Mitt Romney’s Denver debate triumph, the team helping him prepare reached a breakthrough with one critical insight: The candidate did best when he felt free to talk like a businessman, pitching voters as though he were pitching investors.
Stop trying to edit your answers for political effect—a habit Romney had internalized, of necessity, in the long fight for the GOP nomination—his advisers urged him. Trust language that comes naturally to you.
Story Continued Below
The result was a debate performance in Denver that relied heavily on litanies of numbered points—“My plan has five basic parts,” he said in his first answer to moderator Jim Lehrer—and drew a sharp contrast with an unusually listless appearance with President Barack Obama.
( Also on POLITICO: The 3 states that may decide the election)
Over this past weekend, Romney advisers and the candidate himself were grappling with a new challenge. It was how to repeat the success of Denver—when Romney at last managed to find something like his authentic voice—on Tuesday in a debate with a town-hall format that will push Romney much further out of his newfound comfort zone.
Practice sessions for the second round, according to Republicans familiar with the preparations, have been focused almost entirely on the stagecraft and body language of engaging with the questioners. Romney has been warned not to physically back away from a questioner, but to lean in as if having a one-on-one conversation that just happens to have 50 million or so eavesdroppers.
Obama aides, for their part, have signaled that he plans to be much more aggressive this time, including raising questions about Romney’s work at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped found. In fact, Obama is so primed for a comeback that the number one piece of advice he is getting, according to a Democrat familiar with the president’s debate preparation, is “not to overreact, not to overcompensate.”
( PHOTOS: Mitt Romney through the years)
“You’ve got to take on this guy and challenge him, but you can’t seem like a bully,” the Democrat said.
If Obama needs to recover from a flat performance in Denver, it is still Romney—as the candidate facing a steeper Electoral College path to victory—who has the most pressure on him, particularly as his strong first debate has heightened expectations for an even stronger second.
It is a sign of Romney’s idiosyncrasies as a politician that the most commonplace and even obvious advice—just be yourself—summoned forth in Denver a recital of crisp, multi-pronged arguments: four numbered reasons he was against “Obamacare”; three numbered points about his tax plan, how he would cut the deficit and how he would rein in spending; and two numbered about his Medicare plan, and about how he would replace the health-care law.
( Also on POLITICO: The latest on 2012 swing states)
A blizzard of data isn’t the classic strategy for a politician trying to highlight his human side. But Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)—who started out as the sparring partner, playing Obama in debate practice, but gradually took on a broader role as debate strategist—observed that it was precisely when Romney channeled the language and cadences of his business career that he seemed most at ease, and most credible.
Romney advisers familiar with debate preparations and Portman’s role said an ideological repositioning, from severe conservative to reassuring moderate, was not part of the strategy, but that when Romney speaks from the heart he naturally sounds more pragmatic and less doctrinaire.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
yWs0gVmi3Kz5orYg
|
immigration
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/419146-judge-sides-with-sanctuary-cities-over-trump
|
Federal judge in New York rules against Trump in sanctuary cities case
|
2018-11-30
|
A federal judge on Friday ruled against the Trump administration 's move to withhold grant funding from law enforcement agencies of so-called sanctuary cities , saying it was illegal and unconstitutional .
Judge Edgardo Ramos , of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York , said the government “ did not have lawful authority ” to make states alert federal agents when an undocumented immigrant is going to be released from state or local custody and allow federal agents to question immigrants in custody about their legal status in order for states and cities to receive funding .
In his ruling , Ramos blocked the government from enforcing those conditions on New York , New York City and the six states that also challenged the requirements : Connecticut , Massachusetts , New Jersey , Rhode Island , Virginia and Washington .
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood ( D ) called the court ’ s decision a major win .
“ As we argued , local law enforcement has the right to decide how to meet their local public safety needs — and the Trump administration simply does not have the right to require state and local police to act as federal immigration agents , ” she said . “ The Trump administration ’ s attempt to withhold these vital funds was nothing more than a political attack at the expense of our public safety . ”
The challengers in Friday 's case had asked Ramos to issue a nationwide injunction , but he said they had not shown that such a move was necessary to afford them relief . He also noted the scope of other district court decisions have been limited .
A judge for the Northern District of Illinois issued an injunction blocking the administration from enforcing the conditions nationwide in September 2017 . The ruling was affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals , but the court later put its nationwide scope on hold pending a review by the court ’ s full panel of judges .
In November 2017 , a district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania blocked the administration from enforcing the conditions on Philadelphia . The federal government has appealed that ruling to the 3rd Circuit . And a district court in California last month blocked the condition from being enforced on the city and county of San Francisco .
|
A federal judge on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's move to withhold grant funding from law enforcement agencies of so-called sanctuary cities, saying it was illegal and unconstitutional.
Judge Edgardo Ramos, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said the government “did not have lawful authority” to make states alert federal agents when an undocumented immigrant is going to be released from state or local custody and allow federal agents to question immigrants in custody about their legal status in order for states and cities to receive funding.
ADVERTISEMENT
In his ruling, Ramos blocked the government from enforcing those conditions on New York, New York City and the six states that also challenged the requirements: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) called the court’s decision a major win.
“As we argued, local law enforcement has the right to decide how to meet their local public safety needs — and the Trump administration simply does not have the right to require state and local police to act as federal immigration agents,” she said. “The Trump administration’s attempt to withhold these vital funds was nothing more than a political attack at the expense of our public safety.”
The challengers in Friday's case had asked Ramos to issue a nationwide injunction, but he said they had not shown that such a move was necessary to afford them relief. He also noted the scope of other district court decisions have been limited.
A judge for the Northern District of Illinois issued an injunction blocking the administration from enforcing the conditions nationwide in September 2017. The ruling was affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court later put its nationwide scope on hold pending a review by the court’s full panel of judges.
In November 2017, a district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania blocked the administration from enforcing the conditions on Philadelphia. The federal government has appealed that ruling to the 3rd Circuit. And a district court in California last month blocked the condition from being enforced on the city and county of San Francisco.
Updated at 1:53 p.m.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
6Fk5A7MM6VwRkily
|
|
federal_budget
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/16/no-budget-agreement-anounced-tuesday-after-house-cancels-vote/
|
Senate leaders restart fiscal talks after House GOP scraps vote on budget
|
2013-10-16
|
Senate leaders on Wednesday announced a bipartisan agreement to end the partial government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling , teeing up a string of votes expected later in the day .
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced the `` important agreement '' on the floor .
`` The eyes of the world have been on Washington all this week and that is a gross understatement , '' Reid said . `` The compromise we reached will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs . ''
McConnell lamented that the agreement would not seriously address ObamaCare , but vowed to keep fighting against the law .
`` This is far less than many of us had hoped for , frankly , but it is far better than what some had sought , '' he said .
The House would still have to act , presuming the Senate approves the bill .
McConnell said he is `` hoping to wrap it up today in the Senate . '' Senate leaders seemed to have a relatively clear path to bring the bill to the floor , after Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas -- one of the chief proponents for using the budget bill to target ObamaCare -- said he would not filibuster even though he does n't like the agreement .
Senators have been scrambling since Tuesday night to hammer out a proposal , following the collapse of a plan in the House of Representatives .
The framework on the Senate side would raise the debt ceiling through Feb. 7 , and include a spending bill meant to last through Jan. 15 . The plan would not include any provision relating to the ObamaCare medical device tax , as prior plans did ; instead it would include a single provision meant to verify the income of those receiving ObamaCare subsidies . It would also instruct a bipartisan budget committee to report back on a broader plan by mid-December .
The House could be preparing to move the measure quickly , with a Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling looming .
On Tuesday , House Republicans failed to move on an alternate budget plan . House GOP leaders , after initially planning to vote on their plan sometime before midnight , shelved the proposal after leaders struggled to round up the votes . `` It is over , '' one GOP aide told Fox News late Tuesday .
Amid discontent on the House side , conservatives were also unhappy with the Senate version and raised concerns that Senate Republicans would go along with it .
But with House Speaker John Boehner losing support for the latest House plan , the odds increased that the chamber could be left taking up whatever the Senate might send over .
Some Democrats urged Republicans to throw in the towel . `` You have two options -- you can get bowled over by the Senate or you can get bowled over by the Senate , '' said one House Democratic aide .
Senate negotiators are racing against a Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling .
While the Senate had originally been crafting a bipartisan bill to address the budget impasse , House Republicans surprised Senate negotiators earlier Tuesday when they announced they were pursuing their own framework . Moving quickly , Boehner 's office announced late Tuesday afternoon that the chamber would vote by the end of the night .
But a vital meeting of the House Rules Committee , which prepares bills for the floor , was then postponed -- a signal that House leaders were lacking the necessary votes .
Fox News is told that a decision by conservative group Heritage Action to come out against the emerging bill drove some Republicans to oppose the plan -- and helped sideline the proposal . Others said GOP leaders were losing votes on the plan even before the Heritage Action statement came out .
Heritage Action complained that the House plan would `` do nothing '' to stall `` massive new entitlements '' in ObamaCare .
The revised House plan was aimed at both ending the partial government shutdown and raising the debt ceiling , but also imposing one ObamaCare-related provision .
Though Republicans have considered over the last several weeks a range of provisions relating to ObamaCare , the one they settled on in this package would force Congress , the president , and many other administration officials and staff onto ObamaCare without additional subsidies . GOP lawmakers described the proposed mandate as a matter of `` fairness . ''
`` If the president and Senate Democrats are going to force the American people to live under ObamaCare , then they and all Washington leaders should not be shielded from the law , '' one GOP aide said .
The House plan also would have ended the partial government shutdown by funding the government through Dec. 15 . And it would also raise the debt ceiling through Feb. 7 -- in turn averting the looming Thursday deadline to raise the debt cap .
Republicans earlier claimed the details of their plan were not so far off from a bipartisan approach being crafted in the Senate . Republicans urged Democrats to give it a chance , and questioned why they would preemptively reject it .
`` To say , 'absolutely categorically not , we will not consider what the Republicans in the House of Representatives are doing , ' in my view , is piling on , '' Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , said on the Senate floor , as Democrats lined up against the House plan . `` Let 's sit down and work this out . ''
White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage called the House approach a `` partisan attempt to appease a small group of Tea Party Republicans who forced the government shutdown in the first place . ''
|
Senate leaders on Wednesday announced a bipartisan agreement to end the partial government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, teeing up a string of votes expected later in the day.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced the "important agreement" on the floor.
"The eyes of the world have been on Washington all this week and that is a gross understatement," Reid said. "The compromise we reached will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs."
McConnell lamented that the agreement would not seriously address ObamaCare, but vowed to keep fighting against the law.
"This is far less than many of us had hoped for, frankly, but it is far better than what some had sought," he said.
More On This...
The House would still have to act, presuming the Senate approves the bill.
McConnell said he is "hoping to wrap it up today in the Senate." Senate leaders seemed to have a relatively clear path to bring the bill to the floor, after Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas -- one of the chief proponents for using the budget bill to target ObamaCare -- said he would not filibuster even though he doesn't like the agreement.
Senators have been scrambling since Tuesday night to hammer out a proposal, following the collapse of a plan in the House of Representatives.
Talks were led by Reid and McConnell.
The framework on the Senate side would raise the debt ceiling through Feb. 7, and include a spending bill meant to last through Jan. 15. The plan would not include any provision relating to the ObamaCare medical device tax, as prior plans did; instead it would include a single provision meant to verify the income of those receiving ObamaCare subsidies. It would also instruct a bipartisan budget committee to report back on a broader plan by mid-December.
The House could be preparing to move the measure quickly, with a Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling looming.
On Tuesday, House Republicans failed to move on an alternate budget plan. House GOP leaders, after initially planning to vote on their plan sometime before midnight, shelved the proposal after leaders struggled to round up the votes. "It is over," one GOP aide told Fox News late Tuesday.
With that decision, focus shifted back to the Senate.
Amid discontent on the House side, conservatives were also unhappy with the Senate version and raised concerns that Senate Republicans would go along with it.
But with House Speaker John Boehner losing support for the latest House plan, the odds increased that the chamber could be left taking up whatever the Senate might send over.
Some Democrats urged Republicans to throw in the towel. "You have two options -- you can get bowled over by the Senate or you can get bowled over by the Senate," said one House Democratic aide.
Senate negotiators are racing against a Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling.
While the Senate had originally been crafting a bipartisan bill to address the budget impasse, House Republicans surprised Senate negotiators earlier Tuesday when they announced they were pursuing their own framework. Moving quickly, Boehner's office announced late Tuesday afternoon that the chamber would vote by the end of the night.
But a vital meeting of the House Rules Committee, which prepares bills for the floor, was then postponed -- a signal that House leaders were lacking the necessary votes.
Fox News is told that a decision by conservative group Heritage Action to come out against the emerging bill drove some Republicans to oppose the plan -- and helped sideline the proposal. Others said GOP leaders were losing votes on the plan even before the Heritage Action statement came out.
Heritage Action complained that the House plan would "do nothing" to stall "massive new entitlements" in ObamaCare.
The revised House plan was aimed at both ending the partial government shutdown and raising the debt ceiling, but also imposing one ObamaCare-related provision.
Though Republicans have considered over the last several weeks a range of provisions relating to ObamaCare, the one they settled on in this package would force Congress, the president, and many other administration officials and staff onto ObamaCare without additional subsidies. GOP lawmakers described the proposed mandate as a matter of "fairness."
"If the president and Senate Democrats are going to force the American people to live under ObamaCare, then they and all Washington leaders should not be shielded from the law," one GOP aide said.
The House plan also would have ended the partial government shutdown by funding the government through Dec. 15. And it would also raise the debt ceiling through Feb. 7 -- in turn averting the looming Thursday deadline to raise the debt cap.
Republicans earlier claimed the details of their plan were not so far off from a bipartisan approach being crafted in the Senate. Republicans urged Democrats to give it a chance, and questioned why they would preemptively reject it.
"To say, 'absolutely categorically not, we will not consider what the Republicans in the House of Representatives are doing,' in my view, is piling on," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor, as Democrats lined up against the House plan. "Let's sit down and work this out."
White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage called the House approach a "partisan attempt to appease a small group of Tea Party Republicans who forced the government shutdown in the first place."
Fox News' Chad Pergram, Bret Baier and Mike Emanuel and FoxNews.com's Joseph Weber contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
VgBcteT92Eu1VqzY
|
|
defense
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/obama-ignores-generals-on-troop-levels-for-unprece/
|
Obama ignores generals on troop levels for unprecedented 6th time in Afghanistan, Iraq
|
2015-10-15
|
Rowan Scarborough
|
In the end , President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels , and he decided to split the difference .
Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency , about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country . It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars . Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief .
Like the current 9,800 U.S. troops there , the drawdown force of 5,500 will maintain a noncombat stance in training Afghan forces and hunting al Qaeda terrorists , Mr. Obama said Thursday . Administration officials said the U.S. will spend about $ 14.6 billion a year to house the troops at a total of four bases in Kabul , Kandahar , Jalalabad and Bagram — an increase over the estimated $ 10 billion annual cost of keeping a force at the U.S. Embassy in the Afghan capital .
The president had wanted to deliver a speech saying that all American troops were out of Afghanistan at the end of next year , as he did in 2011 for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq . But he was swayed by the dark picture of the Afghan conflict that the top brass has been drawing for him , and now Mr. Obama will pass the war onto the next president in 2017 .
The battlefield facts delivered to the White House by Army Gen. John Campbell , the top NATO commander in Afghanistan , and other generals :
• The Taliban mounted a ferocious offensive in the 2015 “ fighting season ” that took a heavy casualty toll on the shaky Afghan National Security Forces .
• Those forces still lack competent leaders to win decisive battles without American troops to guide them .
• A new enemy has emerged , the ultraviolent Islamic State ( also known as ISIL or ISIS ) in a province next door to Kabul , the Afghan capital . This confronted the elected government with new security threats , especially the terrorist army ’ s trademark vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices .
“ The security situation in Afghanistan is so far from stable that to pull out all the troops , even for this president , doesn ’ t make any sense , ” said retired Army Gen. John Keane , who devised the 2007 Iraq troop surge and has advised Afghan commanders in the past .
Mr. Keane , whose guidance is sought by Congress , said Gen. Campbell wanted to retain the current force of 9,800 , but Mr. Obama “ cut that in half . ”
“ He still does not listen to his combat field general , who wanted the current force to remain as is , ” Mr. Keane said . “ Quite unprecedented , this is the sixth time President Obama has not listened to a field commander recommendation on force levels for troops in combat . ”
The six times : Mr. Obama rejected a recommendation from Army Gen. Lloyd Austin , chief of U.S. Central Command , to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq ; at five transition points in Afghanistan , he approved troop numbers below those urged by commanders .
Still , Mr. Obama did compromise on troops and infrastructure instead of ordering the complete withdrawal he had wanted .
“ The goodness in this decision are the four bases , ” Mr. Keane said . “ If he had reduced it to one base , which they were thinking of doing , that would be a disaster .
“ The four bases permits the military to conduct counterterrorism operations in the east , south and in vicinity of the capital , which is absolutely critical , one of the crucial capabilities we lost when we pulled all troops out of Iraq , ” he said . “ Also , the four bases permits the next president to expand the troop presence rapidly based on the security situation 15 months from now .
“ What suffers as a result of this decision is the train-and-assist mission , because we won ’ t have sufficient troops to do it properly , ” the retired general said .
Train-and-assist is one of three major missions now carried out by American forces . The other two : advise and accompany Afghan forces on counterterrorism operations and provide force protection .
On Thursday , the administration defended the president against criticism that he ignored the advice of his top military advisers , with White House press secretary Josh Earnest saying that Mr. Obama ’ s decision is “ consistent with ” Gen. Campbell ’ s recommendation .
It is likely that Gen. Campbell ’ s communications with the White House in recent months mirrored the somber report he delivered Oct. 6 to the Senate Armed Services Committee .
There he spoke of a “ struggling ” Afghan force that faced its longest fighting season as the Taliban began early — in February . In the east , the Islamic State “ further complicated the theater landscape and potentially expanded the conflict , ” Gen. Campbell said .
All the while , he said , the Afghans lacked the robust U.S. air power they had come to rely on to arrive on the scene in minutes and deliver precision fire . Such air support “ is no longer the norm but the exception , ” he said .
The commander ’ s report card on the Afghan force : “ They must improve their intelligence fusion , command and control utilization of their forces . They don ’ t possess the necessary combat power and numbers to protect every part of the country . This makes it very difficult for the Afghan security forces to counter the Taliban ’ s ability to temporarily seize an objective and then blend back into the population . ”
Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford , the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , is now Mr. Obama ’ s chief military adviser .
During his July confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee , Gen. Dunford all but broke with the president ’ s then-desire to pull all troops out by the end of 2016 . One could extrapolate from his answers to questions from committee Chairman John McCain , Arizona Republican , that he would attempt to talk the president out of that plan .
“ Is this a wise decision on your part to have a calendar-based withdrawal of American troops rather than a condition-based withdrawal given your background and experience there ? ” Mr. McCain asked Gen. Dunford , a former Afghan NATO commander .
“ I ’ m aware of the consequences of our mission and importance of our mission in Afghanistan , ” the general answered . “ I can assure you , if I ’ m confirmed , I ’ ll provide advice to the president that will allow us to meet our desired end state . And I think that that will be based on the conditions on the ground , as you ’ ve articulated . ”
Mr. McCain said Thursday “ it makes no military sense to withdraw U.S. forces ” below the current 9,800 .
“ Once again , President Obama is putting our mission in Afghanistan , as well as our men and women serving there , at greater risk , and he is doing so for the sake of a troop reduction that has no political benefit but could have significant military implications , ” he said .
|
In the end, President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels, and he decided to split the difference.
Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency, about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country. It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief.
Like the current 9,800 U.S. troops there, the drawdown force of 5,500 will maintain a noncombat stance in training Afghan forces and hunting al Qaeda terrorists, Mr. Obama said Thursday. Administration officials said the U.S. will spend about $14.6 billion a year to house the troops at a total of four bases in Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Bagram — an increase over the estimated $10 billion annual cost of keeping a force at the U.S. Embassy in the Afghan capital.
The president had wanted to deliver a speech saying that all American troops were out of Afghanistan at the end of next year, as he did in 2011 for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But he was swayed by the dark picture of the Afghan conflict that the top brass has been drawing for him, and now Mr. Obama will pass the war onto the next president in 2017.
The battlefield facts delivered to the White House by Army Gen. John Campbell, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, and other generals:
• The Taliban mounted a ferocious offensive in the 2015 “fighting season” that took a heavy casualty toll on the shaky Afghan National Security Forces.
PHOTOS: Best combat rifles of all time
• Those forces still lack competent leaders to win decisive battles without American troops to guide them.
• A new enemy has emerged, the ultraviolent Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) in a province next door to Kabul, the Afghan capital. This confronted the elected government with new security threats, especially the terrorist army’s trademark vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices.
“The security situation in Afghanistan is so far from stable that to pull out all the troops, even for this president, doesn’t make any sense,” said retired Army Gen. John Keane, who devised the 2007 Iraq troop surge and has advised Afghan commanders in the past.
Mr. Keane, whose guidance is sought by Congress, said Gen. Campbell wanted to retain the current force of 9,800, but Mr. Obama “cut that in half.”
“He still does not listen to his combat field general, who wanted the current force to remain as is,” Mr. Keane said. “Quite unprecedented, this is the sixth time President Obama has not listened to a field commander recommendation on force levels for troops in combat.”
The six times: Mr. Obama rejected a recommendation from Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, chief of U.S. Central Command, to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq; at five transition points in Afghanistan, he approved troop numbers below those urged by commanders.
Still, Mr. Obama did compromise on troops and infrastructure instead of ordering the complete withdrawal he had wanted.
“The goodness in this decision are the four bases,” Mr. Keane said. “If he had reduced it to one base, which they were thinking of doing, that would be a disaster.
“The four bases permits the military to conduct counterterrorism operations in the east, south and in vicinity of the capital, which is absolutely critical, one of the crucial capabilities we lost when we pulled all troops out of Iraq,” he said. “Also, the four bases permits the next president to expand the troop presence rapidly based on the security situation 15 months from now.
“What suffers as a result of this decision is the train-and-assist mission, because we won’t have sufficient troops to do it properly,” the retired general said.
‘A wise decision?’
Train-and-assist is one of three major missions now carried out by American forces. The other two: advise and accompany Afghan forces on counterterrorism operations and provide force protection.
On Thursday, the administration defended the president against criticism that he ignored the advice of his top military advisers, with White House press secretary Josh Earnest saying that Mr. Obama’s decision is “consistent with” Gen. Campbell’s recommendation.
It is likely that Gen. Campbell’s communications with the White House in recent months mirrored the somber report he delivered Oct. 6 to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
There he spoke of a “struggling” Afghan force that faced its longest fighting season as the Taliban began early — in February. In the east, the Islamic State “further complicated the theater landscape and potentially expanded the conflict,” Gen. Campbell said.
All the while, he said, the Afghans lacked the robust U.S. air power they had come to rely on to arrive on the scene in minutes and deliver precision fire. Such air support “is no longer the norm but the exception,” he said.
The commander’s report card on the Afghan force: “They must improve their intelligence fusion, command and control utilization of their forces. They don’t possess the necessary combat power and numbers to protect every part of the country. This makes it very difficult for the Afghan security forces to counter the Taliban’s ability to temporarily seize an objective and then blend back into the population.”
Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is now Mr. Obama’s chief military adviser.
During his July confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Dunford all but broke with the president’s then-desire to pull all troops out by the end of 2016. One could extrapolate from his answers to questions from committee Chairman John McCain, Arizona Republican, that he would attempt to talk the president out of that plan.
“Is this a wise decision on your part to have a calendar-based withdrawal of American troops rather than a condition-based withdrawal given your background and experience there?” Mr. McCain asked Gen. Dunford, a former Afghan NATO commander.
“I’m aware of the consequences of our mission and importance of our mission in Afghanistan,” the general answered. “I can assure you, if I’m confirmed, I’ll provide advice to the president that will allow us to meet our desired end state. And I think that that will be based on the conditions on the ground, as you’ve articulated.”
Mr. McCain said Thursday “it makes no military sense to withdraw U.S. forces” below the current 9,800.
“Once again, President Obama is putting our mission in Afghanistan, as well as our men and women serving there, at greater risk, and he is doing so for the sake of a troop reduction that has no political benefit but could have significant military implications,” he said.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
tsbHTCNcdn8AgKsI
|
coronavirus
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://apnews.com/a567df30410f0e963e2234f5b5dd4f02
|
Election results are delayed again. Get used to it.
|
2020-06-24
|
Nicholas Riccardi, Stephen Ohlemacher
|
FILE - In this May 27 , 2020 , file photo , a voter drops off their mail-in ballot prior to the primary election , in Willow Grove , Pa . The civic ritual of casting a ballot has been disrupted by a global pandemic and dramatically animated by social unrest . And If the results of a frustrating , chaotic primary in Georgia are a measure , the notion of democracy itself will also be on the ballot in the November election . Congress is now considering sending $ 3.6 billion to states to help facilitate safe and fair elections as part of another round of relief funds to recover from the coronavirus pandemic . ( AP Photo/Matt Rourke , File )
FILE - In this May 27 , 2020 , file photo , a voter drops off their mail-in ballot prior to the primary election , in Willow Grove , Pa . The civic ritual of casting a ballot has been disrupted by a global pandemic and dramatically animated by social unrest . And If the results of a frustrating , chaotic primary in Georgia are a measure , the notion of democracy itself will also be on the ballot in the November election . Congress is now considering sending $ 3.6 billion to states to help facilitate safe and fair elections as part of another round of relief funds to recover from the coronavirus pandemic . ( AP Photo/Matt Rourke , File )
Kentucky and New York had primaries Tuesday , but the winners of the closest races probably won ’ t be known until next week . What ’ s going on ?
Get used to it . Slow vote counts and delayed results are a feature of elections during the pandemic and are likely to continue into the general election in November , when many election officials say that , absent a landslide , it won ’ t be clear who won the presidential election for several days .
“ Americans need to learn a little patience , ” said Josh Douglas , a law professor at the University of Kentucky who studies voter rights . “ The fact of not knowing who won right away is the process actually working . ”
In short , more Americans are voting by mail — heeding health officials ’ warnings that close contact at polling places could spread the coronavirus — and mail ballots take longer to count .
Officials have to process the ballots before they can count them . Election workers must open them , make sure the voter is registered and filled out the correct ballot , and perform any required security checks such as verifying signatures -- all the things that poll workers do when voters show up at neighborhood polling places .
Some states have laws that limit when election officials can even start this process . In New York , election officials don ’ t start processing mailed ballots until after Election Day . Both New York and Kentucky plan to release the results of mail ballots on June 30 , though don ’ t be surprised if there are further delays .
Another factor is the postmark rules . In both Kentucky and New York , ballots are counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day . That means ballots in Kentucky can arrive as late as Saturday while ballots in New York can arrive as late as a week after Election Day .
Finally , if the signatures on the mailed-in envelopes and ballots don ’ t match the ones on file , voters have the opportunity to “ cure ” them — prove in person that they were the ones who actually sent them in . That also takes time .
The ███ has long declared winners based on partial election results . But with so many outstanding votes in Kentucky and New York , the AP was only able to declare winners in the most lopsided races . Those races included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s victory in the Republican primary in Kentucky , and New York Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ’ s win over a challenger in the Democratic primary there .
But most of the high-profile races in each state were more competitive . That ’ s why the AP did not call a winner on election night in the Kentucky Democratic Senate primary between Amy McGrath and Charles Booker , or in the Democratic primary in New York ’ s 16th Congressional District between the incumbent , Rep. Elliot Engel , and Jamaal Bowman .
DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE THIS LONG TO COUNT BALLOTS ?
No . Some states have specifically tried to speed up the vote count . Some allow workers to process mail ballots well before Election Day , and that often means they can post the results quickly — even faster than it takes to count in-person votes cast at neighborhood polling places .
But adjusting the timing of the count isn ’ t the only issue . Sometimes the holdup is about money . Many states are scrambling to revamp their voting systems to prepare for a flood of mail-in ballots . But spending on new equipment , additional staff , and masks and other protective equipment is hard to come by for states with budgets ravaged by the pandemic . Congress is debating whether to send money to states to help , but it ’ s been tied up and might not arrive soon .
All the factors delaying the count in Kentucky and New York are present in presidential battleground states this November .
Many are expected to go from a relatively low rate of mail voting to the majority of ballots being cast that way . The key swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania have laws preventing mail votes from being processed early . And Democrats are pushing courts to require states to count ballots that arrive after Election Day , ensuring that a large number of votes wouldn ’ t be in election officials ’ hands when polls close .
That might not matter in a blowout . But the winner in a close presidential race could take days to resolve .
Meanwhile , President Donald Trump has continued to cast doubt on the propriety of elections held by mail — citing no evidence , but still laying the groundwork to claim voter fraud should he be defeated at the polls .
“ This will be , in my opinion , the most corrupt election in the history of our country , ” Trump said on Tuesday . “ And we can not let this happen . ”
That sort of rhetoric from the president , combined with a drawn-out vote count , could sow distrust among voters .
|
Election results are delayed again. Get used to it.
FILE - In this May 27, 2020, file photo, a voter drops off their mail-in ballot prior to the primary election, in Willow Grove, Pa. The civic ritual of casting a ballot has been disrupted by a global pandemic and dramatically animated by social unrest. And If the results of a frustrating, chaotic primary in Georgia are a measure, the notion of democracy itself will also be on the ballot in the November election. Congress is now considering sending $3.6 billion to states to help facilitate safe and fair elections as part of another round of relief funds to recover from the coronavirus pandemic. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
FILE - In this May 27, 2020, file photo, a voter drops off their mail-in ballot prior to the primary election, in Willow Grove, Pa. The civic ritual of casting a ballot has been disrupted by a global pandemic and dramatically animated by social unrest. And If the results of a frustrating, chaotic primary in Georgia are a measure, the notion of democracy itself will also be on the ballot in the November election. Congress is now considering sending $3.6 billion to states to help facilitate safe and fair elections as part of another round of relief funds to recover from the coronavirus pandemic. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
Kentucky and New York had primaries Tuesday, but the winners of the closest races probably won’t be known until next week. What’s going on?
Get used to it. Slow vote counts and delayed results are a feature of elections during the pandemic and are likely to continue into the general election in November, when many election officials say that, absent a landslide, it won’t be clear who won the presidential election for several days.
“Americans need to learn a little patience,” said Josh Douglas, a law professor at the University of Kentucky who studies voter rights. “The fact of not knowing who won right away is the process actually working.”
ADVERTISEMENT
WHAT’S THE HOLDUP?
In short, more Americans are voting by mail — heeding health officials’ warnings that close contact at polling places could spread the coronavirus — and mail ballots take longer to count.
Officials have to process the ballots before they can count them. Election workers must open them, make sure the voter is registered and filled out the correct ballot, and perform any required security checks such as verifying signatures -- all the things that poll workers do when voters show up at neighborhood polling places.
Some states have laws that limit when election officials can even start this process. In New York, election officials don’t start processing mailed ballots until after Election Day. Both New York and Kentucky plan to release the results of mail ballots on June 30, though don’t be surprised if there are further delays.
Another factor is the postmark rules. In both Kentucky and New York, ballots are counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. That means ballots in Kentucky can arrive as late as Saturday while ballots in New York can arrive as late as a week after Election Day.
Finally, if the signatures on the mailed-in envelopes and ballots don’t match the ones on file, voters have the opportunity to “cure” them — prove in person that they were the ones who actually sent them in. That also takes time.
WHY DO WE KNOW SOME WINNERS AND NOT OTHERS?
The Associated Press has long declared winners based on partial election results. But with so many outstanding votes in Kentucky and New York, the AP was only able to declare winners in the most lopsided races. Those races included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s victory in the Republican primary in Kentucky, and New York Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s win over a challenger in the Democratic primary there.
ADVERTISEMENT
But most of the high-profile races in each state were more competitive. That’s why the AP did not call a winner on election night in the Kentucky Democratic Senate primary between Amy McGrath and Charles Booker, or in the Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District between the incumbent, Rep. Elliot Engel, and Jamaal Bowman.
DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE THIS LONG TO COUNT BALLOTS?
No. Some states have specifically tried to speed up the vote count. Some allow workers to process mail ballots well before Election Day, and that often means they can post the results quickly — even faster than it takes to count in-person votes cast at neighborhood polling places.
But adjusting the timing of the count isn’t the only issue. Sometimes the holdup is about money. Many states are scrambling to revamp their voting systems to prepare for a flood of mail-in ballots. But spending on new equipment, additional staff, and masks and other protective equipment is hard to come by for states with budgets ravaged by the pandemic. Congress is debating whether to send money to states to help, but it’s been tied up and might not arrive soon.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR NOVEMBER?
All the factors delaying the count in Kentucky and New York are present in presidential battleground states this November.
Many are expected to go from a relatively low rate of mail voting to the majority of ballots being cast that way. The key swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania have laws preventing mail votes from being processed early. And Democrats are pushing courts to require states to count ballots that arrive after Election Day, ensuring that a large number of votes wouldn’t be in election officials’ hands when polls close.
That might not matter in a blowout. But the winner in a close presidential race could take days to resolve.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has continued to cast doubt on the propriety of elections held by mail — citing no evidence, but still laying the groundwork to claim voter fraud should he be defeated at the polls.
“This will be, in my opinion, the most corrupt election in the history of our country,” Trump said on Tuesday. “And we can not let this happen.”
That sort of rhetoric from the president, combined with a drawn-out vote count, could sow distrust among voters.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
WZ2v7BS96mNqj2MC
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/07/446470255/draft-biden-makes-a-tv-ad-for-a-candidate-not-yet-running
|
'Draft Biden' Group Launches Emotional Ad Urging VP To Run
|
2015-10-07
|
Tamara Keith
|
'Draft Biden ' Group Launches Emotional Ad Urging VP To Run
Vice President Joe Biden is n't running for president — not yet , anyway . But a group hoping he does is going on air with a six-figure ad buy encouraging him to get in the race .
Unless something dramatic changes , Biden will not be on the stage Tuesday during the first Democratic presidential debate . But the Draft Biden superPAC will make sure his presence is felt with a national TV ad on cable slated to run during the time of the debate .
Draft Biden will undoubtedly get plenty of free media for its ad , with a release on the web Wednesday morning .
`` The idea , I think , of this ad is to , you know , really show as many people as possible , the millions of people who will see it online and when it 's up on cable , a part of Joe Biden 's story that is n't told often enough , '' said Josh Alcorn , a senior adviser to Draft Biden .
The ad is 90 seconds long and uses audio from an emotional commencement speech Biden gave earlier this year at Yale . In that speech , and in the ad , Biden recounts the phone call he got in 1972 telling him his family had been in a car accident . His wife and daughter were killed , and his two sons were in critical condition .
Biden gave that commencement address just days before his son , Beau , died of brain cancer .
`` We 're thinking of this almost in the same way you would think of a Super Bowl ad , '' said Alcorn , who was a political adviser to the younger Biden before his death . `` There 's a lot to it . There 's a long story to tell . ''
And by Alcorn 's telling , it is a story of loss , of redemption and empathy , and , finally , of optimism for the future .
Veteran Democratic political ad maker Mark Putnam created the ad . He came across the Yale speech as he searched for footage of Biden that he could use in the ad . Since the `` candidate '' is n't even a candidate yet , and superPACs ca n't coordinate directly with candidates anyway , Putnam was looking for publicly available footage .
Putnam said he had n't been planning to make an ad focused on Biden 's personal tragedies , but then he heard the Yale speech .
`` When I heard that speech and heard how he talked about it , and it was really the only time I had heard him talk about it , '' Putnam said , `` it was just immediately captivating to me , and I thought , well , if it is captivating to me , then it will probably be captivating to others . ''
As Putnam was making the ad , he said he had two audiences in mind — voters and Biden himself . Putnam worked on Biden 's first presidential campaign in 1987 and wants him to run again .
What will the vice president think of this ad , trying to get him in the race ?
In recent national polls , Biden consistently polls in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders . There is a well of goodwill for him among Democrats , but it is unclear whether that would translate into electoral success .
Either way , Draft Biden contends that he 's the man for the job . The ad ends simply with these words that come up on the screen : `` Joe , run . ''
|
'Draft Biden' Group Launches Emotional Ad Urging VP To Run
Draft Biden YouTube
Vice President Joe Biden isn't running for president — not yet, anyway. But a group hoping he does is going on air with a six-figure ad buy encouraging him to get in the race.
Unless something dramatic changes, Biden will not be on the stage Tuesday during the first Democratic presidential debate. But the Draft Biden superPAC will make sure his presence is felt with a national TV ad on cable slated to run during the time of the debate.
Draft Biden will undoubtedly get plenty of free media for its ad, with a release on the web Wednesday morning.
"The idea, I think, of this ad is to, you know, really show as many people as possible, the millions of people who will see it online and when it's up on cable, a part of Joe Biden's story that isn't told often enough," said Josh Alcorn, a senior adviser to Draft Biden.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Bernat Armangue/AP Bernat Armangue/AP
The ad is 90 seconds long and uses audio from an emotional commencement speech Biden gave earlier this year at Yale. In that speech, and in the ad, Biden recounts the phone call he got in 1972 telling him his family had been in a car accident. His wife and daughter were killed, and his two sons were in critical condition.
Biden gave that commencement address just days before his son, Beau, died of brain cancer.
"We're thinking of this almost in the same way you would think of a Super Bowl ad," said Alcorn, who was a political adviser to the younger Biden before his death. "There's a lot to it. There's a long story to tell."
And by Alcorn's telling, it is a story of loss, of redemption and empathy, and, finally, of optimism for the future.
Veteran Democratic political ad maker Mark Putnam created the ad. He came across the Yale speech as he searched for footage of Biden that he could use in the ad. Since the "candidate" isn't even a candidate yet, and superPACs can't coordinate directly with candidates anyway, Putnam was looking for publicly available footage.
Putnam said he hadn't been planning to make an ad focused on Biden's personal tragedies, but then he heard the Yale speech.
"When I heard that speech and heard how he talked about it, and it was really the only time I had heard him talk about it," Putnam said, "it was just immediately captivating to me, and I thought, well, if it is captivating to me, then it will probably be captivating to others."
As Putnam was making the ad, he said he had two audiences in mind — voters and Biden himself. Putnam worked on Biden's first presidential campaign in 1987 and wants him to run again.
What will the vice president think of this ad, trying to get him in the race?
"You know, I hope he likes it," Alcorn said.
In recent national polls, Biden consistently polls in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. There is a well of goodwill for him among Democrats, but it is unclear whether that would translate into electoral success.
Either way, Draft Biden contends that he's the man for the job. The ad ends simply with these words that come up on the screen: "Joe, run."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
RlaApBgc7YP45z3K
|
us_congress
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller/in-dramatic-testimony-mueller-says-he-did-not-exonerate-trump-idUSKCN1UJ0DF
|
In dramatic testimony, Mueller says he did not exonerate Trump
|
2019-07-25
|
David Morgan
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller emphasized on Wednesday he had not exonerated Donald Trump of obstruction of justice , as the president has claimed , but his long-awaited congressional testimony did little to add momentum to any Democratic impeachment ambitions and Trump heartily declared victory .
In seven hours of congressional testimony , Mueller accused Trump of not always being truthful , called his support for the 2016 release of stolen Democratic emails “ problematic ” and said Russia would again try to interfere in the 2020 U.S. elections .
“ They are doing it while we sit here . And they expect to do it in our next election , ” Mueller told lawmakers in back-to-back hearings on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election to boost Republican Trump ’ s candidacy .
Despite Mueller ’ s assertion that Trump could be indicted after leaving office , the president was triumphant after the former FBI director ’ s appearances before the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives Judiciary and Intelligence committees .
“ This was a very big day for the Republican Party . And you could say this was a great day for me , but I don ’ t even like to say that , ” Trump said after Mueller ’ s lengthy and at times halting testimony during which he sometimes could not hear questions and had to correct at least one answer
During a day of high-stakes political theater , Mueller , 74 , answered questions publicly for the first time on his investigation , with Democrats and Republicans taking familiar positions at a time of deep U.S. partisan divisions .
The marathon televised hearings apparently left Democrats who control the House no closer to launching the impeachment process to try to remove the president even as he seeks re-election in 2020 .
Mueller , for his part , refused to discuss the “ impeachment issue . ”
“ The Democrats had nothing , ” Trump told reporters outside the White House as he was leaving on a trip to West Virginia . “ And now they have less than nothing . And I think they ’ re going to lose the 2020 election very big , including congressional seats , because of the path that they choose . ”
Democrats said they would go to court this week to enforce a subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn and to ask for grand jury material related to Mueller ’ s probe .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave no sign she was speeding up her step-by-step approach to considering impeachment , saying : “ We want to have the strongest possible case , to make a decision as to what path we will go down . ”
Mueller spent 22 months investigating what he concluded was Russian interference in a “ sweeping and systematic fashion ” in the 2016 U.S. election to help Trump as well as the president ’ s actions to impede the inquiry .
Mueller defended the inquiry ’ s integrity under repeated attack by Trump ’ s conservative Republican allies . The president lauded those lawmakers as “ incredible warriors . ”
Democrats who wanted Mueller to bolster their case for impeachment or provide game-changing testimony about the president , and Republicans who wanted to show that the investigation was a politically motivated hit job on Trump engineered by his enemies , may have come away frustrated .
Mueller , a reluctant witness who appeared only after being subpoenaed , often gave terse responses like “ I can ’ t speak to that , ” “ I ’ m not going to get into that , ” and “ It is beyond my purview , ” or merely referred lawmakers to the text of his 448-page investigative report .
The Judiciary Committee ’ s Democratic chairman , Jerrold Nadler , said Mueller had endured “ repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks ” and that no one , including Trump , was “ above the law. ” The Intelligence Committee ’ s Democratic chairman , Adam Schiff , accused Trump ’ s 2016 campaign of “ disloyalty to country ” for inviting , encouraging and making full use of Russian election meddling .
Republican lawmakers tried to paint Mueller ’ s investigation as unfair to the president , with Louie Gohmert telling the decorated Vietnam War veteran and longtime federal prosecutor : “ You perpetuated injustice , ” and Guy Reschenthaler calling the manner in which the inquiry was conducted “ un-American . ”
“ Welcome , everyone , to the last gasp of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory , ” said Devin Nunes , the Intelligence Committee ’ s top Republican .
Mueller ’ s report , released in redacted form on April 18 , did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice with his actions aimed at undermining the inquiry , but did not exonerate him . The report also said the inquiry found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump and his campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia .
Trump has said the Mueller inquiry resulted in the president ’ s “ complete and total exoneration . ”
“ Did you actually totally exonerate the president ? ” Nadler asked Mueller during the first hearing .
Mueller testified that his inquiry was conducted in “ a fair and independent manner ” and that members of the special counsel ’ s team “ were of the highest integrity . ”
Former special counsel Robert Mueller , accompanied by his top aide in the investigation Aaron Zebley , testifies before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference , on Capitol Hill , in Washington , D.C. , U.S. July 24 , 2019 . Alex Brandon/Pool via ███
“ I think Robert Mueller did a horrible job , both today and with respect to the investigation , ” Trump said , adding that as special counsel , Mueller “ ruined people ’ s lives ” and was part of an attempted “ illegal overthrow . ”
“ There was no defense to this ridiculous hoax , this witch hunt that ’ s been going on for a long time , ” Trump added .
Mueller testified that the investigation was neither a witch hunt nor a hoax .
Mueller caused confusion when he testified while being questioned by Democratic Representative Ted Lieu during the first hearing that he would have sought to indict Trump were it not for a Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president . But hours later at the outset of the second hearing , Mueller corrected himself .
“ As we say in the report and as I said at the opening , we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime , ” Mueller said .
Mueller added that a president could be charged with a crime after leaving office .
Democrats entered the hearings hoping his testimony would rally public support behind their own investigations of the president and his administration . Democrats are deeply divided over whether to launch the impeachment process set out in the U.S. Constitution for removing a president from office for “ high crimes and misdemeanors . ”
Trump has accused Mueller of having conflicts of interest , including saying Mueller wanted the president to appoint him as FBI director after firing James Comey in May 2017 . Mueller disputed Trump ’ s account , saying he had not sought the FBI job from Trump . The Justice Department named Mueller as special counsel later that month .
Questioned by Democrat Val Demings , Mueller said he “ generally ” agreed that Trump ’ s written answers to his investigators were not always truthful after the president refused to submit to a face-to-face interview . Mueller also said his team decided not to exercise its subpoena powers against Trump to force an interview last year because of “ the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation . ”
Asked about Trump ’ s past comments praising WikiLeaks - the website that published stolen Democratic emails the inquiry found were hacked by Russians to harm Trump ’ s election opponent , Hillary Clinton - Mueller said : “ ‘ Problematic ’ is an understatement . ”
“ Let me say one more thing , ” Mueller said . “ Over the course of my career , I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy . The Russian government ’ s effort to interfere with our election is among the most serious . ”
Under questioning , Mueller said his report detailed “ multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations , including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations . ”
He added : “ The finding indicates ... that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed . ”
Mueller ’ s investigation led to criminal charges against 34 people and three Russian entities . People who were convicted at trial or pleaded guilty included Trump ’ s former campaign chairman , deputy chairman and other aides .
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller emphasized on Wednesday he had not exonerated Donald Trump of obstruction of justice, as the president has claimed, but his long-awaited congressional testimony did little to add momentum to any Democratic impeachment ambitions and Trump heartily declared victory.
In seven hours of congressional testimony, Mueller accused Trump of not always being truthful, called his support for the 2016 release of stolen Democratic emails “problematic” and said Russia would again try to interfere in the 2020 U.S. elections.
“They are doing it while we sit here. And they expect to do it in our next election,” Mueller told lawmakers in back-to-back hearings on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election to boost Republican Trump’s candidacy.
Despite Mueller’s assertion that Trump could be indicted after leaving office, the president was triumphant after the former FBI director’s appearances before the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
“This was a very big day for the Republican Party. And you could say this was a great day for me, but I don’t even like to say that,” Trump said after Mueller’s lengthy and at times halting testimony during which he sometimes could not hear questions and had to correct at least one answer
During a day of high-stakes political theater, Mueller, 74, answered questions publicly for the first time on his investigation, with Democrats and Republicans taking familiar positions at a time of deep U.S. partisan divisions.
The marathon televised hearings apparently left Democrats who control the House no closer to launching the impeachment process to try to remove the president even as he seeks re-election in 2020.
Mueller, for his part, refused to discuss the “impeachment issue.”
‘DEMOCRATS HAD NOTHING’ -TRUMP
“The Democrats had nothing,” Trump told reporters outside the White House as he was leaving on a trip to West Virginia. “And now they have less than nothing. And I think they’re going to lose the 2020 election very big, including congressional seats, because of the path that they choose.”
Democrats said they would go to court this week to enforce a subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn and to ask for grand jury material related to Mueller’s probe.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave no sign she was speeding up her step-by-step approach to considering impeachment, saying: “We want to have the strongest possible case, to make a decision as to what path we will go down.”
Mueller spent 22 months investigating what he concluded was Russian interference in a “sweeping and systematic fashion” in the 2016 U.S. election to help Trump as well as the president’s actions to impede the inquiry.
Mueller defended the inquiry’s integrity under repeated attack by Trump’s conservative Republican allies. The president lauded those lawmakers as “incredible warriors.”
Democrats who wanted Mueller to bolster their case for impeachment or provide game-changing testimony about the president, and Republicans who wanted to show that the investigation was a politically motivated hit job on Trump engineered by his enemies, may have come away frustrated.
Mueller, a reluctant witness who appeared only after being subpoenaed, often gave terse responses like “I can’t speak to that,” “I’m not going to get into that,” and “It is beyond my purview,” or merely referred lawmakers to the text of his 448-page investigative report.
The Judiciary Committee’s Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler, said Mueller had endured “repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks” and that no one, including Trump, was “above the law.” The Intelligence Committee’s Democratic chairman, Adam Schiff, accused Trump’s 2016 campaign of “disloyalty to country” for inviting, encouraging and making full use of Russian election meddling.
Republican lawmakers tried to paint Mueller’s investigation as unfair to the president, with Louie Gohmert telling the decorated Vietnam War veteran and longtime federal prosecutor: “You perpetuated injustice,” and Guy Reschenthaler calling the manner in which the inquiry was conducted “un-American.”
“Welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory,” said Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee’s top Republican.
Mueller’s report, released in redacted form on April 18, did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice with his actions aimed at undermining the inquiry, but did not exonerate him. The report also said the inquiry found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump and his campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.
Trump has said the Mueller inquiry resulted in the president’s “complete and total exoneration.”
“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked Mueller during the first hearing.
“No,” Mueller replied.
Mueller testified that his inquiry was conducted in “a fair and independent manner” and that members of the special counsel’s team “were of the highest integrity.”
Former special counsel Robert Mueller, accompanied by his top aide in the investigation Aaron Zebley, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., U.S. July 24, 2019. Alex Brandon/Pool via Reuters
Trump, however, was unsparing in his criticism.
“I think Robert Mueller did a horrible job, both today and with respect to the investigation,” Trump said, adding that as special counsel, Mueller “ruined people’s lives” and was part of an attempted “illegal overthrow.”
“There was no defense to this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt that’s been going on for a long time,” Trump added.
Mueller testified that the investigation was neither a witch hunt nor a hoax.
MUELLER’S REVERSAL
Mueller caused confusion when he testified while being questioned by Democratic Representative Ted Lieu during the first hearing that he would have sought to indict Trump were it not for a Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. But hours later at the outset of the second hearing, Mueller corrected himself.
“As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said.
Mueller added that a president could be charged with a crime after leaving office.
Democrats entered the hearings hoping his testimony would rally public support behind their own investigations of the president and his administration. Democrats are deeply divided over whether to launch the impeachment process set out in the U.S. Constitution for removing a president from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Trump has accused Mueller of having conflicts of interest, including saying Mueller wanted the president to appoint him as FBI director after firing James Comey in May 2017. Mueller disputed Trump’s account, saying he had not sought the FBI job from Trump. The Justice Department named Mueller as special counsel later that month.
Questioned by Democrat Val Demings, Mueller said he “generally” agreed that Trump’s written answers to his investigators were not always truthful after the president refused to submit to a face-to-face interview. Mueller also said his team decided not to exercise its subpoena powers against Trump to force an interview last year because of “the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation.”
Asked about Trump’s past comments praising WikiLeaks - the website that published stolen Democratic emails the inquiry found were hacked by Russians to harm Trump’s election opponent, Hillary Clinton - Mueller said: “‘Problematic’ is an understatement.”
“Let me say one more thing,” Mueller said. “Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere with our election is among the most serious.”
Slideshow (36 Images)
Under questioning, Mueller said his report detailed “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.”
He added: “The finding indicates ... that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Mueller’s investigation led to criminal charges against 34 people and three Russian entities. People who were convicted at trial or pleaded guilty included Trump’s former campaign chairman, deputy chairman and other aides.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
ceCuA7yA66t7V7pS
|
healthcare
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-foes-using-it-for-medicaid-control-89727.html?hp=l1
|
Obamacare foes using it for Medicaid control
|
2013-04-07
|
Kyle Cheney, Jason Millman
|
Govs . Rick Scott and John Kasich have already accepted pieces of the law . Obamacare as weapon for GOP
Republican governors are wielding an unlikely weapon to force Medicaid changes they ’ ve been talking about for years .
Conservatives who hate President Barack Obama ’ s health law have been agitating to convert Medicaid into a no-strings-attached block grant for states since the Reagan era . That effort died — or at least got put on indefinite hold — with Obama ’ s reelection . But red-state governors see another chance to ram through some of the changes they seek . Ironically , their opening was created by the health law ’ s Medicaid expansion .
A wave of anti-Obamacare governors — those who kept shunning the health law even as Ohio ’ s John Kasich , Florida ’ s Rick Scott and New Jersey ’ s Chris Christie made headlines as they accepted pieces of it — are looking to take the billions of federal dollars to expand Medicaid on their terms . They ’ re using what leverage they can muster with a White House that wants them to sign on , cover millions of uninsured and make the health law succeed . They can ’ t get a block grant , but they can push for greater autonomy , part of their long drive to give the states more control over spending and structure .
“ Governors are under tremendous pressure to expand [ Medicaid ] , and I think a lot of them were willing to listen , ” said Dennis Smith , a conservative health care consultant who has worked on Medicaid for President George W. Bush , Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker and The Heritage Foundation . “ I think all the governors are going to work in the best interest of their states . They ’ re saying , ‘ How can we do it our way that makes the most sense for us ? ’ ”
Rather than put new enrollees in the “ broken ” Medicaid system , these governors want to buy private health insurance plans for this low-income population using Obamacare funds and , in some cases , using the Obamacare health insurance exchanges . It ’ s all subject to a lot more negotiation and boundary-setting with the Department of Health and Human Services , but talks continue and both sides are holding their breath for a breakthrough on the “ private option . ”
They may not get the flexibility they seek — and there ’ s no way to know whether they ’ d then reluctantly push ahead with expansion or sit it out . But the fact that these governors are even talking expansion is a sea change .
To witness the pendulum swing , look no further than Pennsylvania . Republican Gov . Tom Corbett , a longtime Obamacare critic , trekked to Washington recently to meet with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius . He ’ s looking to broker a deal amid dismal approval ratings and increasing bipartisan pressure at home to do something — anything — to capture the flood of Obamacare dollars available to states that expand Medicaid .
The Corbett meeting came after a string of high-profile Republican defections on expansion , as well as more nuanced recent moves by states including Ohio , Tennessee and Arkansas to provide private health insurance coverage using Medicaid expansion dollars . In particular , Arkansas ’ s proposal , tentatively endorsed by HHS , to do the full Medicaid expansion but via private health insurers in the Obamacare exchanges , has encouraged other states to come forth with similar notions . Among them are Republican governors in Indiana , Oklahoma and Nebraska .
“ Gov . [ Mary ] Fallin is interested in pursuing an Oklahoma solution to Oklahoma health care needs , ” said spokesman Alex Weintz , noting that the state contracted for a report on its options from the national consulting firm run by former HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt , who headed Mitt Romney ’ s transition team .
|
Govs. Rick Scott and John Kasich have already accepted pieces of the law. Obamacare as weapon for GOP
Republican governors are wielding an unlikely weapon to force Medicaid changes they’ve been talking about for years.
The weapon? Obamacare.
Story Continued Below
Conservatives who hate President Barack Obama’s health law have been agitating to convert Medicaid into a no-strings-attached block grant for states since the Reagan era. That effort died — or at least got put on indefinite hold — with Obama’s reelection. But red-state governors see another chance to ram through some of the changes they seek. Ironically, their opening was created by the health law’s Medicaid expansion.
( PHOTOS: The 8 GOP governors who said yes to Medicaid expansion)
A wave of anti-Obamacare governors — those who kept shunning the health law even as Ohio’s John Kasich, Florida’s Rick Scott and New Jersey’s Chris Christie made headlines as they accepted pieces of it — are looking to take the billions of federal dollars to expand Medicaid on their terms. They’re using what leverage they can muster with a White House that wants them to sign on, cover millions of uninsured and make the health law succeed. They can’t get a block grant, but they can push for greater autonomy, part of their long drive to give the states more control over spending and structure.
“Governors are under tremendous pressure to expand [Medicaid], and I think a lot of them were willing to listen,” said Dennis Smith, a conservative health care consultant who has worked on Medicaid for President George W. Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and The Heritage Foundation. “I think all the governors are going to work in the best interest of their states. They’re saying, ‘How can we do it our way that makes the most sense for us?’”
( Also on POLITICO: Exchanges won't be created equal)
Rather than put new enrollees in the “broken” Medicaid system, these governors want to buy private health insurance plans for this low-income population using Obamacare funds and, in some cases, using the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. It’s all subject to a lot more negotiation and boundary-setting with the Department of Health and Human Services, but talks continue and both sides are holding their breath for a breakthrough on the “private option.”
They may not get the flexibility they seek — and there’s no way to know whether they’d then reluctantly push ahead with expansion or sit it out. But the fact that these governors are even talking expansion is a sea change.
To witness the pendulum swing, look no further than Pennsylvania. Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, a longtime Obamacare critic, trekked to Washington recently to meet with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. He’s looking to broker a deal amid dismal approval ratings and increasing bipartisan pressure at home to do something — anything — to capture the flood of Obamacare dollars available to states that expand Medicaid.
( Also on POLITICO: Hill holds Obama's legacy in its hands)
The Corbett meeting came after a string of high-profile Republican defections on expansion, as well as more nuanced recent moves by states including Ohio, Tennessee and Arkansas to provide private health insurance coverage using Medicaid expansion dollars. In particular, Arkansas’s proposal, tentatively endorsed by HHS, to do the full Medicaid expansion but via private health insurers in the Obamacare exchanges, has encouraged other states to come forth with similar notions. Among them are Republican governors in Indiana, Oklahoma and Nebraska.
“Gov. [Mary] Fallin is interested in pursuing an Oklahoma solution to Oklahoma health care needs,” said spokesman Alex Weintz, noting that the state contracted for a report on its options from the national consulting firm run by former HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, who headed Mitt Romney’s transition team.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
kWxidBv0MuDiGRj6
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/21/house-republicans-cancel-immigration-votes/
|
House Republicans cancel immigration votes in embarrassing setback
|
2018-06-21
|
Stephen Dinan, Tom Howell Jr.
|
Staring at a certain defeat , House Republicans canceled votes on their immigration compromise Thursday — an embarrassing setback for leaders who thought they had finally been able to wrangle some unanimity on an issue that has bedeviled them for years .
Lawmakers emerged from a closed-door evening meeting to say their new goal is a vote sometime next week , after they try to make tweaks to win over conservatives while keeping moderates on board .
The vote on the “ moderate ” compromise bill was postponed just hours after a more conservative bill failed in the House by a 231-193 vote . More than three dozen Republicans joined Democrats to kill the legislation .
Worried about a twin rejection on the same day , Republican leaders decided on a cooling-off period .
“ The worst thing for us to do would be to fail , ” said Rep. Tom Cole , Oklahoma Republican . “ I think people desperately want to get to ‘ yes . ’ ”
At stake is the fate of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant “ Dreamers , ” stiffer border security and President Trump ’ s goals of limiting the chain of family migration and ending the visa lottery .
Republican leaders thought they had an agreement between conservatives and moderates , but the conservatives balked , saying the bill had too many mistakes and didn ’ t do enough to pressure businesses against hiring illegal immigrants .
The conservatives wanted the bill to require the use of E-Verify , the government ’ s currently voluntary system for electronically checking a new hire ’ s work eligibility .
But if E-Verify is added , farm-region lawmakers said , they have to see a guest-worker program for agriculture so farms won ’ t lose their workforce , much of which is unauthorized .
“ While we ’ ve all been in negotiations for the last several weeks , we feel like we ’ ve continued these good discussions on , but two new issues came up , ” said Rep. Jeff Denham , a California Republican who had been leading negotiations for the moderates .
“ We ’ re going to spend the weekend , delay a vote [ until ] next week and see if we can come to a compromise on those two final issues , ” Mr. Denham said .
Some conservatives are opposed to anything that includes a pathway to citizenship and are unlikely to be won over . But other conservatives say their support is winnable so long as the bill makes major strides in border security , including firm funding for Mr. Trump ’ s border wall .
Mr. Trump called in to the Republican meeting , looking to urge the bill along .
Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen weighed in earlier this week , making the case for the more moderate legislation .
But with success looking elusive , Republicans across the spectrum have begun to pin blame for failure on Democrats .
“ Democrats have taken a walk on this thing , ” said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan , Wisconsin Republican .
Mr. Trump was more pointed : “ They don ’ t care about the children . They don ’ t care about the injury , they don ’ t care about the problems . ”
Yet it ’ s disunity within the Republican ranks that has sunk every effort to pass broad immigration legislation in the House for more than a decade , and those divisions were on display Thursday .
Conservatives griped that they felt abandoned by their leaders . They pointed to the more conservative bill that failed Thursday and said if Mr. Trump , the administration and Mr. Ryan had put more effort behind it , they may have been able to pass it .
“ They told us they were way short — what I saw today on the floor was 193 votes — that ’ s pretty darn close to what [ we ’ d ] need to pass that , ” said Rep. Jim Jordan , Ohio Republican .
Centrist Republicans accused conservatives of abandoning the core of an agreement they thought they had reached .
Republican leaders had planned votes on two bills , both of them sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte , Virginia Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee . One bill , written months ago , would have codified the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program into law , curtailed family migration , ended the diversity lottery , authorized the wall , boosted criminal penalties for illegal immigration , surged more resources to border enforcement and punished sanctuary cities .
The legal status for DACA recipients was too much for some conservatives , while the lack of a full pathway to citizenship was too little for some moderates .
“ We ’ re not going to let hatred , bigotry and xenophobia prevail in this country , ” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren , a California Democrat who helped lead opposition to the bill .
But the vote on the conservative bill did serve Republican leaders ’ purposes by officially derailing the petition drive that moderates and Democrats launched to try to force debate on a Democrat-backed bill that would have combined a generous pathway to citizenship for perhaps 2 million illegal immigrants with promises of future border security .
That petition drive was tied to the conservative legislation , so by bringing the bill to the floor — even in defeat — the petition fell .
Some moderate Republicans said they could start another petition drive next month , though they would have an even bigger climb and only a couple of weeks to gather signatures before the next window for action closes .
|
Staring at a certain defeat, House Republicans canceled votes on their immigration compromise Thursday — an embarrassing setback for leaders who thought they had finally been able to wrangle some unanimity on an issue that has bedeviled them for years.
Lawmakers emerged from a closed-door evening meeting to say their new goal is a vote sometime next week, after they try to make tweaks to win over conservatives while keeping moderates on board.
The vote on the “moderate” compromise bill was postponed just hours after a more conservative bill failed in the House by a 231-193 vote. More than three dozen Republicans joined Democrats to kill the legislation.
Worried about a twin rejection on the same day, Republican leaders decided on a cooling-off period.
“The worst thing for us to do would be to fail,” said Rep. Tom Cole, Oklahoma Republican. “I think people desperately want to get to ‘yes.’”
At stake is the fate of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant “Dreamers,” stiffer border security and President Trump’s goals of limiting the chain of family migration and ending the visa lottery.
Republican leaders thought they had an agreement between conservatives and moderates, but the conservatives balked, saying the bill had too many mistakes and didn’t do enough to pressure businesses against hiring illegal immigrants.
The conservatives wanted the bill to require the use of E-Verify, the government’s currently voluntary system for electronically checking a new hire’s work eligibility.
But if E-Verify is added, farm-region lawmakers said, they have to see a guest-worker program for agriculture so farms won’t lose their workforce, much of which is unauthorized.
“While we’ve all been in negotiations for the last several weeks, we feel like we’ve continued these good discussions on, but two new issues came up,” said Rep. Jeff Denham, a California Republican who had been leading negotiations for the moderates.
“We’re going to spend the weekend, delay a vote [until] next week and see if we can come to a compromise on those two final issues,” Mr. Denham said.
Some conservatives are opposed to anything that includes a pathway to citizenship and are unlikely to be won over. But other conservatives say their support is winnable so long as the bill makes major strides in border security, including firm funding for Mr. Trump’s border wall.
Mr. Trump called in to the Republican meeting, looking to urge the bill along.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen weighed in earlier this week, making the case for the more moderate legislation.
But with success looking elusive, Republicans across the spectrum have begun to pin blame for failure on Democrats.
“Democrats have taken a walk on this thing,” said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.
Mr. Trump was more pointed: “They don’t care about the children. They don’t care about the injury, they don’t care about the problems.”
Yet it’s disunity within the Republican ranks that has sunk every effort to pass broad immigration legislation in the House for more than a decade, and those divisions were on display Thursday.
Conservatives griped that they felt abandoned by their leaders. They pointed to the more conservative bill that failed Thursday and said if Mr. Trump, the administration and Mr. Ryan had put more effort behind it, they may have been able to pass it.
“They told us they were way short — what I saw today on the floor was 193 votes — that’s pretty darn close to what [we’d] need to pass that,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican.
Centrist Republicans accused conservatives of abandoning the core of an agreement they thought they had reached.
Republican leaders had planned votes on two bills, both of them sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One bill, written months ago, would have codified the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program into law, curtailed family migration, ended the diversity lottery, authorized the wall, boosted criminal penalties for illegal immigration, surged more resources to border enforcement and punished sanctuary cities.
The legal status for DACA recipients was too much for some conservatives, while the lack of a full pathway to citizenship was too little for some moderates.
Forty-one Republicans joined 190 Democrats in opposition.
“We’re not going to let hatred, bigotry and xenophobia prevail in this country,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who helped lead opposition to the bill.
But the vote on the conservative bill did serve Republican leaders’ purposes by officially derailing the petition drive that moderates and Democrats launched to try to force debate on a Democrat-backed bill that would have combined a generous pathway to citizenship for perhaps 2 million illegal immigrants with promises of future border security.
That petition drive was tied to the conservative legislation, so by bringing the bill to the floor — even in defeat — the petition fell.
Some moderate Republicans said they could start another petition drive next month, though they would have an even bigger climb and only a couple of weeks to gather signatures before the next window for action closes.
• David Sherfinski contributed to this article.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
cov4p39w0THV9Vl8
|
elections
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/11/01/obama-endorsement-influence-voters-clintons-less-so/4099794002/
|
How much sway do past Democratic nominees have? Unless you're Barack Obama, not much.
|
2019-11-01
|
Once they won the Democratic presidential nomination . But do their endorsements matter now ?
A national ███/Suffolk Poll asked likely Democratic voters whom among the party 's past presidential nominees would have the most influence on their vote today . Two-thirds named former president Obama , who moved out of the White House almost three years ago .
Obama has n't endorsed anyone so far , including his former vice president , Joe Biden .
Kate Pritchard , 63 , a retired teacher from Durango , Colorado , is supporting New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker at the moment , but she 's not sure he can go the distance .
If Obama were to endorse a candidate , she would back that person .
`` That would be very powerful , '' she said in a follow-up interview after being called in the survey .
In the poll , 11 % cited former president Jimmy Carter , who at age 95 is still building houses and doing other good works , as influential with them . But all the other former nominees registered in single digits .
The only other nominee to win the White House , Bill Clinton , was named by just 6 % . Hillary Clinton , the party 's standardbearer the last time around , also was cited by 6 % . Al Gore , the 2000 nominee , was named by 3 % , and Michael Dukakis ( 1988 ) , John Kerry ( 2004 ) and Walter Mondale ( 1984 ) by 1 % each .
Asked whom would have the least influence on their vote , Dukakis ranked first , at 23 % , and Hillary Clinton was second , at 18 % .
███/Suffolk Poll : Biden 's lead narrows in turbulent Democratic field
Hillary Clinton created a firestorm last week when she called one of the 2020 contenders , Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , `` a favorite of the Russians . '' That brought denials from Gabbard and a divided judgment by Democratic voters .
In the poll , 46 % said Hillary Clinton should continue to speak out about issues important to her . Precisely the same number , 46 % , said she should n't inject herself into the 2020 election .
The poll of 399 likely Democratic primary and caucus voters , taken by phone from Oct. 23-26 , has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points .
███/Suffolk Poll : Who 's sticking with Trump amid troubles ? His base
|
USA TODAY
Once they won the Democratic presidential nomination. But do their endorsements matter now?
Unless your name is Barack Obama, not really.
A national USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll asked likely Democratic voters whom among the party's past presidential nominees would have the most influence on their vote today. Two-thirds named former president Obama, who moved out of the White House almost three years ago.
Obama hasn't endorsed anyone so far, including his former vice president, Joe Biden.
Kate Pritchard, 63, a retired teacher from Durango, Colorado, is supporting New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker at the moment, but she's not sure he can go the distance.
If Obama were to endorse a candidate, she would back that person.
"That would be very powerful," she said in a follow-up interview after being called in the survey.
In the poll, 11% cited former president Jimmy Carter, who at age 95 is still building houses and doing other good works, as influential with them. But all the other former nominees registered in single digits.
The only other nominee to win the White House, Bill Clinton, was named by just 6%. Hillary Clinton, the party's standardbearer the last time around, also was cited by 6%. Al Gore, the 2000 nominee, was named by 3%, and Michael Dukakis (1988), John Kerry (2004) and Walter Mondale (1984) by 1% each.
Asked whom would have the least influence on their vote, Dukakis ranked first, at 23%, and Hillary Clinton was second, at 18%.
USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll: Biden's lead narrows in turbulent Democratic field
Hillary Clinton created a firestorm last week when she called one of the 2020 contenders, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, "a favorite of the Russians." That brought denials from Gabbard and a divided judgment by Democratic voters.
In the poll, 46% said Hillary Clinton should continue to speak out about issues important to her. Precisely the same number, 46%, said she shouldn't inject herself into the 2020 election.
The poll of 399 likely Democratic primary and caucus voters, taken by phone from Oct. 23-26, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll:Who's sticking with Trump amid troubles? His base
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
UGyPZ1ZbR5mNuRMX
|
|
politics
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767080125/texts-show-top-u-s-diplomat-in-ukraine-concerned-over-possible-quid-pro-quo
|
Texts Detail Top U.S. Diplomat's Concerns About Possible Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
|
2019-10-04
|
Scott Neuman, Mark Katkov
|
Texts Detail Top U.S . Diplomat 's Concerns About Possible Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
Senior U.S. diplomats debated the propriety of a White House strategy aimed at pressuring Ukraine for political investigations in exchange for assistance and engagement with President Trump , new documents show .
The Democratic chairmen of three House committees investigating President Trump released dozens of text messages late Thursday from top State Department officials handling European and Ukrainian affairs .
The messages depict a plan to to tie aid to Ukraine and engagement with Trump to promises by Kyiv to launch investigations that might benefit Trump 's 2020 reelection campaign .
Reps. Adam Schiff , Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel released text messages provided by Kurt Volker , the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine who spent more than nine hours on Thursday testifying behind closed doors as the House impeachment inquiry 's first official witness .
I think it 's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign .
`` Based on the first production of materials , it has become immediately apparent why Secretary [ of State Mike ] Pompeo tried to block these officials from providing information , '' the chairmen wrote Thursday in a letter to their colleagues on the House Intelligence , Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees .
The letter did not indicate whether the partial release of text messages was representative of the complete texts in possession of the committees ; a full accounting might still take place .
Republicans pushed for the release of the full transcript of Volker 's deposition .
The White House did not respond immediately but Trump earlier wrote on Twitter : `` As the President of the United States , I have an absolute right , perhaps even a duty , to investigate , or have investigated , CORRUPTION , and that would include asking , or suggesting , other Countries to help us out ! ''
Trump later added that he had what he called `` an obligation '' to that end .
The texts cover a period from July 19 to Sept. 9 and discuss dates and conditions for a White House visit by Ukraine 's president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy .
Officials taking part are Volker ; William Taylor , who was interim chargé d'affaires in Kyiv is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine ; Gordon Sondland , U.S. ambassador to the European Union ; and Andrey Yermak , a top aide to Zelenskiy .
In some of the exchanges , Trump 's personal attorney , former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , also participates .
Two more texts from the batch released by House Democrats would indicate that there are things that were n't put in writing . And that career diplomat Bill Taylor is uncomfortable with how the situation with a Trump meeting/Ukraine funding has been unfolding . pic.twitter.com/9ynmHDidIL — Tamara Keith ( @ tamarakeithNPR ) October 4 , 2019
In one exchange dated Sept. 9 , in a text Taylor sent to Sondland , the career diplomat says : `` I think it 's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign . ''
Sondland responds : `` Bill , I believe you are incorrect about President Trump 's intentions . The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo 's of any kind . ''
Sondland continues , `` I suggest we stop the back and forth by text . ''
In another exchange , Sondland writes that a call between Ukraine 's president and Trump appeared to be in the works . Sondland writes that he spoke directly to the Ukrainian leader and `` gave him a full briefing . He 's got it . ''
One facet of House Democrats ' investigation is what messages were delivered to Ukrainian officials before Trump 's July 25 phone call and by whom .
An anonymous whistleblower complaint , which sparked the Ukraine affair , suggested that Ukraine 's president had been primed before hand to expect the next to `` play ball '' with Trump , likely on the Biden investigations .
Volker resigned last week after being named in the whistleblower complaint
Biden 's son , Hunter , held a seat on the board of Burisma , a prominent Ukrainian energy company , while his father led U.S. policy on Ukraine during the Obama administration . Trump has asserted without evidence that Hunter 's relationship with the company was unlawful .
Trump 's personal attorney , Giuliani , has made a Biden investigation — and an inquiry that dovetails with conspiracy theories about interference in the 2016 election — the focus of his outreach to Ukrainians for months .
His efforts , and apparently those of official diplomats , were part of the groundwork laid before the July 25th call .
In a rough transcript released by the White House , Trump asks on that call for a `` favor '' from the Ukrainian president — that he undertake an investigation of Biden .
That followed texts dated July 19 , involving discussions about the upcoming call , in which Volker writes Sondland : `` Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation . ''
Taylor , another diplomat involved , served as ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush and was appointed interim chargé d'affaires in June after the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
In the messages , he cautions Sondland that Zelenskiy `` is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously , not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic , reelection politics . ''
Sondland replies that they need to proceed with establishing a relationship `` irrespective of the pretext . ''
Sondland , a hotel developer with no previous diplomatic experience , donated $ 1 million to Trump 's inaugural committee , according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics . Trump nominated him to be EU ambassador in 2018 , and he was approved with a bipartisan Senate vote .
In a July 25 message between Volker and Yermak — the aide to Ukraine 's president Zelenskiy — which occurred just ahead of the Trump-Zelenskiy call , Volker writes :
`` Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/'get to the bottom of what happened ' in 2016 , we will nail down date for visit to Washington . ''
Weeks later , on Aug. 9 , Sondland and Volker exchange texts as they try to establish a date for Zelenskiy 's visit :
Sondland : `` Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms . ''
Sondland : `` Not sure i did . I think potus really wants the deliverable ''
The next day , in an exchange between Yermak and Volker , Yermak writes that when a date for a visit is established , he `` will call for a press briefing , announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-UKRAINE relationship , including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations ''
In other words , Zelenskiy 's camp intended to do what Trump asked .
On Aug. 13 , Volker sends Sondland what appears to be a proposed draft of a Ukraine statement in which Kyiv pledges to pay `` special attention '' to U.S. election interference , `` especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians . ''
In the proposed draft , Kyiv would further agree to investigate `` Burisma and the 2016 U.S . elections . ''
`` The alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians '' in U.S. elections appears to be a reference to a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine , not Russia , meddled in the 2016 presidential election . But it 's a storyline that Trump and Giuliani have insisted on pursuing .
Sondland replies : `` Perfect . Lets send to Andrey after our call . ''
On Aug. 17 , Sondland asks Volker : `` Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma ? ''
In an exchange on Aug. 29 , Yermak texts Volker , `` Need to talk with you , '' and then sends a link to a Politico story headlined `` Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia . ''
On Sept. 1 , Taylor , apparently seeking clarification on the Trump-Zelenskiy meeting in Washington , texts Sondland : `` Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations ? ''
Translation : The officials did not want more text messages giving an account of their conversation . They preferred to discuss the Ukrainian military assistance over the phone .
A week later , Taylor writes to Volker : `` The nightmare is they give the interview and do n't get the security assistance . The Russians love it . ( And I quit . ) ''
The next day , Taylor writes to Sondland : `` The message to the Ukrainians ( and Russians ) we send with the decision on security assistance is key . With the hold , we have already shaken their faith in us . Thus my nightmare scenario . ''
Taylor : `` Counting on you to be right about this interview , Gordon . ''
Sondland : `` Bill , I never said I was 'right ' . I said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward . Lets hope it works . ''
What follows is the exchange in which Taylor says it 's `` crazy '' to withhold security assistance and Sondland tries to assure Taylor there 's no quid pro quo .
At the end of that exchange , Sondland advises `` I suggest we stop the back and forth by text ... ''
|
Texts Detail Top U.S. Diplomat's Concerns About Possible Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Updated at 10:01 a.m. ET
Senior U.S. diplomats debated the propriety of a White House strategy aimed at pressuring Ukraine for political investigations in exchange for assistance and engagement with President Trump, new documents show.
The Democratic chairmen of three House committees investigating President Trump released dozens of text messages late Thursday from top State Department officials handling European and Ukrainian affairs.
The messages depict a plan to to tie aid to Ukraine and engagement with Trump to promises by Kyiv to launch investigations that might benefit Trump's 2020 reelection campaign.
Reps. Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel released text messages provided by Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine who spent more than nine hours on Thursday testifying behind closed doors as the House impeachment inquiry's first official witness.
I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
"Based on the first production of materials, it has become immediately apparent why Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo tried to block these officials from providing information," the chairmen wrote Thursday in a letter to their colleagues on the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.
The letter did not indicate whether the partial release of text messages was representative of the complete texts in possession of the committees; a full accounting might still take place.
Republicans pushed for the release of the full transcript of Volker's deposition.
The White House did not respond immediately but Trump earlier wrote on Twitter: "As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!"
Trump later added that he had what he called "an obligation" to that end.
'I think it's crazy'
The texts cover a period from July 19 to Sept. 9 and discuss dates and conditions for a White House visit by Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Officials taking part are Volker; William Taylor, who was interim chargé d'affaires in Kyiv is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine; Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union; and Andrey Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskiy.
In some of the exchanges, Trump's personal attorney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, also participates.
Two more texts from the batch released by House Democrats would indicate that there are things that weren't put in writing. And that career diplomat Bill Taylor is uncomfortable with how the situation with a Trump meeting/Ukraine funding has been unfolding. pic.twitter.com/9ynmHDidIL — Tamara Keith (@tamarakeithNPR) October 4, 2019
In one exchange dated Sept. 9, in a text Taylor sent to Sondland, the career diplomat says: "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
Sondland responds: "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind."
Sondland continues, "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
In another exchange, Sondland writes that a call between Ukraine's president and Trump appeared to be in the works. Sondland writes that he spoke directly to the Ukrainian leader and "gave him a full briefing. He's got it."
One facet of House Democrats' investigation is what messages were delivered to Ukrainian officials before Trump's July 25 phone call and by whom.
An anonymous whistleblower complaint, which sparked the Ukraine affair, suggested that Ukraine's president had been primed before hand to expect the next to "play ball" with Trump, likely on the Biden investigations.
The Ukraine affair
Volker resigned last week after being named in the whistleblower complaint
Biden's son, Hunter, held a seat on the board of Burisma, a prominent Ukrainian energy company, while his father led U.S. policy on Ukraine during the Obama administration. Trump has asserted without evidence that Hunter's relationship with the company was unlawful.
Trump's personal attorney, Giuliani, has made a Biden investigation — and an inquiry that dovetails with conspiracy theories about interference in the 2016 election — the focus of his outreach to Ukrainians for months.
His efforts, and apparently those of official diplomats, were part of the groundwork laid before the July 25th call.
In a rough transcript released by the White House, Trump asks on that call for a "favor" from the Ukrainian president — that he undertake an investigation of Biden.
That followed texts dated July 19, involving discussions about the upcoming call, in which Volker writes Sondland: "Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation."
Taylor, another diplomat involved, served as ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush and was appointed interim chargé d'affaires in June after the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
In the messages, he cautions Sondland that Zelenskiy "is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics."
Sondland replies that they need to proceed with establishing a relationship "irrespective of the pretext."
'POTUS really wants the deliverable'
Sondland, a hotel developer with no previous diplomatic experience, donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Trump nominated him to be EU ambassador in 2018, and he was approved with a bipartisan Senate vote.
In a July 25 message between Volker and Yermak — the aide to Ukraine's president Zelenskiy — which occurred just ahead of the Trump-Zelenskiy call, Volker writes:
"Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."
Weeks later, on Aug. 9, Sondland and Volker exchange texts as they try to establish a date for Zelenskiy's visit:
Sondland: "Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms."
Volker: "Excellent!! How did you sway him? :)"
Sondland: "Not sure i did. I think potus really wants the deliverable"
The next day, in an exchange between Yermak and Volker, Yermak writes that when a date for a visit is established, he "will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations"
In other words, Zelenskiy's camp intended to do what Trump asked.
The statement and the weapons
On Aug. 13, Volker sends Sondland what appears to be a proposed draft of a Ukraine statement in which Kyiv pledges to pay "special attention" to U.S. election interference, "especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians."
In the proposed draft, Kyiv would further agree to investigate "Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections."
"The alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians" in U.S. elections appears to be a reference to a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 presidential election. But it's a storyline that Trump and Giuliani have insisted on pursuing.
Sondland replies: "Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call."
On Aug. 17, Sondland asks Volker: "Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?"
Volker: "That's the clear message so far ..."
In an exchange on Aug. 29, Yermak texts Volker, "Need to talk with you," and then sends a link to a Politico story headlined "Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia."
On Sept. 1, Taylor, apparently seeking clarification on the Trump-Zelenskiy meeting in Washington, texts Sondland: "Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"
Sondland replies: "Call me."
Translation: The officials did not want more text messages giving an account of their conversation. They preferred to discuss the Ukrainian military assistance over the phone.
A week later, Taylor writes to Volker: "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)"
The next day, Taylor writes to Sondland: "The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario."
Taylor: "Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon."
Sondland: "Bill, I never said I was 'right'. I said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. Lets hope it works."
What follows is the exchange in which Taylor says it's "crazy" to withhold security assistance and Sondland tries to assure Taylor there's no quid pro quo.
At the end of that exchange, Sondland advises "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text ..."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
csrLZkcaDr48dXae
|
media_bias
|
The Atlantic
| 00
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must-learn-covington-catholic-story/581035/
|
The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story
|
2019-01-23
|
Caitlin Flanagan, Contributing Writer At
|
Twenty seconds pass , then 30—and still the boy is smiling in that peculiar way . What has brought them to this strange , charged moment ? From the short clip alone , it is impossible to tell . Because the point of the viral video was that it was proof of racist bullying yet showed no evidence of it , the boy quickly became the subject of rage and disgust . “ I ’ d be ashamed and appalled if he was my son , ” the actress Debra Messing tweeted .
A second video also made the rounds . Shot shortly after the event , it consisted of an interview with the drummer , Nathan Phillips . There was something powerful about it , something that seemed almost familiar . It seemed to tell us an old story , one that ’ s been tugging at us for years . It was a battered Rodney King stepping up to the microphones in the middle of the Los Angeles riots , asking , “ Can we all get along ? Can we get along ? ” It was the beautiful hippie boy putting flowers in the rifle barrels of military policemen at the March on the Pentagon .
In the golden hour at the Lincoln Memorial , the lights illuminating the vault , Phillips stands framed against the light of the setting sun , wiping tears from his eyes as he describes what has happened—with the boys , with the country , with land itself . His voice soft , unsteady , he begins :
As I was singing , I heard them saying , ‘ Build that wall , build that wall. ’ This is indigenous land ; we ’ re not supposed to have walls here . We never did … We never had a wall . We never had a prison . We always took care of our elders . We took care of our children … We taught them right from wrong . I wish I could see … the [ young men ] could put that energy into making this country really great … helping those that are hungry .
It was moving , and it was an explanation of the terrible thing that had just happened— “ I heard them saying , ‘ Build that wall. ’ ” It was an ode to a nation ’ s lost soul . It was also the first in a series of interviews in which Phillips would prove himself adept—far more so than the news media—at incorporating any new information about what had actually happened into his version of events . His version was all-encompassing , and he was treated with such patronizing gentleness by the news media that he was never directly confronted with his conflicting accounts .
When the country learned that Phillips was—in addition to being , as we were endlessly reminded , a “ Native elder ” —a veteran of the Vietnam War , the sense of anger about what had happened to him assumed new dimensions . That he had defended our country only to be treated so poorly by these MAGA-hatted monsters blasted the level of the boys ’ malevolence into outer space .
The journalist Kara Swisher found a way to link the horror to an earlier news event , tweeting :
And to all you aggrieved folks who thought this Gillette ad was too much bad-men-shaming , after we just saw it come to life with those awful kids and their fetid smirking harassing that elderly man on the Mall : Go fuck yourselves .
You know the left has really changed in this country when you find its denizens glorifying America ’ s role in the Vietnam War and lionizing the social attitudes of the corporate monolith Procter & Gamble .
|
Twenty seconds pass, then 30—and still the boy is smiling in that peculiar way. What has brought them to this strange, charged moment? From the short clip alone, it is impossible to tell. Because the point of the viral video was that it was proof of racist bullying yet showed no evidence of it, the boy quickly became the subject of rage and disgust. “I’d be ashamed and appalled if he was my son,” the actress Debra Messing tweeted.
A second video also made the rounds. Shot shortly after the event, it consisted of an interview with the drummer, Nathan Phillips. There was something powerful about it, something that seemed almost familiar. It seemed to tell us an old story, one that’s been tugging at us for years. It was a battered Rodney King stepping up to the microphones in the middle of the Los Angeles riots, asking, “Can we all get along? Can we get along?” It was the beautiful hippie boy putting flowers in the rifle barrels of military policemen at the March on the Pentagon.
Read: Stop trusting viral videos
In the golden hour at the Lincoln Memorial, the lights illuminating the vault, Phillips stands framed against the light of the setting sun, wiping tears from his eyes as he describes what has happened—with the boys, with the country, with land itself. His voice soft, unsteady, he begins:
As I was singing, I heard them saying, ‘Build that wall, build that wall.’ This is indigenous land; we’re not supposed to have walls here. We never did … We never had a wall. We never had a prison. We always took care of our elders. We took care of our children … We taught them right from wrong. I wish I could see … the [young men] could put that energy into making this country really great … helping those that are hungry.
It was moving, and it was an explanation of the terrible thing that had just happened—“I heard them saying, ‘Build that wall.’ ” It was an ode to a nation’s lost soul. It was also the first in a series of interviews in which Phillips would prove himself adept—far more so than the news media—at incorporating any new information about what had actually happened into his version of events. His version was all-encompassing, and he was treated with such patronizing gentleness by the news media that he was never directly confronted with his conflicting accounts.
When the country learned that Phillips was—in addition to being, as we were endlessly reminded, a “Native elder”—a veteran of the Vietnam War, the sense of anger about what had happened to him assumed new dimensions. That he had defended our country only to be treated so poorly by these MAGA-hatted monsters blasted the level of the boys’ malevolence into outer space.
The journalist Kara Swisher found a way to link the horror to an earlier news event, tweeting:
And to all you aggrieved folks who thought this Gillette ad was too much bad-men-shaming, after we just saw it come to life with those awful kids and their fetid smirking harassing that elderly man on the Mall: Go fuck yourselves.
You know the left has really changed in this country when you find its denizens glorifying America’s role in the Vietnam War and lionizing the social attitudes of the corporate monolith Procter & Gamble.
|
www.theatlantic.com
| 0left
|
ZRj0i6vsVZNQ7Njm
|
coronavirus
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/14/21257264/coronavirus-testing-positive-rate-covid-reopen-usa
|
America’s coronavirus testing numbers are really improving — finally
|
2020-05-14
|
German Lopez, Dylan Scott, Katelyn Burns, Alex Ward, Sara Morrison, Alex Abad-Santos, Katherine Harmon Courage
|
After an April that some experts described as “ wasted , ” it looks like America is finally making some real progress on coronavirus testing in May .
Over the past couple of weeks , the United States has seen significant improvements not just with the raw number of Covid-19 tests but also with other metrics experts use to gauge the scope of the US ’ s coronavirus outbreak and its testing capacity .
During the week of May 5 , the US averaged nearly 300,000 new coronavirus tests a day , according to the Covid Tracking Project . That ’ s nearly double the roughly 150,000 daily tests performed in early April , although it still falls short of the number of new tests a day experts say is needed to fully control the outbreak — a number that ranges from 500,000 on the low end to tens of millions on the high end , depending on which plan you ’ re reading .
The US also saw a significant improvement in another key metric for coronavirus testing : the positive rate , or the percentage of tests that come back positive for Covid-19 . Generally , a higher positive rate suggests there ’ s not enough testing happening : It indicates only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested .
The US ’ s positive rate over the week of May 5 was nearly 8 percent — down from almost 21 percent the week of April 5 . Experts have said the positive rate should be no higher than 10 percent , but preferably much lower .
“ Daily [ Covid-19 ] testing continues to increase nationally while the positivity rate continues to decline , ” Scott Gottlieb , former head of the Food and Drug Administration , tweeted . “ These are hopeful signs that — at least in many parts of the nation — the epidemic is slowing . ”
This doesn ’ t , however , mean the whole country is ready to start reopening the economy just yet . Even the latest numbers , as promising as they are , fall short of what some experts have called for . And by other metrics , the US is still behind where it needs to be .
It ’ s also unclear if the gains will hold and continue . There were significant improvements in testing for much of March , only for those gains to stop in April . Future problems with testing could slow more increases .
But , at least for now , America has — finally — made some real progress .
Testing is crucial to controlling the coronavirus pandemic . Paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of an outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those with whom the sick came in contact , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary . Aggressive testing and tracing are how other countries , including South Korea and Germany , got their outbreaks under control , letting them start reopening in the past couple of weeks ( though even they have scaled back their reopenings after new spikes in Covid-19 cases ) .
That Covid-19 tests are increasing while the positive rate is falling indicates the US is now moving toward enough testing capacity to match the scope of its outbreak .
Some of the drop in the positive rate is likely the result of improvements in New York state , which had the worst Covid-19 outbreak in the US so far . New York state ’ s positive rate peaked above 50 percent in late March and early April , before falling to around 9 percent in the week of May 5 .
Even excluding New York , though , the US ’ s positive rate has also dropped : from around 17 percent in mid-April to nearly 8 percent the week of May 5 .
A majority of states now have coronavirus positive rates below 10 percent , which experts say is the acceptable maximum . Only 15 states and Washington , DC , had a positive rate above 10 percent during the week of May 5 .
The US is still far from where some other countries are on testing . According to Our World in Data , New Zealand , Taiwan , and South Korea — all places that have done a better job controlling their Covid-19 outbreaks — have positive test rates below 2 percent and even 1 percent .
“ ‘ Test , test , test ’ means numbers more in that low range , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , told me . She added , “ We need a lot more testing . ”
Much of the progress so far is despite a lack of federal leadership . Over much of April , testing numbers stagnated due to supply shortages for swabs , reagents , and other materials needed to collect samples and run coronavirus tests .
Experts have said that the federal government , led by President Donald Trump , should lead national efforts to boost testing . But Trump ’ s “ blueprint ” for testing explicitly leaves the problem to the states and private sector , saying the federal government will only act as a “ supplier of last resort . ”
Most states need more time before they can safely reopen
Despite the improvements , experts caution that the US shouldn ’ t rush to fully reopen its economy just yet .
The White House ’ s guidelines and experts ’ proposals lay out which standards states have to meet to reopen — letting each of them slowly reopen with a phased approach that unlocks parts of the economy bit by bit . For that phased reopening to begin , the proposals typically call for decreases in new Covid-19 cases for two weeks and enough testing to diagnose all of the sick and their contacts .
With testing , most states now fall below the 10 percent positive rate . But when it comes to reaching the positive rate seen in , say , South Korea or New Zealand , just six states — Alaska , Hawaii , Montana , Vermont , West Virginia , and Wyoming — have rates below 2 percent over the week of May 5 .
Testing also has to be paired with contact tracing , in which “ disease detectives ” track down who the infected came in contact with and get those contacts to quarantine . Experts have called for the US to hire between 100,000 to 300,000 contact tracers . Based on a tally kept by NPR , 44 states and Washington , DC , plan to hire about 66,000 contact tracers as of May 7 — almost two-thirds of the minimum .
With overall cases , the country as a whole has seen its daily new reported Covid-19 cases drop in May . But much of that decrease originated in Connecticut , New Jersey , and New York — the three states included in the New York City metro area , which suffered the worst outbreak . When those three states are excluded , the US has seen daily new Covid-19 cases at best start to drop only in recent days — far from the two weeks of decreases that experts recommend .
Some of the upward trend in Covid-19 cases outside Connecticut , New Jersey , and New York in recent weeks is likely due to increased testing . Even though fewer tests are coming back positive , doing many more tests can still mean finding many more cases than a state would otherwise .
Still , the numbers suggest it ’ s too early to declare victory . Based on data compiled by the New York Times , just 18 states have seen their daily new reported coronavirus cases drop in recent days — much less the two full weeks experts have called for . Seven states have seen their daily new cases increase , while the remaining 25 have seen theirs remain roughly flat .
Taken together , these figures suggest that the majority of states are not ready to start to reopen just yet . While America has made decent progress throughout May in confronting the challenge of this pandemic , there ’ s still a bit more work to be done .
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 .
Correction : The positive rate map originally had incorrect data for Utah and Virginia due to a bug in the map-making program . It ’ s been fixed .
|
After an April that some experts described as “wasted,” it looks like America is finally making some real progress on coronavirus testing in May.
Over the past couple of weeks, the United States has seen significant improvements not just with the raw number of Covid-19 tests but also with other metrics experts use to gauge the scope of the US’s coronavirus outbreak and its testing capacity.
During the week of May 5, the US averaged nearly 300,000 new coronavirus tests a day, according to the Covid Tracking Project. That’s nearly double the roughly 150,000 daily tests performed in early April, although it still falls short of the number of new tests a day experts say is needed to fully control the outbreak — a number that ranges from 500,000 on the low end to tens of millions on the high end, depending on which plan you’re reading.
The US also saw a significant improvement in another key metric for coronavirus testing: the positive rate, or the percentage of tests that come back positive for Covid-19. Generally, a higher positive rate suggests there’s not enough testing happening: It indicates only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested.
The US’s positive rate over the week of May 5 was nearly 8 percent — down from almost 21 percent the week of April 5. Experts have said the positive rate should be no higher than 10 percent, but preferably much lower.
“Daily [Covid-19] testing continues to increase nationally while the positivity rate continues to decline,” Scott Gottlieb, former head of the Food and Drug Administration, tweeted. “These are hopeful signs that — at least in many parts of the nation — the epidemic is slowing.”
This doesn’t, however, mean the whole country is ready to start reopening the economy just yet. Even the latest numbers, as promising as they are, fall short of what some experts have called for. And by other metrics, the US is still behind where it needs to be.
It’s also unclear if the gains will hold and continue. There were significant improvements in testing for much of March, only for those gains to stop in April. Future problems with testing could slow more increases.
But, at least for now, America has — finally — made some real progress.
Testing is getting there, according to a key metric
Testing is crucial to controlling the coronavirus pandemic. Paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of an outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those with whom the sick came in contact, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Aggressive testing and tracing are how other countries, including South Korea and Germany, got their outbreaks under control, letting them start reopening in the past couple of weeks (though even they have scaled back their reopenings after new spikes in Covid-19 cases).
That Covid-19 tests are increasing while the positive rate is falling indicates the US is now moving toward enough testing capacity to match the scope of its outbreak.
Some of the drop in the positive rate is likely the result of improvements in New York state, which had the worst Covid-19 outbreak in the US so far. New York state’s positive rate peaked above 50 percent in late March and early April, before falling to around 9 percent in the week of May 5.
Even excluding New York, though, the US’s positive rate has also dropped: from around 17 percent in mid-April to nearly 8 percent the week of May 5.
A majority of states now have coronavirus positive rates below 10 percent, which experts say is the acceptable maximum. Only 15 states and Washington, DC, had a positive rate above 10 percent during the week of May 5.
The US is still far from where some other countries are on testing. According to Our World in Data, New Zealand, Taiwan, and South Korea — all places that have done a better job controlling their Covid-19 outbreaks — have positive test rates below 2 percent and even 1 percent.
“‘Test, test, test’ means numbers more in that low range,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, told me. She added, “We need a lot more testing.”
Much of the progress so far is despite a lack of federal leadership. Over much of April, testing numbers stagnated due to supply shortages for swabs, reagents, and other materials needed to collect samples and run coronavirus tests.
Experts have said that the federal government, led by President Donald Trump, should lead national efforts to boost testing. But Trump’s “blueprint” for testing explicitly leaves the problem to the states and private sector, saying the federal government will only act as a “supplier of last resort.”
Most states need more time before they can safely reopen
Despite the improvements, experts caution that the US shouldn’t rush to fully reopen its economy just yet.
The White House’s guidelines and experts’ proposals lay out which standards states have to meet to reopen — letting each of them slowly reopen with a phased approach that unlocks parts of the economy bit by bit. For that phased reopening to begin, the proposals typically call for decreases in new Covid-19 cases for two weeks and enough testing to diagnose all of the sick and their contacts.
Most states don’t meet either standard.
With testing, most states now fall below the 10 percent positive rate. But when it comes to reaching the positive rate seen in, say, South Korea or New Zealand, just six states — Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming — have rates below 2 percent over the week of May 5.
Testing also has to be paired with contact tracing, in which “disease detectives” track down who the infected came in contact with and get those contacts to quarantine. Experts have called for the US to hire between 100,000 to 300,000 contact tracers. Based on a tally kept by NPR, 44 states and Washington, DC, plan to hire about 66,000 contact tracers as of May 7 — almost two-thirds of the minimum.
With overall cases, the country as a whole has seen its daily new reported Covid-19 cases drop in May. But much of that decrease originated in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York — the three states included in the New York City metro area, which suffered the worst outbreak. When those three states are excluded, the US has seen daily new Covid-19 cases at best start to drop only in recent days — far from the two weeks of decreases that experts recommend.
Some of the upward trend in Covid-19 cases outside Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York in recent weeks is likely due to increased testing. Even though fewer tests are coming back positive, doing many more tests can still mean finding many more cases than a state would otherwise.
Still, the numbers suggest it’s too early to declare victory. Based on data compiled by the New York Times, just 18 states have seen their daily new reported coronavirus cases drop in recent days — much less the two full weeks experts have called for. Seven states have seen their daily new cases increase, while the remaining 25 have seen theirs remain roughly flat.
Taken together, these figures suggest that the majority of states are not ready to start to reopen just yet. While America has made decent progress throughout May in confronting the challenge of this pandemic, there’s still a bit more work to be done.
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.
Correction: The positive rate map originally had incorrect data for Utah and Virginia due to a bug in the map-making program. It’s been fixed.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
MsK4RyOKrr0tAexX
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/politics/mitt-romney-exit-jeb-bush/index.html
|
Mitt Romney exit widens path for Jeb Bush
|
2015-01-30
|
Stephen Collinson, Alexandra Jaffe
|
Washington ( CNN ) Mitt Romney 's decision to pass on 2016 anoints Jeb Bush as the clear establishment favorite in the Republican presidential race and lays down a challenge to the party 's divided conservatives .
Though the first contests will not take place in early voting states for a year , Romney 's swerve , announced on a conference call with supporters on Friday , is the most important moment yet in the nascent GOP contest . It removes the prospect of a bruising battle for big establishment donor cash and moderate , right of center , Republican primary voters between Romney , the 2012 nominee and Bush , heir to a dynastic political machine .
`` I think it is hard to argue that today 's news did not help Gov . Bush , '' said Matt Moore , chairman of the Republican Party in South Carolina , which holds one of the crucial early voting primaries next year .
Bush sent the Republican race into overdrive with his sudden announcement last month that he was actively exploring a run for president . Since then , he has been flying around the nation in an apparent bid to put up a formidable `` shock and awe '' early fundraising number to define the contest in his favor .
Though Bush is seen as leading establishment Republicans , Romney 's decision could improve New Jersey Gov . Christie 's hopes of financing a long campaign .
`` Today 's news certainly does re-open the fight for donors . I know many donors had been frozen in recent weeks , taking a 'wait and see ' approach , '' said Moore . `` There 's a finite amount of money that can be raised -- so every candidate benefits . ''
Kevin Madden , a one-time adviser to Romney who is now a CNN commentator , said his former boss 's decision opened up an early trial of strength between Christie and Bush .
`` This becomes the first big test between those candidates , which one of them can quickly move to lock down those donors . It is a very successful , very large fundraising network . It 's going to be an important asset . ''
Some party insiders also believe conservative candidates who can also straddle the line with the establishment could benefit from Romney 's departure .
A top adviser to one potential Republican primary contender said in an interview that Romney 's exit likely helps both Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker , who both have strong conservative support but have also been warmly received by some establishment-minded donors .
`` They 're acceptable to the establishment but they also have support within the various conservative bases — among economic conservatives , social conservatives and national security conservatives , '' the adviser said .
Romney 's decision not to run does n't remove him from the 2016 calculus entirely — it sets him up to be a potential kingmaker in one of the most wide-open primary fields in recent memory .
Though sources told CNN 's Dana Bash not to expect a Romney endorsement of another candidate in the near future , contenders will be clamoring for his blessing .
A top Rubio aide said `` any leading candidate would '' want Romney 's support .
Jim Merrill , Romney 's top strategist in New Hampshire , said that his `` guess is [ Romney ] probably will '' endorse a candidate in the primary .
Romney 's statement , however , made clear that he was not stepping aside in favor of Bush . In fact he appeared to take a veiled swipe at the 61-year-old former Florida governor .
`` I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders , one who may not be as well known as I am today , one who has not yet taken their message across the country , one who is just getting started , may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee , '' Romney told his supporters .
He appeared to be implying that the GOP would be best served by a younger candidate taking on Clinton , who will be 69 at the time of the general election in November 2016 .
Rubio , 43 , quickly picked up on the idea of a generational shift , stressing repeatedly in a short statement praising Romney that he was close to the 2012 nominee .
`` He certainly earned the right to consider running , so I deeply respect his decision to give the next generation a chance to lead . ''
Walker , 47 , also picked up the signals , thanking Romney in a tweet for `` opening the door for fresh leadership in America . ''
Romney may also be making a point by sitting down for dinner on Friday night with Christie , 52 , in New York .
His exit will also shift the terrain more practically in the early states , where his former staffers can now join the campaign of their choice .
Merrill said he 's been receiving calls from former Romney operatives in the state — and interested candidates — wondering what 's next , but he was n't yet leaning toward any candidate in particular .
`` [ Romney 's ] not gon na be a candidate , so that means we are open for business , '' Merrill said .
Reverberations are also being felt in Iowa , where voters will get the 2016 ball rolling next year and where Romney lost by only a handful of votes to Rick Santorum on the way to the GOP nomination in 2012 .
A Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll published Friday showed 57 percent of likely caucus goers had favorable feelings about Romney . But that figure was down from 65 percent in October .
Romney may have calculated that he would have struggled to keep that level of support , fighting Bush and Christie for moderates and facing fresh faced conservatives like Walker and firebrand Sen. Ted Cruz .
`` There a lot of people who had second thoughts about Romney , '' said Steffen Schmidt , an Iowa State University Professor who is an authority on the state 's fabled caucuses .
`` Mitt Romney would have had a much harder time in Iowa , '' in 2016 , Schmidt said .
Bush is basking in a second straight day of good news . On Thursday , he poached David Kochel , one of the state 's most highly regarded political consultants for a possible post running his campaign .
Kochel previously worked for Romney in Iowa , and his departure was seen as a serious blow to the former Massachusetts governor .
The narrowing of the establishment field may hold a wake up call for conservatives who hoped a candidate preferred by the grass roots would emerge this cycle .
But with candidates like Walker , Cruz , Mike Huckabee , Santorum and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul all tipped to appeal to certain sections of the conservative electorate , they face a familiar problem : the lack of a single right-wing favorite to take on the establishment 's pick .
Romney 's announcement , which kept political pundits guessing until minutes before he spoke with supporters , was in keeping with the already rich drama of the 2016 race .
Even a month ago , no one thought that Romney , who twice ran for president and lost , could find a rationale to underpin another shot .
But in three frenzied weeks , Romney , apparently disdaining the quality of the crowded GOP race , and bumped into a swift decision by Bush 's early move , appeared to be about to jump in . Bush had previously effectively forced out another possible establishment candidate Sen . Rob Portman , by getting into the race .
Romney traveled to California to headline the Republican National Committee 's winter meeting , and stoked speculation by consulting former staffers and party heavyweights about a possible run .
For now , most of those close to Romney believe he will resume his role as the de-facto leader of the party until a nominee emerges , speaking out on key issues .
`` You 'll see him do what he 's already been doing post-2012 — be someone that stands up to President Obama , speaks the truth when the opportunity calls , '' Merrill said .
|
Washington (CNN) Mitt Romney's decision to pass on 2016 anoints Jeb Bush as the clear establishment favorite in the Republican presidential race and lays down a challenge to the party's divided conservatives.
Though the first contests will not take place in early voting states for a year, Romney's swerve, announced on a conference call with supporters on Friday, is the most important moment yet in the nascent GOP contest. It removes the prospect of a bruising battle for big establishment donor cash and moderate, right of center, Republican primary voters between Romney, the 2012 nominee and Bush, heir to a dynastic political machine.
"I think it is hard to argue that today's news did not help Gov. Bush," said Matt Moore, chairman of the Republican Party in South Carolina, which holds one of the crucial early voting primaries next year.
Bush sent the Republican race into overdrive with his sudden announcement last month that he was actively exploring a run for president. Since then, he has been flying around the nation in an apparent bid to put up a formidable "shock and awe" early fundraising number to define the contest in his favor.
Though Bush is seen as leading establishment Republicans, Romney's decision could improve New Jersey Gov. Christie's hopes of financing a long campaign.
"Today's news certainly does re-open the fight for donors. I know many donors had been frozen in recent weeks, taking a 'wait and see' approach," said Moore. "There's a finite amount of money that can be raised -- so every candidate benefits."
Kevin Madden, a one-time adviser to Romney who is now a CNN commentator, said his former boss's decision opened up an early trial of strength between Christie and Bush.
"This becomes the first big test between those candidates, which one of them can quickly move to lock down those donors. It is a very successful, very large fundraising network. It's going to be an important asset."
Some party insiders also believe conservative candidates who can also straddle the line with the establishment could benefit from Romney's departure.
A top adviser to one potential Republican primary contender said in an interview that Romney's exit likely helps both Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who both have strong conservative support but have also been warmly received by some establishment-minded donors.
"They're acceptable to the establishment but they also have support within the various conservative bases — among economic conservatives, social conservatives and national security conservatives," the adviser said.
Romney's decision not to run doesn't remove him from the 2016 calculus entirely — it sets him up to be a potential kingmaker in one of the most wide-open primary fields in recent memory.
Though sources told CNN's Dana Bash not to expect a Romney endorsement of another candidate in the near future, contenders will be clamoring for his blessing.
A top Rubio aide said "any leading candidate would" want Romney's support.
Jim Merrill, Romney's top strategist in New Hampshire, said that his "guess is [Romney] probably will" endorse a candidate in the primary.
Romney's statement, however, made clear that he was not stepping aside in favor of Bush. In fact he appeared to take a veiled swipe at the 61-year-old former Florida governor.
"I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee," Romney told his supporters.
He appeared to be implying that the GOP would be best served by a younger candidate taking on Clinton, who will be 69 at the time of the general election in November 2016.
Rubio, 43, quickly picked up on the idea of a generational shift, stressing repeatedly in a short statement praising Romney that he was close to the 2012 nominee.
"He certainly earned the right to consider running, so I deeply respect his decision to give the next generation a chance to lead."
Walker, 47, also picked up the signals, thanking Romney in a tweet for "opening the door for fresh leadership in America."
Romney may also be making a point by sitting down for dinner on Friday night with Christie, 52, in New York.
His exit will also shift the terrain more practically in the early states, where his former staffers can now join the campaign of their choice.
Merrill said he's been receiving calls from former Romney operatives in the state — and interested candidates — wondering what's next, but he wasn't yet leaning toward any candidate in particular.
"[Romney's] not gonna be a candidate, so that means we are open for business," Merrill said.
Reverberations are also being felt in Iowa, where voters will get the 2016 ball rolling next year and where Romney lost by only a handful of votes to Rick Santorum on the way to the GOP nomination in 2012.
A Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll published Friday showed 57 percent of likely caucus goers had favorable feelings about Romney. But that figure was down from 65 percent in October.
Romney may have calculated that he would have struggled to keep that level of support, fighting Bush and Christie for moderates and facing fresh faced conservatives like Walker and firebrand Sen. Ted Cruz.
"There a lot of people who had second thoughts about Romney," said Steffen Schmidt, an Iowa State University Professor who is an authority on the state's fabled caucuses.
"Mitt Romney would have had a much harder time in Iowa," in 2016, Schmidt said.
Bush is basking in a second straight day of good news. On Thursday, he poached David Kochel, one of the state's most highly regarded political consultants for a possible post running his campaign.
Kochel previously worked for Romney in Iowa, and his departure was seen as a serious blow to the former Massachusetts governor.
The narrowing of the establishment field may hold a wake up call for conservatives who hoped a candidate preferred by the grass roots would emerge this cycle.
But with candidates like Walker, Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Santorum and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul all tipped to appeal to certain sections of the conservative electorate, they face a familiar problem : the lack of a single right-wing favorite to take on the establishment's pick.
Romney's announcement, which kept political pundits guessing until minutes before he spoke with supporters, was in keeping with the already rich drama of the 2016 race.
Even a month ago, no one thought that Romney, who twice ran for president and lost, could find a rationale to underpin another shot.
But in three frenzied weeks, Romney, apparently disdaining the quality of the crowded GOP race, and bumped into a swift decision by Bush's early move, appeared to be about to jump in. Bush had previously effectively forced out another possible establishment candidate Sen. Rob Portman, by getting into the race.
Romney traveled to California to headline the Republican National Committee's winter meeting, and stoked speculation by consulting former staffers and party heavyweights about a possible run.
For now, most of those close to Romney believe he will resume his role as the de-facto leader of the party until a nominee emerges, speaking out on key issues.
"You'll see him do what he's already been doing post-2012 — be someone that stands up to President Obama, speaks the truth when the opportunity calls," Merrill said.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
mHNCmlUnDWitWrEB
|
elections
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/2020-election-democrat-candidates-progressive-activists/
|
Progressive Activists Are Poised to Hurt Democrats’ Chances in 2020
|
2019-01-20
|
Nicholas Phillips, Jim Geraghty, Rich Lowry, John Mccormack, Zachary Evans, David French, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Tobias Hoonhout
|
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Capitol Hill , December 2017 . ( Yuri Gripas/Reuters )
Their identity politics includes every demographic group except working-class whites .
On December 4 , Kirsten Gillibrand joined the pageant of presidential hopefuls jockeying for the 2020 Democratic nomination . Not formally , but in the way these things are often done now — with a bold statement , calculated to go viral , that would energize supporters and attract mainstream attention . That statement , on Twitter , was liked over 32,000 times :
Powered by our belief in one another . And we ’ re just getting started . — Kirsten Gillibrand ( @ SenGillibrand ) December 5 , 2018
The tweet instantly became controversial . Was she saying that men wouldn ’ t be included in her view of the future ? Van Jones asked her if she could understand how people might hear it that way . “ Yes , and they just don ’ t get it , ” Gillibrand replied unhelpfully . And what to make of the appearance of the word “ intersectionality ” ? The tweet immediately felt like a cultural touchstone — a statement that signaled a shift in what is expected of a candidate seeking the leadership of the Democratic party .
The shift that Gillibrand ’ s tweet signaled is the rise of a class of progressive activists who now hold unprecedented power on the American left . Their power is not in numbers , which are few . It comes instead from a monopoly on legitimacy . They are kingmakers , holding the moral authority to anoint Democratic leadership . They are the arbiters of good and evil , the marshals of the social-media messaging war that prospective candidates are desperate to win . They are why Gillibrand , a former pro-gun immigration hawk , felt that she could whip up excitement by invoking a term that remains almost wholly unknown outside progressive academia . They also might be killing the Democratic party ’ s chance to win the presidency .
Who is this class of people ? Earlier this year , More in Common , a civil-society research initiative , released “ Hidden Tribes : A Study of America ’ s Polarized Landscape. ” The report is an extensive survey of American “ core values ” and discovered distinct ideological clusters within the electorate . The views of one cluster on the left wing of the electorate are sharply differentiated from the rest of the survey pool . This group is christened “ Progressive Activists ” and described as “ younger , highly engaged , secular , cosmopolitan , angry. ” They make up 8 percent of the population and their demographics are predictable : disproportionately white , educated , and wealthy . They are more than twice as likely as other Americans to report that politics is a “ hobby . ”
Their views cut sharply against the grain of popular consensus . Seventy-eight percent of Americans describe themselves as “ proud to be an American , ” whereas 69 percent of Progressive Activists report that they are “ ashamed to be an American. ” Seventy-three percent of Americans value the American Dream , but only 44 percent of Progressive Activists do . Eighty percent of Americans agree that political correctness is a problem , a view that only 30 percent of Progressive Activists hold . On substantive policy matters , too , the views of Progressive Activists differ from those of the majority . They are the group least likely to identify “ jobs and the economy ” as a highly important political issue ; the rest of the electorate identify it as more important than any issue except “ poor leadership. ” Americans are evenly divided on whether immigration is good for the country — but 99 percent of Progressive Activists believe that it is .
Progressive Activists are not representative of the American electorate , but they have been remarkably successful at turning their policy priorities into litmus tests for national Democratic figures . Last year , “ abolish ICE ” ( Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ) was an obscure Twitter hashtag confined to the far Left . But activist groups applied pressure to Democratic candidates to support the campaign , which got sign-ons from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Kirsten Gillibrand , and Elizabeth Warren . Data for Progress , a far-left think tank , insisted that the issue was a political winner .
But Republicans , sensing that the “ abolish ICE ” position was out of step with the electorate , were only too happy to signal-boost the campaign . Donald Trump quickly began using “ abolish ICE ” activism as a talking point at rallies to skewer “ radical left Dems , ” and congressional Republicans offered to schedule an immediate vote on a Democratic “ abolish ICE ” bill , predicting disaster . As quickly as Republicans seized on the issue , Democrats backed off . Their midterm candidates stopped talking about it , while GOP candidates did the opposite and mounted attack ads . Gillibrand and Warren walked back their support , the latter explaining that she only meant that ICE should be “ reformed. ” In the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives , the issue is dead .
This month , a new prospective litmus test emerged on the activist left : the Green New Deal , described by its supporters as an ambitious government-led plan to meet 100 percent of the country ’ s energy needs with renewables in ten years and to provide a jobs guarantee to anyone who wants to work on the transition . Like “ abolish ICE , ” the Green New Deal has been memed into existence by activists who can marshal their large social-media audience . Like “ abolish ICE , ” the Green New Deal has attracted the support of Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive Democratic leaders . Data for Progress insists that this issue , too , is a political winner . Indeed , the Green New Deal currently attracts broad support in polls — but those same polls show that 80 percent of voters have no idea what it is , and none of its supporters have attempted to describe what the plan would look like .
In this , it may mirror “ Medicare for all , ” another progressive article of faith whose strong support in polls tends to collapse when voters learn about the implementation details . Americans support the concept but don ’ t know much about it — half of them believe , incorrectly , that they would be able to keep their existing plan if the U.S. adopted a single-payer system . This voter confusion is understandable , since Democratic politicians use “ Medicare for all ” as a check-the-box slogan to appeal to progressives — meanwhile , progressive heroes such as Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley refuse to take questions about it . In the absence of a definitive policy proposal , “ Medicare for all ” functions as little more than an empty vessel for voter frustrations , easily cracked by Republican counter-arguments . In a 2017 poll , opposition to “ Medicare for all ” leapt from 40 percent to 60 percent when respondents were told that the plan would require Americans to pay more in taxes . This proved too much to conquer even for Vermont : The state abandoned a “ Medicare for all ” initiative when it was found to require increases in state payroll and income taxes .
The Green New Deal and “ Medicare for all ” may end up being more successful than “ abolish ICE ” — the country is moving to the left on economics — but their support is meaningless until they can be translated from abstract concepts to concrete , feasible policy proposals . Otherwise , they will add to the pile of aborted memes that cost Democrats support in winnable districts .
Rallying cries such as “ abolish ICE ” and the Green New Deal may be of questionable value in turning red districts blue , but they are quite effective at turning blue districts bluer . As highly educated cosmopolitans concentrate in a handful of metropolitan areas , a growing share of the Democratic electorate forms its political identity in relative isolation from Republicans and independents . Political identity is a social tool used to navigate status hierarchies and form in-groups , and progressives living in metropolitan areas therefore develop a politics designed primarily to impress other progressives . A competition to signal far-left identity emerges , familiar to anyone who attended college in the Northeast . Because so many progressives are shaped in this crucible , they hold a distorted idea of what policies the rest of the country will accept . And because these same progressives are largely responsible for the activism and social-media messaging that influence Democratic leaders , the party winds up beholden to ideas that are disliked by everyone except voters whose support was already assured .
Naturally , such progressives were surprised when their favorite candidates suffered almost uniform defeat in the 2018 midterms —Ocasio-Cortez , Rashida Tlaib , and other far-left heroes achieved success only by primarying moderate Democrats in deep-blue districts . But their convictions are undampened , and they ’ re applying them to the 2020 presidential nomination . Prominent activist leader Amy Siskind went viral with her announcement that she would not support a white male candidate in the primaries — despite the deep popularity of both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders . ( She also appears to have tried to get a critic of her statement fired from his adjunct-teaching job at Boston College ) . Mother Jones editor in chief Clara Jeffery declared that Sanders ’ s unpopularity with black women means that he will “ never be the nominee. ” Meanwhile , Vox pundit Matthew Yglesias called for a constitutional overhaul to enable the 29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez to run for president . And Elizabeth Warren evidently valued the opportunity to signal a non-white identity so highly that she thought a DNA test was a risk worth taking .
This is the outcome of a growing demand among the activist class for explicitly tribal appeals to race and identity . Ocasio-Cortez ’ s campaign slogan was “ It ’ s time for one of us. ” It has become fashionable to argue that seeking to appeal to the white working class is a kind of racism . “ There ’ s always been something problematic about the Democratic Party ’ s fixation on white working-class voters , ” writes CNN political commentator Sally Kohn , who sees it as motivated by “ racial bias or even white supremacy. ” This take exists symbiotically with open calls for the Democratic party to just wait for the white working class to die off .
Whether a Democrat can win in 2020 without support from the white working class is an empirical question — but many progressive activists view it as a moral one . If their moral prohibitions collide with political reality , Democrats may find themselves hobbled in 2020 . Given that Hillary Clinton would today be our president if she had merely equaled Barack Obama ’ s very modest level of support among white non-college voters , it ’ s a plausible scenario .
One nominee who would easily exceed that threshold is Bernie Sanders , but activist pressure has weakened him as a candidate . When Ezra Klein asked him in 2015 whether immigration to the United States should be “ sharply increased , ” Sanders correctly intuited that such a proposal would harm his working-class base . He passionately condemned it as a “ Koch brothers proposal ” that would “ bring in all kinds of people working for $ 2 , $ 3 an hour ” and “ do away with the concept of the nation-state. ” That was unacceptable to the far Left , and today Bernie is woke on immigration — he is now a convert to the unpopular “ abolish ICE ” campaign . Perhaps he still believes that high levels of immigration harm the working class , but it ’ s safe to say that he ’ ll no longer be telling the public that . It is yet another reminder that in a contest between voter interests and activist pieties , Democrats are under increasing pressure to favor the latter .
It ’ s easy to hijack liberal empathy . Jonathan Haidt ’ s research indicates that liberal voters place singular importance on protecting the weak from harm and ensuring that the system is fair to all . These are essential , noble commitments . But this concern can be exploited by a subset of activists who demand that all politics be collapsed into a question of oppressor and oppressed . If your morality revolves around helping victims , then someone with a confident , complete narrative about victimhood is in a position to capture total moral authority . The basic problem is that what becomes socially prestigious among progressives may also be politically toxic in the rest of America . Republicans know this . “ I want them to talk about racism every day , ” said Steve Bannon last year . “ If the Left is focused on race and identity , and we go with economic nationalism , we can crush the Democrats. ” If they are to avoid this fate , Democrats everywhere should undertake a simple task : Stop trying so hard to impress one another .
|
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Capitol Hill, December 2017. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Their identity politics includes every demographic group except working-class whites.
On December 4, Kirsten Gillibrand joined the pageant of presidential hopefuls jockeying for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Not formally, but in the way these things are often done now — with a bold statement, calculated to go viral, that would energize supporters and attract mainstream attention. That statement, on Twitter, was liked over 32,000 times:
Advertisement
Our future is: Female
Intersectional
Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 5, 2018
The tweet instantly became controversial. Was she saying that men wouldn’t be included in her view of the future? Van Jones asked her if she could understand how people might hear it that way. “Yes, and they just don’t get it,” Gillibrand replied unhelpfully. And what to make of the appearance of the word “intersectionality”? The tweet immediately felt like a cultural touchstone — a statement that signaled a shift in what is expected of a candidate seeking the leadership of the Democratic party.
Advertisement
The shift that Gillibrand’s tweet signaled is the rise of a class of progressive activists who now hold unprecedented power on the American left. Their power is not in numbers, which are few. It comes instead from a monopoly on legitimacy. They are kingmakers, holding the moral authority to anoint Democratic leadership. They are the arbiters of good and evil, the marshals of the social-media messaging war that prospective candidates are desperate to win. They are why Gillibrand, a former pro-gun immigration hawk, felt that she could whip up excitement by invoking a term that remains almost wholly unknown outside progressive academia. They also might be killing the Democratic party’s chance to win the presidency.
Who is this class of people? Earlier this year, More in Common, a civil-society research initiative, released “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape.” The report is an extensive survey of American “core values” and discovered distinct ideological clusters within the electorate. The views of one cluster on the left wing of the electorate are sharply differentiated from the rest of the survey pool. This group is christened “Progressive Activists” and described as “younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.” They make up 8 percent of the population and their demographics are predictable: disproportionately white, educated, and wealthy. They are more than twice as likely as other Americans to report that politics is a “hobby.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Their views cut sharply against the grain of popular consensus. Seventy-eight percent of Americans describe themselves as “proud to be an American,” whereas 69 percent of Progressive Activists report that they are “ashamed to be an American.” Seventy-three percent of Americans value the American Dream, but only 44 percent of Progressive Activists do. Eighty percent of Americans agree that political correctness is a problem, a view that only 30 percent of Progressive Activists hold. On substantive policy matters, too, the views of Progressive Activists differ from those of the majority. They are the group least likely to identify “jobs and the economy” as a highly important political issue; the rest of the electorate identify it as more important than any issue except “poor leadership.” Americans are evenly divided on whether immigration is good for the country — but 99 percent of Progressive Activists believe that it is.
Progressive Activists are not representative of the American electorate, but they have been remarkably successful at turning their policy priorities into litmus tests for national Democratic figures. Last year, “abolish ICE” (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) was an obscure Twitter hashtag confined to the far Left. But activist groups applied pressure to Democratic candidates to support the campaign, which got sign-ons from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren. Data for Progress, a far-left think tank, insisted that the issue was a political winner.
Advertisement
But Republicans, sensing that the “abolish ICE” position was out of step with the electorate, were only too happy to signal-boost the campaign. Donald Trump quickly began using “abolish ICE” activism as a talking point at rallies to skewer “radical left Dems,” and congressional Republicans offered to schedule an immediate vote on a Democratic “abolish ICE” bill, predicting disaster. As quickly as Republicans seized on the issue, Democrats backed off. Their midterm candidates stopped talking about it, while GOP candidates did the opposite and mounted attack ads. Gillibrand and Warren walked back their support, the latter explaining that she only meant that ICE should be “reformed.” In the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, the issue is dead.
Advertisement
This month, a new prospective litmus test emerged on the activist left: the Green New Deal, described by its supporters as an ambitious government-led plan to meet 100 percent of the country’s energy needs with renewables in ten years and to provide a jobs guarantee to anyone who wants to work on the transition. Like “abolish ICE,” the Green New Deal has been memed into existence by activists who can marshal their large social-media audience. Like “abolish ICE,” the Green New Deal has attracted the support of Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive Democratic leaders. Data for Progress insists that this issue, too, is a political winner. Indeed, the Green New Deal currently attracts broad support in polls — but those same polls show that 80 percent of voters have no idea what it is, and none of its supporters have attempted to describe what the plan would look like.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In this, it may mirror “Medicare for all,” another progressive article of faith whose strong support in polls tends to collapse when voters learn about the implementation details. Americans support the concept but don’t know much about it — half of them believe, incorrectly, that they would be able to keep their existing plan if the U.S. adopted a single-payer system. This voter confusion is understandable, since Democratic politicians use “Medicare for all” as a check-the-box slogan to appeal to progressives — meanwhile, progressive heroes such as Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley refuse to take questions about it. In the absence of a definitive policy proposal, “Medicare for all” functions as little more than an empty vessel for voter frustrations, easily cracked by Republican counter-arguments. In a 2017 poll, opposition to “Medicare for all” leapt from 40 percent to 60 percent when respondents were told that the plan would require Americans to pay more in taxes. This proved too much to conquer even for Vermont: The state abandoned a “Medicare for all” initiative when it was found to require increases in state payroll and income taxes.
The Green New Deal and “Medicare for all” may end up being more successful than “abolish ICE”— the country is moving to the left on economics — but their support is meaningless until they can be translated from abstract concepts to concrete, feasible policy proposals. Otherwise, they will add to the pile of aborted memes that cost Democrats support in winnable districts.
Advertisement
Rallying cries such as “abolish ICE” and the Green New Deal may be of questionable value in turning red districts blue, but they are quite effective at turning blue districts bluer. As highly educated cosmopolitans concentrate in a handful of metropolitan areas, a growing share of the Democratic electorate forms its political identity in relative isolation from Republicans and independents. Political identity is a social tool used to navigate status hierarchies and form in-groups, and progressives living in metropolitan areas therefore develop a politics designed primarily to impress other progressives. A competition to signal far-left identity emerges, familiar to anyone who attended college in the Northeast. Because so many progressives are shaped in this crucible, they hold a distorted idea of what policies the rest of the country will accept. And because these same progressives are largely responsible for the activism and social-media messaging that influence Democratic leaders, the party winds up beholden to ideas that are disliked by everyone except voters whose support was already assured.
Naturally, such progressives were surprised when their favorite candidates suffered almost uniform defeat in the 2018 midterms —Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and other far-left heroes achieved success only by primarying moderate Democrats in deep-blue districts. But their convictions are undampened, and they’re applying them to the 2020 presidential nomination. Prominent activist leader Amy Siskind went viral with her announcement that she would not support a white male candidate in the primaries — despite the deep popularity of both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. (She also appears to have tried to get a critic of her statement fired from his adjunct-teaching job at Boston College). Mother Jones editor in chief Clara Jeffery declared that Sanders’s unpopularity with black women means that he will “never be the nominee.” Meanwhile, Vox pundit Matthew Yglesias called for a constitutional overhaul to enable the 29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez to run for president. And Elizabeth Warren evidently valued the opportunity to signal a non-white identity so highly that she thought a DNA test was a risk worth taking.
Advertisement
This is the outcome of a growing demand among the activist class for explicitly tribal appeals to race and identity. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign slogan was “It’s time for one of us.” It has become fashionable to argue that seeking to appeal to the white working class is a kind of racism. “There’s always been something problematic about the Democratic Party’s fixation on white working-class voters,” writes CNN political commentator Sally Kohn, who sees it as motivated by “racial bias or even white supremacy.” This take exists symbiotically with open calls for the Democratic party to just wait for the white working class to die off.
Advertisement
Whether a Democrat can win in 2020 without support from the white working class is an empirical question — but many progressive activists view it as a moral one. If their moral prohibitions collide with political reality, Democrats may find themselves hobbled in 2020. Given that Hillary Clinton would today be our president if she had merely equaled Barack Obama’s very modest level of support among white non-college voters, it’s a plausible scenario.
One nominee who would easily exceed that threshold is Bernie Sanders, but activist pressure has weakened him as a candidate. When Ezra Klein asked him in 2015 whether immigration to the United States should be “sharply increased,” Sanders correctly intuited that such a proposal would harm his working-class base. He passionately condemned it as a “Koch brothers proposal” that would “bring in all kinds of people working for $2, $3 an hour” and “do away with the concept of the nation-state.” That was unacceptable to the far Left, and today Bernie is woke on immigration — he is now a convert to the unpopular “abolish ICE” campaign. Perhaps he still believes that high levels of immigration harm the working class, but it’s safe to say that he’ll no longer be telling the public that. It is yet another reminder that in a contest between voter interests and activist pieties, Democrats are under increasing pressure to favor the latter.
It’s easy to hijack liberal empathy. Jonathan Haidt’s research indicates that liberal voters place singular importance on protecting the weak from harm and ensuring that the system is fair to all. These are essential, noble commitments. But this concern can be exploited by a subset of activists who demand that all politics be collapsed into a question of oppressor and oppressed. If your morality revolves around helping victims, then someone with a confident, complete narrative about victimhood is in a position to capture total moral authority. The basic problem is that what becomes socially prestigious among progressives may also be politically toxic in the rest of America. Republicans know this. “I want them to talk about racism every day,” said Steve Bannon last year. “If the Left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.” If they are to avoid this fate, Democrats everywhere should undertake a simple task: Stop trying so hard to impress one another.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
VXjIzb5GeXqWVuAZ
|
taxes
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-brady/top-u-s-house-tax-writer-floats-tax-bill-on-retirement-plans-irs-idUSKCN1NW07W
|
Top U.S. House tax writer floats tax bill on retirement plans, IRS
|
2018-11-27
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A Republican who will soon step down as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives tax committee late on Monday released a sweeping , nearly 300-page tax bill that he said would affect Americans ’ retirement savings , numerous business tax breaks and redesign the Internal Revenue Service .
Representative Kevin Brady , chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee only until early January , shepherded through the House and onto President Donald Trump ’ s desk in 2017 a large tax bill that slashed the U.S. corporate tax rate .
Of his latest legislation , Brady said in a statement , “ The policy proposals in this package have support of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers . I look forward to swift action in the House to send these measures to the Senate . ”
American voters ended Republican control of the House in the Nov. 6 elections and handed majority power to the Democrats . Brady is expected to be replaced as committee chairman in January by Democratic Representative Richard Neal .
In the interim , Congress is holding a “ lame duck ” session in which Republicans such as Brady will still be in charge of the House agenda . No summary of Brady ’ s bill was immediately available , said a spokesman for the lawmaker .
The legislation ’ s outlook was not immediately clear , with Congress likely to be busy in the “ lame duck ” session with a must-pass spending measure and Trump ’ s renewed demands for money to build a proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border .
The 297-page text of the bill covers tax breaks for fuel cell cars , energy efficient homes , race horses , mine safety equipment , auto race tracks and many other items , as well as retirement savings plans such as 401 ( k ) s and individual retirement accounts ( IRAs ) .
The bill also “ includes some time-sensitive technical corrections ” to the 2017 bill that Trump signed into law , Brady said in the statement .
|
FILE PHOTO: Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Kevin Brady (R-TX) holds up a sample tax form as he speaks during a media briefing after the House Republican conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 17, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican who will soon step down as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives tax committee late on Monday released a sweeping, nearly 300-page tax bill that he said would affect Americans’ retirement savings, numerous business tax breaks and redesign the Internal Revenue Service.
Representative Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee only until early January, shepherded through the House and onto President Donald Trump’s desk in 2017 a large tax bill that slashed the U.S. corporate tax rate.
Of his latest legislation, Brady said in a statement, “The policy proposals in this package have support of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers. I look forward to swift action in the House to send these measures to the Senate.”
American voters ended Republican control of the House in the Nov. 6 elections and handed majority power to the Democrats. Brady is expected to be replaced as committee chairman in January by Democratic Representative Richard Neal.
In the interim, Congress is holding a “lame duck” session in which Republicans such as Brady will still be in charge of the House agenda. No summary of Brady’s bill was immediately available, said a spokesman for the lawmaker.
The legislation’s outlook was not immediately clear, with Congress likely to be busy in the “lame duck” session with a must-pass spending measure and Trump’s renewed demands for money to build a proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The 297-page text of the bill covers tax breaks for fuel cell cars, energy efficient homes, race horses, mine safety equipment, auto race tracks and many other items, as well as retirement savings plans such as 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts (IRAs).
The bill also “includes some time-sensitive technical corrections” to the 2017 bill that Trump signed into law, Brady said in the statement.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
mu5Q9LkgqhOYBgiU
|
|
politics
|
Guest Writer
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/371565-trumps-powerful-state-of-the-union-laid-out-2018-vision-prosperity
|
OPINION: Trump's powerful State of the Union laid out 2018 vision: Prosperity, borders, security
|
2018-01-31
|
The most remarkable aspect of President Donald 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 first State of the Union address is the very fact of his presidency . That he is one year into his term , and spent the first 15 minutes of his address regaling the American people with his successes just adds to the surrealism .
But the president has already exceeded GOP expectations , defied a near-pathological Democrat opposition , and is set to implement ambitious policies in the months ahead . This State of the Union was a celebration , and a mission statement .
Trump ’ s opening litany of economic accomplishments set the tone for the rest of the speech . Stock market highs , record low unemployment , repatriation of overseas cash , massive investment from multinational corporations in U.S.-based jobs — these are all objective and powerful indicators of what the president has been able to achieve thus far for the American people .
There ’ s nothing novel about a president taking more than his share of credit for a strong economy . With Trump , however , the recitation of positive facts and figures sounded like a full-throated refutation of his critics . Much of the media warned that dysfunction and deterioration would characterize Trump ’ s first year in office . Instead , we have tremendous optimism in the markets , and tax reform that is good business as well as good politics .
Immigration was the policy core of the speech . The president defined his terms for a deal to legalize those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) . He reiterated his willingness to make concessions — some would even argue at the expense of his base — that would include limited amnesty , in exchange for changes to the legal immigration system , enhanced border enforcement , and a wall .
This led to one of Trump ’ s most memorable lines of the night : “ Americans are dreamers too. ” It was a brilliant turn of phrase , one that will remind all who hear it that the first priority of Trump ’ s Democrat opposition appears to be non-Americans . In contrast to this Pelosi-Schumer approach , Trump reiterated that his vision is for an immigration policy that is based on merit and respects the rule of law .
Many of the most memorable and powerful moments of the night were when Trump told the stories of honored guests in attendance . When the president spoke to the parents of two young women who were murdered by the vicious MS-13 gang in Long Island , N.Y. , the costs of illegal alien violent offenders and the need to deport them took on a new urgency .
Trump also told the inspiring story of a North Korean defector named Ji Seong-Ho who lost both his legs as a child and now fights against the despotic Kim Jong Un regime from across the border in South Korea . When Ji raised his crutches and received a roar of applause from the assembled representatives of the American people , we were left with a visual testament to human resilience and our universal desire for freedom .
With the parents of Otto Warmbier , the University of Virginia student arrested and tortured to death by the North Korean regime , next to Ji , we were also reminded that America must stare down the evil Kim regime and hold it accountable for its past atrocities .
Overall , it worked . Trump gave a solid speech that established what the American people can expect in the year ahead . If he follows through on his promises , and keeps up his winning streak , the Trump agenda could well be defined by its convincing victories instead of its dynamic messenger .
Buck Sexton is a political commentator , national security analyst and host of the nationally syndicated radio program “ Buck Sexton with America Now. ” He is a former CIA officer in the Counterterrorism Center , appears frequently on Fox News Channel and CNN and has been a guest radio show host for Rush Limbaugh , Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity . Follow Buck on Twitter @ BuckSexton .
|
The most remarkable aspect of President Donald 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 first State of the Union address is the very fact of his presidency. That he is one year into his term, and spent the first 15 minutes of his address regaling the American people with his successes just adds to the surrealism.
But the president has already exceeded GOP expectations, defied a near-pathological Democrat opposition, and is set to implement ambitious policies in the months ahead. This State of the Union was a celebration, and a mission statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump’s opening litany of economic accomplishments set the tone for the rest of the speech. Stock market highs, record low unemployment, repatriation of overseas cash, massive investment from multinational corporations in U.S.-based jobs — these are all objective and powerful indicators of what the president has been able to achieve thus far for the American people.
There’s nothing novel about a president taking more than his share of credit for a strong economy. With Trump, however, the recitation of positive facts and figures sounded like a full-throated refutation of his critics. Much of the media warned that dysfunction and deterioration would characterize Trump’s first year in office. Instead, we have tremendous optimism in the markets, and tax reform that is good business as well as good politics.
Immigration was the policy core of the speech. The president defined his terms for a deal to legalize those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). He reiterated his willingness to make concessions — some would even argue at the expense of his base — that would include limited amnesty, in exchange for changes to the legal immigration system, enhanced border enforcement, and a wall.
This led to one of Trump’s most memorable lines of the night: “Americans are dreamers too.” It was a brilliant turn of phrase, one that will remind all who hear it that the first priority of Trump’s Democrat opposition appears to be non-Americans. In contrast to this Pelosi-Schumer approach, Trump reiterated that his vision is for an immigration policy that is based on merit and respects the rule of law.
Many of the most memorable and powerful moments of the night were when Trump told the stories of honored guests in attendance. When the president spoke to the parents of two young women who were murdered by the vicious MS-13 gang in Long Island, N.Y., the costs of illegal alien violent offenders and the need to deport them took on a new urgency.
---
RELATED STORIES FROM THE HILL
---
Trump also told the inspiring story of a North Korean defector named Ji Seong-Ho who lost both his legs as a child and now fights against the despotic Kim Jong Un regime from across the border in South Korea. When Ji raised his crutches and received a roar of applause from the assembled representatives of the American people, we were left with a visual testament to human resilience and our universal desire for freedom.
With the parents of Otto Warmbier, the University of Virginia student arrested and tortured to death by the North Korean regime, next to Ji, we were also reminded that America must stare down the evil Kim regime and hold it accountable for its past atrocities.
Overall, it worked. Trump gave a solid speech that established what the American people can expect in the year ahead. If he follows through on his promises, and keeps up his winning streak, the Trump agenda could well be defined by its convincing victories instead of its dynamic messenger.
Buck Sexton is a political commentator, national security analyst and host of the nationally syndicated radio program “Buck Sexton with America Now.” He is a former CIA officer in the Counterterrorism Center, appears frequently on Fox News Channel and CNN and has been a guest radio show host for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Follow Buck on Twitter @BuckSexton.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
VFmeu0JVcmtGdbuI
|
|
environment
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/12/12/climate-change-painless-us/77222700/
|
What the global climate accord means for you
|
2015-12-12
|
Chris Woodyard
|
CLOSE Delegates from 195 countries have approved a historic climate accord that seeks to slow the rise of greenhouse gasses . Here is what you need to know about the Paris Agreement . VPC
In the wake of the 195-nation accord adopted in Paris to fight global warming , Americans need not brace for a raft of new onerous regulations , laws and restrictions imposed as a result , environmental activists say .
Even though the U.S. is second only to China as a climate polluter , many of the initiatives needed to keep global temperatures in check over the long term are already being implemented .
President Obama gave a nod to those efforts in lauding the agreement . `` We 've transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change , '' he said . He pointed to new ventures in wind and solar energy and jobs that have come with them .
The U.S. has gone through two two rounds of regulations to boost automakers ' average fuel economy in the cars they produce . Better fuel economy works in tandem with lowering carbon emissions . Appliances have become more efficient . Costs of LED light bulbs and solar panels have fallen , fostering greater acceptance . Less electricity is being generated by coal-fired power plants .
`` Those are happening without people noticing , '' says John Coequyt , director of climate policy for the Sierra Club . `` Renewable energy is getting cheaper . ''
Americans are less likely to feel pain from the accord since the U.S. , like other countries , had control over what it believed it realistically could accomplish , says Robert Stavins , director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program . Since the goals are shaped around many current or planned initiatives , the agreement is unlikely to result in new rules being imposed on Americans .
Lawmakers opposed to the agreement could seek to reverse progress in the future against global warming on the basis that it is costing jobs or imposing economic hardship on Americans .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , warned that the agreement might be spurned if a Republican is elected president next year . And Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe , R-Okla. , said he would try to block funding needed to implement the accord .
Such Republican opposition is unlikely to touch many of the initiatives already going on , Stavins says . `` Even if that happens , I do n't see them rolling any of these ( initiatives ) back . ''
That 's partly because Americans are discovering there 's little trade off between protecting the environment and creating jobs , says Alden Meyer , strategy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists . The drive toward reducing greenhouse gases has created new technologies and industries to support them .
The Paris agreement `` sends a powerful message ( that the ) smart money ought to be betting on the clean-energy future , '' Meyer says .
If nothing else , the agreement takes one of the key arguments against the U.S. joining in the fight against global warming off the table . That is the argument that if the U.S. enacted tough environmental rules , other countries would n't need to follow suit and would become lower-cost industrial producers . With so many countries joining in the accord , the argument now falls by the wayside , according to Meyer .
As it turns out , says the Sierra Club 's Coequyt , a lot of the changes needed to meet terms of the accord have gone largely without complaint .
`` It 's not that big of a deal to go solar , '' he says . `` Right now , a quarter of coal plants are retired or scheduled to be retired and nobody noticed . ''
Coequyt , interviewed by phone from Paris , said , `` We have been trying to get the U.S. to take climate change seriously for a long time . '' Now , that time has come .
|
CLOSE Delegates from 195 countries have approved a historic climate accord that seeks to slow the rise of greenhouse gasses. Here is what you need to know about the Paris Agreement. VPC
Danny Ferguson, right, and Jason Warrix, rear, learn solar panel installation from instructor Kelly Larson on the roof of the Coalfield Development Corporation during a class in Huntington, W.Va. (Photo: AP)
In the wake of the 195-nation accord adopted in Paris to fight global warming, Americans need not brace for a raft of new onerous regulations, laws and restrictions imposed as a result, environmental activists say.
Even though the U.S. is second only to China as a climate polluter, many of the initiatives needed to keep global temperatures in check over the long term are already being implemented.
President Obama gave a nod to those efforts in lauding the agreement. "We've transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change," he said. He pointed to new ventures in wind and solar energy and jobs that have come with them.
Progress has come on many fronts.
The U.S. has gone through two two rounds of regulations to boost automakers' average fuel economy in the cars they produce. Better fuel economy works in tandem with lowering carbon emissions. Appliances have become more efficient. Costs of LED light bulbs and solar panels have fallen, fostering greater acceptance. Less electricity is being generated by coal-fired power plants.
"Those are happening without people noticing," says John Coequyt, director of climate policy for the Sierra Club. "Renewable energy is getting cheaper."
Americans are less likely to feel pain from the accord since the U.S., like other countries, had control over what it believed it realistically could accomplish, says Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. Since the goals are shaped around many current or planned initiatives, the agreement is unlikely to result in new rules being imposed on Americans.
Lawmakers opposed to the agreement could seek to reverse progress in the future against global warming on the basis that it is costing jobs or imposing economic hardship on Americans.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned that the agreement might be spurned if a Republican is elected president next year. And Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., said he would try to block funding needed to implement the accord.
Such Republican opposition is unlikely to touch many of the initiatives already going on, Stavins says. "Even if that happens, I don't see them rolling any of these (initiatives) back."
That's partly because Americans are discovering there's little trade off between protecting the environment and creating jobs, says Alden Meyer, strategy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The drive toward reducing greenhouse gases has created new technologies and industries to support them.
The Paris agreement "sends a powerful message (that the) smart money ought to be betting on the clean-energy future," Meyer says.
If nothing else, the agreement takes one of the key arguments against the U.S. joining in the fight against global warming off the table. That is the argument that if the U.S. enacted tough environmental rules, other countries wouldn't need to follow suit and would become lower-cost industrial producers. With so many countries joining in the accord, the argument now falls by the wayside, according to Meyer.
As it turns out, says the Sierra Club's Coequyt, a lot of the changes needed to meet terms of the accord have gone largely without complaint.
"It's not that big of a deal to go solar," he says. "Right now, a quarter of coal plants are retired or scheduled to be retired and nobody noticed."
Coequyt, interviewed by phone from Paris, said, "We have been trying to get the U.S. to take climate change seriously for a long time." Now, that time has come.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1YbMq7Q
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
q2yrUiPbkPAAmTXU
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162547180/romneys-jobs-plan-relies-on-his-tax-proposal
|
Romney's Jobs Plan Relies On His Tax Proposal
|
2012-10-09
|
John Ydstie
|
As part of Solve This , NPR 's series on major issues facing the country , we 're examining the presidential candidate 's approach to boosting employment . After looking at President Obama 's strategy , it 's time to examine the plan of GOP nominee Mitt Romney .
Mitt Romney says he has a plan with 59 bullet points detailing how to boost growth and job creation . He gives a short list in one of his most recent ads :
`` First , my energy independence policy means more than 3 million new jobs , many of them in manufacturing . My tax reform plan to lower rates for the middle class and for small business creates 7 million more . And expanding trade , cracking down on China and improving job training takes us to over 12 million new jobs . ''
That 's 12 million new jobs in his first term in office . As Romney says , more than half of those jobs , 7 million , would be generated by his tax plan . One of the people behind that tax proposal is Kevin Hassett , a Romney economic adviser and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute .
`` Gov . Romney 's tax plan is modeled after the successful tax plans of the past , and it would generate growth because it would increase the incentive to do things that are good for America 's economy and America 's workers , '' Hassett says .
Romney 's tax plan would cut tax rates by 20 percent for all taxpayers . That would cost the Treasury almost $ 5 trillion in lost tax revenue over 10 years . But Romney says it wo n't cost $ 5 trillion , because he will offset the losses from lower rates by ending deductions and closing loopholes ; he has not said which ones .
Joel Prakken , chairman of the firm Macroeconomic Advisers , says it would be very difficult for Romney 's plan to work without ending some very popular deductions — `` mortgage interest , health care benefits and the like . ''
`` And so , there 's some concern out there about whether it actually will be possible to engineer this kind of tax reform with such sharp cuts in marginal rates , '' Prakken says .
Romney has recently suggested he might just cap taxpayers ' deductions to $ 17,000 . But some analysts say it 's doubtful that would fully pay for the cost of Romney 's tax cut , either .
Prakken says the elimination of deductions and loopholes could lead to faster job creation in the long run , but in the short term it could eliminate jobs in industries like housing that are already struggling .
`` Until we see precisely how the lower rates are going to be paid for , in terms of broadening the tax base , it 's very difficult , it 's just impossible , in fact , to make an unqualified statement about just how much growth we 're going to get from this kind of tax initiative , '' Prakken says .
As for the 12 million new jobs Romney says his policies will produce in four years , Prakken says it 's not a very high bar .
`` In our long-term forecast , in which we assume the continuation of current policies and an economy that 's recovering toward full employment anyway , we were able to create roughly 12 million new jobs without recourse to these policies , '' Prakken adds .
But Hassett , the Romney adviser , disagrees that 12 million jobs could be created under current policies .
`` We 've got massive deficits . We 've got a corporate tax that 's just out of whack with the rest of the world . We 've got an enormous amount of new regulation coming in , and I think that all those things are very , very negative for growth and job creation , '' Hassett says .
What about Romney 's claim that he 'll create 3 million new jobs in energy ? Prakken says there will be significant job growth in that sector over the next 10 years , but not because of presidential policies . Rather , Prakken says , it 's because the energy sector is in the midst of a boom due to the development of hydraulic fracturing , which is releasing huge quantities of U.S. gas and oil .
NPR 's John Ydstie took a closer look at Obama 's jobs strategy Monday on All Things Considered .
|
Romney's Jobs Plan Relies On His Tax Proposal
Enlarge this image toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP Evan Vucci/AP
As part of Solve This, NPR's series on major issues facing the country, we're examining the presidential candidate's approach to boosting employment. After looking at President Obama's strategy, it's time to examine the plan of GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney says he has a plan with 59 bullet points detailing how to boost growth and job creation. He gives a short list in one of his most recent ads:
"First, my energy independence policy means more than 3 million new jobs, many of them in manufacturing. My tax reform plan to lower rates for the middle class and for small business creates 7 million more. And expanding trade, cracking down on China and improving job training takes us to over 12 million new jobs."
That's 12 million new jobs in his first term in office. As Romney says, more than half of those jobs, 7 million, would be generated by his tax plan. One of the people behind that tax proposal is Kevin Hassett, a Romney economic adviser and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
"Gov. Romney's tax plan is modeled after the successful tax plans of the past, and it would generate growth because it would increase the incentive to do things that are good for America's economy and America's workers," Hassett says.
Romney's tax plan would cut tax rates by 20 percent for all taxpayers. That would cost the Treasury almost $5 trillion in lost tax revenue over 10 years. But Romney says it won't cost $5 trillion, because he will offset the losses from lower rates by ending deductions and closing loopholes; he has not said which ones.
Joel Prakken, chairman of the firm Macroeconomic Advisers, says it would be very difficult for Romney's plan to work without ending some very popular deductions — "mortgage interest, health care benefits and the like."
"And so, there's some concern out there about whether it actually will be possible to engineer this kind of tax reform with such sharp cuts in marginal rates," Prakken says.
Romney has recently suggested he might just cap taxpayers' deductions to $17,000. But some analysts say it's doubtful that would fully pay for the cost of Romney's tax cut, either.
Prakken says the elimination of deductions and loopholes could lead to faster job creation in the long run, but in the short term it could eliminate jobs in industries like housing that are already struggling.
"Until we see precisely how the lower rates are going to be paid for, in terms of broadening the tax base, it's very difficult, it's just impossible, in fact, to make an unqualified statement about just how much growth we're going to get from this kind of tax initiative," Prakken says.
As for the 12 million new jobs Romney says his policies will produce in four years, Prakken says it's not a very high bar.
"In our long-term forecast, in which we assume the continuation of current policies and an economy that's recovering toward full employment anyway, we were able to create roughly 12 million new jobs without recourse to these policies," Prakken adds.
But Hassett, the Romney adviser, disagrees that 12 million jobs could be created under current policies.
"We've got massive deficits. We've got a corporate tax that's just out of whack with the rest of the world. We've got an enormous amount of new regulation coming in, and I think that all those things are very, very negative for growth and job creation," Hassett says.
What about Romney's claim that he'll create 3 million new jobs in energy? Prakken says there will be significant job growth in that sector over the next 10 years, but not because of presidential policies. Rather, Prakken says, it's because the energy sector is in the midst of a boom due to the development of hydraulic fracturing, which is releasing huge quantities of U.S. gas and oil.
NPR's John Ydstie took a closer look at Obama's jobs strategy Monday on All Things Considered.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
6uuaJLq5GVQBjhu3
|
north_korea
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/world/asia/north-korea-us-threats/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
North Korea puts rockets on standby to 'mercilessly strike' the U.S.
|
2013-03-29
|
Catherine E. Shoichet
|
Story highlights South Korea does n't consider latest threat `` new , '' its unification ministry says
North Korea threatens `` all-out war and nuclear war '' on its enemies , state news reports
`` We will first target and dissolve '' the mainland U.S. , Hawaii and Guam , the report adds
Pyongyang has been defiant in the face of efforts to halt its nuclear program
North Korea has entered a `` state of war '' with neighboring South Korea , according to a report Saturday from the state-run Korean Central News Agency that included a threat to `` dissolve '' the U.S. mainland .
`` Any issues regarding North and South will be treated in accordance to the state of war , '' North Korea 's government said in a special statement carried by KCNA . `` ... The condition , which was neither war nor peace , has ended . ''
North Korea and South Korea technically remain at war since their conflict between 1950 and 1953 ended with an armistice and not a peace treaty . On March 11 , the North Korean army declared the armistice agreement invalid .
This report represented Pyongyang 's latest salvo aimed at South Korea and its ally the United States . Tensions in the area have been ratcheting up for months , with North Korea remaining defiant and , in some opinions , belligerent in the face of international efforts to halt its nuclear program .
Saturday 's report included a direct threat to the United States , while also asserting Pyongyang `` will not limit ( itself ) to limited warfare but to all-out war and nuclear war . ''
`` We will first target and dissolve mainland United States , Hawaii and Guam , and United States military based in South Korea . And the ( South Korean presidential office ) will be burned to the ground , '' the KCNA report said .
In a statement later Saturday , South Korea did not treat their neighbor 's latest threat as anything new .
Seoul noted scores of its personnel had entered the Kaesong Industrial complex -- a joint economic cooperation zone between the two Koreas situated on the North 's side of the border -- on Saturday morning with hundreds more set to join them later in the day , seemingly suggesting they were going about business as usual .
`` The announcement made by North Korea is not a new threat , but part of follow-up measures after North Korea 's supreme command 's statement that it will enter the highest military alert '' on Tuesday , South Korea 's Unification Ministry said in a statement .
A day earlier , same official North Korean news agency reported its leader Kim Jong Un had approved a plan to prepare standby rockets to hit U.S. targets .
In a meeting with military leaders early Friday , Kim `` said he has judged the time has come to settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists in view of the prevailing situation , '' KCNA reported .
The rockets are aimed at U.S. targets , including military bases in the Pacific and in South Korea , it said .
`` If they make a reckless provocation with huge strategic forces , ( we ) should mercilessly strike the U.S. mainland , their stronghold , their military bases in the operational theaters in the Pacific , including Hawaii and Guam , and those in South Korea , '' the report said .
JUST WATCHED North Korea puts rockets on standby Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korea puts rockets on standby 02:50
JUST WATCHED North Korean war map targets Texas Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korean war map targets Texas 02:43
JUST WATCHED Kim : 'Time has come to settle accounts ' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Kim : 'Time has come to settle accounts ' 02:41
JUST WATCHED How far can North Korean missiles go ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How far can North Korean missiles go ? 01:10
North Korean state media carried a photo of Kim meeting with military officials Friday . In the photo , the young leader is seated , leafing through documents with four uniformed officers standing around him .
On the wall behind them , a map titled `` Plan for the strategic forces to target mainland U.S. '' appears to show straight lines stretching across the Pacific to points on the continental United States .
South Korea and the United States are `` monitoring any movements of North Korea 's short , middle and middle- to long-range missiles , '' South Korean Defense Ministry Spokesman Kim Min-seok said Friday .
U.S. official : We 're 'committed ... to peace , ' unlike N. Korea
U.S. officials have said they 're concerned about the torrent of threats coming out of Pyongyang in recent weeks .
`` I think their very provocative actions and belligerent tone , it has ratcheted up the danger , and we have to understand that reality , '' Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday .
Some observers have suggested that Washington is adding to tensions in the region by drawing attention to its displays of military strength on North Korea 's doorstep , such as the flights by the B-2 stealth bombers .
`` We , the United States and South Korea , have not been involved in provocating anything , '' he said . `` We , over the years , have been engaged with South Korea on joint exercises . The B-2 flight was part of that . ''
Washington and its allies `` are committed to a pathway to peace , '' Hagel said . `` And the North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction here . ''
Amid the uneasy situation , China , a key North Korean ally that expressed frustration about Pyongyang 's latest nuclear test , also called for calm .
`` We hope relevant parties can work together to turn around the tense situation in the region , '' Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said Friday , describing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as `` a joint responsibility . ''
Behind North Korea 's heated words about missile strikes , one analyst said , there might not be much mettle .
JUST WATCHED Little : We will protect South Korea Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Little : We will protect South Korea 03:52
JUST WATCHED How real is North Korea 's new threat ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How real is North Korea 's new threat ? 01:49
JUST WATCHED B-2 exercise over Korean Peninsula Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH B-2 exercise over Korean Peninsula 02:31
JUST WATCHED South Korea honors 'Day of Terror ' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH South Korea honors 'Day of Terror ' 01:52
`` The fact is that despite the bombast , and unless there has been a miraculous turnaround among North Korea 's strategic forces , there is little to no chance that it could successfully land a missile on Guam , Hawaii or anywhere else outside the Korean Peninsula that U.S. forces may be stationed , '' James Hardy , Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane 's Defense Weekly , wrote in an opinion column published Thursday on CNN.com
Tensions escalated on the Korean Peninsula after the North carried out a long-range rocket launch in December and an underground nuclear test last month , prompting the U.N. Security Council to step up sanctions on the secretive government .
Pyongyang has expressed fury about the sanctions and the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises , due to continue until the end of April .
The deteriorating relations have killed hopes of reviving multilateral talks over North Korea 's nuclear program for the foreseeable future . Indeed , Pyongyang has declared that the subject is no longer up for discussion .
The recent saber-rattling from Pyongyang has included threats of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the United States and South Korea .
Most observers say North Korea is still years away from having the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead on a missile , but it does have plenty of conventional military firepower , including medium-range ballistic missiles that can carry high explosives for hundreds of miles .
North Korea has gone through cycles of `` provocative behavior '' for decades , Pentagon spokesman George Little said Thursday .
`` And we have to deal with them . We have to be sober , calm , cool , collected about these periods . That 's what we 're doing right now , '' he said . `` And we are assuring our South Korean allies day to day that we stand with them in the face of these provocations . ''
|
Story highlights South Korea doesn't consider latest threat "new," its unification ministry says
North Korea threatens "all-out war and nuclear war" on its enemies, state news reports
"We will first target and dissolve" the mainland U.S., Hawaii and Guam, the report adds
Pyongyang has been defiant in the face of efforts to halt its nuclear program
North Korea has entered a "state of war" with neighboring South Korea, according to a report Saturday from the state-run Korean Central News Agency that included a threat to "dissolve" the U.S. mainland.
"Any issues regarding North and South will be treated in accordance to the state of war," North Korea's government said in a special statement carried by KCNA. "... The condition, which was neither war nor peace, has ended."
North Korea and South Korea technically remain at war since their conflict between 1950 and 1953 ended with an armistice and not a peace treaty. On March 11, the North Korean army declared the armistice agreement invalid.
This report represented Pyongyang's latest salvo aimed at South Korea and its ally the United States. Tensions in the area have been ratcheting up for months, with North Korea remaining defiant and, in some opinions, belligerent in the face of international efforts to halt its nuclear program.
Saturday's report included a direct threat to the United States, while also asserting Pyongyang "will not limit (itself) to limited warfare but to all-out war and nuclear war."
"We will first target and dissolve mainland United States, Hawaii and Guam, and United States military based in South Korea. And the (South Korean presidential office) will be burned to the ground," the KCNA report said.
In a statement later Saturday, South Korea did not treat their neighbor's latest threat as anything new.
Seoul noted scores of its personnel had entered the Kaesong Industrial complex -- a joint economic cooperation zone between the two Koreas situated on the North's side of the border -- on Saturday morning with hundreds more set to join them later in the day, seemingly suggesting they were going about business as usual.
"The announcement made by North Korea is not a new threat, but part of follow-up measures after North Korea's supreme command's statement that it will enter the highest military alert" on Tuesday, South Korea's Unification Ministry said in a statement.
Map appears to show U.S. targets
A day earlier, same official North Korean news agency reported its leader Kim Jong Un had approved a plan to prepare standby rockets to hit U.S. targets.
In a meeting with military leaders early Friday, Kim "said he has judged the time has come to settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists in view of the prevailing situation," KCNA reported.
The rockets are aimed at U.S. targets, including military bases in the Pacific and in South Korea, it said.
"If they make a reckless provocation with huge strategic forces, (we) should mercilessly strike the U.S. mainland, their stronghold, their military bases in the operational theaters in the Pacific, including Hawaii and Guam, and those in South Korea," the report said.
Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – Emergency service personnel wearing chemical protective clothing participate in an anti-chemical warfare exercise on Tuesday, April 16 in Seoul. Tensions remain high in the Korean Peninsula in the wake of North Korea's recent nuclear threats and provocations. A Pentagon intelligence assessment suggests the North may have the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon with a ballistic missile, though the reliability is believed to be "low." Hide Caption 1 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean marines arrive on the island of Yeonpyeong near the disputed waters of the Yellow Sea on Friday, April 12. Hide Caption 2 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – A Japanese soldier is on alert as Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile launchers are deployed at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo on Wednesday, April 10. Hide Caption 3 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers sit in a truck at the Inter-Korean transit office on Tuesday, April 9, in Paju, South Korea. Hide Caption 4 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers participate in an artillery drill as part of the Foal Eagle joint military exercise by U.S. and South Korean forces near the Demilitarized Zone in Goseong on April 9. Hide Caption 5 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – U.S. soldiers are at a military training field in Yeoncheon, South Korea, on April 9. Hide Caption 6 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers with K-55 self-propelled Howitzers stage at a military training field in the border city of Paju on Friday, April 5, as tensions continue to mount on the Korean peninsula. Hide Caption 7 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers man a cannon at a military training field in Paju on April 5. Hide Caption 8 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers stand guard at a sentry post at the border with North Korea in the Demilitarized Zone near Imjingak, South Korea, on April 5. Hide Caption 9 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – A U.S. Army Patriot missile battery is visible at the U.S. Osan Air Base in South Korea on Friday, April 5. Hide Caption 10 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – The U.S. Navy is moving a sea-based radar platform, like the one seen in this 2006 file photo, closer to the North Korean coast to monitor that country's military moves, including possible new missile launches, a Defense Department official said Monday, April 1. Hide Caption 11 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean marines man K-55 self-propelled Howitzers at a military training field in the border city of Paju on Monday, April 1. Park Geun-hye, South Korea's new president, promised a strong military response to any North Korean provocation after North Korea announced that the two countries were in a state of war. Hide Caption 12 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean anti-aircraft armored vehicles move across a temporary bridge during a river crossing drill in Hwacheon near the North Korean border on Monday, April 1. Hide Caption 13 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers ride on a military truck in Paju on Friday, March 29. Hide Caption 14 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – The United States said Thursday, March 28, that it flew stealth bombers over South Korea to participate in annual military exercises amid spiking tensions with North Korea. Pictured, a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber flies over South Korea's western port city of Pyeongtaek. Hide Caption 15 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers gather at the foot of a mountain near a military drill field in the border city of Paju on Wednesday, March 27. Hide Caption 16 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – Armed South Korean soldiers walk on a road near a military drill field in Paju on March 27. Hide Caption 17 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers ride in a military truck in Paju on March 27. Hide Caption 18 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – A B-52 bomber flies over the wire-topped fence of a U.S. air base in Osan, South Korea, on Tuesday, March 19. Hide Caption 19 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers take part in a drill to guard the building of a state-run telecom company in Seoul against potential guerrilla attacks on Thursday, March 14. Hide Caption 20 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean army soldiers jump off a military truck during a drill outside a U.S. airbase in Pyeongtaek as part of annual joint exercises with the United States on March 14. Hide Caption 21 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean Marines operate K-55 self-propelled howitzers on the western island of Ganghwa near the disputed maritime frontier with North Korea on Wednesday, March 13. Hide Caption 22 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean soldiers stand guard as a North Korean soldier, far center, looks on at the truce village of Panmunjom in the demilitarized zone dividing the two Koreas on March 13. Hide Caption 23 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – South Korean marines patrol on the South Korea-controlled island of Yeonpyeong near the disputed waters of the Yellow Sea on Tuesday, March 12. Hide Caption 24 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – In this Navy handout image taken on March 5, Lt. j.g. Matthew Harmon serves as helm safety officer aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell during a replenishment at sea, part of Foal Eagle 2013, the joint exercises between the United States and South Korea. Hide Caption 25 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – Fire Controlman 2nd Class Jason Titcombe, left, hands Fire Controlman 2nd Class Joshua Clements ordnance aboard the destroyer USS Lassen in this Navy handout photo taken on March 5. Hide Caption 26 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – U.S. Navy Boatswain's Mate 3rd Class Brittany Chiles signals to an SH-60B Seahawk helicopter as it lands on the flight deck of the destroyer USS McCampbell on March 4 in the Pacific Ocean, in this Navy handout photo. Hide Caption 27 of 28 Photos: Photos: Militaries and Korean tensions Militaries and Korean tensions – This March 17 Navy handout image shows the destroyer USS John S. McCain, front; the Republic of Korea Navy destroyer ROKS Seoae-Yu-Seong-Ryong, center; and the destroyer USS McCampbell moving into formation in the waters off the Korean Peninsula during exercise Foal Eagle 2013. Hide Caption 28 of 28
JUST WATCHED North Korea puts rockets on standby Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korea puts rockets on standby 02:50
JUST WATCHED North Korean war map targets Texas Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korean war map targets Texas 02:43
JUST WATCHED Kim: 'Time has come to settle accounts' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Kim: 'Time has come to settle accounts' 02:41
JUST WATCHED How far can North Korean missiles go? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How far can North Korean missiles go? 01:10
North Korean state media carried a photo of Kim meeting with military officials Friday. In the photo, the young leader is seated, leafing through documents with four uniformed officers standing around him.
On the wall behind them, a map titled "Plan for the strategic forces to target mainland U.S." appears to show straight lines stretching across the Pacific to points on the continental United States.
South Korea and the United States are "monitoring any movements of North Korea's short, middle and middle- to long-range missiles," South Korean Defense Ministry Spokesman Kim Min-seok said Friday.
U.S. official: We're 'committed ... to peace,' unlike N. Korea
U.S. officials have said they're concerned about the torrent of threats coming out of Pyongyang in recent weeks.
"I think their very provocative actions and belligerent tone, it has ratcheted up the danger, and we have to understand that reality," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.
Some observers have suggested that Washington is adding to tensions in the region by drawing attention to its displays of military strength on North Korea's doorstep, such as the flights by the B-2 stealth bombers.
Hagel argued against that assertion.
"We, the United States and South Korea, have not been involved in provocating anything," he said. "We, over the years, have been engaged with South Korea on joint exercises. The B-2 flight was part of that."
Washington and its allies "are committed to a pathway to peace," Hagel said. "And the North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction here."
Amid the uneasy situation, China, a key North Korean ally that expressed frustration about Pyongyang's latest nuclear test, also called for calm.
"We hope relevant parties can work together to turn around the tense situation in the region," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said Friday, describing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as "a joint responsibility."
Behind North Korea's heated words about missile strikes, one analyst said, there might not be much mettle.
JUST WATCHED Little: We will protect South Korea Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Little: We will protect South Korea 03:52
JUST WATCHED How real is North Korea's new threat? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How real is North Korea's new threat? 01:49
JUST WATCHED B-2 exercise over Korean Peninsula Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH B-2 exercise over Korean Peninsula 02:31
JUST WATCHED South Korea honors 'Day of Terror' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH South Korea honors 'Day of Terror' 01:52
"The fact is that despite the bombast, and unless there has been a miraculous turnaround among North Korea's strategic forces, there is little to no chance that it could successfully land a missile on Guam, Hawaii or anywhere else outside the Korean Peninsula that U.S. forces may be stationed," James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane's Defense Weekly, wrote in an opinion column published Thursday on CNN.com
Tensions have been rising for months
Tensions escalated on the Korean Peninsula after the North carried out a long-range rocket launch in December and an underground nuclear test last month, prompting the U.N. Security Council to step up sanctions on the secretive government.
Pyongyang has expressed fury about the sanctions and the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises, due to continue until the end of April.
The deteriorating relations have killed hopes of reviving multilateral talks over North Korea's nuclear program for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Pyongyang has declared that the subject is no longer up for discussion.
The recent saber-rattling from Pyongyang has included threats of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the United States and South Korea.
Most observers say North Korea is still years away from having the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead on a missile, but it does have plenty of conventional military firepower, including medium-range ballistic missiles that can carry high explosives for hundreds of miles.
North Korea has gone through cycles of "provocative behavior" for decades, Pentagon spokesman George Little said Thursday.
"And we have to deal with them. We have to be sober, calm, cool, collected about these periods. That's what we're doing right now," he said. "And we are assuring our South Korean allies day to day that we stand with them in the face of these provocations."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
NU2V8L4mvBcLqGli
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/sen-marco-rubio-calls-heritage-foundations-immigra/
|
Sen. Marco Rubio calls Heritage Foundation's immigration study "deeply flawed"
|
2013-05-09
|
Seth Mclaughlin
|
Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday disputed the recently released study from the conservative Heritage Foundation that warned comprehensive immigration reform would cost taxpayers $ 6.3 trillion , saying the findings in the report are “ deeply flawed . ”
Mr. Rubio , a member of the bipartisan group of eight lawmakers that is ushering an immigration bill through the Senate , said that the study “ is not a legitimate study ” because , among other things , it is based over 50 years and overestimates the number of people who will be included in the system .
“ The bottom line is , I think as everyone has pointed out , is the study is deeply flawed , ” Mr. Rubio said during an appearance on “ CBS This Morning . ”
The remarks put Mr. Rubio , a likely 2016 presidential contender , at odds with one of the nation ’ s most well-known conservative think tanks , which is now headed by former Sen. Jim DeMint , who is credited with helping Mr. Rubio get elected to office in the 2010 election .
The Senate judiciary committee on Thursday is scheduled to hold another hearing on the 844-page bill that the “ Gang of Eight ” introduced last month .
Mr. Rubio said the biggest obstacle now standing in front of comprehensive immigration reform is convincing the American public that the border will be secured as part of a comprehensive bill that stops another wave of illegal immigrants from coming into the country after a proposal is enacted .
Mr. Rubio said that two dozen conservative groups have signed a letter in support of a comprehensive immigration fix and want to see something done akin to the bill now making its way through the Senate .
The ███ reported Monday that Heritage Foundation report said that the costs of the immigration reform are driven by demographics : Illegal immigrants are more likely to lack a high school education , and more than a third of households headed by illegal immigrants live below the poverty line , meaning those households consume more in services than they pay in taxes .
Heritage said legalizing them improves the situation in the short run but leaves a big hole over the longer term , when they access public health programs and , eventually , Social Security and Medicare benefits . Over the course of a lifetime , that works out to each illegal immigrant-led household taking $ 592,000 more in government benefits than would be paid in taxes , said Robert Rector , the report ’ s chief author .
|
Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday disputed the recently released study from the conservative Heritage Foundation that warned comprehensive immigration reform would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion, saying the findings in the report are “deeply flawed.”
Mr. Rubio, a member of the bipartisan group of eight lawmakers that is ushering an immigration bill through the Senate, said that the study “is not a legitimate study” because, among other things, it is based over 50 years and overestimates the number of people who will be included in the system.
“The bottom line is, I think as everyone has pointed out, is the study is deeply flawed,” Mr. Rubio said during an appearance on “CBS This Morning.”
The remarks put Mr. Rubio, a likely 2016 presidential contender, at odds with one of the nation’s most well-known conservative think tanks, which is now headed by former Sen. Jim DeMint, who is credited with helping Mr. Rubio get elected to office in the 2010 election.
The Senate judiciary committee on Thursday is scheduled to hold another hearing on the 844-page bill that the “Gang of Eight” introduced last month.
Mr. Rubio said the biggest obstacle now standing in front of comprehensive immigration reform is convincing the American public that the border will be secured as part of a comprehensive bill that stops another wave of illegal immigrants from coming into the country after a proposal is enacted.
SPECIAL COVERAGE: Immigration Reform
Mr. Rubio said that two dozen conservative groups have signed a letter in support of a comprehensive immigration fix and want to see something done akin to the bill now making its way through the Senate.
The Washington Times reported Monday that Heritage Foundation report said that the costs of the immigration reform are driven by demographics: Illegal immigrants are more likely to lack a high school education, and more than a third of households headed by illegal immigrants live below the poverty line, meaning those households consume more in services than they pay in taxes.
Heritage said legalizing them improves the situation in the short run but leaves a big hole over the longer term, when they access public health programs and, eventually, Social Security and Medicare benefits. Over the course of a lifetime, that works out to each illegal immigrant-led household taking $592,000 more in government benefits than would be paid in taxes, said Robert Rector, the report’s chief author.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
cbHzM5KY6pfFHF9p
|
abortion
|
Breitbart News
| 22
|
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/09/Pope-Tells-UN-Chiefs-to-Protect-Unborn
|
Pope Francis Tells UN Chiefs to Protect the Unborn
|
2014-05-09
|
Austin Ruse
|
Pope Francis met with the Secretary General of the United Nations along with the heads of all the major UN agencies . In his message he directly and indirectly mentioned the thorny UN issue of abortion .
Francis told the gathered heads of UN agencies , “ Today , in concrete terms , an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God ’ s providence has placed in our hands… ”
Though not surprising , this is nonetheless significant since the Pope ’ s diplomats are often at loggerheads with these same agency heads who push for a global right to abortion .
Former U.S . Ambassador to the Holy See Raymond Flynn told ███ :
With all the chaos in the world , war , torture , sexual kidnapping of innocent little girls in Africa , and genocide… what is the U.N. focused on ? Trying to impose their radical political philosophy on the Catholic Church , who have done more to help end injustice than any country or organization in history . Pope Francis is proving once again that a leader is most effective when being principled and humble , not arrogant and disrespectful – like Pope John Paul II before him , who stood up to tyranny and injustice and won the battle by winning the hearts and minds of people throughout the world .
Francis thanked the UN officials for their “ great efforts being made to ensure world peace , respect for human dignity , the protection of persons , especially the poorest and most vulnerable , and harmonious economic and social development . ”
Much of the language used at the Vatican and the UN is coded , and even here are subtle mentions of abortion . “ Human dignity , ” for instance , is language often used to promote the right to life of the unborn , as are references to the “ most vulnerable . ”
Along with his usual calls for striking at the “ structural causes of poverty and hunger ” along with protection for the environment and promotion of “ dignified and productive labor for all , ” Pope Francis also called for “ protection of the family . ”
“ Specifically , ” he said , “ this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the ‘ economy of exclusion ’ , the ‘ throwaway culture ’ and the ‘ culture of death . ' ”
Both his reference to the “ throwaway culture ” and the “ culture of death ” are direct if coded references to , among other things , the killing of unborn children .
Francis continued his more liberal economic campaign calling for “ legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state , ” though the inclusion of the word “ legitimate ” may give American libertarians at least a dollop of comfort .
Already the phrase has picked up vast media attention . However , according to frequent Church commentator Reverend Jonathan Morris , it is “ bad reporting : ”
Bad reporting by many . Pope Francis didn ’ t tell nations to “ redistribute wealth ” . He said “ legitimate redistribution of economic benefits ” — Fr . Jonathan Morris ( @ fatherjonathan ) May 9 , 2014
“ Redistribution of Wealth ” is a Marxist concept . Francis is calling for economic opportunity for all , avoiding “ exclusionary ” policies . — Fr . Jonathan Morris ( @ fatherjonathan ) May 9 , 2014
The meeting comes amidst a multi-year negotiation to replace the so-called Millennium Development Goals and on the 20th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development , where Francis ’ s predecessor John Paul II led a global fight to stop an international right to abortion .
|
Pope Francis met with the Secretary General of the United Nations along with the heads of all the major UN agencies. In his message he directly and indirectly mentioned the thorny UN issue of abortion.
Francis told the gathered heads of UN agencies, “Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands…”
Though not surprising, this is nonetheless significant since the Pope’s diplomats are often at loggerheads with these same agency heads who push for a global right to abortion.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Raymond Flynn told Breitbart News:
With all the chaos in the world , war, torture, sexual kidnapping of innocent little girls in Africa, and genocide… what is the U.N. focused on? Trying to impose their radical political philosophy on the Catholic Church, who have done more to help end injustice than any country or organization in history. Pope Francis is proving once again that a leader is most effective when being principled and humble, not arrogant and disrespectful – like Pope John Paul II before him, who stood up to tyranny and injustice and won the battle by winning the hearts and minds of people throughout the world.
Francis thanked the UN officials for their “great efforts being made to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development.”
Much of the language used at the Vatican and the UN is coded, and even here are subtle mentions of abortion. “Human dignity,” for instance, is language often used to promote the right to life of the unborn, as are references to the “most vulnerable.”
Along with his usual calls for striking at the “structural causes of poverty and hunger” along with protection for the environment and promotion of “dignified and productive labor for all,” Pope Francis also called for “protection of the family.”
“Specifically,” he said, “this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the ‘economy of exclusion’, the ‘throwaway culture’ and the ‘culture of death.'”
Both his reference to the “throwaway culture” and the “culture of death” are direct if coded references to, among other things, the killing of unborn children.
Francis continued his more liberal economic campaign calling for “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state,” though the inclusion of the word “legitimate” may give American libertarians at least a dollop of comfort.
Already the phrase has picked up vast media attention. However, according to frequent Church commentator Reverend Jonathan Morris, it is “bad reporting:”
Bad reporting by many. Pope Francis didn’t tell nations to “redistribute wealth”. He said “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits” — Fr. Jonathan Morris (@fatherjonathan) May 9, 2014
“Redistribution of Wealth” is a Marxist concept. Francis is calling for economic opportunity for all, avoiding “exclusionary” policies. — Fr. Jonathan Morris (@fatherjonathan) May 9, 2014
The meeting comes amidst a multi-year negotiation to replace the so-called Millennium Development Goals and on the 20th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, where Francis’s predecessor John Paul II led a global fight to stop an international right to abortion.
|
www.breitbart.com
| 1right
|
IzmNC3VK2DXaTAWl
|
white_house
|
Townhall
| 22
|
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/08/08/reports-trump-considering-commuting-blagojevichs-sentence-n2551391
|
It Sounds Like Trump Is Getting Close to Commuting Blagojevich's Sentence
|
2019-08-08
|
"Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Matt Vespa, Katie Pavlich, Timothy Meads, Leah Barkoukis
|
Aboard Air Force One on Wednesday , President Trump told the traveling press that he thinks former Democratic Illinois Gov . Rod Blagojevich has been treated `` unfairly '' by the justice system and has served more than his fair share of time behind bars . He is expected to serve seven more , but Trump suggested he 's ready to commute the governor 's sentence .
While in office , Blagojevich was accused of soliciting personal favors and trying to sell an appointment to the Senate seat vacated Barack Obama when he became president . The most compelling piece of evidence was a phone call he had in which he said , `` I 've got this thing , and it 's f * * king golden . I 'm just not giving it up for f * * king nothing . '' He was removed from office in 2009 .
Trump insists that 's hardly enough for a conviction , and he 's `` strongly considering '' commuting the sentence .
“ I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly ; he was given close to 18 years in prison , ” Trump said . “ And a lot of people thought it was unfair , like a lot of other things — and it was the same gang , the Comey gang and all these sleaze bags that did it . And his name is Rod Blagojevich . And I ’ m thinking about commuting his sentence . ''
His critics are warning of the consequences , but they ca n't say Trump has n't been consistent on this issue .
It 's outrageous that Blagojevich goes to jail for 14 years when killers and sex offenders are out walking the ( cont ) http : //t.co/O1FbaiGG — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 15 , 2012
The president knows Blagojevich personally - or at least he did at one point . The former governor appeared as a contestant on the `` Celebrity Apprentice '' back in 2010 .
Trump has pardoned or commuted the sentences of several people since assuming the presidency , including Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio , who was found guilty of criminal contempt , Irve Lewis `` Scooter '' Libby , convicted of lying to the FBI , and 63-year-old Alice Johnson , a great grandmother who was sentenced to life in prison over a first time drug offense . Trump 's son-in-law , Jared Kushner , is reportedly pushing for a pardon for Blagojevich too , but he may need to settle for a commutation .
|
Aboard Air Force One on Wednesday, President Trump told the traveling press that he thinks former Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been treated "unfairly" by the justice system and has served more than his fair share of time behind bars. He is expected to serve seven more, but Trump suggested he's ready to commute the governor's sentence.
While in office, Blagojevich was accused of soliciting personal favors and trying to sell an appointment to the Senate seat vacated Barack Obama when he became president. The most compelling piece of evidence was a phone call he had in which he said, "I've got this thing, and it's f**king golden. I'm just not giving it up for f**king nothing." He was removed from office in 2009.
Trump insists that's hardly enough for a conviction, and he's "strongly considering" commuting the sentence.
“I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly; he was given close to 18 years in prison,” Trump said. “And a lot of people thought it was unfair, like a lot of other things — and it was the same gang, the Comey gang and all these sleaze bags that did it. And his name is Rod Blagojevich. And I’m thinking about commuting his sentence."
His critics are warning of the consequences, but they can't say Trump hasn't been consistent on this issue.
It's outrageous that Blagojevich goes to jail for 14 years when killers and sex offenders are out walking the (cont) http://t.co/O1FbaiGG — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2012
The president knows Blagojevich personally - or at least he did at one point. The former governor appeared as a contestant on the "Celebrity Apprentice" back in 2010.
Trump has pardoned or commuted the sentences of several people since assuming the presidency, including Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of criminal contempt, Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted of lying to the FBI, and 63-year-old Alice Johnson, a great grandmother who was sentenced to life in prison over a first time drug offense. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is reportedly pushing for a pardon for Blagojevich too, but he may need to settle for a commutation.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
UYvlFGc5dGzDhBLO
|
terrorism
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0114/Charlie-Hebdo-Al-Qaeda-in-Yemen-says-it-ordered-and-financed-the-attack
|
Charlie Hebdo: Al Qaeda in Yemen says it ordered and financed the attack
|
2015-01-14
|
Michael Holtz
|
Yemen ’ s Al Qaeda branch claimed responsibility Wednesday for the deadly assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo , raising fears about the foreign training and financing of terror plots by self-directed European jihadists .
One of the group ’ s top commanders , Nasr al-Ansi , said in a video that the assault was revenge for Charlie Hebdo ’ s crude and obscene caricatures of the prophet Mohammad , considered blasphemous by many Muslims . In total , 17 people died in and around Paris during three days of bloodshed , including 12 people in the attack on the magazine 's office . Charlie Hebdo 's new issue went on sale Wednesday in France .
Mr. Ansi took responsibility for the attack in an 11-minute video posted on YouTube and promoted on the group ’ s Twitter account , The Associated Press reports . He said Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula , as the branch in Yemen is known , `` chose the target , laid out the plan and financed the operation '' against Charlie Hebdo .
Ansi called the two brothers , Said and Cherif Kouachi , “ heroes ” for carrying out the attack in “ revenge for the prophet. ” French security forces shot and killed both brothers – as well as another Islamic extremist who killed four French Jews in a kosher grocery store – on Friday .
`` Congratulations to you , the Nation of Islam , for this revenge that has soothed our pain , '' Ansi said . `` Congratulations to you for these brave men who blew off the dust of disgrace and lit the torch of glory in the darkness of defeat and agony . '' He said France belonged to the `` party of Satan '' and warned of more `` tragedies and terror . ”
The New York Times reports that the video was accompanied by a print statement sent to reporters . The statement claims the attack on Charlie Hebdo was ordered by Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri , Osama bin Laden ’ s successor . An English version of it includes an image of the Eiffel Tower dissolving into a wisp of smoke .
The Times reports that “ the attacks appear to reflect what analysts have described as an evolution in Qaeda tactics and logistics . ”
Because of heightened surveillance , operatives are trained and assigned general targets , but details on how to carry out the operation are no longer micromanaged by the organization . The looser command structure reduces communication , and thus reduces the chance of intercepts by intelligence and law enforcement agencies ... The statement referred to “ heroes of lone jihad , ” an apparent reference to militants acting in small groups or alone , such as with the attacks in France , which has been a growing concern among European counterterrorism authorities .
American intelligence officials have said that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen for training in 2011 . His brother , Cherif , also went there in recent years , according to French authorities . But details of their trips remain unclear .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Al Qaeda 's statement said the group was not responsible for the actions of the third gunman , Amedy Coulibaly , who killed a policewoman and the four grocery store hostages last week . While Mr. Coulibaly appeared to be friends with the Kouachi brothers , he said in a video released after his death that he was a supporter of the self-described Islamic State , which has emerged as a rival to Al Qaeda in the Middle East .
On Wednesday , Charlie Hebdo defiantly published a cartoon on its cover of the prophet Muhammad weeping while holding a sign saying `` I am Charlie. ” Paris newsstands ran out of copies minutes after opening , The Washington Post reports .
|
Yemen’s Al Qaeda branch claimed responsibility Wednesday for the deadly assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, raising fears about the foreign training and financing of terror plots by self-directed European jihadists.
One of the group’s top commanders, Nasr al-Ansi, said in a video that the assault was revenge for Charlie Hebdo’s crude and obscene caricatures of the prophet Mohammad, considered blasphemous by many Muslims. In total, 17 people died in and around Paris during three days of bloodshed, including 12 people in the attack on the magazine's office. Charlie Hebdo's new issue went on sale Wednesday in France.
Mr. Ansi took responsibility for the attack in an 11-minute video posted on YouTube and promoted on the group’s Twitter account, The Associated Press reports. He said Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the branch in Yemen is known, "chose the target, laid out the plan and financed the operation" against Charlie Hebdo.
Ansi called the two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi, “heroes” for carrying out the attack in “revenge for the prophet.” French security forces shot and killed both brothers – as well as another Islamic extremist who killed four French Jews in a kosher grocery store – on Friday.
"Congratulations to you, the Nation of Islam, for this revenge that has soothed our pain," Ansi said. "Congratulations to you for these brave men who blew off the dust of disgrace and lit the torch of glory in the darkness of defeat and agony." He said France belonged to the "party of Satan" and warned of more "tragedies and terror.”
The New York Times reports that the video was accompanied by a print statement sent to reporters. The statement claims the attack on Charlie Hebdo was ordered by Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s successor. An English version of it includes an image of the Eiffel Tower dissolving into a wisp of smoke.
The Times reports that “the attacks appear to reflect what analysts have described as an evolution in Qaeda tactics and logistics.”
Because of heightened surveillance, operatives are trained and assigned general targets, but details on how to carry out the operation are no longer micromanaged by the organization. The looser command structure reduces communication, and thus reduces the chance of intercepts by intelligence and law enforcement agencies ... The statement referred to “heroes of lone jihad,” an apparent reference to militants acting in small groups or alone, such as with the attacks in France, which has been a growing concern among European counterterrorism authorities.
American intelligence officials have said that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen for training in 2011. His brother, Cherif, also went there in recent years, according to French authorities. But details of their trips remain unclear.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Al Qaeda's statement said the group was not responsible for the actions of the third gunman, Amedy Coulibaly, who killed a policewoman and the four grocery store hostages last week. While Mr. Coulibaly appeared to be friends with the Kouachi brothers, he said in a video released after his death that he was a supporter of the self-described Islamic State, which has emerged as a rival to Al Qaeda in the Middle East.
On Wednesday, Charlie Hebdo defiantly published a cartoon on its cover of the prophet Muhammad weeping while holding a sign saying "I am Charlie.” Paris newsstands ran out of copies minutes after opening, The Washington Post reports.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
eBoOXcI23bVZqtqN
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/01/gun_nuts_tragic_confusion_why_open_carry_groups_misunderstand_police_brutality/
|
Gun nuts’ tragic confusion: Why “open carry” groups don’t get police brutality
|
2014-10-01
|
After finally being allowed to view the video of the police shooting of a man in an Ohio Wal-Mart , it 's very hard for any reasonable person to conclude that the authorities acted responsibly . They appear not to have given him any chance to drop the toy gun in his hand before shooting him . It 's possible that they were persuaded by the frightened 911 caller that they were entering a deadly situation , but there 's no evidence they heard anything but a description and location of a black man with an afro , wearing jeans and a T-shirt carrying a rifle and threatening people in Wal-Mart . An Ohio grand jury seems to have thought that it was reasonable for police in that situation to shoot first and ask questions later .
If you did n't know it was a toy gun , it 's easy to see why someone might be afraid . Any time you see people casually carrying guns around you know there 's the potential for a deadly accident or some kind of altercation resulting in death . But obviously , the answer to that problem is not for the police to simply shoot them down . In fact , Ohio is an open carry state , which means that it is perfectly legal to walk around Wal-Mart with a real AR-15 much less a toy they sell right there in the store .
And open carry advocates stage demonstrations to `` exercise '' their right to wear firearms in public all the time . For example , in May a couple of men in Medina , Ohio , walked the streets with such guns slung casually over their backs . Police were called numerous times by people alarmed at the sight of two men carrying AR-15 rifles in the town square . ( You can listen to the 911 calls here . ) But interestingly , in this case the police did n't deploy a SWAT team or rush in with guns drawn and start shooting :
Their encounter with police was captured on video cameras , carried by both the men and the officers , which showed the men at first refusing to show their identification when approached by officers . The men complied only after an officer told them they would be disarmed if they didn ’ t . The officers said they were justified in demanding the IDs because of the 911 calls and because one of the men fumbled when asked his age .
The demand for the ID was the key issue cited by several demonstrators . “ We have a constitutional right to carry a firearm to protect ourselves , ” said Harry Wynn , of Stow , who wore an AR-15 across his chest and also carried a Glock 30 . “ Nobody should get forced ID ’ d because they have a firearm — I don ’ t care how many 911 calls came in . ”
They were asked politely for their IDs . And when they provided them they were allowed to keep walking around in public with real AR-15s . A couple of weeks later a local open carry group staged a demonstration and the police did n't ID any of them , much less shoot any of them , as they walked up and down the streets of Medina . A local columnist commented on the event , making what sounds like a reasonable observation :
The pushback from open-carriers comes from a perception that officers are treading on their rights by requesting ID . Sure , if a person is walking down the street and doing nothing more than humming the latest pop song , then of course there ’ s no legal basis for an officer to get all up in their grill . But the plain-view sight of a firearm prompts officers to request state ID - just to make sure and maybe even celebrate that such a person is following the law . It can be fun ! It ’ s not a “ reasonable suspicion ” issue ; it ’ s the simple fact that a machine created solely for the purpose of killing things is being introduced into a public setting . Which is fine , per Ohio law , as long as a diminishing list of requirements is met . Police are the people that society grants the ability to check out those reqs , however ill-begotten their methods most of the time .
One assumes that most Americans do not have a problem with police checking to see if armed men walking the streets are on the up and up . That 's something only the fanatics would oppose . But nobody would countenance killing them on sight . And at least in this case , even though they scared people enough to call 911 , with their real guns ( possibly loaded with real bullets ) , the cops were polite and let them go on their way .
Meanwhile , John Crawford , the 22-year-old man in Wal-Mart was gunned down without mercy for carrying a toy . Besides the fact that one had a real gun and one did not , what was the other difference in these two situations ? Not much . Except for the fact that the two men in Medina were white and Crawford was black .
To their credit , the Ohio open carry organization has been appalled by the Crawford shooting and has people prepared to demonstrate on behalf of the family . If one objects to having to show ID to a police officer when wielding a weapon it would n't make any sense to support shooting them instead . The person who runs their Facebook page has been actively deleting any comments made by supporters who feel that Crawford had it coming or who made racist remarks . The fact that he had to announce he was doing that obviously means some open carry supporters were making those comments , but that can happen on any Facebook page .
Still , one can not help wondering why this anger at police harassment only seems to come up when the victim is carrying a gun . This Crawford killing is horrifying on any number of levels , only one of which is that it happened in an open carry state where having a gun on your person in Wal-Mart is legal . The real problem is that the police decided to shoot him down without properly assessing the situation in the first place .
There are no good statistics on police shootings , unfortunately , but what we do know is that police kill far more unarmed black men than anyone else . And over the past few months we 've seen several notorious examples , some of which have been videotaped . There was , of course , the infamous shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri . The NRA and Gun Owners of America did n't concern themselves with that one . Perhaps if Michael Brown had been armed they might have joined the protests . As it was , their local adherents just bought more guns to protect their homes from rioters . Some open carry enthusiasts maintained their anti-government position , others revealed a depressingly familiar reason for their desire to own guns -- - and it is n't fear of police :
During the LA Riots , it was said that liberals were shocked when they were told that they would have to wait 15 days before they could get a gun for protection ! `` As far as I recall , the issue was that liberal types were shocked that in order to purchase a firearm to protect themselves , a wait time of ( I thought it was 14 days ) would ensue before they could take possession . Obviously if you lived in the most affected affluent areas say Hancock park and the Beverly Wilshire areas that actually saw damage , fires and looting , This would have come as quite a shock to the unknowing types . And that 's the way it was ( and of course still is ) albeit now for 10 silly days . '' And in that case , the Korean shop owners used AR-15 's to keep the looters from their stores . Now if people ask why we need `` those '' rifles ( AR-15 's ) ... the LA Riots and now the Ferguson Riots are two good examples .
A few days later a video revealed another young black man named Kajieme Powell was mowed down by police within seconds of their arrival on the scene . He was carrying a knife . And was mentally ill . They did n't ask him for his ID , which I 'm sure would have inflamed the open carry people . The shooting itself does n't seem to have caused them any concern -- - he was n't carrying a gun , after all . And then there was this poor man in North Carolina , Levar Jones , stopped for a seat belt violation and then shot for reaching for his driver 's license in the front seat of his car . Again , this would be a big problem for the gun proliferation folks if he actually had been exercising his constitutional right to bear arms . But he did n't actually have a gun so it 's not a big deal .
The John Crawford incident in Wal-Mart is horrifying because the tape shows that he picked up the gun from the shelf as easily as if he 'd picked up a hair dryer or a kid 's baseball bat and was carrying it around the store , absentmindedly playing with it like a kid with a toy while he was talking on the phone . Because it was a toy ! It 's fair to question why Wal-Mart sells such realistic facsimiles of deadly weapons to kids but they do . However , it 's also fair to wonder whether the police would have reacted the same way if the call coming in had said the man with the gun in Wal-Mart was a white guy . Who knows , they might even have taken a big chance and asked the guy for ID before they started firing .
Black men are routinely shot down by police in the country , that 's the bottom line . And while it 's certainly admirable for open carry advocates to stick to their principles and defend John Crawford 's right to carry a toy gun around Wal-Mart , it 's failing to see the forest for the trees . John Crawford , Michael Brown , Kajieme Powell , Levar Jones were all unarmed black men killed shot by police in the last few months . It would n't have helped them to actually be carrying guns , real or otherwise .
Surely these open carry people , however well intentioned , should realize that nice white men and women openly carrying firearms on the street are n't being gunned down on sight by police officers . The worst thing that happens to them is they are forced to show their ID . It 's unarmed black men ( and unarmed mentally ill people of all races ) who are being gunned down on sight by police officers . Are they agitating for their right to shoot cops ? I doubt it . Nor should they be .
The problem is n't that people do n't have enough guns . The problem is that police are too often using the guns they have . That wo n't be solved by a bunch of average suburban white people wandering around public spaces with their rifles slung over their backs . Those are n't the people most likely to be shot by police -- whether they 're armed or not . They 're missing the point entirely .
Update : Initially , this post indicated that `` John Crawford , Michael Brown , Kajieme Powell , Levar Jones were all unarmed black men killed by police in the last few months . '' Jones survived his shooting , and this post has been updated to reflect that fact .
|
After finally being allowed to view the video of the police shooting of a man in an Ohio Wal-Mart, it's very hard for any reasonable person to conclude that the authorities acted responsibly. They appear not to have given him any chance to drop the toy gun in his hand before shooting him. It's possible that they were persuaded by the frightened 911 caller that they were entering a deadly situation, but there's no evidence they heard anything but a description and location of a black man with an afro, wearing jeans and a T-shirt carrying a rifle and threatening people in Wal-Mart. An Ohio grand jury seems to have thought that it was reasonable for police in that situation to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you didn't know it was a toy gun, it's easy to see why someone might be afraid. Any time you see people casually carrying guns around you know there's the potential for a deadly accident or some kind of altercation resulting in death. But obviously, the answer to that problem is not for the police to simply shoot them down. In fact, Ohio is an open carry state, which means that it is perfectly legal to walk around Wal-Mart with a real AR-15 much less a toy they sell right there in the store.
Advertisement:
And open carry advocates stage demonstrations to "exercise" their right to wear firearms in public all the time. For example, in May a couple of men in Medina, Ohio, walked the streets with such guns slung casually over their backs. Police were called numerous times by people alarmed at the sight of two men carrying AR-15 rifles in the town square. (You can listen to the 911 calls here.) But interestingly, in this case the police didn't deploy a SWAT team or rush in with guns drawn and start shooting:
Their encounter with police was captured on video cameras, carried by both the men and the officers, which showed the men at first refusing to show their identification when approached by officers. The men complied only after an officer told them they would be disarmed if they didn’t. The officers said they were justified in demanding the IDs because of the 911 calls and because one of the men fumbled when asked his age.
The demand for the ID was the key issue cited by several demonstrators. “We have a constitutional right to carry a firearm to protect ourselves,” said Harry Wynn, of Stow, who wore an AR-15 across his chest and also carried a Glock 30. “Nobody should get forced ID’d because they have a firearm — I don’t care how many 911 calls came in.”
They were asked politely for their IDs. And when they provided them they were allowed to keep walking around in public with real AR-15s. A couple of weeks later a local open carry group staged a demonstration and the police didn't ID any of them, much less shoot any of them, as they walked up and down the streets of Medina. A local columnist commented on the event, making what sounds like a reasonable observation:
The pushback from open-carriers comes from a perception that officers are treading on their rights by requesting ID. Sure, if a person is walking down the street and doing nothing more than humming the latest pop song, then of course there’s no legal basis for an officer to get all up in their grill. But the plain-view sight of a firearm prompts officers to request state ID - just to make sure and maybe even celebrate that such a person is following the law. It can be fun! It’s not a “reasonable suspicion” issue; it’s the simple fact that a machine created solely for the purpose of killing things is being introduced into a public setting. Which is fine, per Ohio law, as long as a diminishing list of requirements is met. Police are the people that society grants the ability to check out those reqs, however ill-begotten their methods most of the time.
One assumes that most Americans do not have a problem with police checking to see if armed men walking the streets are on the up and up. That's something only the fanatics would oppose. But nobody would countenance killing them on sight. And at least in this case, even though they scared people enough to call 911, with their real guns (possibly loaded with real bullets), the cops were polite and let them go on their way.
Meanwhile, John Crawford, the 22-year-old man in Wal-Mart was gunned down without mercy for carrying a toy. Besides the fact that one had a real gun and one did not, what was the other difference in these two situations? Not much. Except for the fact that the two men in Medina were white and Crawford was black.
To their credit, the Ohio open carry organization has been appalled by the Crawford shooting and has people prepared to demonstrate on behalf of the family. If one objects to having to show ID to a police officer when wielding a weapon it wouldn't make any sense to support shooting them instead. The person who runs their Facebook page has been actively deleting any comments made by supporters who feel that Crawford had it coming or who made racist remarks. The fact that he had to announce he was doing that obviously means some open carry supporters were making those comments, but that can happen on any Facebook page.
Still, one cannot help wondering why this anger at police harassment only seems to come up when the victim is carrying a gun. This Crawford killing is horrifying on any number of levels, only one of which is that it happened in an open carry state where having a gun on your person in Wal-Mart is legal. The real problem is that the police decided to shoot him down without properly assessing the situation in the first place.
Advertisement:
There are no good statistics on police shootings, unfortunately, but what we do know is that police kill far more unarmed black men than anyone else. And over the past few months we've seen several notorious examples, some of which have been videotaped. There was, of course, the infamous shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The NRA and Gun Owners of America didn't concern themselves with that one. Perhaps if Michael Brown had been armed they might have joined the protests. As it was, their local adherents just bought more guns to protect their homes from rioters. Some open carry enthusiasts maintained their anti-government position, others revealed a depressingly familiar reason for their desire to own guns --- and it isn't fear of police:
During the LA Riots, it was said that liberals were shocked when they were told that they would have to wait 15 days before they could get a gun for protection! "As far as I recall, the issue was that liberal types were shocked that in order to purchase a firearm to protect themselves, a wait time of (I thought it was 14 days) would ensue before they could take possession. Obviously if you lived in the most affected affluent areas say Hancock park and the Beverly Wilshire areas that actually saw damage, fires and looting, This would have come as quite a shock to the unknowing types. And that's the way it was(and of course still is) albeit now for 10 silly days." And in that case, the Korean shop owners used AR-15's to keep the looters from their stores. Now if people ask why we need "those" rifles (AR-15's) ...the LA Riots and now the Ferguson Riots are two good examples.
A few days later a video revealed another young black man named Kajieme Powell was mowed down by police within seconds of their arrival on the scene. He was carrying a knife. And was mentally ill. They didn't ask him for his ID, which I'm sure would have inflamed the open carry people. The shooting itself doesn't seem to have caused them any concern --- he wasn't carrying a gun, after all. And then there was this poor man in North Carolina, Levar Jones, stopped for a seat belt violation and then shot for reaching for his driver's license in the front seat of his car. Again, this would be a big problem for the gun proliferation folks if he actually had been exercising his constitutional right to bear arms. But he didn't actually have a gun so it's not a big deal.
The John Crawford incident in Wal-Mart is horrifying because the tape shows that he picked up the gun from the shelf as easily as if he'd picked up a hair dryer or a kid's baseball bat and was carrying it around the store, absentmindedly playing with it like a kid with a toy while he was talking on the phone. Because it was a toy! It's fair to question why Wal-Mart sells such realistic facsimiles of deadly weapons to kids but they do. However, it's also fair to wonder whether the police would have reacted the same way if the call coming in had said the man with the gun in Wal-Mart was a white guy. Who knows, they might even have taken a big chance and asked the guy for ID before they started firing.
Black men are routinely shot down by police in the country, that's the bottom line. And while it's certainly admirable for open carry advocates to stick to their principles and defend John Crawford's right to carry a toy gun around Wal-Mart, it's failing to see the forest for the trees. John Crawford, Michael Brown, Kajieme Powell, Levar Jones were all unarmed black men killed shot by police in the last few months. It wouldn't have helped them to actually be carrying guns, real or otherwise.
Advertisement:
Surely these open carry people, however well intentioned, should realize that nice white men and women openly carrying firearms on the street aren't being gunned down on sight by police officers. The worst thing that happens to them is they are forced to show their ID. It's unarmed black men (and unarmed mentally ill people of all races) who are being gunned down on sight by police officers. Are they agitating for their right to shoot cops? I doubt it. Nor should they be.
The problem isn't that people don't have enough guns. The problem is that police are too often using the guns they have. That won't be solved by a bunch of average suburban white people wandering around public spaces with their rifles slung over their backs. Those aren't the people most likely to be shot by police --whether they're armed or not. They're missing the point entirely.
Update: Initially, this post indicated that "John Crawford, Michael Brown, Kajieme Powell, Levar Jones were all unarmed black men killed by police in the last few months." Jones survived his shooting, and this post has been updated to reflect that fact.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
sPGaUmHdoMZgsIaJ
|
|
national_defense
|
Daily Kos
| 00
|
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/22/1664840/-H-R-McMaster-confirms-that-Trump-s-spill-of-intelligence-to-Russia-came-from-pure-ignorance
|
H.R. McMaster confirms that Trump's spill of intelligence to Russia came from pure ignorance
|
2017-05-22
|
Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Story Count, Comment Count, Popular Tags
|
McMaster ’ s point appears to be that what Trump really meant to do was get after the Russians for supporting bad guys .
MCMASTER : [ Trump ] feels as if he 's been unable to find areas of cooperation with Russia , even as he confronts them in key areas where they 're being disruptive , like Syria for example , and the subversive activities across Europe . Their support for the—not only the Assad regime but for Iran and its activities across the Middle East .
What McMaster doesn ’ t explain ? How Comey ’ s actions affected any of that . Or why Trump agreed to a meeting with Foreign Minister Lavarov and Ambassador Kislyak , by special request of Vladimir Putin , just one day after firing Comey . Or why Trump shut the US press out of that meeting while leaving Tass handy to take a few snaps of Trump laughing it up with the Russians over taking out that troublesome “ nut job . ”
And hey , if Trump held the meeting to “ confront ” the Russians , how about confronting them on the one issue that is front and center for America ?
Stephanopoulos : So , did the president confront them on their interference in our election ? This was their first meeting ? McMaster : Well , there already was too much that 's been leaked from those meetings . And one of the things that I 'm most concerned about is the confidence , the confidentiality of those kind of meetings , as you know , are extremely important . And so , I am really concerned about these kind of leaks , because it undermines everybody 's trust in that kind of an environment where you can have frank , candid , and often times unconventional conversations to try to protect American interests and secure the American people .
The answer is : No , Trump didn ’ t confront the Russians on interference in our elections . But hey , leakers are bad . So bad .
There was one place where McMaster was absolutely consistent with his previous statements : Donald Trump ’ s spill of intelligence from the Israelis was spurred , in part , by Trump ’ s ignorance on the source .
McMaster : Well , as you know , the initial leak that came out was a leak about concerns about revealing intelligence source and methods , information that 's not even part of the president 's briefing .
Why would Trump ’ s briefing not include the crucial information that this intelligence came from an ally and was not to be shared with anyone , not even other allies ? Maybe it was because of this :
A classified memo instructs intelligence analysts to keep their daily intelligence briefings with President Donald Trump short , according to Mother Jones . The guidance recommends that analysts limit themselves to three topics , include essential facts that support their findings , and to try to keep their findings to a page . The memo also suggests that conflicting views or information should not be shared with the president in different briefings , according to the report .
So , H. R. McMaster blames Trump spilling classified information from an ally on the fact that Trump was ignorant of the source . Trump was ignorant of the source because his own staff has reduced his briefings down to “ essential facts . ”
There ’ s someone to blame for Trump ’ s spew of delicate information . In fact , there ’ s more than one someone . It ’ s both Donald Trump , and it ’ s everyone who enables him .
|
McMaster’s point appears to be that what Trump really meant to do was get after the Russians for supporting bad guys.
MCMASTER: [Trump] feels as if he's been unable to find areas of cooperation with Russia, even as he confronts them in key areas where they're being disruptive, like Syria for example, and the subversive activities across Europe. Their support for the—not only the Assad regime but for Iran and its activities across the Middle East.
What McMaster doesn’t explain? How Comey’s actions affected any of that. Or why Trump agreed to a meeting with Foreign Minister Lavarov and Ambassador Kislyak, by special request of Vladimir Putin, just one day after firing Comey. Or why Trump shut the US press out of that meeting while leaving Tass handy to take a few snaps of Trump laughing it up with the Russians over taking out that troublesome “nut job.”
And hey, if Trump held the meeting to “confront” the Russians, how about confronting them on the one issue that is front and center for America?
Stephanopoulos: So, did the president confront them on their interference in our election? This was their first meeting? McMaster: Well, there already was too much that's been leaked from those meetings. And one of the things that I'm most concerned about is the confidence, the confidentiality of those kind of meetings, as you know, are extremely important. And so, I am really concerned about these kind of leaks, because it undermines everybody's trust in that kind of an environment where you can have frank, candid, and often times unconventional conversations to try to protect American interests and secure the American people.
The answer is: No, Trump didn’t confront the Russians on interference in our elections. But hey, leakers are bad. So bad.
There was one place where McMaster was absolutely consistent with his previous statements: Donald Trump’s spill of intelligence from the Israelis was spurred, in part, by Trump’s ignorance on the source.
McMaster: Well, as you know, the initial leak that came out was a leak about concerns about revealing intelligence source and methods, information that's not even part of the president's briefing.
Why would Trump’s briefing not include the crucial information that this intelligence came from an ally and was not to be shared with anyone, not even other allies? Maybe it was because of this:
A classified memo instructs intelligence analysts to keep their daily intelligence briefings with President Donald Trump short, according to Mother Jones. The guidance recommends that analysts limit themselves to three topics, include essential facts that support their findings, and to try to keep their findings to a page. The memo also suggests that conflicting views or information should not be shared with the president in different briefings, according to the report.
So, H. R. McMaster blames Trump spilling classified information from an ally on the fact that Trump was ignorant of the source. Trump was ignorant of the source because his own staff has reduced his briefings down to “essential facts.”
There’s someone to blame for Trump’s spew of delicate information. In fact, there’s more than one someone. It’s both Donald Trump, and it’s everyone who enables him.
|
www.dailykos.com
| 0left
|
tEyoFr8X5AgF3juX
|
terrorism
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/22/boston-to-mark-week-since-bombings-as-authorities-wait-to-interrogate-suspect/
|
Marathon bombing suspect can't speak, communicating in writing
|
2013-04-22
|
The lone surviving suspect in the bombing attack on the Boston Marathon one week ago is communicating in writing , and could be ready to be questioned by an elite FBI team
As Boston prepared to mark with a moment of silence the passing of a week since the terror attack that killed three and wounded at least 176 , Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was believed to be unable to speak but awake and responding to questions , possibly from medical staff . Tsarnaev is under heavy guard at Boston 's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , and is in serious condition with several injuries , including a possible gunshot wound to the neck .
USA Today reported that the suspect began answering `` substantive '' questions from authorities Sunday night , but that could not be independently confirmed . If the interrogation has indeed begun , prosecutors may have just 48 hours before he must be read his Miranda rights and granted the right to remain silent and to have an attorney . White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday that Tsarnaev , who is a U.S. citizen , will be tried in civilian courts and not held as an enemy combatant .
Investigators believe the throat wound that left the 19-year-old suspect unable to speak may have been self-inflicted in a failed suicide bid that may have come as police closed in on him , as he hid inside a boat trailered in a backyard in Watertown , Mass. , late Friday .
U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee member Dan Coats , R-Ind. , told ABC Sunday the injuries may leave the suspect permanently unable to speak .
“ The information we have is that there was a shot to the throat , '' Coats said . `` And it ’ s questionable whether — when and whether -- he ’ ll be able to talk again . ”
Meanwhile , Massachusetts Gov . Deval Patrick has asked residents to observe a moment of silence at 2:50 p.m. Monday , the time the first of two bombs exploded near the finish line . Bells will ring across the city and state afterward .
The most serious charge available to federal prosecutors would be the use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people , which carries a possible death sentence . Massachusetts does not have the death penalty .
Davis also said Sunday authorities believe the suspects also were likely planning other attacks based on the cache of weapons uncovered during the Thursday night shootout , calling the stockpile `` as dangerous as it gets in urban policing . ''
`` We have reason to believe , based upon the evidence that was found at that scene -- the explosions , the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had -- that they were going to attack other individuals , '' Davis said Sunday on CBS ' `` Face the Nation . '' `` That 's my belief at this point . ''
Davis added on `` ███ Sunday '' that authorities can not be positive there are n't more explosives that have n't been found , but the people of Boston are safe .
Also Sunday , a lawyer for the wife of Tamerlan Tsarnaev said federal authorities have asked to speak with his client as part of their investigation .
Authorities went to the suburban Rhode Island home of Tsarnaev 's in-laws Sunday evening , where Katherine Russell Tsarnaev has been staying . Lawyer Amato DeLuca tells The Associated Press that she did not speak with them , and they are discussing how to proceed .
The twin bombings killed three people and wounded at least 176 .
Patrick told NBC on Sunday that surveillance video clearly puts Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the scene of the attack .
`` It does seem to be pretty clear that this suspect took the backpack off , put it down , did not react when the first explosion went off and then moved away from the backpack in time for the second explosion , '' Patrick said . `` It 's pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling , frankly .
According to media accounts , Tsarnaev and his brother , Tamerlan , were Muslims who recently gravitated to a radical strain of Islam , going so far as to post Anti-American , jihadist videos on social-media sites . Both are thought to have as-yet-unprobed ties to a radical Muslim cleric hellbent on the destruction of the American way of life .
A day-long dragnet for Tsarnaev ended Friday , with police capturing the suspect covered in blood and hiding in a boat in the backyard of a man who called 911 after becoming suspicious of activity on his property .
`` We got him , '' Boston Mayor Tom Menino tweeted moments later , as neighbors gathered to form a gauntlet of cheers while a phalanx of police cars departed the scene .
Police moved in on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday evening after a tip led them to the home on Franklin Street .
Neighbors said they heard more than 30 shots likened to `` a roll of firecrackers shooting off . '' Police swarmed the scene , and several explosions , possibly police concussion grenades , were heard after a robot moved in on the boat . Less than two hours later , at about 9 p.m. , the suspect , believed to have been injured in a wild shootout that spanned Thursday night to Friday morning , was being taken to Beth Israel Hospital .
No police were injured when shots were fired by the boat .
Sources told ███ the shed and the boat had been searched earlier , but a local man noticed a door to it had been opened , saw blood on the tarp and called police .
`` It was a call from a resident of Watertown , '' Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau said . `` We got that call , and we got the guy . ''
Davis said Tsarnaev was in serious condition and was found `` covered with blood . '' He did not come out from inside the boat willingly , despite the efforts of negotiators , Davis said .
`` We assume that those injuries came from the gunfire the night before , '' Davis said .
He also said Tsarnaev did not have any explosives with him when he was taken into custody .
`` I , and I think all of the law enforcement officials , are hoping for a host of reasons the suspect survives , '' Patrick said after a ceremony at Fenway Park to honor the victims and survivors of the attack Saturday . `` We have a million questions , and those questions need to be answered . ''
The hiding place was found just moments after police said their hunt for Tsarnaev , one of two radical Muslim brothers suspected in Monday 's attack , had gone cold and urged people to `` go about your business . ''
Shortly after the capture was announced , Watertown residents poured out of their homes and lined the streets to cheer police vehicles as they rolled away from the scene .
Celebratory bells rang from a church tower . Teenagers waved American flags . Drivers honked . Every time an emergency vehicle went by , people cheered loudly .
`` Tonight , our family applauds the entire law enforcement community for a job well done , and trust that our justice system will now do its job , '' said the family of 8-year-old Martin Richard , who died in the bombing .
Early in the day , police told residents of several city neighborhoods , especially Watertown , to stay inside . School was canceled , bus and train service suspended and people were even told not to venture out for work . But those restrictions were lifted at the news briefing Friday night about 15 minutes before the gunshots were heard .
The boat Tsarnaev hid under was just outside the tight perimeter where Black Hawk helicopters patrolled the sky and police went door-to-door hunting for him , police said . Police say he and his older brother placed the deadly bombs , at least one of which was made from a pressure cooker packed with explosives and shrapnel , at the race , killing three and injuring more than 180 . The sibling suspects are from Dagestan , a province in Russia that borders Chechnya , but have been in the U.S. for as much as a decade ..
On Thursday night , hours after the radicalized Muslims were fingered by the FBI and their images circulated around the world , they killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer and carjacked an SUV from a man who later escaped . The brothers led police on a chase through city streets that included a wild shootout that saw some 200 shots fired and the suspects hurling pipe bombs from the SUV . Bizarrely , police discounted earlier reports that the brothers had robbed a 7/11 , saying although it had been robbed , and they had been caught on surveillance video , they were not the robbers .
The pursuit went into Watertown , where Tamerlan Tsarnaev , 26 , was shot several times in the gunfight . But Dzhokhar Tsarnaev somehow slipped away , running over his already wounded brother as he fled by car , according to two law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity . Tamerlan Tsarnaev was pronounced dead at Beth Israel Hospital Deaconess Medical Center Friday morning . But at some point following the shootout and car chase , the younger brother fled by foot , according to State Police , who said Friday night they do n't believe he now has access to a car .
During the pursuit , a MBTA transit police officer was seriously injured and transported to the hospital , according to a news release . He was identified as Richard H. Donahue Jr. , 33 , and was at Mount Auburn Hospital in critical but stable condition .
The suspects ' bloody rampage claimed the life of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier , 26 , who was found shot to death in his squad car at 10:20 p.m. Thursday in what Davis termed a `` vicious assassination . ''
Moments after the shooting , the brothers carjacked the Mercedes SUV from Third Street in Cambridge and forced the driver to stop at several bank machines to withdraw money . The driver later told police that the brothers had bragged to him that they were the marathon bombers , law enforcement authorities said .
“ The guy was very lucky that they let him go , ” Massachusetts State Police spokesman David Procopio said .
It was when police were working to activate the tracking device on the stolen SUV , that other patrol officers spotted it in nearby Watertown , touching off the dramatic chase .
FBI Special Agent Rick Deslauriers said Friday night the FBI pored though thousands of tips , and chased down countless leads in the intense probe following the terror attack on Monday .
`` This was a truly intense investigation , '' Deslauriers said . `` As a result of that , justice is being served for each of the victims of these crimes . ''
|
The lone surviving suspect in the bombing attack on the Boston Marathon one week ago is communicating in writing, and could be ready to be questioned by an elite FBI team
As Boston prepared to mark with a moment of silence the passing of a week since the terror attack that killed three and wounded at least 176, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was believed to be unable to speak but awake and responding to questions, possibly from medical staff. Tsarnaev is under heavy guard at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and is in serious condition with several injuries, including a possible gunshot wound to the neck.
USA Today reported that the suspect began answering "substantive" questions from authorities Sunday night, but that could not be independently confirmed. If the interrogation has indeed begun, prosecutors may have just 48 hours before he must be read his Miranda rights and granted the right to remain silent and to have an attorney. White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday that Tsarnaev, who is a U.S. citizen, will be tried in civilian courts and not held as an enemy combatant.
Investigators believe the throat wound that left the 19-year-old suspect unable to speak may have been self-inflicted in a failed suicide bid that may have come as police closed in on him, as he hid inside a boat trailered in a backyard in Watertown, Mass., late Friday.
U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee member Dan Coats, R-Ind., told ABC Sunday the injuries may leave the suspect permanently unable to speak.
“The information we have is that there was a shot to the throat," Coats said. "And it’s questionable whether — when and whether -- he’ll be able to talk again.”
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has asked residents to observe a moment of silence at 2:50 p.m. Monday, the time the first of two bombs exploded near the finish line. Bells will ring across the city and state afterward.
The most serious charge available to federal prosecutors would be the use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people, which carries a possible death sentence. Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.
Davis also said Sunday authorities believe the suspects also were likely planning other attacks based on the cache of weapons uncovered during the Thursday night shootout, calling the stockpile "as dangerous as it gets in urban policing."
"We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene -- the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had -- that they were going to attack other individuals," Davis said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "That's my belief at this point."
Davis added on "Fox News Sunday" that authorities cannot be positive there aren't more explosives that haven't been found, but the people of Boston are safe.
Also Sunday, a lawyer for the wife of Tamerlan Tsarnaev said federal authorities have asked to speak with his client as part of their investigation.
Authorities went to the suburban Rhode Island home of Tsarnaev's in-laws Sunday evening, where Katherine Russell Tsarnaev has been staying. Lawyer Amato DeLuca tells The Associated Press that she did not speak with them, and they are discussing how to proceed.
The twin bombings killed three people and wounded at least 176.
Patrick told NBC on Sunday that surveillance video clearly puts Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the scene of the attack.
"It does seem to be pretty clear that this suspect took the backpack off, put it down, did not react when the first explosion went off and then moved away from the backpack in time for the second explosion," Patrick said. "It's pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling, frankly.
According to media accounts, Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were Muslims who recently gravitated to a radical strain of Islam, going so far as to post Anti-American, jihadist videos on social-media sites. Both are thought to have as-yet-unprobed ties to a radical Muslim cleric hellbent on the destruction of the American way of life.
A day-long dragnet for Tsarnaev ended Friday, with police capturing the suspect covered in blood and hiding in a boat in the backyard of a man who called 911 after becoming suspicious of activity on his property.
"We got him," Boston Mayor Tom Menino tweeted moments later, as neighbors gathered to form a gauntlet of cheers while a phalanx of police cars departed the scene.
Police moved in on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday evening after a tip led them to the home on Franklin Street.
Neighbors said they heard more than 30 shots likened to "a roll of firecrackers shooting off." Police swarmed the scene, and several explosions, possibly police concussion grenades, were heard after a robot moved in on the boat. Less than two hours later, at about 9 p.m., the suspect, believed to have been injured in a wild shootout that spanned Thursday night to Friday morning, was being taken to Beth Israel Hospital.
No police were injured when shots were fired by the boat.
Sources told Fox News the shed and the boat had been searched earlier, but a local man noticed a door to it had been opened, saw blood on the tarp and called police.
"It was a call from a resident of Watertown," Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau said. "We got that call, and we got the guy."
Davis said Tsarnaev was in serious condition and was found "covered with blood." He did not come out from inside the boat willingly, despite the efforts of negotiators, Davis said.
"We assume that those injuries came from the gunfire the night before," Davis said.
He also said Tsarnaev did not have any explosives with him when he was taken into custody.
"I, and I think all of the law enforcement officials, are hoping for a host of reasons the suspect survives," Patrick said after a ceremony at Fenway Park to honor the victims and survivors of the attack Saturday. "We have a million questions, and those questions need to be answered."
The hiding place was found just moments after police said their hunt for Tsarnaev, one of two radical Muslim brothers suspected in Monday's attack, had gone cold and urged people to "go about your business."
Shortly after the capture was announced, Watertown residents poured out of their homes and lined the streets to cheer police vehicles as they rolled away from the scene.
Celebratory bells rang from a church tower. Teenagers waved American flags. Drivers honked. Every time an emergency vehicle went by, people cheered loudly.
"Tonight, our family applauds the entire law enforcement community for a job well done, and trust that our justice system will now do its job," said the family of 8-year-old Martin Richard, who died in the bombing.
Early in the day, police told residents of several city neighborhoods, especially Watertown, to stay inside. School was canceled, bus and train service suspended and people were even told not to venture out for work. But those restrictions were lifted at the news briefing Friday night about 15 minutes before the gunshots were heard.
The boat Tsarnaev hid under was just outside the tight perimeter where Black Hawk helicopters patrolled the sky and police went door-to-door hunting for him, police said. Police say he and his older brother placed the deadly bombs, at least one of which was made from a pressure cooker packed with explosives and shrapnel, at the race, killing three and injuring more than 180. The sibling suspects are from Dagestan, a province in Russia that borders Chechnya, but have been in the U.S. for as much as a decade..
On Thursday night, hours after the radicalized Muslims were fingered by the FBI and their images circulated around the world, they killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer and carjacked an SUV from a man who later escaped. The brothers led police on a chase through city streets that included a wild shootout that saw some 200 shots fired and the suspects hurling pipe bombs from the SUV. Bizarrely, police discounted earlier reports that the brothers had robbed a 7/11, saying although it had been robbed, and they had been caught on surveillance video, they were not the robbers.
The pursuit went into Watertown, where Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was shot several times in the gunfight. But Dzhokhar Tsarnaev somehow slipped away, running over his already wounded brother as he fled by car, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was pronounced dead at Beth Israel Hospital Deaconess Medical Center Friday morning. But at some point following the shootout and car chase, the younger brother fled by foot, according to State Police, who said Friday night they don't believe he now has access to a car.
During the pursuit, a MBTA transit police officer was seriously injured and transported to the hospital, according to a news release. He was identified as Richard H. Donahue Jr., 33, and was at Mount Auburn Hospital in critical but stable condition.
The suspects' bloody rampage claimed the life of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 26, who was found shot to death in his squad car at 10:20 p.m. Thursday in what Davis termed a "vicious assassination."
Moments after the shooting, the brothers carjacked the Mercedes SUV from Third Street in Cambridge and forced the driver to stop at several bank machines to withdraw money. The driver later told police that the brothers had bragged to him that they were the marathon bombers, law enforcement authorities said.
“The guy was very lucky that they let him go,” Massachusetts State Police spokesman David Procopio said.
It was when police were working to activate the tracking device on the stolen SUV, that other patrol officers spotted it in nearby Watertown, touching off the dramatic chase.
FBI Special Agent Rick Deslauriers said Friday night the FBI pored though thousands of tips, and chased down countless leads in the intense probe following the terror attack on Monday.
"This was a truly intense investigation," Deslauriers said. "As a result of that, justice is being served for each of the victims of these crimes."
Click here for more from MyFoxBoston.com.
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin, Jana Winter, Mike Tobin, Mike Levine, Griff Jenkins and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
zHxNOGzzM4oBJxEV
|
|
education
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-homeschooling-how-long-can-public-schools-operate-this-way/
|
How Long Can Public Schools Operate This Way?
|
2020-05-18
|
Michael Brendan Dougherty, John Mccormack, Jim Geraghty, Ramesh Ponnuru, Victor Davis Hanson, Rupert Darwall, Zachary Evans, Andrew C. Mccarthy
|
Tracey Pucci helps her son Foxton Harding , 12 , with a school assignment for Northshore Middle School , which moved to online-only schooling for two weeks due to coronavirus concerns , at their home in Bothell , Wash. , March 11 , 2020 . ( Lindsey Wasson/Reuters )
Parents are asked to take on almost all the personal costs of homeschooling while getting none of its benefits .
I don ’ t think I can do this in the fall . What I mean by this is managing my kids ’ new distance learning . Every time a day is finished I think , “ How long can I do this ? ”
Much has been said about how colleges will struggle and some will close as a result of COVID-19 . America ’ s aging and declining in fertility . More schools chase after fewer students . The moment that schools try to charge for the premium college experience while delivering a CD-ROM-level education over the Internet , the weaker ones will fall apart .
But what about K–12 public schools ? The social contract of a public school requires a certain kind of uniformity of expectations from teachers ’ unions , students , and parents . But , under COVID-19 , every term of that social contract seems up for grabs .
Some parents want the teachers to conduct a class over teleconferencing software for four hours a day , to give them time to work . Other parents resent even as little as half an hour of online instruction when their own work-from-home and child-minding schedules are being improvised daily .
NPR ’ s headline warned that “ remote learning could go on for years. ” That ’ s at once impossible to imagine as a social reality , and it makes perfect sense when you read the guidelines that the Centers for Disease Control developed for school reopening . A school following CDC-provided guidance could be in constant agitation . Each COVID-19 case in a school would result in dismissal for two to five days . That school would need to find the resources to engage in disinfecting itself semi-regularly . The school would need to develop procedures for checking signs and symptoms of COVID regularly . Does that mean temping every student and teacher as they enter the building ? And if it doesn ’ t , will parents demand something like this ? Will teachers ’ unions ? States and the federal government can create liability exclusions , but teachers ’ unions can still sue the state over such things , and parents too .
The public-school social contract also may come under much pressure in the fall . NPR says that schools serve other functions than education , including “ child care for millions of working parents. ” But if the schools aren ’ t accountable for children for five to seven hours a day , then they may be subject to the same considerations that have college administrators trembling about their budgets . Right now , the dominant public mode among parents is one of support . In my own district , teachers recently enjoyed a supportive , socially distanced parade . Can that last ?
Somehow distance learning makes it seem that parents are the employees of the teachers , who are deemed the true educators of children . The teachers and schools still have the power to declare students truant or to fail them for not keeping up . But those teachers and schools are incapable of providing anything like the same kind of service in exchange for that power . It doesn ’ t help the case for the teachers that the media have filled up with ( probably bogus or overblown ) studies showing that missed time or a change in routine will dramatically change the lives of children for the worse . In any case , parents have had to step into that breach themselves .
And if I have to take the time to gather all the materials for every lesson and make sure all my children ’ s activity is logged , if I have to sit next to them while they do their school work to make sure they are connected and properly muted or unmuted , then I ’ m taking on almost all the personal costs of homeschooling while getting none of the benefits of it . Those benefits include determining the time and content of lessons , the books we use , the online tutors I hire , the friends that work with us , the pace that we go , and the days we are off .
It ’ s not just the schools either . Social services , early intervention , and any number of things done for the development of children have had to shift to simulations mediated by screens . In most cases , parents have adjusted to these substitutes begrudgingly as yet one more inconvenience of a temporary emergency . But patience is running out .
The product of both parochial and public education , I ’ m neither a public-school hater nor a diehard supporter . And I expect the schools to survive long-term , given how much has been invested morally and financially into the system itself . But this medium term makes no sense .
We have to shift back to normality very soon , or prepare for a season of rancor and disruption as that social contract that applies to most of the children in this country gets stretched to a breaking point .
|
Tracey Pucci helps her son Foxton Harding, 12, with a school assignment for Northshore Middle School, which moved to online-only schooling for two weeks due to coronavirus concerns, at their home in Bothell, Wash., March 11, 2020. (Lindsey Wasson/Reuters)
Parents are asked to take on almost all the personal costs of homeschooling while getting none of its benefits.
I don’t think I can do this in the fall. What I mean by this is managing my kids’ new distance learning. Every time a day is finished I think, “How long can I do this?”
Much has been said about how colleges will struggle and some will close as a result of COVID-19. America’s aging and declining in fertility. More schools chase after fewer students. The moment that schools try to charge for the premium college experience while delivering a CD-ROM-level education over the Internet, the weaker ones will fall apart.
Advertisement
But what about K–12 public schools? The social contract of a public school requires a certain kind of uniformity of expectations from teachers’ unions, students, and parents. But, under COVID-19, every term of that social contract seems up for grabs.
Some parents want the teachers to conduct a class over teleconferencing software for four hours a day, to give them time to work. Other parents resent even as little as half an hour of online instruction when their own work-from-home and child-minding schedules are being improvised daily.
NPR’s headline warned that “remote learning could go on for years.” That’s at once impossible to imagine as a social reality, and it makes perfect sense when you read the guidelines that the Centers for Disease Control developed for school reopening. A school following CDC-provided guidance could be in constant agitation. Each COVID-19 case in a school would result in dismissal for two to five days. That school would need to find the resources to engage in disinfecting itself semi-regularly. The school would need to develop procedures for checking signs and symptoms of COVID regularly. Does that mean temping every student and teacher as they enter the building? And if it doesn’t, will parents demand something like this? Will teachers’ unions? States and the federal government can create liability exclusions, but teachers’ unions can still sue the state over such things, and parents too.
Advertisement
The public-school social contract also may come under much pressure in the fall. NPR says that schools serve other functions than education, including “child care for millions of working parents.” But if the schools aren’t accountable for children for five to seven hours a day, then they may be subject to the same considerations that have college administrators trembling about their budgets. Right now, the dominant public mode among parents is one of support. In my own district, teachers recently enjoyed a supportive, socially distanced parade. Can that last?
Advertisement
Somehow distance learning makes it seem that parents are the employees of the teachers, who are deemed the true educators of children. The teachers and schools still have the power to declare students truant or to fail them for not keeping up. But those teachers and schools are incapable of providing anything like the same kind of service in exchange for that power. It doesn’t help the case for the teachers that the media have filled up with (probably bogus or overblown) studies showing that missed time or a change in routine will dramatically change the lives of children for the worse. In any case, parents have had to step into that breach themselves.
And if I have to take the time to gather all the materials for every lesson and make sure all my children’s activity is logged, if I have to sit next to them while they do their school work to make sure they are connected and properly muted or unmuted, then I’m taking on almost all the personal costs of homeschooling while getting none of the benefits of it. Those benefits include determining the time and content of lessons, the books we use, the online tutors I hire, the friends that work with us, the pace that we go, and the days we are off.
Advertisement
Advertisement
It’s not just the schools either. Social services, early intervention, and any number of things done for the development of children have had to shift to simulations mediated by screens. In most cases, parents have adjusted to these substitutes begrudgingly as yet one more inconvenience of a temporary emergency. But patience is running out.
The product of both parochial and public education, I’m neither a public-school hater nor a diehard supporter. And I expect the schools to survive long-term, given how much has been invested morally and financially into the system itself. But this medium term makes no sense.
Advertisement
We have to shift back to normality very soon, or prepare for a season of rancor and disruption as that social contract that applies to most of the children in this country gets stretched to a breaking point.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
ensYHK8qoWm2ii2A
|
culture
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-jussie-smollett/actor-jussie-smollett-charged-with-filing-false-police-report-idUSKCN1Q92LU
|
'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett charged with faking racist attack
|
2019-02-21
|
Dan Whitcomb
|
( ███ ) - Actor Jussie Smollett was charged on Wednesday with lying to police when he claimed he was attacked and beaten on the streets of Chicago by two masked men shouting racist and homophobic slurs , police said on Wednesday as they sought his arrest .
Smollett , a 36-year-old black , openly gay actor on the hip-hop TV drama “ Empire , ” ignited a firestorm on social media by telling police on Jan. 29 that two apparent supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump struck him , put a noose around his neck and poured bleach over him .
“ Felony criminal charges have been approved by @ CookCountySAO against Jussie Smollett for Disorderly Conduct / Filing a False Police Report . Detectives will make contact with his legal team to negotiate a reasonable surrender for his arrest , ” police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said on Twitter .
The New York Times , citing unnamed law enforcement sources , said Smollett had been indicted by an Illinois grand jury that found probable cause that he had staged the attack .
“ Like any other citizen , Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence , particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information , both true and false , has been repeatedly leaked . Given these circumstances , we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense , ” Smollett ’ s attorneys , Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson , said in a written statement .
Twentieth Century Fox Television , which produces “ Empire , ” declined comment when told earlier on Wednesday that Smollett had been formally named a suspect in the case .
Earlier in the day , the studio said : “ Jussie Smollett continues to be a consummate professional on set and as we have previously stated , he is not being written out of the show . ”
Smollett has stood by his account even as police failed to find any evidence of an assault and suspicions grew on social media that it was a hoax .
Last week , Chicago police questioned two Nigerian brothers recognized from surveillance footage near the scene of the supposed attack , but released them two days later , without charge , in light of what investigators said was new evidence .
TV station CBS Chicago on Wednesday released a videotape it had obtained showing the two brothers buying a red hat and ski masks from a hardware store days before the alleged attack .
Smollett told police his assailants were white , that one wore a red hat , and that they shouted something about “ MAGA country ” - an apparent reference to Trump ’ s campaign slogan “ Make America Great Again ” - as they struck him to the ground , the New York Times has reported .
Chicago police say the charge of filing a false police report carries a maximum sentence of up to three years in prison .
“ Empire ” has earned multiple Emmy nominations since its 2015 debut . Smollett plays the character Jamal Lyon , a member of the family that is the focus of the show .
|
(Reuters) - Actor Jussie Smollett was charged on Wednesday with lying to police when he claimed he was attacked and beaten on the streets of Chicago by two masked men shouting racist and homophobic slurs, police said on Wednesday as they sought his arrest.
Smollett, a 36-year-old black, openly gay actor on the hip-hop TV drama “Empire,” ignited a firestorm on social media by telling police on Jan. 29 that two apparent supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump struck him, put a noose around his neck and poured bleach over him.
“Felony criminal charges have been approved by @CookCountySAO against Jussie Smollett for Disorderly Conduct / Filing a False Police Report. Detectives will make contact with his legal team to negotiate a reasonable surrender for his arrest,” police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said on Twitter.
The New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement sources, said Smollett had been indicted by an Illinois grand jury that found probable cause that he had staged the attack.
“Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked. Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense,” Smollett’s attorneys, Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson, said in a written statement.
Twentieth Century Fox Television, which produces “Empire,” declined comment when told earlier on Wednesday that Smollett had been formally named a suspect in the case.
Earlier in the day, the studio said: “Jussie Smollett continues to be a consummate professional on set and as we have previously stated, he is not being written out of the show.”
‘MAGA COUNTRY’
Smollett has stood by his account even as police failed to find any evidence of an assault and suspicions grew on social media that it was a hoax.
Last week, Chicago police questioned two Nigerian brothers recognized from surveillance footage near the scene of the supposed attack, but released them two days later, without charge, in light of what investigators said was new evidence.
TV station CBS Chicago on Wednesday released a videotape it had obtained showing the two brothers buying a red hat and ski masks from a hardware store days before the alleged attack.
Slideshow (4 Images)
Smollett told police his assailants were white, that one wore a red hat, and that they shouted something about “MAGA country” - an apparent reference to Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” - as they struck him to the ground, the New York Times has reported.
Chicago police say the charge of filing a false police report carries a maximum sentence of up to three years in prison.
“Empire” has earned multiple Emmy nominations since its 2015 debut. Smollett plays the character Jamal Lyon, a member of the family that is the focus of the show.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
pksOcgdVhVsr7pny
|
supreme_court
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/opinion/supreme-court-masterpiece-anthony-kennedy.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
|
OPINION: How the Supreme Court Avoided the Cake Case’s Tough Issues
|
2018-06-07
|
Linda Greenhouse
|
So it was the search for an off-ramp that led the court to its obsessive focus on statements about religion made by two of the seven members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission at two hearings in 2014 on the gay couple ’ s discrimination complaint against the baker . ( Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by “ public accommodations , ” a category that includes most businesses . ) At the first hearing , a commissioner observed that “ if a businessman wants to do business in the state and he ’ s got an issue with the law ’ s impacting his personal belief system , he needs to look at being able to compromise. ” At the second , a commissioner observed that religion “ has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history ” and proceeded to label religion “ one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others . ”
Following these hearings , the commission found that the baker ’ s refusal to serve his customers was an act of discrimination that violated state law . That decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals which , Justice Kennedy noted with disapproval , “ did not mention those comments , much less express concern with their content. ” Neither , he added , did the state itself disavow the comments in its presentation to the Supreme Court — a point Justice Kennedy had made when the case was argued six months ago . “ For these reasons , the court can not avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the commission ’ s adjudication , ” Justice Kennedy wrote , adding that the commission “ was neither tolerant nor respectful ” of the baker ’ s religious beliefs . This “ hostility ” toward religion , the court held , violated the baker ’ s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion .
As the only two dissenters , Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor , pointed out , this conclusion is illogical at best , based on how the case proceeded through the Colorado legal system . Not only were the statements made by just two of seven members of the Civil Rights Commission , but the commission was just one of four “ decision-making entities , ” including another state commission and an administrative law judge , that passed judgment on the case . In other words , even if the statements could be understood to signify that the speakers were hostile to religion — a highly dubious conclusion at least with respect to the first statement , which simply expressed the current state of free exercise law — there is no basis for discerning the pervasive hostility that the court claimed to find and on which it based its decision .
My fear is that the Supreme Court has imposed a regime of constitutional political correctness on how we talk about religion . There is a striking contrast between the exquisite sensitivity for religious feelings that Justice Kennedy displayed on Monday and his casual rejection only four years ago of the notion that unwanted exposure to religious speech could be so offensive to nonbelievers as to violate their constitutional rights . I ’ m referring to Town of Greece v. Galloway , a 2014 decision on whether the overtly Christian prayers with which an upstate New York town opened its monthly town board meetings violated the First Amendment ’ s Establishment Clause .
|
So it was the search for an off-ramp that led the court to its obsessive focus on statements about religion made by two of the seven members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission at two hearings in 2014 on the gay couple’s discrimination complaint against the baker. (Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by “public accommodations,” a category that includes most businesses.) At the first hearing, a commissioner observed that “if a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.” At the second, a commissioner observed that religion “has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history” and proceeded to label religion “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”
Following these hearings, the commission found that the baker’s refusal to serve his customers was an act of discrimination that violated state law. That decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals which, Justice Kennedy noted with disapproval, “did not mention those comments, much less express concern with their content.” Neither, he added, did the state itself disavow the comments in its presentation to the Supreme Court — a point Justice Kennedy had made when the case was argued six months ago. “For these reasons, the court cannot avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the commission’s adjudication,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that the commission “was neither tolerant nor respectful” of the baker’s religious beliefs. This “hostility” toward religion, the court held, violated the baker’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
As the only two dissenters, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, pointed out, this conclusion is illogical at best, based on how the case proceeded through the Colorado legal system. Not only were the statements made by just two of seven members of the Civil Rights Commission, but the commission was just one of four “decision-making entities,” including another state commission and an administrative law judge, that passed judgment on the case. In other words, even if the statements could be understood to signify that the speakers were hostile to religion — a highly dubious conclusion at least with respect to the first statement, which simply expressed the current state of free exercise law — there is no basis for discerning the pervasive hostility that the court claimed to find and on which it based its decision.
My fear is that the Supreme Court has imposed a regime of constitutional political correctness on how we talk about religion. There is a striking contrast between the exquisite sensitivity for religious feelings that Justice Kennedy displayed on Monday and his casual rejection only four years ago of the notion that unwanted exposure to religious speech could be so offensive to nonbelievers as to violate their constitutional rights. I’m referring to Town of Greece v. Galloway, a 2014 decision on whether the overtly Christian prayers with which an upstate New York town opened its monthly town board meetings violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
0FexuGlIqYp1JOVn
|
supreme_court
|
Reason
| 22
|
http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/20/neither-trump-nor-clinton-understands-wh
|
Neither Trump Nor Clinton Understands What the Supreme Court Is Supposed to Do
|
2016-10-20
|
Jacob Sullum, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Charles Oliver, Veronique De Rugy, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis
|
The next president will appoint at least one and perhaps as many as three Supreme Court justices , who in turn will have a decisive impact on the Court 's jurisprudence for decades . But last night 's presidential debate revealed that neither of the major-party candidates understands what Supreme Court justices are supposed to do .
Moderator Chris Wallace started the discussion off on the wrong foot by asking the candidates where they `` want to see the Court take the country , '' implying that justices are legislators in black robes , pursuing a policy agenda instead of deciding the controversies that come before them . Both candidates seemed to agree with that premise .
Donald Trump promised that `` the justices that I 'm going to appoint will be pro-life '' and will therefore vote to overturn Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that discovered a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment 's Due Process Clause . There are good reasons to think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided , or at least that its constitutional rationale left much to be desired . But a justice 's personal views on abortion are logically and legally distinct from the issue of Roe 's soundness . A conscientious justice strives to separate his policy preferences from the question of what the Constitution allows or requires .
Even if you think abortion should be banned , it does not necessarily follow that the Constitution allows states to ban it . And even if you think abortion should be legal , it does not necessarily follow that the Constitution prohibits states from banning it . A justice who ignores these distinctions is writing law instead of applying it .
Hillary Clinton also promised to appoint justices who will help her achieve the policies she favors , which include speech restrictions that protect politicians like her from criticism close to an election . Clinton said her Supreme Court picks `` will stand up and say no to Citizens United , a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark , unaccountable money to come into our electoral system . ''
Clinton neglected to mention , as she always does when discussing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , that the case involved a movie that made her look bad . The Court concluded that a conservative group organized as a nonprofit corporation had a First Amendment right to present Hillary : The Movie on pay-per-view TV while Clinton was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 . Presumably Clinton disagrees . But instead of explaining why , she says the decision should be overturned because `` it permits dark , unaccountable money to come into our electoral system . '' Clinton worries that these dastardly dollars are `` drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans and distorting our democracy . '' But that is not a constitutional argument . Even if Clinton were right about the baleful impact of Citizens United , it would not follow that the First Amendment permits the sort of self-serving censorship she favors .
In addition to promising Supreme Court justices who agree with her that suppressing Hillary : The Movie was consistent with freedom of speech , Clinton said her picks would `` stand on the side of the American people , not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy . '' That sounds like she thinks the Court should be biased against big businesses and rich people , a position that can not be reconciled with the constitution or the statutes that the justices are charged with interpreting and applying . The law is supposed to provide equal protection to all Americans , regardless of their income or wealth .
Clinton is also wrong when she says `` the Supreme Court should represent all of us . '' That is what a democratically elected legislature is supposed to do . A court is supposed to apply the law , a function that does not cater to constituencies or dole out favors based on political considerations .
In light of that role , Chris Wallace 's other question about the Supreme Court was more apposite : `` What 's your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted ? Do the founders ' words mean what they say , or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances ? ''
Clinton did not even attempt an answer , while Trump at least tried to mouth the words that somebody told him conservatives expect to hear from a Republican presidential nominee :
The justices that I am going to appoint…will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted….I do n't think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear . It 's all about the Constitution…the way it was meant to be .
It 's not completely clear how that would work in practice , since we ca n't actually read the Framers ' minds . But Trump 's description seems consistent with interpreting constitutional provisions based on the original public understanding of them , the approach favored by Justice Clarence Thomas . An originalist approach rejects the idea that the Constitution is `` a living document '' in the sense that its meaning changes over time—so that , for example , the 14th Amendment 's guarantee of due process can stop states from banning abortion , even if that is not the way the provision was understood when it was approved .
While the latter approach can produce liberty-friendly results , it does so at the cost of loosening the Constitution 's constraints on goverment power , a tendency that is decidedly unfriendly to liberty . Hence it would be encouraging to hear a major-party candidate endorse originalism—if we had any ███ to think he understood its value or would make decisions based on that understanding . It 's hard to believe that 's true of Trump , who thinks the Constitution has 12 articles , empowers judges to sign bills , authorizes presidents to rewrite libel law , and allows the government to take away the citizenship of people born in the United States . Trump claims he has read the Constitution , but if so he did not retain much .
Meanwhile , in areas such as freedom of speech , gun control , surveillance , executive power , and federal authority , Clinton takes positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution . That means voters who assume they have to choose between the two major parties will be choosing between a candidate who does n't know what the Constitution says and a candidate who does n't care .
|
The next president will appoint at least one and perhaps as many as three Supreme Court justices, who in turn will have a decisive impact on the Court's jurisprudence for decades. But last night's presidential debate revealed that neither of the major-party candidates understands what Supreme Court justices are supposed to do.
Moderator Chris Wallace started the discussion off on the wrong foot by asking the candidates where they "want to see the Court take the country," implying that justices are legislators in black robes, pursuing a policy agenda instead of deciding the controversies that come before them. Both candidates seemed to agree with that premise.
Donald Trump promised that "the justices that I'm going to appoint will be pro-life" and will therefore vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that discovered a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. There are good reasons to think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, or at least that its constitutional rationale left much to be desired. But a justice's personal views on abortion are logically and legally distinct from the issue of Roe's soundness. A conscientious justice strives to separate his policy preferences from the question of what the Constitution allows or requires.
Even if you think abortion should be banned, it does not necessarily follow that the Constitution allows states to ban it. And even if you think abortion should be legal, it does not necessarily follow that the Constitution prohibits states from banning it. A justice who ignores these distinctions is writing law instead of applying it.
Hillary Clinton also promised to appoint justices who will help her achieve the policies she favors, which include speech restrictions that protect politicians like her from criticism close to an election. Clinton said her Supreme Court picks "will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Clinton neglected to mention, as she always does when discussing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that the case involved a movie that made her look bad. The Court concluded that a conservative group organized as a nonprofit corporation had a First Amendment right to present Hillary: The Movie on pay-per-view TV while Clinton was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Presumably Clinton disagrees. But instead of explaining why, she says the decision should be overturned because "it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system." Clinton worries that these dastardly dollars are "drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans and distorting our democracy." But that is not a constitutional argument. Even if Clinton were right about the baleful impact of Citizens United, it would not follow that the First Amendment permits the sort of self-serving censorship she favors.
In addition to promising Supreme Court justices who agree with her that suppressing Hillary: The Movie was consistent with freedom of speech, Clinton said her picks would "stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy." That sounds like she thinks the Court should be biased against big businesses and rich people, a position that cannot be reconciled with the constitution or the statutes that the justices are charged with interpreting and applying. The law is supposed to provide equal protection to all Americans, regardless of their income or wealth.
Clinton is also wrong when she says "the Supreme Court should represent all of us." That is what a democratically elected legislature is supposed to do. A court is supposed to apply the law, a function that does not cater to constituencies or dole out favors based on political considerations.
In light of that role, Chris Wallace's other question about the Supreme Court was more apposite: "What's your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders' words mean what they say, or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?"
Clinton did not even attempt an answer, while Trump at least tried to mouth the words that somebody told him conservatives expect to hear from a Republican presidential nominee:
The justices that I am going to appoint…will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted….I don't think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It's all about the Constitution…the way it was meant to be.
It's not completely clear how that would work in practice, since we can't actually read the Framers' minds. But Trump's description seems consistent with interpreting constitutional provisions based on the original public understanding of them, the approach favored by Justice Clarence Thomas. An originalist approach rejects the idea that the Constitution is "a living document" in the sense that its meaning changes over time—so that, for example, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process can stop states from banning abortion, even if that is not the way the provision was understood when it was approved.
While the latter approach can produce liberty-friendly results, it does so at the cost of loosening the Constitution's constraints on goverment power, a tendency that is decidedly unfriendly to liberty. Hence it would be encouraging to hear a major-party candidate endorse originalism—if we had any reason to think he understood its value or would make decisions based on that understanding. It's hard to believe that's true of Trump, who thinks the Constitution has 12 articles, empowers judges to sign bills, authorizes presidents to rewrite libel law, and allows the government to take away the citizenship of people born in the United States. Trump claims he has read the Constitution, but if so he did not retain much.
Meanwhile, in areas such as freedom of speech, gun control, surveillance, executive power, and federal authority, Clinton takes positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. That means voters who assume they have to choose between the two major parties will be choosing between a candidate who doesn't know what the Constitution says and a candidate who doesn't care.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
NmsKfJmQHszL0mxq
|
supreme_court
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/31/21115114/court-packing-supreme-court-tom-steyer-mitch-mcconnell
|
The most radical Democratic plan to fix the Supreme Court yet
|
2020-01-31
|
Ian Millhiser, Sean Illing, Alex Abad-Santos, Ezra Klein, Andrew Prokop, Emily Todd Vanderwerff, Sara Morrison
|
At a campaign stop in Iowa , Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer embraced a radical proposal to counter Republican domination of the Supreme Court — court-packing .
After Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016 , stripping Republicans of their Supreme Court majority in the process , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promptly announced that he would not allow anyone President Obama nominated to fill this vacancy to be confirmed . After President Trump won the 2016 election , Republicans confirmed Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left open by Scalia ’ s death . Gorsuch is now one of the most conservative justices on the Court .
Republicans claimed that , in Sen. Chuck Grassley ’ s words , “ it ’ s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year , ” but this claim appears to be entirely made up . At least 14 past justices were confirmed in a presidential election year — the most recent was Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988 .
In a video posted on Wednesday , Steyer says that he is “ for ” expanding the Court , arguing that Republicans “ have been cheating . ”
“ When I think about the Supreme Court , ” Steyer told a voter who asked about court expansion , “ let us remember why we have the Supreme Court we have. ” The answer , according to Steyer , is that “ Mitch McConnell refused to allow President Obama ’ s choice to ever be brought up ” for a hearing and a confirmation vote .
Though the Constitution provides that a Supreme Court shall sit at the apex on the judiciary , our founding document is silent about how many justices sit on the Supreme Court . A 1789 law established a six-justice Court , and the number of justices ebbed and flowed during the 19th century — swelling to 10 justices under President Abraham Lincoln before settling into a nine-justice configuration under President Ulysses S. Grant .
After a reactionary Supreme Court struck down several New Deal policies , President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the Court to as many as 15 justices — although this proposal did not fare well politically , to say the least .
Steyer , it ’ s worth noting , is not the only Democratic presidential candidate who has floated court-packing as a counter to the tactics that placed Gorsuch on the Supreme Court . Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg suggested expanding the Court ’ s membership to 15 but also proposed having five of those justices selected in a process intended to minimize partisanship . Sen. Elizabeth Warren hasn ’ t fully embraced court-packing , but she told Politico that “ it ’ s a conversation worth having . ”
The party ’ s two frontrunners , former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders , both oppose court-packing .
Court-packing is a dangerous tactic — but it could become necessary
Before Scalia ’ s death , and McConnell ’ s efforts to keep that seat in Republican hands , court-packing was virtually unthinkable .
Roosevelt offered his court-packing plan shortly after winning reelection in a landslide , and the popular president did so while the Court was actively sabotaging his efforts to end a historic economic crisis . But even Roosevelt was not able to build majority support for the idea . Many historians mark his court-packing plan as the moment that shattered his coalition and ended his ability to push liberal legislation through Congress .
As a practical matter , courts often depend on voluntary compliance to effectuate their orders . The South ’ s campaign of “ massive resistance ” to Brown v. Board of Education ( 1954 ) largely succeeded for 10 years . Public school segregation remained widespread in the Deep South until Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which gave the federal government additional tools it used to pressure schools into integrating .
A similar story could play out if Democrats resort to court-packing in order to preserve liberal victories . If a packed Supreme Court reinstates Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) after a conservative Court overrules that decision , many red states are likely to launch a new campaign of massive resistance .
That said , I ’ ve written that there is one entirely possible scenario where court-packing could be justified : if the Supreme Court grows so hostile to voting rights that the only way to preserve competitive elections in the United States is to eliminate the Court ’ s anti-democratic majority . In this circumstance , Democrats might conclude that court-packing was a less terrible option .
Steyer ’ s embrace of court-packing is interesting not because he is likely to implement it himself — Steyer ’ s campaign for the Democratic nomination in eighth place , according to the RealClearPolitics polling average . Rather , Steyer ’ s support for court-packing is interesting because he has a history of spending lavishly to bring ideas on the political fringes into the mainstream .
As of January 2019 , Steyer had reportedly spent $ 50 million on his “ Need to Impeach ” campaign targeting Trump .
Steyer is both a billionaire and a longtime activist in the fight against climate change . Meanwhile , the Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority has signaled loudly that they plan to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of much of its regulatory power . It ’ s not hard to imagine a future where Steyer grows so frustrated with the Court ’ s efforts to stop environmental regulation that he starts writing big checks to push a court-packing agenda .
|
At a campaign stop in Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer embraced a radical proposal to counter Republican domination of the Supreme Court — court-packing.
After Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, stripping Republicans of their Supreme Court majority in the process, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promptly announced that he would not allow anyone President Obama nominated to fill this vacancy to be confirmed. After President Trump won the 2016 election, Republicans confirmed Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left open by Scalia’s death. Gorsuch is now one of the most conservative justices on the Court.
Republicans claimed that, in Sen. Chuck Grassley’s words, “it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” but this claim appears to be entirely made up. At least 14 past justices were confirmed in a presidential election year — the most recent was Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988.
In a video posted on Wednesday, Steyer says that he is “for” expanding the Court, arguing that Republicans “have been cheating.”
“When I think about the Supreme Court,” Steyer told a voter who asked about court expansion, “let us remember why we have the Supreme Court we have.” The answer, according to Steyer, is that “Mitch McConnell refused to allow President Obama’s choice to ever be brought up” for a hearing and a confirmation vote.
Though the Constitution provides that a Supreme Court shall sit at the apex on the judiciary, our founding document is silent about how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. A 1789 law established a six-justice Court, and the number of justices ebbed and flowed during the 19th century — swelling to 10 justices under President Abraham Lincoln before settling into a nine-justice configuration under President Ulysses S. Grant.
After a reactionary Supreme Court struck down several New Deal policies, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the Court to as many as 15 justices — although this proposal did not fare well politically, to say the least.
Steyer, it’s worth noting, is not the only Democratic presidential candidate who has floated court-packing as a counter to the tactics that placed Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg suggested expanding the Court’s membership to 15 but also proposed having five of those justices selected in a process intended to minimize partisanship. Sen. Elizabeth Warren hasn’t fully embraced court-packing, but she told Politico that “it’s a conversation worth having.”
The party’s two frontrunners, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, both oppose court-packing.
Court-packing is a dangerous tactic — but it could become necessary
Before Scalia’s death, and McConnell’s efforts to keep that seat in Republican hands, court-packing was virtually unthinkable.
Roosevelt offered his court-packing plan shortly after winning reelection in a landslide, and the popular president did so while the Court was actively sabotaging his efforts to end a historic economic crisis. But even Roosevelt was not able to build majority support for the idea. Many historians mark his court-packing plan as the moment that shattered his coalition and ended his ability to push liberal legislation through Congress.
As a practical matter, courts often depend on voluntary compliance to effectuate their orders. The South’s campaign of “massive resistance” to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) largely succeeded for 10 years. Public school segregation remained widespread in the Deep South until Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave the federal government additional tools it used to pressure schools into integrating.
A similar story could play out if Democrats resort to court-packing in order to preserve liberal victories. If a packed Supreme Court reinstates Roe v. Wade (1973) after a conservative Court overrules that decision, many red states are likely to launch a new campaign of massive resistance.
That said, I’ve written that there is one entirely possible scenario where court-packing could be justified: if the Supreme Court grows so hostile to voting rights that the only way to preserve competitive elections in the United States is to eliminate the Court’s anti-democratic majority. In this circumstance, Democrats might conclude that court-packing was a less terrible option.
Steyer’s embrace of court-packing is interesting not because he is likely to implement it himself — Steyer’s campaign for the Democratic nomination in eighth place, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Rather, Steyer’s support for court-packing is interesting because he has a history of spending lavishly to bring ideas on the political fringes into the mainstream.
As of January 2019, Steyer had reportedly spent $50 million on his “Need to Impeach” campaign targeting Trump.
Steyer is both a billionaire and a longtime activist in the fight against climate change. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority has signaled loudly that they plan to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of much of its regulatory power. It’s not hard to imagine a future where Steyer grows so frustrated with the Court’s efforts to stop environmental regulation that he starts writing big checks to push a court-packing agenda.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
hdnr3wEnuMNJFXaS
|
white_house
|
Chicago Sun-Times
| 00
|
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/2/18/21142727/rod-blagojevich-commutation-trump-edward-debartolo-bernard-kerik-illinois-corruption
|
Trump gets it right in freeing Blagojevich, but his real reasons for doing so should sicken us
|
2020-02-18
|
Cst Editorial Board, Gordon Wittenmyer, Sun-Times Wire, Daryl Van Schouwen, Usa Today, "Michael OBrien"
|
If Roger Stone is dispatched to prison for years , President Donald Trump will commute his sentence or pardon him altogether .
The odds of that happening soared on Tuesday , the minute Trump commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich , the former Illinois governor , and wiped clean with pardons the criminal records of some other high-profile people .
Trump does nothing for anybody that is not , at bottom , for himself . In this case , Blagojevich became the beneficiary .
We have long argued that the former governor is guilty as charged but that his 14-year sentence was way too harsh . On the merits of the case , and especially given the considerably shorter sentences handed out to public officials guilty of more egregious corruption — such as the 6 1⁄ 2 years given to bribe-taking former Gov . George Ryan for racketeering , conspiracy and fraud — we would argue Blagojevich has been fully and fairly punished . He has been imprisoned for almost 8 years .
But Trump ’ s decision to commute Blagojevich ’ s sentence at this time is all of a piece with the president ’ s warnings that he ’ s not about to stand by and watch Stone go off to prison for any extended time .
Stone is one of Trump ’ s closest and shadiest back-channel operatives . He was found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election , including five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness .
If Stone ’ s conviction stands , and especially if he is forced to serve prison time , Trump knows it will be seen as a symbolic indictment of the president himself , who wants the world to believe Congress ’ entire probe of Russian interference was a “ hoax . ”
But to set Stone free — to commute or pardon his sentence should it come to that — in a manner that does not smack of being entirely self-serving , Trump has to lay the groundwork .
He has to establish a pattern . He has to grant clemency to others — people who have nothing on him — first .
That ’ s where Blagojevich ’ s early release comes in . And it ’ s also likely why Trump on Tuesday pardoned Bernard Kerik , the former New York City police commissioner , as well as Edward DeBartolo , a former owner of the San Francisco 49ers , among others . Their records are obliterated ; at least Blagojevich ’ s conviction stays on his record .
Does all this sound horribly cynical ? We hope it is . We hope we are wrong .
We hope Trump announced these acts of clemency out of nothing more than a deep-seated sense of fairness and compassion . But if such was the case with Blagojevich , the president could have freed him months ago .
Witnessing the deplorable machinations of the Trump White House for more than three years could make a cynic of anyone . The baseness of this crowd has been breathtaking .
“ He served eight years in jail , a long time , ” Trump said about Blagojevich before boarding Air Force One for a trip to the West Coast .
About that we agree . Fourteen years in a federal pen would have been an awfully long time for a former governor who was always more opportunistic , lazy and clueless than venal .
What was Blagojevich ’ s offense ? He tried to sell a vacant Senate seat and extort big campaign donations from a hospital and a racetrack owner , behavior that even in Illinois will raise eyebrows . We can ’ t agree with Trump that Blagojevich ’ s only crime was to say things “ many other politicians say . ”
We suspect , in sadness but in truth , that Trump granted clemency to Blagojevich and the others to establish a precedent before swooping in and saving Stone . He needs to create a plausible deniability of abuse of this kingly power .
With these actions , Trump also is amping up his attacks on the Justice Department — sparing , of course , his chosen confederate , Attorney General Bill Barr . He is creating a little more cheap rhetorical fodder for his trashing of the DOJ ’ s supposed “ deep state . ”
Blagojevich is coming home to Chicago because Donald Trump was flying out to the West Coast . Trump has three more MAGA rallies out there , and he needed new material .
More importantly , it ’ s in the president ’ s selfish interest to keep Stone out of prison and on his side . We can only guess at what secrets Stone might know that Trump wants no one to hear .
It ’ s good Rod Blagojevich is walking free , but the motivation behind it sickens us .
|
If Roger Stone is dispatched to prison for years, President Donald Trump will commute his sentence or pardon him altogether.
The odds of that happening soared on Tuesday, the minute Trump commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor, and wiped clean with pardons the criminal records of some other high-profile people.
Trump does nothing for anybody that is not, at bottom, for himself. In this case, Blagojevich became the beneficiary.
Editorials
We have long argued that the former governor is guilty as charged but that his 14-year sentence was way too harsh. On the merits of the case, and especially given the considerably shorter sentences handed out to public officials guilty of more egregious corruption — such as the 6 1⁄ 2 years given to bribe-taking former Gov. George Ryan for racketeering, conspiracy and fraud — we would argue Blagojevich has been fully and fairly punished. He has been imprisoned for almost 8 years.
But Trump’s decision to commute Blagojevich’s sentence at this time is all of a piece with the president’s warnings that he’s not about to stand by and watch Stone go off to prison for any extended time.
Stone is one of Trump’s closest and shadiest back-channel operatives. He was found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness.
If Stone’s conviction stands, and especially if he is forced to serve prison time, Trump knows it will be seen as a symbolic indictment of the president himself, who wants the world to believe Congress’ entire probe of Russian interference was a “hoax.”
But to set Stone free — to commute or pardon his sentence should it come to that — in a manner that does not smack of being entirely self-serving, Trump has to lay the groundwork.
He has to establish a pattern. He has to grant clemency to others — people who have nothing on him — first.
That’s where Blagojevich’s early release comes in. And it’s also likely why Trump on Tuesday pardoned Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, as well as Edward DeBartolo, a former owner of the San Francisco 49ers, among others. Their records are obliterated; at least Blagojevich’s conviction stays on his record.
Does all this sound horribly cynical? We hope it is. We hope we are wrong.
We hope Trump announced these acts of clemency out of nothing more than a deep-seated sense of fairness and compassion. But if such was the case with Blagojevich, the president could have freed him months ago.
Witnessing the deplorable machinations of the Trump White House for more than three years could make a cynic of anyone. The baseness of this crowd has been breathtaking.
“He served eight years in jail, a long time,” Trump said about Blagojevich before boarding Air Force One for a trip to the West Coast.
About that we agree. Fourteen years in a federal pen would have been an awfully long time for a former governor who was always more opportunistic, lazy and clueless than venal.
What was Blagojevich’s offense? He tried to sell a vacant Senate seat and extort big campaign donations from a hospital and a racetrack owner, behavior that even in Illinois will raise eyebrows. We can’t agree with Trump that Blagojevich’s only crime was to say things “many other politicians say.”
We suspect, in sadness but in truth, that Trump granted clemency to Blagojevich and the others to establish a precedent before swooping in and saving Stone. He needs to create a plausible deniability of abuse of this kingly power.
With these actions, Trump also is amping up his attacks on the Justice Department — sparing, of course, his chosen confederate, Attorney General Bill Barr. He is creating a little more cheap rhetorical fodder for his trashing of the DOJ’s supposed “deep state.”
Blagojevich is coming home to Chicago because Donald Trump was flying out to the West Coast. Trump has three more MAGA rallies out there, and he needed new material.
More importantly, it’s in the president’s selfish interest to keep Stone out of prison and on his side. We can only guess at what secrets Stone might know that Trump wants no one to hear.
It’s good Rod Blagojevich is walking free, but the motivation behind it sickens us.
Send letters to [email protected].
|
www.chicago.suntimes.com
| 0left
|
sefPKtm15JQCvze8
|
coronavirus
|
Jacobin
| 00
|
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/coronavirus-outbreak-free-market-pharmaceutical-industry
|
The Free Market Isn’t Up to the Coronavirus Challenge
|
Leigh Phillips, Peter Frase, Seth Ackerman, Megan Erickson, Eoin Ó Broin, Ian Neff, Meagan Day, Adam Gaffney
|
Amid all the breathless reporting on the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak , one quote in Nature from one of the world ’ s leading experts on this family of viruses , structural biologist Rolf Hilgenfeld , stood out .
“ The total number of people infected , if you combine SARS , MERS [ previous related coronavirus outbreaks ] and this new virus , is under 12,500 people . That ’ s not a market . The number of cases is too small . Pharmaceutical companies are not interested , ” he told the scientific journal .
Hilgenfeld was on his way to Hubei province even as the Chinese government was placing the 57-million population of Wuhan and surrounding cities under lockdown , or fēng chéng , to test early-stage drug candidates on animals infected by the new coronavirus , designated 2019-nCoV .
He had been asked how quickly it would take to complete preclinical testing , and ultimately , assuming positive results , how soon such a response to the disease might be ready for deployment . But his answer suggested that this sort of misses the point , because by the time an effective drug might be ready , it would be too late , not just this time , but whenever these sorts of events happen . The problem is that once a compound is ready to go , by that point , an outbreak may be over .
Why would any company make such a huge investment in drug discovery , only to find at the end that there were no patients ?
There is the possibility of performing research on coronaviruses in general and developing antiviral coronavirus therapies for many coronaviruses — which are also responsible , along with many other viruses , for the illness we collectively call the common cold — instead of just this particular one well ahead of such an outbreak , so as to have a decent head start when a novel coronavirus event does occur .
Indeed , this sort of preparative work is precisely what he and his colleague University of Hong Kong microbiologist Malik Peiris argued was necessary in a 2013 review paper on lessons learned from ten years of research into highly pathogenic coronaviruses , in particular from the SARS and MERS outbreaks . In that paper , he cheered the huge progress that had occurred into the function and structures of the SARS coronavirus , including some research into vaccine development and evaluation on animal models . But after the outbreak waned , by 2005 , there was “ no incentive to further develop SARS-CoV vaccines. ” No money either for development of antivirals ( for people who have already been infected by the virus ) . That is , there is no money to be made .
But it ’ s not just the private sector . He took funding agencies to task as well . He did not explain why , but we might : it is not surprising that a neoliberalized public sector in which tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy are prioritized over human need will also find that the cupboard is bare when it comes to diseases that only kill a few tens of thousands .
And perhaps fair enough . For a given size of pie , there are only so many decent-sized slices to go around . Hilgenfeld conceded that virologists themselves likely failed to take the threat of the reemergence of a SARS-like virus sufficiently seriously .
But then the MERS coronavirus hit in 2013 , killing some 850 people . Researchers and public health officials were now increasingly cognizant of the potential threat from this family of illnesses .
In 2016 , Alimuddin Zumla , a professor of infectious diseases and international health at University College London , argued in a paper that the continuing threat of coronaviruses in the wake of the MERS outbreak presented a “ golden opportunity ” to overcome the obstacles to the development of anti-coronavirus drugs . He called for the creation of an international collaborative network combining clinicians , virologists , and drug developers backed with political commitment to carry out clinical trials on anti-coronavirus drugs that have already been shown to be safe and effective in vitro ( popularly described as ‘ test-tube experiments ’ ) and in animal models .
Zumla echoed Hilgenfeld ’ s concerns that the waxing and waning of numbers of new patients made recruitment for clinical trials difficult and “ reduced the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop antiviral drugs , ” adding that MERS cases being predominantly confined to the Middle East didn ’ t help . There is also a “ lack of industrial incentives to develop antivirals for mild infections for other , less pathogenic coronaviruses ” — the ones that cause the common cold .
To be sure , there are other significant challenges specific to coronaviruses that make drug development difficult . Above all , they are one of the most diverse and rapidly mutating groups of viruses , and new strains emerge unpredictably . This means that drugs that target existing coronaviruses may not be effective against new ones .
For SARS and MERS , experiments using animal models such as transgenic mice and non-human primates can only be performed in a few biosafety level 3 ( high containment ) laboratories , and they are technically exacting to boot . But Zumla also wrote that it was the lack of industrial incentives that was the most important obstacle .
Writing in a 2009 book on disaster medicine , the associate director of the National Infectious Diseases Service at the Veterans Health Administration , Shantini Gamage , and her colleagues also noted the unique challenge of coronaviruses , given that information is learned about the pathogen and the disease as the epidemic progresses . And even if , despite this , research is successful , it is still the case that it generally takes about eight years in the United States to march through clinical trials , approval , and marketing .
But once again , Gamage hit upon the unavoidable challenge that the market just doesn ’ t work here . Referring to coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS , she argued that we can not win this fight unless the public sector leads the charge : “ Factoring in the high cost of drug development , the relatively low numbers of cases of an emerging infectious disease initially , and the chance that the epidemic will end with no further cases , pharmaceutical companies would be unlikely to even initiate the discovery process without government intervention or incentives . ”
The great news is that Hilgenfeld thinks he and his colleagues might have figured out a way around this amoral indifference of market actors . They have developed compounds that are not just active against coronaviruses , but also a large family of enteroviruses . Some 500,000 children catch one known as enterovirus-71 annually , causing hand , foot , and mouth disease . And if something wins approval for these diseases , the researchers reckon that they can also quickly deploy that same drug when we are hit by the next coronavirus outbreak .
Half a million cases ? Now that ’ s market-attractive . “ We can get pharma involved , ” he told the journal .
Let ’ s hope he ’ s right . Three cheers to Hilgenfeld for figuring out a way that may make coronavirus therapeutic development coincide with the profit imperatives of the large pharmaceutical companies . But why should researchers have to bend themselves into knots attempting to make their work coincide with the imperatives of profit-making , especially if such work is in the realm of public health ? And what do we do when , for a particular area within public health research , development and deployment ( RD & D ) , there just isn ’ t any way to shoehorn in profit-making ?
The really great news , at least for this particular coronavirus , is that it appears to be only moderately infectious , and it has a fatality rate much lower than SARS or MERS . But at some point in the future , there will be one that is more virulent and infectious .
Alongside this , public health officials and researchers are cheering what they describe as unprecedented cooperation , freely sharing sequence data , setting aside egos , and the use of social media ( for once playing a positive role ! ) to facilitate communication between researchers in real time . Scientists are working around the clock . Journals have opened ( some ) access to relevant papers . Researchers-cum-pirates have used the illegal open-access website Sci-Hub to make more than 5,000 scientific articles relating to coronaviruses fully searchable and free . The initiators of this effort declared : “ Dividing the world ’ s scientists with a paywall in the middle of a global humanitarian crisis is an unacceptable and unforgivable act of criminal greed . ”
As paleontologist and author of The [ R ] evolution in Open Science Jon Tennant put it : “ Open Science saves lives. ” All this extra-market cooperation — or solidarity , the term we on the Left use to describe such selfless , deep humanism — offers a hint of the better world to come , where no one does anything for profit any longer , but simply works in service of one another and of the collective advance of freedom .
In other good news , where the Chinese government was widely condemned internationally for its tardiness and secrecy during the SARS outbreak , Beijing appears to have since learned its lessons . The country has been commended by the WHO for the speed , transparency , and competence with which it is tackling the outbreak . ( Although fresh reportage from the New York Times suggests that officials could be doing even more . )
In addition , in the wake of the SARS outbreak , and following on from the challenges faced in dealing with Ebola in West Africa , a raft of new global partnerships , including the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium ( ISARIC ) , the Emerging Diseases Clinical Assessment and Response Network ( EDCARN ) , the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness ( GLOPID-R ) , and the WHO R & D Blueprint , have been established . They straddle the public-private divide , explicitly recognizing that the market , left to its own devices , is insufficient in dealing with these new threats . The establishment of such partnerships , networks , and mechanisms has long been one of the primary recommendations of public health officials . This is undoubtedly a massive step forward .
Another of these networks , the nonprofit public-private Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations ( CEPI ) , was launched in 2017 to develop epidemic-preventing vaccines and antivirals independent of this market failure . Last week , it announced some $ 12.5 million in funding for a University of Queensland lab , the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , and two small US biotech firms , Moderna , Inc. , and Inovio Pharmaceuticals , to look at three different pathways to develop vaccines for 2019-nCoV . They aim to have a vaccine ready for human testing in sixteen weeks , down from the years that such efforts normally take .
But even if the CEPI-coordinated strategy confronts no unexpected difficulties , the next step , mass production of a vaccine , would present a fresh challenge that CEPI does not have the resources to tackle . According to the journal Science , Inovio ’ s facilities could produce 100,000 doses a year ; the Queensland researchers four times that , and Moderna 100 million doses . That sounds like a lot but , as the author of the piece reports , in a worst-case scenario , this would be far from sufficient for the world ’ s population .
Moderna and Inovio stocks may have gone through the roof upon the announcement , but as Mark Feinberg , the head of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and former chief scientific officer with American pharmaceutical giant Merck ’ s vaccine division during the last Ebola outbreak , warned medical news outlet Stat , “ The prospects and the amount of work involved will necessarily take [ a small biotech company ] away from their core business and the interest of their investors in getting a return on their investment . ”
And it is not just coronaviruses or other emerging infectious diseases that confront this problem . As covered elsewhere in these pages , the crisis of bacterial antibiotic resistance that humanity faces —which has the potential to undermine much of modern medicine because so much of it , from surgeries to catheters and injections to even many diagnostic procedures , depends upon a background of antimicrobial protection — is primarily a problem of insufficient profitability . If successful , a course of antibiotics is only taken for a few weeks or months at most , and then the patient is cured and stops purchasing those drugs . But with chronic diseases , the patient has to purchase those drugs on a regular basis for the rest of their lives . And so most of the large pharmaceutical companies largely got out of the business of antibiotic research and production more than three decades ago .
Antifungal therapeutics face an identical profitability challenge . An extensive 2019 feature in the New York Times by science journalists Matt Richtel and Andrew Jacobs investigated the spread over the last five years around the world of the fungus Candida auris , which is resistant to some or all antifungal medications . Half of all those infected die within ninety days . As a result , this fungus has forced even a renowned British medical center to shut down its intensive care unit . And the paper on the scale of the problem that the reporters depended on for the backbone of their story unsurprisingly lays the blame for the “ sparse discovery pipeline ” on “ a chronic lack of investment in novel antifungal agents ” because “ most pharmaceutical companies are not investing in antifungals , preferring to focus on other , apparently more lucrative areas . ”
In 2018 , the financial giant Goldman Sachs issued a report that asked , “ Is curing patients a sustainable business model ? ” The analyst thought that Gilead Science ’ s treatment for hepatitis C , which produced cure rates in excess of 90 percent , offered a cautionary tale . While US sales hit as much as $ 12.5 billion in 2015 , they slid to a mere $ 4 billion three years later because its “ hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients. ” Infectious diseases in particular pose a challenge to profitability because “ curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients. ” Cancer , thank god , the report concluded , does not pose this problem ( the unsaid corollary , of course , being : we damn well better not find a cure for cancer ) .
As odious as all this appears , the problem therefore is not immorality or evil , as we often hear , but amorality . The market can only ever provide what is profitable . It is utterly indifferent to human needs .
So in the end , these RD & D networks that are heroically responding to what they acknowledge is a market failure are in the end just very advanced forms of charity — a sort of well-intentioned , warmhearted corporate subsidy that addresses the symptoms but not the systemic cause of the problem . It is akin to offering drugs to ease a patient ’ s emphysema without telling him to quit smoking .
Instead — or , rather , in addition to this , for these research networks are essential not just for the funds they disburse — pharmaceutical RD & D should be entirely freed from the limitations imposed on it by market amorality . The sector should be taken into the public realm and employ the postal model , where profitable routes cross-subsidize money-losing routes , but in this case , unprofitable drug discovery and manufacture would be paid for by their profitable counterparts .
This is not the predictable ramblings of a democratic socialist . It is rather the recommendation last year of the UK ’ s “ superbug tsar , ” Jim O ’ Neill , a former chief economist for Goldman Sachs . He suggested that nationalizing drug companies would be the best solution to the antibiotic-resistance crisis , comparing the current situation to the 2008 financial crash that forced the nationalization of the Royal Bank of Scotland .
And , as with that emergency nationalization within the financial sector over a decade ago , today we also don ’ t have a lot of time to wait in the pharmaceutical sector . We already confront a crisis of antimicrobial resistance . And the threat from 2019-nCov could turn out to be moderate , but this may not always be the case with coronaviruses or other emerging infectious diseases .
The executive director of the WHO Emergencies Programme , Michael Ryan , said last summer : “ We are entering a very new phase of high-impact epidemics. ” At the time he spoke , the WHO was tracking some 160 disease events around the world , nine of them at the organization ’ s highest emergency level . “ I don ’ t think we ’ ve ever had a situation where we ’ re responding to so many emergencies at one time . This is a new normal , I don ’ t expect the frequency of these events to reduce . ”
The situation is a product of the confluence of increased travel and trade through the advent of globalization , rapid urbanization , rising wealth in economies such as China and India , as well as climate change , deforestation , and the consolidation of food animal production . In addition to tackling these ecological challenges that contribute to the risk from infectious disease , we need a pharmaceutical sector fit for the twenty-first century .
Quite simply , the free market is holding back the advance of science , medicine , and public health .
|
Amid all the breathless reporting on the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, one quote in Nature from one of the world’s leading experts on this family of viruses, structural biologist Rolf Hilgenfeld, stood out.
“The total number of people infected, if you combine SARS, MERS [previous related coronavirus outbreaks] and this new virus, is under 12,500 people. That’s not a market. The number of cases is too small. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested,” he told the scientific journal.
Hilgenfeld was on his way to Hubei province even as the Chinese government was placing the 57-million population of Wuhan and surrounding cities under lockdown, or fēng chéng, to test early-stage drug candidates on animals infected by the new coronavirus, designated 2019-nCoV.
He had been asked how quickly it would take to complete preclinical testing, and ultimately, assuming positive results, how soon such a response to the disease might be ready for deployment. But his answer suggested that this sort of misses the point, because by the time an effective drug might be ready, it would be too late, not just this time, but whenever these sorts of events happen. The problem is that once a compound is ready to go, by that point, an outbreak may be over.
Why would any company make such a huge investment in drug discovery, only to find at the end that there were no patients?
There is the possibility of performing research on coronaviruses in general and developing antiviral coronavirus therapies for many coronaviruses — which are also responsible, along with many other viruses, for the illness we collectively call the common cold — instead of just this particular one well ahead of such an outbreak, so as to have a decent head start when a novel coronavirus event does occur.
Indeed, this sort of preparative work is precisely what he and his colleague University of Hong Kong microbiologist Malik Peiris argued was necessary in a 2013 review paper on lessons learned from ten years of research into highly pathogenic coronaviruses, in particular from the SARS and MERS outbreaks. In that paper, he cheered the huge progress that had occurred into the function and structures of the SARS coronavirus, including some research into vaccine development and evaluation on animal models. But after the outbreak waned, by 2005, there was “no incentive to further develop SARS-CoV vaccines.” No money either for development of antivirals (for people who have already been infected by the virus). That is, there is no money to be made.
But it’s not just the private sector. He took funding agencies to task as well. He did not explain why, but we might: it is not surprising that a neoliberalized public sector in which tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy are prioritized over human need will also find that the cupboard is bare when it comes to diseases that only kill a few tens of thousands.
And perhaps fair enough. For a given size of pie, there are only so many decent-sized slices to go around. Hilgenfeld conceded that virologists themselves likely failed to take the threat of the reemergence of a SARS-like virus sufficiently seriously.
But then the MERS coronavirus hit in 2013, killing some 850 people. Researchers and public health officials were now increasingly cognizant of the potential threat from this family of illnesses.
In 2016, Alimuddin Zumla, a professor of infectious diseases and international health at University College London, argued in a paper that the continuing threat of coronaviruses in the wake of the MERS outbreak presented a “golden opportunity” to overcome the obstacles to the development of anti-coronavirus drugs. He called for the creation of an international collaborative network combining clinicians, virologists, and drug developers backed with political commitment to carry out clinical trials on anti-coronavirus drugs that have already been shown to be safe and effective in vitro (popularly described as ‘test-tube experiments’) and in animal models.
Zumla echoed Hilgenfeld’s concerns that the waxing and waning of numbers of new patients made recruitment for clinical trials difficult and “reduced the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop antiviral drugs,” adding that MERS cases being predominantly confined to the Middle East didn’t help. There is also a “lack of industrial incentives to develop antivirals for mild infections for other, less pathogenic coronaviruses” — the ones that cause the common cold.
To be sure, there are other significant challenges specific to coronaviruses that make drug development difficult. Above all, they are one of the most diverse and rapidly mutating groups of viruses, and new strains emerge unpredictably. This means that drugs that target existing coronaviruses may not be effective against new ones.
For SARS and MERS, experiments using animal models such as transgenic mice and non-human primates can only be performed in a few biosafety level 3 (high containment) laboratories, and they are technically exacting to boot. But Zumla also wrote that it was the lack of industrial incentives that was the most important obstacle.
Writing in a 2009 book on disaster medicine, the associate director of the National Infectious Diseases Service at the Veterans Health Administration, Shantini Gamage, and her colleagues also noted the unique challenge of coronaviruses, given that information is learned about the pathogen and the disease as the epidemic progresses. And even if, despite this, research is successful, it is still the case that it generally takes about eight years in the United States to march through clinical trials, approval, and marketing.
But once again, Gamage hit upon the unavoidable challenge that the market just doesn’t work here. Referring to coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS, she argued that we cannot win this fight unless the public sector leads the charge: “Factoring in the high cost of drug development, the relatively low numbers of cases of an emerging infectious disease initially, and the chance that the epidemic will end with no further cases, pharmaceutical companies would be unlikely to even initiate the discovery process without government intervention or incentives.”
The great news is that Hilgenfeld thinks he and his colleagues might have figured out a way around this amoral indifference of market actors. They have developed compounds that are not just active against coronaviruses, but also a large family of enteroviruses. Some 500,000 children catch one known as enterovirus-71 annually, causing hand, foot, and mouth disease. And if something wins approval for these diseases, the researchers reckon that they can also quickly deploy that same drug when we are hit by the next coronavirus outbreak.
Half a million cases? Now that’s market-attractive. “We can get pharma involved,” he told the journal.
Let’s hope he’s right. Three cheers to Hilgenfeld for figuring out a way that may make coronavirus therapeutic development coincide with the profit imperatives of the large pharmaceutical companies. But why should researchers have to bend themselves into knots attempting to make their work coincide with the imperatives of profit-making, especially if such work is in the realm of public health? And what do we do when, for a particular area within public health research, development and deployment (RD&D), there just isn’t any way to shoehorn in profit-making?
The really great news, at least for this particular coronavirus, is that it appears to be only moderately infectious, and it has a fatality rate much lower than SARS or MERS. But at some point in the future, there will be one that is more virulent and infectious.
Alongside this, public health officials and researchers are cheering what they describe as unprecedented cooperation, freely sharing sequence data, setting aside egos, and the use of social media (for once playing a positive role!) to facilitate communication between researchers in real time. Scientists are working around the clock. Journals have opened (some) access to relevant papers. Researchers-cum-pirates have used the illegal open-access website Sci-Hub to make more than 5,000 scientific articles relating to coronaviruses fully searchable and free. The initiators of this effort declared: “Dividing the world’s scientists with a paywall in the middle of a global humanitarian crisis is an unacceptable and unforgivable act of criminal greed.”
As paleontologist and author of The [R]evolution in Open Science Jon Tennant put it: “Open Science saves lives.” All this extra-market cooperation — or solidarity, the term we on the Left use to describe such selfless, deep humanism — offers a hint of the better world to come, where no one does anything for profit any longer, but simply works in service of one another and of the collective advance of freedom.
In other good news, where the Chinese government was widely condemned internationally for its tardiness and secrecy during the SARS outbreak, Beijing appears to have since learned its lessons. The country has been commended by the WHO for the speed, transparency, and competence with which it is tackling the outbreak. (Although fresh reportage from the New York Times suggests that officials could be doing even more.)
In addition, in the wake of the SARS outbreak, and following on from the challenges faced in dealing with Ebola in West Africa, a raft of new global partnerships, including the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC), the Emerging Diseases Clinical Assessment and Response Network (EDCARN), the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GLOPID-R), and the WHO R&D Blueprint, have been established. They straddle the public-private divide, explicitly recognizing that the market, left to its own devices, is insufficient in dealing with these new threats. The establishment of such partnerships, networks, and mechanisms has long been one of the primary recommendations of public health officials. This is undoubtedly a massive step forward.
Another of these networks, the nonprofit public-private Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), was launched in 2017 to develop epidemic-preventing vaccines and antivirals independent of this market failure. Last week, it announced some $12.5 million in funding for a University of Queensland lab, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and two small US biotech firms, Moderna, Inc., and Inovio Pharmaceuticals, to look at three different pathways to develop vaccines for 2019-nCoV. They aim to have a vaccine ready for human testing in sixteen weeks, down from the years that such efforts normally take.
But even if the CEPI-coordinated strategy confronts no unexpected difficulties, the next step, mass production of a vaccine, would present a fresh challenge that CEPI does not have the resources to tackle. According to the journal Science , Inovio’s facilities could produce 100,000 doses a year; the Queensland researchers four times that, and Moderna 100 million doses. That sounds like a lot but, as the author of the piece reports, in a worst-case scenario, this would be far from sufficient for the world’s population.
Moderna and Inovio stocks may have gone through the roof upon the announcement, but as Mark Feinberg, the head of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and former chief scientific officer with American pharmaceutical giant Merck’s vaccine division during the last Ebola outbreak, warned medical news outlet Stat , “The prospects and the amount of work involved will necessarily take [a small biotech company] away from their core business and the interest of their investors in getting a return on their investment.”
And it is not just coronaviruses or other emerging infectious diseases that confront this problem. As covered elsewhere in these pages, the crisis of bacterial antibiotic resistance that humanity faces —which has the potential to undermine much of modern medicine because so much of it, from surgeries to catheters and injections to even many diagnostic procedures, depends upon a background of antimicrobial protection — is primarily a problem of insufficient profitability. If successful, a course of antibiotics is only taken for a few weeks or months at most, and then the patient is cured and stops purchasing those drugs. But with chronic diseases, the patient has to purchase those drugs on a regular basis for the rest of their lives. And so most of the large pharmaceutical companies largely got out of the business of antibiotic research and production more than three decades ago.
Antifungal therapeutics face an identical profitability challenge. An extensive 2019 feature in the New York Times by science journalists Matt Richtel and Andrew Jacobs investigated the spread over the last five years around the world of the fungus Candida auris, which is resistant to some or all antifungal medications. Half of all those infected die within ninety days. As a result, this fungus has forced even a renowned British medical center to shut down its intensive care unit. And the paper on the scale of the problem that the reporters depended on for the backbone of their story unsurprisingly lays the blame for the “sparse discovery pipeline” on “a chronic lack of investment in novel antifungal agents” because “most pharmaceutical companies are not investing in antifungals, preferring to focus on other, apparently more lucrative areas.”
In 2018, the financial giant Goldman Sachs issued a report that asked, “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The analyst thought that Gilead Science’s treatment for hepatitis C, which produced cure rates in excess of 90 percent, offered a cautionary tale. While US sales hit as much as $12.5 billion in 2015, they slid to a mere $4 billion three years later because its “hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients.” Infectious diseases in particular pose a challenge to profitability because “curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients.” Cancer, thank god, the report concluded, does not pose this problem (the unsaid corollary, of course, being: we damn well better not find a cure for cancer).
As odious as all this appears, the problem therefore is not immorality or evil, as we often hear, but amorality. The market can only ever provide what is profitable. It is utterly indifferent to human needs.
So in the end, these RD&D networks that are heroically responding to what they acknowledge is a market failure are in the end just very advanced forms of charity — a sort of well-intentioned, warmhearted corporate subsidy that addresses the symptoms but not the systemic cause of the problem. It is akin to offering drugs to ease a patient’s emphysema without telling him to quit smoking.
Instead — or, rather, in addition to this, for these research networks are essential not just for the funds they disburse — pharmaceutical RD&D should be entirely freed from the limitations imposed on it by market amorality. The sector should be taken into the public realm and employ the postal model, where profitable routes cross-subsidize money-losing routes, but in this case, unprofitable drug discovery and manufacture would be paid for by their profitable counterparts.
This is not the predictable ramblings of a democratic socialist. It is rather the recommendation last year of the UK’s “superbug tsar,” Jim O’Neill, a former chief economist for Goldman Sachs. He suggested that nationalizing drug companies would be the best solution to the antibiotic-resistance crisis, comparing the current situation to the 2008 financial crash that forced the nationalization of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
And, as with that emergency nationalization within the financial sector over a decade ago, today we also don’t have a lot of time to wait in the pharmaceutical sector. We already confront a crisis of antimicrobial resistance. And the threat from 2019-nCov could turn out to be moderate, but this may not always be the case with coronaviruses or other emerging infectious diseases.
The executive director of the WHO Emergencies Programme, Michael Ryan, said last summer: “We are entering a very new phase of high-impact epidemics.” At the time he spoke, the WHO was tracking some 160 disease events around the world, nine of them at the organization’s highest emergency level. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a situation where we’re responding to so many emergencies at one time. This is a new normal, I don’t expect the frequency of these events to reduce.”
The situation is a product of the confluence of increased travel and trade through the advent of globalization, rapid urbanization, rising wealth in economies such as China and India, as well as climate change, deforestation, and the consolidation of food animal production. In addition to tackling these ecological challenges that contribute to the risk from infectious disease, we need a pharmaceutical sector fit for the twenty-first century.
Quite simply, the free market is holding back the advance of science, medicine, and public health.
|
www.jacobinmag.com
| 0left
|
LpkR1l2jWcgIkMoe
|
|
sexual_misconduct
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/title-ix-changes-betsy-devos-ensure-due-process-joe-biden-deserves-it-too/
|
Everyone Deserves to Live Under the Biden Standard
|
2020-05-08
|
Rich Lowry, Kevin D. Williamson, John Fund, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Allen C. Guelzo, Kyle Smith, Jim Geraghty
|
Former Vice President Joe Biden addresses a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids , Iowa , April 30 , 2019 . ( Jonathan Ernst/Reuters )
It ’ s just basic American due process , so why is Betsy DeVos getting slammed ?
Why should Joe Biden get due process , but not others accused of sexual misconduct ?
That ’ s the question raised by the progressive reaction to Tara Reade ’ s accusation against Biden on the one hand , and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos ’ s new rules for handling sexual-harassment cases on college campuses on the other .
There have been voices on the left who believe Reade , but generally the note has been one of skepticism about her allegation , along with admonitions that the evidence must be considered carefully .
Many of the popularizers of the phrase “ believe women ” have climbed down to simply saying that women ’ s accusations should be heard and then evaluated in light of the facts .
In other words , what any fair-minded person has maintained throughout the # MeToo era , including during the Brett Kavanaugh battle .
And yet there is still progressive outrage over the new Title IX rules developed by DeVos that seek to bring balance and fairness to the consideration of accusations against people who aren ’ t the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States .
The actor/activist Alyssa Milano , an erstwhile vocal advocate of “ believe women , ” has now modulated her view to accommodate her continued support of Biden . She explains that we need to shift our mindset “ to believing women . But that does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations , and it ’ s got to be fair in both directions . ”
This is an unassailable position , and one that obviously has implications for the Title IX debate . Even if it doesn ’ t entail supporting every particular of DeVos ’ s reforms , it should mean an openness to them . Nonetheless , late last year Milano slammed DeVos over the proposed changes in highly personal terms .
The upshot of Milano ’ s inconsistency is that a famous and powerful man , whom she happens to know and support , should get more consideration than a young , politically powerless , unknown student somewhere .
A piece from Vox on what “ believe women ” means in the context of Reade ’ s allegation quoted Sage Carson , manager of an advocacy organization called Know Your IX . According to Carson , the concept has been twisted “ into this idea that you never provide a fair process for folks to go through . ”
An article in Mother Jones reported that anti-sexual-assault activists still supporting Biden have a number of reasons . One of them is “ an eagerness to replace Trump ’ s cabinet , including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , whose overhaul of campus sexual assault policy has prompted outcry from survivors . ”
In other words , Biden gets the benefit of the doubt on Tara Reade explicitly as a means to continue to deny the accused on campus any such benefit of the doubt .
The DeVos changes are meant to inject elementary fairness into proceedings that went off the rails in response to Obama-administration guidance in 2011 . Students punished by these kangaroo courts have had considerable success appealing their cases in the courts .
The DeVos rules reverse the single-investigator model that empowered one person to investigate a case and recommend a decision .
Now the investigator and adjudicator must be different . Students must have access to evidence , and the accused must know what is alleged and by whom and when .
There must be a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination by both sides .
Title IX coordinators and investigators can ’ t be biased one way or the other .
These measures are so in keeping with basic American traditions that it ’ s hard to believe that anyone could oppose them .
The ultimate irony is that Joe Biden was a prime mover behind the Obama-era Title IX rules . As Robby Soave of Reason magazine notes , “ If the allegation against Biden were being decided by the kind of adjudication system that he helped enshrine on college campuses , it ’ s quite likely that he would be found guilty . ”
There ’ s a lesson there , although it ’ s doubtful anyone — emphatically including Biden himself — is willing to learn it .
|
Former Vice President Joe Biden addresses a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, April 30, 2019. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
It’s just basic American due process, so why is Betsy DeVos getting slammed?
Why should Joe Biden get due process, but not others accused of sexual misconduct?
That’s the question raised by the progressive reaction to Tara Reade’s accusation against Biden on the one hand, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s new rules for handling sexual-harassment cases on college campuses on the other.
There have been voices on the left who believe Reade, but generally the note has been one of skepticism about her allegation, along with admonitions that the evidence must be considered carefully.
Advertisement
Many of the popularizers of the phrase “believe women” have climbed down to simply saying that women’s accusations should be heard and then evaluated in light of the facts.
In other words, what any fair-minded person has maintained throughout the #MeToo era, including during the Brett Kavanaugh battle.
Advertisement
And yet there is still progressive outrage over the new Title IX rules developed by DeVos that seek to bring balance and fairness to the consideration of accusations against people who aren’t the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
The actor/activist Alyssa Milano, an erstwhile vocal advocate of “believe women,” has now modulated her view to accommodate her continued support of Biden. She explains that we need to shift our mindset “to believing women. But that does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations, and it’s got to be fair in both directions.”
This is an unassailable position, and one that obviously has implications for the Title IX debate. Even if it doesn’t entail supporting every particular of DeVos’s reforms, it should mean an openness to them. Nonetheless, late last year Milano slammed DeVos over the proposed changes in highly personal terms.
Advertisement
The upshot of Milano’s inconsistency is that a famous and powerful man, whom she happens to know and support, should get more consideration than a young, politically powerless, unknown student somewhere.
Advertisement
A piece from Vox on what “believe women” means in the context of Reade’s allegation quoted Sage Carson, manager of an advocacy organization called Know Your IX. According to Carson, the concept has been twisted “into this idea that you never provide a fair process for folks to go through.”
But her organization has declared war on DeVos’s changes.
An article in Mother Jones reported that anti-sexual-assault activists still supporting Biden have a number of reasons. One of them is “an eagerness to replace Trump’s cabinet, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose overhaul of campus sexual assault policy has prompted outcry from survivors.”
In other words, Biden gets the benefit of the doubt on Tara Reade explicitly as a means to continue to deny the accused on campus any such benefit of the doubt.
Advertisement
The DeVos changes are meant to inject elementary fairness into proceedings that went off the rails in response to Obama-administration guidance in 2011. Students punished by these kangaroo courts have had considerable success appealing their cases in the courts.
The DeVos rules reverse the single-investigator model that empowered one person to investigate a case and recommend a decision.
Now the investigator and adjudicator must be different. Students must have access to evidence, and the accused must know what is alleged and by whom and when.
There must be a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination by both sides.
Title IX coordinators and investigators can’t be biased one way or the other.
These measures are so in keeping with basic American traditions that it’s hard to believe that anyone could oppose them.
The ultimate irony is that Joe Biden was a prime mover behind the Obama-era Title IX rules. As Robby Soave of Reason magazine notes, “If the allegation against Biden were being decided by the kind of adjudication system that he helped enshrine on college campuses, it’s quite likely that he would be found guilty.”
Advertisement
There’s a lesson there, although it’s doubtful anyone — emphatically including Biden himself — is willing to learn it.
© 2020 by King Features Syndicate
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
aY6r9es6l9L27mGA
|
media_bias
|
Media Matters
| 00
|
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/25/on-media-coverage-of-ted-cruzs-fake-filibuster/196088
|
On Media Coverage Of Ted Cruz's Fake Filibuster
|
2013-09-25
|
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) ( joined by a coterie of Senate Republicans ) spoke on the Senate floor for about 21 hours in opposition to funding the Affordable Care Act , or “ Obamacare. ” Cruz 's speech was not a filibuster , it had to end before today 's scheduled vote on the Senate 's bill to continue funding the government , and was never a threat to derail legislation that was passed and signed into law three years ago .
As such , much of the media coverage of Cruz 's speech has focused on the political circus Cruz has whipped up . Since he could n't actually alter the legislative process and has few supporters on either side of the aisle , it 's not unreasonable to think that Cruz is doing this for his own benefit . Washington Examiner political writer Timothy Carney has sensed this tone in the media coverage of Cruz 's fake filibuster and sounds the familiar “ LIBERAL BIAS ” klaxon , arguing that Texas state senator Wendy Davis ' ( D ) filibuster to halt passage of a restrictive anti-abortion rights bill this past summer was similar to Cruz 's but “ the media spin was different . ”
The circumstances surrounding Cruz 's and Davis ' speeches , however , are pretty different . “ Davis 's filibuster was no more likely than Cruz 's to change the law , ” Carney wrote . Perhaps so , but Davis ' filibuster was an extraordinary measure taken in response to extraordinary measures deployed by Gov . Rick Perry and the Republican-dominated legislature . Davis ' filibuster came at the end of a special legislative session convened by Perry specifically to pass the abortion law , and after it failed to pass Perry had to call yet another special session to pass the bill , and a third after that to deal with the business the legislature could n't attend to because it was wrapped up in the abortion debate . Cruz was operating within the regular business of the Senate and there was a hard deadline on how long he could continue .
Politically , Davis ' filibuster became a flashpoint in the national abortion debate because it split activists along the well-established lines , and abortion rights supporters worked doggedly to elevate Davis ' profile while opponents worked to marginalize her . It also helped to highlight the intense state-level fights over abortion rights that had not registered on the national media 's radar . With Cruz , that dynamic does n't exist . He has a few supporters in the Senate , and most Republicans -- including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip John Cornyn -- are n't backing him . Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board dismissed his anti-Obamacare campaign with more than a whiff of contempt : “ The supposedly intrepid General Cruz can view the battle from the comfort of HQ while the enlisted troops take any casualties . ”
And Cruz is relitigating a fight that has long since been resolved . Most of the country already knows of and has an opinion of Obamacare . It was a central theme of the 2012 election and the guy who was for it won easily . The only thing Ted Cruz has brought to the table is Ted Cruz . Steve Benen put it just right : “ Cruz seems to be generating quite a few headlines for himself . But as a qualitative matter , was Davis ' speech a more important , consequential , and impressive display ? I do n't consider it a close call . ”
|
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (joined by a coterie of Senate Republicans) spoke on the Senate floor for about 21 hours in opposition to funding the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” Cruz's speech was not a filibuster, it had to end before today's scheduled vote on the Senate's bill to continue funding the government, and was never a threat to derail legislation that was passed and signed into law three years ago.
As such, much of the media coverage of Cruz's speech has focused on the political circus Cruz has whipped up. Since he couldn't actually alter the legislative process and has few supporters on either side of the aisle, it's not unreasonable to think that Cruz is doing this for his own benefit. Washington Examiner political writer Timothy Carney has sensed this tone in the media coverage of Cruz's fake filibuster and sounds the familiar “LIBERAL BIAS” klaxon, arguing that Texas state senator Wendy Davis' (D) filibuster to halt passage of a restrictive anti-abortion rights bill this past summer was similar to Cruz's but “the media spin was different.”
The circumstances surrounding Cruz's and Davis' speeches, however, are pretty different. “Davis's filibuster was no more likely than Cruz's to change the law,” Carney wrote. Perhaps so, but Davis' filibuster was an extraordinary measure taken in response to extraordinary measures deployed by Gov. Rick Perry and the Republican-dominated legislature. Davis' filibuster came at the end of a special legislative session convened by Perry specifically to pass the abortion law, and after it failed to pass Perry had to call yet another special session to pass the bill, and a third after that to deal with the business the legislature couldn't attend to because it was wrapped up in the abortion debate. Cruz was operating within the regular business of the Senate and there was a hard deadline on how long he could continue.
Politically, Davis' filibuster became a flashpoint in the national abortion debate because it split activists along the well-established lines, and abortion rights supporters worked doggedly to elevate Davis' profile while opponents worked to marginalize her. It also helped to highlight the intense state-level fights over abortion rights that had not registered on the national media's radar. With Cruz, that dynamic doesn't exist. He has a few supporters in the Senate, and most Republicans -- including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip John Cornyn -- aren't backing him. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board dismissed his anti-Obamacare campaign with more than a whiff of contempt: “The supposedly intrepid General Cruz can view the battle from the comfort of HQ while the enlisted troops take any casualties.”
And Cruz is relitigating a fight that has long since been resolved. Most of the country already knows of and has an opinion of Obamacare. It was a central theme of the 2012 election and the guy who was for it won easily. The only thing Ted Cruz has brought to the table is Ted Cruz. Steve Benen put it just right: “Cruz seems to be generating quite a few headlines for himself. But as a qualitative matter, was Davis' speech a more important, consequential, and impressive display? I don't consider it a close call.”
|
www.mediamatters.org
| 0left
|
aiU6xOqMhDgfhEJ4
|
|
white_house
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46583285
|
Mulvaney called Trump 'terrible human being' in 2016, video shows
|
President Donald Trump 's choice of new acting White House chief of staff once described him as `` a terrible human being '' , it has emerged .
A video shows Mick Mulvaney making the disparaging remark in a debate shortly before the 2016 presidential election .
`` Yes , I am supporting Donald Trump , but I 'm doing so despite the fact that I think he 's a terrible human being , '' Mr Mulvaney says .
He describes Mr Trump 's then opponent , Hillary Clinton , as `` just as bad '' .
Mr Mulvaney , 51 , is a former Republican Congressman and the video , which was obtained by the Daily Beast , was taken during a debate with Democratic challenger Fran Person in York , South Carolina .
He is currently director of the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) and takes up his new role in January .
An OMB spokeswoman said the remarks had been made before Mr Mulvaney had met Mr Trump and were `` old news '' , the New York Times reported .
Meghan Burris said Mr Mulvaney `` both likes and respects the president , and he likes working for him '' .
A Facebook post has also emerged from 2016 in which Mr Mulvaney describes Mr Trump as `` not a very good person '' , NBC reported .
Mr Mulvaney was responding to the release of a videotape from 2005 in which Mr Trump made obscene comments about women .
`` I think one thing we 've learned about Donald Trump during this campaign is that he is not a very good person , '' Mr Mulvaney wrote in the post . `` What he said in the audiotape is disgusting and indefensible . My guess is that he has probably said even worse . ''
But he adds : `` I 've decided that I do n't particularly like Donald Trump as a person . But I am still voting for him . And I am still asking other people to do the same . And there is one simple reason for that : Hillary Clinton . ''
Mr Mulvaney replaces General John Kelly , who steps down at the end of the year .
|
Image copyright EPA Image caption Mick Mulvaney has been praised by President Trump for doing "an outstanding job" while in the administration
President Donald Trump's choice of new acting White House chief of staff once described him as "a terrible human being", it has emerged.
A video shows Mick Mulvaney making the disparaging remark in a debate shortly before the 2016 presidential election.
"Yes, I am supporting Donald Trump, but I'm doing so despite the fact that I think he's a terrible human being," Mr Mulvaney says.
He describes Mr Trump's then opponent, Hillary Clinton, as "just as bad".
Mr Mulvaney, 51, is a former Republican Congressman and the video, which was obtained by the Daily Beast, was taken during a debate with Democratic challenger Fran Person in York, South Carolina.
He is currently director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and takes up his new role in January.
An OMB spokeswoman said the remarks had been made before Mr Mulvaney had met Mr Trump and were "old news", the New York Times reported.
Meghan Burris said Mr Mulvaney "both likes and respects the president, and he likes working for him".
The White House has not responded.
A Facebook post has also emerged from 2016 in which Mr Mulvaney describes Mr Trump as "not a very good person", NBC reported.
Mr Mulvaney was responding to the release of a videotape from 2005 in which Mr Trump made obscene comments about women.
"I think one thing we've learned about Donald Trump during this campaign is that he is not a very good person," Mr Mulvaney wrote in the post. "What he said in the audiotape is disgusting and indefensible. My guess is that he has probably said even worse."
But he adds: "I've decided that I don't particularly like Donald Trump as a person. But I am still voting for him. And I am still asking other people to do the same. And there is one simple reason for that: Hillary Clinton."
Mr Mulvaney replaces General John Kelly, who steps down at the end of the year.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
gu6kyCn6HIdYAuzW
|
||
coronavirus
|
The Daily Caller
| 22
|
https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/24/thirteen-thousand-federal-workers-uscis-possible-furlough-coronavirus/
|
More Than 13,000 USCIS Workers Face Possible Furlough Amid Coronavirus
|
2020-06-24
|
Officials with the American Federation of Government Employees ( AFGE ) , the largest federal employee union in the country , said Tuesday that more than 13,000 federal workers at U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) face a possible furlough of at least 30 days .
Nearly three-quarters of the USCIS workforce will be affected by the possible furlough , and notices will reportedly be handed out to USCIS employees between Wednesday and July 3 , The Washington Post reported . The furlough itself is expected to go into effect August 3 .
USCIS , which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security , has seen a reduction in operations due to the coronavirus pandemic , as visa and citizenship services have declined sharply . The Trump administration temporarily halted green card applications in April , and cross-border travel is at an all-time low .
Fees , which make up 97 % of the agency ’ s revenue , are projected to fall 60 % through the remainder of the fiscal year , according to Fox News . The agency also told Congress in May that it required a one-time emergency request for funding in order to continue operations normally .
“ Without congressional intervention , USCIS will need to administratively furlough approximately 13,400 employees , ” a USCIS representative told The Washington Post in an email . ( RELATED : Immigration Offices Closed To The Public , Interviews Canceled Amid Coronavirus Pandemic )
USCIS requested an allocation of $ 1.2 billion in congressional funding over two years , and pledged to repay the funds to the U.S. Treasury Departments , CBS News reported . The agency ’ s proposal , however , would also require an additional 10 % surcharge on immigration petitions .
Without the appropriate financial support , the potential USCIS furloughs could be as widespread as the federal workforce furloughs that took place in 2013 , when sequestration budget limits forced federal agencies to cut pay from employees .
“ With a loss of nearly three-fourths of its workforce , work , student and visitor visa petitions , asylum and citizenship/naturalization applications , green cards , and refugee applications will not be processed , ” AFGE President Everett Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee last week at a hearing .
|
Officials with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal employee union in the country, said Tuesday that more than 13,000 federal workers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) face a possible furlough of at least 30 days.
Nearly three-quarters of the USCIS workforce will be affected by the possible furlough, and notices will reportedly be handed out to USCIS employees between Wednesday and July 3, The Washington Post reported. The furlough itself is expected to go into effect August 3.
USCIS, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, has seen a reduction in operations due to the coronavirus pandemic, as visa and citizenship services have declined sharply. The Trump administration temporarily halted green card applications in April, and cross-border travel is at an all-time low.
Fees, which make up 97% of the agency’s revenue, are projected to fall 60% through the remainder of the fiscal year, according to Fox News. The agency also told Congress in May that it required a one-time emergency request for funding in order to continue operations normally.
“Without congressional intervention, USCIS will need to administratively furlough approximately 13,400 employees,” a USCIS representative told The Washington Post in an email. (RELATED: Immigration Offices Closed To The Public, Interviews Canceled Amid Coronavirus Pandemic)
USCIS requested an allocation of $1.2 billion in congressional funding over two years, and pledged to repay the funds to the U.S. Treasury Departments, CBS News reported. The agency’s proposal, however, would also require an additional 10% surcharge on immigration petitions.
Without the appropriate financial support, the potential USCIS furloughs could be as widespread as the federal workforce furloughs that took place in 2013, when sequestration budget limits forced federal agencies to cut pay from employees.
“With a loss of nearly three-fourths of its workforce, work, student and visitor visa petitions, asylum and citizenship/naturalization applications, green cards, and refugee applications will not be processed,” AFGE President Everett Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee last week at a hearing.
|
www.dailycaller.com
| 1right
|
3fXX15zTTJxEiO19
|
|
us_senate
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/archives/2016/12/09/did-democrats-learn-anything-from-their
|
Did Democrats Learn Anything From Their Attack on the Filibuster?
|
2016-12-09
|
David Harsanyi, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon
|
I wo n't lie . After reading the CNN piece titled `` Senate Dems , powerless to stop Trump nominees , regret 'nuclear option ' power play , '' I experienced some deeply satisfying schadenfreude . Feel free to keep President Barack Obama , Sen. Harry Reid and those who implored Senate Democrats to blow up the filibuster a few years ago in your thoughts as President-elect Donald Trump names his Cabinet and judges . But be sure to remember how recklessness begets recklessness in Washington , D.C .
`` I do regret that , '' Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware , a Democrat who voted to weaken the filibuster three years ago , tells CNN . `` I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump , potential emergency brake , to have in our system to slow down nominees . ''
It always was a terrific speed bump , senator . One of the reasons we value tradition , norms and process is that we do n't know what the future holds . But , you 'll note , these Democrats do n't regret their vote for majoritarianism or power grabs . They regret that Trump ( and it would be the same for Mitt Romney or any moderate Republican , for that matter ) will now be able to operate under the rules they set for themselves .
It 's worth remembering that Democrats did n't used a parliamentary procedure to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can move to confirmation votes with a simple majority for some grand ideological purpose . They did it for short-term political gains that no one will remember . Does any Democrat believe helping Obama name some left-wing populists to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( which did n't even exist until 2011 ) and the National Labor Relations Board was worth it ?
Sen. Jeff Merkley ( D-Ore. ) , another leading proponent of destroying checks and balances , charged at the time that without the nuclear option Republicans were `` going to disable '' the executive branch . `` It 's come into a realm where it 's just unacceptable because if the executive branch ca n't function , then the nation ca n't respond to the big challenges it faces , '' he explained . He seemed to be under the impression that presidents make laws—or maybe just liberal presidents .
The liberal punditry hammered the filibuster back then the same way it 's hammering the Electoral College today . In 2010 , Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times claiming that the filibuster would destroy America .
I do not exaggerate . He wrote : `` We 've always known that America 's reign as the world 's greatest nation would eventually end . But most of us imagined that our downfall , when it came , would be something grand and tragic . What we 're getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce . ''
The idea that Democrats had n't been able to function was a myth . Obama , supposedly powerless to face America 's `` big challenges , '' had already passed a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus , a restructuring of the entire health care system and a tangled overhaul of financial regulation . The president also appointed two wholly liberal Supreme Court justices with no meaningful opposition .
The American people then said , `` That 's enough . '' For Merkley , Krugman , Coons , Reid and others , that would n't do .
When Reid 's party was in the minority , he warned that weakening the Senate filibuster would `` destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government . '' He was right . With his party 's attainment of a Senate majority , Reid 's reverence for the Founding Fathers rapidly faded , so much so that he used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster from some Senate debates .
As a practical matter , these changes will likely never be reversed . What kind of majority is going to restore the filibuster to its opponents ? What kind of majority would n't use the same process to roll back the previous Senate 's abuses ? ( And the latter makes complete sense . ) After all , the Chris Coons of the world will never be courageous enough to stand for process and stability over partisanship gain . In a Republican environment where winning itself is the ideology , it becomes even less likely .
Although each party detests the filibuster when it is in power , progressives hold an enduring contempt for it because they hold an enduring contempt for federalism in general . Even today , some liberals are trying to figure out ways to work Senate procedure to put Chief Judge Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court . As if Republicans would n't then simply turn around and load the court themselves . This kind of arms race sets dangerous precedents . It 'd be nice if the nation realized it .
|
I won't lie. After reading the CNN piece titled "Senate Dems, powerless to stop Trump nominees, regret 'nuclear option' power play," I experienced some deeply satisfying schadenfreude. Feel free to keep President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and those who implored Senate Democrats to blow up the filibuster a few years ago in your thoughts as President-elect Donald Trump names his Cabinet and judges. But be sure to remember how recklessness begets recklessness in Washington, D.C.
"I do regret that," Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted to weaken the filibuster three years ago, tells CNN. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
It always was a terrific speed bump, senator. One of the reasons we value tradition, norms and process is that we don't know what the future holds. But, you'll note, these Democrats don't regret their vote for majoritarianism or power grabs. They regret that Trump (and it would be the same for Mitt Romney or any moderate Republican, for that matter) will now be able to operate under the rules they set for themselves.
It's worth remembering that Democrats didn't used a parliamentary procedure to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can move to confirmation votes with a simple majority for some grand ideological purpose. They did it for short-term political gains that no one will remember. Does any Democrat believe helping Obama name some left-wing populists to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which didn't even exist until 2011) and the National Labor Relations Board was worth it?
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), another leading proponent of destroying checks and balances, charged at the time that without the nuclear option Republicans were "going to disable" the executive branch. "It's come into a realm where it's just unacceptable because if the executive branch can't function, then the nation can't respond to the big challenges it faces," he explained. He seemed to be under the impression that presidents make laws—or maybe just liberal presidents.
The liberal punditry hammered the filibuster back then the same way it's hammering the Electoral College today. In 2010, Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times claiming that the filibuster would destroy America.
I do not exaggerate. He wrote: "We've always known that America's reign as the world's greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic. What we're getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce."
The idea that Democrats hadn't been able to function was a myth. Obama, supposedly powerless to face America's "big challenges," had already passed a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus, a restructuring of the entire health care system and a tangled overhaul of financial regulation. The president also appointed two wholly liberal Supreme Court justices with no meaningful opposition.
The American people then said, "That's enough." For Merkley, Krugman, Coons, Reid and others, that wouldn't do.
When Reid's party was in the minority, he warned that weakening the Senate filibuster would "destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government." He was right. With his party's attainment of a Senate majority, Reid's reverence for the Founding Fathers rapidly faded, so much so that he used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster from some Senate debates.
As a practical matter, these changes will likely never be reversed. What kind of majority is going to restore the filibuster to its opponents? What kind of majority wouldn't use the same process to roll back the previous Senate's abuses? (And the latter makes complete sense.) After all, the Chris Coons of the world will never be courageous enough to stand for process and stability over partisanship gain. In a Republican environment where winning itself is the ideology, it becomes even less likely.
Although each party detests the filibuster when it is in power, progressives hold an enduring contempt for it because they hold an enduring contempt for federalism in general. Even today, some liberals are trying to figure out ways to work Senate procedure to put Chief Judge Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. As if Republicans wouldn't then simply turn around and load the court themselves. This kind of arms race sets dangerous precedents. It'd be nice if the nation realized it.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
4V42VXAN3aF4GOwk
|
sexual_misconduct
|
BuzzFeed News
| 00
|
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/uic-student-murdered-ignored-catcalls?ref=bfnsplash
|
A College Student Ignored A Man's Catcalls. He Then Raped And Killed Her, Prosecutors Said.
|
Tasneem Nashrulla
|
Donald Thurman strangled and sexually assaulted 19-year-old Ruth George after she ignored his catcalls , prosecutors said .
Ruth George was walking alone to her car in a parking garage at the University of Illinois at Chicago early Saturday when a man began following and catcalling her . As many women do , the 19-year-old honor roll student ignored him . But that 's when the situation turned deadly . Prosecutors said the man , Donald Thurman , got angry that he was being ignored and followed George to her car , came up from behind , and put her in a chokehold . He then allegedly threw her in the backseat of her car while she was unconscious and sexually assaulted her . George ’ s family grew worried when she did not return home and reported their concerns to University of Illinois at Chicago ( UIC ) police . Tracing her cellphone to the parking garage , George ’ s sisters and UIC police found her body in the backseat . She died from strangulation , a medical examiner said .
Thurman was arrested on Sunday and charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault . The 26-year-old was released last December after serving two years of a six-year prison sentence for armed robbery , UIC police said . A judge ordered Thurman to be held without bail on Tuesday . During the hearing , Cook County prosecutors described the chilling circumstances that led to George ’ s death . Thurman , who saw George walking to the UIC parking garage at around 1:25 a.m. on Saturday , “ thought she was pretty ” and tried talking to her , prosecutors said in court documents provided to ███ . While ignoring Thurman 's catcalls and efforts to talk to her , George walked to her car , which is when she was allegedly put in a chokehold . With his arms still around George ’ s neck , Thurman allegedly dragged her from the ground and threw her in the backseat . She was unconscious , when Thurman raped her , prosecutors said . When George ’ s sisters and UIC police found her body , she was cold and unresponsive . Her sisters tried to resuscitate her , but she was pronounced dead at the scene . Authorities also recovered a condom and semen in the car . Surveillance camera footage showed Thurman , wearing a “ distinguishable white jacket , ” following George into the parking garage and running away from it 35 minutes later , authorities said . On Sunday , Thurman was spotted in the area and arrested . He admitted to choking George , throwing her in the car , and sexually assaulting her when she was unconscious , but “ denied having sexual intercourse with her , ” prosecutors said .
|
Donald Thurman strangled and sexually assaulted 19-year-old Ruth George after she ignored his catcalls, prosecutors said.
Facebook Ruth George
Ruth George was walking alone to her car in a parking garage at the University of Illinois at Chicago early Saturday when a man began following and catcalling her. As many women do, the 19-year-old honor roll student ignored him. But that's when the situation turned deadly. Prosecutors said the man, Donald Thurman, got angry that he was being ignored and followed George to her car, came up from behind, and put her in a chokehold. He then allegedly threw her in the backseat of her car while she was unconscious and sexually assaulted her. George’s family grew worried when she did not return home and reported their concerns to University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) police. Tracing her cellphone to the parking garage, George’s sisters and UIC police found her body in the backseat. She died from strangulation, a medical examiner said.
UIC Police Donald Thurman
Thurman was arrested on Sunday and charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault. The 26-year-old was released last December after serving two years of a six-year prison sentence for armed robbery, UIC police said. A judge ordered Thurman to be held without bail on Tuesday. During the hearing, Cook County prosecutors described the chilling circumstances that led to George’s death. Thurman, who saw George walking to the UIC parking garage at around 1:25 a.m. on Saturday, “thought she was pretty” and tried talking to her, prosecutors said in court documents provided to BuzzFeed News. While ignoring Thurman's catcalls and efforts to talk to her, George walked to her car, which is when she was allegedly put in a chokehold. With his arms still around George’s neck, Thurman allegedly dragged her from the ground and threw her in the backseat. She was unconscious, when Thurman raped her, prosecutors said. When George’s sisters and UIC police found her body, she was cold and unresponsive. Her sisters tried to resuscitate her, but she was pronounced dead at the scene. Authorities also recovered a condom and semen in the car. Surveillance camera footage showed Thurman, wearing a “distinguishable white jacket,” following George into the parking garage and running away from it 35 minutes later, authorities said. On Sunday, Thurman was spotted in the area and arrested. He admitted to choking George, throwing her in the car, and sexually assaulting her when she was unconscious, but “denied having sexual intercourse with her,” prosecutors said.
|
www.buzzfeednews.com
| 0left
|
HqdwP5MlJ5I7NHT0
|
|
polarization
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0722/Obama-on-The-Daily-Show-What-happened-to-common-conversation-video
|
Obama on 'The Daily Show:' What happened to common conversation?
|
2015-07-22
|
Gretel Kauffman
|
President Obama made his seventh and final appearance on “ The Daily Show ” Tuesday night to reflect on his time spent in office and the lessons he ’ s learned .
“ The one thing I know as I enter my last year as president is the country is full of good and decent people and there is a sense of common purpose at the neighborhood level and at the school and in the workplace , ” Mr. Obama told host Jon Stewart .
“ And that dissipates the further up it goes because of the money and all the filters and all the polarizing that takes place in how politics are shaped , ” he continued .
Part of this polarization , Obama said , is due to the changing nature of the media .
“ I think [ the media ] gets distracted by shiny objects and doesn ’ t always focus on the big , tough choices and decisions that have to be made . And part of that is just the changing nature of technology , ” he said .
The president admitted that the White House was “ way too slow in trying to redesign and reengineer ” the structure of its Press Office to adapt to online and social media , and lamented the “ Balkanization ” of the media in recent years .
“ You ’ ve got folks who are constantly looking for facts that reinforce their existing point of view as opposed to having a common conversation , ” Obama said . “ I think one of the things that we have to think about , not just the president but all of us , is how do we join together in a common conversation about something other than the Super Bowl . ”
The only way everyday citizens can prevent this polarization , the president continued , is by getting involved and contacting local representatives . He went on to “ guarantee ” that “ if people feel strongly about making sure Iran doesn ’ t get a nuclear weapon without us going to war and that is expressed to Congress , then people will believe in that . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Other topics discussed in the 22-minute interview were the Iran deal , which Obama portrayed as the best achievable compromise , and progress made in the fields of healthcare and climate change . He also cited improvements in the Department of Veteran Affairs , the economy , and the efficiency of government in general .
“ What I do think has happened is a lot of the work that we did early starts bearing fruit later , ” Obama said , giving the example of the Iran negotiations . “ So it finally comes to fruition . But it represents a lot of work . ”
|
President Obama made his seventh and final appearance on “The Daily Show” Tuesday night to reflect on his time spent in office and the lessons he’s learned.
“The one thing I know as I enter my last year as president is the country is full of good and decent people and there is a sense of common purpose at the neighborhood level and at the school and in the workplace,” Mr. Obama told host Jon Stewart.
“And that dissipates the further up it goes because of the money and all the filters and all the polarizing that takes place in how politics are shaped,” he continued.
Part of this polarization, Obama said, is due to the changing nature of the media.
“I think [the media] gets distracted by shiny objects and doesn’t always focus on the big, tough choices and decisions that have to be made. And part of that is just the changing nature of technology,” he said.
The president admitted that the White House was “way too slow in trying to redesign and reengineer” the structure of its Press Office to adapt to online and social media, and lamented the “Balkanization” of the media in recent years.
“You’ve got folks who are constantly looking for facts that reinforce their existing point of view as opposed to having a common conversation,” Obama said. “I think one of the things that we have to think about, not just the president but all of us, is how do we join together in a common conversation about something other than the Super Bowl.”
The only way everyday citizens can prevent this polarization, the president continued, is by getting involved and contacting local representatives. He went on to “guarantee” that “if people feel strongly about making sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon without us going to war and that is expressed to Congress, then people will believe in that.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Other topics discussed in the 22-minute interview were the Iran deal, which Obama portrayed as the best achievable compromise, and progress made in the fields of healthcare and climate change. He also cited improvements in the Department of Veteran Affairs, the economy, and the efficiency of government in general.
“What I do think has happened is a lot of the work that we did early starts bearing fruit later,” Obama said, giving the example of the Iran negotiations. “So it finally comes to fruition. But it represents a lot of work.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
EjyVFhVQrjEgVvfC
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.